Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 9–27 | Cite as

Collaborative systems development in disaster relief: The impact of multi-level governance

  • Edgar A. Maldonado
  • Carleen F. Maitland
  • Andrea H. Tapia


Disaster management information systems for international humanitarian relief are developed in contexts involving local, national and inter-governmental organizations together with local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While the multi-organizational nature of disaster response is known to create challenges for information systems development, to date, less attention has been paid to their multi-level nature. This research sheds light on the implications of multi-level governance for disaster information systems development by integrating political science and information systems theories of multi-level governance. The integrated theoretical framework is then used to analyze a case study of a system development effort undertaken by a multi-organizational coordination body consisting of the headquarters of six large, international humanitarian relief agencies, together with their country offices in a Central American country. This research finds that multi-level governance can both negatively and positively influence information systems development. In a multi-level governance arrangement, authority for a systems development project may be diffuse and may change. The transfer of resources from higher to lower levels is key factor, as these resources help local organizations overcome resource constraints to collaboration. The initial outcome of coercion by higher levels of authority may be resistance, however over time the outcome can change to compliance.


Multi-level Governance Humanitarian relief Disaster response 


  1. Achoka, A., & Atema, J. (2001). Making of a Country Reduction Strategy Paper: The Case of Kenya [Electronic Version]. Retrieved May 7, 2008 from
  2. Adinolfi, C., Bassiouni, D. S., Lauritzsen, H. F., & Williams, H. R. (2005). Humanitarian Response Review. Retrieved June 23 rd, 2007, from
  3. Ahituv, N., Neumann, S., & Riley, H. N. (1994). Principles of Information Systems for Management (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  4. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-Level Governance and the Study of the British State. Public Policy and Administration, 19(1), 31–51. doi: 10.1177/095207670401900103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balinga, B. R., & Jaeger, A. M. (1984). Multinatinal Corporations: Control Systems and Selegation Issues. Journal of International Business Studies, 15, 25–40. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal Conflict and Its Management in Information Systems Development. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 195–228. doi: 10.2307/3250929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing Across Borders (2nd ed.). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  8. Baugh, S. G., & Roberts, R. M. (1994). Professional and organizational commitment among engineers: conflicting or complementing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(2), 108–114. doi: 10.1109/17.293377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, D. (Ed.).(2003). Fighting Poverty in Africa: Are PRSPs Making a Difference? London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, C. V., & Magill, S. L. (1998). Reconceptualizing the context-design issue for the information systems function. Organization Science, 9(2), 176–194. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.2.176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig, D., & Porter, D. (2003). Poverty reduction strategy papers: A new convergence. World Development, 31(1), 53–69. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00147-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dang, T. (1977). Ownership, control performance and the multinational corporation: a study of u.s. wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures in the Phillippines and Taiwan. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  13. Davenport, T. H., Eccles, R. G., & Prusak, L. (1992). Information politics. Sloan Management Review, 34(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  14. Develtere, P., Hertogen, E., & Wanyama, F. (2005). The emergence of multilevel governance in Kenya: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.Google Scholar
  15. Drummond, H., & Hodgson, J. (2003). The Chimpanzees' tea party: A new metaphor for project managers. Journal of Information Technology, 18(3), 151–158. doi: 10.1080/0268396032000122123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. doi: 10.2307/258191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferner, A., Almond, P., Clark, I., Colling, T., Edwards, T., Holden, L., et al. (2004). The Dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of human resources: Case study evidence from US MNNCs in the UK. Organization Studies, 25(3), 363–391. doi: 10.1177/0170840604040041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franz, C. R., & Robey, D. (1984). An investigation of user-Led system design: Rational and political perspectives. Communications of the ACM, 27(12), 1202–1209. doi: 10.1145/2135.2138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1989). Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 323–337. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta, P. P., Dirsmith, M. W., & Fogarty, T. J. (1994). Coordination and control in a government agency: Contigency and institutional theory perspectives on GAO audits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 264–284. doi: 10.2307/2393236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gwillim, D., Dovey, K., & Wieder, B. (2005). The politics of post-implementation reviews. Information Systems Journal, 15, 307–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00198.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrel, A., & Harrison, P. (1994). An incentive to shirk, privately held information, and managers’ project evaluation decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(7), 569–577. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(94) 90024-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson, J. C., & Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S design teams: A control theories perspective. Management Science, 38(6), 757–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooge, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and european integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and european integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? types of multi-level governance. The American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.Google Scholar
  27. Hveinden, B. (1994). Divided against itself: A study of integration in welfare bureaucracy. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jiang, J., Klein, G., Hwang, H.-G., Huang, J., & Hung, S.-Y. (2004). An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Information & Management, 41, 279–288. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00052-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jørgensen, M., & Moløkken, K. (2004). How large are software cost overruns? Critical Comments on the Standish Group's CHAOS Reports. Retrieved January 14th, 2008, from
