Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Government Information Quarterly 24 (2007) 691 715

Editorial

Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler

for digital government

1. Introduction
Digital government, e-government, and e-governance: all are terms that have become
synonymous with the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) in
government agencies. Regardless of the label, digital government has become a prominent
strategy 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 in
government 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-Garca,
Schneider, Pardo, & Cresswell, 2005).
The central role of information integration in realizing the benefits of digital government and
the breadth and depth of the challenges facing governments as they seek to use and share
information 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 information
drawn from multiple disparate sources. In a more complex form, it has the potential to support
the transformation of organizational structures and communication channels between and
among multiple agencies working in different locations. It requires radical technical and
organizational process and behavior changes for the individuals and organizations involved
(Pardo, Gil-Garcia, & Burke, 2006). Each of the six full-length papers contribute to our
understanding of the theoretical and practical implications of cross-boundary information
integration in the public sector. Collectively they make a specific contribution to the creation of
a global perspective on cross-boundary information integration and its role in digital
government 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 to
the efforts of tribal agencies to use ICTs to level the playing field for members. In addition to
the full-length papers, the issue includes two vignettes about ongoing digital government
initiatives which illustrate China's current information integration capability. The first vignette
outlines an e-government research project focused on information integration funded by the
National Natural Science Foundation in China, while the second is a mini-case study of an
information sharing effort from the government of Haishu district in NingBo city, Zhejiang
Province.
Much of the work underway in the field of digital government explores the potential of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to increase the value of government as
an asset to citizens. One important method for increasing value is the implementation of
interorganizational information integration. When government organizations share information, a wide variety of benefits (and barriers) emerge. This symposium issue draws on the
research many scholars have pioneered in interorganizational information integration and
extends it by bringing together new awareness of this phenomenon. The extension is made
possible through the hard work and talent of the authors of the articles presented here and of
the unnamed reviewers who contributed their time to provide comprehensive and constructive
feedback to the authors. We would like to acknowledge them all for the time and attention
given to the work presented here.
This article 1 opens the symposium issue by highlighting some current investments in the
creation of a research community focused on information sharing and integration. It then
moves to the introduction of a conceptual framework which is used to introduce each of the
contributions. The article closes with a set of recommendations for a research agenda in
interorganizational information integration. The agenda, compiled from the insights of the
contributing authors, highlights outstanding questions of common interest to both researchers
and practitioners and lays out a set of opportunities for creating new understanding about
interorganizational 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 in
support of government programs along with a growing recognition of the complexity of these
efforts has resulted in increased research investments in this area. In the recent past a number of
agencies 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 NSF
proposal for ITR Grant # 0205152. In particular, the ideas of Anthony Cresswell, Sharon Dawes, J. Ramon GilGarcia, and G. Brian Burke in conceptualizing and examining information integration and sharing in government
agencies are incorporated into this discussion. In addition, their related published works are cited throughout the
paper.

Editorial

693

research about how government agencies at different levels share, transfer, and integrate
information. Similar investments are being made in the European Union both at the
Commission level and by individual member states. China is also funding major explorations
in this area through the National Natural Science Foundation2 and the State Information
Center. Mexico is also recognizing the need for new knowledge about information integration
and is funding research through organizations such as the National Council for Science and
Technology (CONACYT).3 New programs are beginning to respond to the cross-boundary
nature of information integration and providing the opportunity to build international
collaborations 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 Digital
Government Working Group, for example, is focused on comparative and transnational
information sharing and integration research with members from Canada, the U.S., and
Mexico.
Academic conferences are increasingly providing a venue for the sharing of research and
practice about cross-boundary information integration. In particular, the International Digital
Government Research Conference (dg.o 2008)4 , the annual event of the Digital Government
Society of North America5 ; the e-Government Track of the Hawaiian International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 6 ; the EGOV07 Conference, the annual conference
of the European eGovernment Society7 ; and the newest, the International Conference on
Theory and Practice of Egovernance (ICEGOV), organized by the United Nations
University International Institute for Software Technology and the Center for Technology
in Government. 8
The results of all of these efforts can be found in the growing body of knowledge about
cross-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
3
4
5
6
7
8

http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/newnsfc03/default99.htm.
http://www.conacyt.mx/.
http://www.dgo2008.org/.
http://www.dgsociety.org/index.php.
www.hicss.hawaii.edu.
http://www.egov-society.org/.
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 theory
development 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 of
information sharing and integration. The following section introduces the conceptualization of
interorganizational information integration guiding the program of work underway at the
Center for Technology in Government 9 (CTG) at the University at Albany as a framework to
introduce the articles in this issue.

3. Conceptualizing interorganizational information integration

Information integration (1) is a critical component in the design and implementation of
several advanced information technologies, such as data mining and visualization; (2)
involves phenomena and theoretical frameworks in several disciplines; and (3) is a lynch pin
in a substantial range of IT use in critical public policy areas such as public safety,
environmental protection, crisis response and management, and health care. Organizations
must establish and maintain collaborative relationships in which knowledge sharing is critical
to resolving numerous issues related to data definitions and structures, diverse database
designs, highly variable data quality, and incompatible network infrastructure. These
integration processes often involve new work processes and significant organizational
change. They are also embedded in larger political and institutional environments that shape
their goals and circumscribe their choices.
Integrating and sharing information across traditional government boundaries involves
complex interactions among and with technical and organizational processes. From a
technical perspective, system designers and developers must regularly overcome problems
related 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, these
technical processes often involve new work processes, mobilization of limited resources,
and evolving interorganizational relationships (Davenport, 1993; Fountain, 2001). These
necessary changes are influenced by specific types of social interaction, which take the
form of group decision making, learning, understanding, trust building, and conflict
resolution, among others (Chua, 2002; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996; Wastell,
1999). They are also embedded in larger political and institutional environments, and hence

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

Editorial

695

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 greater
capacity to share information across organizational boundaries, to discover patterns and
interactions, 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 (GilGarca & Pardo, 2005). The nature of these benefits varies, however, from organization to
organization and according to characteristics of specific contexts. Understanding the type of
information sharing being pursued and the challenges associated with achieving the stated
objectives 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 information
integration or information sharing initiative. Dawes (1996) classifies these benefits into three
categories: technical, organizational, and political:
1. Technical benefits are those related to data processing and information management. For
instance, information integration reduces duplicate data collection, processing, and storage
and therefore reduces data processing costs that attend every public program (Caffrey,
1998). An information integration initiative can also promote better standards and shared
technical resources.
2. Organizational benefits are related to the solution of agency-wide problems or the enhancement of organizational capabilities. Improving the decision making process, broadening
professional networks, improving coordination, increasing the quality of services, and
reducing costs are some examples of organizational benefits (Andersen & Dawes, 1991; GilGarca & Pardo, 2005).
3. Political benefits might include better appreciation for government-wide policy goals, more
public accountability, more comprehensive public information, integrated planning, and
service delivery (Andersen & Dawes, 1991). Political benefits can also be considered as
individual benefits for public officials as a result of the use of specific technology
characteristics or applications.
In light of these benefits, government executives are leading agency efforts to integrate
information resources across agency boundaries, across levels of government and across
governmental jurisdictions. However, while armed with the most advanced IT in the world, they
are finding the task exceedingly difficult, leading to serious problems, quick disintegration, or
outright failures (Dawes & Pardo, 2002; Fountain, 2001). Moreover, the difficulty that
government agencies face appears to increase proportionally with the increases in the number of
boundaries to be crossed, the number and type of information resources to be shared, and the
number of technical and organizational processes to be changed or integrated.
These difficulties result from the reality that integrating information ultimately involves
large parts, if not the whole, of an enterprise or policy domain. This situation is made even
more challenging by the fact that these enterprises differ greatly. Those involved in integration
initiatives must be aware of the implications of those differences as they look to their

696

Editorial

Fig. 1. Information integration complexity matrix.

colleagues for guidance and best practices. For instance, some initiatives focus on a specific
problem while others focus on building systemic capacity. First presented by Gil-Garca et al.
(2005), the Information Integration Complexity Matrix (see Fig. 1) provides a mechanism for
clarifying the context of a cross-boundary information sharing initiative and identifying the
related complexities. The first dimension refers to the focus of the initiative, which can be
meeting a specific need or problem or building systemic capacity. The second dimension takes
into consideration the associated level of organizational involvement with three categories of
involvement: intraorganizational, interorganizational, and intergovernmental. Without oversimplifying the important factors contributing to the success of an information integration
initiative, there seems to be a logical progression of complexity. The challenges include data
and technical incompatibility, the lack of institutional incentives to collaborate, and the power
struggles around multi-organizational settings in government. These challenges stretch beyond
a single discipline and a single theoretical lens. Therefore, to understand the complex relationships among technology, government bureaucracy and institutions, as well as the surrounding
political, social, economic, and cultural environments, it is necessary to draw on multiple
disciplines and combine diverse lenses. The research underway at the Center for Technology in
Government and elsewhere is providing new models and frameworks for understanding and
studying information integration as a key enabler of digital government.
4. Perspectives on information integration
Social processes such as decision making, collaboration, and conflict resolution are
critical components of integration. Social processes interact with resources (e.g., architecture frameworks, political will, and interorganizational policies) to produce integration artifacts (e.g., integrated system architecture; standards and data definitions;
interoperable hardware; and revised architecture frameworks). Studying these social and
technical interactions is beginning to offer very valuable theoretical and practitioner insight
into how social processes influence and are influenced by interorganizational information
integration.

Editorial

697

Sociotechnical theory emerged from the work of Trist in the 1950s and 1960s to provide a
framework for joining the social and technical perspectives of organizational study. This
foundational work relies on two essential premises: In a purposive organization in which
people are required to perform functions, there is a joint system operating: a social and a
technical system. The performance of an organization is a function of the fit between these two
systems. Second, every sociotechnical system is embedded in an environment that is influenced by a culture and its values and sets of generally accepted practices, and the environment permits certain roles for organizations, groups, and people (VandeVen & Joyce,
1981).
Integration processes often involve new work processes and significant organizational
change. Moreover, designing and implementing cross-agency information integration is a
lengthy process, involving learning and evolving interorganizational relationships. The social
and technical processes of interorganizational information integration can be modeled in ways
that improve our understanding of information system development and of interorganizational
collaboration and therefore capture some of the learning, which is generated from the
integration effort itself.
The research underway at CTG views information integration holistically, as embedded in
four different but related contexts. Each has related theoretical perspectives useful for studying
information integration processes. The contexts are nested as shown in Fig. 2 below. The
figure illustrates how a specific technology solution for integration, which relies on the
concepts and techniques of computer and information science, depends also on connections
and interactions with the relevant business practices of the involved organizations. These, in
turn, involve work flows, information flows, and decision processes in each organization. The
interaction and adaptation of business processes across organizations is shaped in large part by
other elements of the larger multi-organizational setting (such as resource sharing and trust),
which can be studied from the perspective of interorganizational relationships and
collaborative structures. These relationships and structures are influenced, in turn, by factors
in their shared environment. At this macro level, influences can be examined from the
perspectives of such fields as political science. Each of these four contexts are summarized
below.

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 conceptualize
integration across distributed information sources and organizational boundaries as a complex
social process in which technological and organizational artifacts are developed and assembled
for the purpose of information use (see Fig. 3).
These social and technical processes are embedded in four contexts: technology, business
process, interorganizational, and political. Therefore, advancing understanding of information
integration must be viewed as a multi-disciplinary undertaking. Such a multi-disciplinary
perspective can enhance government leaders and IT professionals' ability to look beyond
traditional organizational and information systems technology boundaries. This ability is
critical to the success of their information integration initiatives.
4.1.1. The technology context
Issues 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 the
technical problems of access and use of information from these diverse sources typically involves
development of standards, platform and application interoperability, metadata, and use of
algorithms and other software devices. These address the problems resulting from unstructured
textual information and natural language names for objects and data by developing automated
matching methods (e.g., Cohen, 2000; Reiss, 1996). Other techniques involve constructing
systems of ontologies that provide the underlying structure for alignment of meanings across
heterogeneous data bases (Ambite & Knoblock, 1997; Hsu & Knoblock, 2000; Krishnan et al.,

Fig. 3. Relationship of integration components.

Editorial

699

2001). These methods have the potential to greatly reduce the cost of manual search and
translation processes, making automated searching and matching of heterogeneous data feasible
in large database environments. However, these methods will not in themselves resolve issues of
agreement about the significance or use of integrated data or problems of policy in the public
sector (Safai-Amini, 2000).
The changing and expanding use of data in governmental and private organizations
demands increased attention to all the components of data qualityaccuracy, timeliness,
consistency, and completeness (Tayi & Ballou, 1998). Until recently, this attention was
confined to improving the quality of data generated and used within single organizations.
Today, the effectiveness of both public and private organizations often depends on data
exchanges with others. As more organizations deploy and use communication networks in
their day-to-day processes, sharing and integrating data across institutions becomes more
attractive and more feasible (Naumann, Leser, & Freytag, 1999). However, integrating
large amounts of data that often differ in form, as well as organizational and geographical
origin, poses myriad challenges in ensuring the quality of the integrated data. These
problems 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 data
are of high quality depends on the characteristics of the resulting integrated information
infrastructure and on the demands of the tasks that use these data (Strong, Lee, & Wang,
1997).
4.1.2. The business process context
The 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 scientific
management that so strongly influenced the structure and functional specialization of
business and government organizations. Work processes, including decision processes, have
interested contemporary scholars especially as they relate to productivity and information
technology. Hammer and Champy (1993) contend that, over time, processes lose their
connection to productive purposes and become rigid and self-perpetuating. Productivity
breakthroughs demand radical re-engineering of entire organizations. Taking a less dramatic
view, Davenport (1993) recognizes the intractability of complex organizations and
advocates more selective process innovation, coupled with applications of advanced IT
to achieve performance improvements. Zuboff (1984) studied the infusion of information
technology into work processes and the effects that the technology has on the discretion of
workers, the means of process control, and the meaning of work. Information systems are
commonly understood to embed processes and information flows in complex software,
which becomes difficult to change and has strong influences on the work of the
organization and its employees, managers, and leaders. Information integration demands
that the work processes of multiple organizations be both understood and mutually
adjusted. 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 initiatives

that depend on not only information integration, but process integration (Fountain, 2001;
Dawes & Pardo, 2006).
4.1.3. The interorganizational context
Sharing and integrating information among organizations depends on the creation and
maintenance of interorganizational relationships. The formation of these relationships, involving
differing goals and interests, requires negotiations and the development of commitment among
participants (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 be
influential (Burt, 1997; Hart & Saunders, 1997). The development and maintenance of the
relationships may also be critically dependent on trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Dodgson, 1993;
Gulati, 1995; Kumar, vanDissel, & Bielli, 1998; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Powell
et al., 1996; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Knowledge and information sharing among
organizations is also characterized by substantial risk, resource constraints, and conflict
(Bloomfield, Westerling, & Carey, 1998; Hardy & Phillips, 1998). Some risk and conflict comes
from the differences in expectations and goals the various parties bring to the sharing process
(Andersen, Belardo, & Dawes, 1994; Dawes, 1996; Han, 1998). These differing expectations
may reflect each party's individual and organizational history (Hosmer, 1995; McCaffrey,
Faerman, & Hart, 1995), or simply variations in the characteristics of the individuals or
organizations (Dawes et al., 1997). Interorganizational relationships are also influenced by the
characteristics of the problem or goal motivating the activity. Interorganizational relationships
may 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 problem
situations (Dawes, 1995). In addition, there may be substantial disagreement among potential
participants about the level or exact nature of the problem to be addressed (Dawes, Pardo,
Connelly, Green, & McInerney, 1997). Interorganizational networks in the public sector have
traditionally been studied as political structures (Green, 1978; Navarro, 1984; Walker, 1981;
Warwick, 1975; Wright, 1978) and more recently as dynamic operational partnerships (for
example, Milward & Provan, 1998; Provan & Milward, 1995). The bureaucratic and institutional
issues surrounding interorganizational networks in the public sector have also gained interest
from the research community (Bardach, 1998; Fountain, 2001).
4.1.4. The political context
The political environment of government agencies exerts strong institutional and
situational influences on information integration. A focus on government organizations
requires attention to bureaucratic and political theories. Most government activity is defined
and funded through legislation that creates specific programs and assigns responsibility for
those programs to specific agencies. This Web of vertical relationships leads agencies to
focus on their own programs rather than on cross-boundary issues or linkages with outside
organizations. These program boundaries are powerful barriers to collaboration (Bardach,
1998; Osborne & Gabler, 1992). Agency staff develop deep knowledge and expertise in their
respective programs and protect their ability to act with discretion and autonomy (Rourke,

Editorial

701

1978). Since information integration may subject agencies to external evaluation and
criticism, agencies seldom regard program information as an asset of the whole agency, the
entire government, or the public (Dawes, 1995). Since cooperation across organizations
implies joint responsibility and shared control, it often involves coordination, monitoring and
feedback that can potentially damage legitimacy and integrity if cooperation fails (Weiss,
1987). Dawes (1995) contends some of these barriers can be lessened by policies that
encourage information use and stewardship (rather than ownership) and by the creation of
practical tools, such as metadata inventories and standardized data sharing agreements.
Landsbergen and Wolken (1998) propose similar tools, including an economic model, to help
agencies identify costs and benefits of information integration. Citing the experiences of
information technology initiatives sponsored by the National Partnership for Reinventing
Government, Fountain (2001) maintains that strong institutional pressures and existing
incentives and resource allocation patterns mitigate against even the most highly visible and
politically 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 interorganizational information integration and its particular role as an enabler of digital
government. Taken together, the articles highlight both the value of looking across
disciplines, domains, and context to create a holistic understanding of the phenomenon of
information integration (see Table 1), as well as to see how interdisciplinary perspectives are
central to the study and practice of cross-boundary information integration. Each article
addresses these issues from a unique perspective and theoretical framework. Through the use
of system prototypes, models of information and process modeling, case studies,
and typology development, the authors provide a multitude of strategies for extending
understanding of information integration. Collectively they create new appreciation for the
interdependencies among the social and technical factors that make information integration
efforts so complex. Individually they contribute to our thinking about specific contexts.
While each paper addresses information integration from multiple contexts, a primary
context was selected for the purpose of this introductory discussion.
The two sidebars on digital government research and practice in China provide a characterization of the challenges facing Chinese government officials as they wrestle with
information sharing and integration efforts. The first, provided by Shiyang Yu, illustrates the
benefits China is realizing from effective sharing of information across the boundaries
of organizations. The Ningbo 81890 Center provides an exemplary model of the use of
information and technology to increase service to citizens. Further, the vignette also serves to
highlight the notable similarities between this effort and other citizen-centered call centers
around 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.

702

Editorial

Table 1
Studying interorganizational information integration
Focus
1 Integration of data to support higher
levels of e-government
2 Technical approaches for
multi-dimensional spatial
information integration
3 Exchange and integration of performance
information and how it influences
interorganizational relationships and
end-to-end service performance
4 Cross-jurisdictional and cross-functional
e-government collaboration
5 Institutional arrangements and
organizational structures as
disincentives to trust and collaboration
6 Information asymmetry

Authors

Domain

Steven Holden

Country

Context

Water quality
management
Hongxia Wang, Yonghui Urban
planning
Song, Andy Hamilton,
Steve Curwell
Thomas Horan and
Emergency
Benjamin Schooley
response

United
Technology
States
United
Technology
Kingdom
United
States

Business
process

Jane Fedorowiz,
Janis L. Gogan, and
Christine B. Williams
Luis F. Luna-Reyes, J.
Ramon Gil-Garcia, and
Cinthia Betiny Cruz
Gavin Clarkson,
Trond Jacobsen,
and Archer Batcheller

Criminal
justice

United
States

Inter
organizational

Government
Web sites

Mexico

Political

Capital
markets
and law
enforcement

United
States
Tribal
Nations

Political

311 system.11 The vignette highlights the key characteristics of the system and the value it has
delivered to citizens. In the second sidebar, Pengzhu Zhang and Fan Jing briefly introduce the
role of e-government in China's recent governmental reforms. Zhang and Jing characterize
three information sharing contexts to set the stage for their major research project funded by
the 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 to
federal legislation, states, territories, and select tribal nations are required to report information
on 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 in
both the reporting and interpretation of these data sets. Holden describes a prototype system
designed to integrate dispersed data into user profiles to support decision making among
government managers. The paper contributes to the technical context of information
integration research by outlining techniques to integrate numerous water quality monitoring
data sources, resolve data disparities, and retrieve data using semantic relationships among
data 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 information
integration from a technical context. They draw on the ongoing work of two European
Union Funded projects, IntelCities and VEPS, to explore the process of creating electronic
11

