Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 45–71 | Cite as

Mobile Technology and Action Teams: Assessing BlackBerry Use in Law Enforcement Units

  • Susan G. Straus
  • Tora K. Bikson
  • Edward Balkovich
  • John F. Pane
Article

Abstract

This research explores the effectiveness of mobile wireless information and communication technologies (ICTs) for law enforcement teams. Law enforcement teams require real-time information access and rapid communication to diagnose potential threats, analyze problems, and coordinate actions. To meet these needs, two U.S. law enforcement organizations implemented pilot trials of RIM BlackBerries for approximately 650 squad members. These trials provided an opportunity to assess acceptance, use, and perceived performance benefits of the technology as well as factors influencing these outcomes. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews, user surveys, and system logs. Although the work teams and tasks were similar in the two organizations, the outcomes, while generally positive, differed markedly, with much greater acceptance and use in one organization versus the other. Results show how technical factors, functionality, and implementation processes account for these differences and illustrate how mobile wireless ICT can meet the unique needs for information access and communication in investigative action teams. We expect that these findings will generalize beyond action teams as more mobile workers in a variety of domains adopt wireless handheld technologies.

Key words

action teams BlackBerry CSCW email information and communication technology law enforcement mobile technology technology acceptance technology adoption wireless handheld 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the squad members and managers in each study site who shared their time, knowledge, and experience. Our thanks to Joy Moini, Jennifer Kavanagh, Amelia Haviland, Scott Ashwood, Chris Beighley, and Chris Corey for their contributions to this study and to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this article.

References

  1. Bellotti, V., & Bly, S. (1996). Walking away from the desktop computer: Distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. Proc. CSCW 1996 (pp. 209–218). ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, I., Ciborra, C., & Proffitt, S. (1990). Some social and economic consequences of groupware for flight crews. Proc. CSCW 1990 (pp. 119–130). ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Bikson, T. K., & Eveland, J. D. (1998). Sociotechnical reinvention: implementation dynamics and collaboration tools. Information Communication & Society (iCS), 1(3), 269–289.Google Scholar
  4. Bikson, T. K., Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. D. (1999). Teams and Information Technology: Creating Value Through Knowledge. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 215–245). San Francisco: Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Brailer, D. J. (2005). Interoperability: A key to the future health care system. Health affairs. Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.w5.19v1.
  6. Brown, M. M. (2001). The benefits and costs of information technology innovations: an empirical assessment of a local government agency. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(4), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brynin, M., & Kraut, R. (2006). Social studies of domestic information and communication technologies. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Domesticating information technologies (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chan, J. B. L. (2001). The technological game: how information technology is transforming police practice. Criminal Justice: International Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(2), 139–159.Google Scholar
  9. Churchill, E. F., & Wakeford, N. (2001). Framing mobile collaboration and mobile technologies. In B. Brown, N. Green & R. Harper (Eds.), Wireless world: Social and interactional implications of wireless technology (pp. 154–179). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Dabbish, L. A, & Kraut, R. E. (2006). Email overload at work: An analysis of factors associated with email strain. Proc. CSCW 2006 (pp. 431–440). ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, J. D., & Tang, N. (2006). Efficacy of a federal law enforcement tactical medicine program following a catastrophic natural disaster: the DHS ICE SRT response to Hurricane Katrina. Prehospital Emergency Care, 10(2), 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dearman, K., Hawkey, K., & Inkpen, K. (2005). Effect of location-awareness on rendezvous behaviour. Proc. CHI 2005 (pp. 1929–1932). ACM.Google Scholar
  14. De Groote, S., & Doranski, M. (2004). The use of personal digital assistants in the health sciences: results of a survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 341–348.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, D., & Kiesler, S. (2001). Blurring the boundaries: Cell phones, mobility and the line between work and personal life. In B. Brown, R. Harper & N. Green (Eds.), Wireless world: Social and interactional aspects of the mobile age (pp. 121–131). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Green, N. (2002). On the move: technology, mobility, and the mediation of social time and space. The Information Society, 18, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoey, A. (1998). Techno-cops: information technology and law enforcement. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 6(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ito, M., Okabe, D., & Matsuda, M. (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Jiang, X., Hong, J. I., et al. (2004). Ubiquitous computing for firefighters: Field studies and prototypes of large displays for incident command. 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, H., & Hinds, P. (2002). Extreme work teams: Using SWAT teams as a model for coordinating distributed robots. Proc. CSCW 2002 (pp. 372–381). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Killeen, J. P., Chan, T. C., Buono, C., Griswold, W. G., & Lenert, L. A. (2006). A wireless first responder handheld device for rapid triage, patient assessment and documentation during mass casualty incidents. American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium Proceedings, 429–433.Google Scholar
  22. Kraut, R. E., Rice, R. E., Cool, C., & Fish, R. S. (1998). Varieties of social influence: the role of utility and norms in the success of a new communication medium. Organization Science, 9(4), 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyng, M., Nielsen, E. T., & Kristensen, M. (2006). Challenges in designing interactive systems for emergency response. 6th ACM conference on Designing Interactive systems, University Park, PA, USA. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Landgren, J. (2006). Making action visible in time-critical work. Conference on human factors in computing systems. Montréal: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Landgren, J., & Nulden, U. (2007). A study of emergency response work: Patterns of mobile phone interaction, CHI2007. San Jose.Google Scholar
  26. Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1998). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin, C., Hu, P. J.-H., & Chen, H. (2004). Technology implementation management in law enforcement: COPLINK system usability and user acceptance evaluations. Social Science Computer Review, 22(1), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manning, P. K. (1996). Information technology in the police context: the ‘sailor’ phone. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markus, M. L. (1987). Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media: universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14(5), 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Markus, M. L., Bikson, T. K., El-Shinnaway, M., & Soe, L. L. (1992). Fragments of your communication: email, vmail, and fax. The Information Society, 8, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). CrackBerrys: Exploring the social implications of ubiquitous wireless email devices. Bergen: Paper presented at the 22nd European Group for Organizational Studies conference, July 6–8.Google Scholar
  32. McLeod, T., Ebbert, J., & Lymp, J. (2003). Survey assessment of personal digital assistant use among trainees and attending physicians. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10(6), 605–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users. In K. Kautz & J. Pries-Hege (Eds.), Diffusion and adoption of information technology (pp. 132–146). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77–97.Google Scholar
  35. Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In Proc. CSCW 2000 (pp. 79–88). ACM.Google Scholar
  36. National Institute of Justice. (2004). Improving law enforcement, Annual Report. Available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/209274d.pdf.
  37. Olson, J. S., & Teasley, S. (1996). Groupware in the wild: Lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation. Proc. CSCW 1996 (pp. 419–427). ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Pinelle, D., & Gutwin, C. (2005). A groupware design framework for loosely coupled workgroups. In Proc. ECSCW 2005 (pp. 65–82). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge: Perseus.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, E. M. (1991). The ‘critical mass’ in the diffusion of interactive technologies in organizations. In K. L. Kraemer, J. I. Cash & J. F. Nunamaker (Eds.), The information systems research challenge: Survey research methods (Vol. 3). Boston: Harvard Business School Research Colloquium.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  42. Salmanian, M., & Kellett, M. (2004). CAN-US security-enhanced blackberry trial: Concept document. Ottawa: DRDC Ottawa TM 2004-181, Defence R&D.Google Scholar
  43. Schlosser, F. K. (2002). So, how do people really use their handheld devices? An interactive study of wireless technology use. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(SpecIssue), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scholl, J., McCarthy, J., & Harr, R. (2006). A comparison of chat and audio in media rich environments, Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ‘06) (pp. 323–332). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  45. Stasz, C., Bikson, T. K., Eveland, J. D., & Adams, J. (1991). Assessing benefits of the U.S. forest service’s geographic information system: Research design. Santa Monica: RAND, N-3245-USDAFS.Google Scholar
  46. Streefkerk, J. W., van Esch-Bussemakers, M. P., & Neerincx, M. A. (2006). Designing personal attentive user interfaces in the mobile public safety domain. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(4), 749–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 3–23). San Francisco: Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Tamaru, E., Hasuike, K., & Tozaki, M. (2005). Cellular phone as a collaboration tool that empowers and changes the way of mobile work: Focus on three fields of work. Proc. ECSCW 2005 (pp. 247–264). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Tapia, A., & Sawyer, S. (2005). The sociotechnical nature of mobile computing work: evidence from a study of policing in the United States. International Journal of Technology & Human Interaction, 1(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  52. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, W. R., & Aasheim, C. (2005). Information technology in the practice of law enforcement. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 71(1), 71–91.Google Scholar
  54. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5)). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan G. Straus
    • 1
  • Tora K. Bikson
    • 2
  • Edward Balkovich
    • 3
  • John F. Pane
    • 1
  1. 1.RAND CorporationPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Rand CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  3. 3.Rand CorporationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations