Desley Van Der Zande

ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATION: AN EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVE
An exploratory case study on the perception towards Robotic Process Automation among
employees.
Master Thesis
Desley van der Zande – 11887869
MSc. in Business Administration – Digital Business
University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor prof. dr. P.J. van Baalen
Second reader prof. dr. H.P. Borgman

ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATION: AN EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVE 2
Date of submission: 22-06-2018
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Desley van der Zande who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented
in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and
its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is
responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to thank Peter van Baalen. His valuable and constructive
feedback has been of great help in writing my thesis. I would also like to thank my thesis
supervisors at KPMG: Nathalie Duijvesteijn and Gijsbert Sigmond. The assistance provided
by them have been greatly appreciated. Lastly, since this is my graduate thesis, I would like
to offer my special thanks to my parents who always supported me throughout my study.

Abstract
This study aims to explore the impact of the implementation of Robotic Process
Automation (RPA) from the perspective of the workforce. Based on eight interviews with
employees whose jobs are automated by RPA, this study explores how employees perceive
this RPA implementation ex-ante and ex-post. Understanding the effects of this
implementation on the workforce is essential in providing insight into the long-term
consequences RPA implementations. The findings show that employees perceive the RPA
implementation as positive ex-ante and ex-post. Because of the simple nature of the to-be-
automated process, employees expect that the implantation of RPA reduces their workload.
Furthermore, they expect their jobs to become more interesting and diverse. When the
implementation is completed, they still feel positive about the implementation. However, they
also mention concerns regarding the process errors and error handling, which they relate to a
limited availability of expertise. This study contributes to the existing literature since it
analysis the impact of automation on the workforce from an employees’ perspective.
Furthermore, it provides recommendations for managers or change agents on the relative
importance of the perceived usefulness, need for change and personal effects. It provides
practical insights than can be used in change management practices related to the
implementation of RPA.
Keywords: Robotic Process Automation; Change Management; IT implementation;
Attitudes Towards Change; Employee Attitude; Human-Machine interaction; Need for
Change; Usefulness; Valence.

Table of Contents
Statement of Originality ............................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 8
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................. 10
2.1 Business Process Automation ................................................................... 10
2.2 Robotics Process Automation ................................................................... 12
2.3 Artificial intelligence (AI) & Machine Learning ....................................... 12
2.4 The Role of Individual Beliefs .................................................................. 13
2.5 The Tripartite Model................................................................................. 15
2.6 The Cognitive Component ........................................................................ 15
2.6.1 Need For Change .................................................................................. 16
2.6.2 Usefulness ............................................................................................ 16
2.6.3 Personal Effects .................................................................................... 17
2.6.4 Relative Importance .............................................................................. 18
2.7 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 18
3. Research Method .............................................................................................. 19
3.1 Research Philosophy ................................................................................. 20
3.2 Research Approach ................................................................................... 20
3.3 Method and Design ................................................................................... 20

3.4 Respondents Selection .............................................................................. 21
3.5 Data Collection ......................................................................................... 21
3.6 Time Horizon ........................................................................................... 22
4. Findings ........................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Within-Case-Analysis ............................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Findings on Need for Change ................................................................ 24
4.1.2 Findings on Usefulness ......................................................................... 25
4.1.3 Findings on Personal Effects ................................................................. 27
5. Cross-Case-Analysis......................................................................................... 29
5.1.1 Analysis of Attitude Ex-Ante ................................................................ 30
5.1.2 Analysis of Attitude Ex-Post ................................................................. 30
5.1.3 Analysis of Attitude Evolvement .......................................................... 31
6. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 31
6.1 Need for Change ....................................................................................... 31
6.2 Usefulness ................................................................................................ 32
6.3 Personal Effects ........................................................................................ 34
6.4 Ex-ante versus Ex-post Attitude ................................................................ 35
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 36
7.1 Theoretical Contribution ........................................................................... 36
7.2 Managerial implications............................................................................ 37
7.3 Limitations ............................................................................................... 38

7.4 Future research ......................................................................................... 39
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 40
Appendix A: interview questions .......................................................................... 40
Appendix B: Selected Cases ................................................................................. 42
Appendix C: Case Information ............................................................................. 43
Respondent 1. ................................................................................................... 43
Respondent 2 .................................................................................................... 47
Respondent 3 .................................................................................................... 50
Respondent 4 .................................................................................................... 54
Respondent 5 .................................................................................................... 56
Respondent 6 .................................................................................................... 60
Respondent 7 .................................................................................................... 62
Respondent 8 .................................................................................................... 66
Appendix E: Cross-Case-Analysis ........................................................................ 70
References ................................................................................................................ 71
1. Introduction
Over the past centuries, industrial revolutions resulted in major transformations in the
way of working. (Ford, 2015). As a consequence of the revolutions, disrupting technologies
required employees to adapt to a new working environment. The next revolution is currently
taking place (Berg et al., 2018). This robotic revolution is characterised by the convergence
of breakthrough technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and the Internet of
Things (IoT). These technologies transform production processes and business models across
different industries (World Economic Forum, 2017). Being in a transformational phase stirred
the debate among journalists, economists and academics about the effect of automation on
growth, employment and distribution of income (Berg et al., 2018; Roth & Kaivo-Oja, 2016).
Automation proponents agree that increased automation destroys some jobs but, argue
at the same time that job automation creates new, more challenging jobs. Overall, the
automation proponents believe that the development of robotics will positively affect the
workforce (Fung, 2013). Automation opponents, on the other hand, expect that 45-57% of the
jobs in the United States will be threatened by robotics (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Nicholas
Carr, a well-known opponent of the automation, warns for the negative impact of automation
on the human ability to think (Carr, 2013). He uses the example of pilots to explain the
automation paradox. Although technology reduces the cognitive burden on pilots, which has
a positive effect on the overall safety, the pilots spend fewer hours on actually flying. This
reduced experience results in less flying experience and a decline in flying skills over time.
Carr (2013) worries about this paradox and argues the same effect is likely to occur across
other jobs when the development of new types of automation continues.
One of the most recent types of automation is Robotic Process Automation (RPA).
RPA is the next step within business process automation that is currently developing. Where
classical business process automation is built from scratch and requires alignment of IT-
systems, RPA uses an outside-in approach meaning that the existing information systems
remain unchanged (Van Der Aalst, Bichler, & Heinzl, 2018). As a result, RPA can adapt to
changes of the underlying information systems in the same way as humans do. It can be used
to reduce the workload of employees by replacing repetitive and simple tasks (Aguirre &
Rodriguez, 2017).
Prior research widely addressed the effects of robotics on the labour market, and the
consequences of business process automation on jobs (Autor, Levy, & Murnane, 2003; Lacity
& Willcocks, 2015). However, little is known about the attitude of the workforce regarding a
robotics implementation. Analysing this attitude is essential in providing insight into the
long-term consequences of RPA since it influences employees overall job performance and
affects the success of an implementation (Lines, 2004; Raineri, 2011; Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003)
Literature of change management and IT implementation will be combined to study
the attitudes of the workforce regarding the implementation of RPA. This research tries to
answer the question:
What are the expectations and evaluations regarding the implementation of Robotic
Process Automation of employees whose job is affected by this implementation?
This research investigates how employees whose jobs are affected by RPA, respond
to this implementation. This investigation includes a comparison of the employees’ ex-ante
perception of the RPA implementation and the ex-post perception of the implementation.
Furthermore, this comparison includes and exploration on which factors contribute to the
employees’ overall attitude towards the entire RPA implementation.

Overall, the theoretical contribution of this research is threefold. First, it pays
attention to the consequences of the expanding field of Robotic Process Automation on the
workforce. Secondly, it provides guidelines for future research in the field of change
management. It investigates which factors contribute to employees’ attitude towards the RPA
implementation and how these factors differ in relative importance. This relative importance
has not been investigated before.
In addition to the theoretical contribution, this research provides recommendations for
managers and change agents who are planning to implement RPA in the future. It provides
insights into the employees' perspective of the RPA implementation, which can be useful in
formulating communication strategies. Furthermore, the findings can be used as a basis for
human resource management practices regarding human-machine interaction.
The second chapter of this thesis provides an overview of the existing literature in the
field of automation. It explains the differences between existing and future types of business
process automation and combines literature in the field of IT implementation and change
management to address the issue of RPA implementation. The literature review ends by
presenting a conceptual framework on which this research is based. The third chapter of this
thesis explains the research method that is used to answer the research question. In the third
section, the findings will be presented based on a within case-analysis and cross-case
analysis. This thesis ends with the overall conclusion, the managerial implications and
recommendations for future research.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Business Process Automation
The traditional type of business process automation is based on a fixed set of
requirements and automates relatively predefined processes (Mohapatra, 2009). Some

examples are Enterprise Resource Planning, Customer Relationship Management and Supply
Chain Management (Scheer, Abolhassan, Jost, & Kirchmer, 2004). These tools were mostly
implemented to support enterprise knowledge workers to create higher output, increase
productivity and improve quality and flexibility (Mohapatra, 2009).
Research in the field of business process automation emphasised positive as well as
negative effects of business process automation on the workforce. Automation proponents
argue that automation improves the overall productivity since it enables employees to
complete more cases within the same time (Fung, 2013; Mohapatra, 2009). Additionally,
Autor (2015), found that human workers conduct more non-routine-based tasks instead of
routine-based tasks as a result of job automation. Non-routine-based tasks are less repetitive
and requires more attention. Automation proponents therefore state that increased automation
reduces the error-rates (Wickens, Li, Santamaria, Sebok, & Sarter, 2010).
Automation opponents, on the other hand, argue that automation threatens the labour
market (Autor et al., 2003; Frey & Osborne, 2017; Jaimovich & Siu, 2012). Frey and
Osborne (2017), for example, found that 47% of the current jobs in the USA are at risk,
meaning that they are potentially automatable. In addition, other automation opponents
highlight the fact that also the employees who keep their job experience harmful effects of
increased automation. Nicholas Carr, probably the most well-known automation opponent
(Ford, 2015), addresses these downsides of automation for the remaining workforce. Carr,
(2010), warns for the reliability of humans on technology since this reliability negatively
affects our lives and our brains. Instead of performing tasks, workers will observe screens.
This task shift inhibits their development of expertise and negatively affect their capabilities
(Carr, 2013).
2.2 Robotics Process Automation
This study focuses on RPA, a new type of automation. According to the Institute for
Robotic Process Automation and Artificial intelligence (2018), RPA is the application of
technology that configures a robot that captures and interpret existing applications to process
a transaction, to manipulate data or to communicate with other digital systems. RPA differs
from traditional types of automation in three ways. First, it uses existing Information Systems
to automate processes. Instead of replacing or aligning the existing systems, it interacts with
these existing systems (Van Der Aalst et al., 2018). Secondly, RPA can adapt to changes
within these underlying information systems, which makes it possible to handle exceptions
(Aguirre & Rodriguez, 2017). Thirdly, traditional automation aims to enhance the workforce,
while RPA focuses on virtualising the workforce (Fung, 2013). The RPA market is growing
fast (Le Clair, Cullen, & King, 2017). While the market share of RPA was only $250 million
in 2016, they estimate a market growth towards $2.9 billion in 2021.
2.3 Artificial intelligence (AI) & Machine Learning
In addition to the basic type of RPA, a more advanced type of RPA is currently in its
early stages of development (Gartner, 2017). This advanced type of RPA involves the use of
new developments within the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), where human intelligence is
exhibited by machines (Bini, 2018). These new developments belong to what is known as
"machine learning" (Agrawal, Gans, & Goldfarb, 2017). Machine learning techniques enable
the robot to learn human resolving capabilities through interaction with workers (Asada,
Macdorman, Ishiguro, & Kuniyoshi, 2001; Van Der Aalst et al., 2018). In their paper
Agrawal, et al. (2017), discuss the impact that improved machine learning techniques will
have on the workplace. They argue that the role of humans within the workforce will become
more crucial since virtual systems study the behaviour and the execution of tasks performed
by the human workforce. By observing the choices that these humans make, the robot learns
how to execute different steps within a process and how to handle exceptions (Agrawal et al.,
2017). As a result of this observational learning method, Agrawel et al. (2017) stress the
importance of studying human actions and behaviour in the setting of job automation. This
study is focused on the simple type of RPA without the addition of AI or Machine Learning
since advanced RPA is still in its early stages of development. However, the contributions of
this thesis apply to the more advanced types of RPA as well.
2.4 The Role of Individual Beliefs
According to the Thomas Theorem, the actual consequences of the situation itself are
less important (Thomas, 1928). What matters is the individual perception of the situation.
Their well-known quote “If men define situations as real, they are real in its consequences”
(Thomas, 1928 p.572), forms the basis of a lot of theories in the field of sociology and
psychology (Merton, 1995). More recent theories still rely on the Thomas Theorem. Baird &
Williamson (2009), claim that uncertainty and fear among employees in dealing with new
situations decrease organisational productivity. Similarly, Lin & Chen (2012), investigated
the perception of cloud computing among IT professionals. Their findings suggest that the
personal beliefs of IT managers prevent companies from using cloud computing, even when
the benefits of this way of computing are widely addressed within the literature. Studies
regarding IT adoption also emphasise the importance of individual perception. (Venkatesh et
al., 2003), argues that the customers' acceptance of new technologies influences their use of
this new technology. This view is supported by Abbas, Hassan, Asif, Ahmed, & Haider,
(2018) who demonstrated that the attitudes of customers towards mobile banking apps
influence their use of mobile banking apps.

Research in the field of job automation mainly consists of studies towards the
consequences of business process automation and future robotics developments on the nature
of work and the labour market (Autor et al., 2003; Lacity & Willcocks, 2015). Little is known
about individual perception towards the implementation of Robotic Process Automation. This
research gap is remarkable since the evidence presented in this chapter suggests that the
individual perception towards new implementations affect organisational change and
influence individual behaviour (Lin & Chen (2012); Thomas, 1928;Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Soon, more advanced types of RPA will learn from human behaviour based on
human-machine interaction (Gartner, 2017). It is therefore essential to gain a deeper insight
into these human attitudes towards the RPA implementation. This study investigates the
perceptions of RPA that exist among employees. It explores which factors influence the
individual perception towards RPA ex-ante and ex-post. This study answers the research
question:
By answering this research question, this study contributes to the understanding of the
perception towards RPA among employees. It investigates which factors influence the
individual perception towards RPA and explores how these factors interact. This is the first
study that explores this interaction and analyses the relative importance of these factors.
Furthermore, this study originally contributes to the field of RPA since it is the first study
within this research area that approaches this type of automation from the perspective of the
workforce.
To answer the research question, this study is based on elements of the tripartite
model. This model can be used to analyse individual perceptions towards change and is often
used in the field of change management (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, Jimmieson, &
Armenakis, 2013; van Harreveld, Rutjens, Schneider, Nohlen, & Keskinis, 2014). The next
section demonstrates this model and describes the key elements within this model. It links
change management practices to the implementation of RPA and ends with a presentation of
the conceptual framework
2.5 The Tripartite Model
The tripartite model explains the individual perception towards change (Ostrom, 1969). This
model argues that the individual perception referred to as individual attitudes, consist of
cognitive, affective, and behavioural components. The components of this model are still
widely used within the literature in the field of change management (Bouckenooghe, 2010;
Rafferty et al., 2013; van Harreveld et al., 2014). The cognitive component can be considered
as the most critical component within the tripartite model because it influences emotions and
behaviour (Bovey & Hede, 2001; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007). This effect is
illustrated by Holt et al. (2007), who state that individuals use a cognitive scheme, to interpret
a change. This interpretation influences their feelings and emotions towards change, which in
turn forms the basis of employees' organisational behaviour. The cognitive component within
the tripartite model is used as a basis for this research design and the interview protocol of
this study.
2.6 The Cognitive Component
The cognitive component relates to individual beliefs, such as thoughts or
understanding of the object of change (Piderit, 2000). According to Rafferty et al. (2013),
these beliefs are formed by the perceived need that change is needed, the perceived
usefulness of the change and the perceived personal effects of the change. The objectives of
this study are based on these components. The following paragraphs explain these beliefs and
present the objectives of this research.
2.6.1 Need For Change
The perceived need for change is in this study defined as The extent to which someone
believes that change is necessary. Kotter, (1995), mentioned this perceived need for change
as the first and most important step to successfully execute a change process (Kotter, 1995).
Additionally, Bouckenooghe (2010), argues that establishing a sense of urgency is crucial in
achieving a high need for change. Based on these studies, it is likely that the individuals'
perceived need to automate the processes influences their overall attitude towards the RPA
implementation. As a result, the first objective of this study is to explore how the perceived
need for change influence employees' expectations and evaluations related to RPA
implementation.
2.6.2 Usefulness
According to the English dictionary, usefulness can be seen as: “The quality or state
of being useful” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). Additionally, usefulness in the context of
change implementation literature is often referred to as "the degree to which a person believes
that using a particular system would be free of effort" (Davis, 1989, p. 320). This study
combines both definitions and defines perceived usefulness in the context of RPA as the
extent to which someone believes that RPA is useful to conduct the automated, or to-be
automated task. In their research Brown, Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Burkman (2002),
investigated the effect of perceived usefulness on employees’ attitude towards a new IT
implementation. Their research demonstrates that the perceived usefulness of new IT
innovations among employees affects the acceptance of a new IT implementation among

these employees, especially when using the system was mandatory. Based on these studies, it
is likely that the ex-ante and ex-post evolution of the usefulness of RPA influences the
attitude of individuals towards the RPA implementation. As a result, the second objective of
this study is to explore how perceived usefulness influence employees’ expectations and
evaluations related to RPA implementation.
2.6.3 Personal Effects
The last attribute that explains individual cognitive beliefs according to the tripartite
model is personal effects. Self and Schrader (2009), argue that individual resistance to change
depends on the perception of personal wins or gains. It is therefore likely that some
individuals resist changing if personal losses outperform personal wins (Armenakis &
Bedeian, 1999; Lines, 2004; Self & Schraeder, 2009)
In the case of RPA, it is expected that employees experience both loss and gains. The
promise to support workers by executing standardised tasks to improve efficiency indicates
potential personal benefits. However, one can also argue that the RPA implementation
threatens jobs by executing complete tasks. As a result of this threat, employees might
experience personal risks. Pideritt (2000), further describes this contradiction in his
investigation towards personal effects. On the one hand, he mentions that employees who can
adapt to a new implementation can take advantage of the opportunities that arise from the
implementation. On the other hand, it is possible that they experience adverse effects such as
losing authority, status, or economic losses (Autor, 2015). Little is known about the personal
losses and wins that employees experience as a result of an RPA implementation. More
information is needed to understand how employees evaluate the effect of the RPA
implementation on them. As a result, the third objective of this study is to investigate how
perceived personal consequences influence employees’ expectations and evaluations related
to RPA implementation.
2.6.4 Relative Importance
The last objective of this study is to explore the relative importance of these three
attributes. According to (Finneman & Clark, 1996), the effect of the perceived personal
effects should outperform the effect of the perceived need for change. They argue that
individuals are likely to resist change if they believe that they will lose something of value.
Following this argument, it is expected that employees focus on their self-interest rather than
on the potential benefits of the organisation. This expectation is in contradiction with Kotter
(1995), who argues that establishing a sense of urgency is the most critical focus point when
leading change. Overall, it can be concluded that some predictions regarding the relative
importance of these beliefs have been made. However, no prior literature exists that
investigates this relative importance. It is therefore unknown if, for example, the need for
change is more important than personal consequences, or if the usefulness is more influential
on the overall perception than the need for change. To address this research gap, this study
investigates the relative importance of the need for change, usefulness and personal effects
on employees' overall cognitive evaluation of the RPA implementation.
2.7 Conceptual Framework
To visually summarise the literature study and the four research objectives, a
conceptual framework is constructed in Figure 1. This framework displays the cognitive
beliefs that influence the individual attitude towards the implementation of RPA. Following
the research objectives, this study explores how the RPA implementation influence these
three elements. It investigates how these cognitive beliefs individually contribute to the
overall attitude towards the RPA and in which hierarchical order. These investigations will be
conducted in the pre-implementation phase and the post-implementation phase to address
potential differences between those phases.
Pre-implementation phase
Individual level Cognitive component
Need for change
Attitude
RPA
Usefulness towards RPA
implementation
implementation
Personal effects
Post-implementation phase
Individual level Cognitive component
Need for change
Attitude
RPA towards RPA
Usefulness
implementation
implementation
Personal effects
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework on the attitudes towards RPA
3. Research Method
This research aims to explore the attitude towards the implementation of RPA among
employees whose jobs are automated by RPA. It investigates which cognitive beliefs
influence the attitude towards the RPA implementation among these employees. Furthermore,
it tries to explore how these beliefs influence the employees’ attitude towards the RPA
implementation and investigate the extent to which these factors contribute to their overall
attitude towards the RPA implementation. This research covers both the pre-implementation
and the post-implementation phase. The cognitive beliefs are examined according to the
conceptual framework that is based on change management practices (Bouckenooghe, 2010;
Ostrom, 1969; Rafferty et al., 2013). This research answers the question:
This chapter describes and discusses the methods used in this investigation. It
describes the research philosophy, the research method and design, the respondent selection
and the data collection method.
3.1 Research Philosophy
The research philosophy contains assumptions about the way in which the researcher
views the world and is essential to consider since this view can influence the choices and
strategies that are made regarding the research (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). This
study is interpretative in nature since it is based on the idea that humans are social actors who
interpret the world around (Saunders et al., 2012).
3.2 Research Approach
This study uses an inductive approach. According to Saunders et al. (2012), an
inductive research approach is mostly used to explore phenomena to understand the nature of
the problem. This study explores the attitudes of employees towards the implementation of
RPA and provides a better understanding of the perspective of the workforce towards this
implementation. This information can contribute to the development of new theory within the
field of RPA as well as in the field of change management.
3.3 Method and Design
This study is based on a qualitative research method. This method is suitable for this
study since it is used to answer questions about experience, meaning and perspective, mostly
from the perception of the participant (Hammarberg, Johnson, Bourne, Fisher, & Kirkman,
2014). To analyse these individual attitudes, this study uses an embedded case study design.
According to Yin (2003), this type of case study design applies to situations in which a single
case is studied over multiple units of analysis. This study collects the qualitative data through
interviews with multiple employees, working in different departments. The employees, in this
case, relate to the multiple units of analysis. Each employee experienced job automation as a
result of the RPA implementation. This implementation, therefore, relates to the single case
on which this research is focused.
3.4 Respondents Selection
The respondents are selected based on a set of requirements. Firstly, this research is
focused on the attitudes during the pre-implementation phase as well as the attitudes during
the post-implementation phase. It is therefore required that the implementation phase is
completed and that RPA executes the process. Secondly, it is required that the employee used
to execute a task that is currently executed by RPA. This requirement guarantees a change in
the daily work of the employees as a result of the RPA implementation, which enables the
employee to reflect on this implementation.
To select the respondents, this study uses purposeful sampling, in combination with
criterion sampling techniques. In cooperation with KPMG, respondents are selected based on
the requirements as mentioned above and their willingness to participate.
3.5 Data Collection
Data for this study is collected through semi-structured interviews that are based on
the conceptual framework. This way of data collection is appropriate when providing
qualitative research (Gillham, 2005). It enables interviewees to express their thoughts and
feelings and allows the researcher to ask questions based on issue related themes (Alvesson &
Deetz, 1999). The interviews take approximately 40 minutes each and are recorded and
transcribed. After each transcription, the interviewees will check their transcripts. This avoids
errors and strengthens the validity. Apart from the questions related to this research, the
interview protocol also contains some questions that are related to a different research that is
being executed by KPMG at the same time. These questions are related to the impact of RPA
on job characteristics. It is beyond the scope of this research to analyse this issue. Therefore,
the data drawn from these questions is not described. The interview protocol can be found in
Appendix A.
3.6 Time Horizon
This research is conducted from January 2018 to June 2018 and is therefore limited in
time. To explore the differences in cognitive beliefs between the pre-implementation state to
the post-implementation state, a longitudinal research strategy would be preferable. This type
of strategy allows the researchers to do a pre- and post-measurement. However, due to the
limited timeframe of this study, a longitudinal study is practically impossible. RPA is still in
its early stages, which is makes it hard to find cases on which a pre- and post-measurement
can be conducted. To overcome this issue, the interview consists of two parts. In one part of
the interview questions will be asked related to employees' evaluation of the RPA
implementation. The other part of the interview refers to their expectations of the RPA
implementation ex-ante, for example by asking ‘what was your response when you first heard
of the implementation?’. Although it is expected that respondents are able to explain their
earlier opinions, it is essential to take into account the likability of biased results when
analysing the results related to earlier expectations. This will be further explained in the
discussion section.
4. Findings
This chapter describes the findings of this research. Eight semi-structured interviews
were conducted with employees whose job is automated as a result of the implementation of
RPA. These interviews were conducted at four Dutch firms with over 250 employees within
the following sectors: one banking firm, one within the fast-moving consumer goods sector
and two energy utility companies. The RPA systems were up-and-running in all cases. An
overview of the respondents, including the interview date, department and a fictional
company name are displayed in Appendix B.
After the data was collected, literal transcriptions of the recordings have been created
manually. To increase credibility, the employees reviewed their transcript to check for
accuracy and resonance with their experiences. The approved transcripts were coded and
analysed individually. A summary of the transcripts that include quotes and contextual
information is displayed in Appendix C.
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part displays how individual beliefs
influence the individual attitude towards the RPA implementation, based on a within-case-
analysis. The second part presents the findings related to the hierarchical order in which these
beliefs influence the individual attitude towards the RPA implementation. By conducting a
cross-case-analysis, this section aims to determine the individual contribution of the cognitive
beliefs towards this attitude.
4.1 Within-Case-Analysis
The first part of this chapter presents the findings related to the three cognitive beliefs
that have been discussed in the literature review. The cases are analysed individually to
investigate how each cognitive belief affected the personal attitude of the employee towards
the RPA implementation.

4.1.1 Findings on Need for Change
The results indicate that most employees saw the need to change the process before
the implementation started. Some employees state that they perceived the initial task as too
simple and repetitive to be conducted by the human workforce nowadays. Respondent 7
explains: “We always thought it was strange that this could not be automated earlier.
Automating these processes was already possible at the beginning of the computer age,
right?” One of the employees, respondent 3, emphasises the need for change from an
organisational perspective: “Savings were needed because the company experienced tough
times.” Talking about the need for change, some employees argue that they saw the need for
change because they believe that RPA increases the customer satisfaction. Respondent 2
explains: “The robot cannot make mistakes, so in that case, the process will be executed
much quicker, which increases the customer satisfaction". In contrast, respondent 3 argues “I
did not see the need for change at all. I always want to keep track of what is happening. If I
do not see what is happing with all the trades for example, then I do not know the answers
when customers ask me about their trade”.
The findings related to the perceived need for change in the post-implementation
phase indicate that more employees see the need for change in the post-implementation phase
in comparing to the pre-implementation phase. A commonly used explanation for this
perceived need for change in the post-implementation phase is related to the positive job
effects that they experience as a result of the implementation. Three respondents experience
that the task is conducted much faster now RPA automated it. Respondent 8 explains: "What
a human being could do in 15 minutes, the robot did in 3”. This respondent realised that
change was necessary when he received less customer complains. Only one respondent,
respondent 3, did not perceive this change as necessary ex-post, which he relates to a lack of
vision of the top management regarding the RPA implementation. He states: “They did not
have a clear goal in mind. They did not know what they wanted to achieve with this RPA
implementation”.
The overall findings on the perceived need for change indicate that most employees
see the need for change ex-ante. They perceive the initial task as too simple to be done by
humans. Furthermore, they mention organisational benefits such as increased customer
satisfaction and cost savings as important reasons to change the process. The expectations of
most respondents regarding the positive effects of changing the process became true. Most
respondents did see the need for change ex-post. From their perspective, RPA executes the
process more efficiently compared to when they execute it manually. Furthermore, they
experience a reduced amount of customer explains. Three respondents did not see the need to
change the process before the implementation, because of the reduced control over the
process. Two of them changed their mind and agreed that changing the process was necessary
when reflecting on the implementation.
4.1.2 Findings on Usefulness
The results regarding the perceived usefulness ex-ante indicate that most employees
do not know enough to estimate the usefulness of the RPA implementation. Respondent 1 for
example, mentioned that she did not have much faith in RPA, because she did not know what
the robot could do. Likewise, respondent 3,5,6 and 7 mentioned that they did not have any
expectations regarding the usefulness, because they did not understand how it works. Three
respondents had negative expectations regarding the usefulness of RPA ex-ante, which they
relate to the nature of the process. Respondent 2 explains: "We already estimated that this
process was too complex to automate because it uses multiple sources for its input".
Ex post, the opinions regarding the usefulness are divided. Four perceive RPA as
useful. The respondents who perceive RPA as useful mention that it does what it has to do,
and that it is easy to work with RPA. In addition, respondent 4 mentions that RPA is useful
because it can work outside office hours. However, most respondents also mention some
concerns related to the usefulness of RPA. Two discrete reasons emerged for this. The first
concern is comparable with the concerns during the pre-implementation phase. It relates to
the suitability of the processes for RPA. Respondent 5 states: “When I see how it works it is
useful but, because of the many exceptions it had a smaller impact than I expected”.
Respondent 6 agrees with this statement by saying that: “RPA can be useful but, only if the
exceptions can be executed as well. In addition, respondent 8 states that a large variety of
input sources made it hard to use RPA: “If one source changes the whole thing stops
working”. The second concern follows on from the first concern and refers to the time that is
needed to solve errors or handle exceptions. Respondent 2 states: “The robot got stuck, and
tasks were not completed which cost me even more time. It took long before it went well,
think about months. We have suffered from this for a long time” In addition to that she
mentioned that the clients noticed this error as well; “We got emails from customers asking
why we did not open their account". She believes that it takes longer to repair the process
because this repair requires expertise in the RPA system that is not always available. She
states: “none of us knew what went wrong”. Respondent 8 shares this view: “The company
takes a small risk by hiring people who do not understand the complete process. If an error
occurs, they cannot rewrite the robot, because they do not know how. You lose knowledge
especially when customers start asking you about what went wrong. That is tricky." This
reliability of expertise is also mentioned by respondent 6. “When the builder was not
available, and the owner was sick, the process stopped for a week, because we were not able
to identify the error”.
Overall the findings indicate that most respondents find it hard to form an opinion
about the usefulness of RPA ex-ante because they do not know how RPA works. This lack of
knowledge resulted in negative or positive as well as negative expectations. Some
respondents doubted the usability of RPA, because of the complex nature of the process.
Whereas none of the respondents expected RPA to be useful before it was implemented, half
of the employees perceive RPA as useful when it was implemented. They experienced that it
does what it has to do, think that it is easy to work with and appreciate the fact that it works
outside office hours. However, a majority of the respondents pointed out some negative
aspects of the usefulness of RPA. Some experience RPA as less useful because they do not
think that the selected processes as suitable for this type of automation: they believe that RPA
is not able to handle exceptions, or to execute processes that require an input of multiple
sources. Others emphasise that solving the errors in RPA systems costs much time because it
relies on individual expertise that is not always available.
4.1.3 Findings on Personal Effects
The findings regarding the personal effects indicate that most respondents expected
positive personal consequences of the RPA implementation, ex-ante. Five employees
expected that RPA would take over their tedious tasks, which enables them to do more
interesting tasks. Respondent 8 explains: “We always had to do quite standardised tasks
manually. It is a psychological burden to do the same tasks every day. It makes your work
sloppier. RPA, therefore, gives you the time to do other tasks which increases the enjoyment
of work". In addition, three respondents expected personal benefits in a sense that they could
learn from the implementation process. Respondent 5 states: "I was asked to help with the
implementation. I liked that opportunity because it enabled me to improve myself and learn
new things”. Three respondents mentioned job insecurity as a risk of RPA. However, only
one respondent, respondent 6, felt afraid to lose his job: “I was afraid that RPA would replace
my job completely and that jobs would remain only for Higher Educated people?”. The other
two employees were only concerned about the jobs of others. Respondent 2 states: “If the
robot is being implemented, fewer employees are needed. In that sense, I thought about my
colleagues but, not about myself.” He explained that he did not worry about his own job,
because he was more involved in the RPA implementation than his colleagues. Furthermore,
he mentioned that he was mainly worried about the jobs of older employees. In contrast to
this perception, respondent 7 states: “I am 62. I think that I am going to stop working at 64,
so for me the RPA implementation would not be that bad but, for the next generation…”.
Respondent 8 also refers to age as a factor that influences the perceived personal risks of
RPA: “I noticed mainly at the beginning of the implementation some colleagues feared their
job future. It is a hot-button issue.” This respondent believes that most of these anxious
employees are "in the mid-50s”.
The findings related to the perceived personal effects in the post-implementation
phase indicate that most employees experience positive personal effects. Like the
expectations ex-ante, most employees appreciate the perceived time gain as a result of the
implementation. As a result of this time saved, respondent 4 mentions that he uses this time to
help his colleagues, respondent 5 now spend his time executing piled up work. Furthermore,
he mentions that it enables him to respond to client questions faster. Additionally, some
respondents mentioned less work stress, which they link to the RPA implementation.
Respondent 2, for example, states: “When I was working on the attendance cards, I was so
focused that I got irritated when a customer called. I thought, well... I am just right in the
middle of the calculation, and now I have to answer the call... You got distracted every
minute, and you knew you had a deadline”. Respondent 8 feels more motivated as a result of
this decreased workload: “You realise that you make progress instead of feeling that you will
never be able to finish work". Some respondents mentioned that the implementation provided
new opportunities for them within the organisation. Respondent 2, for example, experienced
a rise in organisational status as a result of the implementation: “My name is mentioned more
within the company, and RPA is mentioned in presentations. Then I feel proud because I
contributed to it”. The findings regarding the negative personal effects in the post-
implementation phase indicate that some employees are still worried about the jobs of others.
Respondent 6 felt worried about the future of his job ex-ante. These concerns disappeared
when the implementation was completed: “It only replaced one of my tasks, not even the
complete task, just a part of it”.
Overall these findings indicate that most respondents expect personal benefits as a
result of the RPA implementation. They expect RPA to take over their annoying and simple
tasks, which enables them to conduct more diverse tasks. Furthermore, they expect that they
can learn from being involved with the implementation. When talking about the perceived
personal risks, some mention the effects of RPA on job security. Most of the respondents are
not worried about losing the jobs themselves. However, some are worried about the job of
others. The findings related to perceived personal effects in the post-implementation phase
indicate that seven employees perceived personal benefits related to the RPA implementation.
These personal benefits mostly occur from a reduced workload and increased individual
opportunities within the organisation.
5. Cross-Case-Analysis
Whereas the previous section is based on a within-case-analysis, this part consists of a
cross-case-analysis. This analysis identifies similarities, patterns, and differences across the
individual cases. It is used to explore the individual contribution of the cognitive components
need for change, usefulness and personal effects to the overall attitude towards the RPA
implementation. This analysis is conducted on both the pre-implementation phase and the
post-implementation phase. An overview of the table that is used for this analysis is displayed
in Appendix E.
5.1.1 Analysis of Attitude Ex-Ante
The findings of the cross-case-analysis demonstrate that employees seem to have a
positive attitude towards the RPA implementation ex-ante. Furthermore, the results indicate
that respondents find it hard to assess the usefulness of RPA ex-ante. The findings further
indicate that the attitude towards the RPA implementation is in line with their ex-ante
perceived personal-expectations. Lastly, the findings demonstrate that respondents who
reported a positive attitude towards RPA ex-ante, initially saw the urge to change.
In sum, the findings indicate that employees are positive towards the RPA
implementation ex-ante. Whereas the expected personal benefits and the perceived need for
change seem to be an essential element of this attitude, usefulness is considered to be less
important.
5.1.2 Analysis of Attitude Ex-Post
The findings regarding the ex-post attitude indicate that employees seem to have a
positive attitude towards the RPA implementation ex-post. The findings further indicate that
the attitude towards the RPA implementation is in line with their ex-post perceived personal-
expectations and their ex-post evaluation on need for change. Whereas employees found it
hard to assess the usefulness ex-ante, they could better reflect on this component ex-post. The
findings regarding further indicate some concerns among employees related to the usefulness.
However, is not possible to say if usefulness is in line with the overall attitude towards the
implementation of RPA ex-post, based on the findings of this study. For some respondents, it
is in line, for others not.