  30. Keating, M. (1995). Size, efficiency and democracy:consolidation, fragmentation, and public choice. In D. Judge & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theories of Urban Politics, pp. 117–134. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Kirsch, L. J. (2004). Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 374–395. doi: 10.1287/isre.1040.0036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. KIng, R. (1980). Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. Computing Surveys, 12(1), 61–110. doi: 10.1145/356802.356806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kling, R. (1993). Organizational analysis in computer science. The Information Society, 9, 1–29.Google Scholar
  34. Kling, R. (ed). (1996). Computerization and Controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by the subsidiaries of multinational coporations: institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 215–233. doi: 10.2307/3069293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lamp, J., Altmann, G., & Hetherington, T. (2003). Functional group conflict in information systems development. Paper presented at the 14th Australian Conference on Information Systems, Perth, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  37. Lowery, D. (2000). A transactions costs model of metropolitan governance: Allocation versus redistribution in urban america. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 10, 49–78.Google Scholar
  38. Mahaney, R. C., & Lederer, A. L. (2003). Information systems project management: an agency theory interpretation. Journal of Systems and Software, 68(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00132-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maiers, C., Reynolds, M., & Haselkorn, M. (2005). challenge to effective information and communication systems in humanitarian relief organizations. Paper presented at the 2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.Google Scholar
  40. Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multi-level governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny & G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The State of the european community: The maastricht debate and beyond, pp. 391–411. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  41. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and mis implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430–444. doi: 10.1145/358141.358148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin, K., Quigley, M. A., & Rogers, S. (2005). Implementing a learning management system globally: An innovative change management approach. IBM Systems Journal, 44(1), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McEntire, D. A. (2003). Searching for a holistic paradigm and policy guide: A proposal for the future of emergency management. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1(3), 298–308. doi: 10.1504/IJEM.2003.003295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mirchandani, D. A., & Lederer, A. L. (2004). IS Planning autonomy in us subsidiaries of multinational firms. Information & Management, 41(8), 1021–1036. doi: 10.1016/ Scholar
  45. Oates, W. E. (1999). An Essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120–1149.Google Scholar
  46. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179. doi: 10.2307/258610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson, G. M., Malone, T. W., & Smith, J. B. (Eds.).(2001). Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1287/isre.2.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  50. Pliskin, N., Romm, T., Lee, A. S., & Weber, Y. (1993). Presumed versus actual organizational culture: Managerial implications of information systems. The Computer Journal, 36(2), 143–152. doi: 10.1093/comjnl/36.2.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raghupathi, W. (2007). Corporate governance of IT: A framework for development. Communications of the ACM, 50(8), 94–99. doi: 10.1145/1278201.1278212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rao, M. T., Brown, C. V., & Perkins, W. C. (2007). Host country resource availability and information system control mechanisms in multinational corporations: an empirical test of resource dependence theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(4), 11. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222230402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richards, D., & Smith, M. J. (2004). Interpreting the world of political elites. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 777–800. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00419.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Riddel, R. C. (2007). Does foreign aid really works?. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Robey, D., & Newman, M. E. (1996). Sequential patterns in information systems development: An application of a social process model. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(1), 30–63. doi: 10.1145/214174.214178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rouse, A., & Watson, D. (1994). The role of culture in information systems quality. Paper presented at the 5th Australian Conference on Information Systems, Monash University.Google Scholar
  57. Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Arrangements for information technology governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 261–290. doi: 10.2307/249754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sauer, C. (1993). why information systems fail: A case study approach. Oxfordshire, UK: Alfred Waller Ltd., Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Schmitter, P.C. (2000). How to Democratizze the European Union... And Why Bother? Lanham, MD: Rowman and LIttlefield.Google Scholar
  60. Scott, R. W. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511. doi: 10.2307/2392880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Standing, C., Guilfoyle, A., Lin, C., & Love, P. E. D. (2006). The attribution of success and failure in it projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(8), 1148. doi: 10.1108/02635570610710809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strand, A. (2003). Who's helping who ngo coordination of humanitarian assistance. With Special Reference to Afghanistan.: University of York.Google Scholar
  63. Uvin, P. (1999). The influence of aid in situations in violent conflict a synthesis and commentary on the lessons learned from case studies on the limit and scope of the use of development assistance incentives and disincentives for influencing conflict situations.. Paris: OECD, Informal Task Force on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation.Google Scholar
  64. Warne, L., & Hart, D. N. (1996). the impact of organizational politics on information systems project failure — a case study. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences IV, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  65. Weill, P., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Leveraging the new infrastructure. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  66. Weill, P., & Ross, J. (2005). A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 26–34.Google Scholar
  67. Yeh, Q. J., & Tsai, C. L. (2001). Two conflict potentials during IS development. Information & Management, 39, 135–149. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00088-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edgar A. Maldonado
    • 1
  • Carleen F. Maitland
    • 1
  • Andrea H. Tapia
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations