Advertisement

Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 326–344 | Cite as

Governance configurations for inter-organizational coordination: A study of public safety networks

  • Jane Fedorowicz
  • Steve SawyerEmail author
  • Arthur Tomasino
Research Article
  • 202 Downloads

Abstract

We focus on networked arrangements of digital resources that are shared among otherwise independent units to advance conceptual and empirical insights about their governance. We are motivated by the simple observation that, increasingly, independent organizations are engaging in shared activities, often relying on purpose-built digital infrastructures to support this move to inter-dependence. To advance current conceptualizations of networked governance, we draw on data from 42 public safety networks and use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. We do so because fsQCA allows us to account for the realities of inter-dependence among the concepts and variables we consider and to illuminate the multiple viable governance patterns that are possible. The results show the importance of network-level governance competencies to manage stakeholders and information infrastructure to achieve high effectiveness of PSN. Analysis makes clear that there exist five configurations of PSN governance practices that enable high levels of network governance effectiveness. Common to all these configurations are the network-level competence in managing both stakeholders and the digital infrastructure, suggesting these are necessary (but not sufficient) network-level governance competencies. Building from the analysis, we advance the role of specific network-level governance competencies, and the current conceptualization of network governance more broadly.

Keywords

network governance fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis public safety networks inter-organizational systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support provided from NSF Grants 0852688 and 0534877 and the IBM Center for the Business of Government. However, the insights, analysis, and evidence are solely the authors’. We appreciatively acknowledge the collegiality and participation of the many members of the research effort from which these data are drawn. These include: Christine B. Williams, Bentley University; M. Lynne Markus, Bentley University; Martin Dias, Northeastern University; Sonia Gantman, Providence College; Dax Jacobson, Westminster College; Michael Tyworth, Penn State University; Robert Schrier. We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their attention, our colleagues at Temple (especially Sunil Wattal), HEC Montreal (especially Suzanne Rivard), The Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany (especially Teresa Pardo), Queen’s University (especially Tracy Jenkin) San Francisco University (especially JP Allen and Steve Alter), Technical University of Munich, and the IT University of Copenhagen who commented on early versions of this analysis as presented in talks. The insights and attention of these many scholars have improved the work being presented here. An earlier version of this paper was published as Fedorowicz, J., Sawyer, S., and Tomasino, R. (2015) “Patterns of Governance among Inter-organizational Coordination Hubs,” Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Information Systems, Ft. Worth, TX, December 13–15, ACM Press.

Supplementary material

41265_2018_56_MOESM1_ESM.docx (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 58 kb)

References

  1. Ahn, M. and Bretschneider, S. (2011). Politics of e-government and the political control of bureaucracy, Public Administration Review 71(3):414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekkers, V. (2009). Flexible information infrastructures in Dutch E-government collaboration arrangements: Experiences and policy implications, Government Information Quarterly 26(1):60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belanger, F. and Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17(2):165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bethel, J.E. and Liebeskind, J.P. (1998). Diversification and the legal organization of the firm, Organization Science 9(1):49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryson, J., Crosby, B. and Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management, Public Administration Review 74(4):445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, J. (2001). The technological game: How information technology is transforming police practice, Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 1(2):139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, J., Techatassanasoontorn, A. and Doolin, B. (2013). Exploring qualitative comparative analysis in IS research. Paper presented at the 2013 OCIS-PACIS Workshop, Jeju Island, South Korea, 19 June.Google Scholar
  9. Constantinides, P. and Barrett, M. (2014). Information infrastructure development and governance as collective action, Information Systems Research 26(1):40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, T. and Stephenson, M. (2012). Managing networks as learning organizations in the public sector, The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology 3(1):1–37.Google Scholar
  11. Dawes, S., Pardo, T. and Cresswell, A. (2004). Designing electronic government information access programs: A holistic approach, Government Information Quarterly 21(1):3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys (Vol. 3), London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Drass, K. and Ragin, C. (2008). Qualitative comparative analysis 3.0, Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  14. Dunworth, T. (2005). Information technology and the criminal justice system: A historical review, in A. Pattavina (ed.), Information technology and the criminal justice system, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4):532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J. and Williams, C. (2007). A collaborative network for first responders: Lessons from the CapWIN case, Government Information Quarterly 24(4):785–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fedorowicz, J., Sawyer, S., Williams, C.B., Markus, M.L., Dias, M., Tyworth, M. et al. (2014). Design observations for interagency collaboration, Government Information Quarterly 31(2):302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman, D. (2016). Polycentric governance, in W.S. Bainbridge and M.C. Rocco (eds.) Handbook of science and technology convergence, Geneva: Springer, pp. 877–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferro, E. and Sorrentino, M. (2010). Can intermunicipal collaboration help the diffusion of E-government in peripheral areas? Evidence from Italy, Government Information Quarterly 27(1):17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher, G. and Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements, Organizational Research Methods 20(3):438–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiss, P.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research, Academy of Management Journal 54(2):393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fountain, J. (2013). Implementing cross-agency collaboration: A guide for managers, Arlington, VA: IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  23. Fountain, J. (2015). Building at Enterprise Government: Creating an ecosystem for cross-agency collaboration in the next administration, Arlington, VA: IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, R.E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frisk, J., Lindgren, R. and Mathiassen, L. (2014). Design matters for decision makers: Discovering it investment alternatives, European Journal of Information Systems 23(4):442–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gil-Garcia, J.R., Chengalur-Smith, I. and Duchessi, P. (2007). Collaborative e-Government: Impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector, European Journal of Information Systems 16(2):121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gil-Garcia, J.R. and Djoko, S. (2016). Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: Understanding the main determinants of success, Government Information Quarterly 33:572–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gil-Garcia, J. and Martinez-Moyano, I. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics, Government Information Quarterly 24(2):266–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Soon Ae, C., and Janssen, M. (2009). Government information sharing and integration: Combining the social and technical, Information Polity 14(1/2):1–10.Google Scholar
  30. Gillespie, M. (2005). NLETS: Standards-based web services, Law and Order 53(8):80–87.Google Scholar
  31. Goldkuhl, G. (2016). E-government design research: Towards a policy-ingrained IT artifact, Government Information Quarterly 33:444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grant, G. and Tan, F. (2013). Governing IT in inter-organizational relationships: Issues and future research, European Journal of Information Systems 22:493–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E. and Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility, Science, Technology and Human Values 21(4):407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanseth, O. and Nielsen, P. (2013). Infrastructural innovation: Flexibility, generativity and the mobile internet, International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research 11(1):27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hartono, E., Li, X., Na, K. and Simpson, J. (2010). The role of the quality of shared information in interorganizational systems use, International Journal of Information Management 30(5):399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heidari, F. and Loucupoulos, P. (2014). Quality evaluation framework (QEF): Modeling and evaluating quality of business processes, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 15(3):193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henderson, J. and Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations, IBM Systems Journal 32(1):472–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henfridsson, O. and Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution, MIS Quarterly 37(3):907–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IJIS Institute. (2012). Governance agreements in public safety information sharing projects. Washington, DC: The IJIS Public Safety Technical Standards Committee.Google Scholar
  40. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2000). A study of best practices in information integration projects. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobson, D. (2016). How and why network governance evolves: Evidence from a public safety network, Electronic Markets 26:43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Joha, A. and Janssen, M. (2011). Types of shared services business models in public administration. In The proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on digital government research.Google Scholar
  43. Joukhadar, G. and Rabhi, F. (2016). SOA in practice: A study of governance aspects, Information Systems Frontiers 18:499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kapucu, N., Hi, Q. and Khosa, S. (2014). The state of network research in public administration, Administration and Society 37:651–678.Google Scholar
  45. Kent, R. (2008). Using fsQCA: A brief guide and workshop for fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, Scotland: Department of Marketing, University of Sterling, pp. 2008–2010.Google Scholar
  46. King, N. (2013). Exploring the impact of operating model choice on the governance of inter-organizational workflow: The U.S. e-prescribing network, European Journal of Information Systems 22(4):548–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klievink, B., Bharosa, N. and Tan, Y.-H. (2015). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms, Government Information Quarterly 33(1):67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu, Y., Mezei, J., Kostakos, V. and Li, H. (2015). Applying configurational analysis to IS behavioral research: A methodological alternative for modelling combinatorial complexities, Information Systems Journal 27:59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lynn, L., Heinrich, C. and Hill, C. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2):233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manning, P.K. (1996). Information technology in the police context: The “Sailor” phone, Information Systems Research 7(1):52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Manning, P.K. (2003). Policing contingencies, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marcum, C., Bevc, C. and Butts, C. (2012). Mechanisms of control in emergent interorganizational networks, Policy Studies Journal 40:516–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Markus, M.L. and Bui, Q. (2012). Going concerns: The governance of interorganizational coordination hubs, Journal of Management Information Systems 28(4):163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marx, A., Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C. (2014). The origins, development, and application of qualitative comparative analysis: The first 25 years, European Political Science Review 6(1):115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Milward, H. and Provan, K. (2000). Governing the hollow state, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2):359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Monteiro, E., Pollock, N., Hanseth, O. and Williams, R. (2013). From artefacts to infrastructures, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 22(4–6):575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Noblis. (2006). Comprehensive regional information system project Volume 2: Concept of Operations, Noblis technical report MTR-2006-036, Falls Church, VA.Google Scholar
  58. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Pardo, T., Gil-Garcia, J. and Burke, G. (2008). Governance structures in cross-boundary information sharing: Lessons from state and local criminal justice initiatives, in R.H. Sprague (ed.) Proceedings of the 41st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  61. Pardo, T., Nam, T. and Burke, G. (2012). E-government interoperability: Interactions of policy, management and technology developments, Social Science Computer Review 30(1):7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pasquale, F. and Cashwell, G. (2015). Four futures of legal automation, UCLA Law Review Discourse 63:26–48.Google Scholar
  63. Pollock, N. and Williams, R. (2010). E-infrastructures: How do we know and understand them? Strategic ethnography and the biography of artefacts, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 19(6):521–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior 12:295–336.Google Scholar
  65. Prasad, A., Green, P. and Heales, J. (2012). On governing collaborative information technology: A relational perspective, Journal of Information Systems 27(1):237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prasad, A., Green, P. and Heales, J. (2014). On governance structures for the cloud computing services and assessing their effectiveness, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 15(4):335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Provan, K. (1982). Interorganizational linkages and influence over decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2):443–451.Google Scholar
  68. Provan, K., Fish, A. and Sydow, J. (2007). Inter-organizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks, Journal of Management 33(3):479–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Provan, K. and Kenis, L. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2):229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Provan, K. and Lemaire, R. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice, Public Administration Review 72:638–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Provan, K. and Milward, H. (1995). Theory of interorganizational effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems, Administrative Science Quarterly 40:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Provan, K. and Milward, H. (2001). Do networks really work? Public Administration Review 51(4):414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Ragin, C. (2005). From fuzzy sets to crips truth tables. Department of Sociology, The University of Arizona, www.compasss.org/wpseries/Ragin2004.pdf (accessed 3 May 2014).
  75. Ragin, C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage, Political Analysis 14(3):291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ragin, C. (2007). Fuzzy sets: Calibration versus measurement, in J.M. Box-Steffensmeier, H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) The Oxford handbook of political methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 174–198.Google Scholar
  77. Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond, London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ragin, C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA), in B. Rihoux and C.C. Ragin (eds.) Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ragin, C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ragin, C., Drass, C. and Davey, S. (2006). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0, Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  81. Ragin, C. and Giesel, H. (2008). User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis, University of Arizona, 87.Google Scholar
  82. Ragin, C. and Rihoux, B. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. Rai, A. and Tang, X. (2010). Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of inter-organizational relationship portfolios, Information Systems Research 21(3):516–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rivard, S. and Lapointe, L. (2012). Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects, MIS Quarterly 36(3):897–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sanderson, P., Banks, D., Deakin, S. and Udagawa, C. (2015). Encouraging inter-regulator data sharing: the perceptions of regulators. Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416626/15-213-data-sharing-external-report.pdf (accessed March 2017).
  86. Sawyer, S., Schrier, R., Fedorowicz, J., Dias, M., Williams, C.B. and Tyworth, M. (2013). US public safety networks (architectural patterns and performance) Information Polity 18(2):139–156.Google Scholar
  87. Schlosser, F., Beimborn, D., Weitzel, T. and Wagner, H.-T. (2015). Achieving social alignment between business and IT—An empirical evaluation of the efficacy of IT governance mechanisms, Journal of Information Technology 30(2):119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schneider, C.Q. and Grofman, B. (2006). It might look like a regression equation… but it’s not! An intuitive approach to the presentation of QCA and fs/QCA results’. Paper presented at the Conference on “Comparative Politics: Empirical Applications of Methodological Innovations”, Sophia University, Tokyo (Japan).Google Scholar
  89. Schneider, C. and Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets, Comparative Sociology 9(3):397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schryen, G. (2013). Revisiting IS business value research: What we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there, European Journal of Information Systems 22(2):139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Steinfield, C., Markus, M.L. and Wigand, R. (2011). Through a glass clearly: Standards, architecture, and process transparency in global supply chains, Journal of Management Information Systems 28(2):75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tiwana, A. and Kim, S. (2016). Discriminating IT governance, Information Systems Research 26(4):656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. In C.C. Ragin and H.S. Becker (eds.) What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–202.Google Scholar
  94. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory, New York, NY: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  95. Wagemann, C., Buche, J. and Siewart, M. (2016). QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda? Journal of Business Research 69:2531–2540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wiggins, E. (2006). The courtroom of the future is here: Introduction to emerging technologies in the legal system. Law & Policy, 28(2):182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Williams, C., Dias, M., Fedorowicz, J., Jacobson, D., Vilvovsky, S., Sawyer, S. et al. (2009). The formation of inter-organizational information sharing networks in public safety: Cartographic insights on rational choice and institutional explanations, Information Polity 14(1/2):13–29.Google Scholar
  98. Williams, C. and Fedorowicz, J. (2012). Rational choice and institutional factors underpinning state-level interagency collaboration initiatives, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 6(1):13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yang, T.-M. and Wu, Y.-J. (2015). Exploring the effectiveness of cross-boundary information sharing in the public sector: The perspective of government agencies, Information Research 20(3):1–18.Google Scholar
  100. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  101. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research, Information Systems Research 21(4):724–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zimmerman, A., Raab, K. and Zanotelli, L. (2013). Vicious and virtuous circles of offshoring attitudes and relational behaviours: A configurational study of German IT developers, Information Systems Journal 23(1):65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Fedorowicz
    • 1
  • Steve Sawyer
    • 2
    Email author
  • Arthur Tomasino
    • 1
  1. 1.Bentley UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.The School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations