Workarounds as work practice? Analysis of tension-resolving workarounds in organizations

Workarounds have been recognized in information systems (IS) research as a crucial lens for understanding how technologies are appropriated, adapted and reshaped in practice (Gasser, 1986; Malaurent and Avison, 2016). Rather than being merely deviations from prescribed procedures, workarounds reveal the situated, improvisational and often collective efforts through which users navigate tensions between technological design and organizational reality. Although the existing literature has substantially deepened our understanding of post-adoption dynamics, most studies have examined intra-organizational systems, particularly enterprise systems, where challenges arise from local misfits, user–system conflicts and organizational constraints (Ejnefjäll and Ågerfalk, 2019; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020). In contrast, considerably less is known about workarounds in inter-organizational settings such as supply chains, where tensions are amplified by distributed authority, heterogeneous goals and heightened regulatory and relational complexity (Ellingsen and Monteiro, 2003; Sheaff et al., 2015). These gaps limit our understanding of how workaround practices develop, evolve and eventually shape emerging organizational routines in complex distributed organizational networks.

Blockchain implementation in supply chains offers a particularly salient context for examining this gap. Blockchain has attracted growing attention from scholars and organizations as a promising technology for addressing supply chain challenges (Vazquez Melendez et al., 2024; Vivaldini, 2021). Its features of secure, transparent and decentralized transaction management enable tamper-proof recordkeeping and information sharing, offering considerable potential to transform supply chain operations (Kumar et al., 2025; Schmidt and Wagner, 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated blockchain adoption as firms sought robust mechanisms for ensuring security and transparency (BusinessResearchInsights, 2025). Reflecting this momentum, the global blockchain market is projected to rise from USD 31.18 billion in 2025 to USD 393.42 billion by 2032 (FortuneBusinessInsights, 2025), with over 560 million users worldwide (Kumar, 2025).

Yet, despite these expectations, blockchain's post-adoption use in supply chains remains limited and uneven (Shahzad et al., 2024). Studies show that anticipated outcomes, such as reduced opportunism and automated coordination, frequently fail to materialize following implementation (Lustenberger and Spychiger, 2025). Moreover, most existing research continues to focus on adoption intentions and system design (Clohessy and Acton, 2019; Shahzad et al., 2024; Verhoeven et al., 2018), with far less attention paid to how blockchain is adapted in organizational practice after implementation (Espinheira, 2023; Henry et al., 2023; Javaid, 2022).

From a workaround perspective, blockchain presents a revealing tension. Blockchain systems are designed around claims of immutability and rigid structures, whereas workaround practices are inherently adaptive and flexible. Investigating blockchain-related workarounds in supply chains is therefore essential for understanding how inter-organizational systems evolve in practice (Alter, 2014).

With this in mind, our study asks: (1) How do organizations develop workarounds to resolve tensions associated with blockchain use in the supply chain? (2) How do blockchain-related workarounds shape emerging organizational blockchain work practices? We focus on organizational adjustments that bridge discrepancies between blockchain's intended design and its practical use in the supply chain. Such adjustments, in the form of workarounds, are important for understanding how technologies are appropriated, adapted and institutionalized within organizations (Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020).

We adopt a qualitative case study approach, combining expert interviews in organizations from food supply chains. Building on prior research that identified tensions arising from blockchain implementation (Sultana et al., 2022), we extend analysis to examine how organizations develop and formalize workarounds as evolving work practices with emergent learnings.

This study makes four key contributions by examining and advancing IS research and extending the focus on blockchain beyond adoption to post-adoption use. First, it reconceptualizes workarounds as emergent, dynamic organizational responses rather than solely intentional detours. It also shifts the workaround conversation from intra-organizational contexts to inter-organizational blockchain ecosystems. Second, it extends Gasser's (1986) workaround typology by identifying a new type, “strategic design adjustments”, specific to blockchain contexts. Third, it challenges the view of workarounds as deviant, demonstrating instead how they foster organizational learning and the formalization of blockchain work practices by evolving from individual actions to coordinated activities and, ultimately, being institutionalized in work practices. Finally, it offers actionable insights for practitioners, outlining strategies to manage blockchain tensions and foster sustainable integration through compatibility, complementarity and commitment-focused blockchain work practices.

Post-adoption research in IS has evolved from a parochial focus on IS success and continuance (Bagayogo et al., 2014; Saeed and Abdinnour, 2013) to a richer exploration of how technology is appropriated, adapted and sustained in everyday organizational life (Alter, 2014; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020; Van den Hooff and Hafkamp, 2018). While early work primarily centered on factors driving acceptance and ongoing use (Azad and King, 2008; Veiga et al., 2014), recent scholarship has begun to recognize post-adoption as a dynamic, contested process marked by local adaptations and tension-driven workarounds (Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020).

While a substantial body of IS research over the past 3 decades has examined how technologies are reshaped and institutionalized through emergent and situated practices (e.g. Leonardi and Barley, 2010; Orlikowski, 1996), much of the dominant adoption and diffusion literature has nevertheless remained anchored in relatively static acceptance models (Azad and King, 2008; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020). Within this broader practice-oriented tradition, workarounds have emerged as a pivotal concept for revealing how organizations creatively navigate misfits between designed systems and real-world work demands (Malaurent and Avison, 2016). These practices are not merely deviant behaviors but can foster innovation, learning and improved system fit over time (Brooks et al., 2018; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020) through co-evolution between organizational routine and technology (Goh et al., 2011).

This study builds on this emerging and more dynamic strand of post-adoption research, treating post-adoption not as a stable end state but as an ongoing, negotiated process. In doing so, it foregrounds workaround practices as critical mechanisms through which users adapt blockchain technologies to their organizational realities, offering fresh insights into the social and organizational processes that shape technology assimilation and long-term impact (Ajanapanya, 2024).

In IS research, workarounds have been considered as both problematic and beneficial practices. Some studies view them as deviant or noncompliant behaviors that undermine system effectiveness (Drum et al., 2015; Ferneley and Sobreperez, 2006), while others emphasize their positive contributions, including institutionalization and innovation (Davison et al., 2019; Wibisono, 2024). Increasingly, workarounds are recognized as enablers of IS success, supporting adaptation and balancing external demands with work realities (Azad and King, 2012; Barrett, 2018).

Workarounds, also described as adaptations, feral IS, shadow systems or improvisations, are broadly defined as alternative ways to achieve goals when established processes are blocked (Alter, 2014; Ejnefjäll and Ågerfalk, 2019; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020). They help overcome or mitigate obstacles that hinder organizational effectiveness, though they may also introduce new challenges (Ejnefjäll et al., 2023). Importantly, their intentional, goal-oriented nature differentiates them from mistakes (ibid). Workarounds are especially useful when system use is incoherent (Azad and King, 2008), organizational goals are at risk (Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020), temporary solutions are needed (Ejnefjäll et al., 2023) or large-scale change is infeasible (Ejnefjäll and Ågerfalk, 2019).

Workaround conceptualizations in literature vary. Ejnefjäll and Ågerfalk (2019) outlined five definitions which differ in terms of intent, designed path, presence of blocks and goals (see Figure 1). Definition 1 reflects unintentional deviations without clear goals, making them challenging to distinguish from errors. Definition 2 frames workarounds as intentional but lacks clear goal orientation, making it difficult to contextualize the action as a purposeful workaround. Definition 3 describes a workaround as intentionally taking an alternative path instead of the designed one rather than necessarily responding to a specific blockage, which often might be because users consider it a more effective or convenient option. Definitions 4 and 5 conceptualize workarounds as intentional and goal-oriented actions that arise when actors encounter a block in the designed process encouraging them toward an alternative path to achieve the intended goal (Ejnefjäll and Ågerfalk, 2019; Sultana et al., 2024).

Most of these definitions overlook the emergent nature of workarounds. As organizations continue to operate under dynamic technological and institutional conditions, workarounds increasingly evolve from reactive fixes into ongoing, routinised work practices that shape system use in fundamental ways (Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020). Recognizing this emergent dimension reframes workarounds from deviant acts to adaptive, generative forces in organizational learning.

Building on these insights, we conceptualize a workaround as “an intended or emergent adjustment to the original plan, enacted to (1) overcome blocks from conflicting or misaligned activities, and (2) refine processes to more effectively achieve organizational goals” (Figure 2). Block-remediation workarounds address emergent obstacles along the designed path, while improvisation workarounds create alternative pathways to enhance practices (Sultana et al., 2024).

Workarounds serve these purposes across multiple domains. Strong and Volkoff's (2010) theory of organization enterprise system fit identifies six domains, i.e. functionality, data, usability, role, control and culture, though workarounds extend beyond these (Ejnefjäll et al., 2023). Existing studies report workarounds for functionality misfits (Strong and Volkoff, 2010; Van den Hooff and Hafkamp, 2018), conflicts with policies (Malaurent and Avison, 2016) and mismatches between systems and organizational practices (Spierings et al., 2017) which can serve as ‘shock absorbers’ (Berente et al., 2016, p. 551). These examples show that workarounds are widespread, adaptable and central to managing tensions and improving organizational performance.

While prior research identifies where workarounds occur, understanding how they are enacted remains essential for explaining their organizational outcomes. Building on practice-based perspectives in IS (Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Orlikowski, 2002), this study distinguishes between actions, activities and work practices to clarify how workaround behaviors emerge, scale and become institutionalized over time.

An action refers to a discrete, goal-directed, micro-level act performed by an individual actor (Collins, 1981) in response to an immediate tension or constraint, such as bypassing a system feature, modifying a data entry or applying a temporary identifier. Actions often represent the earliest and most situated expressions of workarounds, arising spontaneously as users attempt to maintain workflow continuity.

An activity operates at the meso-level and comprises multiple interrelated actions that together accomplish a recognizable task or objective, frequently involving coordination, negotiation or role interaction among actors (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 2000). For example, reconciling blockchain data with legacy systems or validating shared records may involve a sequence of workaround actions performed by multiple actors, thereby constituting a workaround activity rather than a single action.

A work practice, at the macro-level, is a recurrent, materially situated and socially recognized pattern of activities and actions collectively enacted by members of a community (Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011; Orlikowski, 2002). Through repetition, shared understanding and organizational legitimization, workaround activities may stabilize and become routinized, eventually forming recognized work practices and, in some cases, institutionalized organizational routines (Feldman and Pentland, 2003).

This distinction is particularly important for analyzing workarounds in dynamic and inter-organizational contexts such as blockchain-enabled supply chains. Workarounds may originate as isolated actions addressing local misfits but can evolve into coordinated activities and, ultimately, into stabilized work practices through processes of collective learning and evaluation. By connecting these levels, this study frames blockchain-related workarounds as evolving from improvised responses to enduring organizational work practices through the lens of expansive learning.

Despite growing recognition in IS literature the study of workarounds within blockchain contexts remains nascent and underexplored. This is striking given blockchain's defining characteristics of immutability, decentralization, automated execution and consensus-based validation (Beck et al., 2017; Ølnes et al., 2017), which are purpose-built to enforce compliance and minimize human discretion. Due to these rigid, formal structures, blockchain seems antithetical to workarounds, as workarounds are often perceived as informal adaptations to system misfits (Azad and King, 2008; Ferneley and Sobreperez, 2006). Yet empirical evidence reveals that blockchain, despite its formalism, is not immune to workaround practices. The tension between blockchain's rule-bound architectures and the situated realities of organizational work creates fertile ground for such adaptations (Chong et al., 2019; Fridgen et al., 2018). Organizations integrating blockchain encounter practical constraints, interoperability hurdles, governance misalignments and automation rigidity that necessitate workaround responses.

For instance, Chong et al. (2019) highlight the need for interoperability workarounds when blockchain must interface with traditional enterprise resource planning and legacy systems that do not operate on distributed ledgers. These workarounds often involve procedural and architectural adjustments to enable data flow between disparate platforms. Sharma et al. (2023) discuss workaround mechanisms for addressing disputed transactions and technical complications, focusing on scenarios requiring transaction reversion, which is a functionality not typically supported in immutable blockchain architectures. Eggers et al. (2021) emphasized the critical need for architectural-level workarounds when organizations face operational challenges stemming from evolving smart contract requirements and limitations in automated execution environments. Moreover, Carvalho et al. (2021) implicitly acknowledge the necessity of workarounds in managing the challenges posed by blockchain's immutability, especially in use cases that demand auditability and error correction.

To categorize these emergent practices this study draws on Gasser's (1986) seminal workaround typology – data, procedural and parallel system adjustments – extended by Azad and King (2008) to include role adjustments. However, blockchain's unique socio-technical configurations, i.e. decentralized control, smart contract logic and consensus, may push beyond these established categories. This study examines whether new workaround forms emerge in blockchain contexts, highlighting the interplay between rigid technology and adaptive organizational practice and learning.

By foregrounding blockchain's workaround dynamics this study challenges assumptions that blockchain's formal structures preclude discretionary adaptations. Instead, it positions workarounds as critical adaptive mechanisms through which organizations navigate blockchain's rigidity. This perspective advances our understanding of how workarounds enable continuous learning and technology assimilation, reinforcing their integral role in the post-adoption use of complex IS.

In this study, workarounds are seen as an emergent response to contradictions or tensions within the organizations. By focusing on the interplay between structure and agency, we aim to analyze workarounds during blockchain post-adoption and understand how workarounds arise, evolve and impact organizational work practices during post-adoption blockchain use. While previous research views workarounds as temporary fixes or deviant behaviors (Alter, 2014; Ejnefjäll et al., 2023), we advance the understanding of workarounds by framing them as part of an expansive learning process (Engeström, 1987, 2008) embedded within inter-organizational responses. When tensions intensify and cannot be solved through minor adjustments, they also prompt expansive learning: a collective process where actors break away from established norms and create new models of activity. Workarounds can be understood as visible symptoms of these tensions, blockages and practical actions toward expansive learning and systemic transformation.

To illustrate this, we map workaround behaviors onto Engeström's (1987, 2001) expansive learning cycle (ELC), which includes the seven phases shown in Figure 3. The first phase of ELC is questioning, where users encounter tensions or blockages, such as those caused by blockchain's rigidity or misaligned organizational roles, and respond by seeking immediate alternatives in the form of workarounds. This leads to analyzing, during which users critically reflect on the underlying causes of these tensions, such as issues with blockchain immutability or conflicting role expectations. In the modelling emergent solution phase, users craft emergent solutions, workarounds that temporarily resolve or bypass systemic issues. These emergent practices are then examined collectively, allowing users to evaluate their effectiveness and share feedback. If viable, these solutions are implemented, becoming formalized or routinized within everyday practices. In the next phase, organizations learn from these workaround experiences, helping actors make sense of their responses and adapt. In the final consolidation phase, these lessons become institutionalized as new norms, roles or rules that reshape the activity system. This shows that workarounds are not random fixes but systematic, emergent adjustments that drive organizational learning and evolve into established work practices (Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020).

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive case study design to investigate how organizations develop workarounds to address tensions arising from blockchain implementation and how these workaround strategies shape emerging blockchain-enabled work practices. Case studies are particularly well-suited to examining contemporary socio-technical phenomena within real-life contexts, especially where the boundaries between phenomenon and context are blurred (Walsham, 1995; Yin, 2018). Our research builds on prior work (Sultana, 2022) that identified tensions experienced by organizations during blockchain adoption in food supply chains. This study extends that inquiry by examining the post-implementation phase, focusing on the workaround strategies employed to resolve those tensions and the resulting transformation in organizational practices.

We investigated organizations from two blockchain-enabled food supply chain initiatives that had previously participated in our earlier research. Case 1 comprised organizations based in Europe and the United States, including a juice processor, a bottling company, several retailers and a blockchain technology provider. Case 2 involved US-based organizations, including a food vendor, a distribution company, multiple retailers and another blockchain provider. These cases were selected based on theoretical relevance and access to participants across the blockchain implementation timeline. Both initiatives aimed to enhance traceability and transparency in the food supply chain through blockchain use, making them suitable for exploring both the emergence of tensions and the responses they provoked.

Data collection was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, we conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with senior representatives from the participating organizations. These interviews focused on identifying how blockchain-related tensions were recognized and addressed over time. Participants were selected based on their direct involvement in blockchain implementation and included individuals in roles such as IT management, supply chain leadership, sustainability coordination and food safety. Interviews were conducted across the full supply chain, enabling us to develop an overarching view of the challenges and workarounds experienced by each organization. In the second stage, we conducted five additional interviews with recognized blockchain experts, including CEOs and CTOs of leading blockchain technology companies and blockchain projects. These individuals were selected for their deep practical knowledge of blockchain implementation across industries and their visibility in shaping public and professional discourse on blockchain applications. These expert interviews served to evaluate the strategies identified in the first stage, offering critical feedback on their feasibility, adaptability and long-term organizational implications.

In total, 23 interviews were conducted across both stages. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and anonymized. We also collected relevant secondary data, including organizational reports, blockchain platform documentation, industry white papers and media articles. These sources were used to triangulate organizational actions and findings, and to provide additional contextual depth.

Data analysis followed an iterative, abductive approach that allowed us to move between empirical evidence and emerging theoretical insights (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). We employed thematic analysis as the primary analytical method, using NVivo software to manage and code the data. Initially, we analyzed organizational tension-resolution efforts, identifying various workaround actions employed to address different tensions. These actions were then categorized into themes reflecting different types of workarounds associated with blockchain use. This helped us to answer the first research question (stated in section 1). The second-stage expert interviews were analyzed inductively to assess how practitioners interpreted these workaround strategies and their implications for future practice. Based on the expert responses and structured evaluation, we addressed the second research question (stated in section 1).

This study explores how organizations navigate blockchain-related tensions post-adoption, focusing on workarounds as responses to emergent challenges and drivers of organizational learning. Unlike previous research, which has examined workarounds in specific contexts such as functionality misfits (Strong and Volkoff, 2010), policy conflicts (Malaurent and Avison, 2016) or system improvisation (Spierings et al., 2017), our study adopts a broader perspective. We observed five types of workaround practices arising from perceived tensions in blockchain use for traceability: data adjustments, procedural adjustments, parallel system adjustments, role adjustments and strategic design adjustments (see  Appendix, Table A1). These workaround practices highlight how workarounds are woven into various organizational policies, practices, processes and activities (Shaikh, 2021).

Data adjustments reveal that some actors used informal practices, such as copy-pasting vendor data into the blockchain, to bypass incompatibilities with existing systems. While common in traditional systems (McGann, 2005), under blockchain these inaccuracies become immutably embedded across the network, undermining traceability and shared trust. Such workarounds stem from misaligned inter-organizational processes and over-reliance on trusted actors rather than verification. Although offering short-term relief, they pose serious risks to data quality and accountability. Prioritizing system integration and automated data transfer can reduce human intervention, ensure accurate recording of supply chain events, and strengthen the long-term credibility and traceability of blockchain systems (Karaduman and Gülhas, 2025).

Procedural adjustments are when organizations revise operational routines, particularly policies and product labelling, to align with blockchain requirements. Prior IS research has highlighted how organizations revise policies, routines and artefacts to accommodate misalignments between digital systems and existing work practices (e.g. Alter, 2014; Azad and King, 2008; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020). However, our findings show that, in the context of blockchain-enabled supply chains, such workarounds emerge specifically in response to technology's heightened requirements for standardization, immutability and data accuracy. In the studied cases, organizations revised operational routines, most notably product labelling and data capture policies, by adopting standardized, scannable labels (e.g. produce traceability initiative tags applied at the field level). These adjustments replaced manual recording practices, reducing data entry errors while improving efficiency and traceability. Such modifications demonstrate how reconfiguring organizational operational routines fosters compatibility with blockchain workflows and supports more accurate, efficient and scalable implementation (Saari et al., 2025).

Parallel system adjustments were the most frequently observed strategy (see Table A1,  Appendix), reflecting the difficulty of aligning legacy systems with the shared, inter-organizational nature of blockchain infrastructure. Organizations introduced temporary identifiers for noncompliant partners and developed custom mobile applications to automate data capture and maintain network participation to bridge interoperability gaps. Consistent with prior IS research, parallel systems have long been recognized as a common workaround through which organizations temporarily bypass rigid or immature digital infrastructures by introducing complementary tools or shadow systems (Bartelheimer et al., 2023; Mörike et al., 2024). Under blockchain, these practices preserve network continuity and data flows rather than serving as purely local workarounds. However, ad hoc interventions, such as limiting data scope or altering blockchain structures to accommodate legacy systems, risk undermining data integrity, transparency and consistency. As these parallel systems became routinized, they shaped blockchain work practices, entrenching hybrid arrangements where blockchain operated alongside and sometimes beneath legacy systems. While parallel systems are not new in the IS workaround literature, this study shows that although they can ease short-term implementation tensions, sustainable blockchain adoption requires a deliberate shift from provisional workarounds to integrated, well-structured redesigns that embed blockchain coherently within broader organizational and inter-organizational digital ecosystems.

Role adjustments illustrate how blockchain adoption reshapes responsibilities and human resource functions, extending Gasser's (1986) original classification. Consistent with Azad and King (2008), such role-based workarounds are especially salient in blockchain due to distributed governance, shared data ownership and transparency requirements. In our cases, blockchain providers emerged as data-integrity mediators, while retailer advocates promoted business value and adoption, roles that were largely overlooked in prior work focused on technical mediation (Mörike et al., 2024). Unlike conventional systems, where role changes are largely internal, blockchain role shifts underscore the importance of structured interventions, communication and education to ensure reliable and accepted blockchain practices across supply chains.

Strategic design adjustments reflect blockchain-specific workarounds in which organizations deliberately altered core architectural principles, such as decentralization, immutability and complete transparency, to reconcile rigid system features with practical realities. Such strategic design adjustments emerged when blockchain conflicted with flexibility, selective data sharing or centralized governance. In our cases, systems were intentionally centralized, consensus mechanisms removed or data scope restricted to ensure usability and stakeholder acceptance. Unlike conventional systems, these workarounds targeted the blockchain infrastructure itself, showing how foundational principles were pragmatically reshaped to sustain inter-organizational operability across implementation stages, not only post-adoption.

Overall, the findings reveal that addressing post-adoption tensions requires diverse workaround strategies. While some effective practices foster harmonization and may generalize to broader blockchain scaling, others were less effective, introducing new tensions. Distinguishing between effective and ineffective workarounds offers critical insight into organizational adaptation, highlighting that blockchain adoption demands dynamic, context-sensitive responses rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

Building on Davison et al. (2021), and drawing more broadly on IS research on workaround institutionalization and practice formation (e.g. Azad and King, 2008; Gasser, 1986; Orlikowski, 2000), we evaluated the blockchain-related workarounds across four dimensions: how these workarounds are created (individually or collectively), their clarity of purpose (critical or inoperative to objects), their practical effectiveness (effective or ineffective) and expert-assessed viability of workarounds evolving into sustainable work practices. The first three dimensions are inspired by Davison et al. (2021). We extended the last one by incorporating expert-assessed viability that these workarounds could evolve into sustainable work practices, shaping the long-term integration of blockchain. This evaluation addresses our second research question: How do blockchain-related workarounds shape emerging organizational blockchain work practices? It offers insights into how workaround practices extend beyond short-term fixes to support sustainable technology use.

The persistence of workarounds refers to whether they emerge as individual organizational responses or are collectively developed across the supply chain network. Most of the workarounds (e.g. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8) were individual adjustments implemented within isolated organizations to address localized tensions such as legacy system incompatibility or process misalignment. For example, Workaround 1 (copy-pasting vendor data into the blockchain system) reflects an isolated effort by organizations to participate in blockchain traceability without upgrading systems. However, it risks data inconsistency and was not validated by experts. Similarly, Workarounds 3, 4, 5 and 8 involved individual adjustments to product labeling, integration of complementary technologies or advocating blockchain adoption through marketing, and were all solutions implemented locally within organizations. While these provided operational continuity, they risk creating silos or inconsistencies in a system that fundamentally requires synchronized data exchange across all supply chain actors.

In contrast, collectively developed workarounds – such as Workaround 6 [augmenting Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) processes], Workaround 7 (mediating roles), Workaround 9 (agency roles) and Workaround 10 (standardizing limited data elements) – demonstrate a higher level of collaboration and shared understanding. These solutions were formed in response to cross-organizational challenges, such as inconsistent process standards or the need for equitable onboarding mechanisms for all stakeholders. Their collective nature suggests greater potential for long-term institutionalization and incorporation into formal blockchain governance frameworks. Importantly, Workaround 11 (refer to Table 1), while also collective, was less focused on a crucial blockchain object, signaling that collaboration alone isn't sufficient without alignment to core system goals.

The explicitness of objects relates to whether the workaround aims at achieving crucial objects, such as traceability, data standardization and process alignment, or instead addresses peripheral or inoperative issues. As seen in Table 1, most workarounds were designed to support crucial blockchain objects. For instance, Workaround 2 (modifying information-sharing policy) directly aligns with achieving traceability, a core blockchain purpose, by facilitating data congruence between actors. Likewise, Workarounds 4, 5 and 6 (refer to Table 1) tackled crucial traceability-enabling actions, like integrating temporary IDs, using automated scanning technology and redesigning SKU processes, to support standardized inputs, each contributing to the blockchain's functionality and reliability.

Role-based interventions, such as mediating (Workaround 7), advocating (Workaround 8) and agency roles (Workaround 9), were also categorized as crucial, as they address coordination, communication and incentive-related barriers that affect system-wide adoption and data completeness. Workaround 10 (limiting data elements) was also considered crucial, especially in reducing resistance from participants concerned about data exposure or compliance costs.

However, Workarounds 1 and 11 targeted less critical or inoperative objects. The manual data entry approach in Workaround 1 helped with basic participation but introduced error risks and bypassed the blockchain's advantage of data immutability. Similarly, Workaround 11 enables data modifications, which undermines blockchain's core principle of tamper-resistance. Although these workarounds offered short-term operational flexibility, they were less aligned with the blockchain's strategic intent and therefore less suitable for formalization without safeguards.

The effectiveness of workarounds was assessed by whether they resolved the initial implementation tension and whether the solution was sustainable. As Table 1 demonstrates, most workarounds were deemed effective, particularly those that aligned operational processes with blockchain design. Workaround 2 (policy adjustment) successfully resolved the tension around inconsistent information disclosure practices and was supported by expert insights. Workarounds 3 and 4 (refer to Table 1) helped bring technical alignment and traceability support through barcode compatibility and standardized data formatting, proving crucial for system consistency.

Similarly, Workaround 5 (automated scanning) and Workaround 6 (SKU process augmentation) were rated effective, as they increased automation and data reliability. Role-based adjustments (Workarounds 7– 9) also proved effective by fostering cooperation, enhancing adoption motivation and enabling equitable resource distribution, which are essential for blockchain scaling in multi-actor environments.

However, not all workarounds were effective in the long term. Workaround 1, while providing an immediate fix for data entry, was ultimately judged temporarily effective due to its manual nature and potential to erode trust between supply chain actors. It failed to meet blockchain's long-term scalability and trust-building requirements. In contrast, Workaround 11, although not targeting a crucial object, was considered effective operationally, suggesting that even peripheral adjustments can have merit when implemented with caution (e.g. adding alerts before irreversible data commits).

The validation of workarounds by experts served as a fourth vital dimension for assessing their practical relevance and alignment with broader blockchain goals. As reflected in Table 1, expert feedback largely supported workarounds that promoted data standardization, organizational alignment and system efficiency. For example, Workaround 2 (refer to Table 1) received strong expert support, as aligning information-sharing policies was considered essential for overcoming blockchain's inter-organizational data dependency. Experts also endorsed Workarounds 4, 5 and 6 (refer to Table 1), recognizing the importance of integrating automation and complementary systems to reduce manual interventions and ensure data consistency. As highlighted by one expert:

Additionally, experts validated role-based workarounds (7–9) that enhance coordination and incentivize participation. As mentioned by one expert:

Workaround 8, which recommends marketing blockchain value and offering customer incentives (like loyalty points), was particularly noted for its potential to resolve perceived value discrepancy tensions. Experts emphasized that such social and economic drivers are vital for blockchain acceptance beyond technical fixes. As stated by one expert:

In contrast, Workaround 1 was not validated by experts. It was seen as undermining the foundational blockchain principle of decentralization and data immutability by relying on manual, error-prone processes. This suggests that even widely practiced workarounds may need to be replaced or phased out if they conflict with blockchain's strategic objectives. Workaround 11 was conditionally validated, while not aimed at a core object, the use of alert messages to prevent accidental data input was appreciated as a practical safeguard.

Overall, experts emphasized that while organizational workarounds reflect practical adaptation, their long-term value depends on proactive strategies. Effective workarounds, often supported by expert recommendations, signal potential work practices for broader blockchain adoption and use. In contrast, ineffective workarounds indicate that while one tension may be temporarily resolved, subsequent tensions may arise, reflecting blockchain's ongoing and dynamic nature. Proactive measures, guided by expert suggestions and effective workaround filtering, can help establish more sustainable and scalable blockchain work practices. However, achieving enduring harmonization will remain an evolving challenge requiring continuous remediation and adaptation. Recommended actions are summarized in Table 1.

Institutionalization of workaround adjustments is shaped by emergent learning over time. As blockchain remains an evolving technology with still-limited operational maturity (Al Ali and Khadem, 2025; Clohessy and Acton, 2019; Verhoeven et al., 2018), organizations initially respond to implementation tensions through improvised and situated workaround actions. Consistent with the logic of Expansive Learning (Engeström, 1987, 2001) through iterative experimentation, collective reflection and evaluation, these emergent solutions have gradually formalized into recognized organizational blockchain work practices.

Applying the action–activity–practice distinction introduced in Section 2.3, our findings show that blockchain work practices are not pre-designed but emerge through experiential learning and ongoing adaptation, often in response to emerging tensions. Our analysis further suggests that earlier establishment of appropriate work practices may help mitigate such tensions prior to blockchain deployment. Building on this insight, we categorize blockchain work practices into compatibility, complementarity and commitment (see Table 2).

Compatibility-oriented practices include designing and defining blockchain solutions, selecting appropriate blockchain types and governance models, achieving practical alignment and aligning blockchain data standards with existing systems. These practices address early-stage misalignments and ensure that blockchain can technically and operationally integrate with existing organizational infrastructures.

First, the design and definition of solutions emerged as a critical activity. Blockchain solutions should be carefully designed to steer user behavior and prevent tensions, such as accidental data input or incomplete data feeding. Actions such as implementing alert systems and reminders can help mitigate these risks. Additionally, clearly defining data elements on the blockchain encourages intended data sharing while addressing resistance from participants. Solutions must also account for global policy and data standards, enabling scalability in future applications.

Second, the choice of blockchain type (e.g. public, private, hybrid or consortium) and the establishment of governance structures constitute essential activities. Organizations should assess their technical maturity when selecting the appropriate type of blockchain solution. Additionally, given the lack of industry-wide blockchain governance, organizations should act on developing internal governance frameworks to guide blockchain use within their supply chain. Implementing a tiered-cost model and offering incentives based on blockchain usage and capacity can foster an inclusive network. Communicating the business value of blockchain to supply chain stakeholders is also crucial in addressing resistance and building a cohesive, collaborative environment.

