Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Government Information Quarterly 24 (2007) 691–715

Editorial

Interorganizational information integration: A key enablerfor digital government

1. Introduction

Digital government, e-government, and e-governance: all are terms that have becomesynonymous with the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) ingovernment agencies. Regardless of the label, digital government has become a prominentstrategy for government administrative reform (Fountain, 2001; Heeks, 1999; Kraemer &King,2003). E-government projects can potentially increase the quality of government services,generate financial savings, and improve the effectiveness of government policies and programs(Gant, Gant, & Johnson, 2002; Garson, 2004; Holmes, 2001; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001).Many scholars agree that realizing some of the most promising benefits from the use of ICTs ingovernment relies upon the integration of information across organizational boundaries(Caffrey, 1998; Cresswell, Canestraro, Canestraro, Pardo, & Schneider, 2004; Cresswell,Pardo, Thompson, & Canestraro, et al., 2002; Dawes, 1996; Dawes & Pardo, 2002; Gil-García,Schneider, Pardo, & Cresswell, 2005).

The central role of information integration in realizing the benefits of digital government andthe breadth and depth of the challenges facing governments as they seek to use and shareinformation serve as the catalysts for this symposium issue. In a simple conceptualization,information integration allows managers to work at the same time, with the same informationdrawn from multiple disparate sources. In a more complex form, it has the potential to supportthe transformation of organizational structures and communication channels between andamong multiple agencies working in different locations. It requires radical technical andorganizational process and behavior changes for the individuals and organizations involved(Pardo, Gil-Garcia, & Burke, 2006). Each of the six full-length papers contribute to ourunderstanding of the theoretical and practical implications of cross-boundary informationintegration in the public sector. Collectively they make a specific contribution to the creation ofa global perspective on cross-boundary information integration and its role in digitalgovernment initiatives around the world, presenting research from Mexico, the United

0740-624X/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.08.004

692 Editorial

Kingdom, and the United States. One article, focusing on the American Tribal Nations,provides insight into yet another complex context in which information integration is central tothe efforts of tribal agencies to use ICTs to “level the playing field” for members. In addition tothe full-length papers, the issue includes two vignettes about ongoing digital governmentinitiatives which illustrate China's current information integration capability. The first vignetteoutlines an e-government research project focused on information integration funded by theNational Natural Science Foundation in China, while the second is a mini-case study of aninformation sharing effort from the government of Haishu district in NingBo city, ZhejiangProvince.

Much of the work underway in the field of digital government explores the potential ofInformation and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to increase the value of government asan asset to citizens. One important method for increasing value is the implementation ofinterorganizational information integration. When government organizations share informa-tion, a wide variety of benefits (and barriers) emerge. This symposium issue draws on theresearch many scholars have pioneered in interorganizational information integration andextends it by bringing together new awareness of this phenomenon. The extension is madepossible through the hard work and talent of the authors of the articles presented here and ofthe unnamed reviewers who contributed their time to provide comprehensive and constructivefeedback to the authors. We would like to acknowledge them all for the time and attentiongiven to the work presented here.

This article1 opens the symposium issue by highlighting some current investments in thecreation of a research community focused on information sharing and integration. It thenmoves to the introduction of a conceptual framework which is used to introduce each of thecontributions. The article closes with a set of recommendations for a research agenda ininterorganizational information integration. The agenda, compiled from the insights of thecontributing authors, highlights outstanding questions of common interest to both researchersand practitioners and lays out a set of opportunities for creating new understanding aboutinterorganizational information integration as a key enabler for digital government.

2. An emerging international research community

A growing emphasis on the use of cross-boundary information sharing and integration insupport of government programs along with a growing recognition of the complexity of theseefforts has resulted in increased research investments in this area. In the recent past a number ofagencies from the U.S. Federal Government, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF),the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services, have invested in

1 This article draws on the work of the Center for Technology in Government including the original NSFproposal for ITR Grant # 0205152. In particular, the ideas of Anthony Cresswell, Sharon Dawes, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and G. Brian Burke in conceptualizing and examining information integration and sharing in governmentagencies are incorporated into this discussion. In addition, their related published works are cited throughout thepaper.

693Editorial

research about how government agencies at different levels share, transfer, and integrateinformation. Similar investments are being made in the European Union both at theCommission level and by individual member states. China is also funding major explorationsin this area through the National Natural Science Foundation2 and the State InformationCenter. Mexico is also recognizing the need for new knowledge about information integrationand is funding research through organizations such as the National Council for Science andTechnology (CONACYT).3 New programs are beginning to respond to the cross-boundarynature of information integration and providing the opportunity to build internationalcollaborations around these critical questions. One such program, funded by the U.S. NSF,provides support for international working groups in this area. The North American DigitalGovernment Working Group, for example, is focused on comparative and transnationalinformation sharing and integration research with members from Canada, the U.S., andMexico.

Academic conferences are increasingly providing a venue for the sharing of research andpractice about cross-boundary information integration. In particular, the International DigitalGovernment Research Conference (dg.o 2008)4, the annual event of the Digital GovernmentSociety of North America5; the e-Government Track of the Hawaiian InternationalConference on System Sciences (HICSS)6; the EGOV07 Conference, the annual conferenceof the European eGovernment Society7; and the newest, the International Conference onTheory and Practice of Egovernance (ICEGOV), organized by the United NationsUniversity International Institute for Software Technology and the Center for Technologyin Government.8

The results of all of these efforts can be found in the growing body of knowledge aboutcross-boundary information sharing and integration in the areas of leadership (Eglene, Dawes,& Schneider, 2003, 2007; Gil-Garcia, Pardo, & Burke, 2007; Demercivi, Thompson, & Bodor,2004), trust (Pardo, Gil-Garcia, et al., 2006; Thompson, Canestraro, & Demercivi, 2004;Cresswell, Pardo, Thompson, & Zhang, 2002), perceptions and measures of success (Zhang &Dawes, 2006; Zhang, Dawes, et al., 2005; Zhang, Cresswell, & Thompson, 2004; Zhang,Cresswell, & Thompson, 2002), interorganizational relations (Pardo, Cresswell, Thompson, &Zhang, 2006; Cooren, Thompson, Canestraro, & Bodor, 2006; Pardo et al., in press; Pardo &Burke, 2005; Canestraro & Mojtahedzadeh, 2004; Cresswell, Canestraro, Canestraro, Pardo,& Schneider, 2004; Zhang, Pardo, et al., 2005; Cresswell, Pardo, Dawes, & Kelly, 2000;Pardo, Cresswell, Zhang, & Thompson, 2001; LaVigne, 2003; Le et al., 2001a,b; Miller &Thompson, 2000; Thompson et al., 2000a; 2000b; Zhang, Faerman, & Cresswell, 2006;Dawes, 2001; Cresswell, Pardo et al., 2001; Cresswell & Zhang, 2000; Dawes, 2000),organizational change and governance structures (Luna-Reyes et al., 2004a,b; Pardo,

2 http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/newnsfc03/default99.htm.3 http://www.conacyt.mx/.4 http://www.dgo2008.org/.5 http://www.dgsociety.org/index.php.6 www.hicss.hawaii.edu.7 http://www.egov-society.org/.8 www.icegov.org.

694 Editorial

Cresswell, Dawes, & Burke, 2004; Bodor, Thompson, & Demercivi, 2004; Chattopadhyay,Glick, & Huber, 2001), connections between research and practice (Luna-Reyes et al., 2005;Cresswell, 2001; Cresswell & Pardo, 2001; Dawes, 2003a,b), action research methods (Eglene& Dawes, 2006; Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006), the application of system dynamics to theorydevelopment in cross-boundary collaboration (Black, Cresswell, Pardo, Thompson,Canestraro, Cook, M., 2003; Cresswell, Canestraro et al., 2001; Cresswell, Pardo, Thompson,Canestraro, et al., 2002), and program evaluation (Dawes & Pardo, 2006).

These efforts and others both draw on and contribute to current conceptualizations ofinformation sharing and integration. The following section introduces the conceptualization ofinterorganizational information integration guiding the program of work underway at theCenter for Technology in Government9 (CTG) at the University at Albany as a framework tointroduce the articles in this issue.

3. Conceptualizing interorganizational information integration

Information integration (1) is a critical component in the design and implementation ofseveral advanced information technologies, such as data mining and visualization; (2)involves phenomena and theoretical frameworks in several disciplines; and (3) is a lynch pinin a substantial range of IT use in critical public policy areas such as public safety,environmental protection, crisis response and management, and health care. Organizationsmust establish and maintain collaborative relationships in which knowledge sharing is criticalto resolving numerous issues related to data definitions and structures, diverse databasedesigns, highly variable data quality, and incompatible network infrastructure. Theseintegration processes often involve new work processes and significant organizationalchange. They are also embedded in larger political and institutional environments that shapetheir goals and circumscribe their choices.

Integrating and sharing information across traditional government boundaries involvescomplex interactions among and with technical and organizational processes. From atechnical perspective, system designers and developers must regularly overcome problemsrelated to the existence of multiple platforms, diverse database designs and data structures,highly variable data quality, and incompatible network infrastructure (Ambite & Knoblock,1997; Krishnan, Li, Steier, & Zhao, 2001). From an organizational perspective, thesetechnical processes often involve new work processes, mobilization of limited resources,and evolving interorganizational relationships (Davenport, 1993; Fountain, 2001). Thesenecessary changes are influenced by specific types of social interaction, which take theform of group decision making, learning, understanding, trust building, and conflictresolution, among others (Chua, 2002; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996; Wastell,1999). They are also embedded in larger political and institutional environments, and hence

9 http://www.ctg.albany.edu.

695Editorial

may require policy changes to enable, promote, and permit data and technology sharing,information management, and other activities to facilitate information integration.

Information integration as well as information sharing offers organizations a greatercapacity to share information across organizational boundaries, to discover patterns andinteractions, and to make better informed decisions based on more complete data (Dawes,1996). The specific benefits of information integration include increased productivity,improved decision making, reduced costs, increased revenues, and integrated services (Gil-García & Pardo, 2005). The nature of these benefits varies, however, from organization toorganization and according to characteristics of specific contexts. Understanding the type ofinformation sharing being pursued and the challenges associated with achieving the statedobjectives is important to understanding the benefits organizations can expect to realize.However, there are certain types of benefits that can be expected in almost any informationintegration or information sharing initiative. Dawes (1996) classifies these benefits into threecategories: technical, organizational, and political:

1. Technical benefits are those related to data processing and information management. Forinstance, information integration reduces duplicate data collection, processing, and storageand therefore reduces data processing costs that attend every public program (Caffrey,1998). An information integration initiative can also promote better standards and sharedtechnical resources.

2. Organizational benefits are related to the solution of agency-wide problems or the en-hancement of organizational capabilities. Improving the decision making process, broadeningprofessional networks, improving coordination, increasing the quality of services, andreducing costs are some examples of organizational benefits (Andersen & Dawes, 1991; Gil-García & Pardo, 2005).

3. Political benefits might include better appreciation for government-wide policy goals, morepublic accountability, more comprehensive public information, integrated planning, andservice delivery (Andersen & Dawes, 1991). Political benefits can also be considered asindividual benefits for public officials as a result of the use of specific technologycharacteristics or applications.

In light of these benefits, government executives are leading agency efforts to integrateinformation resources across agency boundaries, across levels of government and acrossgovernmental jurisdictions. However, while armedwith themost advanced IT in the world, theyare finding the task exceedingly difficult, leading to serious problems, quick disintegration, oroutright failures (Dawes & Pardo, 2002; Fountain, 2001). Moreover, the difficulty thatgovernment agencies face appears to increase proportionally with the increases in the number ofboundaries to be crossed, the number and type of information resources to be shared, and thenumber of technical and organizational processes to be changed or integrated.

These difficulties result from the reality that integrating information ultimately involveslarge parts, if not the whole, of an enterprise or policy domain. This situation is made evenmore challenging by the fact that these enterprises differ greatly. Those involved in integrationinitiatives must be aware of the implications of those differences as they look to their

Fig. 1. Information integration complexity matrix.

696 Editorial

colleagues for guidance and best practices. For instance, some initiatives focus on a specificproblem while others focus on building systemic capacity. First presented by Gil-García et al.(2005), the Information Integration Complexity Matrix (see Fig. 1) provides a mechanism forclarifying the context of a cross-boundary information sharing initiative and identifying therelated complexities. The first dimension refers to the focus of the initiative, which can bemeeting a specific need or problem or building systemic capacity. The second dimension takesinto consideration the associated level of organizational involvement with three categories ofinvolvement: intraorganizational, interorganizational, and intergovernmental. Without over-simplifying the important factors contributing to the success of an information integrationinitiative, there seems to be a logical progression of complexity. The challenges include dataand technical incompatibility, the lack of institutional incentives to collaborate, and the powerstruggles around multi-organizational settings in government. These challenges stretch beyonda single discipline and a single theoretical lens. Therefore, to understand the complex rela-tionships among technology, government bureaucracy and institutions, as well as the surroundingpolitical, social, economic, and cultural environments, it is necessary to draw on multipledisciplines and combine diverse lenses. The research underway at the Center for Technology inGovernment and elsewhere is providing new models and frameworks for understanding andstudying information integration as a key enabler of digital government.

4. Perspectives on information integration

Social processes such as decision making, collaboration, and conflict resolution arecritical components of integration. Social processes interact with resources (e.g., ar-chitecture frameworks, political will, and interorganizational policies) to produce in-tegration artifacts (e.g., integrated system architecture; standards and data definitions;interoperable hardware; and revised architecture frameworks). Studying these social andtechnical interactions is beginning to offer very valuable theoretical and practitioner insightinto how social processes influence and are influenced by interorganizational informationintegration.

697Editorial

Sociotechnical theory emerged from the work of Trist in the 1950s and 1960s to provide aframework for joining the social and technical perspectives of organizational study. Thisfoundational work relies on two essential premises: “In a purposive organization in whichpeople are required to perform functions, there is a joint system operating: a social and atechnical system. The performance of an organization is a function of the fit between these twosystems. Second, every sociotechnical system is embedded in an environment that is in-fluenced by a culture and its values and sets of generally accepted practices, and the envi-ronment permits certain roles for organizations, groups, and people” (VandeVen & Joyce,1981).

Integration processes often involve new work processes and significant organizationalchange. Moreover, designing and implementing cross-agency information integration is alengthy process, involving learning and evolving interorganizational relationships. The socialand technical processes of interorganizational information integration can be modeled in waysthat improve our understanding of information system development and of interorganizationalcollaboration and therefore capture some of the “learning,” which is generated from theintegration effort itself.

The research underway at CTG views information integration holistically, as embedded infour different but related contexts. Each has related theoretical perspectives useful for studyinginformation integration processes. The contexts are nested as shown in Fig. 2 below. Thefigure illustrates how a specific technology solution for integration, which relies on theconcepts and techniques of computer and information science, depends also on connectionsand interactions with the relevant business practices of the involved organizations. These, inturn, involve work flows, information flows, and decision processes in each organization. Theinteraction and adaptation of business processes across organizations is shaped in large part byother elements of the larger multi-organizational setting (such as resource sharing and trust),which can be studied from the perspective of interorganizational relationships andcollaborative structures. These relationships and structures are influenced, in turn, by factorsin their shared environment. At this macro level, influences can be examined from theperspectives of such fields as political science. Each of these four contexts are summarizedbelow.

Fig. 2. Contexts of information integration.

698 Editorial

4.1. Interorganizational information integration as a process

Our comprehensive review of research in information integration led us to conceptualizeintegration across distributed information sources and organizational boundaries as a complexsocial process in which technological and organizational artifacts are developed and assembledfor the purpose of information use (see Fig. 3).

These social and technical processes are embedded in four contexts: technology, businessprocess, interorganizational, and political. Therefore, advancing understanding of informationintegration must be viewed as a multi-disciplinary undertaking. Such a multi-disciplinaryperspective can enhance government leaders and IT professionals' ability to look beyondtraditional organizational and information systems technology boundaries. This ability iscritical to the success of their information integration initiatives.

4.1.1. The technology contextIssues of meaning and semantic translation are central to integrating and sharing information

from diverse, distributed sources such as data bases, text files, images, or Web sites. Solving thetechnical problems of access and use of information from these diverse sources typically involvesdevelopment of standards, platform and application interoperability, metadata, and use ofalgorithms and other software devices. These address the problems resulting from unstructuredtextual information and natural language names for objects and data by developing automatedmatching methods (e.g., Cohen, 2000; Reiss, 1996). Other techniques involve constructingsystems of ontologies that provide the underlying structure for alignment of meanings acrossheterogeneous data bases (Ambite & Knoblock, 1997; Hsu & Knoblock, 2000; Krishnan et al.,

Fig. 3. Relationship of integration components.

699Editorial

2001). These methods have the potential to greatly reduce the cost of manual search andtranslation processes, making automated searching and matching of heterogeneous data feasiblein large database environments. However, these methods will not in themselves resolve issues ofagreement about the significance or use of integrated data or problems of policy in the publicsector (Safai-Amini, 2000).

The changing and expanding use of data in governmental and private organizationsdemands increased attention to all the components of data quality—accuracy, timeliness,consistency, and completeness (Tayi & Ballou, 1998). Until recently, this attention wasconfined to improving the quality of data generated and used within single organizations.Today, the effectiveness of both public and private organizations often depends on dataexchanges with others. As more organizations deploy and use communication networks intheir day-to-day processes, sharing and integrating data across institutions becomes moreattractive and more feasible (Naumann, Leser, & Freytag, 1999). However, integratinglarge amounts of data that often differ in form, as well as organizational and geographicalorigin, poses myriad challenges in ensuring the quality of the integrated data. Theseproblems arise because the integrated data reveals broad inconsistencies in definition,content, and overall quality, even when the individual data sources appear to be valid(Ballou & Pazer, 1995). Moreover, data quality cannot be evaluated, and hence improved,independently of the context in which data are produced, stored, and used. Whether dataare of high quality depends on the characteristics of the resulting integrated informationinfrastructure and on the demands of the tasks that use these data (Strong, Lee, & Wang,1997).

4.1.2. The business process contextThe tasks and production processes of complex organizations have been the subject of

research since the early 20th century when Taylor (1911) offered his principles of scientificmanagement that so strongly influenced the structure and functional specialization ofbusiness and government organizations. Work processes, including decision processes, haveinterested contemporary scholars especially as they relate to productivity and informationtechnology. Hammer and Champy (1993) contend that, over time, processes lose theirconnection to productive purposes and become rigid and self-perpetuating. Productivitybreakthroughs demand radical re-engineering of entire organizations. Taking a less dramaticview, Davenport (1993) recognizes the intractability of complex organizations andadvocates more selective process innovation, coupled with applications of advanced ITto achieve performance improvements. Zuboff (1984) studied the infusion of informationtechnology into work processes and the effects that the technology has on the discretion ofworkers, the means of process control, and the meaning of work. Information systems arecommonly understood to embed processes and information flows in complex software,which becomes difficult to change and has strong influences on the work of theorganization and its employees, managers, and leaders. Information integration demandsthat the work processes of multiple organizations be both understood and mutuallyadjusted. However, the development of separate operating procedures, control mechanisms,information flows, and work flows makes such integration exceedingly difficult, leading to

700 Editorial

serious problems, quick disintegration, or outright failures of information system initiativesthat depend on not only information integration, but process integration (Fountain, 2001;Dawes & Pardo, 2006).

4.1.3. The interorganizational contextSharing and integrating information among organizations depends on the creation and

maintenance of interorganizational relationships. The formation of these relationships, involvingdiffering goals and interests, requires negotiations and the development of commitment amongparticipants (Larson, 1992; Nathan & Mitroff, 1991; Pardo et al., 2001; Ring & Van de Ven,1994). The strength and richness of resource commitments and their distribution can beinfluential (Burt, 1997; Hart & Saunders, 1997). The development and maintenance of therelationships may also be critically dependent on trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Dodgson, 1993;Gulati, 1995; Kumar, vanDissel, & Bielli, 1998; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Powellet al., 1996; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Knowledge and information sharing amongorganizations is also characterized by substantial risk, resource constraints, and conflict(Bloomfield, Westerling, & Carey, 1998; Hardy & Phillips, 1998). Some risk and conflict comesfrom the differences in expectations and goals the various parties bring to the sharing process(Andersen, Belardo, & Dawes, 1994; Dawes, 1996; Han, 1998). These differing expectationsmay reflect each party's individual and organizational history (Hosmer, 1995; McCaffrey,Faerman, & Hart, 1995), or simply variations in the characteristics of the individuals ororganizations (Dawes et al., 1997). Interorganizational relationships are also influenced by thecharacteristics of the problem or goal motivating the activity. Interorganizational relationshipsmay result from mandates, common interests (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994), interdependence (Hill& Hellriegel, 1994; Logsdon, 1991), or from the need to resolve a variety of different problemsituations (Dawes, 1995). In addition, there may be substantial disagreement among potentialparticipants about the level or exact nature of the problem to be addressed (Dawes, Pardo,Connelly, Green, & McInerney, 1997). Interorganizational networks in the public sector havetraditionally been studied as political structures (Green, 1978; Navarro, 1984; Walker, 1981;Warwick, 1975; Wright, 1978) and more recently as dynamic operational partnerships (forexample,Milward& Provan, 1998; Provan&Milward, 1995). The bureaucratic and institutionalissues surrounding interorganizational networks in the public sector have also gained interestfrom the research community (Bardach, 1998; Fountain, 2001).

4.1.4. The political contextThe political environment of government agencies exerts strong institutional and

situational influences on information integration. A focus on government organizationsrequires attention to bureaucratic and political theories. Most government activity is definedand funded through legislation that creates specific programs and assigns responsibility forthose programs to specific agencies. This Web of vertical relationships leads agencies tofocus on their own programs rather than on cross-boundary issues or linkages with outsideorganizations. These program boundaries are powerful barriers to collaboration (Bardach,1998; Osborne & Gabler, 1992). Agency staff develop deep knowledge and expertise in theirrespective programs and protect their ability to act with discretion and autonomy (Rourke,

701Editorial

1978). Since information integration may subject agencies to external evaluation andcriticism, agencies seldom regard program information as an asset of the whole agency, theentire government, or the public (Dawes, 1995). Since cooperation across organizationsimplies joint responsibility and shared control, it often involves coordination, monitoring andfeedback that can potentially damage legitimacy and integrity if cooperation fails (Weiss,1987). Dawes (1995) contends some of these barriers can be lessened by policies thatencourage information use and stewardship (rather than ownership) and by the creation ofpractical tools, such as metadata inventories and standardized data sharing agreements.Landsbergen and Wolken (1998) propose similar tools, including an economic model, to helpagencies identify costs and benefits of information integration. Citing the experiences ofinformation technology initiatives sponsored by the National Partnership for ReinventingGovernment, Fountain (2001) maintains that strong institutional pressures and existingincentives and resource allocation patterns mitigate against even the most highly visible andpolitically popular integration efforts.

5. Mapping the papers to the information integration perspectives

The six papers in this issue each present new insights into the complexities of inter-organizational information integration and its particular role as an enabler of digitalgovernment. Taken together, the articles highlight both the value of looking acrossdisciplines, domains, and context to create a holistic understanding of the phenomenon ofinformation integration (see Table 1), as well as to see how interdisciplinary perspectives arecentral to the study and practice of cross-boundary information integration. Each articleaddresses these issues from a unique perspective and theoretical framework. Through the useof system prototypes, models of information and process modeling, case studies,and typology development, the authors provide a multitude of strategies for extendingunderstanding of information integration. Collectively they create new appreciation for theinterdependencies among the social and technical factors that make information integrationefforts so complex. Individually they contribute to our thinking about specific contexts.While each paper addresses information integration from multiple contexts, a primarycontext was selected for the purpose of this introductory discussion.

The two sidebars on digital government research and practice in China provide a cha-racterization of the challenges facing Chinese government officials as they wrestle withinformation sharing and integration efforts. The first, provided by Shiyang Yu, illustrates thebenefits China is realizing from effective sharing of information across the boundariesof organizations. The Ningbo 81890 Center provides an exemplary model of the use ofinformation and technology to increase service to citizens. Further, the vignette also serves tohighlight the notable similarities between this effort and other citizen-centered call centersaround the world, such as Service New Brunswick in Canada10 and Baltimore, Maryland's

10 http://www.snb.ca/e/0001e.asp and http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/proi_case_service.

Table 1Studying interorganizational information integration

Focus Authors Domain Country Context

1 Integration of data to support higherlevels of e-government

Steven Holden Water qualitymanagement

UnitedStates

Technology

2 Technical approaches formulti-dimensional spatialinformation integration

Hongxia Wang, YonghuiSong, Andy Hamilton,Steve Curwell

Urbanplanning

UnitedKingdom

Technology

3 Exchange and integration of performanceinformation and how it influencesinterorganizational relationships andend-to-end service performance

Thomas Horan andBenjamin Schooley

Emergencyresponse

UnitedStates

Businessprocess

4 Cross-jurisdictional and cross-functionale-government collaboration

Jane Fedorowiz,Janis L. Gogan, andChristine B. Williams

Criminaljustice

UnitedStates

Interorganizational

5 Institutional arrangements andorganizational structures asdisincentives to trust and collaboration

Luis F. Luna-Reyes, J.Ramon Gil-Garcia, andCinthia Betiny Cruz

GovernmentWeb sites

Mexico Political

6 Information asymmetry Gavin Clarkson,Trond Jacobsen,and Archer Batcheller

Capitalmarketsand lawenforcement

UnitedStatesTribalNations

Political

702 Editorial

311 system.11 The vignette highlights the key characteristics of the system and the value it hasdelivered to citizens. In the second sidebar, Pengzhu Zhang and Fan Jing briefly introduce therole of e-government in China's recent governmental reforms. Zhang and Jing characterizethree information sharing contexts to set the stage for their major research project funded bythe National Natural Science Foundation in China.

In their piece, “Semantic Integration of Government Data for Water Quality Management,”Holden et al. focus on the integration of data supporting water quality management. Due tofederal legislation, states, territories, and select tribal nations are required to report informationon water quality (ranging in detail from chemical to physical properties) to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency in two-year cycles. Potential integration problems exist inboth the reporting and interpretation of these data sets. Holden describes a prototype systemdesigned to integrate dispersed data into user profiles to support decision making amonggovernment managers. The paper contributes to the technical context of informationintegration research by outlining techniques to integrate numerous water quality monitoringdata sources, resolve data disparities, and retrieve data using semantic relationships amongdata sources.

In “Urban Information Integration for Advanced e-Planning in Europe,” Hongxia Wang,Yonghui Song, Andy Hamilton, and Steve Curwell provide a second look at informationintegration from a technical context. They draw on the ongoing work of two EuropeanUnion Funded projects, IntelCities and VEPS, to explore the process of creating electronic

11 https://baltimore.customerservicerequest.org/web_intake_balt/Controller.

703Editorial

services in support of e-Planning initiatives of the British government. The authors introducethe UK e-Government Interoperability Framework and the European Union Program“Interoperable Delivery of European e-Government Services to Public AdministrationsBusinesses and Citizens (IDABC). They also outline ongoing efforts related to the developmentof spatial data infrastructures at the national, regional, and global levels. The paper focuses ontechnical approaches for multi-dimensional information integration, with a particular focus onspatial information integration, by highlighting a demonstration system developed as part of theIntelCities project. Wang et al. propose that Building Data Integration System (BDIS)demonstrates the type of multi-dimensional systems likely to be used in future urban infor-mation systems.

With the third paper in the issue, “Towards End-to-End Government Performance Manage-ment: Case Study of Inter-Organizational Information Integration in Emergency MedicalServices (EMS),” the discussion shifts from a technical to a business process context. ThomasHoran and Benjamin Schooley employ process flow and information flow analysis across achain of dispatchers and responders in emergency services to understand how the exchangeand integration of performance information influences interorganizational governance,organizational relationships, and ultimately end-to-end service performance. Through theuse of a sociotechnical framework, their findings indicate the importance of defining andcoding organizational and interorganizational performance metrics and data elements at theoutset of an initiative, as well as forming a governance structure for this critical cross-boundarydecision process.

In their contribution, “An Information-Sharing Platform for First Responder Collaboration:Lessons from the CapWINCase,” Jane Fedorowiz, Janis Gogan, and ChristineWilliams extendthe reach of the symposium issue by bringing the external environment and interorganizationalcollaboration into the discussion of the challenges of information integration as an enabler ofdigital government. Their interpretive case study of the early stages of the formation ofCapWIN, a cross-jurisdictional, cross-functional government collaboration, examines how theperceptions of participating organizations and their employees will affect the extent and natureof system use. In particular, they found employee understanding of the rationale for aninteragency collaboration to be a determining factor in system use. The authors urge others toundertake longitudinal interpretive case studies of IOS that take a multi-level holistic view thatgoes beyond cross-sectional survey style research as a strategy for further revealing theimportant interagency collaboration issues.

In “Collaborative Digital Government in Mexico: Some Lessons from Federal Web-BasedInterorganizational Information Integration Initiatives,” Luis Luna-Reyes, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Cinthia Betiny Cruz draw attention to the political context of informationintegration. Their case study of the Mexican Federal Government explores the impact ofinstitutional arrangements and organizational structures on the cross-agency collaborationefforts necessary in interorganizational information integration. A study of the initial efforts inMexico to create interoperable e-Government and information integration among severalfederal agencies supports their exploration of key institutional characteristics and collaborationprocesses. In their paper, they highlight the criticality of collaboration and the challenge tomanagers in understanding collaborative approaches due to a lack of existing models. They

704 Editorial

draw on findings about the importance of context to collaborative efforts and therefore to theimportance of understanding the influence of institutions on collaboration. Their case studyprovides insights about the unique differences in the institutional environment of LatinAmerican in terms of collaboration and information integration relative to the developed world.

Gavin Clarkson, Trond Jacobsen, and Archer Batcheller provide the final contribution tothe symposium with their article that illustrates the challenges of sharing informationacross political boundaries. Their paper, “Information Asymmetry and InformationSharing,” a research in progress piece, begins to shed light on the concept of informationasymmetry and its potential role in contributing to underdevelopment and inequality; theircases in domestic violence and tribal finance provide the foundation for the developmentof a typology to classify information asymmetry into two categories—horizontal andvertical. They propose that solutions to the problems created by information asymmetrymay be found in continued examination of horizontal asymmetry among tribes and verticalinformation sharing between tribes and other sovereign nations.

6. An interorganizational information integration research agenda

Building on previous efforts and new insights, each paper includes recommendations forfuture research. Collectively these recommendations outline a comprehensive agenda forfurther work in interorganizational information integration. The agenda includes the creationof new theory and new strategies for system and process implementation. Specific focus areasinclude new methodological approaches, new understanding of context, and new strategies forassessing return on investment, conducting performance measurement, and transferringtechnology. The agenda includes attention to a wide range of issues including evolving userneeds, architectures, visualization, collaboration, trust, and governance.

A number of the articles call for multi-method studies as a strategy for addressing thecomplexity of information integration and sharing. Horan et al. propose adding simulations as antool for exploring how information at varying points in service delivery could impact end-to-endperformance. Federowicz et al. call for new longitudinal case studies, which can address “the ebband flow of issues and challenges as collaborative networks evolve, to reveal typical interactionpatterns among these factors at different moments in the life of a collaborative network.”

Several of the authors call for research focused on extracting detailed understandingof context. First as a way to understand behavior, and second as a way to design better systems.Fedorwicz et al. call for studies that produce better understanding of how champions useevents and crises to set in motion a political agenda for change and what types of governancestructures are most effective and flexible in meeting and balancing participants' needs over thelife of a project. Horan et al. call for studies that focus on extracting the detailed context ofhealth care work practices and processes to inform the design and development of moreappropriate IT systems for these environments. Luna et al. call for further research into thedynamics of collaboration, trust, institutions, and organizations and the role they play in moretraditional (supply only) e-government initiatives.

Research to inform strategy is outlined in several of the papers, both in the context of systemdesign and in technology transfer. In the tribal context, Clarkson et al. call for research into the

705Editorial

role directionality of an information asymmetry plays in dictating the strategic responsenecessary for resolving the asymmetry. Holden calls for the examination of strategies forresponding to the emerging and evolving needs of users as they gain familiarity with thecapabilities of a system. Research into enhanced views of information through visualizationand analysis tools as a strategy for expanding the information that can be presented to decisionmakers is also called for. Wang et al. outline the need for more work to be done in convertingadvanced research based systems, such as those produced in IntelCities, to workable systemsto be used in commerce and government.

Research informing both new strategies for conducting return on investment analysis aswell as to generate new understanding of the benefits of information integration andsharing is also called for. Several of the authors outline the need for further research onhow to measure the costs and benefits of new technologies, particularly those that impactongoing operations and procedures. Horan et al. suggest more detailed examinations into“how participating agencies and organizations interact with each other and withtechnological systems in the delivery of emergency services, including what the perceivedperformance benefits are for sharing information.” They propose an investigation into howan architectural view could be utilized in understanding end-to-end performance; inparticular, they consider the potential value of studies that draw upon multiple existingsystem architectures, such as the National Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)architecture, the NextGeneration 9-1-1 Architecture, and Comcare's E-Safety architecture.

7. Conclusion

Taken together, the articles provide a robust examination of interorganizational informationintegration and provide new insights on challenges facing developed and less developedcountries, as well as from within the changing context of the European Union. The articles byHolden et al., Horan and Schooley, and Fedorowicz et al. address some of the more complexdomains for information integration from the perspective of the developed world, in particularenvironmental protection, emergency management, and critical justice in the United States.Wang et al. explore the challenging and global issue of urban regeneration. Their study has theadded complexity of operating within the dynamic context of the European Union, whichpresents new challenges and opportunities related to regionalism. Luna et al. provide insightinto the early stages of interoperable e-government in the context of a less developed country,Mexico, and are able to draw insight from comparisons to related efforts in the developedworld. Clarkson et al. provide new insights into information integration efforts of the tribalnations in the United States and additional challenges placed on cross-boundary informationsharing due to institutional context. Finally, the vignettes from Zhang and Fang and Yuacknowledge the reality that questions posed by researchers and practitioners in this arena arenot nation specific, but global. The articles come together to highlight the importance ofsimilarities rather than differences. They encourage continued exploration of these underlyingsimilarities, to identify and understand them, while also increasing our capability to identify andunderstand the differences among specific countries, domains, and contexts that both inhibitand enable digital government.

706 Editorial

VIGNETTE ONE

A study of G2G information sharing in theChinese context

Pengzhu Zhang* and Jing Fan*

Antai Management School, Shanghai Jiaotong Unviersity, Shanghai, 200052, China

1. Introduction

After e-government was introduced to China in the 1980s, it became apopular topic for exploration among both scholars and practitioners of publicadministration. “Fundamental Research on Electronic Government Manage-ment Theory and Method” (70533030) is an important key research projectabout e-government in China, which is supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China. Six topics have been investigated in this project: (1)recognition and dynamicmanagement of demand for e-government; (2) design,coordination, and integration of e-government processes; (3) e-governmentprocess reengineering management (EGPRM); (4) function and logic structuremodel systems of e-government; (5) flexible interactions and decision-makingsupport approaches for e-government workflow; and (6) strategies andapproaches for e-government system construction management. One of thefocuses within this project is G2G information sharing in the Chinese context.

2. Chinese context

Historically, government agencies in China have acted as stovepipes; forexample, regulatory agencies maintain multiple watch lists of suspiciousbusiness activities. Each individual agency has a separate list based ondifferent data structures and schema, which limits the potential value ofgovernment information resources. Below are some examples of howenterprises take advantage of poor G2G information sharing:

Situation 1: In 2002, the Chinese Administration of Industry andCommerce (AIC) and the Administration of Taxation (AT) tried to exchangeand compare basic business information from local enterprises in severalcities. They found that not only did different agencies maintain differentcompany lists for the same district, but many of the individual agencies hadinconsistent information for the same company.

⁎ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86 215 230 1231.

E-mail addresses: pzzhang@sjtu.edu.cn (Z. Pengzhu), fj1201@sjtu.edu.cn (F. Jing).

707Editorial

Situation 2: Research has revealed that some enterprises in China hold threedifferent financial report books. One report is submitted to the AdministrationofTaxation (AT), showingweakprofits or even losses to reduce the taxes theyowe. The second, which is submitted to banks as part of a loan application,shows the company to be in a good financial condition and adequately able torepay the loan. The company also maintains a comprehensive financial reportfor managers to review the real status of the business.Situation 3: Some foreign trade enterprises take advantage of the poorinformation sharing across related government agencies. They may forgedifferent trade files, which are then separately submitted to customers forsmuggling, to the Administration of Foreign Exchange for a favorableexchange rate, and to the Administration of Tax Reimbursement for Exportto receive better export rebates.

With the rapid development of e-government in China, G2G informationsharing has received increased national attention for several reasons. First, themain goals of the national strategy on government system reform andgovernment function transform in China are reducing bureaucratic levels andshifting from a “regulation-oriented” to a “service-oriented” approach toproviding services to citizens. Both of these goals urgently require that thegovernment promotes G2G information sharing. Second, rather than using anadministration system based on geography, as is done in America, the Chinesegovernment uses a matrix system that relies on function-oriented agencies.Therefore, functional agencies in the same district always report to differentsuperior institutions with different policies for information sharing. Third, thereis an imbalance in the development of e-government in China; some of themetropolitans have been equipped with modern IT infrastructures, while somecities still lack the primary facilities for office automation. Thesediscrepancies inresources continue to pose challenges for G2G information sharing.

3. Research questions

Although government agencies in China have recognized the importance ofinformation sharing, there are still many roadblocks to overcome in the process ofestablishing G2G information sharing. This project tackles two key issues: (1)what are the major factors that influence the participation and impact of G2Ginformationsharing inChinesecontext, and, (2) howcanG2G informationsharingindicators encourage a better government participation process for citizens?

4. Research methodology: Case study and survey study

The data for this research are taken from two case studies and a survey ofgovernment employees. The two case studies include in-depth investigations

708 Editorial

of business activities services and monitoring fields. The first case is“Enterprise Credit Information Platform” of Shanghai City, which integratesinformation from enterprises to reflect their business reputation, including taxrecords, loan records, product quality records, and so on. The second is the “E-Port System” in Shannxi province, where the local government agenciesresponsible for business regulation have begun networking customs declara-tions. Their goal is not only to provide a one-window service, but also toprevent illegal business activities, such as forging fake documents forsmuggling, cheating the foreign exchange rate, and cheating on tax refunds.From those case studies, sixteen interviews have been completed withemployees from seven functional agencies over eight months.

The purpose of the survey was to test the proposed research frameworkand hypotheses to gain an understanding of the factors that impactgovernment agencies’ participation in G2G information sharing. In total,216 questionnaires were distributed to 42 government agencies in ShanghaiCity, NingBo City, Shannxi Province, and Shanxi Province in China.

5. Preliminary findings

Several strategies seem to support the development of G2G informationsharing. Process support is the most influential factor because of agencies’concerns about the risks in sharing information, especially the security ofshared information. Social networks also significantly support the establish-ment of information sharing systems. The success of social networking maybe due to traditional Chinese culture, which encourages participating in andusing various organizational social networks.

There are also some key conflicts that prevent the development ofinformation sharing in China. According to data from the case studies,protection of present political rights and interests is one of the importantbarriers to information sharing. In addition, project championship agencies arenot present in China because of the government’s organizational structure. Inparticular, there is an absence of top-management agencies to createconsistency and coordinate interests among the local agencies.

Another potential factor in the implementation of information sharingsystems is the cost of sharing information. Although financial cost has notbeen a serious barrier in the case studies, it was significant in the completedsurveys. The lack of financial barriers in the case studies , however, does notprove that China has abundant financial support for e-government. There aretwo possible reasons why budget constraints were not a factor in the casestudies. On one hand, agencies have been equipped with cheaper, late-modelapplications because of the late development of e-government in China; onthe other hand, because G2G information sharing is still in the early stages ofdevelopment, the current investment into the process is low.

709Editorial

VIGNETTE TWO

New model of enhancing public service byinformation sharing: NingBo 81890 Center

Shiyang Yu, Division Chief

Strategy Research Division, Informatization Institute, State Information Center,

addr No. 58 Sanlihe Road, Xicheng District, 100045 Beijing, PR China

NingBo 81890 service center, a public information service platform, wasfounded by the government of Haishu district in NingBo city, Zhejiangprovince in August 2001. Using call center technology, 81890 integrates themost popular communication modes, such as telephone, Internet, and mobiletext messaging, and provides 17 categories of comprehensive services forcitizens and enterprises through improved information sharing amonggovernments, joined enterprises, and the public. Its development is basedon citizen-centered and demand-oriented principles,with a goal of 100%citizensatisfaction. 81890makes three promises to citizens: 24/7 service availability,delivery of comprehensive services, andwhole trackingand supervisingof thoseservices.

81890 is the dialectal tone of NingBo, which means dial to access publicinformation.

1. Business model

The management of 81890 is comprised of four departments: the generaloffice, connection division, implementation division, and network division. Eachoffice has a specific set of responsibilities for the service center. The generaloffice is responsible for rule making, daily management, performance evalua-tions, and external contacts; the connection division answers incoming phonecalls, replies to online requests, and tracks services; the implementation divisionsupervises enterprises enrollment in the program, as well as informationcollection and updating; and the network division conducts cross-boundaryinformation integration and online transactions.The NingBo 81890 servicecenter integrates service information between government agencies and

E-mail address: ysy@mx.cei.gov.cn (S. Yu).

710 Editorial

R

A

enterprises, and links e-government and e-commerce together. More than 570enterprises have become members of the platform to meet citizens' demandsand offer comprehensive services through a central location. Both public andprivate service can be reached through this platform. As a public serviceplatform for communication and interaction among citizens, 81890 effectivelysolved the information asymmetry issue in public service providing process.TheNingBomunicipal government constructs this interactive and creditable serviceplatform by using its authority, credibility, and organizing ability. 81890promotes the credit reputation for thewhole service industry. A complete set ofcredit management systems including service industry credit assessmentsystem, education, and training system, service quality assurance system,provide a guarantee and soft-environment for service industry development inthis area.

2. The effects

The successful operation of 81890 has clearly had a positive impact on thelocal community. First, its universal service approach bridges the gap betweenthe government and its citizens. Second, the center generates service industrygrowthwith the development of new enterprises, standardization of the servicemarket, and the creation of new job opportunities. Member enterprises haveseen their revenues triple when compared with their previous earnings, andNingBo 81890 is responsible for creating 4,900 new job opportunities for theunemployed. Finally, it improves the city environment and enhances the publicadministration.Up to the February 2006, 81890had received andhandledmorethan 700,000 cases, accompaniedwith a 99.87% rate of public satisfaction.Inaddition to the economic benefits of NingBo 81890, the center will also helpChina face some of the problems associated with an aging society. Anemergency-calling system for senior citizens has been built on 81890 platform,which demonstrates the versatility of its application. This system can helprespond to many of the daily care and emergency response problems of theelderly.With the complexity of social problems and the diversity of public needs,one of the primary problems facing China's local governments is how to fullydevelop a cooperative mechanism for sharing information among government,enterprises, and citizens. NingBo 81890 provides an exemplary model ofeffective information sharing for public services.

eferences

mbite, J. L., & Knoblock, C. A. (1997). Agents for information gathering. IEEE Expert Intelligence Systems &Their Applications, 12(5), 2−5.

711Editorial

Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management. New York: Prentice-Hall.Andersen, D. E., Belardo, S., & Dawes, S. S. (1994, Summer). Strategic information management: Conceptual

frameworks for the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review, 17(4), 335−353.Ballou, D. P., & Pazer, H. L. (1995). Designing information systems to optimize the accuracy-timeliness trade-off.

Information Systems Research, 6(1), 51−72.Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship.

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Black, L. J., Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D. S., Cook, M., et al. (2003). A dynamic

theory of collaboration: A structural approach to facilitating intergovernmental use of information technology.Paper presented at the 36th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

Bloomfield, P., Westerling, D., & Carey, R. (1998). Innovation and risk in a public–private partnership. PublicProductivity and Management Review, 21(4), 460−471.

Bodor, T., Thompson, F., & Demercivi, F. (2004). Law enforcement culture in the United States: A context forunderstanding aspects of organizational change. Paper presented at the Hungarian Psychological AssociationConference, Debrecen, Hungary.

Burt, R. S. (1997, June). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339−365.Caffrey, L. (1998). Information sharing between and within governments. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.Canestraro, D., & Mojtahedzadeh, M. (2004). Knocking down the silos: Interorganizational collaboration in the

criminal justice system. Paper presented at the Pegasus Communications Conference on BuildingCollaborations to Change Our Organizations and the World: System Thinking in Action, Cambridge, MA.

Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats andopportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937−955.

Chua, A. (2002). The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(4),375−392.

Cohen, W. W. (2000). Data integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representationlanguage. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 18(3), 288−321.

Cooren, F., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D., & Bodor, T. (2006). From agency to structure: Analysis of an episode in afacilitation process. Human Relations, 59(4), 533−565.

Cresswell, A. M. (2001). Thoughts on relevance of IS research. Communications of AIS, 6.Cresswell, A. M., & Pardo, T. A. (2001). Implications of legal and organizational issues for urban digital

government development. Government Information Quarterly, 18.Cresswell, A. M., & Zhang, J. (2000). Effectiveness of knowledge sharing in public sector interorganizational

networks. Paper presented at the Korean Association of Public Administration International Forum on StrategyDevelopment for Knowledge-Empowered Government, Chosun University, Kwangjoo, Korea.

Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Dawes, S. S., & Kelly, K. (2000). Partnership effectiveness in public sectorinformation technology innovation. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Toronto.

Cresswell, A. M., Canestraro, D., Cook, M., Pardo, T., Thompson, F., Black, L., et al. (2001). A preliminary systemdynamics model of intergovernmental collaboration. Paper presented at the System Dynamics ResearchConference, Atlanta, GA.

Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., & Dawes, S. S. (2001). Digital government and economic development:Organizational and political issues. Paper presented at the Conference on Digital Government, MexicoCity.

Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D. S., Cook, M., Black, L., et al. (2002). Modelingintergovernmental collaboration: A system dynamics approach. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaiian InternationalConference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Thompson, F., & Zhang, J. (2002). Trust and networking: Knowledge sharing in thepublic sector. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Denver.

Cresswell, A. M., Canestraro, D. S., Canestraro, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Schneider, C. (2004). Interorganizationalinformation integration: Lessons from the field. Paper presented at the 65th ASPA National Conference,Portland, OR.

712 Editorial

Davenport, T. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Dawes, S. (1995). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management, 15(3), 377−394.

Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management, 15(3), 377−394.

Dawes, S. S. (2000). Knowledge management within the EC. Paper presented at the European Commission, Brussels.Dawes, S. S. (2001). Collaboration and knowledge sharing in the public sector. Paper presented at the NPACI All

Hands Meeting, San Diego, CA.Dawes, S. S. (2003a). The challenges of research-practice partnerships for e-government. Paper presented at the

IST Conference, Milan, Italy.Dawes, S. S. (2003b). Research-practice partnerships: Knowledge networking in the public sector. Paper presented

at the 4th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Boston, MA.Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. (2002). Building collaborative digital government systems: Systemic constraints and

effective practices. In W. Mc Iver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government technology,human factors, and policy (pp. 259−273). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2006). Maximizing knowledge for program evaluation: Critical issues and practicalchallenges of ICT strategies. Paper presented at the 5th International EGOV Conference, Krakow, Poland.

Dawes, S. S., Pardo, T. A., Connelly, D. R., Green, D. F., & McInerney, C. R. (1997). Partners in state-localinformation systems: Lessons from the field. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government.

Demercivi, F., Thompson, F., & Bodor, T. (2004). Overcoming cultural barriers to criminal justice informationintegration after the 9-11 crisis. Paper presented at theAmerican Society of CriminologyConference, Nashville, TN.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.Organization Science, 12(4), 450−467.Dodgson, M. (1993). Learning, trust, and technological collaboration. Human Relations, 46(1), 77−95.Eglene, O., Dawes, S., & Schneider, C. (2003). Authority and leadership patterns in interorganizational knowledge

networks. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Eglene, O., & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Challenges and strategies for conducting international public management

research. Administration and Society, 38(5), 596−622.Eglene, O., Dawes, S. S., & Schneider, C. A. (2007). Authority and leadership patterns in public sector knowledge

networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 91−113.Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington:

The Brookings Institution.Gant, D. B., Gant, J. P., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). State Web portals: Delivering and financing e-service. Arlington,

VA: The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.Garson, G. D. (2004). The promise of digital government. In A. Pavlichev & G. D. Garson (Eds.), Digital

government: Principles and best practices (pp. 2−15). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Gil-García, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). Egovernment success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical

foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 187−216.Gil-Garcia Jr., & Pardo, T. A. (2006). Multi-method approaches to understanding the complexity of e-government.

International Journal on Computers, Systems and Signals, 7(2), 3−17.Gil-García, J. R., Schneider, C., Pardo, T. A., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005). Interorganizational information

integration in the criminal justice enterprise: Preliminary lessons from state and county initiatives. Proceedingsof the 38th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer SocietyPress.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, B. (2007). Government leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled networks:Lessons from the response to theWest Nile Virus outbreak. Paper presented at the Third Transatlantic Dialogue of theAmerican Society for Public Administration and the European Group of Public Administration, Newark, Delaware.

Green, M. J. (1978). The other government: The unseen power of Washington lawyers. New York: W.W. Norton.Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40(4), 619−653.

713Editorial

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Re-engineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. 1993:Harper Collins.

Han, C. C. (1998). Exploring a path to the formation of network collaboration. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation,University at Albany-SUNY, Albany, NY.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaborationand conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217−230.

Hart, P., & Saunders, C. (1997). Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic datainterchange. Organization Science, 8(1), 23−42.

Heeks, R. (1999). Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled publicsector reform. New York: Routledge.

Hill, R. C., & Hellriegel, D. (1994). Critical contingencies in joint venture management: Some lessons frommanagers. Organization Science, 5(4), 594−607.

Holmes, D. (2001). E-business strategies for government. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organization theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of

Management Review, 20(2), 379−403.Hsu, C. N., & Knoblock, C. A. (2000). Semantic query optimization for query plans of heterogeneous

multidatabase systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 12(6), 959−979.Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (2003). Information technology and administrative reform: Will the time after

e-government be different? Paper presented at the Heinrich Reinermann Schrift Fest, Post Graduate Schoolof Administration, Speyer, Germany.

Krishnan, R., Li, X., Steier, D., & Zhao, L. (2001). On heterogeneous database retrieval: A cognitively guidedapproach. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 286−301.

Kumar, K., vanDissel, H. G., & Bielli, P. (1998). The merchant of Prato—Revisited: Toward a third rationality ofinformation systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(n), 199−227.

Landsbergen, D., & Wolken, G. (1998). Eliminating legal and policy barriers to interoperable governmentsystems. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis andManagement, New York.

Landsbergen, D. J., &Wolken, G. J. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourthgeneration of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206−220.

Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships.Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76−104.

LaVigne, M. (2003). From communication to collaboration: Building a homeless information managementnetwork. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Miami, FL.

Le, C. N., Thompson, F., Cresswell, A. M., & Dawes, S. (2001a). Carpooling on the superhighway: Informationtechnology and interorganizational knowledge-sharing networks in the public sector. Paper presented at theAmerican Sociological Association, Anaheim, CA.

Le, C. N., Thompson, F., Cresswell, A. M., & Dawes, S. (2001b).Walking the walk: The effectiveness of knowledgesharing in public sector organizational networks. Paper presented at the Eastern Sociological Society,Philadelphia, PA.

Logsdon, J. M. (1991). Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 23−37.

Luna-Reyes, L. F., Mojtahedzadeh, M., Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., Bodor, T., Burke, B., et al. (2004a).Emergence of the governance structure for information integration across governmental agencies: A systemdynamics approach. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Conference, Oxford, UK.

Luna-Reyes, L. F., Mojtahedzadeh, M., Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., Pardo, T. A., Burke, B., et al. (2004b).Scripts for interrupted group model building: Lessons from modeling the emergence of governance structuresfor information integration across governmental agencies. Proceedings of the 22nd International SystemDynamics Conference, CD-ROM ed.

Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Gil-García, J. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005). Information systems development asemergent socio-technical change: A practice approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 93−105.

714 Editorial

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy ofManagement Review, 20(3), 709−734.

McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R., & Hart, D. W. (1995). The appeal and difficulties of participative systems.Organization Science, 6(6), 603−627.

Miller, J., & Thompson, F. (2000). Developing collaboration between nonprofits and government: A case study ofknowledge sharing to improve services for the homeless. Paper presented at the Association for Research onNonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (1998). Principles for controlling agents: The political economy of networkstructure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 203−221.

Nathan, M. L., & Mitroff, I. I. (1991). The use of negotiated order theory as a toll for the analysis and developmentof an interorganizational field. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 163−180.

Naumann, F., Leser, U., & Freytag, J. C. (1999). Quality-driven integration of heterogeneous information systems.Paper presented at the International Conference on Very Large Systems (VLDB), Edinburgh, UK.

Navarro, P. (1984). The policy game: How special interests and ideologues are stealing America. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Osborne, D., & Gabler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming thepublic sector. New York: Penguin Books.

Pardo, T. A., & Burke, B. (2005). Solving the integration puzzle. Public CIO, 4(2), 28−34.Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Burke, B. (in press). Sustainable cross-boundary information sharing. In H. Chen,

L. Brandt, S. Dawes, V. Gregg, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, R. Traunmüller, & C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digitalgovernment: Advanced research and case studies. Springer.

Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Zhang, J., & Thompson, F. (2001). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in publicsector innovations. Paper presented at the Best Paper Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Academy ofManagement, Washington DC.

Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Dawes, S. S., & Burke, G. B. (2004).Modeling the social and technical processes ofinterorganizational information integration. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaiian International Conference onSystem Sciences, Hawaii.

Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Thompson, F., & Zhang, J. (2006). Knowledge sharing in cross-boundaryinformation system development in the public sector. Information Technology and Management, 7(4),293−313.

Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Burke, G. B. (2006). Building response capacity through cross-boundaryinformation sharing: The critical role of trust. Paper presented at the eChallenges Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Powell, W. K., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus ofinnovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116−145.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness:A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1),1−33.

Reiss, S. P. (1996). Simplifying data integration: The design of the desert software development environment. Paperpresented at the ICSE-18.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships.Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90−118.

Rourke, F. E. (1978). Bureaucracy, politics and public policy, (2nd ed). Boston: Little Brown and Co.Safai-Amini, M. (2000). Information technologies: Challenges and opportunities for local governments. Journal of

Government Information, 27, 471−479.Strong, D. M., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (1997). Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM, 40(5).Tayi, G. K., & Ballou, D. P. (1998). Examining data quality. Communications of the ACM, 41(2).Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. WW. Norton.Thompson, F., Connelly, D. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2000a). Getting the story right: Talk and text in the

restructuring of public sector interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the Conference on Text andTalk at Work: Discourse Practices In, Around, and About the Workplace, University of Ghent, Belgium.

715Editorial

Thompson, F., Connelly, D. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2000b). Structuring the story to restructure work andinterorganizational relations in the public sector. Paper presented at the American Anthropology Associationmeeting, San Francisco, CA.

Thompson, F., Canestraro, D., & Demercivi, F. (2004). From turf to trust: Learning to collaborate acrossgovernment agencies. Paper presented at the Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education Conference,Albany, NY.

VandeVen, A. H., & Joyce, W. F. (Eds.). (1981). Overview of perspectives on organizational design and behavior.New York: Jonh Wiley and Sons.

Walker, D. B. (1981). Toward a functioning federalism. Cambridge, MA: Wintrop Publishers.Warwick, D. P. (1975). A theory of public bureaucracy: Politics, personality, and organization in the state

department. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wastell, D. G. (1999). Learning dysfunctions in information systems development: Overcoming the social defenses

with transitional objects. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 581−600.Weiss, J. A. (1987). Pathways to cooperation among public agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,

7(1), 94−117.Wright, D. (1978). Understanding intergovernmental relations. North Scituate, MA: Doxbury Press.Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and

interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141−158.Zhang, J., & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Expectations and perceptions of benefits, barriers, and success in public sector

knowledge networks. Public Performance and Management Review, 29(4), 433−466.Zhang, J., Cresswell, A. M., & Thompson, F. (2002). Participants' expectations and the success of knowledge

networking in the public sector. Paper presented at the 8th America's Conference on Information System,Dallas, TX.

Zhang, J., Cresswell, A. M., & Thompson, F. (2004). Participants' expectations and the success of knowledgenetworking in the public sector. In W. Huang, K. Siau, & K. K. Wei (Eds.), Digital government: Strategies andimplementations in developed and developing countries. Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing Group.

Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders' expectations of the benefits and barriers ofe-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 18(5), 548−567.

Zhang, J., Pardo, T. A., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Macros: A case study of knowledge sharing system development withinNew York State government agencies. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7, 105−126.

Zhang, J., Faerman, S. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2006). The effect of organizational/ technological factors and thenature of knowledge on knowledge sharing. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaiian International Conference onSystem Sciences (Awarded Best Paper in the Conference), Hawaii.

Zuboff, S. (1984). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Theresa A. PardoCenter for Technology in Government,University at Albany, 187 Wolf Road,

Suite 301 Albany, New York 12203, USAE-mail address: tpardo@ctg.albany.edu.

Corresponding author.Fax: +1 518 442 3886.

Giri Kumar TayiDepartment of ITM/MSIS,

School of Business University at Albany,SUNY, 1400 Washington Ave.,

Albany, NY 12222, USAFax: +1 518 442 2568.