Detecting Experience Debt in Internal IT Services: A Minimal Touchpoint-Based XLA for Small EdTech Startups

Authors

  • Marcel Krida Wacana Christian University, Indonesia
  • Tubagus Ahmad Marzuqi Krida Wacana Christian University, Indonesia
Pages Icon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i2.1567

Keywords:

Internal IT Service Experience, Touchpoint-Based XLA, Service Recovery, Experience Measurement, Touchpoint Prioritization

Abstract

Small EdTech startups often use SLA numbers to check whether internal IT services are working well. The problem is that these numbers usually show only whether the service was restored and how long it took. They do not show what users actually experienced while the problem was happening. This study looks at that hidden part. It uses the idea of experience debt to describe small but repeated service problems that slowly make daily work harder. The study was conducted in three small EdTech startups in Jakarta. It used survey data and interview data collected in the same period. The survey produced 274 valid responses across six touchpoints and five experience dimensions. The interviews involved 18 informants and focused on the service moments they remembered as most difficult. The weakest point appeared at TP2, where users faced access problems and often felt confused about what was happening, what to do next, and whether the issue was really finished. At TP4 and TP5, the main problem was fairness. Users often felt stuck in a process they could not see, had to repeat the same explanation, or did not know who was handling their request. From these findings, the study developed a simple touchpoint-based XLA as a one-page review tool. Its purpose is to help small teams notice user experience problems that normal SLA monitoring often misses. More research is still needed in other service settings and organisations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] S. Chatterjee, R. Chaudhuri, D. Vrontis, and G. Giovando, “Digital workplace and organization performance: Moderating role of digital leadership capability,” J. Innov. Knowl., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 100334, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2023.100334.

[2] B. John, Z. Alsamarra’i, and N. Panteli, “Reconfiguring digital embeddedness in hybrid work: The case of employee experience management platforms,” Inf. Syst. J., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 450–479, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1111/isj.12545.

[3] E. D. Zamani, M. B. Watson‐Manheim, P. Abbott, and A. Lin, “The new wave of ‘hybrid’ work: An opportunity to revise assumptions and build theory,” Inf. Syst. J., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 710–719, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1111/isj.12558.

[4] A. Bunjak, M. Černe, and A. Popovič, “Absorbed in technology but digitally overloaded: Interplay effects on gig workers’ burnout and creativity,” Inf. Manage., vol. 58, no. 8, p. 103533, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2021.103533.

[5] J. B. Schmitt, J. Breuer, and T. Wulf, “From cognitive overload to digital detox: Psychological implications of telework during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 124, p. 106899, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106899.

[6] C. M. Parra, M. Gupta, and T. Cadden, “Towards an understanding of remote work exhaustion: A study on the effects of individuals’ big five personality traits,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 150, pp. 653–662, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.009.

[7] P. Singh, H. Bala, B. L. Dey, and R. Filieri, “Enforced remote working: The impact of digital platform-induced stress and remote working experience on technology exhaustion and subjective wellbeing,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 151, pp. 269–286, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.002.

[8] R. Jämsen, A. Sivunen, and K. Blomqvist, “Employees’ perceptions of relational communication in full-time remote work in the public sector,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 132, p. 107240, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107240.

[9] H.-M. L. Quy and Y.-Q. Zhu, “Winners and losers of working-from home – The impact of perceived person-environment fit towards continuance intention,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 155, p. 108190, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108190.

[10] P. Sanjeeva Kumar, “TECHNOSTRESS: A comprehensive literature review on dimensions, impacts, and management strategies,” Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep., vol. 16, p. 100475, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100475.

[11] T. Rademaker, I. Klingenberg, and S. Süß, “Leadership and technostress: a systematic literature review,” Manag. Rev. Q., vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 429–494, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11301-023-00385-x.

[12] E. Mansuroğlu and A. P. Smith, “Technostress and employee well-being: A systematic review of empirical evidence,” Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep., vol. 21, p. 100941, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2026.100941.

[13] D. Yang, J. Liu, H. Wang, P. Chen, C. Wang, and A. H. S. Metwally, “Technostress among teachers: A systematic literature review and future research agenda,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 168, p. 108619, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2025.108619.

[14] D. MacLean and R. Titah, “Implementation and impacts of IT Service Management in the IT function,” Int. J. Inf. Manag., vol. 70, p. 102628, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102628.

[15] A. Kim, A. Sachdeva, and A. R. Dennis, “From self-service to AI-assisted service: A mixed-method study of IT support service provision using search tools and chatbots,” Int. J. Inf. Manag., vol. 84, p. 102938, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102938.

[16] M. Jäntti and H. Lindström, “Exploring quality aspects of customer self-service in IT service provision: A case study,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 234, p. 112725, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2025.112725.

[17] F. Brachten, T. Kissmer, and S. Stieglitz, “The acceptance of chatbots in an enterprise context – A survey study,” Int. J. Inf. Manag., vol. 60, p. 102375, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102375.

[18] A. Malik, P. Budhwar, H. Mohan, and S. N. R., “Employee experience –the missing link for engaging employees: Insights from an MNE ’s AI ‐based HR ecosystem,” Hum. Resour. Manage., vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 97–115, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1002/hrm.22133.

[19] R. Pillai, Y. Ghanghorkar, B. Sivathanu, R. Algharabat, and N. P. Rana, “Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) based employee experience (EEX) chatbots,” Inf. Technol. People, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 449–478, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1108/ITP-04-2022-0287.

[20] S. R. Moganadas and G. G. G. Goh, “Digital Employee Experience Constructs and Measurement Framework: A Review and Synthesis,” Int. J. Technol., vol. 13, no. 5, p. 999, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v13i5.5830.

[21] M. Laiho, E. Saru, and H. Seeck, “‘It’s the work climate that keeps me here’: the interplay between the HRM process and emergent factors in the construction of employee experiences,” Pers. Rev., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 444–463, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1108/PR-09-2020-0663.

[22] N. Cornelius, M. B. Ozturk, and E. Pezet, “Editorial: The experience of work and experiential workers: mainline and critical perspectives on employee experience,” Pers. Rev., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 433–443, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2022-887.

[23] A. Joshi, S. Sekar, and S. Das, “Decoding employee experiences during pandemic through online employee reviews: insights to organizations,” Pers. Rev., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 288–313, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1108/PR-07-2022-0478.

[24] S. G. Morkonda, S. Chiasson, and P. C. Van Oorschot, “Influences of displaying permission-related information on web single sign-on login decisions,” Comput. Secur., vol. 139, p. 103666, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103666.

[25] F. Ali, D. El-Manstrly, and G. A. Abbasi, “Would you forgive me? From perceived justice and complaint handling to customer forgiveness and brand credibility-symmetrical and asymmetrical perspectives,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 166, p. 114138, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114138.

[26] W. Zhang and Y. Wang, “Not just apologizing: The impact of complaint handling on sustained participation behavior in live‐streaming shopping,” J. Consum. Behav., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 688–700, May 2023, doi: 10.1002/cb.2154.

[27] M. Das, C. Jebarajarkirthy, H. I. Maseeh, W. M. Lim, and J. S. Shah, “Online service failure and recovery: An integrated meta-analytic perspective of attribution and justice theories,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 202, p. 115752, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115752.

[28] J. Liu, G. Yang, Y. Lyu, and Q. Wei, “The impact of interactional justice on service evaluations in the banking context,” Acta Psychol. (Amst.), vol. 261, p. 105805, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105805.

[29] A. Valtonen, M. Saunila, J. Ukko, L. Treves, and P. Ritala, “AI and employee wellbeing in the workplace: An empirical study,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 199, p. 115584, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115584.

[30] E. Sansovini and A. Magida, “Effect of digital technologies on employee wellbeing and mental health,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 44, no. 18, pp. 4538–4550, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2025.2483795.

[31] M. Poláková - Kersten, S. Khanagha, B. Van Den Hooff, and S. N. Khapova, “Digital transformation in high-reliability organizations: A longitudinal study of the micro-foundations of failure,” J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, p. 101756, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2023.101756.

[32] K. Abhari, “Employee Participation in Digital Transformation: From Digitalization Sentiment to Transformation Predisposition,” Inf. Manage., vol. 62, no. 8, p. 104212, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2025.104212.

Downloads

Published

2026-04-26

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2026): April

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors Declaration

  1. The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
  2. The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
  3. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
  4. The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
  5. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
  6. The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
  7. If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
  8. The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights

How to Cite

[1]
Marcel and T. A. Marzuqi, “Detecting Experience Debt in Internal IT Services: A Minimal Touchpoint-Based XLA for Small EdTech Startups”, journalisi, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 2441–2479, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.63158/journalisi.v8i2.1567.

Most read articles by the same author(s)