The impact of knowledge interpretation and organizational context on the use of electronic recordkeeping systems

Matthew Lewellen, Val Hooper, Gillian Oliver

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference PaperResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


Transparency and accountability in society is underpinned by the requirement to create and maintain trustworthy digital records. The need (often mandated by legislation) to manage these records has been the primary motivator for the implementation of enterprise-wide Electronic Document and Records Management Systems (EDRMS). However, EDRMS implementations have proved challenging in terms of end-user acceptance of the technology. Drawing on Structuration Theory, the Records Continuum Model and the Technology Acceptance Model, this research explored the factors that influence a user's intention to contribute documents to an EDRMS. The findings of a quantitative survey undertaken in the context of the New Zealand public sector and the subsequent structural equation modeling revealed a unique set of factors influencing use, including one not previously identified, namely the perceived value of records.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems
Subtitle of host publication8th - 10th December, Auckland, New Zealand
EditorsWilliam Wang, David Pauleen
Place of PublicationAuckland NZ
PublisherAustralasian Conference on Information Systems
Number of pages11
ISBN (Electronic)9781927184264
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes
EventAustralasian Conference on Information Systems 2014 - Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Duration: 8 Dec 201410 Dec 2014
Conference number: 25th (Proceedings)


ConferenceAustralasian Conference on Information Systems 2014
Abbreviated titleACIS 2014
CountryNew Zealand
Internet address


  • Electronic recordkeeping systems
  • Knowledge interpretation
  • Perceived value of records
  • Social influence
  • Perceived power security
  • Effort expectancy
  • Performance expectancy

Cite this