In the case study, the observed purposes of cross-boundary information sharing are defined and abstracted according to their characteristics and functionalities. There are total seven purposes identified and discussed. The seven purposes are administrative work, information search and verification, information aggregation,
Figure 3. The Proposed Seven Purposes of Cross-Boundary Information Sharing
business process chain, innovative service, experience-based knowledge sharing, and crisis and emergency (see Figure 3). The identified seven purposes do not represent an exhaustive list but provide an initial conceptualization to perceive the functionalities and roles that cross-boundary information sharing plays among government agencies. In this case study, except administrative work, the major purposes of cross-boundary information sharing are information search and verification, information aggregation, and business process chain. The three purposes are to facilitate government agencies efficiently run respective core business and their connected business processes.
Nevertheless, the purpose of innovative service should be promoted because innovative service is not just to increase the “efficiency” of the current business and processes of agencies but to create “new values” of cross-boundary information sharing among agencies.
7. Conclusion
In this research, the types and characteristics of shared information and the purposes of cross-boundary information sharing are investigated and discussed. Five types of cross-boundary shared information were found in the case study: 1) collected raw data, 2) value-added information, 3) administration-oriented information, 4) administration-oriented knowledge, and 5)
domain-oriented knowledge. This identification further extends the concepts of integrated data and shared information, the two core components of the conceptualization of cross-boundary information sharing and integration in the e-Government literature. Government agencies can encounter different influential factors and circumstances while sharing or requesting different types of shared information.
Administration-oriented information and administration-oriented knowledge were found to be more easily shared or acquired than collected raw data and value-added information because the latter two usually have characteristics related to privacy and confidentiality. However, collected raw data and value-added information represent the majority of cross-boundary shared information in the case. Similarly, domain-oriented knowledge is difficult to be shared or acquired across boundaries because it can be related to security concerns and is often in implicit and tacit form.
Government agencies also face limited needs to share domain knowledge to other agencies in different policy areas.
Drawing on the five types of shared information, the study also provides new understanding of the purposes of cross-boundary information sharing and integration.
The seven purposes which emerged from the case are administrative work, information
search and verification, information aggregation, business process chain, innovative service, experience-based knowledge sharing, and crisis and emergency. The seven purposes provide more detailed understanding of the reasons why government agencies engage in cross-boundary information sharing and integration. In each identified purpose of cross-boundary information sharing, different types of shared information can be involved. The complexities of different initiatives of cross-boundary information sharing vary in terms of respective purposes of information sharing and types of shared information. The proposed seven purposes do not mean to be an exhaustive list but to provide an initial conceptualization to perceive the functionalities and roles that cross-boundary information sharing plays among agencies. For practitioners, the purpose of innovative service should be promoted and further exploited. Agencies should be encouraged to share information to other agencies to facilitate the creation of new public value. As identified in the case, the majority of the purposes of interagency information sharing such as information search and verification are to make the current governmental operations work in a more efficient way. Nevertheless, cross-boundary information sharing among government agencies indeed has the potential to allow agencies to provide innovative services to the public.
In the research, although the interview data are gathered from diverse organizations in different social settings to achieve multiple sources of evidence and to increase external validity, the proposed frameworks are still conceptualized and developed under a single case study in qualitative approach. Future research can employ other case studies for further investigation. While data and information as an artifact is the focus of the research, future research can focus on the other types of shared information such as the administrative-oriented knowledge and the domain-oriented knowledge. Knowledge as an artifact in cross-boundary information sharing can be investigated to provide new insights and be compared with the result of this research. In addition, future research can explore and discuss what types of cross-boundary shared information are shared in the respective purposes of interagency information sharing. As aforementioned, the cross-boundary shared information can be classified as data, information, and knowledge. Each type of shared information has its own characteristics to influence respective processes of interagency information sharing. Similarly, different purposes of cross-boundary information sharing have various priorities while some may receive support from authority and legislation and some may not. Therefore, the influential factors in
sharing different types of cross-boundary shared information in different purposes can also be further explored and compared.
Cross-boundary information sharing has been an important theme among governmental collaboration. The proposed conceptualizations of the research can help both researchers and practitioners to perceive and clarify the fundamental part of cross-boundary information sharing. The outcome of this exploratory research in government information activities is also expected to enrich the current theories of cross-boundary information sharing, to contribute to the current e-Government literature from an international perspective, and to enhance the public administration without borders.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Dr. Yu-Hsieh Sung, the Minister of the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission and other government officials of the Taiwan government for their important help during the interviewee recruitment of the research. The authors are also thankful for all the interviewees participating in the research for their time, patience, and valuable information and suggestions.
Note
Note 1 Established in 1969, the Research, D e v e l o p m e n t a n d E v a l u a t i o n Commission, a cabinet-level agency of the government of Taiwan, serves as an organization for policy coordination and integration for the Executive Yuan (the Cabinet). The main responsibility of the RDEC is to conduct policy research and development, policy p l a n n i n g, p o l i c y s u p e r v i s i o n and evaluation, government’s IT management, circulation of government publications, archives and other tasks assigned to the prime minister. The web site of the RDEC: http://www.rdec.gov.
tw/mp110.htm
References
Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2002).
Explaining ERP implementation effort and benefits with organizational integration.
Cahier du GReSI.
Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance.
Organization Science, 16(2), 165-179. doi:
10.1287/orsc.1050.0118
Bekkers, V. (2007). The governance of back-office integration: Organizing co-operation
between information domains. Public Management Review, 9(3), 377-400. doi:
10.1080/14719030701425761
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377-394. doi: 10.10 02/(SICI)1520-6688(199622)15:3<377::
AID-PAM3>3.0.CO;2-F
Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-Governance. Public Administration Review(Special issue), 86-102.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x Dawes, S. S. (2009). Governance in the digital
age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 257-264. doi:
10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003
Dawes, S. S., Cresswell, A. M., & Pardo, T.
A. (2009). From "need to know" to
"need to share": Tangled problems, i n f o r m a t i o n b o u n d a r i e s, a n d t h e building of public sector knowledge networks. Public Administration Review, 69, 392-402. doi: 10.1111/
j.1540-6210.2009.01987_2.x
Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, 66(1), 39-48.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and
institutional change. Washington D.C.:
Brooking Institution Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Chengalur-Smith, I., &
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. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000673
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005).
E-Government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations.
Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187-216. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.001 Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke,
G. B. (2008). Conceptualizing inter-organizational information integration in government: A comprehensive and empirically grounded definition.
Unpublished manuscript.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, G.
B. (2010). Conceptualizing Information Integration in Government. In J. Scholl (Ed.), Electronic government: information, technology, and transformation (pp.
179-202). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
G r o z n i k, A., & T r k m a n, P. (2009).
Upstream supply chain management in e-government: The case of Slovenia.
Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 459-467. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.017
Harris, N. D. (2000). Intergovernmental cooperation in the development and use of information systems. In G. D.
Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s. N e w Yo r k:
Marcel Dekker.
Harry, M. (1994). Information systems in business. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Hayes, R. (1992). The measurement of information. In P. Vakkari & B. Cronin (Eds.), Coneptions of Library and Information Science (pp. 97-108). London:
Taylor Graham.
Kendal, S., & Creen, M. (2006). An introduction to knowledge engineering. London:
Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-667-4 Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2008). Stage
models for creating joined-up government:
From local to nation-wide integration. In S. A. Chun, M. Janssen, J. R. Gil-García (Eds.), DG.O: Vol. 289. Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research Conference (p p.163-172). M o n t r e a l: D i g i t a l Government Society of North America.
Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2009). Realizing j o i n e d-u p g o v e r n m e n t: D y n a m i c capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 275-284. doi: 10.1016/
j.giq.2008.12.007
Klischewski, R., & Scholl, H. J. (2008).
Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 5(2), 203-225. doi:
10.1504/EG.2008.016647
Landsbergen, D., Jr., & Wolken, G. J. (2001).
Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology.
Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206-220. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00023 Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (1998).
Management information systems:
New approaches to organization and technology (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-Government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136. doi: 10.1016/
S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Long, L., & Long, N. (1998). Computers (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McClure, D. L. (2000). Statement of David L.
McClure, U.S. General Accounting Office, before the subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://
www.gao.gov/assets/110/108459.pdf
McNurlin, B., & Sprague, R. H., Jr. (1998).
Information systems management in practice (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities:
Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration R e v i e w , 6 2 ( 4 ) , 4 2 4 - 4 3 3 . d o i : 10.1111/0033-3352.00196
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York:
Oxford University Press.
P a r d o, T. A., & Ta y i, G. K. (2007).
Interorganizational information integration:
A key enabler for digital government.
Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 691-715. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.08.004 Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension.
London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Research, Development and Evaluation C o m m i s s i o n . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Ta i w a n e-Government country report for ICA conference 2008. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Conference of the International Council for Information Technology in Government Administration (ICA), Seoul, South Korea.
Scholl, H. J. (1999). Knowledge management and the vital organization. In R. Berndt (Ed.), Management Strategien 2000.
Berlin: Springer.
Senn, J. A. (1990). Information systems in management. Belmont, CA: Wadswirth Publishing.
Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing e-government stage models- A meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 443-458. doi: 10.1108/02 635570510592352
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Yang, T.-M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011).
I n f o r m a t i o n-s h a r i n g i n p u b l i c organizations- A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors.
Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164-175. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008 Yang, T.-M., Zheng, L., & Pardo, T. A. (2012).
The boundaries of information sharing and integration: A case study of Taiwan e-Government. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), S51-S60. doi: 10.1016/
j.giq.2011.08.014
Zachman, J. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276-292.
Z h a n g, J., & D a w e s , S . S . ( 2 0 0 6 ) . E x pe c t a t ions an d per cep tion s of benefits, barriers, and success in public
sector knowledge networks. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(4), 433-466.
(Received: 2012/9/17; Accepted: 2013/4/23)
跨機關資訊分享的資訊類別與目的之探索研究：
以臺灣電子化政府為例