Examining Technology Acceptance by Individual Law Enforcement Officers: An Exploratory Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2665)


Management of technology implementation has been a critical challenge to organizations, public or private. In particular, user acceptance is paramount to the ultimate success of a newly implemented technology in adopting organizations. This study examined acceptance of COPLINK, a suite of IT applications designed to support law enforcement officers’ analyses of criminal activities. We developed a factor model that explains or predicts individual officers’ acceptance decision-making and empirically tested this model using a survey study that involved more than 280 police officers. Overall, our model shows a reasonably good fit to officers’ acceptance assessments and exhibits satisfactory explanatory power. Our analysis suggests a prominent core influence path from efficiency gain to perceived usefulness and then to intention to accept. Subjective norm also appears to have a significant effect on user acceptance through the mediation of perceived usefulness. Several managerial implications derived from our study findings are also discussed.


Police Officer Technology Acceptance Model User Acceptance Perceive Usefulness Information System Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ajzen, I., “From Intention to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior,” in: Kuhl J. and Beckmann (eds): Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer Verlag, New York, 1985, pp. 11–39.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajzen, I., “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A., “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, Vol. 84, 1977, pp. 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chau, P.Y.K., “An Empirical Assessment of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1996, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chau, P.Y.K, and Hu, P.J., “Examining a Model for Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: An Exploratory Study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2002, pp. 191–229.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, H., Schroeder, J., V. Hauck, R., Ridgeway, L., Atabakhsh, H., Gupta, H., Boarman, C., Rasmussen, K., and Clements, A.W., “COPLINK Connect: Information and Knowledge Management for Law Enforcement,” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2003, pp. 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, H., Zeng, D., Atabakhsh, H., Wyzga, W., and Schroeder, J., “COPLINK: Managing Law Enforcement Data and Knowledge,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2003, pp. 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Compeau, D.R., and Higgins, C.A., “Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1995, pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper, R.B., and Zmud, R.W., “Information technology implementation research: A technology diffusion approach,” Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1990, pp. 123–139.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, F.D., “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 1989, pp. 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R., “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 8, 1989, pp. 982–1003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I., Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gattiker, U.E., “Managing Computer-based Office Information Technology: A Process Model for Management in Human Factors in Organizational Design,” in H. Hendrick and O. Brown (eds), Human Factors in Organizational Design, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Nethelands, 1984, pp. 395–403.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L., “Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 1995, pp. 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G.B., “Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural Equation Model,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1995, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keen, P., Shaping the Future: Business Design through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathieson, K., “Predicting User Intention: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with Theory of Planned Behavior,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991, pp. 173–191.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I., “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perception of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991, pp. 192–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn, Free Press, New York, NY, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Straub, D.W., “Validating Instruments in MIS Research,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1989, pp. 147–169.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Szajna, B., “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised TAM,” Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, 1996, pp. 85–92.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A., “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1995, pp. 144–176.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J., “Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1982, pp. 28–45.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D., “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1996, pp. 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D., “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal studies,” Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2000, pp. 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatesh, V., “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2000, pp. 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Accounting and Information SystemsDavid Eccles School of Business University of UtahSalt Lake City
  2. 2.Management Information SystemsEller College of Management University of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations