Abstract
Adapting to innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) has proven to be a challenge for many organizations. This longitudinal and in-depth case study, focusing on the adoption and technology continuation of Robotic Process Automation, encompasses 25 interviews and complementary data collected between 2021 and 2023 in a medium-sized public company. The study’s findings underscore that the adoption of technology and its acceptance would greatly benefit from an increased understanding of the diverse challenges that emerge during long-term technological integration, rather than merely relying on initial adoption decisions. Of particular significance is the evolving role and nature of resistance to change over time, as well as the hesitancy in making decisions – both of which have notable implications for the rate of automation adoption. To mitigate resistance toward disruptive innovations, proactive management should, during the early stages, elucidate the reasons for apprehension, communicate the advantages gained by employees, and invest in relatively straightforward implementations that build knowledge and engender trust within the organization. The advent of 4IR innovations necessitates prompt and adaptable resource planning. It is improbable that organizations will achieve success in their adoption journey if they solely rely on outsourced technical competence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Sarilo-Kankaanranta, H., Frank, L.: The slow adoption rate of software robotics in accounting and payroll services and the role of resistance to change in innovation-decision process. In: Cuel, R., Ponte, D., Virili, F. (eds.) ItAIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol. 57, pp. 201–216. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10902-7_14
Sarilo-Kankaanranta, H., Frank, L.: The continued innovation-decision process: a case study of continued adoption of robotic process automation. In: Themistocleous, M., Papadaki, M. (eds.) EMCIS 2021. LNBIP, vol. 437, pp. 737–755. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95947-0_52
Demirkan, S., Demirkan, I., McKee, A.: Blockchain technology in the future of business cyber security and accounting. J. Manag. Anal. 2020(7), 189–208 (2020)
Vărzaru, A.A.: Assessing artificial intelligence technology acceptance in managerial accounting. Electron. (Basel) 11(14), 2256 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11142256
Kaniadakis, A., Linturn, L.: Organizational adoption of robotic process automation: managing the performativity of hype. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manage. 10(4), 20–36 (2022). https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm100402
Wewerka, J., Reichert, M.: Robotic process automation - a systematic mapping study and classification framework. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 17(2) (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.1986862
Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)
Gartner Press release. Gartner Says Worldwide RPA Software Spending to Reach $2.9 Billion in 2022. STAMFORD, Conn. (2022)
Juell-Skielse, G., Güner, E.O., Han, S.: Adoption of robotic process automation in the public sector: a survey study in Sweden (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15086-9_22
Lindgren, I., Johansson, B., Söderström, F., Toll, D.: Why is it difficult to implement robotic process automation?: empirical cases from Swedish municipalities (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15086-9_23
Bakarich, K.M., O’Brien, P.E.: The robots are coming … but aren’t here yet: the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the public accounting profession. J. Emerg. Technol. Account. 18(1), 27–43 (2021). https://doi.org/10.2308/JETA-19-11-20-47
Pramod, D.: Robotic process automation for industry: adoption status, benefits, challenges and research agenda. Benchmarking: Int. J. 29(5), 1562–1586 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2021-0033
Cooper, L.A., Holderness, D.K., Sorensen, T.L., Wood, D.A.: Perceptions of robotic process automation in big 4 public accounting firms: do firm leaders and lower-level employees agree? J. Emerg. Technol. Account. 19(1), 33–51 (2022). https://doi.org/10.2308/JETA-2020-085
Syed, R., et al.: Robotic process automation: Contemporary themes and challenges. Comput. Ind. 115, 103162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103162
Harrast, S.A.: Robotic process automation in accounting systems. J. Corp. Account. Financ. 31(4), 209–213 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22457
Cooper, L.A., Holderness, D.K., Sorensen, T.L., Wood, D.A.: Robotic process automation in public accounting. Account. Horiz. 33(4), 15–35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52466
Kokina, J., Gilleran, R., Blanchette, S., Stoddard, D.: Accountant as digital innovator: roles and competencies in the age of automation. Account. Horiz. 35(1), 153–184 (2021). https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-19-145
Zhang, C., Issa, H., Rozario, A., Soegaard, J.S.: Robotic process automation (RPA) implementation case studies in accounting: a beginning to end perspective. Account. Horiz. 37(1), 193–217 (2023). https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-2021-084
Clark, T.D., Jr.: Corporate systems management: an overview and research perspective. Commun. ACM 35(2), 61–75 (1992)
Kim, Y.: Examining the impact of frontline service robots service competence on hotel frontline employees from a collaboration perspective. Sustain. (Basel Switz.) 15(9), 7563 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097563
Willcocks, L.P., Lacity, M., Craig, A.: The IT function and robotic process automation. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, U.K (2015). https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64519/1/OUWRPS_15_05_published.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2023
Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–339 (1989)
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Psychology Press, New York (2010)
Ajzen I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Gordon, B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)
Zander, A.: Resistance to change—its analysis and prevention. Adv. Manag. J. 1950(15), 9–11 (1950)
Shahbaz, M., Gao, C., Zhai, L., Shahzad, F., Hu, Y.: Investigating the adoption of big data analytics in healthcare: the moderating role of resistance to change. J. Big Data 6(1), 1–20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0170-y
Markus, M.L.: Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Commun. ACM 26(6), 430–444 (1983)
Shahbaz, M., Gao, C., Zhai, L., Shahzad, F., Arshad, M.R.: Moderating effects of gender and resistance to change on the adoption of big data analytics in healthcare. Complexity (New York N.Y.) 1–13 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2173765
Van Offenbeek, M., Boonstra, A., Seo, D.: Towards integrating acceptance and resistance research: evidence from a telecare case study. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(4), 434–454 (2013)
Joshi, K.: A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information technology implementation. MIS Q. 15(2), 229–240 (1991)
Lapointe, L., Rivard, S.: A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q. 29(3), 461–491 (2005)
Klaus, T., Blanton, J.E.: User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19(6), 625–636 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.39
Hwang, Y., Chung, J.-Y., Shin, D.-H., Lee, Y.: An empirical study on the integrative pre-implementation model of technology acceptance in a mandatory environment. Behav. Inf. Technol. 36(8), 861–874 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1306751
Kim, H.-W., Kankanhalli, A.: Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status quo bias perspective. MIS Q. 33(3), 567–582 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/20650309
Sıcakyüz, Ç., Yüregir, O.H.: Exploring resistance factors on the usage of hospital information systems from the perspective of the markus’s model and the technology acceptance model. J. Entrep. Manage. Innovat. 16(2), 93–131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.7341/20201624
Campbell, R.H., Grimshaw, M.: Enochs of the modern workplace: the behaviours by which end users intentionally resist information system implementations. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 17(1), 35–53 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-07-2014-0049
Moura, I.V., Brito de Almeida, L., Vieira da Silva, W., Pereira da Veiga, C., Costa, F.: Predictor factors of intention to use technological resources: a multigroup study about the approach of technology acceptance model. SAGE Open 10(4), 215824402096794 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020967942
Molloy, L., Ronnie, L.C.: Mindset shifts for the fourth industrial revolution: insights from the life insurance sector. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 19(3), e1–e13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v19i0.1543
Long, S., Spurlock, D.G.: Motivation and stakeholder acceptance in technology-driven change management: implications for the engineering manager. Eng. Manag. J. 20(2), 30–36 (2008)
Chung, H., Kim, K.: Service sector response to the fourth industrial revolution: strategies for dissemination and acceptance of new knowledge. Technol. Anal. Strategic Manage. 1–16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2110055
Finnish institute for health and welfare Homepage: Reform of healthcare, social welfare and rescue services. https://soteuudistus.fi/en/frontpage?p_p_id=fi_yja_language_version_tool_web_portlet_LanguageVersionToolMissingNotificationPortlet&_fi_yja_language_version_tool_web_portlet_LanguageVersionToolMissingNotificationPortlet_missingLanguageVersion=1. Accessed 29 July 2023
Gartner Homepage. https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2B6LCGBU&ct=220921&st=sb. Accessed 10 July 2023
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A DCP2 Interviews
Position/ Role | Employment | Participation in DCP 1 |
|---|---|---|
Director, IT services | >2 years | No |
Director, Financial management services | >2 years | No, replaced FM service manager |
Main user in Financial management systems | <2 years | No |
Main user in Financial management systems | >2 years, new position | No |
ICT-specialist, RPA | <2 years | No |
Director, HR- and payroll services | >2years | Yes |
Accountancy specialist | >2years | Yes |
Development manager | >2years, new position | No |
ICT Designer, in a role supporting the automation team | >2years | No |
Project manager | >2years | Yes |
Accountancy specialist | >2years | Yes |
IT Specialist in knowledge management solutions | >2years | Yes |
Specialist in Accounts payable and receivable | >2years | No |
Service manager | <2 years | No |
Appendix B Restraints, Challenges and Accelerators of Adoption: Summary of Harmonized Open Coding Within Key-Themes in DCP2
Theme (variable) | Restraints and challenges from open coding | Accelerators from open coding |
|---|---|---|
Competing technologies and compliance with EA | - Needs fulfilled by other technologies in the automation portfolio (Note. negative in RPA perspective, but positive in the perspective of comprehensive automation) or developments in the information system itself are preferred - Challenges with several customer IS for same processes - >1) need for multiple robots 2) compromises with different customer needs | Good level of integration supports automation positivity |
Resourcing model of development | Development with subcontractor: lower ROI, lack of customer knowledge, different financial objectives | Development with subcontractor: good project management, skilled experts |
Incompleteness of processes | Restraints: - Deficiencies in documentation or operative procedures - Implementation road map either missing or not communicated - Different cultures and processes between provinces | - Lot of work done on process documentation - Suggested improvements on operations model accepted by senior management and to be executed |
Interactions between IT and other teams | - Sharing the same level of understanding and lacking common language - Need for developing further co-operation between IT and other operative teams as well as between financial management teams and HR & payroll team | Having IT unit in the same organization |
Amount of knowledge and ideas | - Difficulty in prioritizing backlog - Difficulty in efficiency estimations | - Understanding of RPA’s capabilities and actions has increased - Goal set to expand RPA knowledge and skills in teams - Skills for specification have improved - Organization has skills to define robot specifications - Teams have identified needs for automation and they are collected to an automation backlog |
Resistance to change and trust (excl. list of individual RC and attitude experiences) | Causes RC and decreases trust: - Lack of control or visibility in RPA production - Distrust in tech. capabilities | Reduces RC and creates trust: - Getting used to technology - Positive attitude |
Negative RC factor (-) Compatibility issues | - Difficulties in implementing complex rule sets for a robot - Technical challenges - Low flexibility of implementations - Disappointment in tech. capabilities | None |
Negative RC factor (-) Fear | N/A | - Fear of losing job was gone (No impact any longer) |
Negative RC factor (-) Lag in processes | - Slow progress with implementations and low adoption rate - Slow incident and problem management - lack of agility | None |
Negative RC factor (-) Scarcity of professional resources and knowledge | - Not enough automation specialists in-house or outsourced - Personnel changes - Obstacles to recruitment - More urgent projects and excessive operative work - Extra work needed for implementation and maintenance - Misapprehension of objectives | None |
Positive RC factor (+) Indirect external obligations (Triggers) | None | Variable had positive effect at earlier stages of continued adoption. No effect later in DCP2 |
Positive RC factor (+) Relative advantage | Relative advantage perceived lower, when: - RPA is boring to work with - Change does not bring personal benefits - Technology is seen as unnecessary - Unwillingness to hand over tasks to a robot | Relative advantage perceived higher, when: - Motivational improvements and job satisfaction is gained - Robots reduce personal workload - A broader, positive effect of automation is observed |
Positive RC factor (+) Success stories (excl. list of individual successes) | None | - Reliability of implemented robots and integrations - Successful implementation projects (on time and goals met) - General attitude shifted to positive - Measured efficiency improvements - Observed quality improvements |
NEW Citizen development | Obstacles: - Lack of resources and skills | Possibilities: - Maintenance of robots and rule sets |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sarilo-Kankaanranta, H., Frank, L. (2024). Managing IS Adoption Challenges in Emerging Technologies: A Longitudinal Case Study of Financial Management Services Automation in a Medium-Sized Enterprise. In: Papadaki, M., Themistocleous, M., Al Marri, K., Al Zarouni, M. (eds) Information Systems. EMCIS 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 502. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56481-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56481-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56480-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56481-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)