This study addresses the question of what factors determine acceptance and adoption of processes in the context of Information Technology (IT) software development projects. This specific context was selected because processes required for managing software development projects are less prescriptive than in other, more straightforward, IT contexts. Adopting a process that affects how well custom software is developed and implemented may be different from would be required in the IT Infrastructure field. Levels of acceptance and adoption are ascertained using the Unified Theory of the Use and Acceptance of Technology (UTAUT) model first proposed by Venkataesh, Morris, Davis & Davis (2003), combining several technology acceptance models into one that demonstrated the best fit for studying acceptance of technology. As suggested by Venkatesh (Venkatesh, 2006) in a later study, the model was applied to the study of process acceptance. Like the original study, this was based on a survey sent to IT software development project practitioners who had actually worked on projects within two months of conducting the study. Results show that effort expectancy, attitude, social influence, facilitating conditions, and self-efficacy are significant determinants for accepting process; and that attitude in particular is a determinant of process adoption. The original study on technology acceptance found that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions were significant. While the studies agree on significance of effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, this study found that self-efficacy and attitude are also significant, and that performance expectancy is not. Attitude, in particular, demonstrated that the respondents show that processes have also been adopted as a way of doing business. Implications are that determinants are somewhat different for technology and process acceptance in the context of software development projects. While performance expectancy is significant for accepting technology, it was not found to be significant for this group of people when applied to process. Developing process should not be a goal in itself, managed by professional consultants, but rather developed in context by practitioners with the guidance of process professionals to ensure process "fit" for the work being done. Further study should be conducted to determine the appropriate level of process design and development that provides value to the client. Additional study should also be conducted in other context areas of IT, such as Infrastructure Management. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]