Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Ecosystem adoption of practices over time (EAPT): Toward an alternative T

view of contemporary technology adoption
Herbjørn Nysveena, , Per E. Pedersenb,a, Siv Skarda
⁎

a
Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen, Norway
b
Department of Business, History and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway (USN), PB 235, 3603 Kongsberg, Norway

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Studies examining technology adoption often investigate the adoption of a particular technological artifact by a
Adoption specific type of end-user at one point in time. We argue that contemporary technologies are components of an
Practice improved practice (object) that is adopted, that these practices materialize through interactions among several
Microecosystem end-users in an ecosystem (subject), and that they change over time (have temporality). Hence, contemporary
Temporality
technology adoption may be considered “ecosystem adoption of practices over time” (EAPT). We describe how
traditional adoption theories treat the object, subject, and temporality of adoption and use practice theory to
propose an alternative, EAPT view. Assistive technology and ambient assistive living adoption are used as il-
lustrative examples. We discuss the boundary conditions for applying the EAPT view and elaborate on the
implications of taking this view for the research designs of contemporary technology adoption studies. Finally,
theoretical, managerial, and policy implications are discussed.

1. Introduction
Successful launches of new technologies depend on understanding
the perspective of potential customers when considering adopting those
technologies. Typically, technology adoption is studied with general
models, such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). More
specific models, such as the diffusion of innovation model (DoI; Rogers,
2003), the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, 1989), and the
two versions of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003; Venkatesh, Thong,
& Xu, 2012) are also often used, as well as combinations and extensions
of these models. Although various models and theories are applied,
existing technology adoption research has several commonalities.
Firstly, the adoption object being studied is typically a particular tech-
nological artifact. Secondly, the adoption subject is usually limited to
members of a single prospective end-user category. Thirdly, adoption
studies are often cross-sectional, ignoring the possibility that adoption
criteria may change over time. That is, they do not account for tem-
porality.
In contemporary technology adoption, particularly those introdu-
cing new digital and networked technologies, these assumptions may be
misleading. For example, with the introduction of smartphones, some
users have continued their previous phone practices on the new
devices, but most users have gradually adopted a more complex phone
practice involving a wide range of services offered in one or several
ecosystems of providers, developers, and other users (e.g. app markets
like Google Play) that together form the content of the individual ser-
vices (e.g. messaging apps like Snapchat). As these practices have
evolved over time, they have also gradually become more complex,
more integrated into users' daily routines and practices, and now pro-
vide both practical and financial value to users, service providers and
equipment manufacturers far beyond that of previous phone practices.
The purpose of this article is to propose an alternative view of the
object, subject, and temporality of contemporary technology adoption,
employing a practice theory lens that complements traditional per-
spectives. Practice theory has diverged in several directions (e.g.
Nicolini, 2012). In this article, we employ a conceptual understanding
of practice theory based mainly in research contributions that consider
practices in relation to consumption. We consider practice to encompass
“the requisitioning of familiar items and their regular application to
well understood activities” (Warde & Southerton, 2012, p. 10), and we
consider regular application to mean routinized and habitual behavior
(Warde & Southerton, 2012). Korkman, Storbacka, and Harald (2010)
argue that technology can play a role in the development of new
practices (objects of adoption). Hence, individual technological arti-
facts are mere components of a new and often complex adopted prac-
tice. According to Helkkula et al. (2012, p. 563), practices are

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: herbjorn.nysveen@nhh.no (H. Nysveen), per.e.pedersen@usn.no (P.E. Pedersen), siv.skard@nhh.no (S. Skard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.014
Received 15 November 2018; Received in revised form 9 January 2020; Accepted 10 January 2020
Available online 31 January 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
H. Nysveen, et al.
“manifested and embodied at the collective level”. Typically, these
practices materialize through interactions among several end-users that
belong to an ecosystem (subject of adoption) organized around socially
constructed practices. Finally, the dynamics of time must be introduced
because a practice is “temporally structured” and “intrinsically defined
by its tempo” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 8). The adopted practices often gra-
dually emerge and change over time (temporality of adoption). This
suggests that if applying a practice perspective on adoption, it should be
considered as “ecosystem adoption of practices over time” (EAPT). This
leads us to the first research question explored in this article;
Research question 1: What are the object, subject, and temporality of
contemporary technology adoption?
Our proposal of an alternative EAPT view in this article is not meant
to discard traditional theories of adoption, such as TRA, TPB, TAM, DoI,
and UTAUT. These theories are important for understanding customer
technology adoption behavior and the mechanisms explaining this be-
havior. Rather, we hope that the alternative view can complement
traditional theories. It is important to establish under which conditions
the alternative view we propose is a useful complement to traditional
adoption theories. This brings us to our second research question.
Research question 2: What are the boundary conditions for the useful-
ness of the alternative EAPT view?
There are few discussions on methodological implications of using
practice theory in research (Halkier, Katz-Gerro, & Martens, 2011). In
our perspective, adoption of a single object, such as a technological
artifact, is replaced with adoption of a practice, wherein digital and
networked technologies are one of many integrated components con-
tributing to the practice. This multi-component nature adds complexity
to the study of adoption and can make it more difficult to isolate spe-
cific technological artifacts in adoption studies, and to study their ef-
fects through simple experimental research designs. Furthermore,
moving from subject as a specific end-user category to subject as an
ecosystem that includes several actors and the resource integration
among them, imposes additional research design challenges, such as
determining suitable levels of observation and measurement ap-
proaches. Taking a dynamic perspective (temporality) that includes
reflections on how practice adoption evolves requires that traditional
cross-sectional designs be complemented with designs that capture the
dynamic character of practices. These issues lead us to the third re-
search question.
1.1. Research question 3: What are the research design challenges of the
alternative EAPT view?
Knowledge about “how individual actors use digital technology,
how these actors organize its use in collectives [,…..] to realize col-
lective-level goals” (Verstegen, Houkes, & Reymen, 2019, p. 1, our [ ])
is crucial. The EAPT perspective is one approach to answering this call,
as we focus on practices involving the use of contemporary technology
in collective units, such as ecosystems. This article provides three spe-
cific theoretical and methodological contributions. First, the article
provides an alternative and integrative view on contemporary adoption
and contributes to theory development through the practice theory
lens. Second, practice complexity is discussed in terms of boundary
conditions for the alternative view, illustrating that the alternative view
is a complement to existing adoption theories and relatively more re-
levant for understanding the adoption of complex practices. Third, in
our discussion of the research design implications of the alternative
view, we offer methodological suggestions for future adoption studies.
The EAPT view may also help to elucidate adoption for managers and
policy makers.
We continue this conceptual article with a discussion of the object,
543
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
subject, and temporality of contemporary technology adoption. We first
describe the characteristics of traditional adoption theories and then
apply practice theory to illustrate and explore the validity of the al-
ternative view. Representing contemporary technology adoption, stu-
dies of the adoption of ambient assisted living are used to illustrate the
alternative view and its’ advantages. We selected ambient assisted
living practice as the object of adoption because it involves the com-
binatorial application of assistive technology (contemporary tech-
nology) and other resources in socially constructed ecosystems by
multiple actors, such as clients, home nurses, and next of kin (subject of
adoption), and because it evolves over time (temporality of adoption).
In addition, prior health care sector research provides a foundation for
taking an ecosystem-based perspective on innovation (Frow, McColl-
Kennedy, & Payne, 2016; McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015).
Second, to identify relevant areas of application for the EAPT view, we
discuss practice complexity as a boundary condition. Third, we discuss
some of the challenges for empirical research implied by taking the
EAPT view. Finally, we discuss possible theoretical, managerial, and
policy implications. We argue for the importance of a revised per-
spective of contemporary technology adoption, and point to new issues
and possible insights of the alternative view (MacInnis, 2011).
2. An alternative view of technology adoption
TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and TPB (Ajzen, 1991) are among the
theories often used to explain technology adoption. TRA proposes that
attitudes about the adoption object (or its use) and subjective norms are
the main antecedents for adoption. TPB includes behavioral control as
an antecedent for adoption in addition to attitude and subjective norms.
The DoI model (Rogers, 2003) proposes that diffusion can be explained
by relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, observability, and
trialability of an innovation. Among the models developed specifically
to explain technology adoption, the TAM (Davis, 1989) suggests that
ease of use and usefulness of a technology are key drivers for adoption.
The first version of the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) proposes
that adoption is explained by performance expectancy, effort ex-
pectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, whereas the
second version (Venkatesh et al., 2012) adds hedonic motivation, price-
value, and habit as predictors of technology adoption. All of these
models have been used with extensions and modification. Below we
discuss characteristics of these models and argue for an alternative view
based on practice theory to better understand contemporary (digital
and networked) technology adoption.
2.1. Object
An object is often defined as something material, but can also be
defined as “something mental or physical toward which thought,
feeling, or action is directed” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). This definition
implies that the object of adoption can be a type of behavior or action
directed towards technological artifacts, a notion represented in both
TRA and TPB. Both theories take the perspective that object adoption is
elaborated on (reasoned action) and planned consciously (planned be-
havior) by the adopter. The TAM and the DoI model also assume that
attributes of the adoption object—such as the perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness, or relative advantage of a technological arti-
fact—are evaluated consciously and constitute the basis for adoption
decisions. UTAUT I and II are built on a similar logic, except that
UTAUT II also includes more passive antecedents, such as habit.
Consumption can be a way to improve effectiveness and efficiency
of routine purposive tasks – the pursuit of use value (Warde, 2005).
Hence, technological artifacts can be adopted to simplify and improve
practices. Practices have the capacity to deliver fulfillment (Warde &
Martens, 2000, as referred in Warde, 2005) and “Wants are fulfilled
only in practice, their satisfaction attributable to effective practical
performances” (Warde, 2005, p. 142). This indicates that we need to
H. Nysveen, et al.
understand the practice in which technologies will be used. Consumers
do not adopt technological artifacts just because they are new or sup-
posedly beneficial; but because the technologies can simplify and im-
prove their practices. Hence, customer value is realized by the way
objects, such as digital and networked technologies, contribute to good
practices. This circumstance highlights the need for a fresh approach to
examining objects of adoption.
2.1.1. A practice approach
Because customer value is realized through practices, we take a
practice perspective on the object of adoption. We build on Korkman
(2006, p. 27), defining customer practices as “more or less routinized
actions, which are orchestrated by tools, know-how, images, physical
space and a subject who is carrying out the practice”. While the object
of adoption in the traditional adoption models has been technological
artifacts, such objects are merely one type of resource (tool) that to-
gether with other resources, such as know-how and cognitive models,
are used in a practice. These resources are integrated by subjects car-
rying out the practice.
Using the term “material”, Korkman et al. (2010) indicate that
technology can play a role in the development of new practices. Warde
(2005) use the term “item”, and argues that “particular items deployed
and consumed” can define elements of a practice and its performances
conduit (p. 138). Also, following Reckwitz (2002, p. 252), “objects are
necessary components of many practices”. Consumers’ use technolo-
gical artifacts to simplify and improve practices. The practice is what
they actually aim for, not the technological artifact itself. Hence, in line
with Warde (2005), we assume that consumers use technological arti-
facts to be competent practitioners. We therefore argue that the object
of adoption is the practice enabled by technological artifacts rather
than the artifacts themselves.
2.1.2. Illustration from assistive technology/ambient assisted living
To illustrate the alternative EAPT view, we use examples from the
assistive technology and ambient assisted living literature in which the
intention is to “improve the life quality among the elderly” and provide
“assistance in carrying out their daily activities, prolonging their life
expectancy, and improve[s] their social life and communication”
(Alsulami, Atkins, & Campion, 2018, p. 5, our [ ]). This literature,
which is based predominantly on traditional perspectives of adoption,
includes adoption studies of various types of assistive technologies (e.g.
Dupuy, Consel, & Sauzéon, 2016; McMurray et al., 2017; Vincent,
Reinharz, Deaudelin, Garceau, & Talbot, 2007; Steel, Lo, Secombe, &
Wong, 2009) that intend to support the practice of ambient assistive
living. Often, the formally studied object of adoption is assistive tech-
nologies (single technologies or bundles of technologies) and the un-
derlying assumption is that the adoption of assistive technologies can
support the practice of ambient assisted living. Taking the EAPT view,
we argue that the object of adoption should be the practice of ambient
assisted living where various assistive technologies are only one of
many resources applied to support and achieve successful ambient as-
sisted living. Applying a practice logic, we suggest that assistive tech-
nological artifacts (e.g. sensors, actuators, and digital interfaces) with
varying levels of system integration are used by elderly persons for the
sake of the practice of ambient assisted living, and that adoption studies
in that field should be based on an understanding of how assistive
technologies may influence the adoption of the ambient assisted living
practice.
2.2. Subject
A research subject can be defined as “an individual whose reactions
or responses are studied” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). In technology
adoption studies applying the aforementioned traditional perspectives,
adoption is studied at the individual level. Traditional theories include
the concepts of social norms (TRA and TPB), social influences (UTAUT
544
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
I/II), and observability (DoI). Although these approaches acknowledge
social influences on adoption, the social mechanisms influencing
adoption in contemporary consumer contexts are more complex than
that of an individual following, for example, social norms.
Practices have been described as social (Reckwitz, 2002), collective
(Warde, 2005), and based on shared practical understanding (Korkman,
2006). Changes in behavior can be a “result of endogeneous change in
social circumstances” (Warde, 2014, p. 295). The social influences are
endogenous to the adoption process, requiring that the model ex-
plaining the adoption includes social interactions of several subjects
during the adoption process. This illustrates how individuals’ adoption
of practices is influenced by other human actors in ways that are not
easily captured through individual-level concepts like subjective norm
alone.
2.2.1. A practice approach
As presented in Section 2.1.1, Korkman (2006) emphasizes that a
practice includes orchestration of many types of resources. Korkman
et al. (2010, p. 237) suggest that practices are developed “in the in-
tegration of resource elements”. Given the collective and social char-
acter of practices, this indicates that practices are resource-integrating
activities “manifested and embodied at a collective level” (Helkkula,
Kelleher, & Pihlström, 2012, p. 563). Hence, the practice perspective
considers adoption at an aggregated level, rather than something ex-
plained only by beliefs and attitudes of individual consumers.
One approach to understanding adoption at a collective or ag-
gregated level is to study ecosystems’ adoption of practices. We un-
derstand an ecosystem to be “actors and their respective resources,
linked together through value propositions in a network of relation-
ships” (Frow et al., 2016, p. 24). Frow et al. (2016) study health care
ecosystems by considering mega-, macro-, meso-, and micro-level eco-
systems, where the mega level describes the government level, macro
level points to state (regional) level, meso level refers to individual
institutions (e.g. hospitals), and micro level refers to the focal patients,
clinicians, nursing staff, allied health professionals, and family, friends,
and other patients (Frow et al., 2016, Fig. 1). Often, practice policies
and regulations are developed by people working in higher levels of an
ecosystem, while the actual practice is manifested at lower levels. Thus,
the most obvious alternative view to the individual level is to extend the
subject of adoption to the immediate micro level ecosystem sur-
rounding the resource integrating actors of a new practice. We refer to
this as the microecosystem of the practice.
2.2.2. Illustration from assistive technology/ambient assisted living
In the area of ambient assisted living, many adoption studies have
investigated clients’ adoption of assistive technology (Botella et al.,
2009; Dupuy et al., 2016; Gövercin et al., 2016; Peeters, de Veer, van
der Hoek, & Francke, 2012; Teh et al., 2017). Some have taken into
account the diversity of stakeholders in assistive technology adoption
(e.g. DAAD, 2014; Jaschinski, 2018), and others have discussed its re-
levance (McGrath et al., 2017; Peek et al., 2014). On the micro level of
the ambient assisted living ecosystem (Frow et al., 2016), elderly in-
dividuals using assistive technology often have support from home
nurses and family members. Hence, the view we propose implies that
the practices of ambient assisted living are co-created in a micro-
ecosystem consisting of the client, formal care givers (e.g. home
nurses), and informal care givers (e.g. next of kin). These three actor
categories together adopt ambient assisted living practices through the
integration of various resources, of which assistive technology is one
significant resource.
Individuals “do not perform practices in an identical way” and
practices are “internally differentiated, for example among various
groups of people” (Helkkula et al., 2012, p. 559). Thus, there will be
numerous different actor microecosystems in the ambient assisted
living ecosystem. Adoption will be observed as the new shared practice
of actors in each of these microecosystems and the variation in adoption
H. Nysveen, et al.
Table 1
Comparison of the traditional perspective and the EAPT view using assistive technology/ambient assisted living as an example.
Entity Traditional perspective
Object Adoption of technologies (tools,
materials, and items)
Assistive technology
Subject Adoption by individuals (influences
by e.g. social norms)
The client
Temporality Adoption at one specific point in time
Adoption at one point in time, e.g. just
after an assistive technology has been
installed
rates will be observed through variation in practices across these mi-
croecosystems. At the aggregated ecosystem level, variations in adop-
tion rates and practices are cancelled out and adoption becomes a di-
chotomous phenomenon. Although practices are “manifested and
embodied at the collective level” (Helkkula et al., 2012, p. 563),
changes in practices can be initiated by individuals (deCertau, 1984, as
referred in Helkkula et al., 2012), which underscores the importance of
capturing adoption criteria at the individual level for all human actors
involved in the microecosystem of the practice, in addition to eluci-
dating why and how practices are negotiated and shared at the mi-
croecosystem level.
2.3. Temporality
Temporal nature has to do with “time as opposed to eternity”
(Merriam-Webster, 2019). Most studies applying traditional adoption
perspectives examine the adoption of technological artifacts and cri-
teria for adoption at one point in time. However, Venkatesh and Davis
(2000) have shown that the influence of subjective norms on the in-
tention to use mandatory technologies in organizations weakens over
time. Thus, adoption models need to take into account the potential
dynamism of the factors that influence adoption over time. This char-
acteristic is the main focus in technology continuance studies em-
ploying frameworks, such as expectation-confirmation theory, to
modify adoption models into continuance models. For example, se-
parating pre-and post-adoption beliefs, attitudes, norms and facilitating
conditions as well as including the influence of pre-adoption percep-
tions on post-adoption perceptions, have been suggested (Bhattacherjee
& Premkumar, 2004). Factors contributing to temporal influences in-
clude habits, expectations, and actual experience. Despite the ac-
knowledgement of temporality, many continuance studies are still
conducted with cross-sectional research designs (Venkatesh, Thong,
Chan, Hu, & Brown, 2011) that do not account for the temporal char-
acter of adoption.
2.3.1. A practice approach
Bourdieu (1977) states that a practice is defined by its tempo. In his
description of practices, Korkman (2006) argued that practices are
dynamic. Practice theory is concerned with the processual aspects of
use and consumption (Korkman et al., 2010). Warde (2005, p. 141)
claims that practices change constantly “as people in myriad situations
adapt, improvise and experiment”. Discussing the structure and process
of practice theory, Reckwitz (2002, p. 255) emphasize that “Routinized
social practices occur in the sequence of time, in repetition” and that
practices develop through “everyday crises of routines” (p. 255) where
545
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
EAPT view
Adoption of practices
Ambient assisted living
Adoption as a social and collective
resource integrating activity
(in microecosystems)
Clients, next of kin, and home nurses
Adoption through a dynamic process,
wherein the practice is followed over
time to understand how it develops
Ambient assisted living as something that
develops and changes over time through
everyday resource integration (assistive
technology being one (of many) resource
elements), viewed with a longitudinal
perspective
dissent and disagreements between ecosystem actors form con-
tinuously. Halkier and Jensen (2011, p. 106) point to the “mundane
performative” character of practices, pointing to the everyday routine
of practices. Therefore, temporality means more than considering the
effects of early phase antecedents and experiences on the later and is a
critical factor to include in models that are used to explain practices and
the development of practices over time.
2.3.2. Illustration from assistive technology/ambient assisted living
Often, temporal changes are not included in empirical research on
the adoption of assistive technologies (Huang, 2011; Demiris et al.,
2013; Teh et al., 2017; Southall, Gangné, & Leroux, 2006). However,
temporality has been incorporated into studies by some research groups
(e.g. Gövercin et al., 2016; Dupuy et al., 2016; Guzman-Clark, van
Servellen, Chang, Mentes, & Hahn, 2013) and its relevance has been
discussed by others (Radhakrishnan, Xie, Berkley, & Kim, 2016; Yusif,
Soar, & Hafeez-Baig, 2016). In an ambient assisted living micro-
ecosystem, resources can change over time, for example as new com-
ponents or sensors of assistive technology are implemented in an older
person’s house. Furthermore, the abilities of ageing people and their
families may also change over time as they gain experience and learn to
use the assistive technologies. The relationships and interactions be-
tween actors in a microecosystem may also evolve. For example, ageing
persons may need less interaction with home nurses as they learn to use
and trust assistive technologies. Thus, an “ecosystem is dynamic as
resources are employed and shared between the actors, thus changing
the availability of resources and the attractiveness of respective offer-
ings” (Frow et al., 2016, p. 24). This suggests that ambient assisted
living practices develop over time in response to changes in assistive
technology, changing interactions among actors in the microecosystem,
and changes in the various actors use and integration of resources over
time.
In Table 1 we summarize the main characteristics of how the tra-
ditional adoption models have been applied along with the alternative
view. It illustrates (1) how the object of adoption changes from tech-
nological artifacts (tools, material, and items) to practices enabled by
(among other resources) technological artifacts, (2) how the subject of
adoption becomes the microecosystem of the practice rather than a
specific end-user category, and (3) how the adoption of practices re-
quires consideration of temporality owing to the dynamic character of
practices.
3. Boundary conditions for the alternative view
In proposing the EAPT model, we are not discarding existing models
H. Nysveen, et al.
used to explain the adoption of technological artifacts, but rather our
aim is to offer a view that complements these models. Thus, it is im-
portant to establish when application of the EAPT view is appropriate.
Many new products and services are based on digital and networked
technologies, which we can call contemporary technologies. Such
products and services are often integrated in product-service systems
(Baines et al., 2007). They can be platform-based and have multiple
subsystems (Meyer & Seliger, 1998) or networks of components with
similar technical interfaces (Sosa, Eppinger, & Rowles, 2007). Con-
temporary technologies involve many attributes including many alter-
natives for each attribute (Park, Ding, & Rao, 2008) as well as options to
configure these attributes for a particular practical use. Often, these
technologies are part of networks and are integrated with other tech-
nologies to optimize functionality. They enable interactions within
ecosystems and between various levels of ecosystems and the value of
their use depends on the network effects created in these ecosystems
(Thorbjørnsen, Pedersen, & Nysveen, 2009).
We argue that a main boundary condition for the alternative view is
related to the complexity of practices in which product-service systems
are applied, and that the EAPT view is particularly suitable for under-
standing the adoption of complex practices. Complexity can be defined
as describing the circumstances wherein “a group of obviously related
units of which the degree and nature of the relationship is imperfectly
known” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). This definition illustrates the char-
acteristics of complex practices that include the use of contemporary
technologies where it can be difficult to envisage the relationships be-
tween subsystems and network components. Below we discuss some
aspects of how complexity is related to object, subject, and temporality
of practice adoption in an attempt to clarify complexity as a boundary
condition for the usefulness of the EAPT view.
3.1. Boundary condition: Object complexity
In traditional adoption studies, the object of adoption is often a
single technological artifact. In practice theory, greater complexity is
recognized given that a technological artifact is one of many resource
elements. Viewing practices as being arranged around “tools, know-
how, images, physical space, and a subject” (Korkman, 2006, p. 27), a
particular technological artifact (tool) being studied as the object of
adoption in traditional studies is merely one brick (resource) in the
puzzle (resource integration) of many integrated technological artifacts
and other resources that enable a practice. Practices are characterized
by routinized behavior (Korkman, 2006), and Helkkula et al. (2012)
argue that “the know-how required to carry out a practice remains in
the background as tacit knowledge and does not involve conscious re-
flection” (p. 560). This makes elicitation and understanding of practice
adoption more complex than can be accommodated by traditional
theories of adoption, in which conscious reasoning and planning of
behavior are assumed. Hence, the practice as the object of adoption is
more complex than what we typically see in traditional studies on
technology adoption.
Examples of ambient assisted living technologies are “bed sensors,
gait monitor, stove sensor, motion sensor, and video sensor” (Demiris,
Hensel, Skubic, & Rantz, 2008, p. 120). To illustrate the complexity,
ambient assisted living technology can be described as “a new gen-
eration of information and communication technology (ICT) products,
services and systems….” (Jaschinski, 2014, p. 320). McGrath et al.
(2017) describe assisted living technology as a product system, whereas
Gövercin et al. (2016) use the label “integrated ambient assisted living
system” and describe it as “a sensor-based, integrated supportive
system” (p. 1). These descriptions illustrate the complexity of ambient
assisted living and the many assistive technologies used in this practice,
including configurable technological components (enabling various
services) that are integrated in a system to enable interactions between
components and between users in the ecosystem.
546
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
3.2. Boundary condition: Subject complexity
The focus of traditional adoption studies has been on how one in-
dividual subject relates to particular technological artifacts. However,
practices are considered to be social and collective (Reckwitz, 2002;
Warde, 2014), and the adoption of new practices involves new relations
between both subjects and objects as well as new relationships between
subjects. In the EAPT view, the microecosystem is the level where the
subject-object and subject-subject relationships can be observed in
practices. This clearly points to the increasing complexity of the subject
of adoption if the microecosystems is studied as the adopter of the
practice.
Using ambient assisted living as an example, we follow Jaschinskis’
(2018, p. 187) focus on users (“i.e., older adults, informal caregivers
and formal caregivers”), and consider the client, next of kin, and home
nurses to be key actors in the microecosystem of this practice. The
underlying logic for McGrath et al. (2017) is that the success of a cli-
ent’s adoption of a particular assistive technology is influenced by the
occupational therapist (representing the home nurses), but also that the
clients and the clients’ family and friends are part of the micro-
ecosystem and should be studied as users of assistive technology.
Taking a broader ecosystem perspective, DAAD (2014) divides ambient
assisted living stakeholders into product and service providers, care
institutions, cost bearers, and municipalities. They also argue that
communication and dialogue between stakeholders at different levels of
the ecosystem are important for the co-creation of new practices. This
shows the complexity both related to orchestration of technological
artifacts as well as the complexity of resource integration both within
the microecosystem and between the different levels of the greater
ecosystem. Acknowledging this complexity, Fischer, David, Crotty,
Dierks, and Safran (2014) point out that many people are involved in
client care and that “Tools for the elderly should consider the whole
care network and take into account who will be using the tool” (p. 630).
Substantiating this view, Greenhalgh et al. (2013) state that “Assistive
technologies are components of collaborative networks” (p. 93) that
help to conjoin stakeholders of the ecosystem.
3.3. Boundary condition: Temporality complexity
In the traditional perspective, adoption often happens at a particular
moment in time. In practice theory, attention is turned “to the pro-
cessual aspects of usage and consumption rather than to the outcomes
of the exchange of goods” (Korkman et al., 2010, p. 236). The purpose
or outcome of a new practice is not necessarily clear at the time of its
first conceptualization, but rather something that develops over time
through resource integration in the microecosystem. In addition to the
added complexity of taking a process perspective, the technological
artifacts may change during this process and the users’ preferences and
abilities may also change and develop during the process. Warde (2005)
argues that this development can happen through experimentation and
improvisation. Consequently, developing the purpose and outcome of
the practice becomes part of the practice itself, contributing to learning,
simplification, and improvement of the practice over time. This illus-
trates the complexity of practice adoption compared to the traditional
perspective where technology adoption often is understood and studied
at one point in time.
Bouwhuis (2017) describes a “complex multistage decision process
in implementing a telecare system” (p. 34). Yusif et al. (2016) argue
that there is a lack of knowledge about the technology needs of elderly
people at “different stages of the aging process” (p. 115), and
Radhakrishnan et al. (2016) point to the importance of “active in-
volvement and engagement of stakeholders” (p. 70) during all stages
from planning to implementation. Fischer et al. (2014) suggest that
factors related to the care network change over time and that tools to
support the elderly must take this into account. The variance in needs
and knowledge across the stages of ambient assisted living as well as
H. Nysveen, et al. Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551

Table 2
Boundary conditions and research design implications for the EAPT view using the assistive technology/ambient assisted living as an example.
Entity EAPT view

Boundary condition
Object Complexity related to the multidimensionality and adaptiveness of resources (technologies) as part of resource integration.
Complexity related to a multitude of technologies (e.g. bed sensor, gait sensor, motion sensor, stove sensor) integrated into a supportive
system as part of resource integration.
Subject Complexity related to resource integration between many actors, within and across levels of an ecosystem.
Complexity related to resource integration in the microecosystem of clients, next of kin, and home nurses and the resource integration
between these microecosystem actors (and other levels of the ecosystem).
Temporality Complexity related to not planned development of practices over time through improvisation, experimentation, and “everyday
crises in routines” Reckwitz (2002, p. 255).
Complexity related to partly incidental development of ambient assisted living practices through multistage decision processes both before
and after implementation.

Research design implications
Object Use of qualitative methods to understand the object of adoption. Based on qualitative findings, unique quantitative measures can be
developed/adapted to the practice being studied.
Use of qualitative methods to understand the practice of ambient assisted living. Based on this, quantitative measures that capture the
contextual specificities of ambient assisted living can be developed.
Subject Use of qualitative methods to reveal actors in a microecosystem and their resource integration. For quantitative studies, a non-
reductionist model combining individual and group-based measures can be used.
Use of qualitative methods to reveal participants in microecosystems for ambient assisted living and their resource integration. For
quantitative studies, individual measures (answered individually by clients, home nurses, and next of kin) can be combined with group-level
measures (answered by clients, home nurse, next of kin together).
Temporality Qualitative studies following an adoption process (e.g. ethnographic studies) to capture development over time. Quantitative
longitudinal studies including influences of beliefs at one moment on later moments.
Qualitative studies following the adoption of ambient assisted living over time to understand practice development. For a quantitative
approach, non-reductionist methods can be implemented several times and used to model the evolution in ambient assisted living (in many
microecosystems).

across the stages of the aging process itself increases the complexity of
practice adoption along the time dimension. The continuous invention
of new technological artifacts relevant for ambient assisted living
makes the adoption of ambient assisted living as a predefined practice
particularly complex. Hence, there is a need to incorporate longitudinal
methods in future research on the adoption of assistive technology and/
or ambient assisted living (Claes, Devriendt, Tournoy, & Milisen, 2015;
Peek et al., 2014, 2016). Table 2 summarizes the complexity of adop-
tion of practices along the object, subject, and temporality dimensions.
4. Implications for research design
Studying consumption through the lens of practice theory has some
methodological challenges (Halkier & Jensen, 2011). We discuss some
paths for designing studies on the adoption of complex practices below
(also see Table 2).
4.1. Research design implications: Object
In the EAPT view, focus is moved from studying the influences of
technology perceptions on technology adoption to how perceptions of a
new practice including technology and other material and immaterial
resources influence the adoption of this practice. Even if beliefs, atti-
tudes, behavioral control, norms and intentions are still relevant com-
ponents, their extent, dimensionality and complexity increase as the
object of this conceptualization is broadened. This may complicate
operationalization and make it more difficult to design compact, re-
flective measures. As a consequence, measures may also have to be
adapted to specific practices “that are context and population specific”
(Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006, p. 120) and thus less universal than those
typically used in extant adoption studies.
Cheung and McColl Kennedy (2015) have used nethnography to
examine resource integration, and McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger,
Sweeney, and van Kasteren (2012) have used field observation, focus
group interviews, and in-depth interviews to explore customer value co-
creation practice in healthcare. Further, Korkman et al. (2010) have
applied ethnography to understand the practice of value co-creation in
e-voicing, while McColl-Kennedy, Hogan, Witell, and Snyder (2017)
used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to study
customer value co-creation in health care. Although “the body of
practice research is still largely qualitative” (Browne, Pullinger, Medd,
& Anderson, 2014, p. 29), quantitative methods are starting to be re-
cognized among practice researchers (Browne et al., 2014). Given the
characteristics of practices (as objects of adoption), we consider various
qualitative methods to be useful for understanding objects of adoption
as thoroughly as possible, and based on that, adapt quantitative mea-
sures that reflect the particular practice (object) that is to be studied.
Thus, scales and measurement tools are likely to require more adap-
tation and more thorough validation beyond just referring to previously
applied scales when applying the EAPT view. For ambient assistive
living as a practice, qualitative studies are needed to enable more
thorough elicitation of relevant resources (including assistive technol-
ogies) of the practice and a better understanding of how these resources
are integrated among all actors involved in the practice (client, next of
kin, and home nurses) over time (including perceptions of ambient
assisted living before, during, and after the implementation of assistive
technology). Although more qualitative empirical studies will be useful
for better understanding of practices, a combination of qualitative pilot
studies with quantitative follow-up studies with thoroughly validated,
context-specific measures can also be useful when applying the EAPT
view. In fact, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) were originally particularly
occupied with the context specificity of beliefs, norms and perceptions
of control and actually suggested that all studies applying TRA should
include a more qualitative elicitation pre-study to ensure that beliefs in
these categories were relevant to the context specific action that the
intentions were directed at. However, in practice, most traditional
adoption studies (for an exception, see Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006) refer
to other studies or use general theory to determine which beliefs to
include.
4.2. Research design implications: Subject
To understand microecosystems as subjects of adoption, the actors
that participate in the microecosystems need to be identified. As a start,
qualitative methods can be used to identify the actors in micro-
ecosystems. Further, practices are collective, but can be developed or
changed at the individual level (deCertau, 1984, as referred in Helkkula
et al., 2012). Verstegen et al. (2019) encourage studies of digital
technology usage combining “individual and collective levels of ana-
lysis” (p. 3). Empirical studies should therefore capture antecedents of

547
H. Nysveen, et al.
practice adoption at both the individual and the microecosystem level.
This can be done by aggregating responses from individuals in a group
to represent the group’s response - methodological individualism
(Sarker & Valacich, 2010). However, practices are socially constructed,
and methodological individualism is not capturing the social dynamics
involved in practices (Halkier & Jensen, 2011). Methodological in-
dividualism fails to capture group uniqueness and the activities at the
group level, meaning there are limitations with the methodological
individualism approach. To address these limitations, Sarker and
Valacich (2010) suggest the use of a non-reductionist model of tech-
nology adoption that combines individual and group-based measures.
They report that such an approach explains group adoption better than
the use of methodological individualism. For example, a priori attitudes
about the adoption object and perception of intra-group conflict can be
measured at the individual level, while group valence (the groups
shared feelings about the adoption object) and the groups strength of
adopting the object is measured at the group level (the group agree on a
response). An implication of this approach is that additional measures
at the collective level have to be included for the design to become truly
multi-level. Notwithstanding, this combined approach is associated
with challenges in terms of requiring (1) extensive control of social
influences during data collection and (2) collection of data from several
microecosystems to capture variation in aggregate level measures.
Applied to ambient assisted living, this implies that in studies, the
client, next of kin and home nurses first respond individually on
questions about a priori beliefs and attitudes toward ambient assisted
living. Each of these three types of actors in the microecosystem may
also answer (individually) questions about group issues, such as intra-
group conflict and satisfaction with current and potentially new prac-
tices. In addition, groups of each of these three types of actors may
complete a questionnaire together that assesses variables such as mi-
croecosystem valence and strength of adoption. Overall, this gives a mix
of individual and microecosystem level responses that together reflect
the many mechanisms of the microecosystem leading to its adoption of
ambient assisted living.
4.3. Research design implications: Temporality
The inclusion of process and intertemporality considerations in
adoption studies has implications for research design. In practice
theory, consumption is understood as “on-going accomplishments”
(Halkier & Jensen, 2011, p. 102) that can be “reproduced through re-
current performance” (Shove, Pantzar, & Watson, 2012, p. 8, as referred
in Browne et al., 2014, p. 30). McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012, p. 386) call
for exploration of “change in customer value cocreation over time”. An
obvious research design implication is the use of some form of long-
itudinal design (Korkman et al., 2010) to better capture adoption as a
process, including the influences of beliefs and experiences at one time
point on later time points. The processual elements of an ambient as-
sisted living practice can be understood through participative qualita-
tive research, which may utilize ethnographic methods. For a quanti-
tative design, the non-reductionist model of technology adoption by
groups suggested by Sarker and Valacich (2010) can be implemented in
several waves over time to tap into the evolution of the different am-
bient assisted living practices in different microecosystems. In this way,
measures at earlier point in time can be included to explain adoption at
later points in time. Such designs would require complex analytical
modeling, but frequently applied structural modeling frameworks used
in traditional adoption research are also well suited for longitudinal
analysis (Little, 2013).
5. Discussion and conclusions
In this article, we have proposed an alternative view of con-
temporary technology adoption – ecosystem adoption of practices over
time (EAPT), wherein practices and microecosystems are suggested as
548
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
objects and subjects of adoption, respectively. We have argued that
temporality should be taken into account because practices are value
creating processes that evolve over time. We posited that the EAPT view
complements traditional technology adoption models, but is more sui-
table for the adoption of complex practices in which digital and net-
worked technologies are important components. Finally, design im-
plications discussed include more complex operationalization of
context relevant reflective measures, substitution of methodological
individualism with a non-reduction model, and application of long-
itudinal designs.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Although the EAPT view per se is novel, ideas contributing to this
alternative view have been discussed elsewhere. Below we give some
examples of similar thoughts about the object, subject, and temporality
proposed in other theoretical perspectives and explain how the EAPT
view adds value to these prior contributions.
5.1.1. Object
Typically, dependent variables in traditional technology adoption
studies include the intention to use or actual use of one specific tech-
nological artifact. In our proposed alternative view, the dependent
variable is instead the intention to realize or the actual realization of a
practice enabled by a digital/network-based technology (among other
resources). Gadrey (1992, as referred in Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997)
discusses the difference between direct and indirect products, where the
latter is the implication of using the former. This notion reflects a logic
similar to that of the EAPT view, wherein a digital/networked tech-
nology (direct product) is a component of an adopted practice (indirect
product). Gallouj and Weinstein (1997) describe services as a function
of technical factors (e.g. technological artifacts) and the implementa-
tion of competences and knowledge from firms and customers. Their
perspective shows that technological artifacts are mere components of
an adoption object and that the services they enable are the objects of
adoption. Conceptualizing information technology artifacts, Orlikowski
and Iacono (2001) propose an ensemble view of technology. They argue
that «while the technical artifact may be a central element in how we
conceive of technology, it is only one element in a «package», which
also includes the components required to apply that technical artifact to
some socio-economic activity» (p. 125). Further, service-dominant logic
considers goods to be a mechanism for distribution of service provision,
and that the value of goods is in the service they enable (Vargo & Lusch,
2008). Building on Löbler (2013), technological artifacts are not a re-
source in itself, but “becomes a resource when used for specific in-
tended applications, thereby providing a level of perceived value to its
users” (Peters et al., 2014, p. 6). To illustrate their perspective, Peters
et al. (2014) refer to McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) work on the co-
creation of practices in healthcare. This work demonstrates the re-
levance of considering technological artifacts as elements in a practice
of social resource integration that is adopted, rather than focusing only
on the adopted technological artifacts themselves.
5.1.2. Subject
In traditional studies on technology adoption, the subject in-
vestigated is typically a specific type of end-user. The EAPT view takes a
microecosystem perspective on the subject of contemporary technology
adoption, moving the perspective from individuals as adopters to mi-
croecosystems of resource integrators as adopters. As observed by
Martin and Schouten (2014), customers are often viewed as recipients
of innovations developed by companies. But, their own study demon-
strates that new markets can be developed through active engagement
of customers. In health service adoption, different concepts have been
discussed using the term adoption for individuals and assimilation for
the system-level models (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, &
Kyriakidou, 2004). It is necessary to differentiate between the adoption
H. Nysveen, et al.
of a practice by an ecosystem and the adoption of a practice by sub-
groups of that ecosystem. When Windrum and García-Goñi (2008)
consider health service innovation, the complete ecosystem of actors
surrounding ambulatory surgery is the subject of investigation. It is
similar in Jaakkola, Aarikka-Stenroos, and Ritala (2019) study of
electronic prescriptions, even if the authors accept that the new practice
requires “commitment and adaptation by diverse actors in multiple
service systems” (p. 497). Their work illustrates the collective character
of adoption and the advantages of using microecosystems as a first,
simple extension of the subjects of adoption into a manageable social
level. It also supports our idea that studying multiple microecosystems
is critical to elucidating ecosystem-level adoption of a practice.
5.1.3. Temporality
Most empirical technology adoption studies report findings from
studying acceptance at one point in time. In the EAPT view, adoption is
considered to be a process that develops over time and thus should be
studied longitudinally. This also corresponds with recent developments
in the innovation literature focusing on performativity (Garud,
Gehman, Kumaraswamy, & Tuertscher, 2016; Kjellberg & Helgesson,
2006). In this literature, temporality signifies the importance of po-
tential interactions between the past, present, and future during in-
novation and adoption processes. To reflect such interactions and avoid
previous connotations of how predetermined innovations spread, the
term diffusion is often replaced by translation (Callon, 1986). Giesler
(2012) illustrates that active customer engagement can lead to market
development through struggles between consumer groups and between
consumers and producers. This may lead to market development
through stages of “structural instability” (Kjeldgaard, Askegaard,
Rasmussen, & Østergaard, 2017, p. 52). Markets can also develop
through formally organized consumer associations, and through this
“de-institutionalize existing beliefs, norms, and values” (Kjeldgaard
et al., 2017, p. 53). Furthermore, consumer studies show that what is
adopted and diffused changes as processes evolve (Kjeldgaard et al.,
2017), illustrating that our process perspective of contemporary tech-
nology adoption is shared by other authors, and that the practice ap-
proach inherent in the EAPT view extends prior thoughts based on re-
lated theoretical lenses.
5.2. Managerial implications
Traditional technology adoption models often point to managerial
implications, such as the importance of user-friendly interfaces, useful
systems (Davis et al., 1989), and system compatibility (Rogers, 2003).
Keeping to the ambient assisted living technology illustrations, these
characteristics are still important in the development of assistive tech-
nology. However, the EAPT view points to the importance of under-
standing the outcome that the technology should support – the practice
of ambient assisted living. Consequently, “The role of the company is to
support customers in their value creation by providing resources that
“fit” into the practices of customers.” (Korkman et al., 2010, p. 239).
Hence, managers should explore, understand, and adapt to character-
istics of the practice that users strive to realize rather than just adjust
the characteristics of the technology used to support that practice. The
EAPT view offers a framework for such managerial exploration.
Further, the EAPT view takes into account that adopters, and thus
end-users of the technology, include all actors of the microecosystem
involved in the adopted practice. In the case of ambient assisted living,
there are at least three categories of end-users (clients, next of kin, and
home nurses) as well as the aggregate microecosystem consisting of
these categories of actors that are the subjects of adoption. Thus, system
designers face a more heterogeneous group of end-users, often with
different preferences, than are typically considered during systems de-
velopment. In addition, system designers need to understand the re-
source integration that takes place in the microecosystems of clients,
their family and friends, and home nurses. Because user practices
549
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
within microecosystems evolve, system designers should design systems
that allow for flexibility of, and perhaps also stimulate new, resource
integration within different microecosystems. These managerial im-
plications of the EAPT view represent more complex operational
guidelines than the suggestions typically offered by earlier perspectives.
The temporality dimension included in the EAPT view underscores
the importance of understanding the adoption of ambient assisted living
as a dynamic process. The shared practice that is actually adopted later
in the process is seldom the end-user behavior that system designers
envisioned ex ante. Hence, flexibility in both technologies and service
systems can enable them to be adaptable to changes in practice as they
are adopted over time.
5.3. Policy implications
Schot and Steinmueller (2018) argue that innovation policies must
stimulate the transformation of socio-technical systems. They point out
that such transformations are different from just changing technologies.
It encompasses all elements of a socio-technical system. Hence, the
EAPT view focusing on the adoption of practices in microecosystems,
rather than the adoption of particular contemporary technologies, ad-
vances a view on innovations not as purely technological but as in-
novation opportunities in all elements of a sociotechnical system. Tra-
ditionally, policy makers tend to stimulate the supply side to innovate
new and improved solutions. However, Schot and Steinmueller (2018,
p. 1562) argue that users play an important role in innovation – and a
role beyond just “articulating a demand to be supplied by firm in-
novation”. Shove and Pantzar (2005, p. 61) also claim that “practi-
tioners are at least as important as producers; it is, after all, they who
are the “carriers” of the practice”. Windrum and García-Goñi (2008, p.
654) include providers, users, and policy makers in their concept of a
“multi-agent framework”. Accordingly, policy needs to move from sti-
mulating supplier innovation to stimulating technology users to explore
new configurations of the elements in the socio-technical systems – in
which technological artifacts are one of many elements. Schot and
Steimueller (2018) argue that policy “should find ways to assist users”
(p. 1564) and that policy needs to encourage “experimentation and
diversity” (p. 1564).
Different actors in an ecosystem “may perceive different actionable
features of a digital technology” (Verstegen et al., 2019, p. 3). Hence,
understanding the social mechanisms of the ecosystem adopting a
practice will be important for implementing policies that steer that
practice in a particular direction. Our suggestion of studying EAPT
through both individual and group-based measures (multi-level ana-
lysis) can help reveal conflicts and convergences among categories of
actors in microecosystems. Use of quantitative and mixed methods is
also emphasized by Browne et al. (2014) as important for guiding
policy. Hence, such a methodological approach can help policy makers
to make necessary adjustments to improve ecosystem adoption of
practices over time (Nambisan, Wright, & Feldman, 2019). Related to
practices employed by ambient assisted living microecosystems, such
studies can improve policy makers’ understanding of microecosystem
actors, including inter-actor relationships and actors' use of technolo-
gies. Based on the findings of such studies, policy makers can develop
strategies to nudge innovation practices in specific directions. For ex-
ample, if adoption of ambient assisted living is unsuccessful, such stu-
dies may reveal struggles that the elderly are experiencing with the
technologies and that home nurses do not have time to help. In that
case, a policy change may allow home nurses more time to facilitate
and support the elderly in their use of the technologies. Such time may
be particularly useful shortly before and after implementation of newly
adopted technologies.
The alternative view proposed in this article is general and in need
of further advancement. It is our hope that this article will inspire
others to join us in these exploratory research endeavors examining
consumer adoption of contemporary technology innovations.
H. Nysveen, et al.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge support from the Center for Service Innovation,
Norwegian School of Economics, of the research reported in this article.
Project no.: 203432/O30.
We thank the two reviewers for their constructive feedback on this
manuscript during the review process.
Declarations of interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alsulami, M. H., Atkins, A. S., & Campion, R. J. (2018). Factors influencing the adoption
of ambient assisted living technologies by healthcare providers in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. In M. Ezziyyani, M. Bahaj, & F. Khoukhi (Eds.). Advanced information
technology, services and systems: Proceedings of the international conference on advanced
information technology, services and systems (AIT2S-17) April 14/15, 2017 in Tangier.
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H., Steve, E., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., ... Wilson, H.
(2007). State-of-the-art in product service-system. Proceedings of the IMechE, Part B: J.
Engineering Manufacture, 221, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM858.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude
toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS
Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254.
Botella, C., Etchemendy, E., Castilla, D., Baños, R. M., García-Palacios, A., Quero, S., ...
Lozano, J. A. (2009). An e-health system for the elderly (Butler Project): A pilot study
on acceptance and satisfaction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 255–262. https://
doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0325.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bouwhuis, D. G. (2017). A framework for the acceptance of gerontechnology in relation to
smart living. In J. van Hoof, G. Demiris, & E. J. M. Wouters (Eds.). Handbook of smart
homes, health care and well-being (pp. 33–51). Springer International Publishing.
Browne, A. L., Pullinger, M., Medd, W., & Anderson, B. (2014). Patterns of practice: A
reflection on the development of quantitative/mixed methodologies capturing ev-
eryday life related to water consumption in the UK. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 17(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.
854012.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the
scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.). Power, action and belief: A
new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.
Cheung, L., & McColl Kennedy, J. R. (2015). Resource integration in liminal periods:
Transitioning to transformative service. Journal of Service Marketing, 29(6/7),
485–497.
Claes, V., Devriendt, E., Tournoy, J., & Milisen, K. (2015). Attitudes and perceptions of
adults of 60 years and older towards in-home monitoring of the activities of daily
living with contactless sensors: An explorative study. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 52(1), 134–148.
[DAAD] Design Led Innovations for Active Ageing, Design Brief (2014). Acceptance of
assistive technology. Berlin, Berlin: YOUSE GmbH & IDZ.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
deCertau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Demiris, G., Hensel, B. K., Skubic, M., & Rantz, M. (2008). Senior residents’ perceived
need of and preferences for “Smart home” sensor technologies. International Journal of
Technology Assessment in Health Care, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0266462307080154.
Demiris, G., Thompson, H., Boquet, J., Le, T., Chaudhuri, S., & Chung, J. (2013). Older
adult’s acceptance of a community-based telehealth wellness system. Informatics for
Health and Social Care, 38(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2011.
647938.
Dupuy, L., Consel, C., & Sauzéon, H. (2016). Self-determination-based design to achieve
acceptance of assisted living technologies for older adults. Computers in Human
Behavior, 65(December), 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.042.
Fischer, S. H., David, D., Crotty, B. H., Dierks, M., & Safran, C. (2014). Acceptance and use
of health information technology by community-dwelling elders. International Journal
of Med. Inform, 83(9), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.005.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Payne, A. (2016). Co-creation practices: Their role in
shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 24–39. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.007.
Gadrey, J. (1992). L’économie des service. Paris: Repères, La Découverte.
Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26, 537–556.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., & Tuertscher, P. (2016). From the process of
550
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
innovation to innovation as process. The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization
Studies, 451–466.
Giesler, M. (2012). How doppelgänger brand images influence the market creation pro-
cess: Longitudinal insights from the rise of Botox cosmetic. Journal of Marketing,
76(November), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0406.
Gövercin, M., Meyer, S., Schellenbach, M., Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., Weiss, B., & Haesner,
M. (2016). SmartSenior@home: Acceptance of an integrated ambient assisted living
system. Results of a clinical field trial in 35 households. Informatics for Health and
Social Care, 41(4), 430–447.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The
Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.
00325.x.
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Hinder, S., Procter, R., & Stones, R. (2013).
What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological ana-
lysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Social Science & Medicine, 93,
86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.036.
Guzman-Clark, J. R. S., van Servellen, G., Chang, B., Mentes, J., & Hahn, T. J. (2013).
Predictors and outcomes of early adherence to the use of a home telehealth device by
older veterans with heart failure. Telemed and e-Health, 19(3), 217–223.
Halkier, B., & Jensen, I. (2011). Methodological challenges in using practice theory in
consumption research. Examples from a study on handling nutritional contestations
of food consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1469540510391365.
Halkier, B., Katz-Gerro, T., & Martens, L. (2011). Applying practice theory to the study of
consumption: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 11(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510391765.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Practices and experiences: Challenges
and opportunities for value research. Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 554–570.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211260413.
Huang, J.-C. (2011). Exploring the acceptance of telecare among senior citizens: An ap-
plication of back-propagation network. Telemedicine and e-Health, 17(2), 111–117.
Jaakkola, E., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2019). Institutionalization process of
service innovation: Overcoming competing institutional logics in service ecosystems.
In P. Maglio, C. Kieliszewski, J. Spohrer, K. Lyons, L. Patrício, & Y. Sawatani (Eds.).
Handbook of service science, Volume II. Service science: Research and innovations in the
service economy (pp. 497–516). Cham: Springer.
Jaschinski, C. (2014). Ambient assisted living: Towards a model of technology adoption
and use among elderly users. Proceeding of the 2014 ACM international joint conference
on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 319–324). Adjunct Publication.
Jaschinski, C. (2018). Independent aging with the help of smart technology. Investigating the
acceptance of ambient assisted living technologies. PhD thesisThe Netherlands:
University of Twente, Ipskamp Printing.
Kjeldgaard, D., Askegaard, S., Rasmussen, J.Ø., & Østergaard, P. (2017). Consumers’
collective action in market system dynamics: A case of beer. Marketing Theory, 17(1),
51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593116658197.
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. F. (2006). Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and
performativity in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 839–855.
Korkman, O., Storbacka, K., & Harald, B. (2010). Practices as markets: Value co-creation
in e-invoicing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18, 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2010.07.006.
Korkman, O. (2006). Customer value information in practice. A practice-theoretical approach.
No 155, Helsinki, Finland: Publications of the Swedish School of Economics and
Business Administration.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford Press.
Löbler, H. (2013). Service-dominant networks: An evolution form the service-dominant
logic perspective. Journal of Service Management, 24(4), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JOSM-01-2013-0019.
MacInnis, D. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 75, 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.
Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2014). Consumption-driven market emergence. Journal
of Consumer Research, 40(February), 855–870.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., & Ferrier, E. (2015). Co-creating service experience
practices. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 249–275.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Hogan, S. J., Witell, L., & Snyder, H. (2017). Co-creative customer
practices: Effects of health care customer value cocreation practices on well-being.
Journal of Business Research, 70, 55–66.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & van Kasteren, Y.
(2012). Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service
Research, 15(4), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512442806.
McGrath, C., Ellis, M., Harney-Levine, S., Wright, D., Williams, E. A., Hwang, F., & Astell,
A. (2017). Investigating the enabling factors influencing occupational therapists’
adoption of assisted living technology. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80,
668–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022617711669.
McMurray, J., Strucwick, G., Forchuk, C., Morse, A., Lachance, J., Baskaran, A., ... Booth,
R. (2017). The importance of trust in the adoption and use of intelligent assistive
technology by older adults to support aging in place: Scoping review protocol. JMIR
Research Protocol, 6(11) e218, 1–7.
Merriam-Webster (2019). https://www.merriam-webster.com/ [accessed April 25,
2019].
Meyer, M. H., & Seliger, R. (1998). Product platforms in software development. Sloan
Management Review, 40(1), 61–74.
Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation
and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8),
1–9 Article 103773.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford
H. Nysveen, et al.
University Press.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the
“IT” in IT research – A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research,
12(2), 121–134.
Park, Y.-H., Ding, M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Eliciting preference for complex products: A
web-based upgrading method. Journal of Marketing Research, XLV(October), 562–574.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1),
115–143.
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S.,
... Wouters, E. J. M. (2016). Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in
place. Gerontology, 62, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949.
Peek, S. T. M., Wouters, E. J. M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K. G., Boeije, H. R., & Vrijhoef, H. J.
M. (2014). Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A sys-
tematic review. International Journal of Medical informatics, 83, 235–248. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004.
Peeters, J. M., de Veer, A. J. E., van der Hoek, L., & Francke, A. L. (2012). Factors in-
fluencing the adoption of home telecare by elderly or chronically ill people: A na-
tional survey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 3183–3193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2702.2012.04173.x.
Peters, L. D., Löbler, H., Brodie, R. J., Breidbach, C. F., Hollebeek, L. D., Smith, S. D., ...
Varey, R. J. (2014). Theorizing about resource integration through service-dominant
logic. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1470593114534341.
Radhakrishnan, K., Xie, B., Berkley, A., & Kim, M. (2016). Barriers and facilitators for
sustainability of tele-homecare programs: A systematic review. Health Services
Research, 51(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12327.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. A development of culturalist
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.
1177/13684310222225432.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). NY: The Free Press.
Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2010). An alternative to methodological individualism: A
non-reductionist approach to studying technology adoption by groups. MIS Quarterly,
34(4), 779–808.
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of
innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554–1567. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: Understanding the
invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1),
43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505049846.
Shove, Pantzar, & Watson (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it
changes. London: Sage.
Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., & Rowles, C. M. (2007). A network approach to define
modularity of components in complex products. Transactions of the ASME,
129(November), 1118–1129.
Southall, K., Gangné, J.-P., & Leroux, T. (2006). Factors that influence the use of assis-
tance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss. International Journal of
Audiology, 45(4), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020500258586.
Steel, R., Lo, A., Secombe, C., & Wong, Y. K. (2009). Elderly persons’ perception and
acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. International
Journal of Medical Informatics, 78, 788–801.
Teh, P.-L., Lim, W. M., Ahmed, P. K., Chan, A. H. S., Loo, J. M. Y., Cheong, S.-N., & Yap,
W.-J. (2017). Does power posing affect gerontechnology adoption among older
adults? Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0144929X.2016.1175508.
Thorbjørnsen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Nysveen, H. (2009). Categorizing networked services:
551
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 542–551
The role of intrinsic-, user network-and complement network attributes. European
Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 371–397.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11747-007-0069-6.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
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.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., Hu, P. J. H., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the
two-stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors
and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527–555. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of in-
formation technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Verstegen, L., Houkes, W., & Reymen, I. (2019). Configuring collective digital-technology
usage in dynamic and complex design practices. Research Policy, 48(8), 1–13 Article
103696.
Vincent, C., Reinharz, D., Deaudelin, I., Garceau, M., & Talbot, L. R. (2007).
Understanding personal determinants in the adoption of telesurveillance in elder
home care by community health workers. Journal of Community Practice, 15(3),
99–118.
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture,
5(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090.
Warde, A. (2014). After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 14(3), 279–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514547828.
Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social differentiation, consumption and pleasure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warde, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). The habits of consumption. COLLeGIUM: Studies
across disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Helsinki Collegium for
Advanced Studies, 12, 1–25.
Windrum, P., & García-Goñi, M. (2008). A neo-Schumpeterian model of health services
innovation. Research Policy, 37, 649–672.
Yusif, S., Soar, J., & Hafeez-Baig, A. (2016). Older people, assistive technologies, and the
barriers to adoption: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics,
94, 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.004.
Herbjørn Nysveen (PhD) is a marketing professor at Norwegian School of Economics
(NHH), Department of Strategy and Management. His research interests are in the area of
technology adoption and brand experience. Nysveen is associated with the Center for
Service Innovation (CSI) at NHH.
Per Egil Pedersen (PhD) is a professor in service innovation at the University of South-
Eastern Norway, School of Business, Department of Business, History and Social Sciences.
He also holds an adjunct professorship at Department of Strategy and Management,
Norwegian School of Economics (NHH). He has published several articles in areas such as
service innovation, technology adoption, consumer behavior, and business models.
Siv E. R. Skard is an associate professor in marketing at Norwegian School of Economics
(NHH), Department of Strategy and Management. She holds a PhD from NHH. She has
published in areas such as sponsorship effects, technology adoption, and sustainability.
Skard is associated with the Center for Service Innovation (CSI) at NHH.