Introduction
The military application of new technologies has been instrumental throughout history. Their development continues to provoke competition between state actors to this day (Schaub, 2019; Sweeney et al., 2025). In recent years, quantum technologies (QTs) – technologies with components utilizing quantum mechanical principles such as entanglement and superposition (Dowling & Milburn, 2003) – have been the center of growing interest (Stoffregen, 2024), resulting in a wide range of applications (Danish Business Authority and Danish Quantum Community, 2024), including military applications (Krelina, 2021). Consequently, QTs are now found on NATO’s list of emerging and disruptive technologies (Reding & Eaton, 2020; Sweeney et al., 2025) and have prompted the development of a national strategy in Denmark (Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs et al., 2021). Similar strategies have recently been developed for a number of Nordic and European allies including Finland and the European Union (European Commission, 2025; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, 2025). Despite a conspicuous focus on mapping possible capabilities or security aspects of QTs in a military context, however, few studies have examined the prospective process of their implementation; perspectives of individual users at the operational level are particularly wanting.
In this paper, user perspectives of QTs are explored in the specific military context of the Danish Armed Forces (DAF). Leading the Nordic countries with the first strategy for QT, Denmark has subsequently cemented its commitment to develop dual-use QT by opening a NATO-supported Quantum Centre (Stoffregen, 2024). Consequently, user perspectives are investigated in the DAF through the case of the naval division Mine Counter Measures (MCM) Denmark. This naval division is tasked with searching for and handling mines via drones and robots (Forsvaret, 2023a). QT has recently been suggested as potentially useful for the process of locating mines – a significant component of mine warfare at sea (Schwarz, 2014; Center for Cybersikkerhed, 2023; Krelina, 2021). Figure 1 illustrates such a scenario, in which a sensor system derived from QT is used to detect hidden mines with greater precision than that afforded by conventional sensors.
Figure 1
A Possible Application for a Quantum Sensor.
In Figure 1, we see a ship to the left dragging a quantum sensor, a ship to the right dragging a conventional sensor, and a mine in the water. Dashed grey lines represent the magnetic field of the mine. Though similar externally, only the quantum sensor in this example is able to measure the magnetic field with sufficient precision to detect the hidden mine.
Introducing new technology in an organization requires careful considerations of user perspectives such as legitimacy and acceptance (Mendoza et al., 2021). This is especially important in view of the hype concerning QTs (Smith III, 2020); QT narratives are central to certain current investigations in which matters of legitimacy and acceptance play significant roles (Grinbaum, 2017; Roberson et al., 2021; Suter et al., 2026). This is the context in which this paper’s research question, concerning the ways in which potential users in MCM Denmark experience QTs through the concepts of legitimacy and acceptance, has arisen.
To explore this case, a theoretical framework of legitimacy management (Suchman, 1995) and technology acceptance (Davis, 1985) is developed. This framework, founded in organizational and information system theories, is then applied to a military context of operational users of QTs. In particular, this paper examines three features: the types of legitimacy perceived to be important; the ways in which acceptance, including perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, is experienced; and the ways actions to gain legitimacy are perceived to influence the acceptance of QTs in the DAF. Consequently, this study contributes to the academic debate by shedding light on how potential operational users perceive QTs and how this relationship can be improved, with relevant insights for similar emerging technologies.
The paper is structured as follows. First, existing literature is reviewed; an introduction to the theoretical framework follows. The methods of this investigation are then presented, and the research case elaborated upon. This is followed by the analysis, which constitutes the main part of this paper; this leads to a discussion of the applied theories and obtained results. Finally, a conclusion is presented.
Previous Research
Notwithstanding its importance, the introduction to an organization of new technology can be a complicated matter, requiring careful consideration of both technology-related and leadership-related challenges (Haber & Carmeli, 2023; O’Connor et al., 1990). It is essential to understand the perspectives of users if the risk of introducing a technology that may fail to meet their needs, or even become unusable altogether, is to be avoided. The study of legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and technology acceptance (Davis, 1985) are two things particularly useful in the study of these perspectives.
Legitimacy as an analytic lens encompasses two complementary approaches: identifying types of legitimacy so they may be categorized, and developing strategies for managing it. In a seminal paper from 1995, Suchman successfully combined these perspectives to delineate both three forms of legitimacy (the pragmatic, moral, and cognitive) and strategies for gaining them. This theory has subsequently been used in investigations of a range of cases from the complexity of multinational enterprises (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999) to the emergence of new digital or drone technologies (Dahabiyeh & Constantinides, 2022; Mendoza et al., 2021) with a focus on technology legislation and rationalization through superior operational performance. Furthermore, elements of the theory have been revisited in order to operationalize the concept of legitimacy (Moe, 2014; Schoon, 2022), thus advancing the applicability of the theory for future investigations. Concerning technology acceptance, Davis presented a new model in 1985: the technology acceptance model (TAM), which sheds light on significant factors contributing to the process of the acceptance of new technology among end users. This model has, over the years, spurred various explorations of users and information systems including pre-service teachers’ acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) (Zhang et al., 2023), adoption of blockchain technology in supply chains (Kamble et al., 2019), and more tangible technologies still in development such as the public acceptance of fully automated vehicles (Chen et al., 2023). Although the TAM model has also been repeatedly refined (Tamilmani et al., 2021; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), user perspectives have remained central, thus confirming their centrality in the original model. Due to their simplicity, diverse perspectives, and impact in their respective fields, the theory of legitimacy management and TAM have therefore been chosen for the theoretical framework of this paper.
In the case of military professionals and novel technologies, understanding the perspectives of operational users is especially important due to the high-stress and potentially violent situations in which users may need to operate and rely on such technologies. Such perspectives have been investigated in the case of robots and autonomous systems in the Dutch army to reveal discrepancies in experiences between soldiers at both strategic and operational levels, resulting in disillusionment at the latter level (van der Maarel et al., 2023). This study draws on the theoretical frameworks of sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015) and sociology of expectations (Borup et al., 2006; van Lente et al., 2013).
Additional studies have employed similar approaches for investigating the expectations and imaginaries of other novel technologies such as synthetic data (Ravn, 2025) and the military use of AI (Bareis & Katzenbach, 2022; Schütz, 2025). In particular, these studies excel in demonstrating complex and potentially conflicting expectations and narratives as well as by dissecting hype concerning the use of emerging technologies. Although such approaches certainly offer interesting avenues of research for QTs, this paper offers complementary perspectives through proactive approaches to gaining legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) or models illustrating the acceptance process of a technology (Davis, 1985).
Military innovation and diffusion of technology have also been extensively studied using cases drawn from a wide spread of nations and historical eras to shed light on macro-level dynamics (Adamsky, 2010; Goldman & Ross, 2003). Analytic frameworks for analyzing military innovation have been introduced to focus on required resources and changes: the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities model (DOTMLPF) (Eaton et al., 2016; Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2016) and the adoption-capacity theory (Horowitz, 2010) are two; others focus on things such as conditions leading to harmful innovation and its risks (Kuo, 2022). The latter two studies offer scholarly approaches, respectively, to understanding the consequences of organizational and investment resource-demanding military innovations and single-minded focus on their promises. Other models center around dynamics within civil-military relations, interservice or intraservice rivalry, and organizational culture, as reviewed by Grissom (2006); interestingly, Grissom identifies an apparent gap in research concerning bottom-up innovations where operational users play a central role. In this perspective, this paper can be viewed as providing insights into the micro-level perceptions of such users in the potential early steps of an innovative process.
This is the mode in which military QTs, emerging technologies with significant, disruptive, potential have been closely examined in recent years. This includes investigations of strategic implications (Sweeney et al., 2025), military advantages due to potential, new capabilities (Krelina, 2021), hype associated with QTs (Smith III, 2020), and technical aspects such as post-quantum cryptography in critical infrastructures (Oliva del Moral et al., 2024). While the significance of military user perspectives has been highlighted by the opening of a NATO-supported quantum technological center in Copenhagen in 2023, such perspectives concerning QTs have yet to be subject to rigorous academic research (Stoffregen, 2024). This emphasizes the urgency of establishing and managing perspectives of operational users so that they may be incorporated in a potential development process (Krelina, 2021). This paper aims to establish such perspectives regarding QTs to tailor and strengthen future user-technology relationships.
Theory
This section introduces the theoretical framework of a theory of legitimacy management and a model of technology acceptance.
Legitimacy
In this paper, the legitimacy theory of Suchman (1995) is applied to understand how the legitimacy of QTs is perceived and how it can be gained in a future, potential implementation process. To establish a common understanding of legitimacy, the paper leans on the definition of Suchman and defines the concept as follows: Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption by users that actions performed by a technology are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions. While the principal focus is shifted towards technologies and the evaluative perceptions of users, the concept is otherwise aligned with Suchman, who identifies three types of legitimacy. Pragmatic legitimacy focuses on self-interest assessments and what a user of a given technology immediately stands to gain from using that technology; moral legitimacy expresses a normative perception of the technology and whether a user believes that using the technology is the right thing to do in social context; cognitive legitimacy, meanwhile, reflects the degree to which a technology is taken for granted and has reached a passive status of inevitable or necessary for the user.
In his paper Suchman (1995) discusses both how to manage legitimacy and offers three strategies for gaining it: conformation to environments; selection among environment; and manipulation of environments. In an increasingly proactive manner, each addresses the relationship between a given technology and surrounding environments. Examples of strategic actions are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Overview of Strategic Actions (Columns) and Legitimacy Types (Rows).
| CONFORM TO ENVIRONMENTS | SELECTION AMONG ENVIRONMENTS | MANIPULATION OF ENVIRONMENTS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pragmatic legitimacy | Conform to demands | Select markets | Advertise product and image |
| Moral legitimacy | Conform to ideals | Select domain and define goals | Persuade and demonstrate success |
| Cognitive legitimacy | Conform to models | Select labels and seek certification | Institutionalize |
[i] Note. Each element represents a possible generic strategic action to gain legitimacy. Derived from Suchman (1995, p. 600).
In this matrix, rows and columns show types of legitimacy and strategies. Each element thus reflects a type of strategic action. The table thus provides an overview of one or more types of legitimacy that may be gained in a given situation.
In this paper, the legitimacy theory is operationalized to differentiate significant types of legitimacy regarding QTs among interviewees. However, the process of operationalizing the theory has been contested since certain aspects of moral legitimacy does not unequivocally imply the presence of anything moral itself (Moe, 2014, p. 12). This paper accordingly applies a narrow definition of this concept, according to which moral legitimacy is gained through actions containing a moral aspect. The framework of Table 1 is further employed to categorize strategic actions for gaining identified types of QT-related legitimacy. The resulting analysis thus contributes with insights concerning legitimacy management of QTs relevant for leadership of military organizations.
Technology Acceptance
The technology acceptance model represents an information systems theory (Bradley, 2012) and illustrates the acceptance process of an available technology (Davis, 1985). However, in this paper, TAM is applied to understand how potential end users perceive a future technology, QT, thus providing an empirical foundation for current developments.
The model is divided into four phases: design features; cognitive response; affective response; and behavioral response. Design features represent functions or characteristics of the technology as they appear to the user; cognitive response, influenced by the design features, is divided into two factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, representing the user-subjective perception of the technology. These in turn influence the factor in the next phase. Additionally, a causal correlation is theorized to exist between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The affective response contains the single factor attitude towards using, central to TAM in connecting the way the user perceives the technology with the acceptance of that technology. Finally, the behavioral response captures actual system use representing the factor desirable to enhance (Davis, 1985).
The model is shown in Figure 2, in which arrows represent causal relationships between factors, affording an overview of TAM, in particular the three constituents assumed in the model to form user motivation factors: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude towards using.
Figure 2
Technology Acceptance Model.
Note. Each box represents a factor in the model and arrows represent correlations. Derived from Davis (1985, p. 24).
In this paper, TAM is operationalized to the case of QT by exploring potential users’ perception of these technologies. External physical factors such as design features and actual system use are not investigated: the novel nature of these technologies, yet to be implemented in the DAF, excludes the possibility, meaning only the three factors of user motivation in TAM are included in the analysis. Furthermore, continued research has emphasized the important influence of non-tangible, social and cognitive factors on user motivation (Tamilmani et al., 2021; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The potential impact of such non-tangible, cognitive factors, being the identified strategic actions to gain legitimacy, on the two factors of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are therefore investigated as well.
Finally, as Figure 2 shows, TAM lacks circular, feedback-related mechanisms for optimizing user motivation. This investigation aims to mitigate this challenge by associating the investigated factors with experiences from potential users. To this end, data related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are analyzed; the results, below, afford developers of QT design features access to information that may eventually benefit the users they are designing for.
Method
This paper investigates how users experience QTs through the concepts of legitimacy and acceptance within a well-defined case. Due to its focus on subjective perceptions, a phenomenological approach is employed to investigate how these concepts appear to potential users (Justesen & Mik-Meyer, 2010) in the form of a single-case study (Yin, 2003). The author’s unique status as naval officer and former researcher in quantum physics affords a special access to the special case of potential naval users’ experience of QTs (Skou, 2021), permitting both the collection of particularly pertinent data through detailed interviews, and authoritative analysis.
Validating this paper, three phenomenological quality criteria are employed: the prioritization of transparency throughout the research process, including the documentation of corresponding choices; a similar documentation of the interview quality through interview guides and the rendering of full transcripts; and interviewee validation of the elite interview (elaborated in the following paragraph) through correspondence and a subsequent analysis presentation (Justesen & Mik-Meyer, 2010, pp. 46–48). The paper’s phenomenological research approach, that is, influences both the choice and validation of the data.
To allow in-depth analysis of each interview, a total of five interviews of between 30 and 60 minutes are conducted in this study. All interviews are semi-structured in form (Brinkmann, 2025, pp. 44–46); interview guides in Danish can be found online (Skou, 2024). The interviews are conducted in two parts. First, in the interest of the paper’s quality, an elite interview is conducted with an advisor from the Centre for Cyber Security (CFCS) specialized in QT to establish how the DAF currently works with QTs (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015, pp. 201–202). Afterwards, four interviews are conducted with potential users of QTs. This constitutes the paper’s principal data. Prior to these four interviews, material written by the advisor from the CFCS (Center for Cybersikkerhed, 2023) was shared with interviewees as a complementary source of information.
While conducting an elite interview and pre-distributing material permits the criticism of conflicts with the research methodology and the risk that the interviewees might be unconsciously conditioned in some way, these decisions were made in the interests of the relevance of the subsequent interviews: QTs are a novel technology, meaning that knowledge among personnel in the DAF is restricted to a very small number of experts. Finally, two theories regarding legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and technology acceptance (Davis, 1985) were employed, both prior to the interviews to inspire the creation of interview guides, and after the interviews for what they can contribute to the analysis.
The interviewees were recruited based on two different sets of criteria using purposive sampling (Bryman, 2012, p. 418). All interviewees, their position with relevance for this paper, and the recruitment method are shown in Table 2. For the elite interview, an interviewee with a Ph.D. in quantum physics serving as advisor at CFCS specialized in QT with a wide network of collaborators across the DAF was selected on the grounds of their profile. For the interviews with potential users of QT, four officers profiled as technologically capable were recruited who are, or have recently been, active as operational officers in MCM Denmark. While using officers who are no longer operationally active opens the possibility that their descriptions of past experiences may be influenced by biases such as rosy retrospection (Mitchell et al., 1997), this choice was made to increase the number of relevant interviewees. Additionally, all interviewees were encouraged to recommend other relevant interviewees to further increase this number and mitigate the risk of a skewed recruitment process.
Table 2
Overview of Interviewees, Relevant Position, and Recruitment Method.
| NAME | POSITION | RECRUITMENT METHOD |
|---|---|---|
| Interviewee 1 | Advisor at Centre for Cyber Security | Network |
| Interviewee A | Former officer at Mine Counter Measures (MCM) Denmark | Network |
| Interviewee B | Former officer at MCM Denmark | Recommended |
| Interviewee C | Former officer at MCM Denmark | Network and recommended |
| Interviewee D | Current officer at MCM Denmark | Network and recommended |
Each of the five interviews has been recorded and transcribed. All transcripts for Interviewees A to D can be found online in Danish (Skou, 2024); the transcript for Interviewee 1 remains unpublished due to stricter requirements for anonymity Transcripts have been coded in the form of a partial thematic coding inspired by the interview guide and subject to condensation of meaning (Brinkmann, 2025, p. 57). All interviewees were informed about the purpose of this research, both orally and in writing, and have consented to being recorded and their words used for analysis (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). Transcripts were approved by the interviewees, who were anonymized during transcription. For this paper, selected quotes have subsequently been translated into English.
Research Case
This paper investigates the case of how potential users perceive QTs in the DAF. Consequently, it is important to specify the research boundaries of the core concepts of quantum technology and user group.
While QTs may appear exceptional when compared to other technologies, they are not significantly dissimilar from a technical perspective. Primarily, QTs are characterized by the incorporation of components that exploit certain aspects from the realm of quantum mechanics. It is therefore possible to use QTs for many purposes similarly to transistor technologies in common computers, permitting computations, simulations, and (precise) measurements and detection (Krelina, 2021). This paper primarily investigates QTs in the last two categories, measurement and detection, often termed “quantum sensors”. Figure 1 above, in which we see a quantum sensor dragged behind one vessel and a conventional sensor after another, demonstrates the functioning of a quantum sensor measuring magnetic fields to precisely detect mines: while the two technologies appear superficially similar, only the quantum sensor successfully detects the mine, illustrating both what QTs and common technologies in operational settings have in common and how they differ.
In this paper, a single potential user group, operational officers in MCM Denmark, was investigated to thoroughly analyze their perspectives. This naval division was chosen since it is used to working closely with advanced technology (Forsvaret, 2023a). The fact that mine detection is one of the proposed military application of QTs, reinforcing the division’s status as a relevant potential user group, also factored into the decision (Center for Cybersikkerhed, 2023; Krelina, 2021). Finally, this research specifically examines the perspectives of officers, considering them representative of potential users as they often interact with a wide range of technologies in their position. Legitimacy and acceptance are investigated, within the officers’ social frames, as artefacts of continuous interactions with their surrounding milieu.
Analysis
In this section, the analysis of four interviews with current or former officers of MCM Denmark, interviewees A–D, is presented in three subsections. Each subsection is devoted to one of the three aspects of the research question.
Legitimacy of Quantum Technologies
As previously discussed, pragmatic legitimacy can be gained through actions made by users following simple calculations of self-interest. The first suggested strategy, conforming to environments, appears especially essential to the interviewees. Each contribute with examples of how QTs can be tailored to support their work:
If we imagine that someone produces a mine with some sort of plastic casing or similar. Then there’s probably still some sort of electronics within the detonation mechanism and if quantum technology can then be used to detect some tiny piece of metal inside, somehow, well – results-wise that would matter very, very much. (Interviewee A)
Here, the interviewee specifically mentions the detection of mines, a primary task for MCM Denmark, as an obvious way where QTs could add value. Interviewee B specifically echoes the idea; Interviewees C and D, meanwhile, focus on auxiliary tasks such as improved filtration capability (Interviewee C) and quantum-based navigation systems (Interviewee D). These elaborate and specific examples thus advocate the importance of both pragmatic legitimacy and the strategy of basing the selection of QTs on operational needs.
The second strategy, selection among environments, encourages the choice of an organization within the DAF that is both technologically capable and sees an advantage in testing and using new technologies. Several of the interviewees, Interviewees A and C among them, describe MCM Denmark as such a technology-curious organization. Furthermore, testing could be conducted jointly by MCM Denmark and the NATO-supported Quantum Centre to foster collaboration, or conducted across multiple relevant units using interservice or intraservice rivalry (Grissom, 2006), to create a military version of the 16 Danish Quantum Use Cases (Danish Business Authority and Danish Quantum Community, 2024). Such experimentations have also been outlined as enabling militaries in general to be more receptive to innovations (Horowitz, 2010). It is worth noting, however, the way that Interviewee D, echoing arguments made by Kuo (2022), contests a single-minded focus on the testing of new technologies; such an approach can be burdensome, they comment, if in the presence of solving operational tasks, even if the individual is (as they describe themselves) motivated to test technologies that aid in the simplification of operational tasks (Interviewee D).
Finally, the third strategy, manipulation of environments, can in this context include promoting QTs across the DAF. To this end, Interviewee A discusses the importance of articulating what QTs are capable of as early as possible; Interviewee C suggests how this can be accomplished by provoking curiosity: “If it’s put in a newsletter or if it’s put in a trade magazine or something, well that would definitely pique my curiosity. New technology, that’s the way forward, as we have been told.” (Interviewee C)
To “pique curiosity” in newsletters, the experiments with the NATO-supported Quantum Centre mentioned above or showcasing military use cases could prove beneficial. However, a newsletter cannot stand alone. Later, the interviewee elaborates on the significance of in-person meetings; these include meetings among enlisted personnel and with specialists from outside the organization (Interviewee C) such as personnel from the Quantum Centre. Similarly, Interviewee A also argues for the benefits of meetings among technicians. Meetings are necessarily conducted by individuals, and are events where people can ask questions – useful for raising awareness of QT. Thus, all three strategies appear instrumental to the achievement of pragmatic legitimacy through a self-interested focus on how QTs can benefit the interviewees in solving their operational tasks.
In the context of QTs and quantum sensors, moral legitimacy does not appear important for the interviewees. Only a single interviewee (Interviewee C) mentions a moral component of motivation, in the relatively broad notion of making everyday life easier for the crew aboard an MCM Denmark ship. In the interviews, certain elements of potential strategies to gain moral legitimacy are mentioned, among them the creation of procedures, pilot projects, and defining goals (Suchman, 1995, pp. 588–592). But as the interviewees do not connect these elements to moral particulars, they cannot be categorized as contingent to moral legitimacy. Signalling user friendliness, technological modernity, and having a low degree of maintenance are important (Interviewee D). These virtues all primarily relate to pragmatic rather than moral legitimacy, indicating moral legitimacy to be a subordinate type.
In this paper, cognitive legitimacy is understood as contingent on QTs being perceived to be comprehensible, or quite simply taken for granted. This may appear challenging for new technology, and the first strategy mitigates this through adaptation to existing models or standards. Notably, this method of adaptation, precisely, is suggested by Interviewee B when describing the importance of standards, in this case data transmitted between a quantum sensor and other components of a network like an AI engine (Interviewee B). Such data protocols and similar standards allow a higher degree of interchangeability of the components and may increase the cognitive legitimacy of the quantum sensor by being viewed as an equal member of the network. Interviewee B subsequently problematizes whether this is currently possible, however; in the DAF, the strategy of conforming to models can also be approached through the creation of doctrines and procedures for the application of a new technology, as exemplified by the doctrine for cyberspace operations (Royal Danish Defence College, 2019).
The interviewees appear to be somewhat conflicted regarding the value added through the creation of a similar quantum doctrine, however. Where Interviewee C associates such a doctrine with added curiosity, a theme shared with pragmatic legitimacy, Interviewee B discusses whether such a doctrine is currently superfluous, even if they are not opposed to formalizing an implementation process of QTs, and later suggests the formation of a coordinating group to monitor technological progress (Interviewee B).
In the second strategy, certification is suggested. This strategy is, however, rarely mentioned by the interviewees in their descriptions of activities to gain legitimacy. Specifically asked to elaborate on their view of certification, Interviewee C prioritizes the usability of the technology over certification. Similarly, Interviewee B expresses skepticism towards results conveyed by external sources such as companies or universities. These two statements thus indicate that the interviewees do not consider certification, especially through external sources, to be an efficient strategy for furthering the legitimacy of QTs.
Finally, cognitive legitimacy of QTs can be gained through the process of institutionalizing – here achieved by promotion and the formulation of positive, nuanced, narratives concerning QT with the intention of forming practical use cases (Danish Business Authority and Danish Quantum Community, 2024) and a counterweight to the hype (Smith III, 2020), avoiding potential disillusionment among users (van der Maarel et al., 2023). Control of the narratives surrounding QTs can strengthen the perception of quantum as a concept among potential users on the way to the desired status of being taken for granted (Suchman, 1995, pp. 582–583). However, to begin such a process, it is necessary to establish how the concept of quantum is currently being perceived –whether it is connected to positive or negative associations. On this subject, the interviewees express conflicting opinions. For Interviewee A, who has not experienced any resistance to technology in MCM Denmark, it is an organization open to new technology; this also applies in the context of QT, which this interviewee does not distinguish from other technologies, perceiving these technologies, rather, to be a matter of better sensors – a capability aligned with the general arc of technological development. For this interviewee, it seems, the concept of quantum is largely neutral and does not appear to form part of a narrative. On the other hand, for Interviewee D, who cannot understand the underlying principles, QTs are distinguishable from other technologies in their cryptic nature. Interviewee D subsequently suggests, however, that more information concerning the technology’s applications could benefit their motivation.
Interviewee C shares these views:
It sounds clever. Because, I think, when it is something to do with quantum, then we are all the way down at the level of the very small. … So I would definitely be very curious to know more about this and learn more about this, if it was called that. (Interviewee C)
Here, the theme of curiosity and the concept of quantum are again linked, indicating that the use of a positive “brand” narrative may serve to increase this interviewee’s motivation. The strategies of conformation and manipulation of environments, then, appear to influence and potentially enhance cognitive legitimacy to a varying degree among the interviewees.
The investigated strategies with potential to gain legitimacy are summarized in Table 3, where each element relates to a specific action relating to the paper’s research question. Moral legitimacy and the intersection of selection among environments and cognitive legitimacy have been omitted on the grounds that the interviewees did not acknowledge them as significant. The “pragmatic legitimacy” row has been framed with double lines to emphasize its importance as the primary type of legitimacy, a status conferred through its close connection to operational needs. This aligns well with the DAF’s essentially task-focused foundation of leadership principles (Forsvaret, 2023b), echoing an emphasis on operational needs.
Table 3
Overview of Strategic Actions (Columns) and Types of Legitimacy (Rows).
| CONFORM TO ENVIRONMENTS | SELECTION AMONG ENVIRONMENTS | MANIPULATION OF ENVIRONMENTS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pragmatic Legitimacy | Select specific quantum technologies that meet operational needs of users. | Select technology-curious organizations for testing and implementing quantum technologies. | Publish newsletters, trade magazine articles, and arrange in-person meetings concerning possible applications of quantum technologies. |
| Cognitive Legitimacy | Conform quantum technologies to existing standards of technology. Formalize the implementation of quantum technologies through procedures and doctrines. | Exploit quantum as a concept to motivate and to pique curiosity. |
[i] Note. Derived from Suchman (1995, p. 600). Each element represents a possible specific strategic action to gain legitimacy based on the analysis in this paper. The row representing pragmatic legitimacy is framed with double lines to emphasize its importance among the interviewees.
Acceptance of Quantum Technologies
Following TAM, we might expect the subjective perception of the usefulness of a given technology to be instrumental to its actual use (Davis, 1985). The general importance of perceived usefulness is emphasized, especially, by Interviewee A. During the testing of a specific underwater vehicle, a mini Remotely Operated Vehicle (mini-ROV) in cooperation with the Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO), the interviewee experienced the following:
So we spend, like I said, half a day doing it, or something like that, and then, we can’t really use it for anything, this thing here. And then we … actually got additional versions later on or … not versions, different types of mini-ROVs, where we said “Well, this is still the same concept. We cannot use this”. (Interviewee A)
This statement is significant as it indicates challenges in the communication between testing stakeholders and potentially faulty feedback mechanisms, with wider organizational consequences worth investigating. It also highlights the importance of incorporating the perspectives of potential users on the usability of a technology to minimize the risk of it being dismissed entirely, however, something particularly important for this study.
How a technology can obtain the status of “useful” was set out by Interviewee C. Even though the interviewee had experienced problems while using the technology in question, they understood its purpose and continued using it since it was perceived to be essential for solving their operational tasks. Interviewee C’s comments indicate that a strong connection between a technology and the user’s operational needs can both foster pragmatic legitimacy and enhance perceived usefulness.
Perceived usefulness is also an important factor in consideration of QT. In a description of a potential first encounter with QTs, Interviewee B envisages a scenario where a quantum sensor system may end up unused, then elaborating on how such an unwanted situation may be avoided, with the sensor eventually becoming the primary technology. This, Interviewee B posits, would be possible if they were to perceive the performance of the quantum sensor as technologically superior – in this hypothetical case, extending the range to 10 times that of a conventional sensor. These considerations suggest that perceived usefulness can enhance the attitude of the interviewee towards the use of the technology, potentially increasing actual system use.
In this light, it is relevant to consider how the interviewees currently perceive the usefulness of QT. Several of the interviewees express a generally positive view of the usefulness of QTs in their responses, tempered by a reluctance related to their lack of subject-related knowledge. This is especially seen in the response from Interviewee A, who both describes QT as something of a buzzword yet believes the technology to be potentially useful. The factor of perceived usefulness, then, appears significant for the interviewees through their perception of the technological performance of QTs in operational settings and can be used to support a potential implementation.
The factor, perceived ease of use, is similarly an influential factor in TAM (Davis, 1985) as well as for the interviewees. The significance of this subjective perception of the user-technology interface is summarized well by Interviewee A: “The ease of use of the software, that’s something that can really make or break, I would say.” To enhance a technology’s ease of use, it is consequently important to investigate the user and the utilization context. In operational settings, Interviewee B describes the need for a technology to be simple to use, “soldier-safe”, a necessity often conflicting with the designs of developers. The statement indicates that, for the interviewee, ease of use in operational settings corresponds to a straightforward technology performing reliably without complicated functions.
In the context of QT, ease of use is a similarly significant consideration. This is specifically mentioned by Interviewee A, who describes it as problematic if the focus is solely on technological aspects of QTs, causing the interface aspect to be overlooked. Interviewee C is also aware of the importance of a simple interface for QTs and considers it necessary that even inexperienced users should be able to operate the technology: expected system use, for this interviewee, will suffer without sufficient perceived ease of use. Furthermore, it is possible for interface development to continue throughout the lifetime of a technology. In previous experiences with new technology, Interviewee B has found initial problems with equipment to be overcome when support and updates are provided. Similarly, Interviewee D has also experienced a close collaboration between DALO and an external company during a test resulting in improved software and ease of use. Together, these statements serve to evidence the importance of considering this factor both in the course of development and, later, while the QT is in use.
The causal correlation between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, as shown in Figure 2, is a subtle point arising from TAM. Interviewee A emphasizes precisely how ease of use precedes usefulness and describes how a technology that is not easy to use may end up being unused altogether. On the other hand, Interviewee C has experienced that operational needs required technologies to be employed despite frustrations including difficulty of use. These statements indicate that the interviewees do not agree on the causal correlation between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, an uncertainty possibly caused by the special operational needs that exist in an organization such as the DAF. This is a perspective warranting further research.
Based on this analysis, a revised version of TAM is shown in Figure 3 to better illustrate the factors and relationships investigated in this paper found to influence the acceptance of QT. Similarly to Figure 2, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use appear instrumental in increasing the acceptance through the performance of QTs in operational settings. The causal relationship between usefulness and ease of use is not included, however, as the analysis has not found unambiguous signs of this correlation. Similarly, factors representing physical aspects of the application of QT, being design features and the actual system use, are omitted since these have been impossible to investigate as QTs are not presently implemented in the DAF.
Figure 3
Revised Technology Acceptance Model Based on the Analysis in this Paper.
Note. Each box reflects a factor in the model; arrows represent correlations between them. Derived from Davis (1985, p. 24).
Correlation Between Legitimacy and Acceptance
As previously discussed, newer research extends beyond design features to address the significance of social and cognitive factors for technology acceptance (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). It is therefore relevant for this paper to examine whether and how the investigated strategies to gain pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy can also influence and potentially improve technology acceptance.
Pragmatic legitimacy appears essential to the interviewees through its close connection to the application of QTs in operational settings. In particular, a number of significant operational needs are mentioned relating to the strategy of conformation to environments, as previously described. By selecting QTs for testing that specifically appear useful as viable solutions to these needs, such strategic actions may both gain pragmatic legitimacy and improve the perceived usefulness of the chosen technologies.
Regarding the connection between pragmatic legitimacy and the strategy of selection among environments, the interviewees suggest MCM Denmark as a suitable technology-curious organization for testing QTs. However, this paper has not found evidence concerning whether or how this selection process can influence technology acceptance among the interviewees.
The third strategy, increasing the knowledge of QTs through written information and in-person meetings, also appears significant for gaining pragmatic legitimacy. To this end, Interviewee A describes how it is important to articulate what QTs will be capable of accomplishing. This interviewee’s statement supports the notion that an increase of pragmatic legitimacy of QTs, achieved through spreading knowledge of their applications, can also improve their perceived usefulness. Moreover, additional benefits relating to in-person meetings are described by Interviewee C in a previous experience with a representative from an external supplier of a technology being used. The interviewee gained technological knowledge in the course of an meeting which, importantly, resulted in actual changes to the technology’s interface, made, on the spot, to accommodate the interviewee. This statement indicates that in-person meetings can improve the perceived ease of use of a given technology. Thus, this set of strategic actions is found to influence and potentially improve both of the two factors for the interviewees depending on the actions chosen.
In the interviews, cognitive legitimacy appears as a secondary but nonetheless important category for some of the interviewees. Concerning the first strategy, two types of actions, conforming to standards and formalizing the implementation of QTs, seem beneficial. As previously discussed, the importance of conforming to existing technological standards is particularly emphasized by Interviewee B, who also describes how such standardization can cause a user to keep having similar interface experiences with a given system, notwithstanding that the underlying technology is changed (Interviewee B). This indicates an enhanced perception of user-friendliness, since the user does not have to learn how to operate a new interface in order to use the technology. On the other hand, perceived ease of use of a new technology in a system may similarly be undermined by an existing interface being cumbersome, thus highlighting the general importance of interface design.
Concerning the formalization of a potential implementation, Interviewee A elaborates how documents of doctrines and procedures can influence the factors of perceived usefulness and ease of use, respectively: “Doctrine, that’s concerning the usefulness of it, and when we get down to, precisely to procedures, well then, one examines the ease of use in order for the usefulness to increase, so to say” (Interviewee A). This statement indicates that formalizing documents can influence both factors depending on which type of document is drafted.
The third strategy, the creation of a positive quantum narrative, appears relevant, if not equally significant for all the interviewees. However, such a narrative may also have implications for the kind of technology acceptance described by Interviewee C, who suggests QTs serve to simplify operational tasks. The statement thus indicates that articulating and spreading narratives concerning quantum solutions to operational problems can improve both the perceived usefulness and cognitive legitimacy of QTs.
The investigated correlations between strategies to gain legitimacy of QTs and the two factors, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, are illustrated in Figure 4. To the left, black boxes represent the investigated strategic actions to gain legitimacy as summarized in Table 3; to the right, red boxes represent investigated factors of TAM as summarized in Figure 3. Arrows represent causal relationships between the investigated factors; the dotted and dashed arrows reflect indicated correlations between legitimacy strategies and perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, respectively. Figure 4 thus represents an interviewee-based synthesis model, combining the legitimacy theory and TAM, and can be used to gain an overview of how strategic actions to gain legitimacy can influence and improve the acceptance of QTs as well.
Figure 4
Synthesis Model Based on the Analysis in this Paper.
Note. The model illustrates correlations between investigated strategic actions to gain legitimacy and factors in the technology acceptance model. Black and red boxes represent strategic actions and factors, respectively, and arrows represent correlations. Derived from Suchman (1995, p. 600) and F. Davis (1985, p. 24).
Discussion
For the investigation conducted in this paper, two theories have been adapted and operationalized (Darmer et al., 2020). Concerning the legitimacy theory, a shift from the legitimacy of an organization to the legitimacy of a technology can result in ambiguities concerning whether strategic actions are narrowly defined as solely emerging from the technology (by fulfilling operational needs, for example) or on behalf of the technology (organizational promotion of certain narratives, for example). Concerning TAM, a technological shift from information systems to untested quantum sensors results in the physical aspects, design features, and actual system use being challenging to analyze, since implementations of QTs remain relatively rare. These challenges have been mitigated, however, by interpreting strategic actions as being conducted by or with the technology in focus, and by only examining the three factors concerning user motivation in TAM.
This investigation has focused on QTs, especially quantum sensors, being one of many emerging and disruptive technologies with future implications for the Danish military (Sweeney et al., 2025). It is no surprise that the formation of a coordinating group was proposed in the interviews to further conceptualize applications and monitor the development of the technologies (Interviewee B). In this process, systematic assessments of QTs become important. These could follow the QT-relevant framework of Quantum Technology and Quantum Commercial Readiness Levels (Purohit et al., 2024) or use methods from the wider literature on technology assessment (Tran & Daim, 2008). Using insights from this study as a starting point, such a group could also apply the DOTMLPF framework mentioned above (Eaton et al., 2016; Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2016), adoption-capacity theory (Horowitz, 2010), or other military innovation models (Grissom, 2006) for analyses of QTs’ relevance and its potential for implementation across the DAF, while balancing competition from other technologies and the risks associated with harmful innovation (Kuo, 2022).
To represent potential end users of QTs, this paper has interviewed officers of MCM Denmark. The findings thus reflect perceptions of legitimacy and acceptance based on each interviewee’s social frame. As a single-case study with a limited number of interviewees, for the sake of applicability it is therefore important to place the findings in the wider context of the DAF. While several civilian use cases of QTs in Denmark have already been showcased (Danish Business Authority and Danish Quantum Community, 2024), a QT-coordinating group, as mentioned above, could also investigate QT applications across multiple military units and raise awareness. Additionally, beyond the potential users investigated in this study, a coordinating group could make contact with other stakeholders including decision-makers and maverick officers (Grissom, 2006). The technology perceptions of these stakeholders can differ significantly from those of end users (van der Maarel et al., 2023), if nonetheless essential for the innovation process (Adamsky, 2010) including the selection of which QTs, if any, are to be implemented across the DAF. This paper thus investigates a single, yet important, part of a potential QT implementation process.
Conclusion
In this paper, experiences concerning quantum technologies (QTs) have been investigated through a potential user group in Mine Counter Measures Denmark. The analysis indicates that the legitimacy of these technologies is closely connected to their use in operational settings, emphasizing pragmatic as the primary type of legitimacy. Strategic actions, such as the careful selection of relevant QTs and technology-curious user groups based on operational needs have been identified. Further, the analysis shows perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, factors with potential to improve attitudes towards the use of technologies, to be important to the interviewees. These factors are connected to the performance of QTs in operational settings through things such as technological superiority, reliability, and simplicity. Finally, the analysis indicates that four of the five identified strategic actions to gain legitimacy can influence the technology acceptance of QTs through either perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, or both. These findings may be practically realized through the formation of a coordinating QT group tasked with monitoring technological developments, investigating potential use cases, performing analyses, facilitating dialogue between relevant stakeholders, and raising QT awareness across the Danish Armed Forces (DAF).
Through the exploration of user perspectives, this paper thus contributes with novel insights relevant for implementations of QTs in the DAF. Future research may investigate alternative potential user groups using complementary theoretical frameworks to provide new perspectives on QTs. Furthermore, it is relevant to investigate how QTs relate to other emerging and disruptive technologies in the perspectives of potential users. Such investigations may identify common trends and contrasts and thereby strengthen the general development and implementation of emerging technologies in the DAF.
Acknowledgements
This paper is the extension of a Diploma Thesis from The Royal Danish Defence College (Skou, 2024). The author thanks all involved interviewees and Stefan Sternfoss for invaluable guidance. Additionally, the author thanks Nils Byg Jørgensen and all editors and referees involved in the review process for their constructive feedback.