In sum, the findings indicate that employees have a positive attitude towards the RPA
implementation ex-post. Whereas the expected personal benefits and the perceived need for
change seem to be an essential element of this attitude, no indication can be provided
regarding the importance of usefulness.
5.1.3 Analysis of Attitude Evolvement
Firstly, the findings demonstrate that most respondents have a positive ex-ante
attitude towards RPA. This attitude remains unchanged in the post-implementation phase.
Three respondents reported a change in attitude. The attitude of respondent 6 and 1 improved,
while the attitude of respondent 2 declined. This observation applies to every respondent
except for respondent 6, who experienced personal benefits after the implementation in
contrast to what he expected before the implementation. Secondly, the findings indicate that
the respondents who expected positive personal consequences as a result of the RPA
implementation, actually experienced personal benefits when RPA was implemented.
Thirdly, no patterns are visible for the evolvement of the beliefs that change is needed and the
beliefs regarding the usefulness of RPA.
6. Discussion
This chapter discusses the overall findings of the research. It discusses how the factors
need for change, usefulness and personal effects seem to contribute to employees’ overall
attitudes on the RPA implementation ex-ante and ex-post. The last part of this chapter
discusses the evolvement of the attitude during the implementation.
6.1 Need for Change
When talking about the need for change the employees mentioned the nature of the
process when talking about the need for change. When processes are simple and repetitive,
employees mostly see the need for change. Furthermore, they seem to take into account the
positive as well as negative effects of automation on the customer satisfaction. In reviewing
the literature, no data is found on the association between the need for change and the
customer satisfaction. It is therefore difficult to explain this result but, it might be related to
the nature of the work. All the employees who were interviewed for this study used the RPA
systems to process client data. Some respondents were also responsible for processing the
client complains. As a result, it is possible that the respondents of this study are used to think
about the customers’ perspective, which could explain their concerns about the customer
satisfaction. Future studies, which take the customer-oriented nature of the job into account,
need to be conducted to provide more clarity on this issue.
6.2 Usefulness
The perceived usefulness does not seem to be related to the overall attitude towards
RPA ex-ante. This finding is explained by the respondents themselves, who stated that they
did not know enough about RPA to form a view on usefulness ex-ante. The findings indicate
that respondents mentioned concerns about the usefulness of RPA ex-post. These concerns
are related to the suitability of the specific process to RPA. Respondents experienced that
RPA is not able to handle exceptions or to execute processes that require an input of multiple
sources. This finding is remarkable since RPA vendors explicitly promote the ability to
handle exceptions and the possibility to use existing systems as a benefit of RPA in
comparing to traditional types of automation (Blue prism Japan, 2018). However, the
promises that have been made about the positive results of RPA can also explain these
findings. Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio (2008) argue that resistance the change among employees
can occur as a result of broken promises regarding the impact of the change. Creating too
positive expectations can therefore negatively affect the success of the implementation. It is
therefore recommended to provide further research on the effect of ex-ante promises about
the RPA implementation on the ex-post perceived usefulness.
Another point of concern that is mentioned regarding the usefulness is the reliability
on individual expertise. In line with the arguments of Carr (2013), some respondents warn for
the fact that the implementation of RPA results in a decrease of knowledge about the specific
process. It can, therefore, be possible that the paradox of increased automation as mentioned
by Carr (2013), also occurs on a small skill when RPA is implemented. However, more
research on this topic needs to be undertaken before the association between this paradox,
and the RPA implementation is more clearly understood.
When summarising the findings on the ex-post evaluation of usefulness, it can be
indicated that employees might be concerned about the usefulness of RPA ex-post. They
believe that it cannot handle the complexity of the initial processes and mentioned that the
errors that occur cannot be solved correctly and on time. When interpreting these findings, it
is important to realise that for all of the cases in this study, experts were hired to automate the
process. As a result of this external help, information hand-overs are crucial. First, the expert
needs to know how the process is being executed precisely, including all the exceptions, to
build a robot that executes the tasks in a right way. Secondly, the companies’ process owner
needs to know exactly how the robot is programmed. This information is needed, to make
adjustments when errors occur, or when an input source changed. Based on the concerns that
have been mentioned regarding the inability to deal with complex situations, it is possible
that companies and RPA vendors do not pay enough to these hand-over moments. Further
research could explore these hand-over moments in more depth to examine how these
moments affect the success of the implementation and which aspects of these hand-over
moments are considered to be important.

6.3 Personal Effects
There seems to be consensus among the employees that the RPA will positively
impact them because it automates the tasks which they perceive as annoying and simple. This
perception is not surprising, because automating simple tasks is the aim of RPA (Blue prism
Japan, 2018). Additionally, it is a common view among the employees that the
implementation of RPA saved time, which they can now spend on other tasks. It is
remarkable how the employees use this extra time saved. Within the findings, there is no
indication of management guidance on how to use this extra time. As a result, employees
seem to be a responsible for what kind of work they do in this time saved. Although it
appears that some of the employees found tasks that seem to be valuable in the first place,
such as answering client questions, it is doubtful if every employee is able to prioritise tasks
in line with the organisational strategy and if he or she can cope with this responsibility. In
organisations that are characterised by bottom-up management styles, for example,
employees are more used to work autonomously prioritise their tasks. However, in top-down
steered organisations employees probably need more guidance to experience the
organisational benefits of RPA completely (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl,
2010). Future research is needed to investigate how the time that is saved as a result of an
RPA implementation is used.
One unexpected finding was that only one respondent felt afraid to lose his job as a
result of the RPA implementation ex-ante. Based on prior research regarding the effects of
automation on the labour market it was expected that more respondents would mention this
concern. Surprisingly, even the respondents who perceived the automation as a threat to the
labour market did not feel afraid to lose their job. A possible explanation for the absence of
this fear can be related to the employee involvement. It appeared that most respondents that
have been interviewed for this study were involved with the implementation. Prior literature
regarding the involvement of employees in organisational change emphasise that employees
who participate in the process of change, feel more in control over the complete process
(Bordia, Hobman, Jones, & Gallois, 2004). It is possible that this feeling of control positively
affects their perceived job security (Bordia et al., 2004). Talking about this issue, some
respondents mention the effect of age on the perceived job threat. Employees in the age of
20-40 mentioned the fact that older colleagues feared for their jobs. However, this view was
not supported by respondents in the age of 40-65. On the contrary, one respondent at the age
of 64 mentioned his expected retirement as a reason not to fear his job. The one respondent
that was afraid to lose his job ex-ante is 38. However, he does not experience this fear ex-
post, because he saw the relatively small impact on his job. Altogether, the findings of this
study do report some concerns about job loss. Future research at least in the age category of
30-60 is recommended to investigate this matter further.
6.4 Ex-ante versus Ex-post Attitude
The findings indicate that employees are positive towards the RPA implementation
ex-ante and ex-post. These attitudes towards the overall implementation of RPA seem to be
in line with their belief on how the RPA implementation affects them personally and the
extent to which they believe that changing the initial process is needed. Based on these
findings, it is likely that self-interest contributes to the perception towards the RPA
implementation. These findings corroborate the Theory of Planned behaviour that states that
people base their actions and intentions on perceived outcomes that are favourable for
themselves (Ajzen,1991). Additionally, the importance of the perceived need for change is in
line with prior literature that stresses the importance of creating a sense of urgency
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bagozzi et al., 2000; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Kotter, 1995;
Rafferty et al., 2013). Over 50% of the companies that have been studied by Kotter (1995)
failed to create a sense of urgency. Based on the findings of this research, however, creating a
sense of urgency does not seem to be an issue. Further work is required to establish this
observation.
7. Conclusion
This thesis investigated the ex-post and ex-ante attitude of employees towards the
implementation of RPA, by exploring their cognitive beliefs towards this implementation. To
gain insights into these attitudes, this conclusion answers the research question: What are the
expectations and evaluations regarding the implementation of Robotic Process Automation of
employees whose job is affected by this implementation?
Overall, the findings of this study indicate that employees have an overall positive
attitude towards the implementation of RPA both ex-ante and ex-post. These findings suggest
that the positive overall attitude ex-ante seems to be related to their expectation that the
implementation will be beneficial for them personally, in combination with their perceived
urge to change the process. They believe that the initial process is suitable for automation
because it is simple and repetitive and expect a reduced workload and a more varied job.
Employees still have a positive attitude towards the implementation ex-post, which
seems to be related to beneficial outcomes for them personally such as a reduced workload
and more diverse job tasks. Some are less positive about the usefulness of RPA. They believe
that it cannot handle the complexity of the initial processes and mentioned that the errors that
occur cannot be solved correctly and on time.
7.1 Theoretical Contribution
This research extends our knowledge about the effect of RPA on the workforce.
Therefore, this study contributes to the literature in the field of RPA two ways. First, it
provides insight into the perception of the workforce towards RPA. Secondly, this work
contributes to existing knowledge about organisational change. It provides insight into the
relative importance of the cognitive beliefs that employees have regarding an organisational
change in the case of RPA. Lastly, this study assists in our understanding of human-machine
interaction, by analysing the human workforce perception on the implementation of RPA.
7.2 Managerial implications
Based on the findings of this study, some managerial implications can be provided.
Before the implementation, it seems to be essential for managers to select which processes
are suitable to RPA carefully. Based on the results of this study, it is possible that the
perceived need for change influence the overall perception of employees towards the
implementation. This observation indicates that a careful benefit-risk assessment, focused on
the suitability of the initial process for RPA positively influences the overall attitude towards
the RPA implementation. In addition, it is recommended to investigate how possible errors
can be solved correctly.
Whereas the first recommendation focuses on the pre-implementation phase, the
second recommendation applies to consequences of RPA. The results of this study indicate
minimal managerial guidance on how to use the extra time that is saved as a result of the
implementation. Although some employees might be able to prioritise their tasks, it might be
more difficult for other employees. It is therefore recommended to take into account the
possible job consequences of the RPA implementation for the human workforce before
automating the process.
The last implication refers to the automation paradox (Carr, 2010). Most concerns that
have been mentioned are related to the suitability of the process for RPA, the ability to solve
errors correctly and the reliance on individual expertise. Based on these observations, it is
recommended that managers take into account the effect of the implementation on the
organisational knowledge. As automation continues to advance, knowledge retention seems
to become increasingly vital for organisations. Based on the findings of this study, it is
possible that employees experience adverse effects related to knowledge retention, such as
the inability to solve errors and difficulties in answering client questions, even in this early
stage of RPA. It is therefore recommended for managers to take into account the possible
risks of knowledge loss when implementing RPA.
7.3 Limitations
The findings of this research are subjected to a couple of limitations. Firstly, this
research is focused on comparing the pre-implementation with the post-implementation
phase. However, due to practical matters, it was not possible to interview respondents before
and after the implementation. Consequently, the respondents were asked to express their
expectations in the post-implementation phase. This could lead to biased results since the
respondents' memories can be replaced by new experiences (Wichert, Wolf, & Schwabe,
2013). Secondly, the study uses a convenience sample that is limited to clients of KPMG. As
a result, it is possible that other results occur for companies who did not cooperate with
KPMG. Thirdly, prior research in the field of Psychology addresses a couple of individual
differences such as personality factors that might influence the individual attitude. Due to the
limited scope of this research and the complexity in measuring the personality traits in
qualitative research, these factors have not been taken into account. Lastly, this study is
limited in generalizability, because of the small sample size. Eight respondents were
interviewed for this study. Due to the novelty of RPA, it was hard to find companies who
recently implemented RPA. As a result of these limitations, the findings of this study need to
be interpreted with caution.

7.4 Future research
This research has brought up a couple of questions that require further investigation.
This research investigated the attitude of employees towards the implementation of RPA.
More research is required to analyse the effects of these attitudes on employee behaviour.
This is particularly interesting when human behaviour is used as learning input for more
advanced types of RPA. In this study, some concerns were observed on to the knowledge
retention as a result of the RPA implementation. Further research might investigate the links
between the implementation of RPA and this knowledge retention. Additionally, it would be
interesting to measure the effect of the RPA implementation on customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, as RPA advances continue, and more employees experience the effects of RPA,
more quantitative studies should be conducted to find statistical evidence.

Appendices
Appendix A: interview questions
Introductie (verzoek tot opname, uitleg over het doel van het onderzoek, benoemen
van anonimiteit), uitleg over het doel van het interview, voorstellen
Context
1. Kun je mij meer vertellen over de RPA-implementatie?
a. Indien niet besproken: Welke processen werden gerobotiseerd?
2. Wat was het doel van de implementatie?
3. Hoe is jouw werk veranderd sinds de implementatie van RPA? (Vraag uit ander
onderzoek)
4. Hoe zag het veranderproces eruit?
5. Hoe keek je van tevoren aan tegen het implementatie proces van RPA?
6. Hoe ervaar je nu het implementatie proces van RPA?
7. Hoe keek je van tevoren aan tegen RPA an sich?
8. Hoe ervaar je RPA nu?
9. Hoe sta je over het algemeen tegenover de implementatie?
Cognitieve perceptie
10. Vond jij het voor de implementatie noodzakelijk voor jou persoonlijk dat dit proces
geautomatiseerd werd? Waarom wel/niet?
11. Hoe kijk je daar inmiddels tegenaan?
Bruikbaarheid
12. Hoe gebruik jij RPA in je dagelijkse werkzaamheden?
13. Heeft RPA het behalen van jou doelen makkelijker of moeilijker gemaakt? Waarom?
14. Had je voorafgaand aan de implementatie gedacht dat RPA het behalen van je doelen
makkelijker/moeilijker zou maken? Waarom?
Persoonlijke effecten
15. Welke persoonlijke voordelen ervaar je door de implementatie?
16. Welke voordelen dacht je dat RPA je te gaan ervaren toen je hoorde dat het
geïmplementeerd zou worden?
17. Welke persoonlijke nadelen ervaar je door de implementatie?
18. Welke persoonlijke nadelen dacht je dat RPA je te gaan ervaren toen je hoorde dat
het geïmplementeerd zou worden?
Afsluiten
15. Wat verwacht je verder nog van ontwikkelingen als RPA?
16. Zijn er nog dingen die je kwijt wil?
17. Heb je nog vragen?

Appendix B: Selected Cases
Table 1:
Case Selection
Organisation Departement Interview date
Bank Fund agency 23-04-2018
Bank Data management 04-05-2018
Bank Settlement 01-05-2018
Bank Settlement 30-04-2018
Bank Tax 04-05-2018
Energy sector Procurement 04-05-2018
Energy sector CRM data management 24-04-2018
Nutrition sector HR department 26-04-2018

Appendix C: Case Information
Context Bank
In 2006 Bank started with using RPA. They selected rule-based standardised processes to
decide which process was suitable for automation. To overall goal of implementing RPA was
threefold. Bank wanted to reduce FTE to improve their efficiency. Another reason was to reduce
the error rate. Furthermore, by using RPA Bank could execute processes 24 hours a day instead of
limiting the execution of processes to working hours. The change processes started in 2006 and
Bank is still robotising processes, which results in incremental change implementation. Robotizing
is part of the company's overall strategy and therefore affects multiple departments including the
departments data management, tax operations, fund agency, and settlements. For the aim of this
research, respondent of all three departments will be interviewed. To get a perspective and
overcome the bias of interviewing only remaining employees, one interview is conducted with an
employee who recently left Bank as a result of the RPA implementation.
Respondent 1.
The first respondent works at the fund agency department. He is 50 years old,
completed vocational education and, have been working at Bank for 24th years. His job is to
set up an attendance ticket for customers who want to attend a shareholder meeting of
companies. When a request is received, he checks whether they do indeed have shares in that
company and with how many votes they can enter the meeting. For some markets, mostly
depending on the country, he must block the trading in shares. When checking these
requirements, he makes an attendance card, or request the attendance card at another Bank.
He explains this process as time-consuming, manually and not nice to do.
Furthermore, he explains that it involved many manual calculations and that he
experienced a high time pressure. The process was executed by her and controlled by
someone else. Altogether this whole process toke 2,5 hours a day. After the RPA
implementation, this process is entirely executed by RPA

This implementation positively impacted his job since it results in less time-
consuming tasks on his list. Because of this reduction, he has time for more complex and in-
depth tasks. He states "RPA took over at least 2/2.5 hours of work and that was also very
manual work, very manual… and not nice to do (…) Now I have more time to do more
complex tasks. I used to scratch the surface, but now I can concentrate more on depth. That is
because setting up the attendance tickets ate large amounts of the day." In sum, his job
changed from executing the process to reduce errors by monitoring the process and signal
failure. Due to the implementation, he has more time which he uses to do more and more
different, in-depth and complex tasks.
Before the implementation, he realised that change was necessary since he
experienced the task as standardised. “It was just very time consuming, a lot of plus and
minus calculation and yes... I mean I have better things to do, right?” When it comes to
usefulness, he did not have much faith in it, because he did not know what the robot could do.
He mentioned "Usefulness, that was what I was worried about”. When it comes to personal
effects he expected that due to the RPA implementation, he would have more time to catch
up on work, “I knew that I would get more time to go more in-depth tasks that were waiting
for which I did not have the time before, so to say." Furthermore, he saw the task that would
be robotised as a bore that asks a lot of concentration and that was sensible for errors for
which he could not use his intellectual capacities. "It was not something like… Let us say... A
certain product for which you need knowledge. It was just... Manually hassle". He did not
feel afraid when he heard of the automation. "And of course, what you said, you can think
soon I will be no longer needed, but I was not scared because RPA replaced my job only
partly."
When considering his attitude towards the RPA implementation, it can be concluded
that this respondent had a negative towards the RPA implementation in the pre-
implementation phase. “To be honest, first I did not have much confidence in RPA, because I
did not know what the robot was capable of”.
During the post-implementation phase, his perceived need for change
remained positive, and he still experiences a high need for changing this process. Right after
the implementation, he experienced RPA as annoying, but this evaluation became more
favourable over time. “In the beginning, the implementation annoyed me, because I thought
what is this? Now I have more work in comparing to doing it manually (…) I thought wow if
there is only one error or delay, the whole robot goes crazy.". However, later on, he
experienced the system as useful, mainly because the problems were solved adequately. He
mentions that the positive evaluation of usefulness is explained by his experience with the
process itself “I thought it was usable because I knew how to execute the process manually,
so I knew exactly how to make the entries". When he evaluates the whole process from a
personal perspective, he perceived many advantages. He has more time to do work that he
used to put back since it was less time-limited than making attendance cards. Another aspect
that he considered personally important is the time for customers. “When I was working on
the attendance cards, I was so focused that I got irritated when a customer called. I thought,
well... I was just right in the middle of the calculation, but I had to answer the call... You get
distracted every minute, but you knew you had a deadline”. It can, therefore, be concluded
that he experiences less work-stress during the day as a result of RPA implementation.
When considering the respondents' evaluation of the RPA implementation, it
can be concluded that this perception became neutral, since he experiences both positive as
well as negative beliefs: “I perceive it as positive. At the beginning, you have to get used to it,
and wonder if it is going to work or not (…) but know it works”. The negative beliefs about
the implementation consist of some concerns related to the whole process. One of these
concerns were related to the importance of communication and the high reliance on
individuals: ‘first, the robot made mistakes because a colleague, who did not know much of
the process, explained the process a little bit different. So, the builder programmed the robot
differently, which was wrong. The builder could not help it. It was a miscommunication."
Secondly, he experienced a feeling of insecurity and fear of losing a job, as a result of the
implementation within colleagues, which he dedicates to their age.
When comparing his perception of RPA in general during the pre-implementation
phase with his perception in the post-implementation phase, it can be concluded that he did
not felt much confidence towards RPA when he first heard of the implementation, because he
did not know much about it. This perception changed during the implementation "when I saw
what it could do; I thought Wow! And I was happily surprised." he stated that he sees a lot of
advantages of RPA, mainly because of its business potentials such as overcoming human
errors as concentration and illness.
Summary
It can be concluded that respondent the respondent had negative expectations about
the RPA implementation before it was implemented. He saw the need for change, believed
that it could bring personal advantages, but was sceptical because he did not know how useful
it was because and what RPA was capable of. When evaluating the process, it can be
concluded that he was positively surprised by the possibilities that RPA can bring. His
perceived need for change and personal effects remained positive. However, he still
mentioned some concerns related to the communication & job losses. This results in a neutral
perception of the RPA implementation. His attitude towards RPA itself, was negative during
the pre-implementation phase, for the same reason that he did not know much about the
possibilities of RPA. After the implementation, he started seeing many advantages of using
RPA, mainly because of its business potentials which result in a positive general attitude
towards RPA.
Table 2.
Respondent 1
Phase
Respondent I Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change + +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness - +
Personal Effects + +
Attitude towards RPA
implementation
- +/-
General attitude towards RPA - +
Respondent 2
The second respondent works at the small data management department. He is 44
years old, completed vocational education and, have been working at Bank for 24th years. He
has an open attitude, is willing to learn and intimately involved with the RPA
implementation. his job is to open and close accounts, and execute all mutations related to
the account. To do so, he collects client data, adds it to the ‘mainframe' which is the general
system in which client data is collected and opens a new account based on the client data in a
mainframe. This complete process is automated, which means that RPA now collects client
data, add it to mainframe and opens a new account. The goal of robotising this process was to
work faster and reduce errors.
She explains the robotised process as complex since the information has to be collected from
several sources “For example Internet; when one thing changed on the Internet, everything
gets stuck”. The RPA implementation affected his job positively and saved time. Now, he
only has to prepare the data for the robot instead of entering all the data manually. In sum, his
job changed from entering all the data into the system to controlling the data.
Before the implementation, he experienced the need for change "The robot cannot
make mistakes, so in that case, the process can be executed much quicker, which increases
the customer satisfaction". However, he had concerns about the suitability of RPA for this
process since it was a complex process. "We emphasised that this process was complex
because you are dependent on various sources".
When considering the personal effects of RPA, he expected RPA to be educational
and challenging. Furthermore, he did not expect any adverse effects for herself beforehand
but thought about the personal consequences for others. "If the robot is being implemented,
fewer employees are needed. In that sense, I thought about my colleagues, but not about
myself." This difference is because he is more involved in the whole implementation process
than his colleagues and thinks that age plays a role "I was concerned about my colleagues
since they already have some age (…) They only see the negative side'. When considering his
overall attitude towards the RPA implementation, it can be concluded that this respondent
had a favourable view in the pre-implementation phase. “Positive, yess! I am always up for
new things”.
When evaluating the process in the post-implementation phase, his perception on need
for change did not change since it appeared to be profitable, mainly because of the perceived
time gain. However, he still doubts if RPA is useful for this process. "If we had to do this for
this process… Yess, and no. Opening an account works, but for this process, we are too
dependent on others. What he found hard was that things went wrong and that it took a
couple of months to execute the whole process correctly. “The robot got stuck, and tasks
were not completed which coasted me even more time. It took long before it went well, think
about months (…) We have suffered from this for a long time.” In addition to that, he
mentioned that the clients noticed this error as well; “We got emails from customers asking
why we did not open their account". Furthermore, he stated that the reason for the error was
not found “none of us knew what went wrong”. In sum, it can be concluded that he did not
experience RPA is useful for this process in the post-implementation phase.
Despite this negative evaluation of usefulness, he feels proud and experienced a rise
in status as a result of the implementation. “My name is mentioned more within the company,
and the RPA is being mentioned in presentations, anything… Then I feel proud because I
contributed to it”. Overall, he evaluates the RPA implementation positive as well as negative:
“When looking back, no… I do not regret it. It is profitable. Sometimes we have 40 accounts
to open a day. If you had to do that manually, it takes much more time (…) It was good, but
when looking back it was not the right process for RPA. Too much dependency on multiple
sources. It is too complex."
When asking for his overall view on RPA in the pre- and post-implementation phase,
it can be concluded that he was very confident and excited about RPA itself in the pre-
implementation phase. In the post-implementation phase, he still feels positive, but
mentioned some concerns, for example when it comes to the suitability of RPA for complex
processes with multiple sources like the process that has been automated within his job. In
addition to that, he mentioned that the benefits of RPA are mainly business instead of people-
oriented "For the company, it can only be good, but perhaps for the staff not so good". It can,
therefore, be concluded that his perception of RPA decreased as a result of the
implementation.
Summary
It can be concluded that respondent II had positive expectations of RPA in general

before it was implemented. He felt the need for change for this process and expected positive
personal consequences of the implementation. However, he was not sure if RPA was an
excellent solution for this multiple-source dependent process.
When analysing his evaluation of the RPA process implementation, it can be concluded that
in line with his expectations he experiences many positive personal effects. His perception of
the need changes remained positive. However, the scepticism he experienced changed
regarding usefulness in the pre-implementation phase, changed to a more negative evaluation
afterwards. As a result, his overall perception of RPA implementation changed to neutral
when the implementation was completed.
Table 3.
Respondent 2
Phase
Respondent II Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change + +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness +/- -
implementation + +/-
General attitude towards RPA + +/-
Respondent 3
The third respondent recently left Bank, partly as a consequence of the RPA
implementation. A view years ago, he started at the University of applied sciences but quitted
his studies to start working. In total, he worked nine years at Bank. He experiences himself as
realistic and as someone who loves changes. During the implementation of RPA related to his
work, he was already searching for new opportunities inside and outside Bank. Furthermore,
he stated that his primary goal was to automate his tasks "My goal was to make myself
unnecessary in the future.” He used to work at the settlement department in which he was
responsible for the settlement of shares. One of his tasks was to enter the correct stamp duty
based on the client data, which he described as a very manual task. The goal of robotising this
process was to work more efficient and therefore to start a reorganisation.
As a result of this implementation, his job changed from executing to monitoring. To
fulfil this monitoring job in a right way, he needs to know precisely how the process works
and which steps have to be taken. Furthermore, he needs more analysing skills to do this
work and experiences more project focused, instead of task-focused working.
Overall, he evaluates this change, positively. It stimulated him to seek new RPA
opportunities.
Before the implementation, he experienced mixed feeling regarding the perceived urgency
to change. He stated "The company experienced tough times, so we had to make savings (…)
it was necessary to do this to save money. However, he also experienced some benefits in
keeping the status quo “I did not see the need for change at all since I always wanted to keep
track of what was happening. If I do not see all the trades and the customer asked me about
it, then I do not know the answer". When it comes to usefulness, he did not have expectations,
because he did not understand what RPA was capable of.
When it comes to his expectations of personal effects, the respondent expected time
gain, and the opportunity to learn during the implementation process. He also mentioned
adverse personal effects related to his job, since he expected to have less control over his
tasks "you could not keep track of the process and compensating that costs time”. When he
takes everything into account, the respondent had positive expectations regarding the
implementation of RPA. He perceived it as an innovative way to execute tasks that are too
simple to do for human beings.
When the RPA implementation was completed, his perception of the need for change
declined. He believed that the implementation has not been of great importance of Bank since
he experiences a lack of vision and purpose regarding the RPA implementation “The urge to
change declined, which was probably resulted of the fact that they did not set a straight
goal”. Afterwards, he perceived the RPA implementation as useful because it offers a variety
of possibilities. However, he mentions that understanding the processes and the tool is
essential. Overall, he is positive about the usefulness of RPA afterwards: "There are small
issues, but I never experienced large downsides in usefulness”. Later on, he concludes that
his expectations regarding the personal effects evolved as he expected. He did not experience
large personal consequences in his job, but he learned from being involved with the
implementation process. Although he did not experience it himself, he mentioned the
perceived fear of older colleagues to lose their job. “When you mention the work robot they
almost jump out of the window”. He saw them showing withdrawing behaviour "Than some
people think. Oh, again KPMG people, there goes my job, and from that moment they kept
their mouth shut.” Although he did not experience this himself, he understands their response
which he partly pastures to the companies' communicational strategy. "At some point, they
used a whiteboard to show what already had been robotised. ‘So actually, we can fire this
amount of people', was almost literally on it". However, the respondent considers his general
evaluation regarding the implementation of RPA, he positively evaluates the change
implementation “I see it as positive (…) I like changes (…), and my goal was to make myself
unnecessary in this job.
When asking his overall view on RPA in the pre- and post-implementation phase, it
can be concluded that he was very positive about RPA itself in the pre-implementation phase.
He still feels positive in the post-implementation phase but mentioned some concerns when it
comes to the difficulty in finding a balance in knowledge, profit and efficiency in complex
processes. "The company takes a small risk by hiring people who do not understand the
complete process. If an error occurs, they cannot rewrite the robot, because they do not know
how. You lose knowledge (…) especially when customers start asking you about what went
wrong … That is tricky.”
Summary
It can be concluded that respondent III had positive expectations about the RPA
implementation in general before it was implemented. When he first heard of the
implementation, he saw benefits and downsides of applying RPA to this proves, which
resulted in a neutral perception of the need for change. He experienced advantages as well as
disadvantages and did not see the usefulness of RPA since he did not know what RPA was
capable of. When the implementation was finished, he experienced RPA as useful but saw
less urgency to change the process as a result of a lack of vision on the goal of implementing
RPA. Furthermore, he did experience some personal benefits, which results in a neutral
evaluation of personal effects. After the implementation, his overall perception of the RPA
implementation was still positive. When considering his overall perception of RPA, it can be
concluded that his perception changed from positive to neutral, due to his perceived difficulty
in finding a balance in knowledge, retention efficiency.

Table 4.
Respondent 3
Phase
Respondent III Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change +/- -

components
Cognitive
Usefulness - +
Personal Effects +/- +/-
implementation
+ +
Respondent 4
The fourth respondent works at the tax department. He is 28 years old, received a
Bachelor and Master degree at the University of Science and have been working at Bank for
six months at the moment of interviewing. His job is to reclaim foreign dividend taxes that
have been withheld by Banks outside the Netherlands and that have to be repaid. Part of this
job is that, at the end of the whole reclaim process, the payment has to be made. This used to
be done manually, which means that someone checked the amount that had to be paid,
entered the booking number, the Bank account number, added a description and sent it. In
addition to that, someone else had to check the whole procedure. This happened 15.000 times
a year and is now robotised. Because this respondent started working one month before the
implementation, it is hard for him to think back on his expectations. When he entered the
department, it was already decided that the implementation would occur.
This implementation positively impacted his job, since it results in less simple work
“If you have to do 3000 manual transfers a year, that makes you sick, so it makes your job
much more enjoyable”. His job now feels more enjoyable and necessary. Furthermore, he has
more time to do tasks such as answering client questions. Furthermore, he mentioned that he
has more free time to help colleagues.
Before the implementation he saw the need for change "Yess.. believe it or not, yess I
was surprised too (…) they did it manually”. When it comes to the usefulness of RPA, he did
not have any expectations before the implementation. In addition to that, he expected some
positive personal effects related to time gain. He did not expect disadvantages. Overall his
expectations regarding the RPA implementation were positive.
When looking back, he still perceives a high need for change in this way he stated, "It
is a great addition to the department”. He is also positive about the usefulness of RPA. He
believes it worked easily and stated that working hours are expended, as RPA can work
during the night. Furthermore, he mentions that the amount of errors is not only minimised as
a result of RPA itself, but also because of a reduction in the number of errors that are being
made by humans. "When you are doing the same thing for three hours, you get tired, it is
boring, you start thinking about other things and get easily distracted.” The perceived
personal effects turned out as expected, which results in a positive evaluation score on
personal effect. Overall it can be concluded that this respondent positively evaluates the
implementation of RPA.
His beliefs regarding RPA, in general, were positive before the implementation and are still
positive. He believes that RPA is in its developmental stage and has a high potential to be of
added value to the society. However, he mentioned that the controlling part is an interesting
question in the future "It would be an interesting question what would happen if the robot has
direct client contact and errors show up”.

Summary
It can be concluded that respondent IV had positive expectations of RPA in general
before it was implemented, he immediately recognised the need for changing this process and
expected more time to do more enjoyable and meaningful work. He did not have any
expectations about the usefulness since he recently started his job before the implementation.
In the post-implementation phase, he still perceives the need to change and believes it is
beneficial because it is easy to understand and able to work outside office hours. His personal
effects turned out as expected. As a result, this respondent has a positive attitude towards the
RPA implementation and to RPA in general during both the pre- and the post-implementation
phase.
Table 5.
Respondent 4
Phase
Respondent IV Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change + +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness x +
implementation + +
General attitude towards RPA + +
Respondent 5
The fifth respondent used to work at the settlement department. He is 32 years old,
completed vocational education and, have been working at Bank for 12 years. Two months
before the interview this respondent started a new job at another department within Bank,
since he experienced a shrinking team as a result of a reducing amount of work. He blames
this reduced work amount more efficient working tools on the one hand and to a reduced
number of customers on the others hand. He initiated the idea of robotising this task himself
and was intimately involved with implementing the process. He explains this process as basic
and annoying task. The initial process was executed by him, and controlled by someone else.
The robot took over this complete process, including the 4-eyes principle.
Although he heard that the communicated main trigger for this change was to increase the
workload, he believes that the actual main trigger is increasing efficiency. In general, the
implementation of RPA positively changed his job. However, he mentioned that he perceives
just a small impact: “I think that, that robot... He took over some of my work for sure, but the
general impact on my job, that is little”. The times he saved as a result of the RPA
implementation he spent on responding faster to clients and clearing the backlog.
Since he proposed this process for RPA implementation (after the company told their
ambitions for using RPA more) himself, it can be concluded that he saw the need for
changing this process. When considering the usefulness of RPA before the implementation he
did not know how it worked, so he mentioned that he did not have many expectations about
the usefulness. However, he experienced a certain doubt because he was not sure if RPA was
suitable for this process. When it comes to personal effects he did not expect any personal
disadvantages, but did expect personal benefits when it comes to reduced time and self-
development: "I was asked to help with the implementation. I liked that since you can then
enhance yourself and learn new things." Overall, the respondent experienced positive
expectation regarding the RPA implementation.
During the post-implementation phase, his perception on the need for change is still
positive since he experienced a reduced amount of work. However, he still doubts the
suitability of RPA for this process, because of a significant number of exceptions: "I thought
he could do more than he can and that it would have a big impact on the amount of work.”
As a result, he felt that the usefulness of RPA depends highly on the process. For this process,
he hoped to see more results “When I see how it works it is useful (…), but because of the
many exceptions it had a smaller impact than I expected". His perception regarding the
personal effects is still positive. He did experience a positive job change as a result of the
reduced amount of work. Overall it can be concluded that this respondent is positive about
the implementation of RPA “I believe that is works. It takes over work I experience more
time to do other things".
When comparing his perception of RPA in general, he expected that it could impact his job
positively, by reducing errors and increase efficiency. Now he experienced the complete
implementation he beliefs RPA is useful, but only if exceptions can be executed as well. In
addition to that, he mentioned some concerns related to the impact that RPA can have on the
staff. "If you can implement robotics in a way that works, then you do not need staff, and that
is the opposite side of the story". Lastly, this respondent also mentioned the differences in
experience between him and his colleagues when it comes to usefulness: "My colleagues
experience it as less useful since they have to work differently now. However, I believe that
everyone experiences that differently."
Summary
It can be concluded that respondent had positive expectations of RPA implementation in
general before it was implemented, which were caused by thoughts about changes error rate
and the amount of work. Before the implementation, he saw the need for changing the
process and expected positive personal effects. He did not have any expectations about the
usefulness since he did not know what RPA was capable of. When looking back, his
perceived need for change became more favourable, since he experienced a reduced amount
of workload and his expectations regarding the perceived personal benefits were met.
However, he felt disappointed by the fact that RPA could not deal with exceptions, which
resulted in a negative evaluation on usefulness.
When considering his general view on RPA, it can be concluded that the respondent
had high expectations of RPA, which switched to more neutral in the post-implementation
phase.
Table 6.
Respondent 5
Phase
Respondent V Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change + +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness +/- -
Cognitive perspective on RPA
implementation + +
Context Energy
Energy is the parent organisation of Energy1 and Energy2, Energy1 operates in the
distribution of electricity and gas and owns the complete cable network. Energy2 does not own the
cable network but provides advice to companies like Energy1 when it comes to technical support.
Both Energy and Energy2 recently implemented RPA. Energy2 robotised about 15 processes for
the operational support department. One of this process is the CRM data management. The main
reason to automate this process according to the manager of this department was to execute the
process quicker and with fewer errors. Energy robotised the process of creditor administration, of
which the primary goal was to reduce FTE.
Respondent 6
The sixth respondent is 38 years old and works at the procurement department of
Energy1. He started working at Energy1 in 2008 and completed vocational education. His job
is to maintain creditor data. Furthermore, he is responsible for the contact with suppliers. One
of his tasks within this job is to accept or decline creditor requests and, execute the request,
and update the creditor about the status of the request. This task is recently automated using
RPA. As a result, this respondent does not have to check the status of the request and does
not have to update the creditor anymore for national creditor request. He only needs to
control the approval of decline and moves the request to the RPA system. According to this
respondent, the purpose of this implementation was to take away simple tasks and
consequently gain time. As a result of this implementation, his role changed from executing
the process to control the process.
Before the implementation he did not feel the need to change and felt sceptical and
was worried about his job: "I was afraid that RPA would replace my job completely and that
jobs would remain only for Higher Educated people?”. He did not mention any specific
thoughts about the usefulness, which is confirmed by the fact that he concludes by saying that
he only thought about how this implementation would affect him personally. According to
this respondent, this is probably due to the way it has communicated to him "It was
communicated as "it's going to make all the requests, and you do not have to do anything
anymore". When asking his overall expectations of the RPA implementation, he mentioned
that he was mainly negative about the implementation, since he was worried about the
consequences of RPA on the availability of jobs within the company mainly for lower
educated people.
Afterwards, he perceived the implementation as beneficial for his work, which
resulted in a more positive view on the need for change. In addition to that, he experiences
positive job effects as a result of the RPA implementation, such as more time to do more
interesting work which resulted in a positive view on personal effects afterwards. He did not
perceive the negative consequences he expected, since RPA did not completely take over his
job, but replaced it partly. Overall it can be concluded that RPA positively changed the
respondents' job, which results in a positive overall evaluation of the implementation.
In general, this respondent was not positive about RPA before the implementation
and was concerned about jobs, mainly for lower educated people. However, when he
experienced the RPA implementation within Energy1, his perception of RPA in general
changed to neutral. He is currently unsure about the development of RPA and therefore finds
it hard to form an opinion.

Table 7.
Respondent 6
Phase
Respondent VI Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change - +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness x x
Personal Effects - +
implementation - +
General attitude towards RPA - +/-
Respondent 7
This respondent used to work at the CRM data management department at Energy2.
He is 64 years old and, have been working at Energy2 for 36 years. During this period he
experienced many organisational change processes, which made here sceptical about new
changes: “We see the movement as waves. First, we go that way then we go that way, and in
the end, we do not see any improvements". As a result, he does not care about changes now.
"I do not worry about it anymore".
As part of his job, he collects data in the companies' SAP system. Part of this information is
shifting different project data from one project manager to another in case of managers,
leaving, entering or switching positions. A few months ago, a completely new department
opened which used to result in 1000 to-be-shifted data items. However, this process is being
robotised, which means that the RPA implementation was focused on one single task and
executed once instead of continues. The respondent feels positive about this implementation
in general since he experienced them to be executed task as a big amount of repetitive work
with high time pressure. Furthermore, he mentioned: ‘The task is just stupid, it is silly work!’.
Consequently, he experienced positive job consequences as a result of the RPA
implementation. He feels that he has more time to do more diverse, and meaningful work and
that he now experiences more contact internally as well as externally during his work. An
important contextual aspect is that this respondent did not feel comfortable by the
communication related to the implementation “They implemented this tool out of a sudden (..)
it was more an announcement". He did not feel involved in the implementation phase.
Before the implementation he already saw the need for change: "We always thought it was
strange that this could not be automated earlier. (...) That is almost from the beginning of the
computer age, right?". When focusing on the usefulness of the implementation he did not
have any expectations before the implementation, but he expected it to be beneficial to him
personally "Yes, then you do not have to do these horrible tasks”. When considering the
personal effects of the RPA implementation his expectations were positive since he expected
to get less annoying job tasks as a result of the RPA implementation. Besides, he did not
expect any disadvantages before the implementation for herself. Although he thought about
the impact on job security, he is not afraid herself, since he planned his retirement in two
years “Well, you see... I am 62. I think that I am going to stop working at 64, so I for me it
would not be that bad, but for the next generation…"
When evaluating the implementation process, he still sees the need for changing this
process mainly to a tremendous amount of work that can be automated at once. Overall it can
be concluded that this respondent evaluates the change as positive since it took over the less
enjoyable tasks of his work. Furthermore, he feels positive about the usefulness, since he
does not have to worry about it and it works as it should work, which also results in perceived
positive personal effects such as less standardised work.
The respondents' view on RPA itself changed as a result of the implementation. First,
he did not know what to expect and was overwhelmed by the fact that the management
introduced RPA, and that is was implemented so quickly. Now that he experienced an RPA
implementation, he does believe that it is going to have a high impact on the labour market
"Job loses, fear of losing income and people getting fired”. In addition to that, he mentions
that he experiences anxiety among his colleagues about job security: "They say "Do I still
work here within five years, I have to make a living" so they worry about their jobs. They feel
unsure".
Summary
It can be concluded that respondent seven had positive expectations of the RPA
implementation in general before it was implemented. He saw the need to change this process
and had positive expectations of the perceived personal effects. He did not mention any
expectations regarding the usefulness, which he explained by his feeling of being blindsided
by the sudden announcement of the plans to implement RPA. When looking back at the
implementation, he still experiences positive personal effects such as doing more diverse
work in which he has more contact with others. his perception on need for change remained
positive, and he now experiences RPA as very useful. Overall he evaluates the
implementation of RPA for this process as positive.
Additionally, it can be concluded that this respondent did not have a definite opinion on RPA
before the implementation. When looking back, he mainly expresses his concerns regarding
RPA itself, because he believes that it could affect the labour market concerning increasing
unemployment rates.
Table 8.
Respondent 7
Phase
Respondent VII Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change + +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness x +
implementation + +
General attitude towards RPA +/- -
Context Nutrition
While searching for ways to optimise operational processes by focusing on a lean
working approach, Nutrition discovered RPA. Over several departments, analyzations were
conducted to find suitable processes for this new type of automation. The overall goal of the
implementation was to reduce errors and speed up process executions. Furthermore, Nutrition
wanted to clean their data and standardise as much as possible to simplify the analyses. One of the
departments that went through this RPA implementation is the HR department. For the aim of this
study, one of the HR-employees has been interviewed.

Respondent 8
This respondent is 26 years old and has been working at the HR service department
for two years now and completed the University of Applied Sciences. Part of his job is to
maintain the HR service administration. To conduct this works, he gets information from
multiple sources, such as various departments within Nutrition. The respondent explains that
this process cost him approximately seven times 15 minutes a day. He explains this process
as time-consuming and error sensitive since it consists of transferring information from one
source to another. Right after the implementation, RPA executed this complete task, however
at the moment of interviewing the RPA system was shut down temporarily, due to technical
matters.
When looking back to the RPA implementation, respondent VIII concluded that RPA
positively impacted his job, mainly because he experienced a substantial time gain "What a
human being could do in 15 minutes, the robot did in 3”. Because of this reduction, he has
more time to execute issues and cases on which he can now spend more time, such as urgent
matters, helping others, or think about the overall purpose of the executed tasks. Altogether
he experienced that this change enlarged his job.
Before the implementation, he did not saw the need for changing this process. Although he
realised that it was time-consuming, he did not think about changing it "To be honest I did
not see the need. At least for my process. I mean, we always did it that way at some point we
got stuck in it". When it comes to the usefulness of RPA, he had its doubts at the beginning of
the implementation. These doubts were related to the fact that this process depends on
multiple sources. Furthermore, he did not expect any disadvantages and was positive about
the effects that RPA could bring, especially when it comes to time gain. He expected that
robotic could reduce the lack of diversity in doing manual tasks “There are always quite
standardised tasks which we had to do manually. Firstly, it is a psychological burden to do

the same tasks every day; it makes you work sloppier. RPA, therefore, gives you the time to
do other tasks which increases the enjoyment of work". Overall the respondent had positive
expectations regarding the implementation of RPA, mainly because of its potential to take
over standardised and less enjoyable tasks.
When looking back at the implementation, his perception of the need for change shifted.
Before the implementation, he was content with his work, so did not really saw the need to
change, but now he experienced working with RPA, he does not want to go back. In addition
to that he experienced a difference in customer complaints: "I noticed that after the
implementation we received less complains as "I do not have my contract yet, or my salary is
not right" When it comes to usefulness he was positively surprised by RPA doing exactly
what it had to do. However, he still experiences concerns regarding the usefulness when a
process relies on multiple sources “If one source changes the whole thing stops working”. As
a result of this problem communication between the source and the receiver increases
importance, according to this respondent. Furthermore, he warns for the fact that the
usefulness of the RPA system is closely related to the availability of individual expertise
“When the builder was not available, and the owner was sick, the process stopped for a week
because we were not able to identify the error". In sum, he believes that the usefulness of
RPA highly depends on the complexity of the system and the availability of individual
expertise. When evaluating this implementation regarding personal consequences, he is still
positive about the RPA implementation since the fact that the work is completed faster
motivates him. “You realise that you make progress instead of feeling that you will never be
able to finish work". Furthermore, he experienced the possibilities for himself that came
along with the implementation, such as seeing other departments within Nutrition as positive
and the time gain as a result of less time that is needed to train a new employee. Although the
implementation is currently not working, he evaluates the overall implementation as

positively, since he experienced RPAs potential to complete the tasks that it had to complete
precisely as it should be.
The respondents’ general expectations of RPA in the pre-implementation phase with
his perception in the post-implementation phase differed. He stated: “My expectations were
moderated in the beginning, but now I know what to expect, I see it as a positive thing”. He
mainly appreciates RPAs potential to improve efficiency and reduce error rates. As in the
interviews mentioned above, this respondent also perceived a difference in responses between
him and his colleagues: “I noticed mainly at the beginning of the implementation that some
colleagues were afraid. They thought the whole process resulted in them being unemployed.
To be honest, some people still think like that. It is a hot-button issue". This respondent also
mentioned the age component “mid-50s that is where the resistance occurred.".
Summary
It can be concluded that respondent VIII had positive expectations of the
implementation of RPA in the post-implementation phase. Although he did not experience a
high need for change and had his doubt about the usefulness of RPA, he did expect to
experience advantages of the implementation. Now RPA has been implemented his
perception of the need for change increased. He still doubts the usefulness of RPA, due to the
dependency on individual knowledge and the diversity of sources. His perceived personal
effects turned out as positive as expected mainly because of the time gain and the personal
opportunities that the implementation brought him. This results in an overall favourable
evaluation of the implementation. When considering the respondents' perception of RPA in
general, it can be concluded that he had mixed feelings about RPA in general before it was
implemented. This changed to a more positive evaluation in the post-implementation phase.

Table 9.
Respondent 8
Phase
Respondent VIII Pre-implementation phase Post-implementation phase
Need for change - +

components
Cognitive
Usefulness +/- +/-

implementation
+ +
General attitude towards RPA +/- +
Appendix E: Cross-Case-Analysis
Table 10:
Cross-Case-Analysis*
6. Pre- 6. Post- 7. Pre- 7. Post- 8. Pre- 8. Post-

implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation
phase phase phase phase phase phase
Need for change - + + + - +

Usefulness x x x + +/- +/-
Personal Effects - + + + + +
Attitude
towards RPA - + + + + +
implementation
2. Pre- 2. Post- 3. Pre- 3. Post- 4. Pre- 4. Post-

implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation
phase phase phase phase phase phase
Need for change + + +/- - + +

Usefulness +/- - - + x +
Personal Effects + + +/- +/- + +
Attitude
towards RPA + +/- + + + +
implementation
* When +/- is mentioned, the evaluation is interpreted as both positive and negative.
References
Abbas, S. K., Hassan, H. A., Asif, J., Ahmed, B., & Haider, S. S. (2018). Integration of TTF,
UTAUT, and ITM for mobile Banking Adoption. International Journal of Advanced
Engineering, Management and Science.4(5), 375-379.
Agrawal, A.K., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. (2017). What to Expect From Artificial
Intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(3) 23-27.
Aguirre, S., & Rodriguez, A. (2017). Automation of a Business Process Using Robotic
Process Automation (RPA): A Case Study. Workshop on Engineering Applications
(pp. 65-71). Springer Verlag.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1999). Critical theory and postmodernism: Approaches to
organizational studies. Studying organization: Theory and method, 185–211.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory
and Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
Asada, M., Macdorman, K. F., Ishiguro, H., & Kuniyoshi, Y. (2001). Cognitive
developmental robotics as a new paradigm for the design of humanoid robots.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 37, 185–193.
Autor, D. (2015). Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace
Automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.
Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The Skill Content of Recent Technological
Change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of economics. 118(4),
1279–1333.
Bagozzi, R., Deeds, D., Dutton, J., Dyck, L., Ells-Worth, P., Neilsen, E., …Weiss, J. (2000).
Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of

attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4),
783–794.
Baird, M., & Williamson, S. (2009). Women, Work and Industrial Relations in 2009. Journal
of Industrial Relations, 52(3), 355–369.
Berg, A., Buffie, E. F., Zanna, L.-F., Chirinko, R., Hanley, D., Korinek, A., … Yeltekin, S.
(2018). Should We Fear the Robot Revolution? (The Correct Answer is Yes). IMF
Working Paper, forthcoming.
Bini, S. A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Cognitive
Computing: What Do These Terms Mean and How Will They Impact Health Care?
Journal of Arthroplasty, 1–4.
Blue prism Japan. (2018). What we do - Blue Prism. Retrieved 20 June 2018, Retrieved from
https://www.blueprism.com/whatwedo
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., & Gallois, C. (2004). Uncertainty during Organizational
Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies. Callan Source: Journal
of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507–532.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the
organizational change literature. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500–
531.
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive
and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8),
372–382.
Brown, S., Massey, A., Montoya-Weiss, M., & Burkman, J. (2002). Do I really have to? User
acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11,
283–295.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2018). Meaning of usefulness in the Cambridge English Dictionary.

Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/usefulness
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Carr, N. (2013). All Can Be Lost: The Risk of Putting Our Knowledge in the Hands of
Machines. The Atlantic, 11, 1–12.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.
Finneman, S., & Clark, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and response.
Journal of Management Studies, 3(6), 715–730.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to Change : The rest of the story.
The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362–377.
Ford, M. (2015). The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a jobless future (p. 9).
New York: Basic Books.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs
to computerisation? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114, 254–280.
Fung, H. P. (2013). Criteria, Use Cases and Effects of Information Technology Process
Automation (ITPA). Advances in Robotics & Automation, 03(03).
Gartner. (2017). Top Trends in the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2017 -
Smarter With Gartner. Retrieved 21 June 2018, from Gartner:
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/top-trends-in-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-
emerging-technologies-2017/
Gillham, B. (2005). Research Interviewing: The Range Of Techniques: A Practical Guide.
McGraw-Hill Education.
Hammarberg, K., Johnson, L., Bourne, K., Fisher, J., & Kirkman, M. (2014). Proposed
legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information:

consultation with donors and Government response. Human Reproduction, 29(2),
286–292.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Scale Readiness for
Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 43, 232–255.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top-down
and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 187–215.
Institute for Robotic Process Automation & Artificial Intelligence. (2018). RPA - IRPAAI.
Retrieved from https://irpaai.com/events/rpa/?id=1
Jaimovich, N., & Siu, H. (2012). The Trend is the Cycle: Job Polarization and Jobless
Recoveries. NBER Working Paper, (18334).
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business
Review, 59–67.
Lacity, M., & Willcocks, L. (2015). Robotic Process Automation: The Next Transformation
Lever for Shared Services. The Outsourcing Working Research Paper Series,
Le Clair, C., Cullen, A., & King, M. (2017). The Forrester WaveTM: Robotic Process
Automation. Cambridge, Forrester.
Lin, A., & Chen, N.C. (2012). Cloud computing as an innovation: Percepetion, attitude, and
adoption. International Journal of Information Management, 32, 533–540.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational
commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3),
193–215.
Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect. Social Forces, 74(2),
379–422.
Mohapatra, S. (2009). Business Process Automation. New Delhi: PHI.
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The Relationship between the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive
Components of Attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 12–30.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 783–794.
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change Readiness: A
Multilevel Review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110–135.
Raineri, A. B. (2011). Change management practices: Impact on perceived change results.
Journal of Business Research, 64(3), 266–272.
Roth, S., & Kaivo-Oja, J. (2016). Is the future a political economy? Functional analysis of
three leading foresight and futures studies journals. Futures, 81, 15-26.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students.
Harlow, England: Pearson.
Scheer, A.-W., Abolhassan, F., Jost, W., & Kirchmer, M. (2004). Business Process
Automation : ARIS in Practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Self, D. R., & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the success of organisational change:
Matching readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 30(2), 167–182.
Thomas, T. Y. (1928). A Theorem Concerning the Affine Connection. American Journal of
Mathematics, 50(4), 518.
Van Der Aalst, W. M. P., Bichler, M., & Heinzl, A. (2018). Robotic Process Automation.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1-4
Van Harreveld, F., Rutjens, B. T., Schneider, I. K., Nohlen, H. U., & Keskinis, K. (2014). In
doubt and disorderly: Ambivalence promotes compensatory perceptions of order.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(4), 1666–1676.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wichert, S., Wolf, O. T., & Schwabe, L. (2013). Updating of episodic memories depends on
the strength of new learning after memory reactivation. Behavioral Neuroscience,
127(3), 331–338.
Wickens, C. D., Li, H., Santamaria, A., Sebok, A., & Sarter, N. B. (2010). Stages and Levels
of Automation: An Integrated Meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 54(4), 389–393.
World Economic Forum. (2017). Impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on Supply
Chains. Retrieved from https://irpaai.com/events/rpa/?id=1
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications.

Desley Van Der Zande

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Desley Van Der Zande

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATION: AN EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVE

Desley van der Zande – 11887869

MSc. in Business Administration – Digital Business

University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor prof. dr. P.J. van Baalen

Second reader prof. dr. H.P. Borgman

Date of submission: 22-06-2018

to offer my special thanks to my parents who always supported me throughout my study.

implementation on the workforce is essential in providing insight into the long-term

analysis the impact of automation on the workforce from an employees’ perspective.

Furthermore, it provides recommendations for managers or change agents on the relative

Keywords: Robotic Process Automation; Change Management; IT implementation;

Attitudes Towards Change; Employee Attitude; Human-Machine interaction; Need for

Change; Usefulness; Valence.

Statement of Originality ............................................................................................. 2

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................. 10

2.1 Business Process Automation ................................................................... 10

2.2 Robotics Process Automation ................................................................... 12

2.3 Artificial intelligence (AI) & Machine Learning ....................................... 12

2.4 The Role of Individual Beliefs .................................................................. 13

2.5 The Tripartite Model................................................................................. 15

2.6 The Cognitive Component ........................................................................ 15

2.6.1 Need For Change .................................................................................. 16

2.6.2 Usefulness ............................................................................................ 16

2.6.3 Personal Effects .................................................................................... 17

2.6.4 Relative Importance .............................................................................. 18

2.7 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 18

3. Research Method .............................................................................................. 19

3.1 Research Philosophy ................................................................................. 20

3.2 Research Approach ................................................................................... 20

3.3 Method and Design ................................................................................... 20

3.4 Respondents Selection .............................................................................. 21

3.5 Data Collection ......................................................................................... 21

3.6 Time Horizon ........................................................................................... 22

4.1 Within-Case-Analysis ............................................................................... 23

4.1.1 Findings on Need for Change ................................................................ 24

4.1.2 Findings on Usefulness ......................................................................... 25

4.1.3 Findings on Personal Effects ................................................................. 27

5.1.1 Analysis of Attitude Ex-Ante ................................................................ 30

5.1.2 Analysis of Attitude Ex-Post ................................................................. 30

5.1.3 Analysis of Attitude Evolvement .......................................................... 31

6.1 Need for Change ....................................................................................... 31

6.2 Usefulness ................................................................................................ 32

6.3 Personal Effects ........................................................................................ 34

6.4 Ex-ante versus Ex-post Attitude ................................................................ 35

7.1 Theoretical Contribution ........................................................................... 36

7.2 Managerial implications............................................................................ 37

7.3 Limitations ............................................................................................... 38

7.4 Future research ......................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: interview questions .......................................................................... 40

Appendix B: Selected Cases ................................................................................. 42

Appendix C: Case Information ............................................................................. 43

Appendix E: Cross-Case-Analysis ........................................................................ 70

way of working. (Ford, 2015). As a consequence of the revolutions, disrupting technologies

other jobs when the development of new types of automation continues.

Davis, & Davis, 2003)

Literature of change management and IT implementation will be combined to study

answer the question:

Process Automation of employees whose job is affected by this implementation?

to this implementation. This investigation includes a comparison of the employees’ ex-ante

employees’ overall attitude towards the entire RPA implementation.

Overall, the theoretical contribution of this research is threefold. First, it pays

has not been investigated before.