DOI : https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.12.6.16073

Organizational Resistance to Technology Diffusion: The Case of IPv6

Dedy Syamsuar (1), Peter Dell (2), Deden Witarsyah (3), Ahmad Luthfi (4)
(1) Universitas Bina Nusantara, Jl. Raya Kb. Jeruk No. 27, Jakarta, 11530, Indonesia
(2) Curtin University, Kent Street, Perth, 6102, Australia
(3) Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi Terusan Buah Batu, Bandung, 40257, Indonesia
(4) Universitas Islam Indonesia, Jl. Kaliurang km. 14,5 Sleman, Yogyakarta 55584 Indonesia
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite (IJASEIT) :
Syamsuar, Dedy, et al. “Organizational Resistance to Technology Diffusion: The Case of IPv6”. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 12, no. 6, Nov. 2022, pp. 2462-8, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.12.6.16073.
Citation Format :
IP address is an essential protocol to identify every connected device to the Internet uniquely. IPv6 was developed as a long-term solution to overcome IPv4's shortcomings. However, IPv6 adoption is still very rare. Organizations tend to resistance to adopting and implementing IPv6 on their network. This study aims to develop and test a model of organizational resistance to IPv6, an Internet Protocol (IP) intended to replace IPv4, the widely used incumbent. This exploratory mixed-methods study analyzed interview data from Indonesian organizations, supplemented with insights from prior literature, to identify factors of organizational resistance to IPv6. A subsequent survey of Indonesian organizations was conducted to assess the relationship of each factor with IPv6 resistance. The survey data was then rigorously analyzed using PLS-SEM. While IPv6 is typically portrayed as an essential Internet infrastructure development, Indonesian organizations perceive it as unnecessary and threatening. A Structural Equation Model of IPv6 Resistance was developed and posits that although perceived threat, perceived lack of need, and environmental influences all influence organizational resistance to IPv6, switching costs and satisfaction with current technology have no impact. This study has practical implications for organizations that aim to promote IPv6 diffusion; promotion strategies should address the key factors identified in this study. While prior models of technology resistance have focused on individual-level resistance to technologies promoted from within the organization, this study focuses on organizational-level resistance to technology promoted by sources external to the organization and hence makes a new theoretical contribution.

L. Prehn, F. Lichtblau, and A. Feldmann, "When wells run dry: the 2020 IPv4 address market," in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies, 2020, pp. 46-54.

P. Dell, "On the dual-stacking transition to IPv6: A forlorn hope?," Telecomm. Policy, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 575-581, 2018.

S. Jia et al., "Tracking the deployment of IPv6: Topology, routing, and performance," Comput. Networks, vol. 165, p. 106947, 2019.

P. Dourish, "The once and future internet: infrastructural tragedy and ambiguity in the case of IPv6," Internet Hist., vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 55-74, 2018.

J. Pickard, M. Angolia, and D. Drummond, "IPv6 diffusion milestones: Assessing the quantity and quality of adoption," J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 2-28, 2019.

W. Mazurczyk, K. Powójski, and L. Caviglione, "IPv6 covert channels in the wild," in Proceedings of the Third Central European Cybersecurity Conference, 2019, pp. 1-6.

M. Malekzadeh, "IPv6 transition measurements in LTE and VHT Wi-Fi mobile networks," IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 183024-183039, 2019.

M. Najib and F. Fahma, "Investigating the adoption of digital payment system through an extended technology acceptance model: An insight from the Indonesian small and medium enterprises," Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1702-1708, 2020.

A. Bhattacherjee, C. J. Davis, A. J. Connolly, and N. Hikmet, "User response to mandatory IT use: A coping theory perspective," Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 395-414, 2018.

Q. Chen, Y. Lu, and Q. Tang, "Why do users resist service organization's brand mobile apps? The force of barriers versus cross-channel synergy," Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 47, pp. 274-282, 2019.

C. C. Wolverton and R. Cenfetelli, "An exploration of the drivers of non-adoption behavior: A discriminant analysis approach," ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 38-65, 2019.

L. Lapointe and S. Rivard, "A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation," MIS Q., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 461-491, 2005.

S. S. Abed, "Social commerce adoption using TOE framework: An empirical investigation of Saudi Arabian SMEs," Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 53, p. 102118, 2020.

K. K. Hiran and A. Henten, "An integrated TOE-DoI framework for cloud computing adoption in higher education: The case of Sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopia," in Soft Computing: Theories and applications, Springer, 2020, pp. 1281-1290.

D. Choi, C. Y. Chung, T. Seyha, and J. Young, "Factors Affecting Organizations' Resistance to the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in Supply Networks," Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 21, p. 8882, 2020.

C. A. Makridis and J. H. Han, "Future of work and employee empowerment and satisfaction: Evidence from a decade of technological change," Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 173, p. 121162, 2021.

N. Hajiheydari, M. S. Delgosha, and H. Olya, "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioral reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 169, p. 120807, 2021.

D. Sugandini, M. I. Effendi, and Y. Istanto, "The Resistance of SMEs in Adopting Social Media: TOE Model," in Business Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 2020, pp. 175-179.

Y. Suzuki and L. R. Williams, "Analysis of EDI resistance behavior," Transp. J., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 36-44, 1998.

K. Alabi, "A 2020 perspective on 'digital blockchain networks appear to be following Metcalfe's law,'” Electron. Commer. Res. Appl., vol. 40, p. 100939, 2020.

S. Atkinson and M. A. El-Haj, “Domain Analysis for Qualitative Public Health Data, Health Policy, and Planning,” Health Policy Plan., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 438-442, 1996.

M. de Vaal and P. A. Tamí¡s, “The standard of integrity may be useful when assessing arguments over qualitative review methods: The case of the Joanna Briggs Institute’s rebuttal of a fundamental critique,” Nurs. Inq., p. e12465, 2021.

R. S. Natow, “The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews,” Qual. Res., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 160-173, 2020.

S. Suriah, J. Jilyana, A. Yani, H. Khoshab, and M. T. Abdullah, “A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Adolescents on Early Marriage at Small Island in Indonesia,” Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci., vol. 10, no. E, pp. 378-385, 2022.

E. Oldland, A. M. Hutchinson, B. Redley, M. Mohebbi, and M. Botti, “Evaluation of the validity and reliability of the Nurses’ Responsibility in Healthcare Quality Questionnaire: An instrument design study,” Nurs. Health Sci., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 525-537, 2021.

T. Maruyama, “Reasons for Non-response to Smartphone-based Travel Survey in Two Afghanistan Cities,” Asian Transp. Stud., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 523-542, 2019.

T. Cleff, Applied statistics and multivariate data analysis for business and economics. Springer, 2019.

T. F. Johnson, N. J. B. Isaac, A. Paviolo, and M. Gonzí¡lez”Suí¡rez, “Handling missing values in trait data,” Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 51-62, 2021.

J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM,” Eur. Bus. Rev., 2019.

J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, “Multivariate data analysis, 8th edn., Cengage Learning EMEA, Andover,” Hampshire, 2019.

B. Cooper, N. Eva, F. Z. Fazlelahi, A. Newman, A. Lee, and M. Obschonka, “Common method variance in vocational behavior research: Reviewing the state of the literature,” J. Vocat. Behav., p. 103472, 2020.

G. Cepeda-Carrion, J.-G. Cegarra-Navarro, and V. Cillo, “Tips to use partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in knowledge management,” J. Knowl. Manag., 2019.

W. Black and B. J. Babin, “Multivariate data analysis: Its approach, evolution, and impact,” in The great facilitator, Springer, 2019, pp. 121-130.

M. Sarstedt and J.-H. Cheah, “Partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS: a software review.” Springer, 2019.

I. Alghatrifi and H. B. Khalid, “Factors affecting the adoption of IPv6 from IPv4: A systematic mapping study,” Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol., vol. 8, no. 5, 2018.

I. Livadariu, A. Elmokashfi, and A. Dhamdhere, “An agent-based model of IPv6 adoption,” in 2020 IFIP Networking Conference (Networking), 2020, pp. 361-369.

S. Zander and X. Wang, “Are we there yet? ipv6 in Australia and China,” ACM Trans. Internet Technol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1-20, 2019.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).