Flexibility of Information Architecture in e-Government Chains

  • Victor Bekkers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4084)


How can the flexibility of an information architecture in e-government chains – defined as a set of multi-rational agreements – be achieved, if one acknowledges the fact that the use of ICT may automate the status quo between organizations which work together in a policy chain? Research shows that flexibility cannot only be achieved by looking at technological requirements and agreements. Also other agreements should be considered which express other (political, legal and economic) design rationalities and values. Moreover, flexibility is also influenced by the structure and dynamics of the power and trustworthiness of the relationships between the organizations involved.


Technological Requirement Service Level Agreement Information Architecture Planning Zone Economic Agreement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, B.R., Boynton, A.: Information architecture: in search of efficient flexibility. MIS Quarterly 15(4), 435–445 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bekkers, V.: The governance of back office integration: some Dutch experiences. In: Wimmer, M.A., Traunmüller, R., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V. (eds.) EGOV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3591, pp. 12–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellamy, C., Taylor, J.: Governing in the Information Age. Open University Press, Buckingham (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beynon-Davies, P.: Information Management in the British National Health Service: The Pragmatics of Strategic Data Planning. International Journal of Information Management 14(2), 84–94 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bijker, W., Hughes, T., Pinch, T. (eds.): The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler, J., Cantrell, S.: Communication factors and trust: an explanatory study. Psychological Reports 74, 33–34 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davenport, T., Eccles, R., Prusak, L.: Information Politics. Sloan Management Review 34(1), 53–65 (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawes, S.: Interagency information sharing: expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15(3), 121–147 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasting, C.: The new organization. McGraw Hill, Maidenhead (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hood, C.: The tools of government. McMillan, London (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Homburg, V.: The Political Economy of Information Management. SOM, Groningen (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knights, D., Murray, F.: Politics and Pain in Managing Information Technology: A Case Study in Insurance. Organization Studies 13(2), 211–228 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koppenjan, J., Klijn, E.-H.: Managing uncertainties in networks. Routlegde, London (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar, K., van Dissel, H.: Sustainable collaboration: managing conflict and collaboration in interorganizational information systems. MIS Quarterly 20(3), 279–300 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laswell, H.: Politics: Who gets what when and how? World Publ., Cleveland (1958)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Margetts, H.: Computerising the tools of government. In: Snellen, I., van de Donk, W. (eds.) Public administration in the information age, Amsterdam, pp. 441–460 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin, J., Leben, J.: Strategic information planning methodologies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moon, M.: The Evolution of E-Government Among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review 62(4), 424–433 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan, G.: Riding the waves of change, Jossey-Bas, San Francisco (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monge, P., Fulk, J.: Communication technology for global network organizations. In: De Sanctis, G., Fulk, J. (eds.) Shaping organizational form, pp. 71–100. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orlikowski, W.: The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orlikowski, W.: Using technology and constituting structures. Organizational Science 11(4), 404–428 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R.: The external control of organizations. Harper & Row, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rhodes, R.: Understanding governance. Open University Press, Maidenhead (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Snellen, I.: Boeiend en geboeid. Samson, Alphen (1987)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stone, D.: The policy paradox. Norton, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson, J.: Organizations in Action. McGraw Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turban, E., McLean, E., Wetherbe, J.: Information technology for Management. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uzzi, B.: Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embedddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(4), 35–68 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van de Ven, A.: On the nature, formation and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 24–36 (1976)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williamson, O.E.: The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Bekkers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Administration/Center for Public Innovation Erasmus UniversityRotterdamNL

Personalised recommendations