Master thesis
Age-diversity in organizations: the effects of social context for individual IT
reinvention.
By Martine Deiman
S3272370
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSCBA Change Management 1st Supervisor: Eveline Hage 2nd Supervisor: Ileana de Maris-Bresser
Co-assessor: Jana Oehmichen Date of submission: 21st of January, 2019
ABSTRACT
Organizations face the difficulty of handling an ageing workforce, while technologies are increasingly flexible. Authors therefore suggest that IT reinvention becomes more relevant to understand. This study offers a qualitative approach. A total of 16 interviews were held. The contribution of this study is understanding how and why individual reinvention behaviors are affected by social context, with a specific aim to age-diversity. It contributes to IT reinvention literature explaining how individuals interact with the social context in which they are embedded. Social context can have a pressuring effect, where it may enable users to engage in IT reinvention behaviors or not. An age-diverse mix enables to bridge older worker imbrications of technology to be exposed to new ideas and experiments of younger employees. Younger employees can leverage current context information in an already existing environment that is guarded by older employees, and together they form a new imbrication that allows older employees to experience technological possibilities. Only when old and young employees collaborate frequently this effect shows, or will not engage with each other’s views. Thus, an allowing social context that aims for engaging in IT reinvention, must allow for experimenting and collaboration where employees see and feel the benefit.
Table of content
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6
2.1 IT REINVENTION. ... 6
2.2 IT reinvention process. ... 8
2.3 Temporal orientation for IT reinvention. ... 10
2.4 Social context and IT Reinvention. ... 11
2.4.1 Group dynamics. ... 12
2.5 Age-diverse organizational context ... 12
2.5.1 Age-diversity. ... 13
2.5.2 Collective memory and learning ... 13
2.5.3 Shared goals orientation ... 13
2.6 Individual level factors ... 13
2.7 Research process model ... 14
3. METHODOLOGY ... 16 3.1 Research approach ... 16 3.2 Description of cases ... 16 3.3 Data collection ... 17 3.4 Data analysis ... 18 4. RESULTS ... 20 4.1 CSD ... 20 4.1.1. Social context CSD ... 20 4.1.3 Age-diversity ... 21
4.1.4 Collective memory and learning ... 22
4.1.5 Shared goals orientation ... 22
4.1.6. Summary ... 23
4.2 ICTD ... 24
4.2.1 ICTD Social context ... 24
4.2.2. Age-diversity ... 25
4.2.3. Collective memory and learning ... 25
4.2.4 Shared goals orientation ... 26
4.2.6 Summary ... 26
4.3 Comparing both cases ... 26
4.3.1 Comparing social context ... 27
4.3.2 Process to change IT ... 29
4.5 IT Reinvention process across age groups ... 29
4.5.1 Hypothetical reinvention ... 32 4.5.2. Technology recomposition ... 32 4.5.3. Narrative construction ... 32 4.5.4 Experimentation ... 32 4.6. Summary of findings. ... 32 5. DISCUSSION ... 33
5.1. The research process model ... 33
1. INTRODUCTION
During the last century, organizations face the difficulty of handling an ageing workforce (Tams, Grover & Thatcher, 2014) and face increasing reliance on information technology (IT) (Lagacé, Charmarkeh, Laplante & Tanguay, 2015). There is a sharp increase in the number of older employees relative to the total working population. The Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands (2017) shows that the amount of 55 year olds to 75 year olds increased from 27,2 percent, to 41,7 percent of the total working population. This imposes one of the main challenges of this century: the size and the quality of the workforce (Bloom, Boersch-Supan, McGee & Seike, 2011). Consequently, employees have to work longer, while employees have different capabilities and different needs to fulfill (Bloom et al., 2011). Hence, an ageing workforce increasingly adds complexity to organizations. However, if organizations wants be effective and competitive, they will have to make adjustments in current work practices (Szinovacz, 2011). Meyer (2011) empirically found that an older workforce is negatively related to the probability of new technology adoption. This outcome can be worrisome because younger employees are increasingly scarce (Tams et al., 2014). How older and younger employees use IT is different and causes challenges to fulfilling all employees’ needs in a way that is beneficial to an organization (Szinovacz, 2011). Thus, investigating how organizations can deal with an ageing workforce in an organizational context concerning IT is increasingly important (Rizzuto, 2011).
Nevo, Nevo and Pinsonneault (2016) suggest that IT reinvention is theoretically different from IT adaptation. Even though there is enough literature about IT adaptation during implementation and initial adoption (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Bala & Venkatesh, 2016), there is little insight in post-adoption behavior (Bagayoyo et al., 2015) and even less is known about IT reinvention. Nevo et al. (2016) define IT reinvention as changing an implemented IT, and or its use. Where IT adaptation focuses on current goals, IT reinvention focuses on future goals. It is a form of behavior that requires unique processes (Sun, 2012: Nevo et al., 2016). Due to increasing malleability of systems (Orlikowksi, 2000: Sun, 2012) it increases the need to understand IT reinvention. Nevo et al. (2016) explain that social context is important for IT reinvention. Social context involves the direct environment of employees and communication between employees (Burke, Joseph, Pasick & Barker, 2009). Additionally, social contexts can determine the effectiveness of an ageing workforce and how to work with IT (Rizzuto, 2011; Meyer, 2010; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). Even though Meyer (2011) states that the probability of new technology adoptions decreases with more older employees, this might not be the same for reinventions.
significant impact on work practices, the focus lies on age-diverse social contexts. It is relevant because both age-diverse contexts and malleable technologies are increasingly frequent in the workplace. With that, employees’ needs and capabilities are different, and an ageing workforce and increasing technology reliance are established as future problems (Tams et al. 2014). So, if older employees are not adopting new systems (Meyer, 2010), there is potential for reinventing already existing systems with the help of younger employees. Therefore, the research question of this study is as follows:
“How and why is an individuals’ IT reinvention affected by social context in an age-diverse context?”
The aim of this study is to better understand how social context influences individual IT reinvention processes. Specifically, the objective is to understand how social context influences IT reinvention processes in an age-diverse organizational context. Boulton-Louwis (2010) emphasizes that understanding ageing is important. Mainly because of its demographic impact on social influences and IT behavior (Sykes et al., 2009). That makes age-diversity is a contextual factor (Rizzuto, 2011). Because you might expect different goals or attitudes towards IT (Tams et al., 2014) that might complicate the innovative process, as shared goals are drivers for innovation (Alexander & Knippenberg, 2014).
The study draws on Nevo et al. (2016), who suggests that IT reinvention and IT adaptation are different. The study contributes to literature by providing evidence for the effects that social contexts can have on individual-level reinvention processes with an angle to age-diversity. Findings are helpful for addressing one of the main challenges of this century: the size and quality of the workforce (Bloom et al., 2011). Further, it investigates the possibilities for increasingly flexible technologies (Leonardi, 2011) and helps achieve a fit between the graying workforce and technological aspects, combining agency characteristics and technological aspects (Leonardi, 2011). While Nevo et al. (2016) focusses on individual users, this study provides insights into the interactions of the individual and the social context in which the individual is embedded.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this theoretical framework, an overview of the theoretical background of this study is given. Starting with IT reinvention, the reinvention process and temporal orientation of IT reinvention. Then, the social context and IT reinvention, group dynamics, group-level factors and individual-level factors will be discussed. This chapter ends with a presentation of the conceptual model.
2.1 IT REINVENTION.
This section explains the concept IT reinvention, how it differs from adaptation and appropriation, when it takes place and why this topic is relevant.
To start, IT reinvention stems from two elements namely, exaptation and purposefulness (Nevo et al., 2016). The first element is exaptation. Exaptation describes a shift in function, where features acquire a new function for which they were not originally intended. The second element is purposefulness, which means that you are determined to change by selecting both means and ends. Together, they form purposeful exaptation (Nevo et al., 2016). Which means that the accomplishment of new functions is intended, thus goals are created and functions are changing in ways that allow users to pursue more goals. Thus, IT reinvention includes deliberate action and a shift in function where alteration is needed (Rice & Rogers, 1980).
To define IT reinvention, understanding differences between commonly used terminology in post-adoption literature is essential. Therefore, terminologies are analyzed to understand why a new theory is proposed. In Table 1, you can find the terminologies of IT adaptation, IT appropriation and IT reinvention.
IT adaptation IT appropriation IT reinvention
“The process where users respond
to external triggers such as discrepancies between IT and existing goals.” (Nevo et al.,
2016:159).
“The cognitive and behavioral efforts exerted by employees to manage perceived consequences associated with an IT
implementation that occurs in their work environment.” (Bala &
Venkatesh, 2016)
“The way a group uses, adapts,
and reproduces the structures of a technology.” (Beaudry &
Pinsonneault, 2005)
“The continuous, progressive,
and mutual adjustments, accommodations and improvisations between the technology and the users.”
(Orlikowski, 1996)
“Changing an implemented
IT and/or its use to pursue new goals.” (Nevo et al.,
2016:p.159)
“The alteration of the initial
innovation as users change it to suit their needs or use it in ways unforeseen by
developers.”
(Leonard-Barton, 1988:253)”
When we look at these definitions, some distinctions need to be elaborated. To start, IT adaptation is
reactive in nature, and is induced by something in the environment and used for effective use or
managing (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Bala & Venkatesh, 2016). During this process, users adapt towards an implemented system in ways that allow effective use. In other words, adaptation refers to the process of effective managing and is necessary for the fulfillment of existing goals (Nevo et al., 2016). Alternatively, appropriations show the interrelatedness of technology and users, that there are moments in time where stabilization occurs and that users are subject to contextual requirements. During this process, users try to reap the benefits of the system and try to use it in ways that benefits them. Contrarily, IT reinvention shows that users try to change the technology or its use in order to pursue
new goals, unforeseen by its developers (Nevo et al., 2016). We see that IT reinvention is not induced
by an external trigger, it is induced by the user itself, implicating that the user has freedom of choice, which requires self-motivation. So, change is actively produced by users, where they choose to alter existing way of doing things (Orlikowski, 2000). Users build towards capabilities that he or she needs in the future. Therefore, IT structures may be altered because current structures do not allow for this. Meaning that IT reinvention is evidenced whenever an innovation-in-use differs from its original state (Nevo et al.,2016). Taken all together, we define IT reinvention as changing an IT and or its use, to build certain capabilities for the achievement of future goals (Nevo et al., 2016: Rice & Rogers, 1980). In earlier literature, IT reinvention was part of IT adaptation behaviors or strategies (see Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Beaudry & Pinsonneault; 2010; Bala & Venkatesch; 2016; Meyer, 2010). However, IT adaptation strives for stabilization of processes, while IT reinvention induces change in existing structures. Thus, instead of restoring to comply with existing goals (adaptation), changes are used for allowing and intending new goals (reinvention). It depends on whether users are able to have the choice of altering their goals (Leonardi, 2011). Nevo et al. (2016) explains that IT reinvention is a relational construct. It is affected by past relationships and users can affect relationships through reinvention. Leonardi (2011) calls this construct of imbrication where users recall past routines and technologies that stem from human and material agency. Imbrication is path dependent, meaning that changing a technology or routine stems from trajectory. To have the ability to alter goals and the ability to alter technological features, may result in new imbrications. Thus, IT reinvention has an active component, which induces alteration, and technological structures are enacted by users (Leonard-Barton, 1988; Orlikowski, 2000; Leonardi, 2011; Nevo et al., 2016).
The longer the users work with a technology, the more users know about its features. Consequently, IT reinvention takes place later than other adaptation behaviors. Therefore, IT reinvention is classified as a post-adoption behavior (Leonard-Barton, 1988; Nevo et al., 2016).
IT reinvention occurs less frequent than other adaptation behaviors (Sun, 2012; Nevo et al., 2016) and invoking IT reinvention is more difficult because it requires technical knowhow (Sun, 2012: Orlikowksi, 2000). Examples of reinvention outcomes are additional task performance with formerly used features or feature extensions (Bagayoyo et al., 2015) or feature combining and repurposing (Sun, 2012). However, current technologies are more reconfigurable (Orlikowksi, 2000) and enables users to enact on technology more easily than before. This underscores the growing importance to understand IT reinvention, as it may occur more frequently in the future. IT reinvention is evidenced whenever an innovation-in-use differs from its original state, and involves self-determined and self-motivated actions that require no external triggers (Nevo et al., 2016). We need to dive in deeper in the IT reinvention process, so we can determine where the self-determination and self-motivation stems from.
2.2 IT reinvention process.
It is our interest to know what the process of IT reinvention looks like, so we can determine where potential gaps lie for the study. Therefore, we shall elaborate on the processes involved. IT reinvention entails different sub-processes. Figure 1. visualizes the IT reinvention process.
Following the figure, the process goes as follows. Users first experience hypothetical reinvention, where users determine the link between desired goals and desired prospective capabilities (Nevo et al., 2016). Then, users will progress towards technology recomposition. Here, users think of different scenarios for the collection of the prospective capabilities. After selecting one, reinvention narrative construction enables users to create plans for achievement of these scenarios. Whenever a plan is present, experimentation starts within their present contexts, and experimentation helps users understand how to realize their desired goals. This results in IT reinvention diffusion. During the process, all sub-processes can happen, but do not have to happen. To illustrate the process, Figure 2 shows an example of IT reinvention from Leonardi (2011a).
Figure 2. The IT reinvention processes with an example of Leonardi (2011a).
Two aspects that influence the process are relevant to this study, because they relate to the theory gap. The first aspect is iterational retrospection (Nevo et al., 2016), where users are informed by their past experiences and relationships. Leonardi (2011) calls this imbrication. Iterational retrospection influences the cognitive processes involved in the model. It holds the ability to guide and limit future actions or goals (Nevo et al., 2016; Leonardi, 2011). And involves previous actions or present events that limit the possibility for IT reinvention. These past experiences can be personal or social. While personal experiences can be hard to track in an organization, social experiences are part of learning abilities and are of importance during change (Orlikowski, 2000; Nambisan, Lyytinen, Majchrzak, Song, 2017).
2.3 Temporal orientation for IT reinvention.
Temporal orientation is important to IT reinvention (Nevo et al.,2016). Therefore, we need to understand what it is and how it affects reinvention processes. Temporal focus is defined as “The extent to which
individuals devote their attention to past, present, and/or future” (Shipp, Edwards & Lambert, 2009:1).
Temporal orientation is related to thoughts and behaviors directed towards the past, present or future (Nuttin, 1985 in Shipp et al., 2009). It is possible to affect attitudes and motivations and thus influence decisions and behaviors (Shipp et al., 2009). Temporal orientation plays a significant role for IT reinvention. The dominant feature is future-oriented behavior, and past- and present-oriented behaviors play secondary roles of thought (Nevo et al., 2016). Iterational retrospection shows that past experiences shape and form process. And the present may cause constraints and limitations for the process (Nevo et al., 2016). But for reinvention to occur, they should have goals to work with these past- and present-oriented behaviors, where users project themselves into the future. In other words, the future-present-oriented behaviors are shaped by past- and present-oriented behaviors.
There are three temporal behaviors. First, past-oriented behaviors are based on patterns of thought from prior experiences and practices (Nevo et al., 2016) It may enhance learning when previous actions are relevantly analyzed or it may hinder well-being if the past includes mistakes or regrets. Second, present-oriented behaviors are patterns of thought from the present, and following actions are a product of the current context (Nevo et al., 2016). A current practice focus helps to seize opportunities where behaviors can be risky, impulsive and with no consequences in mind (Shipp et al., 2009). Last, future-oriented behaviors include patterns of thought based on projective agency: what can we do with what we have in the future? (Nevo et al., 2016) A future focus may develop goal-setting, motivations and pursuit of achievement. Even though it may hinder well-being if it creates time pressure and anxiety during pursuit of these goals (Shipp et al., 2009).
Figure 3. Visualization of temporal orientation based on Park et al. (2017) and Nevo et al. (2016). 2.4 Social context and IT Reinvention.
We want to know how and why IT reinvention is affected by its social context. To do that, we need to define what social context is, and what factors are important. To start, social context is defined as “the
sociocultural forces that shape people’s day-to-day experiences and that directly and indirectly affect health and behavior” (Burke et al., 2009:56S). It involves mutually helping relationships within social
structures, by individuals, and with that bringing unconscious mentality (Burke et al., 2009). Unconscious mentality refers to mindset of which people are not aware, but influence how they behave. The considered factors are the concepts that are related to how individuals are influenced by other individuals (Burke et al., 2009).
Social factors can be both facilitating and a barrier towards adopting IT, as they can guide and constrain users’ actions (Nevo et al., 2016: Orlikowski, 2000). After adoption, these social factors can impact the way a technology is used, or rearranged. Socializing can cause users to proceed more smoothly than they would without socializing (Nevo et al., 2016) and can be very useful for the dispersion of technology. As Zammuto, Griffith, Dougherty & Faraj (2007) explain, IT and organizational features may exist independently of each other, their value comes from how they enact together.
2.4.1 Group dynamics.
Because of a social context, users engage in a community of practice (Orlikowksi, 2000) it is required to know what a community of practice does for an individual. A community of practice is a community of users that are engaging in related work practices, and enacting with similar technologies-in-practice (Orlikowksi, 2000: 411). Within these communities of practice, users can create or recreate technology structures within their actions (Orlikowski, 2000), and these outcomes can be dispersed or they can be rejected due to these communities of practice. This means that individuals are influenced by the community of practice, as actors are affected by other actors in the workplace (Rizzuto, 2011).
To see what social context does with an individual, we need to know how the community of practice is influenced by group dynamics. Therefore, group dynamics should be discussed so we know what we can expect to see in the community of practice. Earlier, we determined that temporal orientation differs with age, making age potentially relevant for IT reinvention. Therefore, it is necessary to determine how age can influence the community of practice.
2.5 Age-diverse organizational context
Age-diversity is considered important for IT reinvention. Next to Park et al. (2017), more literature suggests that age-diversity is important for IT reinvention. We start with why younger employees alone will not engage in IT reinvention. Meyer (2011) provides evidence that the higher the relative number of younger employees present in an organization, the more likely it is that new technology adoptions occur. The organization will choose to have a new technology adopted, instead of reinventing or changing an already existing technology. So, the more homogeneous the group, the higher the probability of new technology adoptions. “Uniformity” strengthens this effect (Meyer, 2011; Rizzuto, 2011). These cohort effects do not hold for diverse groups (heterogeneity) in terms of age, making age-diversity a potential important variable (Rizzuto, 2011). It offers an environment for changing and reinventing IT.
Rizzuto (2011) explains that IT attitudes are not a direct consequence of age. However, technology and age are in juxtaposition where older employees may need support. Employees are affected and moderated by the mean age of other employees in the workplace, independent diversity and climate (Rizzuto, 2011). Thus, employees are influenced by other employees and fluctuations are imposed by the social context they work in.
Differences in age lead to differences in group dynamics. The following group-level factors are analyzed that have impact on social context: age-diversity, collective memory and learning, and shared goals orientation. Last, individual factors, regarding age, that influence group dynamics will be discussed.
2.5.1 Age-diversity.
Differences are expected on a group-level, since temporal orientation deviates for different age groups. Rizzuto (2011) explains that age-variability in age is an important group level factor. Further, different tenures may influence past imbrications (Leonardi, 2011). Morris and Venkatesh (2000) explain that older employees’ attitudes towards technology is different. The older employees hold higher importance to subjective norm and perceived behavioral control in the short term. In the long-term, the difference has vanished with regard to subjective norm. These findings indicate that older employees habitually apply traditional solutions, whereas younger employees rely more on the use of technology for solutions. When we compare Park et al. (2017) to Morris and Venkatesh (2000), you see that if employees are not involved with each other, habitually applying traditional solutions (past-oriented behaviors) increase, and using technology (present-oriented behaviors) decreases.
2.5.2 Collective memory and learning
Since trajectory and history holds opportunity for IT reinvention (Leonardi, 2011; Nevo et al., 2016), knowledge of collective memory and learning is necessary because it determines how people progress and where they start. We are interested in what a group already knows and how they learn. Alexander and Knippenberg (2014) further state that team cognition is important because it may help to mutually reinforce the knowledge available. They further state that learning from failure is essential for the development of new learning.
2.5.3 Shared goals orientation
We are interested in how innovative group processes influence IT reinvention. Since IT reinvention is classified as unique and innovative (Sun, 2012; Nevo et al., 2016), we need characteristics of a group that is pursuing innovative goals. Alexander and Knippenberg (2014) explicate that for group innovation, a shared goals orientation is important. Especially diversity (in this case, age-diversity) may cause problems because for innovation you need everybody on board. Shared goals orientation consists of three elements. The first is team reflexivity, which is a process of collective reflection and adoption of team processes, strategies or goals (Alexander & Knippenberg, 2014). This can be advocated by leadership. A leader can make sure that there are shared understandings of goals, they may do so by communicating their own understanding. The third element is mutual reinforcement (Alexander & Knippenberg, 2014). Employees may stimulate each other to follow up on shared goals.
2.6 Individual level factors
Nevertheless, older adults gain crystalized intelligence, which is defined as “knowledge that people gain
from a lifetime of formal education and life experience” (Pak and McLaughlin in Tams et al. 2014:295).
Older employees have stronger verbal ability, knowledge and transfer abilities and have better linking abilities (Tams et al. 2014). The older people get, the more they will rely on their intellectual capabilities (Casey, Jones & Hare, 2008), which can be particularly useful in situations where you need to rely on your past experiences. The interplay of these abilities seem limited, as older employees have a decline in some abilities, but growth in the other (Tams et al., 2014). Though, a combination of young and old may have plausible effects because then you will have both. This is because older employees are more experienced, have more knowledge about structures and operating processes (Meyer, 2011). On the other hand, motivation and attitude to use technology of younger employees can help the older employees: by explaining innovations and sharing enthusiasm (Meyer, 2011).
2.7 Research process model
Based on the previous literature, the research process model has been developed in Figure 4. A group can have impact on the enactment of individual level reinvention behaviors, and we aim to see how the individual reinvention process is affected by its social context, through the communities of practice in which individuals are embedded. We shall explain the model; At the lower column, the individual level process of IT reinvention, you can see the first 4 sub-processes that are in our interest to see if social context has an influence. In the middle, you can see the community of practice, where the employees are engaged in the same activities (Orlikowski, 2000). the upper column shows the group-level factors.
Group-level factors: starting with age-diversity where age-variability influences other employees, and younger employees have growing present-oriented behaviors and can therefore leverage the declining past-oriented behaviors of older employees. Second, the collective memory and learning can be of influence for reinvention. Different ways of memory and learning can enhance innovative teamwork (Alexander & Knippenberg, 2014) or obstruct IT reinvention due to imbrication (Leonardi, 2011). And to have knowledge is important to reinvention (Sun, 2012). Third, shared goals orientation is important for innovative practices (Alexander & Knippenberg, 2014) and is therefore considered a group level factor, because it can enhance or obstruct the reinvention process.
The community of practice: at this level, we want to see how users engage in similar practices according to these group-level determinants. These have an influence on the individual level, and act as a filter towards the individual level. Here you might encounter all kinds of different schemes (Orlikowski, 2000), meaning that users may interpret their workplace differently. We are interested in the overarching schemes that are the same within a group.
The individual-level process of IT reinvention: the community of practice has an influence on the individual level, and we want to know how, where and why. Therefore, four sub-processes of IT reinvention (Nevo et al., 2016) are considered that are influenced by social context: hypothetical reinvention, technology recomposition, reinvention narratives and experimentation. Of these processes, the first three processes are cognitive, and are influenced by iterational retrospection (Nevo et al., 2016) where we expect that age will have an influence. The individual level factors are taken into account, but left out of the model because tracing them is hard (Nevo et al., 2016) and beyond scope of the study.
3. METHODOLOGY
In this section, an overview of the methodology for this study is given. Methodology concerning research approach, case description, data collection and data analysis are presented.
3.1 Research approach
The objective of this study is to gain knowledge about individual IT reinvention processes and how they interact with a specific social context: an age-diverse context. The existing literature about IT reinvention acknowledges that the social context is important, though it lacks insights in this element (Nevo et al., 2016). Therefore, we need an approach that allows us to gain better understanding of this social aspect of IT reinvention. Because this study builds on prior work deductively, it is suitable as a qualitative approach (Bettis, Gambardella, Helfat & Mitchell, 2014). This approach provides narratives of people on phenomena, enables to see highlights of human interactions, and meanings that underlie phenomena (Gephart, 2004). It suits this study because the IT reinvention process assumes interactions within group settings (Nevo et al.,2016) but these interactions are not studied in an age-diverse context. The level of analysis is on the individual level. In this way, we enable understanding of IT reinvention in a potential relevant context for the ageing of the workforce. Semi-structured interviews are conducted to research these concepts.
3.2 Description of cases
Nevo et al. (2016) assumes that organizational, social and technological context influences the reinvention process. Therefore, a description of organizational and technological context is offered. Since this study aims to understand the specific role age-diversity plays in IT reinvention, the social context receives more attention.
The study took place in an organization that produces and trades in straw board in the Netherlands. The organization is a leading global manufacturer of recovered paper based substrates. In the straw board sector, rapid automatization strikes the sector intensely and employees have a relative high mean age. Most employees have approximated tenures for over 20 years, while young employees are scarce. Further, the organization motivates employees to think about the future.
of the system. Employees work in one room, except for one. The ICTD holds authority over changing technologies.
The technological landscape of the organization is diffused and complex. There are many systems, new systems and legacy systems. Every department works with its own systems and the organization recently tries to coordinate over these systems. Further, the diffused landscape causes that interfacing of systems is complex. That creates problems such as delays in the systems and data errors.
3.3 Data collection
To answer the research question, primary data was collected. The data was collected via interviews. Interviews are very suitable for researching intentions and motivations of behavior (Heyink & Tymstra, 1993). This instrument of interviews seems suitable, since IT reinvention is partly motivational and a goal driven process (Nevo et al., 2016). Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler. (2014) explain that semi-structured interviews are appropriate for explanatory research where the respondents’ viewpoint of the situation is important to the research problem. Next to that, a semi-structured interview allows for flexibility during the interview itself (Aken, Berend & Van der Bij, 2012). Flexibility is necessary, because interaction types and aspects are not known yet.
The data was gathered from two departments. The choice for two departments is based on Rizzuto’s (2011) findings, which explain that context has a role on attitude formation which can vary across age groups. The mean ages of the departments are approximately 44 and 45 years old. The age and tenure lists of these departments can be found in Appendix B. These groups were interesting because they allow for exploration of different age-diverse contexts. In this way, we can explore whether Meyer’s (2011) and Rizzuto’s (2011) findings towards age-diversity and new technological adoptions are present.
Regarding the interviews, questions were not limited towards one specific IT system because IT reinvention is rare and unique (Sun, 2012; Nevo et al., 2016). Focusing on one system may limit potentially relevant data. Nevertheless, respondents were asked to aim for a system. The main focus for the CSD was the TIPS system. In the ICTD, only one employee worked with TIPS. Therefore, I decided to ask other employees about their expertise, how they cope with the questions from users, how they handle requests rather than specific system values.
and age-diversity. Example questions are: how familiar are you with the system? How did the use of systems develop? Do you ever experiment with new features? How do you communicate about changes in systems? Do you notice a difference between usage and knowledge of systems between members? Sixteen interviews were held. In each department, eight interviews were held. In each department, four younger employees and four older employees were interviewed. The interviews were held between the interviewer and the interviewee. To reduce response bias, multiple interviews were performed on the same level within the same team, to get different insights. eight CSD employees were interviewed, two application managers, two first-line employees, three second-line employees and the ICT manager. Interviewed employees have at least one year experience, therefore their knowledge of the systems is appropriate.
The interviews were conducted in Dutch and ranged between 30-89 minutes. They were held in a separate conference room, without disturbance by others. Interviews were recorded, with permission of the interviewees. Recording reduces bias, wrong interpretations and inaccuracies. during the process of interviewing one question was deleted because it was questioned before. And one was changed because of input of one of the interviewees. There was one recording malfunction after recording for 20 minutes. This interview was directly transcribed, and send to the interviewee for verification which was approved by the interviewee on the same day. Further, there was one interview were coffee was spilled, resulting in a break for recording but continued afterwards. The respondents were anonymized, and in the findings, their names were replaced by letters.
3.4 Data analysis
The data was analyzed as follows. The CSD was analyzed first, then the ICTD. Afterwards, both departments were compared. Last, an analysis of these results was performed linking them to IT reinvention.
The data was analyzed via a codebook, developed with Mortelmans (2009) chapter on qualitative analyses. Before starting the inductive coding process, a codebook with deductive codes was developed. These codes were based on existing literature. Examples are the codes connected to the IT reinvention process (Nevo et al., 2016), such as hypothetical reinvention and technology recomposition. These can be found in the codebook in Appendix C.
Memos were used during the open-coding process and the axial coding process in accordance with Mortelmans (2009). In this way, linkages between concepts would not be missed. Afterwards, selective coding was performed to connect the inductive codes to theory (Mortelmans, 2009). This allows to connect the story of respondents back to the theory as constructed.
4. RESULTS
In this section, the interview results and findings will be presented. The results show how an age-diverse social context has influence on IT reinvention processes. First, the CSD will be presented, then the ICTD. Afterwards, the findings of the compared departments will be presented. Last, we show findings relating to the age-diverse social context does for his individual IT reinvention processes. Whenever findings are presented, the numbers within brackets show the number of participants that have said the same, out of the total number of participants.
4.1 CSD
4.1.1. Social context CSD
Employees work in a stable environment. They work with different markets, have market specific knowledge and are expected to take over each other’s work when somebody is absent. The department has a clear social structure. This is informal, but impacts their daily routines. All respondents mentioned this structure: CSY3: “We have divided the team in a 2-2, 4-4 setting. Whenever you walk into the office
you can see the separation”. Further, all respondents were agreeing about the high work pressure that
this structure causes. CSY4: “whenever there are not enough people, it results in high work pressure”. In Figure 6 you can see the visual representation of the CSD.
The dots are the employees, and the ovals represent communication lines based on physical location. These lines are caused by the social structure, and indicate how employees work and communicate. This indicates that the social context is bounded, and the structures narrows their interaction. The arrows represent the communication whenever knowledge is needed, specifically.
Most communication takes place within the informal structure. Employees work individually with the system and are not dependent on others to complete their tasks. Even though they do communicate regularly because of their CSY2: “extraverted nature” (4/8), most communication takes place whenever there are discrepancies (8/8), time issues (7/8) and interfacing problems (5/8) with the system. These issues are communication baselines and are reactive in nature. Formally, there are meetings but employees do not discuss system use (4/8). There are sporadic stand ups, when the supervisor is there. Employees have different responsibilities, technological involvement and roles regarding systems. All respondents state essential differences are within markets. CSO1: “Every market has its own rules and
regulations, and my way of working is different from another colleague”. These differences of markets
allow for differences in ways of working, enabling different routines. Two employees engage in key-usership for a system, meaning that they have advanced knowledge concerning systems. Two young employees are involved in multiple projects. Two older employees have a lot of technical knowhow, where one of them is involved in projects. One older employee wants to learn more about systems, even though he feels a knowledge limitation. The decision rights and responsibility for changing systems do not belong to the CSD. Therefore, active engagement in reinvention other than signaling discrepancies, is lacking. CSO4: “We have to collaborate with ICT, and we have to say where discrepancies are”. All interviewees replied that they first try to solve a problem within the department, before reaching ICTD’s application manager. Every employee lacks “time” (8/8) and some mention that to explore different options within systems has no priority (5/8), as it is not part of their roles.
4.1.3 Age-diversity
Tenures from CSD employees ranges from 40 years to 1 year, where age-variability is not that high. The age and tenure-list can be found in Appendix B. Employees see the following for younger employees: “faster learning pace (8/8)” “More flexible (8/8)”, “speed (6/8)”, “they grew up with
systems (5/8)” Employees see the following for older employees: “Experience (7/8)”, “Storytelling (5/8)” “Coordination (5/8)”” Providing historical data (8/8)” “History without systems (8/8)”.
Three older employees are skeptical towards systems, but not to their functionality. One of the older respondents made a comment about a sort of anxiety culture. Younger employees do not express this anxiety, but mentioned it without asking. They have less consequence. This is presented in Table 1.
CSO2: “The new system shows that you can do more with less people, someone is already sitting at
home, who is fired because of this.”
CSO4: “I am afraid for one system that can do it all, it will all go so fast that I can’t keep up.” CSY3: “Look, I’m younger and if I make myself superfluous, than I do not worry about that.” CSY4: “The fear of losing my job? Well, not at all. I can have a better one but I like to work here.”
Older employees have more experience, and are skeptical about the future, especially if tenure is long. As is written on a note, given by an older employee: “Experience taught me that systems do not always
work well for everybody … The older you are, the more you already have experienced a disappointment”. This example shows that experience limits options for the future.
Younger employees do things differently, faster and want older employees to keep up. However, older employees need to be convinced first. They need more than just a comment or CSO1: “saying that a
paperless office is better”. they need CSO1: “argumentation” (5/8) and not only CSO3: “hear about the benefit, but actually perceive the benefit”. CSY1 explains:
"If someone says, you have to do this and this then I forget it immediately. Whenever you tell me why I need to do this and this, because it causes this, then you will probably know this a half year from now".
4.1.4 Collective memory and learning
Employees “learn on the job” (8/8), in tacit form and by using the system. Only four employees showed examples of “training by the supplier”. During introduction to the system, they sit with a colleague and learn about the system. To learn, older employees were mostly mentioned (6/8), even though it deviates depending on time and market specific knowledge. Time issues endanger knowledge sharing (6/8). All younger employees stimulate that employees should document knowledge (4/8). When employees deviate from the social structure, it to ask questions about market specific knowledge and experience of other positions. Employees have market specific knowledge, but take over each other’s work. The collective knowledge that they have is the knowledge of being a user of the system, and knowing what is not possible and what is. Their way of learning obstructs to incorporate present-context information effectively. Y4 comments: “I notice that people are stuck in the here and now. Maybe because of time
issues, maybe lack of interest. People do not always see the big picture”. 4.1.5 Shared goals orientation
Employees have performance goals and use the system for doing their market specific job (8/8). Employees further state that overarching goals are more important than individual goals. Shared goals are not that obvious, because most employees have performance goals not related to system use, or collective use. Examples of shared goals and their effects are given in Table 2.
CSO2: “Everybody does have the same goal but it acts out different for his or her own customers. […] we tell each other, though that is more the function of the manager”.
CSY1: “A group goal is lowering the stock. That makes me look more often in the stock list. It intensifies communications.”
Respondents are not aware of other employees use the system. Sometimes they complain about the way others work because they need to take over each other’s work. CSO1: “Whenever someone else does
things for a client above what the system can do, then he is obstructing me, because I am expected to do that now”. Team reflexivity is not actively pursued. All respondents answer whenever there are
discrepancies, you will hear about it. Then, they are active in asking others CSO4: “Guys, how can we
do this better, how do you do this? Do you experience the same?” They seek support and strengthen
their issue. When employees do not behave accordingly, it’s the responsibility of the manager (5/8). The manager is only asked whenever they need greater support. CSY2 comments: “A supervisor has more
supports systems. We have send the complaint module via the supervisor”. 4.1.6. Summary
4.2 ICTD
4.2.1 ICTD Social context
The ICTD is less stable. Employees explain that their direction has changed a lot (5/8). A lot of changes have been made already. Application management, formerly part of operational departments, is added to the ICTD. There is a high work pressure, enough work to do and more employees are coming in to strengthen the team. OICT5: “There is more investment in the ICTD than before, there is money
available and you should take advantage”. Figure 5 shows A visual representation of the ICTD. The
communication lines are scattered, indicating that employees are not physically bounded in their social context.
Figure 5. Visualization of ICT and their communication lines
There are multiple roles within the ICTD. The roles that employees assume for ICT practices are different, and communication lines from Figure 5 are based on these roles. Only first-line employees have more regular contact with each other. Additionally, they collaborate with second-line. The first-line plays a reactive role. They “answer the first-first-line questions, that is half the work” (ICTY6). While second-line involve project-based roles and are active in pursuing improvement. The manager is actively involved with the employees. Employees work independently, but do not take over each other’s work (8/8), so their interdependency medium to high, ICTO8 explains: “I can’t know what another colleague
is doing at the moment, […] I can’t replace him.”.
The ICTD has decision rights and ownership in deciding what changes within applications and systems, therefore determines whether reinvention occurs. They have the decision rights. ICTY8: “If a key-user
4.2.2. Age-diversity
Big tenure differences indicate higher age-variability. The age and tenure-list can be found in Appendix C. Knowledge in terms of age-diversity is not big. Some mention “smartphone use” (4/8) of younger employees compared to older ones. Further, they comment on the complementarities they have for each other. “Experience” (5/8) and “knowledge” (4/8) of the older employees compared to the “knowledge
of theory” (4/8), “flexibility in working with IT” (6/8) and “attitudes” (4/8) of younger employees. As
one employee comments about an older worker: ICTO5: “He has grown up with the legacy systems and
knows far more about that system than any other. While younger employees have more knowledge of the network structures of this area”.
Older employees experiment if time is no issue. Younger employees experiment more and know more of the current technologies that are at hand. This example shows IT reinvention resulting from experimentation ICTY7:
“We want the same sort of network managing in foreign countries as here. Though foreign internet lines
are not good. So, if we want to take all information to here, that is going to take days before it gets here. We came with a solution. If we put a NAS there, where data is on. I can control it from here, and make it stream through there. In this way, we don’t have to go over the thin line from here to there. That sort of things. You only know that it’s possible when you try it.”
He emphasized that during this process employees brainstorm shortly, while collaborating and putting ideas on the table. Afterwards, right then and there execute the plan. A good description of the age-diverse context of the ICTD is as follows ICTY6:
“Younger employees are way less seeking for approval; they are willing to collaborate and are self-exploratory in YouTube and Google. Instead of going to me first: may I do that? That is a different attitude and they bring knowledge from subjects like scrum. They are way more flexible than the old employees. But that makes the mix exiting. Older employees bring a lot of knowledge, do not underestimate them. That combination is good. The younger employees will do the work; the older employees know exactly how the fabric is running and how processes are flowing. Keep that in mind, keep that in mind.” “Like a pinball effect?” “Yes.”
4.2.3. Collective memory and learning
respondents answered with “YouTube” or “Google”. If they know that somebody has knowledge about certain IT structures, then they will reach out to them.
4.2.4 Shared goals orientation
Employees seem to have learning goals and outcomes of projects are not as clear-cut. Shared goals are explicitly mentioned during the interviews. The ICTD has a “mood board”(6/8), where they have goals and projects that need to be finished. ICTO7: “As the ICTD, you stand for a type of service”. The first line uses service level agreements that determine where they are working to and how they are working. These goals allow for learning. They mutually reinforce each other during informal meetings, daily stand-ups and retrospectives. Multiple channels of communication and collaboration allow for more time for mutual reinforcement. There is active pursuement of feedback. ICTY7: “They ask me: Hey,
how do you look at this?” and ICTO8: “He brings in theory, which makes it very interesting to do”.
Leadership is mentioned by employees (6/8). He guides the employees to stimulate them to do the work themselves. Increasing their level of autonomy and that input is appreciated. As ICTO6 explains: “you
should share your opinion during reflection, your attitude, share your knowledge and your ideas.”
Last, the data shows that due to shared goals changes in systems are negatively influenced. As ICTY8 explains: “We have had a time where changes have been suggested. There are still quotations for that,
but we needed to map the processes first. It still is on hold, they are parked. […] as ICT department, we want a minimum amount of customization”. Again, priority is mentioned (5/8) that determines direction.
4.2.6 Summary
The ICTD does engage IT reinvention. They actively engage to experiment and learn from each other. And their social context enables their ability to do things themselves. They receive wishes, but beyond that may implement or do otherwise, because they hold autonomy and decision rights. The ICTD is active and inducer of changes. Their high amount of interaction and non-substitutable roles offer stimulating effects for reinvention because employees are interdependent for their personal goals. For age-diversity, there is little difference between old and young. The way of learning provides ability to incorporate present-context information and is dispersed actively during standups, retrospectives and other forms of communication.
4.3 Comparing both cases
4.3.1 Comparing social context
Table 3 shows the main social contextual differences between the CSD and ICTD. Below the table, the most important factors will be elaborated.
Factors CSD ICTD
Age-variability Medium High
Tenures 40 years – 1 year 37 years – 1 year
Mindset towards systems
Young is positive, older is skeptical due to work pressure and lack of opportunity. They
like the use of systems if beneficial.
Young and old are positive regarding systems, because there is enough
opportunity for both.
Attitudes Reactive and subject to change Active and inducers of change
Knowledge-transfer
Market specific, from different departments Technology related, theory vs. practice
Learning Tacit, trainings Tacit, high amount of training, YouTube,
Goals Performance goals Learning goals
Shared goals Present, not actively pursued only when
necessary. Individual work. Actively pursued, roadmap included. Collaborative work.
Team reflexivity For employees, by supervisor For and by employees
Mutual
reinforcements
Informal discussion Informal discussion, daily standup, retrospective
Leadership Used when pressure is needed Makes employees do it themselves
Social structure Physically bounded Bounded by meetings
Roles Users of systems Administrators of systems, developers of
systems,
Responsibilities Administration and development of customer needs and services, informal responsibilities
differ but expected to do it all
Administration and development of systems, formal responsibilities and clear
divided
Decision rights Processes of sales Processes regarding systems
Collaboration Medium High
Interdependence Low Medium/High
Communication
mechanisms Informal talks, applications, quarter meeting, sometimes a standup. Informal talks, applications, daily standup, monthly retrospective.
Autonomy Free to execute ways of working, not decisions.
Full autonomy, both in working as in making decisions.
First, certain types of knowledge seem to drive employees to act. Relevant differences are the amount and way. The CSD learns reactively, when someone needs to solve a problem, learn to use the system and sometimes receive a training. ICTD has more possibilities to learn, and to actively incorporate current context information. This indicates that knowledge factors are important in a social context. They provide the basis of how social context can be used.
This development is triggered by the level of collaboration. At the CSD, employees work individually and are not relying on other members for their daily jobs. They are free to use their own working ways. At the ICTD, employees rely on each other as they ask actively for each other’s input. Even though they work individually, they are more engaged and contribute in each other’s work. This corresponds with their work practice communication: higher levels of communication in the ICTD. ICTD allows employees to actively speak up during formal moments, dispersing the knowledge more to everyone, regarding systems. Further, the CSD physically bounds knowledge dispersion with the social structure they have.
Second, is variability of age and tenure amounts. Both are more scattered in the ICTD than CSD. For older employees, the mindset around systems is different. The CSD experiences high work pressure whenever employees go in projects for system development. The remaining employees experience system related high work pressure, and sometimes talk about losing positions. That puts system development in a negative mindset for employees who do not benefit. The high work pressure in the ICT department has employees rewarded with input. There is enough work in the ICT context, putting systems and development in a positive sphere.
Third, CSD employees have performance goals, and are users of systems. When working towards shared goals employees rely on support systems of the supervisor. When there are frictions, employees will address them, but the responsibility lies with the manager. At the ICTD, employees have learning goals, and are administrators and developers of systems. In the ICTD the responsibility lies with the employees themselves to solve problems and frictions. They have formal moments to do so.
4.3.2 Process to change IT
Figure 6 shows the process that enables IT change. Users collect discrepancies, go to the key-user who sends it to the application manager, who in turn sends it to the supplier. Occasionally, users directly consult the application manager. The ICTD holds decision rights and determines if quotations are accepted. You can see that the social context slows the process of reinvention, because multiple people have to agree. To act, users need time to come up with ideas and the changes that have priority will be send through. These are factors where employees cause to take action.
4.5 IT Reinvention process across age groups
We want to know how and why social context is important for IT reinvention processes across age groups. In Table 2 (CSD) and 3 (ICTD), you can find the reinvention process filled in with quotes, accordingly. The upper column shows the processes; the left-hand side shows the respondents. Afterwards, a reflection per process is given.
Table 4. CSD and IT reinvention processes.
Hypothetical reinvention Technology Recomposition Narrative construction Experimentation
CS
Y1
"We wanted to have, prior to manufacturing if we could decide whether we could cut board from
stock, or if we could not"
"We want to see if we can split it up"
"After implementation, we had to see how the system worked: Can it work
like this? Can we incorporate pictures in the system? Does it truly
transfer?
“So, you try different options. We have a test environment in TIPS … Or I use it before I discuss about problems, if I can
make it work"
CS
Y 2 "Yes regularly, you say it
immediately." x x
"If I have time, yes"… "Now you see that you got more time to think about that".
CS
Y3
"They can now get a summary about blocked orders … this is possible through an app about our old system
power-bi"
x x
"I have done that, but not so much. I don't have time for that, and I think it is a
waste of my time.
CS
Y4
"If we can automate booking orders, that would be great" … EDI we call
that … so the customer fills it in themselves and as CS we don't have to
add much"
"which steps can you delete and accelerate? Why do we fill in this
box, and not the other?"
x
"To see if something can work in another program, or if I put this here, what happens there? Sometimes you fail, or you don't. … I’m curious where it leads
to, it is interesting"
CS
O
1 "Yes I have had ideas. When suppliers asked if we could put some efforts on
paper. I'm fanatic".
x x
"No. I'm not an experimenter. I don't experiment with systems". … "You should
really have time to optimize"
CS
O
2 the example of cutting out of stock,
which needed a system adaptation x x
No engagement in experimenting because of knowledge of the system
CS
O
3
"For me personally no" x
“My knowledge is more basic. I can tell you what you should note when
systems are implemented”
"No I do not experiment. I know what I can do with the system. I don’t need more"… "That is because I am doing this
a long time".
CS
O
4
"I'm not involved in this, but I'm sure it is in our heads, we should go to track-and-trace. And we lack it in the
system right now". "We have to collaborate with ICT, and we have to
say where discrepancies are"
"This is the responsibility of the ICT department, but you should not
throw things over the wall"
x
"You should not experiment by yourself, you should do that only in project based assignments" "I don’t think it belongs to me to experiment other than with my daily work practices, that takes more
Table 5. ICTD and IT reinvention processes.
Hypothetical reinvention Technology Recomposition Narrative construction Experimentation
IC
T
Y
5 "That article idea came from someone and it was good so it was send
through"
"but on the way you think… this is useful for purchase, but is it also for
preparation?"
"Then you speak to your key-user … because he/she possesses the knowledge, I don't know
about their processes"
"You just try something, and then I show it. If it’s good, I continue, bit by bit I try something more" …
IC
T
Y
6 "You should actively pursue your ideas and don't ask me for permission before you go after it, or else you will
never get there".
"The older employees have more knowledge about processes about how things work in the fabric and
what options are"
"They will tell you what you should note during the process"
"Attitudes are more important to motivation for innovation than
experience"
IC
T
Y
7 "We want the same sort of network managing in the foreign countries as
here"
"we can do it via the English Channel … But if we put a NAS
there"
"we can do it via the English Channel, but that will take days before it gets here… if we
put a NAS there … make it stream through here, in this way we don't have to go over a
thin line”
"You only know that it's possible when you try it"
IC
T
Y
8
"I receive requests from the users …
These are suggested by users" x x
"No I do not, I wish i could do that, but due to time I don’t have the
knowledge to do so"
IC
T
O
5 “Yes we do have … for me this is rather a general question”
"We try to follow a roadmap, where
all the big steps that we want to accomplish are in"
x "Some things you just do, some
things you first ask your colleagues about … by just clicking on some buttons … You
have to dare to try”
IC
T
O
6
"Registering tickets in Ultimo, they
are building a new module for us" x
"were now testing a different way of planning, they need newer data in the testing area"
"Yes we do that in a test environment" … "You use that to see how you can do your actions
which you want to do"
IC
T
O
7 "You used to have excel… Now we have office forms which enables
workflow in a central manner"
x
"Than you look, how does another look at this? Is it like that? Or not. How many work
does that bring? What is the advantage?
"If I have time yes. But right now the work pressure is high"
IC
T
O
8
"We needed to better the interoffice telephone"
"We can keep the old interoffice telephone and upgrade it, or what is
the alternative? ... Skype for business"
"We already had the licenses, we just needed some add ons … Why shouldn’t we use
those?”
4.5.1 Hypothetical reinvention
When you compare the CSD with the ICTD, mainly older employees deviate. Older employees do not always see new possibilities or are reactive. All younger employees have new ideas for the system, and seem more individually focused. They can show the older employees possibilities, but older employees need to be exposed to these possibilities, and convinced. Further, older employees do not always see reinvention because it is excluded from their roles, because of lack of knowledge.
4.5.2. Technology recomposition
When old and young interact with each other, older employees act as gatekeepers and the younger employees cause renewal. Table 6 shows that ICTY6 states that older employees determine “what
options are”. And CSY4 says “They are useful for whenever we think something is not possible, because they have done it in the past”.
4.5.3. Narrative construction
The table shows most quotes relate to collaboration because you need certain knowledge. Additionally, when an older employee does see options, they can be used very nicely for narrative construction as they have knowledge about existing pathways and routines. CSY1 comments about an older employee:
“He can really explain things very well”. And ICT6 comments: “They will tell you wat you should note.”
4.5.4 Experimentation
As seen from the table, younger employees rely on experimentation, all young respondents experiment (8/8). ICTY6 comments “that attitudes” are important to dare (4/8). Further, older persons experiment when they have time or when should to that, in a more focused way. But what we see is that the process of experimentation and narrative construction go hand in hand. At the ICTD, they give examples of ICTY5: “trying bit by bit” and later extend again. Indicating that experimenting is no clear-cut process.
4.6. Summary of findings.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. The research process model
This study aims to find out how and why an individual’s IT reinvention is influenced by its social context, in an age-diverse context. This study evidences the potential of an age-diverse social context for IT reinvention. In Figure 6, the updated process model is shown.
Figure 6. The updated research process model
