Advertisement

Getting it Right: A Model for Compliance Assessment

  • Kwasi DankwaEmail author
  • Keiichi NakataEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 527)

Abstract

Compliance is important for organisations but models and tools to aid understanding of compliance behaviour is limited. This paper argues that the understanding of the interaction between subjects and objects and their intention to comply with requirements of rules and regulations may be a predictor of compliance behaviour. Thus, a Conceptual Compliance Assessment Model (CAM) is developed by extension of Technology Acceptance Model and Activity theory for assessment of compliance behaviour. Data collected and evaluated showed that the awareness and understanding of the mediational tool is critical in realizing the outcome. It also showed that other factors like the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, the community and the management set up also affected compliance behaviour. Essentially, the use of CAM will be useful in assessing the compliance activities of subjects which may aid in formulation of behaviour support systems to improve compliance behaviour.

Keywords

Compliance Assessment Model Quality Management System Activity theory Technology Acceptance Model 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Quality Assurance Department at the Blood Establishment for their cooperation and all the staff who took part in the interviews.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Neill, A.: An action framework for compliance and governance. Clin. Gov. Int. J. 19(4), 342–359 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1108/CGIJ-07-2014-0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirschauer, N., Bavorova, M., Martino, G.: An analytical framework for a behavioural analysis of non-compliance in food supply chains. Br. Food J. 114(9), 1212–1227 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211258781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Governatori, G.: ICT Support for Regulatory Compliance of Business Processes (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6865
  4. 4.
    Warkentin, M., Willison, R.: Behavioral and policy issues in information systems security: the insider threat. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 101–105 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dankwa, K., Nakata, K.: Making sense of non-compliance: a semiotic approach. In: Baranauskas, M.C.C., Liu, K., Sun, L., de Almeida Neris, V.P., Bonacin, R., Nakata, K. (eds.) ICISO 2016. IAICT, vol. 477, pp. 97–106. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42102-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dillon, A., Morris, M.: User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models. In: Williams, M. (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 31, pp. 3–32. Information Today, Medford (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaptelinin, V.: Activity theory. In: Soegaard, M., Dam, R.F. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus (2014). https://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/activity_theory.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  9. 9.
    Kuuti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 17–44. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996). Chap. 2Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abdullah, Z.: Activity theory as analytical tool: a case study of developing student teachers’ creativity in design. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 131(2010), 70–84 (2014). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814029929Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engestrom, Y.: Learning by expanding: an activity–theoretical approach to developmental research (Helsinki, Orienta – Konsultit) (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.A.: Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenkinson, D.: Compliance culture. J. Finan. Regul. Compliance 4(1), 41–46 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park, J., Jung, W.: The operators’ non-compliance behaviour to conduct emergency operating procedures - comparing with the work experience and the complexity of procedural steps. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 82(2), 115–131 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00123-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and organizations across nations, vol. 2. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Informatics Research Centre, Henley Business SchoolUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations