ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The Human Factor
Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, University of Iceland, Gimli, Saemundargata, IS-101, Reykjavik, Iceland
Keywords: Human-computer interaction, User interface, Change management, Iceland, Database management systems,
Records management.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a research conducted in Iceland during the period
2001-2005 and in 2008 on how employees view their use of Electronic Records Management Systems
(ERMS). Qualitative methodology was used. Four organizations were studied in detail and other four
provided a comparison. Open-ended interviews and participant observations were the basic elements of the
study. The research discovered the basic issues in the user-friendliness of ERMS, the substitutes that
employees turned to if they did not welcome ERMS, and how they felt that their work could be shared and
observed by others. Employees seemed to regard ERMS as a groupware for constructive group work and
not as an obtrusive part of a surveillance society. The research indicated training as the most important
factor in making employees confident in their use of ERMS. The research identifies that most important
implementation factors and the issues that must be dealt with to make employees more content, confident
and proficient users of ERMS.
1 INTRODUCTION
ERMS are information systems designed to capture
and manage records in any format according to the
organization’s record-keeping principles.
The implementation and use of ERMS was
studied in recent research that was conducted in a
number of Icelandic organizations. The data
collection took place during the period 2001-2005 in
eight organizations, four public and four private
organizations. A follow-up was made in 2008.
One of the aims of the study was to discover how
employees felt working with ERMS and that is the
focus of this paper. It examines:
1. Whether employees found the ERMS user-
friendly or not.
2. What employees used as a substitute if
they did not use ERMS.
3. Whether employees objected that their
work in ERMS was being monitored or observed
by others.
There was a strong relationship between the
important implementation factors and the level of
use (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2008a; 2008b).
The following discussion is organized into five
sections starting with a presentation of the
methodology used. The interviewees expressed their
feelings regarding their work in ERMS. They are
grouped into four categories: The user-friendliness
of ERMS, informal alternatives to records
management (RM) other than using ERMS, and
monitoring by superiors and fellow employees
seeing work performed in ERMS. The paper
concludes with a general discussion of the findings.
2 METHODOLOGY AND ERMS
The aim of this part of the research was to discover
how employees in eight organizations in Iceland felt
about working with ERMS. A qualitative
methodology with a triangular approach was chosen
for conducting the research (Denzin and Lincoln,
2003; Gorman and Clayton, 1997) although it was
attempted to use quantitative measurements, as
suggested by Silverman (2005), whenever
qualitative data lent themselves to such
interpretations. Two different methods were used in
the field. Open-ended interviews were conducted
with employees (King, 1999; Kvale, 1996) and
participant observations were undertaken (Bogdan
97
Gunnlaugsdottir J. (2009).
ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - The Human Factor.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Human-Computer Interaction, pages 97-104
DOI: 10.5220/0002000600970104
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

and Biklen, 2003).
The main data collection took place during the
period September 2001 to April 2005. The total
number of interviewees in the eight organizations
was 38. The interviewees were eight records
managers, eight managers, four computer specialists,
eight specialist and ten general office employees. A
detailed data collection took place in four
organizations which were given the pseudonyms:
Government Institution, City Organization,
Financial Institute and Manufacturing Firm. In these
organizations a number of employees were
interviewed and participant observations took place
were offices of employees were visited. In the other
four organisations that were given the names: Public
Services Office, Food Processing, Municipal Office
and Construction Firm, only the records managers
were interviewed. The workstations that were visited
during the participant observations were 140 in total.
Follow-up interviews were conducted with the
records managers in the eight organizations in the
beginning of 2008.
The eight organizations had bought four different
ERMS (D, E, F and G) with two organizations using
the same system. All of the four systems had been
evaluated and were believed to meet all of the
important requirements of the DoD5015.2-STD
(2002) – latest edition (2007), the requirements for
approved RM procedures according to the ISO
15489 standard for RM (ISO, 2001a; 2001b), and
Icelandic law. They all meet the requirements of
being ERMS (ARMA International, 2004; CECA,
2001). These ERMS were all equipped with a
classification scheme, ‘the foundation of any ERMS’
(CECA, 2008, p. 23). All of the four ERMS offered
opportunities for group work and co-operation
between employees (Coleman, 1999;
Gunnlaugsdottir, 2003; 2004; Orlikowski and
Barley, 2001).
3 THE USER-FRIENDLINESS OF
ERMS
People working in Iceland are computer literate in
general as indicated by surveys. That should make it
easier for organizations to implement electronic
information systems such as ERMS. Almost 90% of
all individuals 16-74 years use a computer and the
Internet (Statistics Iceland, 2007) and almost 100%
of Icelandic enterprises use computers and have
access to the Internet (Statistics Iceland, 2006).
User-friendliness means that employees should
be able, with limited knowledge of computers, to
learn and adopt the new work procedures and to use
the system correctly. ERMS must be user-friendly
concerning the following work procedures: Word
processing, classification of records, cataloguing or
registering of records, saving records, searching for
and retrieving records and the distribution of records
and information. Table 1 lists the number of
employees, according to organizations, whether they
felt that ERMS was user-friendly or not.
Table 1: User-friendliness of ERMS in the eight
organizations.
Organization:
*Public
**Private
User-
friendly
Not user-
friendly
Total
*Government
Institution
(System D)
10 1 11
*City
Organization
(System F)
2 5 7
**Financial
Institute
(System E)
8 0 8
**Manufacturing
Firm
(System G)
3 5 8
*Public Services
Office
(System D)
1 0 1
**Food
Processing
(System F)
1 0 1
*Municipal
Office
(System E)
1 0 1
**Construction
Firm
(System G)
1 0 1
Total 27 11 38
The first four organizations listed in Table 1
were studied in detail. Employees in two of the
organizations, the Government Institution and the
Financial Institute, found ERMS user-friendly, with
ten out of eleven and eight out of eight being of that
opinion. These were the two organizations of the
four studied in detail with the highest rate of use
among the users expected to use ERMS, 75% and
90% respectively (see Table 4). The employees in
the other two organizations, the City Organization
and the Manufacturing Firm, displayed a different
attitude. In the City organization five out of seven
employees found ERMS not user-friendly and in the
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
98

Manufacturing Firm the ratio was five out of eight.
These were the two organizations of the four studied
in detail with the lowest rate of use, 25% and 15%
respectively (see Table 4).
The four ERMS seem to show a different
outcome regarding user-friendliness, as shown in
Table 2.
Table 2: User-friendliness of the four ERMS according to
users of each system.
User-
friendliness
Sys. D Sys. F Sys. E Sys. G Total
User-
friendly
11 3 9 4 27
Not user-
friendly
1 5 0 5 11
Total 12 8 9 9 38
System F and System G were claimed to be not
as user-friendly as the other two. Here it must be
borne in mind that the two organizations where the
implementation was the least successful, the City
Organization and the Manufacturing Firm, employed
these systems. There was no information available
regarding the attitude of the employees in the other
two organizations using the same systems, the Food
Processing and the Construction Firm, except for the
records managers. The records managers were
admittedly experienced users, but the four systems
were not that different regarding the user interface.
On closer examination the system with the best user
acceptance, System E, may even, if anything, have
had a slightly inferior user interface. This system
was used at the Financial Institute which had the
most successful implementation (see Table 4).
4 INFORMAL ALTERNATIVES
TO RM OTHER THAN USING
ERMS
ERMS is intended to ensure systematic and uniform
classification and capture of records in any format
(paper, film and electronic) and support efficient
retrieval of records and information. The forms of
records that should be captured into ERMS are for
example: Letters, e-mail, e-mail attachments,
records in another electronic format other than
letters, e-mail and e-mail attachments, faxes, films,
photographs, drawings and maps. Using ERMS in a
correct manner prevents variable methods in record-
keeping. That diminishes possibilities of mistakes
and loss of information (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2008c).
During the interviews and the participant
observations it could be detected that employees not
using ERMS used various different methods to
classify, save, search for and retrieve records, both
records that they created themselves as well as
records received from others. They used the inbox
and outbox in the e-mail software for storing e-mail.
Some did not classify it at all, but others used some
system of their own. The employees did not usually
store attachments received separately, but kept these
with the e-mail in the e-mail software. When
employees were searching for e-mail received, they
said that they usually used the search option in the e-
mail software, and also sometimes for the outgoing
e-mail that they themselves had created. Most
employees stated that they could always find all of
the e-mail that they received or sent. Some believed
that it took too long to do so. When asked if their
fellow employees could retrieve e-mail on their
computers in their absence, if they had access, the
reply was usually negative.
Records that most employees created in-house
were saved on the shared drive of the computer
system of the organization. Some used various
department or division drives. The records did not
receive any uniform classification before storage
when these methods were used. Each employee
classified his/her records as he or she saw fit. Some
even stored their records on the hard disk in their
private computers or on floppy disks or CDs, and
classified the records according to their own private
scheme.
These employees usually used a subject name
for the classification that they felt would be used in
later retrieval. It differed how systematic the
assigning of subject names was with the employees
that were not using ERMS. Two methods, however,
were the most common: (1) The name of a party,
company, individual, or organization, or an
abbreviation that easily indicated the party in
question, and (2) the name of the type of the record,
for example, financial report, memo, agreement or a
fairly obvious abbreviation.
When employees had to search for electronic
records that they themselves had created, they
usually tried first to think of the subject name that
they had given to the record in question. With that
name in mind, they searched in their computer for
the record. Employees normally said that it was
relatively easy to retrieve records that they needed.
ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - The Human Factor
99

However, when asked whether their fellow
employees could find these records without their
help, the reply was usually negative.
When employees that did not use ERMS were
asked about the saving, classification and
registration of records on paper that they received
from others and kept privately, it was revealed that
these records were not stored in a uniform manner.
These records were stored in file cabinets, file
drawers or binders, not classified and not registered.
Employees were asked how well they managed to
retrieve these records. Most employees said that they
could retrieve the records when needed. Many were,
however, of the opinion that this search for records
could take too long a time. When asked if they
believed that other employees would find it easy to
retrieve these records in their absence, the reply was
usually negative.
When employees were asked about the reasons
why they did not use ERMS, they stated that the
main reason was that they had not received the
necessary education and training to use the system.
Studies of groupware and similar systems have
shown that even systems that are very good
technologically do not work, or are not being used as
intended, if they do not fit the culture of the
organization or if they are incorrectly implemented,
especially without good and proper training. When
the technology does not help the individuals to
accomplish dynamic ends and solve problems, ‘they
abandon it, or work around it, or change it, or think
about changing their ends’ (Orlikowski, 2000, pp.
423-424).
5 MONITORING BY SUPERIORS
AND THE POSSIBILITY OF
FELLOW EMPLOYEES
SEEING WORK PERFORMED
IN ERMS
It is well known that individuals are concerned about
improper and unauthorized use of personal
information about themselves. Some employees also
feel uncomfortable in allowing their co-workers
access to their records and letting them see which
projects they are working on or how they are
performing their job (Smith, Milberg and Burke,
1996; Townsend and Bennett, 2003).
The four ERMS are solutions in groupware that
makes monitoring of use possible. The great
majority, 33 of the participants, either felt positively
or were indifferent toward possibly having their
work being observed in ERMS. However, five of the
participants expressed a negative feeling as is shown
in Table 3.
Table 3: Being monitored and observed in ERMS, feelings
according to job functions in the eight organizations.
Employees Positive Neither/Nor Negative Total
Records
managers
8 0 0 8
Managers 8 0 0 8
Computer
specialists
4 0 0 4
Specialists 4 1 3 8
General
office
employees
3 5 2 10
Total 27 6 5 38
All of the top management, the records managers
and all of the computer specialists were in
agreement that the managers should be able to
monitor the use of ERMS by the employees and they
all said that they did not worry that other employees
could see the records that they themselves created as
long as these records were not confidential.
Four of the specialists were positive about others
being able to see the records that they created, one of
them expressed no opinion, but three of them (one at
the Financial Institute and two at the City
Organization) emphasized strongly that they did not
feel comfortable knowing that their own use might
be monitored. They admitted that this was part of the
reason why they sometimes tried to avoid using
ERMS.
Five of the ten general office employees did not
express any opinion as to how they felt being
monitored or observed, and three of the general
office employees did not seem to have much
concern in this respect and were particularly
positive. Two of the ten seemed, however, to be
rather negative towards being monitored on a daily
basis. One of them said that she sometimes felt
uncomfortable saving records that she had written
into ERMS because she was afraid that the records
might contain spelling errors and bad grammar that
she did not want everyone to see.
Icelandic is a difficult language to master due to
grammar and spelling. Some employees seemed not
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
100

to be at ease having their co-workers detect such
errors. Secondly some employees felt that if their
output or efficiency was being monitored, their
feelings became negative. They believed that their
superiors thought that they were not doing their job
when they were not working in ERMS. Finally,
there is the feeling of privacy. If the records deal
with sensitive or personal matters, employees
sometimes seemed to be uneasy if access to such
records was open. It is, however possible to limit
access to certain types of records or vary access by
job function, or by person. The above points could
be detected both during the interviews and the
participant observations.
Studies that have been undertaken to discover the
effects of electronic surveillance on the well-being
of employees, point to the fact that such surveillance
can cause considerable stress among employees
(Aiello and Kolb, 1995; Rafnsdottir and
Gudmundsdottir, 2004; Smith, Carayon, Sanders,
Lim and LeGrande, 1992). Monitoring of work
performed by employees in ERMS would by most
definitions not fall under electronic surveillance.
Employees, with very few exceptions, did not seem
to object that their work in ERMS was being
monitored or observed by others. They seemed to
regard this more as a management tool and a part of
the groupware function. The overview of the
processing of cases, who was processing the case
and how far had the processing progressed, has more
of the features of a management information system
than a monitoring system.
6 DISCUSSIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS
In the study it was examined how employees felt
working in ERMS. It covered the user-friendliness
of ERMS, the ways of working outside the system,
how the employees felt being possibly monitored,
and how they felt regarding sharing their work with
their fellow employees.
All of the records managers found ERMS user-
friendly. Most of their fellow employees agreed with
them. In two of the organizations, the City
Organization and the Manufacturing Firm, the
organizations with the lowest rate of expected users
using the ERMS, 25% and 15% respectively, a large
proportion of the users claimed that their system was
not user-friendly as shown in Table 4. Table 4 shows
the relationship between the implementation and the
user-friendliness of ERMS in the eight
organizations. The implementation itself is covered
in detail in a separate article (Gunnlaugsdottir,
2008a). A short summary is nevertheless in order
here.
When the number of positive implementation
factors (11 in total) was compared with the
proportion of expected users a positive relationship
was found. The greater the number of positive
implementation factors, the higher was the
proportion of expected users. There were mainly
three elements that determined the success of the
implementation: Support by top management,
participation of the records managers in the project,
and adequate and proper training.
Figure 1 shows the three elements and the 11
implementation factors.
Support by top
management
exemplified by:
Records
manager’s
participation in:
Training with
different
approaches:
Their interest in
the project
System selection Education and
training in RM
Their own use of
ERMS
System
development
ERMS seminars
Their motivation
of employees
Adapting ERMS
to the
organization
ERMS individual
training
ERMS support
and training by IT
department
ERMS follow-up
courses
Three factors Three factors Five factors
Figure 1: The three elements and the 11 implementation
factors.
These 11 positive implementation factors explain
the success rate of the implementation as presented
in detail in Table 4.
The Financial Institute revealed 11 positive
implementation factors identified out of 11 possible.
There the proportion of expected users actually
using ERMS was 90% and everybody claimed that
the system was user-friendly. On the other hand, at
the Manufacturing Firm there was only one positive
implementation factor, the proportion of expected
users just reached 15%, and 62% of respondents
claimed that ERMS was not user-friendly.
When the employees gave up using ERMS they
worked outside it, using informal methods of their
own. The consequence of this was that their co-
workers were unable to retrieve information and
records.
Employees, with very few exceptions, did not
seem to object that their work in ERMS was being
ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - The Human Factor
101

Table 4: The implementation and use of ERMS in the organizations.
Implementation
of ERMS
Government
Institution
City
Organization
Financial
Institute
Manufacturing
Firm
Public
Services
Office
Food
Processing
Municipal
Office
Constructing
Firm
Number of
positive
implementation
factors:
Support by top
management**
2 0 3 0 0 3 0 3
Records
managers
participation**
3 1 3 0 1 2 2 2
Education and
training**
3 1 5 1 3 5 4 3
Number of
positive
implementation
factors in
total**
8 2 11 1 4 10 6 8
*Estimated
proportion of
expected users
actually using
ERMS (%)**
75
(85)
25 90
15
(50)
60 80
40
(60)
70
(80)
ERMS was use-
friendly (%):
Yes 91 29 100 38
No 9 71 0 62
Notes: *The level of use was based on a careful evaluation and estimate made by the records managers. **These are the original findings.
During 2008 these results were updated as shown within brackets and discussed in this section
.
monitored or observed by others. They thought of
ERMS as a practical and successful management
tool and a part of the groupware function rather than
electronic surveillance in the negative sense of that
concept.
Follow-up interviews were conducted with the
records managers in the eight organizations in 2008.
The records managers in four of the organizations,
City Organization, Financial Institute, Public
Services Office and Food Processing believed that
they could not detect an increase in the estimated
proportion of expected users actually using ERMS.
The records managers in the other four,
Government Institution, Manufacturing Firm,
Municipal Office and Construction Firm reported
that there had been an increase. The records manager
at the Government Institution believed that the
proportion was now about 85% (was 75%). She
attributed this increase to a training project in
general RM that was undertaken during 2007. She
underlined especially the importance that employees
were now much more aware of the legal
environment that the institution was a part of than
before and that it had to meet requirements dictated
by law.
The records manager at the Manufacturing Firm
confirmed that a substantial increase had taken
place. Now, the estimated proportion of expected
users was about 50% (was 15%). The explanation
that he gave was that a considerable increase had
occurred in the use by both top and middle
management. About one third of these were now
using the system. He believed that the increase was
also due to a training effort undertaken that covered
both general training in RM and individual system
training. The records manager at the Municipal
Office said that the use had increased to about 60%
(was 40%). Increased use by managers was the main
reason. The records manager at the Construction
Firm said that the proportion had now reached about
80% (was 70%). This good result was due to
training courses that were held and covered general
training in RM where the users did learn that
organized and proper use of ERMS resulted in more
efficiency for the firm. The employees could now
find information quicker and with greater certainty.
The follow-up interviews brought also out
another interesting fact. The training that was
undertaken subsequent to the original study seemed
to make the claims disappear that the system was
lacking in user-friendliness. This point was
especially underlined at the Manufacturing Firm
where the level of use had increased from 15% to
50%.
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
102

It is of interest to investigate further the
importance of training for the implementation and
use of ERMS. A larger sample, properly
constructed, could reveal the statistical significance
of the relationship. However, there is a strong
central tendency of social forms. Hence, a large
sample is not needed to detect the importance of
training for effective implementation and use of
ERMS.
During the initial study, there was some reason
to believe that some employees may have been
blaming the system for their inability to use ERMS
when in fact the reason was lack of training. This
suspicion detected during the participant observation
was confirmed in the follow-up during 2008. If the
employees lacked in their ability to use the system,
the fault lay with the system, not themselves, and
their lack of training. Improved training
subsequently turned disbelievers into active users.
REFERENCES
Aiello, J. R. and Kolb, K.J. (1995), “Electronic
performance monitoring and social context: impact on
productivity and stress”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 339-353.
ARMA International (2004), Framework for Integration
of Electronic Document Management Systems and
Electronic Records Management Systems
(ANSI/AIIM/ARMA TR48-2004): Technical Report,
ARMA International, Lenexa, KS.
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (2003), Qualitative
Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory
and Methods (4
th
ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
CECA (CECA-CEE-CEE) (2001), MoReq: Model
Requirements for the Management of Electronic
Records: MoReq Specification, CECA-CEE-CEEA,
Bruxelles, Luxembourg.
CECA (CECA-CEE-CEE) (2008), MoReq2: Model
Requirements for the Management of Electronic
Records: Update and Extension, 2008: MoReq2
Specification, CECA-CEE-CEEA, Bruxelles,
Luxembourg.
Coleman, D. (1999), “Groupware: collaboration and
knowledge sharing”, in Liebowitz, J. (Ed.), Knowledge
Management Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
pp. 12-1 – 12-15.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2003), “Introduction:
the discipline and practice of qualitative research”, in
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Strategies of
Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 1-19.
DoD (Department of Defense, US) (2002), Design
Criteria Standard for Electronic Records Management
Software Applications: DoD 5015.2-STD, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communication and Intelligence, Washington, DC.
DoD (Department of Defense, US) (2007), Electronic
Records Management Software Applications Design
Criteria Standard: DoD 5015.02-STD, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration, Department of Defense Chief Information
Officer, Washington, DC, available at: http://
jitc.fhu.disa.mil/recmgt/p50152s2.pdf (accessed 1
November 2008).
Gorman, G.E. and Clayton, P. (1997), Qualitative
Research for the Information Professional: A
Practical Handbook, Library Association Publishing,
London.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2008a), “As you sow, so you will
reap: implementing ERMS”, Records Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2004), “Organising information into
groupware: is the implementation of such systems of
value to universities?”, in Arkiv med ambitioner:
framtidsperspektiv och kvalitativ utveckling på
kulturens grund: föredrag från NUAS Arkivkonferens i
Reykjavik 7 och 8 oktober 2004, Haskoli Islands,
skjalasafn [University of Iceland, the Archives],
Reykjavik, pp. 7-22.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2008b), “Registering and searching
for records in electronic records management
systems”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 28, pp. 293-304.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2003), “Seek and you will find, share
and you will benefit: organising knowledge using
groupware systems”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 23, pp. 363-380.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2008c), “Thykja rafraen
skjalastjornarkerfi notendavaen? [Do employees find
electronic records management systems user-
friendly?]”, in Johannesson, Th.J. and Bjornsdottir, H.
(Eds.), Rannsoknir i felagsvisindum IX:
felagsvisindadeild: erindi flutt a radstefnu i oktober
2008 [Research in social sciences IX: proceedings
from a conference, October 2008],
Felagsvisindastofnun [Social Science Research
Institute], Reykjavik, pp. 79-90.
ISO (2001a), ISO 15489-1:2001: Information and
Documentation – Records Management: Part 1:
General, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2001b), ISO/TR 15489-2:2001: Information and
Documentation – Records Management: Part 2:
Guidelines, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
King, N. (1999), “The qualitative research interview, in
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds.), Qualitative methods
in organizational research: a practical guide, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 14-36.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), “Using technology and
Constituting structures: A Practice lens for Studying
Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science,
ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - The Human Factor
103

Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 404-428
Orlikowski, W.J. and Barley, S.R. (2001), “Technology
and institutions: what can research on information
technology and research on organizations learn from
each other?”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 145-
165.
Rafnsdottir, G. and Gudmundsdottir, L. (2004),
“Upplysingataekni: eftirlitsthjodfelag [Information
technology: the monitoring society]”, in Hauksson, U.
(Ed.), Rannsoknir i felagsvisindum V:
felagsvisindadeild: erindi flutt a radstefnu i oktober
2004 [Research in social sciences V: proceedings
from a conference, October 2004], Haskolautgafan
[University of Iceland, University Press], Reykjavik,
pp. 181-191.
Silverman D. (2005), Doing Qualitative Research: A
Practical Handbook (4
th
ed.), Sage Publication,
London.
Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J. and Burke, S.J. (1996),
“Information privacy: measuring Individuals’ concerns
about organizational practices”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
20 No. 2, pp. 167-191.
Smith, M.J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K.J, Lim, S-Y. and
LeGrande, D. (1992), “Employee stress and health
complaints in jobs with and without electronic
performance monitoring, Applied Ergonomics, Vol.
22, pp. 17-27.
Statistics Iceland (2006), Notkun fyrirtaekja a
upplysingataeknibunadi og rafraenum vidskiptum
2006 [ICT and E-commerce in Enterprises 2006],
Hagstofa Islands [Statistics Iceland], Reykjavik.
Statistics Iceland (2007), Use of Computers and the
Internet by Households and Individuals 2007,
Hagstofa Islands [Statistics Iceland], Reykjavik.
Townsend, A.M. and Bennett, J.T. (2003), “Privacy,
technology, and conflict: emerging issues and action in
workplace privacy”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol.
15 No. 3, pp. 195-205.
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
104