## 4 Results
### Effectiveness of the Capability Model  
In each session, participants were asked to develop two roadmaps--the first one based on prior knowledge and own experiences, and the second one enhanced with the help of the capability model. All five participating institutions made the first roadmap. However, it is important to note that not all institutions made the second, enhanced roadmap. The participants from Alpha decided that they wanted to discuss the new insights they obtained from the capability model before making a new roadmap. As one participant mentions, \"I think we would benefit more from it if we [make a new roadmap] more thoroughly on a later moment, as we face an important issue regarding our strategy\" (Alpha, P4). On the other hand, Bravo participants decided that the project they had envisioned should be run on a small scale first and large-scale implementation cannot be planned at this moment. The institution lacks a clear vision on the goals and application of LA and the participants deemed themselves incapable of making important decisions towards this end. They believe the organization should first decide on its strategy towards LA: \"What is the ethical framework, what is the overall goal? [...] then you have a foundation you can further build on\" ([PERSON], P2). This indicates that institutions need to have at least the capabilities of Strategy, Ethics, identifying benefits, and Policy amd Code of Practice developed to a certain degree before implementation at scale becomes possible. Aggregating the outcomes of all pluralistic walk-throughs, 88 capabilities were used to construct the roadmaps--see Table 3. The roadmaps are axial-coded based on the capabilities of the model. The initial coder agreement was 65%. This relative low number was the result of differences in the interpretations of the capabilities' definitions. The coders discussed the discrepancies to achieve agreement. In the walk-throughs' second phase, the participants gained access to the capability model and supporting Excel file to enhance their roadmap. This led to 28 more capabilities added to the second roadmaps. When we only consider the institutions that made a second roadmap--Charlie, Delta, and Echo--this is an increase of 45% (62 capabilities in their first roadmaps, 90 in their second). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Name** & **Type** & **Country** & **Participants** & **Intended** \\  & & & & **Improvement** \\ \hline Alpha & \begin{tabular}{l} University of Applied \\ Sciences \\ \end{tabular} & Belgium & 8 & \begin{tabular}{l} Learning \\ outcomes \\ \end{tabular} \\ Bravo & \begin{tabular}{l} University of Applied \\ Sciences \\ \end{tabular} & Netherlands & 4 & \begin{tabular}{l} Learning \\ environment \\ \end{tabular} \\ Charlie & \begin{tabular}{l} University of \\ Technology \\ \end{tabular} & Netherlands & 4 & Learning process \\ Delta & \begin{tabular}{l} Institution for Senior \\ Secondary Vocational \\ Education \\ \end{tabular} & Netherlands & 4 & \
\begin{tabular}{l} To be \\ determined \\ \end{tabular} \\ Echo &
\begin{tabular}{l} University of Applied \\ Sciences \\ \end{tabular} & Netherlands & 6 & Learning process \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Overview of participating institutions. The capability Implementation, Deployment, and Application is the most frequently present. This is logical, as this capability relates to the planning of LA implementation at an institution, which is exactly the task of the pluralistic walk-throughs. Further analysis shows that not all capability categories are present in all roadmaps. For example, the category Data is absent in the roadmaps of Alpha and Echo. Moreover, the category People is (almost) entirely missing from the roadmaps of Bravo, Delta, and Echo. Most noticeably, however, is the absence of the category Privacy and Ethics. This category was completely absent in the roadmaps of Bravo, Delta, and Echo, and was only mentioned once in the roadmap of Alpha.