Many problems can be solved in two ways: either by adapting an existing solution, or by exchanging it for a new one. To investigate under what conditions people consider new solutions, we traced their information acquisition processes in a simulated mechanical engineering task. Within a multi-step optimisation procedure, participants could either adapt the properties of a currently used machine component, or exchange this component for a new one. They had the opportunity to check whether the solutions met a set of requirements, which was varied systematically. We investigated whether participants would consistently check both solutions, or whether they would satisfice, ignoring the new solution as long as the current one was good enough. The results clearly refuted consistent checking, but only partly confirmed satisficing. On the one hand, participants indeed checked the new solution least often when the current one was applicable without problems. On the other hand, in this case the new solution still was not fully ignored. However, the latter finding could be traced back to a few participants who diverged from our anticipated strategy of first checking the current solution, and directly went for the new one. The results suggest that in Adapt/Exchange decisions, people do not usually check both solutions in an unbiased manner, but rely on existing solutions as long as they are good enough.