Erik van Doesburg

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MBA Change Management

Aweg 4-3

9718CS Groningen

06-29135247

e.p.van.doesburg@student.rug.nl

S.2149524

Force of Habit November

2014

How Incumbent Habits From A Legacy System

Influence Individual Adaptation To New

Information Systems

1

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I want to thank my girlfriend Elina and each and every member of my family,

without your support and love I would never have written this thesis in the first place.

I would also like to thank my supervisor, dr. B. Müller for his faith and guidance during the creation of

my thesis. At times when I got stuck in my thoughts one single remark or suggestion from his side

could clear my head and make the penny drop to continue.

Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank B. Roosenthaler who offered me insight on the decision

making within the UDT case, proofreaders T. Oost and W. Zijlstra and of course all of my colleagues

who participated in this study.

2

Abstract

Purpose: To determine how incumbent habits that were formed in a legacy system

influence individual adaptation behavior when using new information

systems.

Methodology: This paper presents a case study performed at one of the mayor Dutch banks.

In the light of this study several employees were interviewed and observed.

Internal documents were consulted to give a broader perspective.

Propositions were formed and preliminary results were found regarding the

theories of punctuated equilibrium (Eldredge & Gould, 1972), the CMUA

model (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005) and habit development / disruption

strategies (Polites & Karahanna, 2013).

Findings: The findings of this paper show that incumbent habits not only influence the

outcome of coping strategies, it also describes how they influence familiarity

pockets and thus adaptation. The strength of habits that are formed within a

legacy system are so strong that they can result in a complete or partial exit

when it comes to coping strategies even if the user’s initial appraisal of the

system is positive. Yet by providing an environmental trigger the incumbent

habits can be triggered within the new environment which in return not only

broadens the initial familiarity pocket, it also led to the formulation a new

strategy regarding habit development strategies.

Keywords: Technological Adaptation, Habits, Familiarity Pockets, Coping Strategies,

Punctuated Equilibrium, Legacy Systems

Paper type: Case study

Word count: 13.887

Supervisor: Dr. B. Müller

3

Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Research Question ........................................................................................................................ 6

2. Theoretical section .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Legacy Systems ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Habits, Routines and Experience ............................................................................................. 8

2.3 Familiarity Pockets ................................................................................................................ 11

2.4 Coping strategies ................................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 15

3. Method .......................................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Background - Bank Case ........................................................................................................ 16

3.2 Collecting data ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Analysis of the data ............................................................................................................... 18

3.4 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................... 19

4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Initial Appraisal followed by Inertia- Coping & Habits .......................................................... 20

4.1.1 Interpretations .............................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Changing Habits – Coping & Habits ....................................................................................... 25

4.2.1 Interpretations .............................................................................................................. 28

4.3 Familiarity Pockets – Coping & Habits ................................................................................... 29

4.3.1 Interpretation ................................................................................................................ 31

5. Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Limitations and future research ............................................................................................ 32

5.2 Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 32

References ............................................................................................................................................. 35

Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix 1 – CMUA model ............................................................................................................... 40

Appendix 2- Interview protocol ......................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 3 – Interview questions ..................................................................................................... 42

Appendix 4 – Background Participants.............................................................................................. 44

Appendix 5 - Coding Tree .................................................................................................................. 47

4

1. Introduction

Recent research underlines that habits are important drivers when it comes to IS acceptance and

continued usage (e.g. Kim & Malhotra, 2005; Limayem, Hirt, & Cheung, 2007; Polites & Karahanna,

2012, 2013). While the antecedents that influence the final adoption of new IS have been extensively

researched in change management literature (e.g. Benbasat & Barki 2007; Morris & Venkatesh 2010;

Venkatesh et al. 2012; Davis et al. 1989; Beaudry & Pinsonneault 2005) and the field has come a long

way in explaining user behavior, there are still some blind spots when it comes to the understanding

of individual adaptive behavior1 (Chin, Marcolin & Newsted, 2003). This study will look at how habits

that were formed in incumbent systems influence individual adaptive behavior. As a result it will

build theory, through a case study, on the differences of adaptive behavior of IS users and will focus

on the influence that incumbent habits that were gained within legacy systems2 have on individual

adaptive behavior.

1.1 Background

Habits can form an obstacle to repeated use of a new system, especially if the incumbent system is

still accessible to the user (Polites & Karahanna, 2012; Polites, 2009). This is an important notion

since a lot of the current IS implementations are (partial) replacements of incumbent systems

(Polites & Karahanna, 2013). Habits and routines are a relatively unstudied part within the field of

technological change is habitual behavior. Getting used to new systems means that a user needs to

get rid of long standing habits and create new ones. This is a hard task since the force of those habits

and routines unintentionally force users back to their old ways of working (Verplanken & Wood,

2006). Disrupting these habits and routines and stimulating the development of new habits might

prove an efficient way to increase system usage (Polites & Karahanna, 2013). A hindering or enabling

role of incumbent system habits on individual adaptation behavior when using new technological

applications has not been described in literature yet and will be addressed in this thesis. In order to

achieve this, I will link the literature of behavioral habits to IS acceptance, coping and familiarity

pocket literature.

The academic community has primarily focused on individual acceptance and intended behavior

following technological change. Within the field of social ontology, research concerning technology

mediated change, predominately points to human agency (Boudreau & Robey, 2005). This has

manifested in well-established models like; The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980),

The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis et al.,

1989) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Visnawath Venkatesh et al.,

2003). Traditionally speaking the field of IS acceptance has been classified as described in figure 1.

Figure 1: Traditional IS acceptance research - model adapted from Polites & Karahanna (2013)

1 “The cognitive and behavioral efforts performed by users to cope with significant information technology events that occur in their work

environment.” (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005, p. 493) 2 “Software systems that we don’t know how to cope with but that are vital to our organization” (Bennett, 1994, p. 19)

5

As mentioned, Davis et al. (1989) and Venkatesh et al. (2003) are key figures in the field of

acceptance literature. Both authors state that personal, as well as contextual factors play a large role

in the adoption of a new system. Furthermore, both studies make a clear distinction in outcomes

resulting in use or non-use. Models such as TAM and UTAUT however assume that intention leads to

behavior, but also that once that behavior has occurred a single time, it will be repeated. It ignores

that users might have to go through the entire circle again once they are confronted with the new

technology for a 2nd, 3rd or even a 1000th time. In my opinion, this assumption is one of the major

flaws within said models. While I do not contradict that humans have the capacity to make rational

choices and evaluate those choices, I challenge that humans will always evaluate those choices, be it

either intentional or unintentional. In that way human agency ignores that users have gained

routines and habits3 from the use of (legacy) systems throughout the years. By looking at those

actions that were unintentionally not evaluated, I will shed new light on how adaptive behavior

occurs.

The actual (non-)usage of the system is part of adaptive behavior because people have a

predisposition towards the system and use the system in different ways (Boonstra & Van Offenbeek,

2010). The degree to which all of the features of a system are utilized can be described as the

assimilation of an information system (Cooper & Zmud, 1990; Volkoff, et al., 2007). A common result

after implementation of new technology is partial adaptation (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1993). To illustrate

partial adaptation in everyday life, think of smartphones. While most users use their smartphone not

only to have phone conversations, but also use it to check time, e-mails and for instant messaging,

there are plenty of people walking around with physical agendas, instead of the integrated one on

their smartphone or use mp3 players to listen to music. Beaudry & Pinsonneault (2005) are among

the few that focus on the individual level and developed a model, called Coping Model User

Adaptation, which accounts for a wide range of user behaviors that are categorized as benefits

maximizing, benefits satisfying, disturbance handling and self-preservation.

The responses resulting from the CMUA model can be classified as coping strategies4 (Beaudry &

Pinsonneault, 2005). In the available literature of coping strategies concerning technological change,

models usually focus on the change as a whole. This means that the user in question is assumed to

have one predisposition towards the entire implementation. Users will be inclined to act only

according to one of the behaviors mentioned by the coping strategy theories. This assumption

ignores that technology is supposed to be a multifaceted solution, when it aims to provide a more

integrated way of working. It could well be that there are parts of the solution that will be met by the

user with acceptance while other aspects will meet resistance and will be ignored. Furthermore, just

like the earlier mentioned acceptance models, this model is presented in a way that once the user

has gone through the different stage, it is a done deal. Even though the user appraises the event as

an opportunity the sheer number of failed IS implementations suggests in my opinion that it does not

always lead to individual efficiency and effectiveness. This calls for more research regarding this

subject.

3 “The non-deliberate, automatically incalculated response that individuals may bring towards the behavior of IT usage.” (Limayem et al.,

2001, p. 275) 4 “The cognitive and behavioral efforts exerted to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or

exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141)

6

1.2 Research Question

Taking the limitations and gaps in to account where the academic field stands right now, this thesis

will draw upon recent research in technology use and adaptation, together with research on routines

and habits, coping behavior and the user adaptation of technology, to examine the following

research question with the following sub questions:

In what way do incumbent system habits formed within a legacy system environment play

a role in individual adaptation behavior when using new technological applications?

To answer this question, first a review of current literature has been conducted and the findings of

the different constructs have been synthesized in chapter 2. This same chapter will state the

conceptual model and the propositions that have been examined during the case study. The

propositions that are formed in chapter 2 are the results of inductive reasoning and reduce the

research question to a testable and falsifiable form. The case study has been conducted at a

company where the implementation of an organization wide IS is in progress right now. Side-by-side

monitoring, interviews and reviews of internal documents have been used to come to insights

concerning the matter at hand and have been held against the findings from the academic field and

the propositions of this paper.

The purpose of this research is to offer contributions in an ostensive academic manner as well as in a

practical managerial manner. This paper’s contribution to the literature will be an enrichment in the

field of habitual behavior and technology acceptance. Furthermore it will make suggestions on the

refinement of coping strategies and will be an extension of Polites & Karahanna's (2013) paper on

the imbeddedness of IS habits in organizational and individual routines by providing additional

propositions concerning habit disruption and habit development strategies. By linking the existence

of legacy systems with the literature of IS habits, acceptance of change and coping mechanisms, a

more integrated view of change literature will be established.

This study will provide managers insight on how the existence of incumbent system habits that were

formed within a legacy system influence individual adaptation of new technological applications, and

will show them new strategies about triggering the incumbent habits in a new IS environment. It will

provide suggestions on the set-up of new systems that are not ready to be implemented, but are still

in the development. Gaining better insight will offer managers the possibility to make better use of

available tactics of IS development and implementing strategies concerning technological change.

7

2. Theoretical section

The purpose of the theoretical section is to tie the different constructs together in a cohesive story

and show their underlying relatedness. This section will give a recap of the foundations on which this

field has been build and will provide definitions of the terminology used throughout this paper. The

success of technological implementations is significantly influenced by current practices and how the

implementation unfolds (Lapointe & Rivard, 2007). Understanding the factors and dynamics that

influence these behaviors is central to this work. To better understand the role of incumbent habits

of a legacy system on the individual adaptation behavior of IS usage, it is important that the different

constructs of this framework are based on both intentional as well as automatic determinants of user

behavior.

As said, the field of IS acceptance and usage has been researched extensively and has resulted in

several models that examine the variables leading up to acceptance, like the Technology Acceptance

Model (Davis et al., 1989), but also models dealing with different behavioral mechanisms when users

are confronted with change like the Coping Model of User Adaptation CMUA (Beaudry &

Pinsonneault, 2005). By explaining how routines and habits work within IS usage, the different

models will be linked in a conceptual model and propositions will be formulated to showcase the

relations within the conceptual model.

2.1 Legacy Systems

The implementation of new systems is often performed in order to (partially) replace systems that

users have worked with for extended periods of time (Polites & Karahanna, 2013), such systems can

often be described as legacy systems. Polites & Karahanna (2013) use the term incumbent system; I

will focus on legacy systems. While a legacy system often is the incumbent system, it does not mean

that every incumbent system is a legacy system. An incumbent system is the current system, but that

does not automatically mean that it is used often, nor does it imply that the system has been in use

for an extended period of time. Especially this last criteria is, in my opinion important, if it comes to

changing habits and routines. A legacy system can be defined as “[large] software systems that we

don’t know how to cope with but that are vital to our organization” (Bennett, 1994, p. 19).

Furthermore Bennett provides characteristics that apply to most (but not all) legacy systems:

1. The system is over 10 years old

2. Written in an old coding language

3. It performs crucial work for the

organization

4. Hard to change the system

5. Has a long history of intensive main-

tenance

6. Specialized knowledge

Another, yet similar definition, states that a legacy system can be defined as “a mission critical

software system developed sometime in the past that has been around and has changed for a long

time without undergoing systematic remedial actions” (Lucia et al., 2001, p. 1). This latter definition is

also more in line with the laws of program evolution (Lehman, 1980), which state that the underlying

principles of what a legacy system entails are: the law of continuing change, which states that a

program must undergo continual changes or it will become progressively less useful in the real world.

The second law, the law of increasing complexity, argues that the structure of evolving software will

degrade unless remedial action is regularly taken.

8 | P a g e

These characteristics apply to the technical aspects of the system. From the user-perspective, this is

the system that employees have worked with, often as long as they can remember and is part of

their work identity. The mere existence of technology has social implications since it influences

people’s interpretations of technology and their actual behavior (Boonstra & Van Offenbeek, 2010).

In the end there are but few options what do with legacy systems when the laws of program

evolution have come true and the legacy system becomes too outdated to keep up with current

developments. One of the options to handle this, is to encapsulate the legacy system as a component

in a new system, when implementing change (Bennett, 1994). However users might not find it easy

to switch from the legacy system to a new system, learn how to operate it, and break with their old

routines resulting in inertia (Boudreau & Robey, 2005).

2.2 Habits, Routines and Experience

Many displays of human behavior has the tendency to be based on frequently exhibited goal-

orientated patterns which are performed in a mindless manner (Aarts et al., 1998; Polites &

Karahanna, 2012). The usage of regularly used systems becomes habitual over time, so prior use has

been described as a predictor of habit as well. When a new system is introduced, the gained

knowledge through prior use cannot automatically be transferred to the new system because users

need to learn again how to operate the new system (Polites & Karahanna, 2012). They have often

used incumbent systems for multiple years. Throughout that extended period of use, habits and

routines of use have been formed. Especially with legacy systems the strength of these habits and

routines can be fierce. Habits can be defined as the non-deliberate, automatically inculcated

response that individuals may bring to IS usage (Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001). This notion is in line

with Aarts et al. (1998) statement about the goal-directed nature of habitual behavior where they

explain that in order to start walking, which is behavior we do not truly think about, we need a

destination to reach. Only once a person has determined where he wants to go and how to get there,

the process of automatic behavior of reaching the determined goal, in this case walking, takes over.

This is the same for usage of systems when a user is confronted with a specific task (Polites &

Karahanna, 2013).

There is a clear-cut difference between habits and routines. While habits are formed on an individual

bases, routines are described as an executable capability for repeated performance in some context

that has been learned by an organization in response to selection pressures (Hodgson & Knudsen,

2004). Both habits and routines are within the context of this case study, which is set in a working

environment, both applicable since as an individual you can still perform a routine which was

instigated through the group.

The main take away is that once users have formed routines using a specific system for a certain task,

they automatically return to that same system over and over again if they have to preform that task.

So habits and routines can disrupt the cycle that is proposed in theoretical model concerning

9 | P a g e

technology acceptance and adaptation behavior. If we were to place habits and routines and their

interplay with acceptance within the field of IS acceptance literature, it can be modeled as depicted

in figure 2.

Figure 2: The influence of habits on traditional IS acceptance research

If a program that is used on a daily basis will be replaced by another program, the habit of using the

original program needs to be changed as well. Since habits are partially automated behaviors, it is

hard to change them (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000). The mere intention of a person to change his

behavior might only be a successful strategy if the strength of the habit is either weak or moderate in

terms of Verplanken, Aarts, & Knippenberg (1997), for strong habits it will take more effort. The

strength of a habit can generally be determined by the frequency of performance in the past while it

took place in a similar setting (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). With strong habits, like the multiple times a

day usage of an application, the intention to change habits has been shown to be unrelated to the

actual behavior (Holland, Aarts, & Langendam, 2006). And even if habits have been changed, the

chances of relapse are high (Polivy & Herman, 2002).

Methods to effectively change both weak and strong habits have been linked to the punctuated

equilibrium theory (figure 3), which was introduced by Eldredge & Gould (1972). This theory states

Figure 3: Punctuated equilibrium model adapted from (Burnes, 2009)

10 | P a g e

that development is marked by isolated periods of rapid change between long periods of time with

little to no change called stasis (Orlikowski, 1996), or as Polites (2009) describes it; inertia. The

punctuated equilibrium theory was first described in the field of biology and its use was later linked

to the field of habitual behavior by, among others; Aarts, Paulussen, & Schaalma (1997); Ouellette &

Wood (1998) and Verplanken & Wood (2006).

These papers suggest that a mayor change within the environment, while stimulating the formation

of new habits, is one of the most likely strategies to break with old habits. This implies that without a

change of the context, be it physical or mental change, it is hard to break habits and inertia will

prevail. Orlikowski (1996, p. 64) states regarding revolutionary change within the model; “Punctuated

discontinuities are typically triggered by modifications in environmental or internal conditions, for

example, new technology, process redesign, or industry deregulation.” When it comes to period of

relatively little or no change, Polites (2009, p. 151) states: “Inertia has a negative impact on

intentions to use the new system, above and beyond its impact through perceptions. Thus an

individual using a system in an inertial state may perceive a new system as useful and easy to use, yet

not voice intentions to actually use it.” Reasoning within the line of thought of those two statements,

my first proposition is:

Proposition 1: Implementing new system with a revolutionary approach will have a positive

relation with actual system usage and therefore the rate of forming new

system habits will be higher.

This proposition is more likely to be successful if access to the original system is limited.

So far literature has focused on the disruption of old habits (Ortiz de Guinea & Markus, 2009;

Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Polites & Karahanna, 2012; Verplanken & Wood, 2006; Webb, Sheeran, &

Luszczynska, 2009) from a, in my opinion, managerial perspective. The proposed techniques are

mainly concentrated at changing the environment that limits the triggers that activate old habits. I

want to shift this view towards how habits from the legacy systems can play an active and positive

role in the formation of new habits in the new system and thus creating an approach that is more

focused on facilitating the end-user. Even though gained knowledge through prior use cannot be

automatically transferred to new IS (Polites & Karahanna, 2012), the occurrence of habitual behavior

can be triggered if supporting features of the current environment are similar to those contexts in

which the behavior was learned and practiced in the past (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). This implies that

the occurrence of habitual behavior is context dependent.

Let me illustrate this with a personal anecdote. Some ten years ago I moved from The Netherlands to

Cyprus. While in The Netherlands they drive on the right hand side of the road, in Cyprus they use

the left hand side. Luckily driving on the other side did not pose a problem for me, but there was one

habit that was constantly triggered which had some funny results. The car I was driving in Cyprus of

11 | P a g e

course had its steering wheel on the right side of the car. The one thing that was different from the

Dutch cars was the positioning of the windscreen wipers and the direction indicators; they were

switched from the left to the right and vice versa. So the environment that I was operating in was

similar to what I was used to, but the actual usage was different. As a result I often switched on the

windscreen wipers when I wanted to indicate my direction. And once I moved back to The

Netherland the same thing happened again, because I got used to the new configuration and

developed a new habit.

When it comes to IS related change, I argue that by partially rebuilding the context, in terms of lay

out and task sequence of the incumbent legacy system, within the new system users experience the

same triggers to display habitual behavior as they did before. So in that sense I think that through

similarity of the systems and recognition by the user, habitual behavior from the past can be

triggered in a new environment.

Proposition 2: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task

sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, habits that were

gained while using the incumbent system will be triggered within the new

system.

2.3 Familiarity Pockets

Familiarity pockets are the construct that tie habits, IS acceptance and coping together. An IS user's

familiarity pocket comprises work routines and components accumulated through situated

interactive use of the system and can be roughly defined as a user’s sphere of action. Meaning that

the focus of a familiarity pocket is not so much the actual familiarity with the system, but more so

the routines and habits gained by the user through the interaction with the system and/or other

users (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). In terms of my conceptual model, the familiarity pocket is made

up by the boxes of “actual new system usage” and “new system habits” (see figure 4). This implies

that users know how particular features of the system work, either through prior use of similar

features or newly learned practices. Different studies have shown that users typically don’t use all

possible features (technological infusion) of a system, but stick with a rather limited set of known

practices (Japerson et al., 2005; Orlikowski, 2000). When faced with situations that are out of the

boundaries of the familiarity pocket, a user can resolve to workarounds (Yamauchi & Swanson,

2010). These workaround need to mask the user’s inability to select the appropriate feature within

the new system. This action can either be intentional as a form of resistance or unintentional when

the user is not aware of particular features within the system. This notion is in line with the findings

of the case study described in chapter 3. Besides that the familiarity pocket can be seen as a sort of

save haven of all the features that a user knows, it is also a representation of all the features that the

user doesn’t know (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). Routines that are performed by users within their

familiarity pocket mask much that is not known by the users. While users achieve a level of

competency with the features that are within their familiarity pocket, they can often completely

12 | P a g e

ignore features that are outside their familiarity pocket. The workarounds that the users invent will

eventually make sure that the users get the job done. Yamauchi & Swanson (2010) coined this

phenomenon competent ignorance. As mentioned, familiarity pockets are closely related to learning

behavior (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). Developing new routines and habits is part of learning

behavior. This notion is in line with findings of Boudreau & Robey (2005) who state that what people

learn is not so much about what they learn during formal trainings, but can also be largely

contributed to what they learn from unplanned activities that spread knowledge among the users.

Figure 4: Familiarity pocket in relation to traditional IS acceptance literature

The (encapsulated) legacy system can be part of a familiarity pocket (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005)

from which the user can expand its knowledge about the system, but might also be an obstructer of

infusion if the legacy system itself is regarded by users as superior in reliability and/or use (Bennett,

1994). Functions of a legacy that resurface in new IS are familiar for the user and routines obtained

while using the legacy system can be transferred to the new system and help in forming familiarity

pockets within the new system. Coping strategies might help to move outside the familiarity pockets,

gain more experience and thus expand the familiarity pocket.

Proposition 3: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task

sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, users will invent less

workarounds since incumbent habits are triggered.

2.4 Coping strategies

While intentionally changing habits and routines is hard, it is possible. The mechanics that come in to

play if (behavioral) change is imminent are classified as coping strategies. So once the IT event has

been appraised by the users and intended behavior can be measured, several reactions can occur,

13 | P a g e

and at this point of time coping mechanisms are set in motion. Changes in the environment produce

uncertainty and as uncertainty grows, problems start to occur (Benamati, 2001). In reaction to these

problems, coping strategies are deployed. Coping is defined as “the cognitive and behavioral efforts

exerted to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or

exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Although no undisputed

definition of the different coping strategies exists (Ashford, 1988), the aforementioned definition will

be used regarding this study.

Adaptation behavior describes how users can react and how the implementation of an IT event can

change IT functionalities, the users routines and habits, or the user’s perception of work. When

placed within the traditional IS acceptance model, it has a rather wide focus ranging from the first

appraissal of the event up to the eventual behavior. Figure 5 depicts how coping is connected to the

different stages of IS acceptance

Figure 5: Coping strategies in relation to traditional IS acceptance literature

One of the main drivers behind coping behavior is the desire to reduce uncertainty (Ashford, 1988;

Bradac, 2001). Problem focused adaptation is predominately focused on the external aspects of

adaptation, but does not concentrate that much on the inner self of the individual undergoing the

change. When it comes to emotion focused adaptation behavior, a clear distinction between

avoidance and rapprochement can be made (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Ebata & Moos, 1991;

Roth & Cohen, 1986; Skinner, et al., 2003). This is closely related to Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005)

CMUA model (see Appendix 1)(Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005), where the user can see the

implementation as an opportunity, so he will look for approachal, or the user will see the

implemtation as a threat and will employ the avoidance method. The approach method can be

divided in two types of behavior where the person either uses problem solving trying to deal with the

problem directly or in the other case he/she will look for guidance and support. When a person

reacts and displays the avoidance method he/she will either look for alternative source to achieve

satisfaction (i.e. work-arounds) or he/she will try to reduce tension by expressing negative feelings.

Uncertainty can lead to avoidance, but uncertainty can be reduced by perceived similarities, which in

return would lead to a situation where the person is more open to approach (Bradac, 2001).

14 | P a g e

Proposition 4a: There is a positive relation between perceived similarity of the legacy system

and new IS and the approach method.

The user is more likely to move beyond the scope of his familiarity pocket and will show active

exploration and information seeking behavior.

Proposition 4b: There is a positive relation between perceived differences of the legacy

system and new IS and the avoidance method.

The user is more likely to stay within the confines of his familiarity pocket and will make display no

active behavior in trying to expand it.

The way users appraise the situation, influences their path of behavior. Avoidance type behavior

leads to a significant reduction of the possibility that infusion, a concept part of the four stages of

assimilation of Cooper & Zmud (1990), is reached, but approach type behavior does not lead to a

significant increase of the possibility of infusion (Fadel, 2012). “In other words, emotion-focused

behaviors such as seeking social support and positive reappraisal may help users achieve a sense of

emotional equilibrium but neither enhance nor diminish their degree of system use.” (Fadel, 2012, p.

7). Users that engage in problem focused adaptation are more likely to reach infusion and achieve

individual efficiency and effectiveness due to their deeper use and knowledge of the system (Fadel,

2012; Goode, 2012) where users that primary display emotion focused coping behavior are less likely

to reach infusion and more likely to opt out (Goode, 2012).

CMUA also implies that as long as the user’s primary appraisal sees the IT event as an opportunity, he

or she will always achieve “individual effectiveness and efficiency” as an outcome. While I

acknowledge the plausibility that a positive appraisal of an IT event is more likely to achieve an

outcome with individual effectiveness and efficiency, I do not think that the process is neither linear

nor rational. Habits are partially automated behavior and have little to do with rational intentions to

use a system (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000). The notion that this kind of behavior is automated also

explains the concept of action slips5 (Norman, 1981) even if the user feels in control and has a

positive attitude towards the change. Therefor I propose that the strength of a habit will moderate

the eventual outcome of the coping sequence.

Proposition 5: The strength of a habit will moderate the outcome of the adaptation strategy

as proposed in CMUA.

5 “The performance of an action that was not what was intended” (Norman, 1981, p. 1)

15 | P a g e

2.5 Conclusion

When combining the pillars of this theoretical section; coping behavior, familiarity pockets, routines

and habits, we can see the interconnectedness of these constructs. IS acceptance literature is an

extensively broad field and the conceptual model (figure 6) depicts how these constructs interact

with traditional IS acceptance literature and with each other. The proposed conceptual model

visualizes where coping strategies are deployed within the different phases of IS acceptance. As

described, there is an overlap between coping strategies and the formation of familiarity pockets.

Coping strategies are deployed up to the point where the user actually starts using the new system,

while that same usage is determined by the user’s familiarity pocket. While the incumbent system

habits are proposed to influence the outcome of the user’s coping behavior depending on their

strength, it also influences the relative size of the user’s familiarity pocket when it comes to the

degree of perceived similarity between the systems. As said, habits and routines are key

determinants when it comes to IS usage behavior. If these routines and habits need to be changed

due to IS change several habit disruption and development strategies can be used. These strategies

will influence the new system habits and thus also the familiarity pocket.

Figure 6: Conceptual model

16 | P a g e

3. Method

Case study approach is considered to be the right approach when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are asked

about a focal phenomenon over which researchers have little or no knowledge or control (Yin, 2009).

Case studies are also considered to be appropriate when researching contemporary questions in

natural settings where little or no previous research has been done (Liu et al., 2011). These features

of case study method fit well with the objectives of understanding how the existence of incumbent

habits influences individual adaptation behavior. This study is set up in a way that it follows the

guidelines for conducting case studies as prescribed by Eisenhardt (1989).

The foundation of this paper lies in grounded theory and focuses on the expressed thoughts and

feelings of the users and their actual behavior. To gather the necessary information for the case

study, side by side observations as well as oral and written interviews were conducted. Furthermore

access was granted to internal documents about system usage and user behavior. The interviews are

interpretations and opinions of individual users and the conclusions drawn in this paper are my

personal interpretations of those statements. This means that this paper does not aim to present an

objective truth for all situations, but rather tries to use storytelling as a lens to give a detailed

examination of the observed phenomena within this case. These observed phenomena will be

compared to the earlier stated propositions and additional insights will be shared.

3.1 Background - Bank Case

Every company starts with a simple operating system, but over the years acquisitions of new

divisions and mergers might take place, making the once upon a time simple way of working, more

and more complicated with numerous systems. These old systems can become legacy systems. To

investigate the impact of the mere presence of legacy systems on adaptation to newly introduced IT

systems, I conducted research at one of the major Dutch bank and insurance companies, which in

this paper will be called Bank for Regular People (BRP).

In 2010 BRP made an organizational wide decision to update and simplify most of the systems that

employees from different brands of BRP, but also inter-organizational departments, had to work

with. A typical employee had to use up to 15 different systems a day, just to answer the customer’s

questions. Most of the systems at hand were developed in the early 1990-ies and were not

considered to be user-friendly anymore. These different systems were to be integrated in one unified

desktop system (UDT). UDT would be accessible for every brand within BRP’s organization. To

integrate the way of working, is one of the main strategic decisions to change an organization

(Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001) and is a logical step for the organization to optimize their business.

BRP decided to build most of UDT in-house while adding custom build components. They

acknowledged that building UDT would be an immense task and decided that evolutionary

implementation would give BRP the best option to create UDT according to everybody’s wishes. The

17 | P a g e

evolutionary approach made it possible to fine tune the program when needed, but also keeps the

users involved in the development of the system. This particular setting forms a great opportunity to

test the propositions mentioned in chapter 2 and to find an answer on this paper’s research

question.

The decision to build UDT in-house and acquiring several custom build Kana components was made

after an extensive selection process. One of the main advantages of the chosen package is its

flexibility. Since most of the core functions of the different operating systems will keep on running in

the background and need to be connected UDT a lot of flexibility of UDT is required. UDT is the

umbrella that connects all the different systems in one single screen. UDT’s mission is to achieve that

80% of the information within UDT is available within four mouse clicks.

In the initial set up of this research two of BRP’s brands were selected for investigation, Alpha and

Beta. Brand Alpha worked with a specific program that was not available for brand Beta, but would

be implemented in UDT for both brands. During the research period it became apparent that there

were some mayor differences between the implementation of UDT between the two brands. The

gradual implementation strategy within Alpha was not replicated in Beta. Beta would experience a

revolutionary implementation where all the systems would be replaced in a short period of time,

which would be a perfect opportunity to investigate proposition 1. Unfortunately it became apparent

that the implementation at Beta would be delayed several months. As a matter of fact the

implementation would occur only after the deadline of this paper. I decided to continue the research

while investigating just one of the brands and build a case study on the information obtained from

Alpha’s users.

Due to the size of this project, Alpha opted for gradually implementing features one by one, instead

of a revolutionary approach where the entire finished product was delivered at once. In terms of

type of change, UDT can be classified as evolutionary change instead of revolutionary. This also

meant, in combination with the flexibility of UDT, that if users were dissatisfied with certain features,

there was time, room and budget to improve. The implementation process started in late 2010 and is

still in progress with both major releases of new applications, as well as minor fine tuning within

existing features. The use of this system is largely targeted at the call center agents and local branch

office employees who are in direct contact with customers, but it is also available to employees of

the different back offices. Within the framework of this study, I restrict myself solely to observing

and interviewing agents of the call centers. To conduct this research also among branch offices

and/or back offices is not feasible given the time frame of this study.

3.2 Collecting data

Multiple data collection methods strengthen the grounding of proposed theories through

triangulation of the evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to achieve this, I used multiple sources of

18 | P a g e

evidence. First of all side-by-side observations were performed, in total about 15 hours. After the

observations, the same person was asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. The interview

protocol and the interview questions can be found in appendix 2 and 3, while an overview of the

participants’ backgrounds can be found in appendix 4.

Interviewees were assured that discussions were strictly confidential and the content of each

interview was reviewed and signed off by each interviewee as being a truthful representation of the

interview. Interviews typically started with open-ended questions about the system that was being

implemented, followed by more specific questions about their involvement with, understanding of,

and attitudes towards aspects of the system, such as the impact on working processes. In total 6

persons participated in the oral interviews and most of these interviews lasted for about 20 minutes.

Some of the employees that I asked to participate in the interview sessions did not feel comfortable

with being recorded. They did however offer a lot of off the record information. They were also

asked to answer the interview in written form. Eventually 4 of the additional users that were asked

to answer the questions by a written reply complied with this request. Although this method did not

give a direct option to ask follow up questions or elaborate on the answer, it aided in the analysis and

could either support or refute statements made by the interviewees. Strangely enough it were

predominately the men who chose to do the oral interview, while the women gave off the record

information and decided to do the interview in written form. Afterwards I asked why some of the

participants made this decision and the men stated that they did not truly think about refusing and

did not think about other options to aid this research, while the women in general stated that they

felt more comfortable about answering the questions on their own and having the opportunity to

think about their answers instead of answering instantly.

3.3 Analysis of the data The analysis of the data follows the conceptual model and theoretical propositions since that shaped

the orientation of the data that had to be gathered. The focus of this paper is on individual

adaptation, which is part of coping, and the interplay with habits and there for most paragraphs in

the results section are dedicated to coping behavior and habits in relation to the other constructs.

Since the coping cycle is a sequential model, the case is also presented in a sequential manner.

Furthermore patterns within the data will be identified and analyzed in order to build the case and to

support the interpretations. The theoretical predicted events are compared to the empirically

observed events. As a result the overall set up of the analysis is in line with what Yin (2011) describes

as the logic model. Recurrent patterns in the entire data set were grouped, coded and then analyzed

(see appendix 5: Coding tree).

19 | P a g e

3.4 Validity and Reliability

To ensure construct validity, several sources for obtaining data were used: side-by-side observation,

oral interviews, written interviews and internal documents. Internal validity was sought after by

looking for patterns, dominant themes and explanations in the material. I tried to avoid bias by

asking respondents to comment on my interpretations.

The very fact that I work as a customer service employee at the cooperation that is examined for this

case study and use the actual systems that are discussed, may have an advantage since context-

dependent knowledge and experience are at the very heart of expert activity and lie at the center of

the case study as a research method (Flyvbjerg, 2006). My work at BRP is at same department as the

participants of the case study. Besides working at the customer service, I am part of the user group

that advices the project leaders of UDT on the development of UDT when it comes to practical

implications. This entails that as an employee; I am familiar with the internal terminology of the

organization and know which specific questions to ask when I need to delve deeper in to an answer

or comment of the interviewees.

Before starting the interviews, the participants agreed that I could observe their behavior regarding

system usage. During the observations the participants helped actual customers, which meant that

neither the customer’s questions nor the systems that had to be used were staged.

All of the interviews were recorded for transcribing purposes (see digital appendix: Interviews).

Respondents checked the accounts for accuracy and sometimes suggested changes. The interviews

were semi-structured and contained a set of 25 fixed questions that were based on the work of

Lassila & Brancheau (1999), Moore & Benbasat (1991) and Sun (2012). Additional questions were

asked to clarify statements of the interviewees when needed or to delve deeper into the underlying

arguments. As for the off the record conversations, no detailed records were kept; only key words

and snippets of thoughts were recorded on paper.

Access to internal documents regarding the implementation of UDT was also granted, but due to the

sensitive content of these documents they had to be omitted from the research appendixes. But they

did contribute to the sense making process about why and how certain decisions were made during

the implementation of UDT, but also about the results of the implementation.

20 | P a g e

4. Results

In this chapter the results from the case study will be presented. In chapter 2 the constructs: coping

strategies, familiarity pockets, habits and routines, were introduced and related to one another. The

conceptual model and propositions that were formed in the second chapter will be used as a guide

line during this chapter to tell the story of this particular case. As mentioned, several constructs have

been connected within this paper’s conceptual model and for the sake of comprehensibility the

interpretations regarding each particular subject will presented straight away instead of one final

section dedicated to interpretations.

At the very heart of this case study are the participants, so I will start with a table providing a short

introduction of their background. A more detailed background can be found in appendix 4.

Table 1: Overview Participants

4.1 Initial Appraisal followed by Inertia- Coping & Habits

Even though the initial introduction was considered to be too early by some users, the majority did

have a positive, yet abiding attitude towards the implementation. Years had gone by and the old

systems became outdated, the need for a more effective way of working was recognized by most

employees. Due to mergers and expanding activities of the organization, a multitude of systems

entered the working life of the employees. Most of those systems were not connected in any kind of

way, so in the end users had to learn to how operate up to 15 systems. The depth of these systems

made it virtually impossible for a user to use the systems to their full potential. The news that a new

all-encompassing system would be introduced that would integrate the essential components of the

prior systems was welcomed by both management and the users. Many of the users had seen a lot of

new programs over the years so they did have some reservations about whether UDT would be the

final solution, but all agreed that if UDT would keep its promise, than it should be a huge

improvement. And of course there are always people who embrace change right away. When one of

the users, in this case Alice, passionately promoted the use of UDT while I was observing her, I asked

her whether she had always been an advocate of the new system. She answered with a full

heartedly: “Yes! Absolutely, and it’s only getting better.”

21 | P a g e

But not everybody was as jubilant. John for instance was asked about his response to the

introduction of UDT and he replied:

“Ik denk dat het wel een goede stap in de goede richting is. Maar ik denk wel dat ik daar meer

de functionaliteit van [systeem a] meer terug in zou willen zien, voordat ik denk dat ik echt

daar in overga.” / “I do think it’s a step in the right direction. But I think that I want to see

more of the functionalities of [system a6] before I truly make a transfer”

As showcased in the quote above, the reason why some considered the implementation to be

premature had to do with the limited set of features. The organization chose to release

implementations in a gradual way instead of a revolutionary approach. This led to a situation where,

at that particular point in time, the legacy systems were considered to be clearly superior to the new

one.

Marc: “In het begin was [UDT] log. Het sloot ook niet aan bij mijn wensen. Er was gewoon te weinig

informatie of dat het niet realtime was. Dus dan moest je toch in een ander programma de

antwoorden gaan zoeken.” / “In the beginning [UDT] was unwieldy. It did not suit my

requirements. There was just too little information, or it wasn’t real time. So you just had to

go to a different system to look for answers.”

Alice: “In het begin was het wel zo dat je nog heel veel [van de benodigde informatie] niet kon

vinden of er heel veel nog niet in stond. En dan moest je vaak nog terug naar [system a] en

[system b7]” / “During the startup I couldn’t find much [of the needed information] or it just

wasn’t there. And then you often had to switch back to [system a] and [system b].”

As a result the initial enthusiasm faded among the users. Only Alice was persistent among the

observed participants and kept using UDT as her main system. Users lacked in-depth information and

there were rumors that the information displayed in UDT was incorrect. Even now, almost 4 years

after the introduction, these rumors are persistent:

Pete: “En op de een of andere manier, vertrouw ik [UDT] ook niet helemaal ofzo. Als ik het echt

zeker moet weten, ga ik toch terug naar [systeem a] of systeem [c] om het te checken. Op de

een of andere manier klopt het altijd wel, maar toch wil ik het nakijken in het echte systeem.”

/ “And in some way, I just dont trust [UDT] completely. If I have to be absolutely sure about

something, than I always go back to [system a] or system [c]. Somehow it is always correct,

but I still want to check it in the real system.”

6 System a is a registration system. All contacts with a customer are logged in this system as well as all sales registrations 7 System b is a back end system where all the customers’ product details are stored and is used to process all transactions and other

changes regarding the customer and his/her products.

22 | P a g e

Albert: “Soms klopt [UDT] niet helemaal [...] waardoor ik toch automatisch een ander, [system c]

erbij pak.” / “Sometimes [UDT] is incorrect [...] where upon I still automatically will use

[system c]”.

The fact that the information displayed in UDT is retrieved directly from the legacy systems, and

cannot be different, has been communicated multiple times. Over time, the functionalities were

rapidly expanded and trust in UDT grew, but with the introduction of a new feature there are still

mixed feelings about its trustworthiness.

The project leaders saw a steep increase in individual users and consider the implementation a huge

success. However, the project leaders could only monitor how many times UDT was accessed on a

daily basis, but not how the system is used. The depth and the way in which UDT is used might show

a completely different story.

In reality, only one of the observed users, Alice, did not –unnecessarily- switch back to one of the

legacy systems at all during the observations. Three years after the introduction, with UDT in place

and the legacy systems still fully operational, most users did not use UDT at all or used it for an initial

overview of the products that a customer had, but then switched back to the legacy systems when

they had to answer the customer’s question. Everybody was free to use the legacy systems and no

pressure in any form was exerted on switching to UDT. In practice this meant that UDT was

consulted, but hardly used. Users showed inertia behavior, used the new system as little as possible

and decided to continue using the systems as they had been using it for decades. Having the choice

to stick with common practices was welcomed by the employees and many did so. John and Pete

explained their reasons for their inertia as follows:

John: “Ik moet heel eerlijk zeggen, ik heb niet veel ervaring met [UDT]. Weinig tot niet. Ik vind het

wel overzichtelijk. Dus voor een globaal overzicht, pak ik het er wel vaak bij. Maar qua

functionaliteit [gebruik ik UDT] nog niet, of nauwelijks. En dat is voornamelijk omdat ik nog

gewend ben dat oude [systeem a] en [systeem b] te gebruiken.” / “I have to be completely

honest, I don’t have a lot of experience with UDT. Slim to none. I do think it is easy surveyable.

So for a global overview, I do use it. But when it comes to functionality I don’t or hardly [use

UDT]. And that is mostly because I’m still used to using [system a] and [system b].”

Pete: “[Je] hebt nu dus [UDT], dan kun je loggen vanuit [UDT]. Nou dat doe ik gewoon niet omdat

ik dat niet gewend ben”/ “Right now you got [UDT], and you can log contacts within [UDT].

Well I just will not do that, because I am not used to that.”

This first quote is a prime example of how many users treated UDT. They used it to get a global

overview, but when push came to shove; they went back to the legacy systems to perform most of

23 | P a g e

the tasks due to the familiarity of those systems. The users set aside their knowledge and their initial

response of welcoming a more integrated way of working and returned to their status quo.

When I asked Pete what it would take to get him to switch to UDT, his response was: “Well, if they

shutdown system [A]. Yes, if they desert system [A].”

Other users, for instance Albert, made similar statements. Although they stated that they would not

classify this approach as being favorable in terms of user-friendliness, they did deem it to be the

most effective solution in their particular case. Multiple users did not like to be confronted with a

major change that would force them instantaneously to do their job in a different way, others like

Pete and Albert did. Those users who did not advocate a revolutionary approach, but preferred the

evolutionary approach already used UDT. Users claimed that even though UDT was user friendly and

easy to grasp, they did prefer proper training to learn the in-depth features of the system.

4.1.1 Interpretations

It was striking to see that the initial idea of unifying all different systems in to one was supported by

all of the participants. In this case resistance only occurred after first features were introduced,

which was done in an evolutionary way. The earlier implementations did not meet the minimum

viable requirements of the employees to change their habits and routines and was therefore

disregarded as being inferior. The existing habits were too strong and inertia prevailed. This

observation is in line with Aarts et al. (1997) and Ouellette & Wood (1998) who state change of

strong habits is more likely to occur when change occurs as described in the punctuated equilibrium

model.

The users displayed behavior similar to that which is described by Boudreau & Robey (2005) as

inertia where the users use the new system as little as possible and recreate the way they handled

their work in the old situation. In the case of UDT the legacy systems were still available to the users

so the recreation of former ways was not necessary and users were able to maintain stasis and work

in the same way as they always had.

The finding that some of the users themselves acknowledge that it would take a major change before

changing their habits, seems on first sight to confirm my first proposition.

Proposition 1: Implementing new system with a revolutionary approach will have a positive

relation with actual system usage and therefore the rate of forming new

system habits will be higher.

While some users stressed that it would take a revolutionary approach to change their ways of

working, there were also plenty of users that preferred a gradual implementation. The users

preferring the evolutionary approach also experienced a positive relation with actual system usage

24 | P a g e

and the formation of new habits. In their experience the freedom to independently choose to use the

new system enhanced their individual efficiency and effectiveness. The risk of gradual

implementation is a higher degree of action slips.

To best suit proponents of both camps, and thus achieving a user orientated approach to change, I

propose a two-stage implementation approach. The initial implementation should be in an

evolutionary fashion, where users have the freedom to choose between the incumbent system and

the new system, which will be followed by a revolutionary change. This notion is in line with the

punctuated equilibrium model which states that a given situation never is in complete stasis, but that

slow incremental change always exists. In this way users who want to adapt to the new system have

the time to learn it, and the users that do not want to change their ways of working will be forced to

do so once the majority of “evolutionary users” have adapted to the situation.

Revised proposition 1: Implementing new system with an evolutionary approach followed by a

revolutionary approach will have a positive relation with actual system usage

and therefore the rate of forming new system habits will be higher.

This revised proposition can be seen in the light of the punctuated equilibrium theory. However this

theory focuses on a given situation for all. And do bear in mind that the model was not intended as a

habit disruption strategy, but as a model that portrays how change sequences take place. This

proposition however differs from the theory since it states that different people prefer different

approaches. Some prefer evolutionary change while others prefer revolutionary change. But when

seen in the light of the time span of the entire change process, it is in line with the general notions of

the punctuated equilibrium model. When looking at the conceptual model, these interpretations can

be translated as depicted below.

Figure 7: Conceptual Model – proposition 1

25 | P a g e

4.2 Changing Habits – Coping & Habits

Users contributed usage of the legacy systems as being their personal status quo and described it as

being a habit. No pressure from management was exerted, nor experienced by the participants of

this case study, to start using UDT. Participants were enthusiastic about the new system, often did

see the advantages, but did not embrace it by actually infusing it in their daily routines. Since

management did not exert pressure to use UDT, it was the users’ choice whether to use it or not. Yet

there was a big discrepancy between how people felt about UDT and how they dealt with it. Each

and every user indicated that using UDT could contribute to their efficiency and each and every user

had a predominately positive attitude towards UDT. When asked why they still used the legacy

system, or why they used UDT in certain cases, they gave habituation as one of the main reasons.

Various users contributed the use of legacy systems to their longstanding routines and habits.

Albert: “Een stukje automatisme [...] daarom pak ik dan [systeem x] erbij.” / “A piece of

automatism [...] that is why I go to [system x].”

Marc: “Ja, eigenlijk gewoonte” / “Yes, basically habit.”

Pete: “Dan kun je loggen vanuit [UDT]. Nou dat doe ik gewoon niet omdat ik dat niet

gewend ben.“ / “Than you can log within [UDT]. Well I do not do that, because I am

not used to that.”

As mentioned, a lot of the legacy systems were introduced in the around the turn of the millennium

or even in the 1990’s. Two of these legacy systems in particular had to be used virtually every single

time when a user had contact with a customer. This also meant that the habit to use these systems

was particular strong.

A habit that was quickly formed within UDT was the already mentioned “checking of the customer

overview”. Gaining a similar overview was in theory possible in the legacy systems, but it was rather

unwieldy. The elaborate process to achieve this, meant that the habit to do so, was hardly there or

just as a weak habit. Managers however always pressed their employees to get a holistic view of

their customer in order to serve the customer as well as possible. The introduction of UDT changed

the way how employees worked. Instead of just occasionally checking the customers’ overview, they

started doing this on a regular basis. In this way the weakness of the prior habit and the ease of use

of UDT not only helped them to meet their manager’s demands, but it also enabled the formation of

a new habit.

Users referred to their behavior as being automated. When asked if they used UDT a typical response

was the employee said that he felt like he should use UDT more. As a follow up we discussed why he

or she would use the legacy systems instead.

26 | P a g e

Albert: “[Het is] een combinatie van het automatisme om naar [systeem b] te gaan en ook

een beetje [het] vergeten om het [gebruik] aan te leren in [UDT].” / “[It is] a

combination of the automatism of going to [system b] and also a bit forgetting to

learn [to use] UDT.”

Marc: “Ontwenning, gebruikersgemak en gewoon ja omdat ik het niet vaak genoeg doe.” /

“Unlearning a habit, ease of use and just, well, because I don’t practice it enough.”

Vivian: “[Het is] deels gewenning, dat je automatisch [systeem b] pakt” / [It’s] partially

habituation, that you automatically go to [system b]”

One of questions of the interview was whether the users saw similarities between UDT and the

legacy systems. Most of the users only saw some resemblances with the legacy systems, but focused

more on the differences and regarded UDT as being completely new. On the other side of the coin

were the developers of UDT who stated that they had encapsulated features of the legacy system in

UDT and that it had been designed to resemble the legacy systems as close as possible. Somehow a

disparity between the vision of the developers and the actual experience of some of the users

occurred.

Question: “Zijn er functionaliteiten binnen UDT die je in vorige systemen ook had qua uiterlijk,

gebruik, functionaliteit?” / “Are there features within UDT that you also had in

previous systems, like appearance, usage of functionality?”

Answers negative:

Pete: “Nee. Nou nee niet zo snel. / No. Well, no not really.”

John: “Dat verschilt behoorlijk. Ik ben daarom ook eerder geneigd om te kijken in [systeem

b].” / “That is rather different. That is why I’m inclined to look in [system b].”

Albert: “In essentie is het, nou, nee, nou, dat weet ik niet hoe het zit. Daar moet ik eerlijk in

zijn.” / “In essence it is, well, no, well, I don’t really know how it is. That is something I

have to be honest about.”

Answers positive:

Mike: “Qua opzet is het overeenkomstig, maar [UDT] is meer op de computermuis gespitst

dan op het toetsenbord.” / “Design-wise it is similar, but [UDT] puts a focus on the

mouse of a computer instead of the keyboard.”

27 | P a g e

Alice: “Tuurlijk, want in [systeem b], het loggen bij [systeem b] en [UDT] heeft opzich wel

een beetje de zelfde opbouw.” / Ofcourse, because in [system b], logging in [system b]

and [UDT] are kind of similar in design.

Marc: “Dat is bijna gelijk [...]” / “That is almost similar [...]”.

Christine: “In [system a] loggen en in [UDT] loggen zie ik als dezelfde functionaliteit.” / “I see

logging in [system a] and logging in [UDT] as being the same functionalities.”

What all the respondents did answer was that they prefer functionalities and lay-out to resemble the

legacy systems. Mike made a comparison between a popular operating system for computers.

Mike: “Nouja, als ik het zou vergelijken met windows7 en Windows8. Naar windows 8 zal ik

nooit overstappen omdat ik die tegelstructuur verschrikkelijk vind. Dus ik denk dat als

ze bij [UDT] zomaar iets geintroduceerd hadden, zonder te toetsen bij eindgebruikers,

hoe dat zou zijn, de inrichting, dat ik het dan zelf ook niet willen. [..] Zo van: laten we

het maar zo weergeven omdat het er wel leuk uitziet.” / “Well, if I would compare it

with Windows 7 and 8. I would never switch to Windows 8 because I despise the tile-

design. So I think that if they would have randomly introduced something with UDT,

without verifying how it would be, the lay-out, than I would not want that either. […]

Something like: Let’s just present it like this because it looks nice.”

The observations showed that the features that the user described as being (almost) identical to the

functions that they used in the legacy system were also the functions that they used most. Especially

the use of the logging function displayed that the users that did not see a clear resemblance between

that particular feature in the legacy system and the way it was implemented in UDT, did not use the

function in UDT. Those who did see the resemblance did use it.

Once it became apparent during the observations that the users were not fully aware of the

capabilities of UDT, I asked them to try to answer the next 3 questions solely using UDT, and only

switch back to a legacy system if there would be no other way to help the customer. The customers’

questions were not staged, so both the user and I would not know in advance whether the use of

UDT would be appropriate for the question. Since UDT is still under construction not all

functionalities from every legacy system have been transferred. The user would typically display two

responses. In the first response the user would start playing around with the system and would

figure out how this task could be performed. In the second response the user would ask a colleague

or even me if the task could be performed and if so, how. A combination of first trying and asking

once the user did not find a way, was recorded as well. An interesting observation was that all of the

users tried to search for an answer when I asked them to look for a solution within UDT. None of the

28 | P a g e

users stayed with their initial reaction that it just was not possible or switched back to the legacy

system. All were willing and able to experiment with the system.

When Mike was asked when he would experiment most with the system, he answered that he

needed time to experiment. If work was busy he did not find time to experiment and therefore did

not discover features that he did not know about. As a result he stuck with his old habits and

routines.

4.2.1 Interpretations

Analysis of the answers supports proposition 5. Almost every participant in this case declared to view

UDT as an opportunity. However, the strength of habit to use the legacy systems for the most

commonly performed tasks was incredibly strong. As a result the adaptation strategies were

disregarded and the user exited the situation, resulting in inertia. This supports the notion that the

stronger the habit, the more likely the user is to opt out and continue performing their tasks as they

used to, when that option is available. With the weak habits like checking the overview, it was the

other way around.

Proposition 5: The strength of a habit will moderate the outcome of the adaptation

strategy as proposed in CMUA.

Users that saw similarities between the legacy system and the new system regarded the new system

to be easier and were more inclined to use it in a similar fashion as the legacy system than users who

did not see similarities. These results are in line with propositions 2, 4a and b.

Proposition 2: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task

sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, habits that

were gained while using the incumbent system will be triggered

within the new system.

Proposition 4a: There is a positive relation between perceived similarity of the legacy

system and new IS and the approach method.

Proposition 4b: There is a positive relation between perceived differences of the

legacy system and new IS and the avoidance method.

These findings are in line with the notions of the strength of habit in relation to their persistency

when tried to change as described by Holland et al. (2006) and Polivy & Herman (2002). It does differ

from the general notions of Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005) CMUA model. Adding incumbent habits

and routines as variables to this model would, in my opinion, be a valuable addition. On a practical

29 | P a g e

note; in order to achieve a positive usage outcome regarding the CMUA model, system developers

are recommended to design an interface, and use task sequences in a way that perceived similarities

between the old and new system are high. Not every user will automatically perceive similarities that

might be present. To stimulate the perception of similarities the developers can communicate with

the users in what way the new system resembles the incumbent system. When users experience

similarity they are also prone to be triggered to perform incumbent habits within the new

environment. The ability of habits being triggered due to environmental circumstances support the

findings of Ouellette & Wood (1998). Visualized these notion would within the conceptual model be

depicted as in picture 8.

Figure 8: Conceptual model – proposition 2, 4a, 4b and 5

4.3 Familiarity Pockets – Coping & Habits

The previous section already described that there is a relation between the perceived similarities

between the new and the old system and the coping method. The observations showed that the user

that saw similarities between the new and the old system used UDT more often. The more they used

it, the more in-depth knowledge they had about the functioning of the system.

Most of the users used UDT in one way or another and even though they felt in control of the

system, they used workarounds to get the work done. Two types of workarounds were identified.

The user would initiate workarounds either knowing about the way it could be done in UDT or

unaware of the possibilities in UDT. Especially when the user was unaware of the possibilities of UDT

he/she invented a personal solution. Only if they truly could not figure out a solution by themselves,

than they would ask for help or look it up in a manual. As a result users invented workarounds that

would actually take more time than just doing it in UDT.

30 | P a g e

In one of the observations John would start up UDT and search for the source of the customer’s

problem. Within UDT there is a link to the system in which the user can find an action plan for

identified problems. If this link is used, it gives the possibility to log the answer, but also the article in

which the action plan is found, in the customer’s personal file. Instead he used UDT to indicate the

problem. Then John would switch to a manually opened version of the system with the action plans

and would search for the right solution. Manually opening the system gives no option to log the

conversation directly in the client’s personal file. Once the solution was found, he would perform the

necessary tasks and switch back to UDT. Within UDT he would press the link to open the system with

the action plans, enter the right query and log the contact. In this example John showed proper

knowledge of UDT’s use, but reinvented the way he would use it. John was used to manually opening

this system every single morning and would use it throughout the day. He was aware of the

possibilities and advantages of the use of UDT, yet he actively searched for a way to keep his long

formed habit alive.

Another popular workaround is where the user used UDT and then he/she would switch to a legacy

system that had to do with insurance premiums. UDT shows premiums that are still open for

payment, but also restitutions. Once the customer asked a question about a premium or restitution,

the user would open UDT and have a look at the premiums and restitutions. In this case it were

Albert and Pete who displayed this behavior several times. They knew that the answer was right in

front of them, yet did not know how to interpret the data or became insecure about their

interpretation of the data. This insecurity came from the fact that questions about insurance

premiums or restitutions did not come along that often. Because Albert and Pete did not know how

to interpret the data in UDT, the user would switch to the legacy system, look for the data and

answer the question.

Multiple users, John, Albert, Susan, Vivian, Christine and even Alice confessed during the

observations that if they logged a record in UDT, they would sometimes check in both UDT and in the

legacy system whether it was logged correctly, just for reassurance. None of these users recalled any

occurrences where UDT failed to log the conversation. When asked why they still checked the legacy

system a point that was brought forward by some was that if they saw the log in the legacy system it

would feel more real to them. The legacy system was the system that they had always used and that

they trusted to be infallible.

In all of these examples the users were aware that UDT could be used, but decided to switch back to

a legacy system. Both of these two users, but also others, showed behavior where they started out in

UDT but thought the answer to their question would not be displayed in it and directly switched to

the legacy system.

31 | P a g e

4.3.1 Interpretation

Both users that knew the majority of UDT’s features as well as the users that weren’t as familiar with

the system displayed workarounds. There did not seem to be a difference in users that saw

similarities or not and the formation of workarounds. These results seem to disprove proposition 3.

Proposition 3: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task

sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, users will

invent less workarounds since incumbent habits are triggered.

Even though similarities between both systems are prone to trigger habitual behavior, users still form

workarounds once they are faced with circumstances which they do not immediately recognize or

know how to respond to. Once this occurs users tend to invent personal workaround instead of

turning to the manual or asking an expert. A similar result was found by Yamauchi & Swanson (2010,

p. 196) who state that “instead of acquiring knowledge of how things are really done, reps developed

practices to work around what they did not know.” The expected relation between perceived

similarities and the invention of workarounds could not be found during this study. As a rival

proposition, one could argue that the invention of workarounds is part of human ingenuity and will

happen regardless.

32 | P a g e

5. Discussion and Conclusions The discussion and conclusions section of this paper will offer an explanation of findings in relation to

other studies and compare the results for similarities and/ or differences. Furthermore it will address

the answer to the research question, theoretical implications, managerial implications, limitations

and suggested future research.

5.1 Limitations and future research

The outcome of this study makes several contributions, both to research and to practice. As with any

scientific undertaking, this study is not bereft of limitations; these in turn make opportunities for

further research.

One of the main limitations of a case study approach, such as this one, is that the ideas that are

brought forward in this paper remain speculative. In this particular case the study was performed at

only one department within one organization, so the results might not be generalizable beyond the

means of this study. Furthermore the sample in this study was too small to perform quantitative

tests. I would recommend future research, testing the propositions with larger samples and within

different fields of industry. This study does provide an excellent starting point to further test the

mentioned propositions.

As already mentioned, the initial set up aimed at conducting this study at two departments. During

the project it became clear that the department that chose a revolutionary introduction approach

had to cope with some delays, which in the end forced me to exclude that department from this

study. As a result the findings of proposition 1 were based on the comments provided by users that

experienced evolutionary change, but preferred revolutionary change. Although this fact might not

be the perfect situation for comparing evolutionary versus revolutionary change, it did inspire me

when formulating the revised version of proposition 1. It would be a great opportunity for future

research to test this new view on the punctuated equilibrium model provided by the first proposition

in an environment where the same system is simultaneously introduced with an evolutionary and in

a revolutionary approach.

The same goes for proposition 3 where the assumed relation between perceived similarities and a

decline in the development of workarounds was not found. An alternative explanation could be that

human ingenuity is at the base of the formation of workarounds and will happen regardless.

5.2 Conclusion and Recommendations

This paper sheds light on the conundrum of how incumbent system habits formed within a legacy

system environment play a role in individual adaptation behavior when using new technological

applications. It shows that these incumbent habits not only influence the outcome of coping

strategies, it also describes how they influence familiarity pockets and thus adaptation. The strength

33 | P a g e

of habits that are formed within a legacy system are so strong that they can result in a complete or

partial exit when it comes to coping strategies, even if the user’s initial appraisal of the system is

positive. Yet by providing environmental triggers the incumbent habits can be triggered within the

new environment which in return not only broadens the initial familiarity pocket, it also leads to the

formulation a new strategy regarding habit development strategies.

The main similarities and differences of this study are described in the “interpretation” paragraphs

within the results chapter, but a short recap will be given. The occurrence of inertia as described by

Boudreau & Robey (2005) was also experienced in this case. Many of the users did not change their

ways unless necessary. This observation is in line with Aarts et al. (1997) and Ouellette & Wood

(1998) who state change of habits is more likely to occur when change occurs in a revolutionary

manner. Findings concerning the strength of habit in relation to their persistency when tried to

change are in line with the descriptions of Holland et al. (2006) and Polivy & Herman (2002). It does

differ from the general notions of Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005) CMUA model, but they do not

include habit or routines in their model. The ability of habits being triggered due to environmental

circumstances support the findings of Ouellette & Wood (1998). The findings concerning

workarounds and familiarity pockets support the findings of Yamauchi & Swanson (2010, p. 196) who

state that “instead of acquiring knowledge of how things are really done, reps developed practices to

work around what they did not know.”

When it comes to the academic implications of this paper, I recommend investigating the punctuated

equilibrium model from a different point of view, as described in the future research paragraph. It

will help the ongoing discussion between proponents of planned and incremental change with a

focus on the individual level instead of the organization.

Also I recommend expanding the coping literature by adding the strength of habits and routines as a

moderator in the eventual coping strategy. Initial appraisals, be it positive or negative, can be

influenced by the strength of a habit. This research shows that habits can make sure that reaching

personal efficiency as described in the Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005) CMUA model is a virtually

unreachable goal. But they can also be used to broaden the familiarity pocket if they are activated

through environmental triggers. These findings provide a new strategy regarding the development of

new system habits and can be considered as additional propositions to those of Polites & Karahanna

(2013).

I would recommend change agents to implement change starting with evolutionary change where

users are free to adapt to the situation. Once those users have adapted to the system, revolutionary

change can take place in order to force / persuade the remainder of the (soon to be) users. Once

again, the punctuated equilibrium model itself was not designed as a change strategy, yet the

propositions of this paper suggest that implementing change in the proposed sequence is beneficial

to user acceptance.

34 | P a g e

Lastly, I recommend system developers to design an interface, and use task sequences in a way that

perceived similarities between the old and new system are high. When users experience similarity

they are also prone to be triggered to perform incumbent habits within the new environment. In the

end one of the few things that truly matter for the success of an implementation, is the fact whether

users actually use the system as intended or not.

35 | P a g e

References

Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(1), 53-63.

Aarts, H., Paulussen, T., & Schaalma, H. (1997). Physical exercise habit: on the conceptualization and formation of habitual health behaviours. Health education research, 12(3), 363-374.

Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1355-1374.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1), 19-36.

Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. Mis Quarterly, 493-524.

Benamati, J., & Lederer, A. L. (2001). Rapid information technology change, coping mechanisms, and the emerging technologies group. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 183-202.

Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM?. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 211-218.

Bennett, K. (1994). Legacy systems: coping with stress. Software, IEEE,12(1), 19-23.

Boonstra, A., & Van Offenbeek, M. (2010). Towards consistent modes of e‐health implementation:

structurational analysis of a telecare programme's limited success. Information Systems

Journal, 20(6), 537-561.

Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency

perspective. Organization science, 16(1), 3-18.

Bradac, J. J. (2001). Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty

management, and other curious constructs. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 456-476.

Burnes, B. (2009). Management Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. Prentice

Hall-Financial Times.

36 | P a g e

Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual review of psychology, 61,

679-704.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling

approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an

electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research, 14(2), 189-217.

Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a

technological diffusion approach. Management science, 36(2), 123-139.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a

comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.

De Lucia, A., Fasolino, A. R., & Pompella, E. (2001). A decisional framework for legacy system

management. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

(ICSM'01), 642-651. IEEE Computer Society.

Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy

adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 33-54.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management

review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Models

in paleobiology. Freeman Cooper and Co, 82-115.

Fadel, K. J. (2012). User adaptation and infusion of information systems. Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 52(3), 1-10.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2),

219-245.

Goode, S. (2012). Engagement and Disengagement in Online Service Failure: Contrasting Problem

and Emotional Coping Effects. Journal of Internet Commerce, 11(3), 226-253.

Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2004). The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and

routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 281-307.

37 | P a g e

Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the working floor:

A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 42(6), 776-783.

Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-

adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. Mis

Quarterly, 29(3), 525-557.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1993). Organizing for Global Competition. Decision Sciences, 24(3), 547-

580.

Kim, S. S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of

four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management science, 51(5), 741-755.

Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2007). A triple take on information system implementation. Organization

Science, 18(1), 89-107.

Lassila, K. S., & Brancheau, J. C. (1999). Adoption and utilization of commercial software packages:

exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 63-90.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping and adaptation. New York: Springer.

Lehman, M. M. (1980). Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the

IEEE, 68(9), 1060-1076.

Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention:

the case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 705-737.

Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Intention does not always matter: the contingent role

of habit on IT usage behavior. ECIS 2001 Proceedings, 274-286.

Liu, L., Feng, Y., Hu, Q., & Huang, X. (2011). From transactional user to VIP: how organizational and

cognitive factors affect ERP assimilation at individual level. European Journal of Information

Systems, 20(2), 186-200.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of

adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.

