The Agentic AI Adoption Paradox: Barriers to Enterprise Deployment in the Software Industry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/data.v4i3.1643Keywords:
Agentic AI, technology adoption, change management, software developmentAbstract
Agentic AI adoption in Indonesia is stalling despite strong executive interest and substantial investment. No empirical study has investigated Agentic AI adoption within Indonesia's software development industry. Existing empirical research has primarily examined Generative AI, with limited attention to the distinct characteristics of autonomous Agentic AI systems. Drawing on UTAUT, this qualitative case study investigates this adoption paradox and extend adoption theory by repositioning ethical concern from a peripheral barrier to an endogenous structural factor. Sixteen semi-structured interviews and one focus group discussion were conducted with practitioners across executive, managerial, and technical tiers using purposive sampling to capture diverse perspectives. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached. The data were analysed thematically using the Gioia method, with the assistance of Ligre software to identify and organise emerging patterns and themes. The study identifies three key barriers to Agentic AI deployment in Indonesia. First, output unreliability and qualification limitation hinder its adoption in production environments. Second, Indonesia's relatively low labour costs reduce the economic incentive for investing in Agentic AI infrastructure. Third, while Agentic AI offers significant operational benefits, its capabilities also heighten ethical concerns. We suggest that effective governance and monitoring require Agentic AI to have its ethical guardrails embedded at design time rather than retrofitted post-deployment, have transparent and explainable audit logging, and have its autonomy be calibrated based on its reliability and task risk exposure.
References
Akbar, M. A., Khan, A. A., Hamza, M., Ghaffar, A., & Hajikhani, A. (2025). Agentic AI in Software Engineering: Practitioner Perspectives Across the Software Development Life Cycle. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5520159 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5520159
Apostolou, S. A., Bosch, J., & Olsson, H. H. (2026). Agentic AI in Industry: Adoption Level and Deployment Barriers.
Charlotte Relyea, Martin Harrysson, Matt Linderman, Jose Mario Pena, & Nandita Bothra. (2025, November 3). Unlocking the value of AI in software development. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/unlocking-the-value-of-ai-in-software-development#/
Cheng, R., Wang, R., Zimmermann, T., & Ford, D. (2023). “It would work for me too”: How Online Communities Shape Software Developers’ Trust in AI-Powered Code Generation Tools. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3651990
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Ferino, S., Hoda, R., Grundy, J., & Treude, C. (2026). Walking the Tightrope of LLMs for Software Development: A Practitioners’ Perspective.
Fishbein, M. (1976). A Behavior Theory Approach to the Relations between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude Toward the Object. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-51565-1_25 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-51565-1_25
Gartner. (2025, June 25). Gartner Predicts Over 40% of Agentic AI Projects Will Be Canceled by End of 2027. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027
Geninatti Cossatin, A., Ferrero, F., Ardissono, L., & Mauro, N. (2026). The autonomy equation: How agentic AI reshapes trust and workload in routine productivity applications. Information Processing & Management, 63(5), 104681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2026.104681 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2026.104681
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. In Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Haque, W. (2026). The New Software Cost Curve under Agentic AI: Development Economics, Pricing, and Labor Impacts. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 19(01), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2026.191001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2026.191001
IBM. (2025, February 9). AI Alliance Announces Expansion to Indonesia. IBM. https://asean.newsroom.ibm.com/AI-Alliance-Announces-Expansion-to-Indonesia?utm_id=IBM-and-Meta---AI-Alliance
Iiris Aaltio, & Pia Heilmann. (2010). Case study as a methodological approach: From locality to understanding the essence. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, 66–76.
Jovanović, S., Dražeta, L., Petrović, A., Bačanin Džakula, N., & Živković, M. (2025). Ethical Concerns and Mass Agentic AI Adoption. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference - Sinteza 2025, 369–375. https://doi.org/10.15308/Sinteza-2025-369-375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15308/Sinteza-2025-369-375
Microsoft & LinkedIn. (2024, February 11). Microsoft and LinkedIn Release the 2024 Work Trend Index on the State of AI at Work in Indonesia. Microsoft. https://news.microsoft.com/id-id/2024/06/11/microsoft-and-linkedin-release-the-2024-work-trend-index-on-the-state-of-ai-at-work-in-indonesia/
Muhammad Rizky Anditama, & Achmad Nizar Hidayanto. (2024). Analysis of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Assistants among Software Developers. The Indonesian Journal of Computer Science, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.33022/ijcs.v13i4.4239 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33022/ijcs.v13i4.4239
Murugesan, S. (2025). The Rise of Agentic AI: Implications, Concerns, and the Path Forward. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 40(2). https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2025.3544940 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2025.3544940
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
Pati, A. K. (2025). Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Survey of Technologies, Applications, and Societal Implications. IEEE Access, 13. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585609 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585609
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods fourth edition. In Qualitative Inquiry (Vol. 3rd).
Pierre Aubret, & Paul Florentin. (2025). https://www.riskinsight-wavestone.com/en/2025/07/agentic-ai-typology-of-risks-and-security-measures/. RiskInsight. https://www.riskinsight-wavestone.com/en/2025/07/agentic-ai-typology-of-risks-and-security-measures/
Rasheed, Z., Waseem, M., Kemell, K.-K., Ahmad, A., Sami, M. A., Saari, M., Rasku, J., & Abrahamsson, P. (2026). CodePori: Large-Scale System for Autonomous Software Development Using Multi-Agent Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9701113/v1
Rizinski, M., & Trajanov, D. (2026). AI Agents in Finance and Fintech: A Scientific Review of Agent-Based Systems, Applications, and Future Horizons. Computers, Materials & Continua, 86(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2025.069678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2025.069678
Russo, D. (2024). Navigating the Complexity of Generative AI Adoption in Software Engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.1145/3652154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3652154
Samudra, B. S., Baihaqi, I., & Isnaini, F. (2024). The Use of Generative AI in Workplace: Driving Factors, Barriers, and Benefits. TEMSCON-ASPAC 2024 - IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference - Asia Pacific. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON-ASPAC62480.2024.11025027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON-ASPAC62480.2024.11025027
Sayyad, N., Dave, H., Kathane, M., & Patel, R. (2025). Agentic AI Systems: A Review of Architectures, Autonomy, and Ethical Implications. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.64252/xgfrhd85 DOI: https://doi.org/10.64252/xgfrhd85
Su, R., Esposito, M., Capuano, R., Omar, R., Sallou, J., Muccini, H., & Taibi, D. (2026). Making Sense of AI Agents Hype: Adoption, Architectures, and Takeaways from Practitioners. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2026.3680431
Sun, S., & Staron, M. (2026). Agentic Pipelines in Embedded Software Engineering: Emerging Practices and Challenges. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER67736.2026.00024
Tejaskumar Pujari, Anshul Goel, & Ashwin Sharma. (2024). Ethical and Responsible AI: Governance Frameworks and Policy Implications for Multi-Agent Systems. International Journal Science and Technology, 3(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.56127/ijst.v3i1.1962 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56127/ijst.v3i1.1962
V, A., R., G. G., & Buyya, R. (2026). Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI): Architectures, Taxonomies, and Evaluation of Large Language Model Agents.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Yang, J., Yonack, N., Zyskowski, K., Yarats, D., Ho, J., & Ma, J. (2025). The Adoption and Usage of AI Agents: Early Evidence from Perplexity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5887343
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research . Design and Methods. In SAGE Publications (Vol. 26, Number 1). https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Data : Journal of Information Systems and Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
