Increasingly, government agencies are facing the challenge of effective implementation of information technologies critical to their digital government programs and initiatives. This article reports two usercentric evaluation studies of COPLINK, an integrated knowledge management system that supports and enhances lawenforcement officers’crime-fighting activities. Specifically, the evaluations concentrate on system usability and user acceptance in the law enforcement setting. The article describes the study designs, highlights the analysis results, and discusses their implications for digital government research and practices. Findings from these studies provide valuable insights into digital government system evaluation and, at the same time, shed light on how government agencies can design adequate management interventions to foster technology acceptance and use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intention to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl& J. Beckmann (Eds.), Actioncontrol: From cognition to behavior(pp. 11-39). New York: Springer-Verlag.
2.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior andHumanDecision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3.
Attewell, P. (1992). Technology, diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.
4.
Chau, M., Atabakhsh, H., Zeng, D.,& Chen, H. (2001). Building an infrastructure for law enforcement information sharing and collaboration: Design issues and challenges. Proceedings of the First National Conference for Digital Government Research.
5.
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model for information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 191-229.
6.
Chen, H., Schroeder, J., Hauck, R. V., Ridgeway, L., Atabakhsh, H., Gupta, H., et al. (2003). COPLINK connect: Information and knowledge management for law enforcement. Decision Support Systems, 34(3), 271-285.
7.
Chen, H., Zeng, D., Atabakhsh, H., Wyzga, W.,& Schroeder, J. (2003). COPLINK: Managing lawenforcement data and knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 28-34.
8.
Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of the ACM CHI ’88.
9.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
10.
Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technology diffusion approach. Management Science, 34(2), 123-139.
11.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
12.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, R. P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
13.
Dillon, A.,& Morris, M. G. (1998). From “Can They?” to “Will They?” Extending usability to accommodate acceptance predictions. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, 957-959.
14.
Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (1998). Human computer interaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
Gediga, G., Hamborg, K.-C.,& Duntsch, I. (1999). The IsoMetrics usability inventory: Anoperationalisation of ISO 9241-10. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 151-164.
17.
Gediga, G., Hamborg, K.-C., & Duntsch, I. (2002). Evaluation of software systems. In A. Kent & J. G. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information science(Vol. 72, pp. 166-192). New York: Marcel Dekker.
18.
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T.,& Davis, G. B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4), 87-114.
19.
Kirakowski, J.,& Corbett, M. (1993). SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 210-212.
20.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86-112.
21.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering(1st ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
22.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations(5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
23.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction(3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised TAM. Management Science, 42(1), 85-92.
25.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(1), 144-176.
26.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
27.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-482.
28.
Venkatesh, V.,& Davis, F. D. (2000). Atheoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