Third, holistic integration activity underscores the importance of aligning blockchain deployment with broader organizational processes and infrastructures. Compatibility requires that both technical and organizational considerations inform implementation strategies, ensuring that blockchain adoption is not confined to isolated functions but embedded within existing workflows.

Additionally, alignment of data standards emerged as a necessary activity. Organizations must evaluate congruence between internal data standards and blockchain requirements, with strategic adjustments required in cases of misalignment. Such preparatory work reduces the risk of incompatibility during operational use.

Complementarity-oriented practices focus on the adjustments to product and information processes, the implementation of complementary technological support and the reorganization of labor roles so that blockchain fits naturally into organizational workflows. These practices highlight the procedural and technological supports required to embed blockchain into everyday routines, with many tensions resolved by reconfiguring surrounding activities rather than altering the blockchain.

One such activity is product and information process management, where adjustments to labelling and data workflows enhance compatibility with blockchain-based traceability systems. Standardized and scannable identifiers reduce reliance on manual input and facilitate accurate data capture.

A second activity within complementarity work practice concerns the implementation of complementary technological support. Blockchain rarely operates in isolation but depends on supporting technologies, such as automated scanning devices, IoT sensors or digital input tools, that enhance performance and reduce manual effort.

A third activity involves the reorganization of the division of labor. Blockchain adoption frequently necessitates role redefinition, particularly in relation to data handling and verification. The creation of new responsibilities, alongside targeted training, ensures that employees can effectively support blockchain operations. These adjustments action embedding blockchain use within everyday organizational practices, reinforcing its operational reliability.

Commitment-oriented practices refer to ongoing organizational efforts to market blockchain usage and provide persistent operational support to sustain and legitimize blockchain adoption over time.

First, marketing blockchain usage plays a significant role in extending its perceived value. Communicating blockchain's benefits to customers, partners and stakeholders enhances legitimacy and promotes adoption. In some cases, incentive mechanisms linked to blockchain-based traceability fostered user engagement and generated reputational value, thereby reinforcing profitability and stakeholder buy-in.

Second, persistent operational support is indispensable for maintaining system functionality. Blockchain requires ongoing adjustments in relation to data entry, integration with complementary technologies and governance arrangements. Taking action on continuous monitoring and regular refinement of blockchain practices ensures operational resilience and adaptability to evolving organizational or technological demands.

Overall, the actions-activities-practices discussed above illustrate an iterative process and these blockchain work practices reflect how organizations align systems, embed supportive processes and sustain long-term use. These practices transform workaround adjustments into deliberate strategies that mitigate adoption tensions and facilitate the institutionalization of blockchain within supply chains. Figure 4 depicts the iterative process and provides a summarized overview of key practices for ensuring compatibility, complementarity and commitment.

This study examined organizational post-adoption behavior in blockchain contexts, focusing on how organizations manage tensions through workaround adjustments. By analyzing these adjustments in terms of their persistence, explicitness, effectiveness and validation by expert opinion, the study demonstrates how organizations translate provisional responses into formalized work practices. These practices, structured around compatibility, complementarity and commitment, provide a foundation for guiding blockchain implementation and operational use. Given blockchain's status as an emerging technology with limited operational-use cases in the supply chain (Al Ali and Khadem, 2025; Clohessy and Acton, 2019; Verhoeven et al., 2018), the identification of such practices offers both theoretical and practical insights into how adoption can be sustained beyond initial trials.

This study makes three key theoretical contributions to IS and workaround literature by examining how organizations address tensions arising from blockchain implementation through workaround practices. While prior studies have acknowledged the need for adaptation when implementing blockchain (Chong et al., 2019; Eggers et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2023), this research is among the first to explicitly examine workarounds as deliberate, evolving responses to persistent post-adoption tensions.

First, this study conceptualizes workarounds as emergent, dynamic organizational responses with tension and blockage rather than solely intentional detours. It also shifts the workaround conversation from intra-organizational contexts (as seen in enterprise systems research. For example (Ejnefjäll and Ågerfalk, 2019; Malaurent and Karanasios, 2020), to inter-organizational blockchain ecosystems. Blockchain's collaborative, cross-boundary nature means that workaround strategies are not isolated decisions but negotiated across multiple actors. This adds a relational and collective dimension to the workaround concept, where adjustments are shaped by network dynamics, shared infrastructures and evolving governance arrangements.

Second, this research extends the workaround literature by identifying multiple forms of workaround adjustments, such as data adjustment, procedural adjustment, parallel system adjustment, role adjustment and particularly, strategic design adjustments, that organizations employ to manage blockchain-induced tensions. These categories go beyond Gasser's (1986) original taxonomy of workarounds and suggest the need to accommodate role adjustment and strategic design adjustments as a distinct form, especially relevant in inter-organizational and distributed systems like blockchain. By surfacing these diverse adaptations, the study expands the theoretical understanding of how workarounds evolve in emerging, complex inter-organizational technological settings and emerge in different concerns, not limited to post-adoption only.

Third, the action–activity–practice perspective explains how workarounds emerge and stabilize into organizational work practices. By distinguishing between micro-level actions, meso-level activities and macro-level work practices, this study demonstrates how blockchain workarounds evolve from improvised individual responses into coordinated activities, and eventually institutionalized routines through collective learning and evaluation. This contribution provides a conceptual lens for understanding how emergent workarounds are formalized and routinized over time, highlighting their role in organizational learning and the stabilization of blockchain systems.

Finally, workarounds can act as positive drivers of process improvement and innovation. Rather than temporary fixes or indicators of system misfit, blockchain-induced workarounds reveal gaps in workflows, governance and coordination. When evaluated, validated and scaled, these adjustments guide the development of new processes, refined roles, improved data standards and enhanced coordination routines. This reframes workarounds as ‘shock absorbers’ (Berente et al., 2016, p. 551) and process mechanisms for organizational capability building, enabling organizations to transition from provisional experimentation to robust, optimized blockchain-enabled operations.

The key practical contribution of this study lies in highlighting blockchain work practices for organizations implementing or considering blockchain adoption. Specifically, it demonstrates how organizational workaround strategies can be strategically employed to address tensions in blockchain use. By synthesizing empirical insights from organizational experiences with expert recommendations, the study provides a practical framework for blockchain work practices concerning compatibility, complementarity and commitment.

First, ensuring compatibility is essential. Organizations with limited blockchain experience often responded reactively to post-deployment, leading to parallel system adjustments, such as temporary IDs for data entry (Table 1, Workaround 4) or complementary scanning technologies (Workaround 5). These findings underscore the importance of proactive preparation, including aligning inter-organizational data standards, designing governance mechanisms and assessing process fit (Workarounds 2 and 6), to mitigate costly post-deployment workarounds.

Second, achieving complementarity requires organizations to adjust workflows, modify product labeling, introduce supporting technologies and reorganize labor divisions. These interventions, observed in Workarounds 3, 7 and 8, demonstrate that blockchain adoption extends beyond technology deployment to the embedding of new operational routines and workforce adaptations, ensuring seamless integration into daily practices.

Third, sustaining blockchain use involves fostering commitment through formalizing initially temporary workarounds. Activities such as marketing blockchain benefits externally (Workaround 8), providing tiered incentives (Workaround 9), defining core data elements (Workaround 10) and implementing alert systems (Workaround 11) exemplify continuous improvement and resilience-building, reducing abandonment risk and enhancing long-term value realization.

Finally, strategically filtering workarounds through expert recommendations enables organizations to differentiate between temporary fixes and sustainable solutions. Blockchain adoption is thus a dynamic, iterative process requiring ongoing monitoring, evaluation and adaptation. By adopting standardized, scalable and sustainable work practices, organizations can move beyond isolated pilots toward industry-wide adoption, unlocking blockchain's transformative potential.

This study advances the understanding of blockchain post-adoption by examining how organizations navigate tensions through workaround strategies and how these strategies evolve into sustainable work practices. By identifying five distinct types of workaround adjustments: data, procedural, parallel system, role and strategic design adjustments, the study reveals that organizations respond to blockchain-induced tensions not just reactively but often strategically. These workaround practices are essential in aligning blockchain functionality with the operational realities of inter-organizational collaboration, traceability requirements and system interoperability. By evaluating workarounds through persistence, object explicitness, effectiveness and expert-assessed viability, the research provides a structured lens for assessing which actions are likely to contribute to long-term blockchain success. The findings reveal that while individual, reactive workarounds may offer short-term relief, learning from workarounds can help develop and strategically guide adjustments that hold greater promise for establishing robust, scalable blockchain systems.

Additionally, this research emphasizes that blockchain adoption should not be viewed as a single event but as an ongoing process, marked by emerging tensions and the need for continuous organizational adaptation, which shapes the compatibility, complementarity and commitment related to blockchain work practices. Each phase requires distinct yet interconnected activities from proactive preparation and workflow realignment to sustained use and continuous improvement. These insights highlight that organizations must treat blockchain work practices as a strategic capability rather than relying on ad-hoc responses to emerging tensions.

While this study provides valuable insights into how organizations navigate blockchain adoption tensions through workaround strategies, and how these evolve into work practices, it is not without limitations. First, this study is based on a limited number of cases within blockchain implementations in supply chain contexts, which may constrain the generalizability of the findings to other industries and technological settings. Organizational environments, regulatory conditions and technological infrastructures may shape both the tensions that arise and the workaround practices that emerge. Future research could examine workaround dynamics across diverse industries and organizational contexts to assess the broader applicability of the identified workaround adjustments and evolving work practices.

Second, the empirical data captures a bounded timeframe of post-adoption dynamics. Although the study conceptualizes blockchain adoption as an ongoing adaptive process, it does not fully trace the long-term institutionalization of workaround-derived practices or their sustained performance implications. The phases of compatibility, complementarity and commitment are therefore inferred from observed patterns rather than longitudinal observation across the technology lifecycle. Future research could adopt longitudinal designs to examine how workaround adjustments evolve, become institutionalized and shape the long-term performance, scalability and sustainability of blockchain initiatives.

Third, this study adopts a qualitative case-based approach, drawing on interviews and expert evaluations to examine workaround persistence, object explicitness, effectiveness and viability. While this approach enables a rich and contextualized understanding of organizational responses, it may introduce interpretive bias and limit the ability to establish causal relationships between workaround practices and long-term organizational outcomes. Future research could complement these qualitative insights with quantitative or mixed-method approaches to further validate and extend the findings. Such methodological triangulation would provide a more robust understanding of how workaround practices influence the success and evolution of blockchain implementations.