## 4 Results
### Perceived Usefulness of the Capability Model  
To research the capability model's perceived usefulness, we held group discussions with both the participants to the pluralistic walk-throughs and the expert evaluation. Participants are asked to react to statements regarding the model's positive impact and the operational descriptions it provides. The experts reacted positively to the statement that the capability model supports LA's adoption at Dutch HEIs. They believe that the model provides an overview of important aspects. However, the model's detailedness might serve the self-fulfilling prophecy that when institutions think LA is too complex to implement, the model supports this feeling. This became apparent during the pluralistic walk-throughs when no enhanced roadmap was made by participants from Bravo as they believed certain capabilities, e.g., Strategy and Policy and Code of Practice, must developed first. According to the experts, the capability model's added value lies in the discussion practitioners have when using the model together to plan LA implementation. As one expert mentions, \"the value lies in the dialog\" (E2). Furthermore, the experts think that the operational descriptions are supportive. Sometimes, a capability is already partly developed, but operational descriptions help identify weak spots and enable institutions to develop this capability further. The participants of the pluralistic walk-throughs were also positive about the model. According to them, it helps to get insights into the aspects important for LA implementation: \"there are some things you don't think about spontaneously\" (Alpha, P4) and \"[t]he model helped me to see clearer [whether we] thought well enough about all main points\" ([PERSON], P2). The model \"contributes to a better plan and a more complete plan\" (Delta, P3). This reflects the earlier observation that only a small portion of discussed capabilities was included in the roadmaps. So, the model helps to make a more explicit plan. Besides group interviews, we used a survey based on the Technology Acceptance Model to research the model's perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. The survey contains three groups of closed-ended questions: questions 1 to 3 measure overall perception,questions 4 to 6 measure perceived usefulness, and questions 7 to 9 measure ease-of-use. The tenth question is an open-ended question regarding the effectiveness of the capability model. We report the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) in the text for each factor. See Table 4 for the descriptive statistics per survey item. In line with [PERSON] and others [51], we take 3.5 or higher as a positive cut-off value and anything lower than 3 as a negative cut-off value. We regard scores between those numbers as neutral. In total, we received 23 valid responses (\(n=23\)). The overall perception of the model is positive (M = 3.8, SD = 0.3). The questions whether respondents think the capability model is useful and whether they would like to use it in their work are rated highly positive. The question whether the model is more useful than comparable models scores neutral. However, this is probably due to the limited experience with other models, letting respondents answer neutrally to this question. The capability model's perceived usefulness is positive (M = 4.1, SD = 0.5). The respondents think the model enables them to gain insight into the capabilities necessary for the successful implementation of LA and that the model helps to identify what capabilities need to be (further) developed at their institution. Although still positive, the third item in this factor ranks the lowest: the respondents score the question whether the capability model provides them with relevant information in what way to operationalize LA capabilities with a 3.7 (SD = 0.8). This might result from the large number of operational descriptions (814) in the model and the sessions' relatively short duration (between two and three hours).