SURFnet
Stimulating service adoption
2
PREFACE
This report is the result of my master thesis project carried out at SURFnet, in Utrecht. The theories applied and the insights revealed in this report may be of interest to anyone who is concerned with diffusion and/or assimilation of ICT services.
I would like to thank the following persons: Rob de Graaf, for your excellent advice and amount of time and energy you were willing to put into this project; Maurice van den Akker, for your pleasant cooperation and support; Walter van Dijk, for giving me the opportunity to do this project; Huib Stek, for your enthusiastic advice and explanation of the marketing theory.
Finally, my special thanks to my whole family for their interest and their relentless patience and botheration.
3
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
How to improve service adoption among customers is the main question of this research. SURFnet already conducted extensive research asking almost every institute by means of an online survey about their needs and satisfaction of SURFnet services. The survey registered an unsatisfying situation but gave little explanatory information.
Methodology applied
For this research a qualitative interpretive methodology is employed to capture rich data by means of nine depth interviews. The most outspoken institutions were invited for the in-depth interviews, which means: three institutes who use a lot of SURFnet services (group 1); three institutes who know a lot of SURFnet service but do not use them (group 2); three institutes who do not know any of the SURFnet services (group 3). Because of the outspoken position of the selected institutes regarding their decision to adoption SURFnet services or not, these institutions are expected to be able to give a good explanatory information. The in-depth interviews were structured according to an elaborate theoretical model of 67 factors found in the literature which influence the adoption decision. The nine in-depth interviews are recorded and played back afterwards for transcription. The relevant comments made during the interviews (i.e. those comments from the transcriptions that add something to the understanding why an institute does or does not use a service) are categorized and discussed. The discussion resulted in 18 problems regarding the adoption of SURFnet services.
Recommendations
The solutions developed to help stimulate adoption manifest itself at two different levels; the short-term instruments, which can be put into practice right away; the long-term instruments, which need management approval and time to be implemented and, to take effect. solutions developed are represented in the figure 1.
Short-term instruments
4
Figure 1.Value delivery process. Long-term instruments
To be able to solve the 11 remaining problems, take into account the differences found between of institutions, and enable SURFnet to cope with similar situations in the future, long-term instruments are developed. The differences found between groups of institutions comes down to (see figure 1, the two groups are blue shaded); the innovators being quite satisfied with the value offered by SURFnet, they are focused at the innovative aspects of the services and do not need a lot of support; The rest of the market are less innovative and therefore are less interested in the innovative aspect of the SURFnet services. If they consider using one of the SURFnet services this happens at a much later moment in time and in this process they depend more heavily on the support offered.
For the development of long-term instruments the value offered by SURFnet is put at the centre of attention. Choosing the value is about the implicit promise SURFnet makes to its customers to deliver a particular combination of values. Treacy & Wiersema (1995a) defined three possible value disciplines (operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product
Service adoption
Perceived value
Value: correct support Value: right innovations
Knowledge customer Knowledge customer Relationship with customer
Customer intimacy
Compensation Selected short-term instrument (already proposed actions)
2 Approach management at the institutions creating bearing surface by signing cooperation agreement. 3 Convince management and contact personnel using business case insights.
7 Offer specific consultancy on location to assist during the implementation. 8 Take care of the implementations and hand the service over to the institute.
13 Direct marketing, approach the correct stakeholders at the institutions with relevant information..
Rest of the market Innovators
Long-term instrument (characteristics customer intimacy)
7 Emphasis on the development of solutions that fit the customer demands and managing relations. 8 Focus on the specific customer situation and the possible role of the product in this situation. 9 Emphasis on the employees who knows the customers branch of industry best.
10 Employees are motivated by the improved performance of the customer. 11 Cooperation with partners to be able to provide total solutions.
5
6
ABSTRACT
How to improve service adoption among customers is the main question of this research. A qualitative interpretive methodology is employed to capture rich data by means of nine in-depth interviews which are guided by an elaborate theoretical framework. A total of 18 problems are identified showing two different groups of customers. Two different types of stimulating instruments are developed together solving all but two problems. Short-term instrument which can be implemented immediately but will only partially satisfy the customers. Long-term instruments which enable the organization to satisfy both groups of customers and to cope with similar situations in the future.
7
TABLE OF CONTENT
Management Summary 3 Abstract 6 1 Introduction 9 2 SURFnet introduction 11 3 Research Methodology 14 3.1 Creativity phase 14 3.2 Choice phase 17 3.3 Implementation phase 184 Adoption decision context 21
4.1 Definitional area 21
4.2 Definitional area refined 22
4.3 Answer sub-question 1 24
5 Factors influencing adoption decision 25
5.1 Processes influencing adoption decision 25
5.2 Discussion 26
5.3 Factors influencing adoption decision 27
5.3.1 Factors influencing diffusion 27
5.3.2 Factors influencing assimilation 28
5.3.3 Technology organization combination 29
5.4 Research model 30
5.5 Answer sub-question 2 31
6 Producing Understanding 33
6.1 Field research 33
6.2 Qualitative interpretive analysis 35
6.2.1 Comments categorized 36
6.2.2 Discussion 37
7 Service Adoption stimulation 47
7.1 Which actions could be successful 47
7.2 Complementary actions 50
7.2.1 Long-term instruments 51
7.2.2 Establishing a value discipline 53
8 7.2.4 Value proposition 60 7.2.5 Practical solutions 62 7.3 Remaining problems 63 7.4 Answer sub-question 4 64 8 Conclusions 65
8.1 What problems should SURFnet solve 65
8.2 How should SURFnet solve the problems 66
9 Recommendations 68
9.1 Short-term instruments 68
9.2 Long-term instruments 68
9.2.1 Customer intimacy 68
9.2.2 Segmentation 69
9.3 Impact and feasibility recommendations 70
10 Reflection 72
10.1 Conducted research 72
10.2 Viability 73
10.3 Generalizing research findings 73
References 75
9
1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of SURFnet is to facilitate affiliated research- and educational institutions, its customers, with ground-breaking ICT solutions. Specifically this means SURFnet develops and exploits the hybrid network SURFnet6 and provides additional security, authentication, and authorization services.
In 2006 an assessment among the affiliated institutions was carried out for the first time. Contact persons were asked by means of an online survey about their needs for and satisfaction with SURFnet services. A short summary of the results according to “Rapportage Online enquête Contactpersonen bij instellingen:”
The respondents believe it is an important task of SURFnet to provide good security, authentication, and authorization services. Institutions which use certain services are predominantly positive about these services. The Anti-spam service is the least utilized service, most institutions cope with this issue themselves. Only three of the four users are satisfied with this service. The reason for not using certain services is often because the respondent thinks they can do without it. Nevertheless, a lot of respondents also indicate, the need might arise in the near future or they are already looking into using it. Respondents who are not familiar with a particular service find it hard to determine whether or not they are interested because they have no idea what the service does.
The research results are thoroughly recorded, the exact percentages will not be discussed but are open to the public (www.surfnet.nl). SURFnet finds the adoption rates indicated in this survey very unsatisfying, the recent increase of affiliated institutions has not led to an equal increase of adopted services. Besides the low adoption rate, SURFnet also has to handle a more critical customer. Rexwinkel & Van Dijk (2007), mention two reasons for this development; 1) SURFnet’s commercial competitors have reduced their backlog financially as well as technologically, which draws the attention of the affiliated institutions; 2) the institutions rely more and more on their network to conduct their day to day business. As a result there is greater emphasis on the services made available on this network. The main research question which therefore has to be answered is:
10
11
2 SURFNET INTRODUCTION
The mission of SURFnet is to develop and operate the hybrid network SURFnet6 and to facilitate educational and research activities with innovative security, authentication, and authorization services. SURFnet is a non-commercial service provider and therefore can be ranked to the so called quaternary sector. SURFnet’s task for SURFnet is to deliver services on a level which is not available in the market. Also, the relationship of SURFnet with its affiliated institutions is a different one in comparison to any other given service provider; the institutions actually own SURFnet’s parent company, SURFfoundation. Because of the mission of SURFnet, only a selected group of institutions is allowed to become affiliated with SURFnet. All of the more than 180 institutes belong to one of the following groups:
Universities;
Higher Professional Education (HBO);
Academic hospitals and large regional hospitals with also a educational function; Scientific/public libraries;
Research institutes;
Intermediate vocational education (MBO);
Businesses involved in development and testing activities of GigaPort;
Other institutions which are subsidized by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science.
The services offered are made available to employees as well as the students of the above institutions. In total, SURFnet estimates it has approximately 750.000 users. In order to improve communication between SURFnet and its affiliated institutions, SURFnet has one or more contact person(s) in every institution. There are three kinds of contact persons, the smaller institutions combine all three functions and assign them to one person. The three functions are:
12
Institute coordinator (IC): the internal focal point for all technical communication between SURFnet and the institute aimed at managing the local SURFnet connection the best way possible.
Site Security Contact (SSC): the internal focal point for all communication concerning security issues between the institute and SURFnet.
The relationship of SURFnet with its affiliated institutions is clearly a quite different one compared to a producer of tangible products with its customers. SURFnet has a continuous relationship with its affiliated institutions, both know each other, and the institutions even participate in the development of SURFnet services. The institutions also have to pay for the complete provisioning of services regardless of the number of services they use. The nine security, authentication, and authorization services provided by SURFnet are:
1. Awareness Campaign: this service is about increasing awareness of the end-users on the subject of computer security.
2. SURFnet-CERT: investigates and coordinates all cases of security incidents that SURFnet customers seem to produce or fall victim to. Furthermore SURFnet-CERT advises connected institutions on security matters. This is done both in individual cases when calamities occur and structurally by disseminating knowledge on security vulnerabilities in all sorts of software.
3. Anti-spam: the mail filter enables the institution to check and filter their e-mail messages for viruses and spam.
4. SURFnet PACT: offers institutions an environment in which measures are taken to
provide security officers with a secure way of communicating with each other.
5. AIRT: this incident registration application is a tool supporting the incident response
13
6. IDS: the Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is intended to provide the institutions that are connected to SURFnet with insight into the types of malicious traffic that manifests themselves on the local network.
7. Eduroam: this service provides users with safe and simple access to their own institution’s network as well as to the networks of other institutions that are connected to SURFnet.
8. Server Certificates: enables secure communication over a publicly accessible networks such as the Internet.
9. SURFnet Federation: provides researchers, students, and teaching staff access to information and services from several providers. SURFnet facilitates the authentication between the applicant and the content provider.
14
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The goal of this research is to investigate the disappointing adoption rate of the SURFnet services. In what way this problem situation will be investigated is the subject of this chapter. Gummesson (2003) constructed a research edifice in which all research starts in the basement with the researcher’s paradigm and a pre-understanding. In the situation of SURFnet, the already conducted research can be seen as an important part of the pre-understanding and the knowledge of the author about systems approaches as the core of its paradigm.
To determine which methodology is best applicable to research the problem situation presented a meta-methodology called Total systems intervention (TSI) will be used. TSI is a meta-methodology based on the key ideas of critical systems thinking. Critical systems thinking grew out of the criticisms launched at proponents of particular systems approaches by advocates of other approaches (Jackson, 2000). The result of this discussion was a general understanding, all system methodologies had their strengths and weaknesses. Once this became clear, it also became apparent that the different system methodologies were more or less appropriate to different problem situations (Jackson, 2000). Flood and Jackson (1991) developed this idea into a meta-methodology calling it TSI. Another meta-methodology also based on the idea of critical system thinking is System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM). The disadvantage of SOSM is, however, that in spite of the fact that this methodology also advocates a variety of different approaches it eventually aims at using only a single one. TSI avoids this problem by a process of three phases: creativity, choice, and implementation. The three phases support each other in a continuous process with a never ending cycle which makes it possible to change the methodology every cycle. This research can be seen as the second cycle, the first cycle is the already conducted survey. The attention for the previous cycle, the current context and because TSI does not leave any methodological approach out of consideration makes TSI an excellent methodology well suited for the problem situation under investigation. These three phases are discussed in the next sections.
3.1 Creativity phase
15
be looked at from different angles, the techniques which could be used include all approaches that broadly fall under the heading “brainstorming” (Flood, 1995). Brainstorming in the sense of a creative group activity is not used for this research. Instead a closer look at the IT/IS service adoption process and an analysis of the survey is made and discussed. These two issues are regarded to be very interesting angels to surface important issues to be managed and are presented in the next two sections.
IT/IS service adoption process
The IT/IS service adoption process of a buyer in general is a complex process. A central complicating factor is the fact that professional services cannot be evaluated prior to purchase and only some can be evaluated during and after service delivery (Day & Barsdale, 2003). Boonstra (2003) discovered there is no universally applicable decision-making process. They can vary from quickly identifying the problem, screening options and choosing a solution, to very extensive and repeated search, screen, design and negotiation activities. Important factors influencing the path found by Boonstra, are:
choice between ready-made, modified or customized services;
the search that must be made, are there one, few or many alternatives; urgency and necessity;
question whether the IS decision can be subdivided; number and influence of the stakeholders involved.
The IT/IS service adoption process of the institutions, is considered to be of importance in regard to their decision to adopt or reject a SURFnet service. The complexity and the large number of possible decision-making processes makes it hard to research the adoption decision of a particular institute without looking to their unique decision context. To be able to research the adoption decision of a particular instate the methodology employed should take into consideration their unique situation.
Survey analysis
if they measure The sur service. to adop A R K used it. Th es is given. Adoption r does not us Refuse rate 11% of the to adopt fou Knowledge institutions rvey does n . Is there a l pt because o 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Adoption rate Refuse rate Knowledge lev he results a Figu
ate: the num se any of the e: the numb institutes d ur or more s e level: the knows all t not give any
lack of know of certain c 0 1 2 0 e 18% 11% vel 5% are shown i ure 2. Securi mber of serv e services, o ber of servi does not ref
services. number of the services y indicative wledge abo characteristi 3 4 1 2 33% 26% 14% 16% 7% 5%
Su
16 in the figur ty, authoriza vices adopt only 3% ado ices known fuse any knof services kn s, 40% of th e motive wh ut the SUR ics of the s 5 6 3 4 11% 5% 18% 15% 10% 13%
urvey da
re below anation, and aut
17
will probably stimulate adoption but which stakeholders should be targeted or what sort of information should be presented? The methodology employed should look for problems beneath the surface.
3.2 Choice phase
The aim of the choice phase is to choose a method that will best manage the interacting issues surfaced by the creativity phase (Flood, 1995). The choice is made out of a complementarist framework (see table 1) which is based on a distinction between the main purposes of problem solving methods (Flood, 1995). Flood poses three questions, the one that is most pertinent to the issues under consideration determines the purpose of the method that should be used. The questions are:
How should we do it (a question of design)? Å hard system approaches. What should we do (a question for debate)? Å interpretive system approaches. Who will benefit if this is done, or, why should it be done (a question of
disemprisoning)? Å emancipatory system approaches.
The question “what should we do?” is considered to be the most applicable to answer the main research question. It recognizes there is not a common or agreed understanding of what the problem is and what the agreed goals and objectives should be. Debating is aimed at establishing this agreed understanding by recognizing the differences between the institutions their unique, IT/IS service adoption processes and adoption decision. The focus is on discovering the range of factors, which are used by the institutions to form their attitude. Debating digs deeper than the survey, the institutions will for instance not be asked, if they refuse one or more of the SURFnet services, but why they refuse these services.
18
Main purpose
Designing Debating Disemprisoning
Method Traditional operational research System dynamics Viable system diagnosis Strategic assumption surfacing and testing Interactive planning Soft systems methodology Critical systems heuristics Common Principles
Communication, Control, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Emphasis on location and elimination of cause of error
Participation, Learning, Understanding Identifying whose interests are served, Linking organizational power structures to biases in society. Etc. Distinguishing principles Process design Optimization Design control Structure prime Process control Environmental analysis Organization prime Attenuating adversarial debate Diversifying Consensual debate Diversifying Consensual debate Identifying source of: - motivation - Control - Expertise - legitimating Unique principles Recursion variety
Table 1. Principles of six problem solving methods (Flood, 1995).
Debating offers three possible interpretive methodologies, however both Interactive planning and Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing, cannot be used for this research. Interactive planning is suitable because this methodology is more concerned with the planning process within organizations. Strategic assumption surfacing and testing is a methodology aimed at discussing seemingly opposing alternatives with the intent to bring together the opposing elements into an agreed whole. Soft System Methodologies is the most appropriate methodology but when looking at available literature on interpretive research in IT/IS, this work offers far more support to conduct research. The principles of interpretive research will be employed and further explained in the next section, implementation phase.
3.3 Implementation phase
19
consume another human being. This changes when the context in which this event took place was after a plane crash and when one has been days without eating anything. Qualitative research can be qualified interpretive if it assumed that our knowledge of reality is gained only through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared meanings, documents, tools, and other artefacts (Klein & Meyers, 1999).
To be exact, a qualitative interpretive approach is used to intervene in the problem situation under consideration. Walsham (1995), quotes his own definition of interpretive research Walsham (1993): Interpretive methods of research are aimed at producing an understanding
of the context of the information system, and the process whereby the information system influences and is influenced by its context. When this definition is analyzed in the light of the
main question under consideration in this research “What can SURFnet do to stimulate the adoption of its services?” the subsequent sub-questions should be answered:
The first two sub-questions are concerned with building a theoretical model which will be used to answer the third sub-question.
1. What is the adoption context in which the decision is taken whether or not to adopt a SURFnet service?: to understand why the institutions adopt or reject a SURFnet service an understanding of the setting in which the decision is taken is needed.
2. What influences the adoption decision context according to the literature? What factors could possibly be of importance in relation to the context.
3. Considering the context of the institutions what factors are of importance with regard to the adoption decision of SURFnet services? By means of a field research an understanding of the process that leads to adoption or rejection of the SURFnet services is produced.
An elaborate literature review is used to draw in the required knowledge to answer the first two sub-questions. The literature review ensures the problem situation is addressed using recent insights, building on the experience and knowledge of other scholars.
20
speak for themselves sharing their perspective of the problem situation. The interviewees are all carefully selected on the basis of his/her knowledge of the IT/IS service adoption process. All the interviews are recorded and played back afterwards for transcription. The transcriptions are used for the qualitative analysis deriving all relevant factors influencing the adoption decision.
By answering the first three sub-questions a deeper insight is gained into the behaviour of the institutes after which actions have to be developed which will influence this behaviour in order to stimulate the adoption of the SURFnet services.
4. Which actions that could be taken are most successful in solving the encountered problems? SURFnet already proposed 14 actions to stimulate adoption. These actions are developed on the basis of the already conducted survey and will be verified on the basis of the new research findings.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) will be used to assess the 14 actions. QFD is a method able to translate customer needs and wants into technical design requirements in order to increase customer satisfaction (Park & Kim, 1998). The ability of QFD to: calculate the advantages of simultaneously applied activities, assign importance ratings to certain problems, and to clearly show the assessment made, makes QFD an excellent method to assess the 14 actions transparently.
21
4 ADOPTION DECISION CONTEXT
In this chapter the results of the literature review on the adoption decision context is described.
4.1 Definitional area
The decision within an organization to adopt a new IT/IS is not made by a single manager simple asking himself the question whether or not he should buy something new. The adoption process of new IT/IS nowadays takes on a more organized and formalized character. Instead of looking at it from a technological perspective, considering technology as an external force (Orlikowski, 1992), new IT/IS systems are used to fundamentally change how business is conducted. According to Boonstra (2002) IT/IS adoption starts with an IT/IS related problem and ends with the final IT/IS investment decision. The IT/IS related problem is described as the gap between the existing IT/IS facilities and the perceived optimum. Although this definition covers a wide range of different IT/IS adoption processes, a more comprehensive definitional area is needed. This definitional area should enable respondents to freely express their perceptions, it should be able to accommodate a wide variety of IT/IS adoption processes. Beaumaster (2002) developed such a framework in which the IT/IS adoption process is an integrated part of organizational operations and planning, calling it the IT/IS development and deployment process (see figure 3).
Figure 3. IT/IS development and deployment process (Beaumaster, 2002).
IT development and deployment process IT
Procurement IT
Planning ImplementationIT Organisation
environment Management process
Technical systems Personnel
22
Beaumaster (2002), used the framework to categorize problematic issues surrounding IT/IS implementation in public administration offices. Beaumaster, questioned 78 federal, state and local executives, asking which issues impacted the three IT/IS development and deployment stages most and were the most problematic. The executives came up with five issue categories, presented in the ovals of figure 3.
The value of figure 3, lies in the fact that it shows the process in which implicitly or explicitly the decision is made whether or not to adopt an IT/IS. The definitional area is universally applicable, it covers the most extensive and small-scaled ad hoc projects possible. Organizations with extensive formalized IT/IS policies might use all three parts of the IT /IS development and deployment process. An organization with less developed organizational IT/IS planning might start with recognizing a problem and start from there directly with the IT/IS procurement. The IT/IS development and deployment process can be regarded as the structure of how an organization organized the way in which it decides to expand on existing or new IT/IS. The activities that take place within this architecture can be numerous and will probably be different in every organization.
4.2 Definitional area refined
Rogers (2003) has tried to capture what happens in the IT/IS development and deployment process at a higher aggregation level and thereby captured the goals behind the activities. He recognized a series of choices and actions that passes from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea and to confirmation of this decision. Rogers, identified five sequential stages and gives the following definitions:
1. Knowledge occurs when an individual (or other decision making unit) is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions.
2. Persuasion occurs when an individual (or other decision making unit) forms a
favourable or an unfavourable attitude towards the innovation.
3. Decision takes place when an individual (or other decision making unit) engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation.
23
5. Confirmation takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation decision already, but he or she may reverse this previous decision if exposed to conflicting messages about innovation.
The five stages give a good inside look into the IT/IS development and deployment process and are used to refine the model of Beaumaster (2002). The refinement of the model gives a better image of the decision context which leads to adoption or not (see figure below).
Figure 4. Refined IT/IS development and deployment process.
The development process starts with IT/IS planning which is about management creating a vision regarding how IT/IS can support their business processes (knowledge). Important goals are improving the integration between different systems, establishing priorities for expenditure of scarce resources and a clear understanding of possible consequences, and improved management of change (persuasion) (Beaumaster, 2002). IT/IS planning is a nonstop process which is continually evolving; it starts with a visioning process and finishes by means of an elaborate system development plan.
The system development plan is when one conducts IT/IS planning, the input for the IT/IS procurement process of which the end result is an IT/IS decision (decision). When an organization has not facilitated IT/IS planning and no similar kind of practice is carried out by higher management, the IT/IS development and deployment process starts with IT/IS procurement (knowledge). The decision to develop and deploy new IT/IS technologies is a
IT development and deployment process
IT/IS Implementation
Organisation
environment Management process
24
more ad hoc decision (persuasion). The decision is not necessarily initiated by management and might not be part of a bigger cyclical process which continually scans the information organization. The procurement process can take on different forms, this is well illustrated by Boonstra (2003) who uses Mintzberg’s general model of a decision-making processes in which different decision making patterns are distinguished (decision). There is for example a specific configuration which is aimed at choosing the best ready made IT/IS solution but it also accommodates intensive design activities that lead to complex and innovative customized solutions.
The IT implementation phase starts when the system or a part of the system is passed on from the development environment to the operational environment. It not only handles the transfer process but also deals with user guidance and feedback (implementation). The implementation phase is especially dependent on its forerunner stages and therefore the most difficult and often the most fraught with problems (Beaumaster, 2002).
4.3 Answer sub-question 1
25
5 FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION DECISION
What factors can possible be of importance in relation to the definitional area developed in the previous chapter? First, the various processes which influence the definitional area are explained after which the separate factors are revealed. At the end of this chapter the final theoretical framework is put together.
5.1 Processes influencing adoption decision
The IT development and deployment process described in the previous chapter can be referred to as the assimilation process of innovations (see figure 5, 2. Assimilation factors). According to Fichman (2000), the term assimilation refers according to the process within organizations, stretching from initial awareness of the innovation, to potentially, formal adoption and full-scale deployment. Research concerned with studying the assimilation process is called; adopter studies. According to Fichman adopter studies are primarily interested in understanding differences in adopter “innovativeness.” The main research question is; what determines organizational innovativeness both in general and with respect to particular technologies? Adopter research covers only one end of the spectrum of research on innovation. The other end of the spectrum is more concerned with the technology itself instead of the organization and is called diffusion (see figure 5, 1. Diffusion factors).
Figure 5. Processes influencing adoption decision (source; Fichman, 2000).
Innovation adoptability
Organizational innovativeness
2. Assimilation factors
Firm and IS unit characteristics
Sectoral / environment Innovative perceptions and
social influence Organization innovation fit
Innovation delivery systems
26
Fichman defines diffusion as the process by which a technology spreads across a population of organizations. Diffusion research is concerned with the question; what determines the rate, pattern and extent of technology diffusion (Fichman, 2000). When assimilation of a certain technology and the diffusion of this technology among intended organizations come together in one research like the one that is subject of this paper, their interconnectedness should also be studied (see figure 5, 3. technology organization combination,). The combination of the three categories influencing diffusion and assimilation is illustrated in figure 5. Before presenting the factors influencing diffusion and assimilation of Fichman (2000) first two important issues in the literature are brought up for discussion.
5.2 Discussion
A central notion in the study of innovation diffusion and assimilation, is that technologies posses attributes or characteristics, and that these characteristics have systematic effects on diffusion and assimilation (Fichman, 2000). Though this is the essence of the theory on innovation, there are some important complications to this rather simplistic representation. In the diffusion and assimilation literature there is a discussion going on, regarding two important issues:
1. How will you know whether or not you’ve identified all the relevant factors influencing adoption perceived by the institutions? The so called classical diffusion theory developed by Rogers (2002) (see §5.3.1, factors 1AI “Classical innovation characteristics”) is widely acknowledged and was closest to become the single standard theory on innovation diffusion (Fichman, 2000). The model was developed mainly by looking at the adoption of innovations by individuals making autonomous choices about whether to adopt personal use innovations (Fichman, 1992). For example, the pressure which management puts on the decision makers, is not recognized in the model and thus considered not to be of any influence.
27
using a quantitative research methodology which uses the framework as a fixed set of factors which determines all that can be measured. The completeness of the framework is an important issue but the methodology employed for this research demands and enables a critical view on completeness of the framework.
2. How to deal with factors being perceived differently by different institutions? For example, the characteristic “compatibility” is defined by Roger (2002) as; the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. When different organizations are asked about how they judge their organizations’ compatibility with a particular IT/IS, probably none of them have the same values or the same past experiences to fall back on. The result would most likely be that they perceive their compatibility different. Generalisations about how technology is perceived based on these factors is difficult to establish.
The goal of the qualitative interpretive methodology employed is aimed at gaining an in-depth understanding of the adoption decision by building up rich detailed pictures of the IT/IS development and deployment process of the institutions. This research looks beyond a judgement of the compatibility of the SURFnet services and tries to understand compatibility (the factors) within the specific cultural and contextual setting of the institutions.
5.3 Factors influencing adoption decision
In the next three sections the factors influencing the adoption decision found by Fichman (2000) are presented. The three sections correspond to the processes of figure 5. All the factors are numbered, Fichman identified a total 62 factors. Also indicated are the authors who used the factors. There is not a clear one on one relation between the factors and the authors.
5.3.1 Factors influencing diffusion
The factors listed in this section are concerned with the IT/IS product offerings. Not only are the factors concerned with the product itself, there are also factors concerning the organizations offering the product.
28
Category 1A: Innovation characteristics
Classic innovation characteristics: relative advantage (1), compatibility (2), complexity (3), trailability (4), observability (5). References: Cooper and Zmud, (1990); Downs and Mohr (1976); Meyer and Goes (1988); Moore and Benbasat (1991); Ramiller (1994); Rogers (1995); Tornatzky and Klein (1982).
Other characteristics: Cost (6) Communicability (7), Divisibility (8), profitability (9), social approval (10), voluntariness (11), image (12), usefulness (13), ease of use (14), result demonstrability (15), visibility (16). References: Downs and Mohr (1976); Leonard-Barton (1988); Moore and Benbasat (1991); Tornatzky and Klein (1982).
Category 1B. Propagating institutions
Promotion (17), advertising (18), pricing (19), technology standardization (20), technology simplification (21), technology sponsorship (22), subsidies (23), reputation (24), industry competitiveness (25). References: Attewell (1992); Eveland and Tornatzky (1990); Gatignon and Robertson (1989); Katz and Shapiro (1986); King, et al. (1994); Mahajan, et al. (1990); Mahajan and Peterson (1985); Reddy, et al. (1991); Robertson and Gatignon (1986); Swanson and Ramiller (1997).
5.3.2 Factors influencing assimilation
Generally, a company’s adoption decision will be made on the basis of comparing the expected situation after adoption to the current situation or available alternatives (Waarts, Everdingen & Hillegersberg, 2002). But what influences an organization’s innovativeness before, during and even after comparing the current situation with the future situation?
Category 2A: Firm and IT/ IS unit characteristics
Size and related variables: host organization size (26), IS unit size (27), scale (28), slack resources (29). References: Bretschneider and Wittmer (1993); Damanpour (1991); Fichman and Kemerer (1997a); Grover, et al. (1997); Kimberley and Evanisko (1981); Lind, et al. (1989); Meyer and Goes (1988); Swanson (1994).
29
Characteristics of leaders and the workforce: professionalism (34), education (35), technical expertise (36), technical specialists (37), managerial tenure (38), receptivity towards change (39). References: Ball, et al. (1987); Damanpour (1991); Fichman and Kemerer (1997a); Grover, et al. (1997); Kimberley and Evanisko (1981); Swanson (1994).
Communication environment: information sources and communication channels (40). References: Ball, et al. (1987); Nilakanta and Scamell (1990); Rai (1995); Zmud (1983); Zmud, et al. (1990).
Category 2B: Sectoral/environmental
Adoption environment: concentration/competitiveness (41), competitive pressure (42), profitability/wealth (43), R&D intensity (44), IT intensity (45), rate of technical change (46). (References: Eveland and Tornatzky (1990); Gatignon and Robertson (1989); Iacovou, et al. (1995); Loh and Venkatraman (1992); Meyer and Goes (1988); Premkumar, et al. (1994); Robertson and Gatignon (1986).
5.3.3 Technology organization combination
The fit between an organization and a particular innovation adds the final dimension to the framework of Fichman (2000). An organization with the propensity to innovate might not always adopt a technology faster compared to a colleague organization. For instance there could be a variation in compatibility between two organizations or they could differ in their relationship with the propagating organization.
Category 3A: Organization-Innovation fit
Absorptive capacity (47), related knowledge (48), diversity of knowledge (49), task-technology compatibility (50), wealth (51). References: Boynton, et al. (1994); Cohen and Levinthal (1990); Cooper and Zmud (1990); Downs and Mohr (1976); Fichman and Kemerer (1997a); Swanson (1994).
Category 3B: Innovation perceptions
30
Wetherbe (1990); Hoffer and Alexander (1992); Lai (1997); Moore and Benbasat (1991); Premkumar, et al. (1994); Ramiller (1994); Rogers (1995).
Technology Acceptance Model: usefulness (57), ease of use (58). References: (1989); Davis, et al. (1989); Gefen and Straub (1997); Karahanna and Straub (1999); Szajna (1996).
Category 3C: Social influence
Group norms (59), co-worker attitudes and behaviors (60), opinion Leaders (61), change agents (62). References: Chin, et al. (1997); DeSanctis and Poole (1994); Fulk (1993); Karahanna and Straub (1999); Kraut, et al. (1998); Leonard-Barton (1985); Sambamurthy and Chin (1994); Webster and Trevino (1995); Wheeler and Valacich (1996).
Category 3D: Innovation delivery system
Delivery system factors: top management support (63), technology champion (64), training (65), links to propagating organizations (66). References: Howell and Higgens (1990); Lai (1997); Leonard-Barton (1988); Premkumar, et al. (1994); Raho, et al. (1987); Rai and Bajwa (1997); Robertson and Gatignon (1986).
Delivery system process models: fit of process model with technology and organization (67). References: Brynjolfsson, et al. (1997); Chew, et al. (1991); Fichman and Moses (1999); Gallivan, et al. (1994); Markus and Keil (1994); Orlikowski (1993); Orlikowski and Hofman (1997).
5.4 Research model
31
The combination of the IT development and deployment model of Beaumaster (2002) and the factors affecting IT innovation diffusion and assimilation identified by Fichman (2000) result in an elaborate research model. The model represents an extensive number of possible factors which might affect the three stages of the IT development and deployment process of the institutions. The issues identified by Beaumaster (2002) concentrate merely on the internal organization (see figure 3) and thereby do not correspond to the diffusion elements which focus on how technology spreads across a population of organizations. The issues do show a great resemblance to the factors influencing assimilation and therefore are placed in the same category (see figure 5, blue shade ovals).
Figure 6.Theoretical framework.
The number of categories affecting the IT development and deployment process is extended from five up to eight. The result is an IT development and deployment process, which represents the adoption decision context of the institutions (sub-question 1) and the factors identified by Fichman (2000) influence this process (sub-question 2).
5.5 Answer sub-question 2
The second sub-question; what influences the adoption decision context according to the literature? is answered in this chapter. Three different processes are found to influence adoption: 1) the process within organizations, stretching from initial awareness of the innovation, to potentially, formal adoption and full-scale deployment; 2) the process by
IT development and deployment process
IT Implementation
Firm and IS unit characteristics Sectoral/ environmental Social influence Innovation perceptions Propagating institutions IT Planning 1 Knowledge 2 Persuasion 5 Confirmation 4 Implementation
Organization-innovation fit delivery system Innovation
32
33
6 PRODUCING UNDERSTANDING
The model developed in chapter 5 delivers a clear construct for the qualitative interpretive field research. It shows the interviewee the objective of the research and helps to structure his/her thoughts and interpretation of the situation within its organization. The factors influencing the IT/IS development and deployment process makes available an enormous resource of relevant theory. This chapters employs the theoretical basis produced. First, the field research conducted is described, after which the data will be interpreted.
6.1 Field research
The interpretive perspective requires different users to express their view on the problem situation. The interviewees are selected from the data collected by the online survey conducted in the summer of 2006. The data in figure 2, shows there are three possible employment options:
1. the institute uses the specific SURFnet service;
2. the institute knows the specific SURFnet service but does not use it; 3. the institute does not know the specific SURFnet service.
The most outspoken institutions, (i.e. the highest scoring institutions on one of the options) are invited to participate in the research. These institutions are expected to be able to give a good insight into their decision whether to adopt or not. A short introduction of the selected institutions with information from the survey is given in the next section. Two institutes do not belong to the highest scoring institutions, why they are selected will also be explained.
Group 1 High adoption rate
34
TU Delft belonging to the top 3% of institutions using the most services; UTwente belonging to the top 3% of institutions using the most services;
Universiteit Utrecht belonging to the top 3% of institutions using the most services.
Group 2 High refuse rate
The three selected institutions are even better informed in comparison to group 1 on the subject of what the services of SURFnet are about. Though they are well informed they refuse to use most services. What makes this group interesting is the fact that they do know the services, they know what they are about but they deliberately choose not to use them. Somewhere in their persuasion and decision stage they decided not to use the SURFnet service. 35% has already procured substitute products. Why? Are these better or did they find out too late that SURFnet offered similar services for free. The selected institutions for in this group are:
UMCG belonging to the top 13% of institutions refusing the most services; CITO belonging to the top 1% of institutions refusing the most service;
Hogeschool Leiden belonging to the top 2% of institutions refusing the most service. The UMCG is not one of the highest scoring institutions. At the request of SURFnet the UMCG is selected to represent the hospitals.
Group 3 Low knowledge level
This group hasn’t heard of a particular number of services. When asked about whether or not they would be interested, in 72% of the cases they again answered “I don’t know what the service is about.” Only 10% answered they would be interested, leaving 18% which responded they were still not interested. What makes this group interesting is the insight they can provide about their knowledge stage. Why do they not know the service, are they just not interested, or is SURFnet not well known? The selected institutions for in this group are:
Hogeschool Kempel: belonging to the top 18% of institutions being familiar with the smallest amount of services;
35
ROC Midden Nederland: belonging to the top 5% of institutions being familiar with the smallest amount of services.
The institutions in this group were not as reluctant to participate in this research compared to the other two groups. Hogeschool de Kempel is not one of the highest scoring institutions in this group but the first in line willing to participate.
On the basis of the theoretical model (see figure 6) nine in-depth interviews were held at each institution. Each respondent has been carefully selected on the basis of his/her knowledge of the IT development and deployment process and their involvement in the service adoption decision. The interviews lasted between one and one and a half hours. All the interviews are recorded and played back afterwards for transcription (see appendix). Important subjects which came up at one institute were also discussed at the next institute. This approach results in a constant refinement and verification of the data collected during the interviews. Each transcription has been sent back to enable the respondents to authorize the research findings. Only the UMCG made use of this possibility, also providing some additional information with no effect on the conclusions.
6.2 Qualitative interpretive analysis
To be able to analyze the vast amount of transcriptions (see appendix), first all the relevant comments (i.e. those comments from the transcriptions that add something to the understanding why an institute does or does not use the service) are identified. All comments are coded so they can be traced back to the transcription. Next, all the relevant comments, positive or negative, are assigned to one of the categories of Fichman (2000). The short list of categorized relevant comments makes it possible to:
discuss each category of comments separately;
compare and weigh against each other the comments made by different institutions; draw in theoretical knowledge.
36
6.2.1 Comments categorized
A representation of the categorized comments is presented in table 2. For each category, each institution can have two marks, the left figure represents the number of positive comments made and the right figure represents the number of negative comments made by the institution.
Table 2. Data matrix, the number of comments made divided over the categories
When looking at table 2, three of the eight categories (category 2B, 3B and 3D) discovered in the literature seem not to be of any importance. No comments are found to relate to these categories. Possible reasons why the three categories are regarded not to be of any importance and the reason why an extra category has to be added will be discussed next.
2B Sectoral/environmental
There is no real competition between the institutions and other organizations. All institutions have a specific function and do not derive their right to exist from financial achievements. Factors such as competitive pressure and profitability/wealth were not mentioned. Nevertheless, there are some performance indicators which are used to compete, for instance between universities. Services offered by SURFnet, however, do not really give the institution a competitive advantage.
37
3B Innovation perceptions
This category of factors is aimed at the end-user (students, researchers, teachers, etcetera) not involved in the adoption processs, and his perception of the IT/IS. When involved in the adoption process the perception of the IT/IS should be registered in category 1A innovation characteristics. In case of the SURFnet services the end-user (the person that uses the service) and the key decision maker (the person who decides to adopt or initiate the adoption) are often the same person. The one who selects the service also has to use it, an inward struggle within this person is not likely. Problems in this category have to come from leaders who decide to use a particular system which the workforce rejects. Although not for all SURFnet services the end-user and the key decision maker are the same, resistance against or a demand for SURFnet services by the end-users is not mentioned by the respondents.
3C Social influence
This category with factors like; change agents and co-worker attitudes and behaviors has a close relationship with the above category. Again, no negative attitudes or behaviors from, for instance, co-workers are brought up as a reason for rejection or missed opportunities.
3E Institution-SURFnet fit
Besides three not recognized categories the category institute-SURFnet fit is added. SURFnet has a special mission (see chapter 2): simply put SURFnet’s mission is to deliver its innovative services to a limited group of institutions which periodically pays a fixed amount, are not only customer but also owner of SURFnet and sometimes participate in development projects. This special mission of SURFnet also makes its relationship with its customers special, which subsequently has its effect on the diffusion and assimilation of its services. Issues like joint development, innovation timing, and utilization of available SURFnet knowledge are important in this relationship. The categorization of Fichman (2000) does not recognize these special factors and therefore an additional category is introduced.
6.2.2 Discussion
38
Category 1A Innovations characteristics
In general, innovations possessing favorable characteristics tend to be more attractive and easier to adopt, and therefore tend to diffuse more rapidly than those with less favorable characteristics (Rogers, 2003).
2 Other characteristics
The comments made by the respondents about the characteristics of SURFnet services are for the most part positive. No negative comments about the IT product itself were made. The Universiteit Utrecht, which uses a lot of services, actually stated that some services, like SURFnet CERT should be used by every institution without exception. The services are available, why not use them? Moreover, not using any service has no effect on the contribution, one cannot save any money by not using any services. So this argument for use is at the same time a downside of the services offered. The institutions have no choice, they have to pay for the complete provisioning of services regardless, of the number of services they use. (1 - Services are not for free)
39
Category 1B Propagating institutions
The influence of the propagating institutions (i.e. manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, etcetera) on the customer regardless of the characteristics of the technology.
Almost all respondents stated that SURFnet possesses expert knowledge, with which they are really well equipped for the job. SURFnet is also willing to share its knowledge and makes it available in several different ways. When asked, SURFnet is even willing to pay the institutions a visit to provide the institution with information. When however the respondents were asked whether or not all stakeholders were well informed, most respondents declared that there is room for improvement. Universiteit Utrecht for instance notices the contact between SURFnet and itself is predominantly between technicians.
The majority of the respondents are registered as either internal contact person or they are responsible for the security, authentication, and authorization issues within their institutions. Their knowledge about the services offered by SURFnet and their involvement with SURFnet is high in comparison to co-workers. The other co-workers however do matter, their awareness of the SURFnet offerings, support and willingness can help stimulate adoption. (3
- One sided contact point)
Besides an agreement on the fact that contact between only technicians is not adequate, there is no real consensus about who else should be involved. The institutions in group 1 and group 2 would like to see more promotion information to be passed on to management. Management has to realize what SURFnet does for their particular institution and in the end they also play an important role in deciding whether or not to assimilate a particular service. The information should address the needs of the management and connect to their field of interest. Universiteit Utrecht would like to see the services being promoted, using more business case like insights. SURFnet has to show what the service could do for the particular institution, what will be the advantages and what efforts are needed from the institute. The will to adopt a SURFnet service has to come from both the management and the ICT staff. (4
40
According to TU Delft and Universiteit Utrecht the contact personnel should also be better informed. The respondents who made this statement already have a long relationship with SURFnet but consider it difficult for new contact personnel to know what is expected of them by SURFnet. (5 – Unclear what is expected of contact personnel)
Apart from group 1 and group 2, the institutions of group 3 did not mention their management should be provided with extra information. NIVEL actually stated; not their top management should be provided with information but rather their middle management. Middle management should in turn inform its top management. ROC Midden Nederland is also content with their current situation where the contact person spreads the SURFnet information and acts as a kind of ambassador for SURFnet. A portfolio of the available services in connection with this function is regarded as useful. Four of the nine institutions agree on the fact that there are also opportunities for the account managers to help promote diffusion. The account managers should visit the institutions more often, twice, maybe three times a year. During these visits, the account manager should talk to various officials about their way of organizing their IT infrastructure and how SURFnet can team up. (6 - Lack of
site visits)
Category 2A Firm and IS unit characteristics
A central tenet of diffusion research is that to understand why some organizations are more innovative than others, one should look at the characteristics of the organization. Not the general innovativeness is tested but, which characteristics are of importance regarding the adoption of SURFnet services.
1 Size and Related Characteristics
41
available. Hogeschool Leiden, Hogeschool de Kempel, and NIVEL confirm the statement that size does in fact influence the adoption rate. (7 – Deficient support for small sized ICT
departments)
Every institution that participated in this research was either planning a reorganization or had just gone through a reorganization process. The reorganizations all had a different objective. For instance, some institutions reorganized their IT infrastructure or merged their IT departments to one centralized department, even whole organizations where divided into three sectors (UMCG). The outcomes of the reorganizations are expected to have a positive result on the adoption rate. Most institutions stated that before or during the reorganization would be a exquisite moment for SURFnet to get in touch with their institution to discuss the possible role of SURFnet. For example, the adoption of SURFnet services is part of the reorganization within the Hogeschool Leiden. Also CITO, ROC Midden Nederland, NIVEL, and the UMCG are planning or thinking about adopting more SURFnet services. On the other hand the result of the reorganization on future adoption rates for the TU Delft and the UTwente is unsure. These two institutions have performed very well in the past, the cutbacks within the TU Delft and the reallocation of tasks within UTwente will have its effects, but it is not yet sure what they will be. (8 – Deficient support during reorganization)
2 Other Structural Characteristics
42
The ROC Midden Nederland and NIVEL are both in anticipation of a new ICT official who will also be responsible for issues concerning security, authentication, and authorization. Hogeschool Leiden and Hogeschool de Kempel actually stated they have less specialized personnel compared to other, larger higher education institutions or universities. (9 - Low
specialization)
3 Characteristics of Leaders and the Workforce
The tendency within the institutions is more and more towards cooperation. This trend comes from the fact that the opportunity for innovation within the institutions which did some development themselves diminishes. The UTwente confirms this notion. Within the TU Delft the diminishing effect can be expected from the recent reorganization, the number of network specialists is reduced from five to one. Because of changing legislation in the healthcare system, the approach within the UMCG is also changing towards a more cost efficient approach. SURFnet services will get more attention and once confidence grows a more close cooperation can develop according to the UMCG. The institutions within group 3 do not cooperate that much, this does however not mean they don’t want to. For example, the reason for ROC Midden Nederland not to cooperate that much with its colleague secondary education institutions is because of the strong competition between them. ROC Midden Nederland finds this very dissatisfying, especially because projects carried out with higher educational institutions turn out to be very rewarding. When thinking about cooperation SURFnet is the organization to turn to. (10 – Deficient cooperation between SURFnet and
institutes)
4 Characteristics of the Communication Environment.
institution-43
SURFnet fit. The category institution-SURFnet fit is about the institution being part of a foundation.
Category 3A Organization-Innovation fit
Even though an organization may exhibit a generally high propensity to innovate over time, it may still lag in the adoption of innovations that do not fit well with organizational needs, strategies, resources, or capabilities (Fichman, 2000)
The large absorptive capacity of the TU Delft makes them not only an early adopter waiting for SURFnet to release new services, it also makes them the initiator of new ideas. Because they come up with new ideas and participate in the development projects, the fit between their needs and the innovation is very high. UTwente and Universiteit Utrecht do not pass on as much ideas, nevertheless UTwente feels their needs are heard and most of the time a suggestion or comment leads to something.
Though SURFnet serves a restricted group of institutions it does not mean all institutions are alike. They all have different functions, geographic locations, history, specialization, customers, employees, etcetera. The UMCG, CITO, Hogeschool de Kempel, and NIVEL show a less well-matched fit between their needs and the services of SURFnet. The UMCG has the responsibility to safeguard the privacy of their patient information which complicates outsourcing activities. For this reason the UMCG puts a greater demand on insight knowledge and therefore has a tendency to develop most services themselves. The function of CITO and NIVEL is a totally different one compared to for instance a university; they have other problems and use ICT products differently. Both Hogeschool de Kempel and NIVEL stated SURFnet has a tendency to think big (e.g. new cutting edge innovations in coherence with extensive information plans). These two institutions have difficulties connecting to this mission; the issues they have to deal with are of much smaller scale and magnitude. All four institutions fall somewhat outside SURFnet’s target group but it does not lead to a rejection
of the services and a statement they will not use any service in the future. (11 - Low task
44
ROC Midden Nederland has only been a member for two years; the adoption of SURFnet services has only just begun and their intention is to adopt more services. The Hogeschool Leiden also pointed out the difference they think there is in absorptive capacity between large and small institutions. (12 - Low absorptive capacity)
Category 3D Innovation delivery system
The factors of influence during the implementation process. Influences from the propagating as well as influences within the organization.
An element which comes up in every group has to do with management support. The respondents feel, except for CITO and UTwente which themselves were at a slightly higher management position, SURFnet should also try to inform their management. As mentioned before, the respondents are not unanimous about which management level should be approached. An explanation for this difference might come from the variation in ICT intensity between the institutions. The right information has to be presented to the management on their level of interest aimed at their domain. Well informed management which is convinced of the advantages of its relationship with SURFnet has two advantages:
1. it helps the IT official realize his intentions for using SURFnet services;
2. management recognizes the importance and opportunities of using SURFnet services and pushes its ICT department to use them.
(13 - Top management commitment could be improved)
The scalability and good exploitability of services is of importance before, during and after the implementation of a service. Even for the early adopters it is an important issue. The early adopters don’t seem to be willing to take higher risk. A reason for this could be that the services don’t give them a competitive advantage. For the institutions of group 3, scalability and exploitability is always an important issue. (14 – Scalability and exploitability could be
45
Communication during the implementation of a SURFnet service is very important for Hogeschool de Kempel. Hogeschool de Kempel has a small ICT unit with no specialized staff. Consequently the information needed during the implementation of a SURFnet service for a small institution is different compared to a large institution with a large ICT department and specialized personnel. SURFnet is not accustomed to the smaller institutions, getting the correct information can for that reason be quite troublesome according to Hogeschool de Kempel. The respondent of the Universiteit Utrecht also recognizes this could be a problem for the smaller institutions and suggests SURFnet should offer the help of an implementation team. This team should help persuade institutions to adopt the SURFnet services which require specialized knowledge. (15 – Lack of implementation support)
Category 3E Institution-SURFnet fit
The mission assigned to SURFnet (see chapter 1) shows its task and purpose. The fit of an
institution with this endeavor influences the propensity to assimilate the services offered by SURFnet. Though only a selected group of institutions is allowed to become affiliated with SURFnet (see §3.1) there still are a lot of differences.
The three universities of group 1 all show a tendency to draw SURFnet into their ICT operations. For TU Delft it is even common policy to gain as much as possible from their costly relationship with SURFnet. Cooperative development is one important advantage by which the TU Delft profits from their relationship with SURFnet. As a result of this, there are a lot of informal contacts. The other two institutions of group 1, Universiteit Utrecht and UTwente, do also have such a close relationship though it is less intensive. For the smaller institutions cooperative development is not an option, they are more focused on good exploitable of the shelve services and for that reason they miss this specific link to SURFnet. Their affinity with SURFnet has to come from other aspects, the institutions are willing and realize they themselves also have to put more effort into this relationship. (16 – Low affinity
with the cooperative SURFnet mission)
46
innovation pace could go faster whereas for the smaller institutions the innovations are ahead of their needs. Three respondents; Utwente, Universiteit Utrecht and CITO mentioned this complicating factor; their agenda’s do not run parallel to the agenda of SURFnet. The institutions also stated there is little SURFnet can do about it. (17 - Innovations timing does
not coincide with institution agenda)
Four institutions pointed out there is room for improvement of their relationship with SURFnet. These institutions are not dissatisfied but they consider a more intensified relationship feasible and desirable. Surprisingly, also the Universiteit Utrecht is one of them, thus even a institution which is using a large number of SURFnet services recognizes improvement can be made. Besides the Universiteit Utrecht the other three institutions are all none educational institutions (UMCG, CITO and NIVEL). (18 - Intensified relationship