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

Editorial

703

services in support of e-Planning initiatives of the British government. The authors introduce
the UK e-Government Interoperability Framework and the European Union Program
Interoperable Delivery of European e-Government Services to Public Administrations
Businesses and Citizens (IDABC). They also outline ongoing efforts related to the development
of spatial data infrastructures at the national, regional, and global levels. The paper focuses on
technical approaches for multi-dimensional information integration, with a particular focus on
spatial information integration, by highlighting a demonstration system developed as part of the
IntelCities 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 information systems.
With the third paper in the issue, Towards End-to-End Government Performance Management: Case Study of Inter-Organizational Information Integration in Emergency Medical
Services (EMS), the discussion shifts from a technical to a business process context. Thomas
Horan and Benjamin Schooley employ process flow and information flow analysis across a
chain of dispatchers and responders in emergency services to understand how the exchange
and integration of performance information influences interorganizational governance,
organizational relationships, and ultimately end-to-end service performance. Through the
use of a sociotechnical framework, their findings indicate the importance of defining and
coding organizational and interorganizational performance metrics and data elements at the
outset of an initiative, as well as forming a governance structure for this critical cross-boundary
decision process.
In their contribution, An Information-Sharing Platform for First Responder Collaboration:
Lessons from the CapWIN Case, Jane Fedorowiz, Janis Gogan, and Christine Williams extend
the reach of the symposium issue by bringing the external environment and interorganizational
collaboration into the discussion of the challenges of information integration as an enabler of
digital government. Their interpretive case study of the early stages of the formation of
CapWIN, a cross-jurisdictional, cross-functional government collaboration, examines how the
perceptions of participating organizations and their employees will affect the extent and nature
of system use. In particular, they found employee understanding of the rationale for an
interagency collaboration to be a determining factor in system use. The authors urge others to
undertake longitudinal interpretive case studies of IOS that take a multi-level holistic view that
goes beyond cross-sectional survey style research as a strategy for further revealing the
important interagency collaboration issues.
In Collaborative Digital Government in Mexico: Some Lessons from Federal Web-Based
Interorganizational Information Integration Initiatives, Luis Luna-Reyes, J. Ramon GilGarcia, and Cinthia Betiny Cruz draw attention to the political context of information
integration. Their case study of the Mexican Federal Government explores the impact of
institutional arrangements and organizational structures on the cross-agency collaboration
efforts necessary in interorganizational information integration. A study of the initial efforts in
Mexico to create interoperable e-Government and information integration among several
federal agencies supports their exploration of key institutional characteristics and collaboration
processes. In their paper, they highlight the criticality of collaboration and the challenge to
managers 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 the
importance of understanding the influence of institutions on collaboration. Their case study
provides insights about the unique differences in the institutional environment of Latin
American in terms of collaboration and information integration relative to the developed world.
Gavin Clarkson, Trond Jacobsen, and Archer Batcheller provide the final contribution to
the symposium with their article that illustrates the challenges of sharing information
across political boundaries. Their paper, Information Asymmetry and Information
Sharing, a research in progress piece, begins to shed light on the concept of information
asymmetry and its potential role in contributing to underdevelopment and inequality; their
cases in domestic violence and tribal finance provide the foundation for the development
of a typology to classify information asymmetry into two categorieshorizontal and
vertical. They propose that solutions to the problems created by information asymmetry
may be found in continued examination of horizontal asymmetry among tribes and vertical
information 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 for
future research. Collectively these recommendations outline a comprehensive agenda for
further work in interorganizational information integration. The agenda includes the creation
of new theory and new strategies for system and process implementation. Specific focus areas
include new methodological approaches, new understanding of context, and new strategies for
assessing return on investment, conducting performance measurement, and transferring
technology. The agenda includes attention to a wide range of issues including evolving user
needs, architectures, visualization, collaboration, trust, and governance.
A number of the articles call for multi-method studies as a strategy for addressing the
complexity of information integration and sharing. Horan et al. propose adding simulations as an
tool for exploring how information at varying points in service delivery could impact end-to-end
performance. Federowicz et al. call for new longitudinal case studies, which can address the ebb
and flow of issues and challenges as collaborative networks evolve, to reveal typical interaction
patterns among these factors at different moments in the life of a collaborative network.
Several of the authors call for research focused on extracting detailed understanding
of 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 use
events and crises to set in motion a political agenda for change and what types of governance
structures are most effective and flexible in meeting and balancing participants' needs over the
life of a project. Horan et al. call for studies that focus on extracting the detailed context of
health care work practices and processes to inform the design and development of more
appropriate IT systems for these environments. Luna et al. call for further research into the
dynamics of collaboration, trust, institutions, and organizations and the role they play in more
traditional (supply only) e-government initiatives.
Research to inform strategy is outlined in several of the papers, both in the context of system
design and in technology transfer. In the tribal context, Clarkson et al. call for research into the

Editorial

705

role directionality of an information asymmetry plays in dictating the strategic response

necessary for resolving the asymmetry. Holden calls for the examination of strategies for
responding to the emerging and evolving needs of users as they gain familiarity with the
capabilities of a system. Research into enhanced views of information through visualization
and analysis tools as a strategy for expanding the information that can be presented to decision
makers is also called for. Wang et al. outline the need for more work to be done in converting
advanced research based systems, such as those produced in IntelCities, to workable systems
to be used in commerce and government.
Research informing both new strategies for conducting return on investment analysis as
well as to generate new understanding of the benefits of information integration and
sharing is also called for. Several of the authors outline the need for further research on
how to measure the costs and benefits of new technologies, particularly those that impact
ongoing operations and procedures. Horan et al. suggest more detailed examinations into
how participating agencies and organizations interact with each other and with
technological systems in the delivery of emergency services, including what the perceived
performance benefits are for sharing information. They propose an investigation into how
an architectural view could be utilized in understanding end-to-end performance; in
particular, they consider the potential value of studies that draw upon multiple existing
system 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 information
integration and provide new insights on challenges facing developed and less developed
countries, as well as from within the changing context of the European Union. The articles by
Holden et al., Horan and Schooley, and Fedorowicz et al. address some of the more complex
domains for information integration from the perspective of the developed world, in particular
environmental 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 the
added complexity of operating within the dynamic context of the European Union, which
presents new challenges and opportunities related to regionalism. Luna et al. provide insight
into 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 developed
world. Clarkson et al. provide new insights into information integration efforts of the tribal
nations in the United States and additional challenges placed on cross-boundary information
sharing due to institutional context. Finally, the vignettes from Zhang and Fang and Yu
acknowledge the reality that questions posed by researchers and practitioners in this arena are
not nation specific, but global. The articles come together to highlight the importance of
similarities rather than differences. They encourage continued exploration of these underlying
similarities, to identify and understand them, while also increasing our capability to identify and
understand the differences among specific countries, domains, and contexts that both inhibit
and enable digital government.

706

Editorial

VIGNETTE ONE

A study of G2G information sharing in the

Chinese 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 a
popular topic for exploration among both scholars and practitioners of public
administration. Fundamental Research on Electronic Government Management Theory and Method (70533030) is an important key research project
about e-government in China, which is supported by the National Science
Foundation of China. Six topics have been investigated in this project: (1)
recognition and dynamic management of demand for e-government; (2) design,
coordination, and integration of e-government processes; (3) e-government
process reengineering management (EGPRM); (4) function and logic structure
model systems of e-government; (5) flexible interactions and decision-making
support approaches for e-government workflow; and (6) strategies and
approaches for e-government system construction management. One of the
focuses within this project is G2G information sharing in the Chinese context.
2. Chinese context
Historically, government agencies in China have acted as stovepipes; for
example, regulatory agencies maintain multiple watch lists of suspicious
business activities. Each individual agency has a separate list based on
different data structures and schema, which limits the potential value of
government information resources. Below are some examples of how
enterprises take advantage of poor G2G information sharing:
Situation 1: In 2002, the Chinese Administration of Industry and
Commerce (AIC) and the Administration of Taxation (AT) tried to exchange
and compare basic business information from local enterprises in several
cities. They found that not only did different agencies maintain different
company lists for the same district, but many of the individual agencies had
inconsistent 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).

Editorial

707

Situation 2: Research has revealed that some enterprises in China hold three
different financial report books. One report is submitted to the Administration
of Taxation (AT), showing weak profits or even losses to reduce the taxes they
owe. 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 to
repay the loan. The company also maintains a comprehensive financial report
for managers to review the real status of the business.
Situation 3: Some foreign trade enterprises take advantage of the poor
information sharing across related government agencies. They may forge
different trade files, which are then separately submitted to customers for
smuggling, to the Administration of Foreign Exchange for a favorable
exchange rate, and to the Administration of Tax Reimbursement for Export
to receive better export rebates.
With the rapid development of e-government in China, G2G information
sharing has received increased national attention for several reasons. First, the
main goals of the national strategy on government system reform and
government function transform in China are reducing bureaucratic levels and
shifting from a regulation-oriented to a service-oriented approach to
providing services to citizens. Both of these goals urgently require that the
government promotes G2G information sharing. Second, rather than using an
administration system based on geography, as is done in America, the Chinese
government uses a matrix system that relies on function-oriented agencies.
Therefore, functional agencies in the same district always report to different
superior institutions with different policies for information sharing. Third, there
is an imbalance in the development of e-government in China; some of the
metropolitans have been equipped with modern IT infrastructures, while some
cities still lack the primary facilities for office automation. These discrepancies in
resources continue to pose challenges for G2G information sharing.
3. Research questions
Although government agencies in China have recognized the importance of
information sharing, there are still many roadblocks to overcome in the process of
establishing G2G information sharing. This project tackles two key issues: (1)
what are the major factors that influence the participation and impact of G2G
information sharing in Chinese context, and, (2) how can G2G information sharing
indicators 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 of
government 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 integrates
information from enterprises to reflect their business reputation, including tax
records, loan records, product quality records, and so on. The second is the EPort System in Shannxi province, where the local government agencies
responsible for business regulation have begun networking customs declarations. Their goal is not only to provide a one-window service, but also to
prevent illegal business activities, such as forging fake documents for
smuggling, cheating the foreign exchange rate, and cheating on tax refunds.
From those case studies, sixteen interviews have been completed with
employees from seven functional agencies over eight months.
The purpose of the survey was to test the proposed research framework
and hypotheses to gain an understanding of the factors that impact
government agencies participation in G2G information sharing. In total,
216 questionnaires were distributed to 42 government agencies in Shanghai
City, NingBo City, Shannxi Province, and Shanxi Province in China.
5. Preliminary findings
Several strategies seem to support the development of G2G information
sharing. Process support is the most influential factor because of agencies
concerns about the risks in sharing information, especially the security of
shared information. Social networks also significantly support the establishment of information sharing systems. The success of social networking may
be due to traditional Chinese culture, which encourages participating in and
using various organizational social networks.
There are also some key conflicts that prevent the development of
information sharing in China. According to data from the case studies,
protection of present political rights and interests is one of the important
barriers to information sharing. In addition, project championship agencies are
not present in China because of the governments organizational structure. In
particular, there is an absence of top-management agencies to create
consistency and coordinate interests among the local agencies.
Another potential factor in the implementation of information sharing
systems is the cost of sharing information. Although financial cost has not
been a serious barrier in the case studies, it was significant in the completed
surveys. The lack of financial barriers in the case studies , however, does not
prove that China has abundant financial support for e-government. There are
two possible reasons why budget constraints were not a factor in the case
studies. On one hand, agencies have been equipped with cheaper, late-model
applications because of the late development of e-government in China; on
the other hand, because G2G information sharing is still in the early stages of
development, the current investment into the process is low.

Editorial

709

VIGNETTE TWO

New model of enhancing public service by

information 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, was

founded by the government of Haishu district in NingBo city, Zhejiang
province in August 2001. Using call center technology, 81890 integrates the
most popular communication modes, such as telephone, Internet, and mobile
text messaging, and provides 17 categories of comprehensive services for
citizens and enterprises through improved information sharing among
governments, joined enterprises, and the public. Its development is based
on citizen-centered and demand-oriented principles, with a goal of 100% citizen
satisfaction. 81890 makes three promises to citizens: 24/7 service availability,
delivery of comprehensive services, and whole tracking and supervising of those
services.
81890 is the dialectal tone of NingBo, which means dial to access public
information.
1. Business model
The management of 81890 is comprised of four departments: the general
office, connection division, implementation division, and network division. Each
office has a specific set of responsibilities for the service center. The general
office is responsible for rule making, daily management, performance evaluations, and external contacts; the connection division answers incoming phone
calls, replies to online requests, and tracks services; the implementation division
supervises enterprises enrollment in the program, as well as information
collection and updating; and the network division conducts cross-boundary
information integration and online transactions.The NingBo 81890 service
center integrates service information between government agencies and
E-mail address: ysy@mx.cei.gov.cn (S. Yu).

710

Editorial

enterprises, and links e-government and e-commerce together. More than 570
enterprises have become members of the platform to meet citizens' demands
and offer comprehensive services through a central location. Both public and
private service can be reached through this platform. As a public service
platform for communication and interaction among citizens, 81890 effectively
solved the information asymmetry issue in public service providing process.The
NingBo municipal government constructs this interactive and creditable service
platform by using its authority, credibility, and organizing ability. 81890
promotes the credit reputation for the whole service industry. A complete set of
credit management systems including service industry credit assessment
system, education, and training system, service quality assurance system,
provide a guarantee and soft-environment for service industry development in
this area.
2. The effects
The successful operation of 81890 has clearly had a positive impact on the
local community. First, its universal service approach bridges the gap between
the government and its citizens. Second, the center generates service industry
growth with the development of new enterprises, standardization of the service
market, and the creation of new job opportunities. Member enterprises have
seen their revenues triple when compared with their previous earnings, and
NingBo 81890 is responsible for creating 4,900 new job opportunities for the
unemployed. Finally, it improves the city environment and enhances the public
administration. Up to the February 2006, 81890 had received and handled more
than 700,000 cases, accompanied with a 99.87% rate of public satisfaction.In
addition to the economic benefits of NingBo 81890, the center will also help
China face some of the problems associated with an aging society. An
emergency-calling system for senior citizens has been built on 81890 platform,
which demonstrates the versatility of its application. This system can help
respond to many of the daily care and emergency response problems of the
elderly.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 fully
develop a cooperative mechanism for sharing information among government,
enterprises, and citizens. NingBo 81890 provides an exemplary model of
effective information sharing for public services.

References
Ambite, J. L., & Knoblock, C. A. (1997). Agents for information gathering. IEEE Expert Intelligence Systems &
Their Applications, 12(5), 25.

Editorial

711

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), 335353.
Ballou, D. P., & Pazer, H. L. (1995). Designing information systems to optimize the accuracy-timeliness trade-off.
Information Systems Research, 6(1), 5172.
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 publicprivate partnership. Public
Productivity and Management Review, 21(4), 460471.
Bodor, T., Thompson, F., & Demercivi, F. (2004). Law enforcement culture in the United States: A context for
understanding aspects of organizational change. Paper presented at the Hungarian Psychological Association
Conference, Debrecen, Hungary.
Burt, R. S. (1997, June). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339365.
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 Building
Collaborations 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 and
opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937955.
Chua, A. (2002). The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(4),
375392.
Cohen, W. W. (2000). Data integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representation
language. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 18(3), 288321.
Cooren, F., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D., & Bodor, T. (2006). From agency to structure: Analysis of an episode in a
facilitation process. Human Relations, 59(4), 533565.
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 Strategy
Development for Knowledge-Empowered Government, Chosun University, Kwangjoo, Korea.
Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Dawes, S. S., & Kelly, K. (2000). Partnership effectiveness in public sector
information 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 system
dynamics model of intergovernmental collaboration. Paper presented at the System Dynamics Research
Conference, 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, Mexico
City.
Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D. S., Cook, M., Black, L., et al. (2002). Modeling
intergovernmental collaboration: A system dynamics approach. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaiian International
Conference 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 the
public sector. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Denver.
Cresswell, A. M., Canestraro, D. S., Canestraro, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Schneider, C. (2004). Interorganizational
information 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 Policy
Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377394.
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377394.
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. 259273). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2006). Maximizing knowledge for program evaluation: Critical issues and practical
challenges 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-local
information 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 information
integration after the 9-11 crisis. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference, Nashville, TN.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450467.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Learning, trust, and technological collaboration. Human Relations, 46(1), 7795.
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), 596622.
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), 91113.
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. 215). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Gil-Garca, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). Egovernment success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical
foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 187216.
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), 317.
Gil-Garca, 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. Proceedings
of the 38th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society
Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, B. (2007). Government leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled networks:
Lessons from the response to the West Nile Virus outbreak. Paper presented at the Third Transatlantic Dialogue of the
American 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), 619653.

Editorial

713

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 collaboration
and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217230.
Hart, P., & Saunders, C. (1997). Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data
interchange. Organization Science, 8(1), 2342.
Heeks, R. (1999). Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public
sector reform. New York: Routledge.
Hill, R. C., & Hellriegel, D. (1994). Critical contingencies in joint venture management: Some lessons from
managers. Organization Science, 5(4), 594607.
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), 379403.
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), 959979.
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 School
of Administration, Speyer, Germany.
Krishnan, R., Li, X., Steier, D., & Zhao, L. (2001). On heterogeneous database retrieval: A cognitively guided
approach. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 286301.
Kumar, K., vanDissel, H. G., & Bielli, P. (1998). The merchant of PratoRevisited: Toward a third rationality of
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(n), 199227.
Landsbergen, D., & Wolken, G. (1998). Eliminating legal and policy barriers to interoperable government
systems. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management, New York.
Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken, G. J. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth
generation of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206220.
Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76104.
LaVigne, M. (2003). From communication to collaboration: Building a homeless information management
network. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Miami, FL.
Le, C. N., Thompson, F., Cresswell, A. M., & Dawes, S. (2001a). Carpooling on the superhighway: Information
technology and interorganizational knowledge-sharing networks in the public sector. Paper presented at the
American Sociological Association, Anaheim, CA.
Le, C. N., Thompson, F., Cresswell, A. M., & Dawes, S. (2001b). Walking the walk: The effectiveness of knowledge
sharing 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), 2337.
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 system
dynamics 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 structures
for information integration across governmental agencies. Proceedings of the 22nd International System
Dynamics Conference, CD-ROM ed.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Gil-Garca, J. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005). Information systems development as
emergent socio-technical change: A practice approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 93105.

714

Editorial

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709734.
McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R., & Hart, D. W. (1995). The appeal and difficulties of participative systems.
Organization Science, 6(6), 603627.
Miller, J., & Thompson, F. (2000). Developing collaboration between nonprofits and government: A case study of
knowledge sharing to improve services for the homeless. Paper presented at the Association for Research on
Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (1998). Principles for controlling agents: The political economy of network
structure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 203221.
Nathan, M. L., & Mitroff, I. I. (1991). The use of negotiated order theory as a toll for the analysis and development
of an interorganizational field. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 163180.
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: John
Wiley and Sons.
Osborne, D., & Gabler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the
public sector. New York: Penguin Books.
Pardo, T. A., & Burke, B. (2005). Solving the integration puzzle. Public CIO, 4(2), 2834.
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. Traunmller, & C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digital
government: Advanced research and case studies. Springer.
Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Zhang, J., & Thompson, F. (2001). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in public
sector innovations. Paper presented at the Best Paper Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Academy of
Management, Washington DC.
Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Dawes, S. S., & Burke, G. B. (2004). Modeling the social and technical processes of
interorganizational information integration. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaiian International Conference on
System Sciences, Hawaii.
Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Thompson, F., & Zhang, J. (2006). Knowledge sharing in cross-boundary
information system development in the public sector. Information Technology and Management, 7(4),
293313.
Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Burke, G. B. (2006). Building response capacity through cross-boundary
information 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 of
innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116145.
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),
133.
Reiss, S. P. (1996). Simplifying data integration: The design of the desert software development environment. Paper
presented 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), 90118.
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, 471479.
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 and
Talk at Work: Discourse Practices In, Around, and About the Workplace, University of Ghent, Belgium.

Editorial

715

Thompson, F., Connelly, D. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2000b). Structuring the story to restructure work and
interorganizational relations in the public sector. Paper presented at the American Anthropology Association
meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Thompson, F., Canestraro, D., & Demercivi, F. (2004). From turf to trust: Learning to collaborate across
government 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), 581600.
Weiss, J. A. (1987). Pathways to cooperation among public agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
7(1), 94117.
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), 141158.
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), 433466.
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 knowledge
networking in the public sector. In W. Huang, K. Siau, & K. K. Wei (Eds.), Digital government: Strategies and
implementations 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 of
e-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 18(5), 548567.
Zhang, J., Pardo, T. A., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Macros: A case study of knowledge sharing system development within
New York State government agencies. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7, 105126.
Zhang, J., Faerman, S. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2006). The effect of organizational/ technological factors and the
nature of knowledge on knowledge sharing. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaiian International Conference on
System 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. Pardo
Center for Technology in Government,
University at Albany, 187 Wolf Road,
Suite 301 Albany, New York 12203, USA
E-mail address: tpardo@ctg.albany.edu.
Corresponding author.
Fax: +1 518 442 3886.
Giri Kumar Tayi
Department of ITM/MSIS,
School of Business University at Albany,
SUNY, 1400 Washington Ave.,
Albany, NY 12222, USA
Fax: +1 518 442 2568.