Table 2 Overview of the analysis

Employee volunteer centre M2:

“The system will give better collaboration between the municipality, volunteer centre and voluntary organisations”.

• Understanding of needs

Coherence

Employee M1:

“I think the structure is going to be better and it will be easier to keep in touch …”

• End-user’s expectations

Observational data showed that the three municipalities had different starting points.

• Collaboration structure

Cognitive participation

Manager from volunteer centre M3:

“You were not free from regular daily tasks to get acquainted with it”.

• Management’s role

Employee M3:

“The developer of the system must be responsible for the training”.

• End-user’s training

Collective action

Employee from volunteer centre M1:

“Several do not have enough computer skills”.

• User’s experience with the system

Employee from volunteer centre M2:

“The system helped to improve the structure, and it was easier to contact and coordinate volunteers to assignments”.

• Realised benefits

Reflexive monitoring

Employee from volunteer centre M2:

“It should have been more intuitive”.

• System improvement

Manager from volunteer senctre M1:

“The municipality managers were not clear in organising us [for the implementation], which role we had and which tasks”.

• Implementation process improvement

Manager from volunteer centre M2:

“It was time-consuming to set up and make a structure in the system”.

• Time-consuming process

Other findings

Employee M1:

“It is still important to have a first face-to-face meeting with volunteers to map interests”.

• Face-to-face communication