38 | P a g e

Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: Understanding the

Role of Enterprise Resource. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 143-161.

Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological review,88(1), 1-15.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change

perspective. Information systems research, 7(1), 63-92.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying

Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 404-428.

Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Markus, M. L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of

intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use. Management Information

Systems Quarterly, 33(3), 433-444.

Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by

which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological bulletin, 124(1), 54-74.

Polites, G. L. (2009). The duality of habit in information technology acceptance. (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Georgia).

Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the Status Quo: The Inhibiting Effects of Incumbent

System Habit, Switching Costs, and Inertia on New System Acceptance. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 21-42.

Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2013). The embeddedness of information systems habits in

organizational and individual level routines: development and disruption. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 221-

246.

Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2002). If at first you don't succeed: False hopes of self-change. American

Psychologist, 57(9), 677-689.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American

psychologist, 41(7), 813-819.

Rugman, A., & Hodgetts, R. (2001). The end of global strategy. European Management Journal, 19(4),

333-343.

39 | P a g e

Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: a

review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological bulletin, 129(2),

216-269.

Sun, J. (2012). Why different people prefer different systems for different tasks: An activity

perspective on technology adoption in a dynamic user environment. Journal of the American Society

for Information Science and Technology,63(1), 48-63.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information

technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:

extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.

Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Habit, information acquisition, and the

process of making travel mode choices. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 539-560.

Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of

Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90-103.

Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational

change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832-848.

Webb, T. L., Sheeran, P., & Luszczynska, A. (2009). Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength

moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 48(3), 507-523.

Yamauchi, Y., & Swanson, E. B. (2010). Local assimilation of an enterprise system: Situated learning

by means of familiarity pockets. Information and Organization, 20(3), 187-206.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage Publications.

40 | P a g e

Appendixes

Appendix 1 – CMUA model

Model adapted from (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005)

41 | P a g e

Appendix 2- Interview protocol

Beste collega,

Zoals ik net mondelijk heb uitgelegd, verzoek ik je om mee te helpen aan een onderzoek in opdracht

de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en SNS Reaal. In het kader van dit onderzoek, ben ik voornamelijk

geïnteresseerd in hoe jij omgaat met de systemen die je tot je beschikking hebt, maar ook naar jouw

mening over deze systemen.

Het eerste gedeelte van de deelname bestaat er uit dat ik bij je kom zitten om te obsereven hoe jij

deze systemen gebruikt. Daarna zal ik je een paar vragen stellen over hoe jij het gebruik van de

systemen ervaart, maar ook waarom je zo over bepaalde zaken denkt.

Alles wat wij bespreken zal volledig anoniem zijn. Na het interview zal ik uitschrijven wat wij

besproken hebben en eerst door jou laten controleren op juistheid. Voor dit onderzoek worden

alleen anonieme quotes gebruikt, wat inhoudt dat de complete inhoud van het interview niet wordt

vrijgegeven.

42 | P a g e

Appendix 3 – Interview questions

Kun je beginnen met iets te vertellen over jezelf en je achtergrond?

Hoe vind je de functionaliteit van productbeeld?

Wat is je mening over productbeeld in het algemeen?

Waarom heb je deze mening?

Is deze mening in de loop van de tijd ook veranderd?

Waarom wel/niet?

Zag je de introductie van productbeeld als een mogelijkheid of als bedreiging vanje huidige

werkzaamheden?

Wie bepaalt of je productbeeld gebruikt?

Had je het idee zelf controle te kunnen uitoefenen over het gebruik van productbeeld?

Gebruik je contactbeeld?

Zo ja: Wat is de reden dat je productbeeld gebruikt?

Hoe lang gebruik je productbeeld al?

Zo nee: Wat is de reden dat je contactbeeld niet gebruikt?

Als je terugdenkt aan de eerste keren dat je PB gebruikte, wat was een van de eerste

functionaliteiten die je gebruikte?

Waarom deze functionaliteit?

Had je deze functionaliteit bij een vorig systeem ook?

Voel je je comfortabel in het gebruik van productbeeld? (waarom wel/niet)

Heb je training gekregen in het het gebruik van productbeeld?

(zo ja, denk je dat je zonder deze training productbeeld zou gebruiken?)

(zo nee, hoe heb je het gebruik van productbeeld geleerd?)

Hoe gebruik je productbeeld?

Zijn er functionaliteiten waarvan je weet dat ze er zijn, maar dat je die in een ander systeem

gebruikt?

Waarom wel/niet?

Denk je dat het gebruik van productbeeld mee werkt aan de effectiveit van je werk?

Waarom?

Vind je het gebruik van productbeeld makkelijk?

43 | P a g e

Wat vind je makkelijk / moeilijk?

Waarom?

Als je problemen ondervindt met het gebruik, hoe los je die dan op?

Wat doe je als dat niet werkt?

44 | P a g e

Appendix 4 – Background Participants

All participants work at the customer service desk of BRP. In total over 400 employees work at this

department. Some of the employees that are working at this department are 3rd generation bankers

with a family history that dates back to the early decenia of the 20th century, while other employees

are still students and only have a couple of weeks of experience. The participants of this study were

randomly asked to participate and form an average representation of the composition of the entire

work force at this departement. Stated below is a background of the individual participants. In order

to guaranty their anonimity all participants were given pseudonyms.

Albert

Male – Age: 33

Has been working at BRP for 5 years now and primarily answer telephone calls regarding debit, credit

and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages and damage insurrances. His main focus is

to fix the customers issues and try to cross sell additional products if it is beneficial for the customer.

His educational background is in the field of law, in which he holds a master title. He has a strong

internal drive to maintain the status quo (when it comes to using new systems), so he is not a big fan

of UDT and hardly uses it.

Alice

Female – Age: 49

Has been working at BRP for over 5 years now. She started at one of the local offices, but switched to

the customer service centre after a couple of months. Her tasks include answering telephone calls

regarding debit, credit and saving accounts, but also about mortgages, damage insurrances and life

insurrances. Alice is one of UDT’s super users and often approaches the project leaders with

suggestions to improve UDT. She has been in the banking industry for over 10 years now and has

previously worked for some of BRP’s competitors.

Christine

Female – Age: 55

Has been working at BRP since 1980 and switched to the customer service in 2009. She primarily

answers telephone calls regarding debit, credit and saving accounts as well as questions about

mortages, damage insurrances. Futhermore she helps new employees as a buddy or, once the new

colleagues have passed all tests, as a floor coach. Besides that she also monitors conversations of her

colleagues in order to guarantee their quality. When she is training new employees she is an avid

proponent of UDT and knows virutally all of it’s features, but if it comes to everyday usage, she tends

to fall back into her old routines and switch back to the old systems.

45 | P a g e

John

Male – Age: 41

Has been working at BRP since february 2009. He primarily answers telephone calls regarding debit,

credit and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages, damage insurrances. As an

additional skill, he also handles business contacts. In 2010 he was one of the employees the helped

to set up a case management team that would pick up cases that other collegues could not answer

with a first time fix. Before working at BRP, John was a professional chef in a well known restaurant

in Groningen. He does not use UDT often, but knows his way around the system if need be.

Marc

Male – Age: 33

Has been working at BRP since may 2009 and primarily answers telephone calls regarding debit,

credit and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages, damage insurrances. Furthermore is

a buddy who helps new employees during their training and he is a member of the usergroup UDT as

well as a member of the case management team.Marc holds a bachelor title in the field of business

economics. Eventhough he is a member of the user group and regularly participates in meetings to

improve UDT, his usage and indepth knowledge about UDT is not as high one would expect, but he

often recomments usage of UDT to his collegues.

Mike

Male – Age: 28

Has been working at BRP for 3.5 years now. He primarily answers telephone calls regarding debit,

credit and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages, damage insurrances and is a

member of the case management team. Mike holds a bachelor title in the field of business

economics. He usages UDT when he needs to, but prefers to use the old systemts especially when he

is performing work related to the case management team.

Pete

Male – Age: 24

Has been working at BRP since 2013 as a part time job. He primarily answers telephone calls

regarding debit, credit and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages and damage

insurrances. Besides his work at BRP, he is studying a double degree master program in the field of

political science. Eventhough he has been working atBRP rather shortl, he prefers the usage of the

old systems over UDT, because he has been trained to use those systems instead of UDT.

Susan

Female – Age: Undisclosed

Has been working at BRP for 5 years now. She primarily answers telephone calls regarding debit,

credit and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages, damage insurrances and is a

46 | P a g e

member of the case management team. She uses UDT mainly to gain a general overview, but is

slowly expanding her knowledge about UDt and is starting to use it on a more regular basis. Susan

holds two bachelors in the field of business economics.

Vivian

Female – Age: 37

Has been working at BRP since 2008. She primarily answers telephone calls regarding debit, credit

and saving accounts as well as questions about mortages, damage insurrances. She can be pretty

straight forwarded and since she sees more advantages to UDTthan disadvantages, she tries to use it

as often as possible. Vivian holds a intermediate vocational education degree in the field of

economics.

47 | P a g e

Appendix 5 - Coding Tree

Individual adaptive behavior

Habits and routines

o Automated behavior

Automated behavior UDT

Ease of use

Overview

Automated behavior old system

Ease of use

Overview

o Changing habits

Inertia

Evolutionary change

Similarities between systems

Revolutionary change

Similarities between systems

Coping

o Initial appraisal

Span of control

Approach

o Problem solving

o Seeking guidance

Avoidance

o Work-arounds

o Emotional discharge

o Exit

o Current appraisal

Familiarity pocket

o Known functionalities

Perceived ease of use

Perceived efficiency

o Similarities between systems