Advertisement

Information Technology and Management

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 277–291 | Cite as

Information sharing across multiple humanitarian organizations—a web-based information exchange platform for project reporting

  • Stefan HuesemannEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article analyzes information sharing problems in the humanitarian development sector and proposes the concept of a web-based exchange platform to face some of the technical challenges. The “Development Information Exchange System” is a mediator-wrapper-architecture that uses XML documents to loosely couple autonomous and heterogeneous information systems. Detailed project information of humanitarian organizations that resides on data provider systems can be formatted with XSL stylesheets according to the needs of the users and shared within or between organizations. The system can help to close the control loop by providing qualitative information about humanitarian projects. This makes project management more efficient. The proposed architecture solves an interface problem between the various partners and stakeholders of humanitarian projects. It is a first step towards a service-oriented architecture between humanitarian organizations. The next step could be the definition of cross-organizational business processes. These processes may be defined platform-independently with the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services. A prototype of the exchange platform is presented and evaluated in this article.

Keywords

Loosely coupled information systems XML-based project reporting Development information exchange system Humanitarian organization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    INDIX. International Network for Development Information Exchange. International Network for Development Information Exchange (INDIX) (2000), http://www.indix.org (discontinued, Development Gateway has taken over some INDIX activities) (accessed 2000-01-04).
  2. 2.
    S. Denning, in: The Knowledge Perspective, R. Ruggles and D. Holtshouse, (eds.) The Knowledge Advantage, Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd. (1999) pp. 143–161.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge Creating Company (1995) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, New York, NY: Doubleday (1990).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.V. Vanderville, Organizational Learning Through the Collection of “Lessons Learned”. Informing Science, 3(3) (2000) 127–133.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Estrella (ed.), Learning from Change—Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd. (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.T. March and G.F. Smith, Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision Support Systems 15 (1995) 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rational. Rational Unified Process for Software Engineering RUP SE 1.0. USA (2001).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    UN. Millennium Development Goals. United Nations (2000), http://www.developmentgoals.org (accessed 2003-08-29).
  10. 10.
    J. Eriksson, The Drive to Partnership: Aid Coordination and the World Bank. Report, Washington (DC), USA: World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department (OED) (2001).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IFRC. World Disasters Report 2000. Yearly Report, Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2000).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IFRC. Description of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2002), http://www.ifrc.org/who (accessed 2003-05-05).
  13. 13.
    ECHO. ECHO—Humanitarian Aid Office. European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) (2002), http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo (accessed 2003-04-29).
  14. 14.
    P. Schwarz, R. Purtschert and C. Giroud, Das Freiburger Management-Modell für Nonprofit-Organisationen. 3. Auflage. Bern: Haupt Verlag (1999).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Huesemann, Web-basierte Informationsaustauschplattform für Internationale Humanitäre Projekte. DUV Wirtschaftsinformatik. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag DUV (2003).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Pasteur and J. Blauert, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation in Latin America: Overview of the Literature with Annotated Bibliography, Brighton, Sussex, England: Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex (2000).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R.A. Brealey and S.C. Myers, Principles of Corporate Finance, 6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill (2000).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Probst and T. Dyllick, in: Kybernetische Führungstheo- rien, Handwörterbuch der Führung, A. Kieser, G. Reber and R. Wunderer, (eds.) Stuttgart, Deutschland: Poeschel Verlag (1987) p. 823ff.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Schauer, et al. (eds.), Nonprofit-Organisationen im Wandel: Herausforderungen, Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung, Perspektiven. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner (2000).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Madon, International NGOs: networking, information flows and learning, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 (1999) 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Huesemann, Web-basierte Informationssysteme als Her- ausforderung. VM—Fachzeitschrift für Verbandsund Non- profit-Management 2/2001 (2001) 34–41.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DG. Harnessing Knowledge and Technology for Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction. Project Proposal. Project Proposal, Washington (DC), USA: Development Gateway (DG) (2000).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Nonaka, A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science 5(1) (1994) 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. Nonaka, P. Reinmoeller and D. Senoo, The ‘ART’ of knowledge: systems to capitalize on market knowledge. European Management Journal 16(6) (1998) 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Creech and T. Willard, Strategic Intentions—Managing Knowledge Networks for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2001).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    UNECE. UN/EDIFACT—United Nations Directories for Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2003), http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/welcome.htm (accessed 2003-09-18).
  27. 27.
    S. Raghavan and H. Garcia-Molina, Integrating Diverse Information Management Systems: A Brief Survey. Working Paper, Stanford (CA), USA: Computer Science Department, Stanford University (2001).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y. Papakonstantinou, A. Gupta and L. Haas, Capabilities—based Query Rewriting in Mediator Systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases, Kluwer Academic Publishers (6) (1998) 73–110.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Thiran and J.-L. Hainaut, Wrapper Development for Legacy Data Reuse. in Work Conference on Reengineering (WCRE). Stuttgart: IEEE (2001).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. Josifovski and T. Risch, Query Decomposition for a Distributed Object-Oriented Mediator System. Distributed and Parallel Databases, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11 (2002) 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Bouguettaya, B. Benatallah and A. Elmagarmid, Interconnecting Heterogeneous Information Systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998) p. XVI, 218 S.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Abiteboul, et al., Tools for data translation and integration. Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering, IEEE Computer Society 22(1) (1999) 3–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rational. Using Service-Oriented Architecture and Component-Based Development to Build Web Service Applications. USA (2003) p. 15.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W3C/WebServices. Web Services. WWW Consortium (W3C) (2002), http://www.w3.org/2002/ws (accessed 2003-08-05).
  35. 35.
    C. Kaler, Web Service Security (WS-Security)—Version 1.0. Specification: IBM, Microsoft Inc., VeriSign (2002) p. 22.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Pezzini and Y. Natis, SOA Comes of Age via Web Services. Research Note: Gartner (2002) p. 6.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. Thatte, et al. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services—Version 1.1. Specification: BEA Systems, IBM, Microsoft Inc., SAP AG, Siebel Systems (2003).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    W.H. Inmon, Building the Data Warehouse, 2nd Edition. New York (NY), USA: John Wiley & Sons (1996).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    L. Silverston, W.H. Inmon and K. Graziano, The Data Model Resource Book : A Library of Logical Data Models and Data Warehouse Designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons (1997).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Powell, Information Management for Development Organisations. Oxford, UK: Oxfam (1999).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J.A. Hoffer, J.F. George, and J.S. Valacich, Modern Systems Analysis and Design, 2nd Edition. Reading (MA), USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1999).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    IDML. International Development Markup Language. IDML Initiative (2000), http://www.idmlinitiative.org (accessed 2003-09-12).
  43. 43.
    DG. Homepage Development Gateway. Development Gateway (DG) (2001), http://www.developmentgateway.org (accessed 2003-09-06).
  44. 44.
    S. Huesemann, Information exchange between humanitarian organizations: Using the XML Schema IDML, Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) 3 (2002) 1–26.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    W3C/XMLSchema. Specification of XML Schema Standard. WWW Consortium (W3C) (2001), http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema (accessed 2003-08-12).
  46. 46.
    S. Huesemann, Homepage Dissertation Stefan Hüsemann (2002), http://www.huesemann.org/diss (accessed 2003-10-21).
  47. 47.
    S. Huesemann, in: Computergestützter Informationsaustausch Zwischen Stakeholdern Humanitärer Projekte—das Development Information Exchange System, R. Schauer, R. Purtschert and D. Witt, (eds.) Nonprofit-Organisationen und gesellschftliche Entwicklung: Spannungsfeld zwischen Mission und ökonomie, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner (2002) pp. 273–286.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    W3C/XSL. Specification of XSL Standard. WWW Consortium (W3C) (2002), http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL (accessed 2003-08-05).
  49. 49.
    J. Britt and T. Duynstee, Professional Visual Basic 6 for XML. Birmingham, UK: Wrox Press Ltd. (2000).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    W3C/DOM. Specification of DOM Standard. WWW Consortium (W3C) (2002), http://www.w3.org/DOM (accessed 2003-08-05).
  51. 51.
    M.E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, 10th Edition. New York (NY), USA: Free Press (1998).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    P. Kotler, Marketing Management, 11th Edition. Upper Saddle River, UK: Prentice Hall (2002).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    R. Galliers (ed.), Information Analysis, Selected Readings. Boston (MA), USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1987).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    P. Ballantyne, R. Labelle and S. Rudgard, Information and knowledge management: challenges for capacity builders, Policy Management Brief (11) (2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Innovation Process TechnologyUniversity of FribourgVillars-sur-GlâneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations