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.
AhnM. and BretschneiderS. (2011). Politics of e-government and the political control of bureaucracy, Public Administration Review71(3):414–424.
2.
AnsellC. and GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(4):543–571.
3.
BekkersV. (2009). Flexible information infrastructures in Dutch E-government collaboration arrangements: Experiences and policy implications, Government Information Quarterly26(1):60–68.
4.
BelangerF. and CarterL. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government, Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(2):165–176.
5.
BethelJ.E. and LiebeskindJ.P. (1998). Diversification and the legal organization of the firm, Organization Science9(1):49–67.
6.
BrysonJ., CrosbyB. and BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management, Public Administration Review74(4):445–456.
7.
ChanJ. (2001). The technological game: How information technology is transforming police practice, Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice1(2):139–159.
8.
ChongJ., TechatassanasoontornA. and DoolinB. (2013). Exploring qualitative comparative analysis in IS research. Paper presented at the 2013 OCIS-PACIS Workshop, Jeju Island, South Korea, 19 June.
9.
ConstantinidesP. and BarrettM. (2014). Information infrastructure development and governance as collective action, Information Systems Research26(1):40–56.
10.
CooperT. and StephensonM. (2012). Managing networks as learning organizations in the public sector, The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology3(1):1–37.
11.
DawesS., PardoT. and CresswellA. (2004). Designing electronic government information access programs: A holistic approach, Government Information Quarterly21(1):3–23.
12.
DillmanD. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys (Vol. 3), London: Wiley.
13.
DrassK. and RaginC. (2008). Qualitative comparative analysis 3.0, Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
14.
DunworthT. (2005). Information technology and the criminal justice system: A historical review, in PattavinaA. (ed.), Information technology and the criminal justice system, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1–28.
15.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4):532–550.
16.
FedorowiczJ., GoganJ. and WilliamsC. (2007). A collaborative network for first responders: Lessons from the CapWIN case, Government Information Quarterly24(4):785–807.
17.
FedorowiczJ., SawyerS., WilliamsC.B., MarkusM.L., DiasM., TyworthM. (2014). Design observations for interagency collaboration, Government Information Quarterly31(2):302–316.
18.
FeldmanD. (2016). Polycentric governance, in BainbridgeW.S. and RoccoM.C. (eds.) Handbook of science and technology convergence, Geneva: Springer, pp. 877–890.
19.
FerroE. and SorrentinoM. (2010). Can intermunicipal collaboration help the diffusion of E-government in peripheral areas? Evidence from Italy, Government Information Quarterly27(1):17–25.
20.
FisherG. and AguinisH. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements, Organizational Research Methods20(3):438–464.
21.
FissP.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research, Academy of Management Journal54(2):393–420.
22.
FountainJ. (2013). Implementing cross-agency collaboration: A guide for managers, Arlington, VA: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
23.
FountainJ. (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.
24.
FreemanR.E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
FriskJ., LindgrenR. and MathiassenL. (2014). Design matters for decision makers: Discovering it investment alternatives, European Journal of Information Systems23(4):442–461.
26.
Gil-GarciaJ.R., Chengalur-SmithI. and DuchessiP. (2007). Collaborative e-Government: Impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector, European Journal of Information Systems16(2):121–133.
27.
Gil-GarciaJ.R. and DjokoS. (2016). Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: Understanding the main determinants of success, Government Information Quarterly33:572–582.
28.
Gil-GarciaJ. and Martinez-MoyanoI. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics, Government Information Quarterly24(2):266–290.
29.
Gil-GarciaJ. R., Soon AeC., and JanssenM. (2009). Government information sharing and integration: Combining the social and technical, Information Polity14(1/2):1–10.
30.
GillespieM. (2005). NLETS: Standards-based web services, Law and Order53(8):80–87.
31.
GoldkuhlG. (2016). E-government design research: Towards a policy-ingrained IT artifact, Government Information Quarterly33:444–452.
32.
GrantG. and TanF. (2013). Governing IT in inter-organizational relationships: Issues and future research, European Journal of Information Systems22:493–497.
33.
HansethO., MonteiroE. and HatlingM. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility, Science, Technology and Human Values21(4):407–426.
34.
HansethO. and NielsenP. (2013). Infrastructural innovation: Flexibility, generativity and the mobile internet, International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research11(1):27–45.
35.
HartonoE., LiX., NaK., and SimpsonJ. (2010). The role of the quality of shared information in interorganizational systems use, International Journal of Information Management30(5):399–407.
36.
HeidariF. and LoucupoulosP. (2014). Quality evaluation framework (QEF): Modeling and evaluating quality of business processes, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems15(3):193–223.
37.
HendersonJ. and VenkatramanN. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations, IBM Systems Journal32(1):472–484.
38.
HenfridssonO. and BygstadB. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution, MIS Quarterly37(3):907–931.
39.
IJIS Institute. (2012). Governance agreements in public safety information sharing projects. Washington, DC: The IJIS Public Safety Technical Standards Committee.
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.
41.
JacobsonD. (2016). How and why network governance evolves: Evidence from a public safety network, Electronic Markets26:43–54.
42.
JohaA. and JanssenM. (2011). Types of shared services business models in public administration. In The proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on digital government research.
43.
JoukhadarG. and RabhiF. (2016). SOA in practice: A study of governance aspects, Information Systems Frontiers18:499–510.
44.
KapucuN., HiQ. and KhosaS. (2014). The state of network research in public administration, Administration and Society37:651–678.
45.
KentR. (2008). Using fsQCA: A brief guide and workshop for fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, Scotland: Department of Marketing, University of Sterling, pp. 2008–2010.
46.
KingN. (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 Systems22(4):548–568.
47.
KlievinkB., BharosaN. and TanY.-H. (2015). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public– private information platforms, Government Information Quarterly33(1):67–79.
48.
LiuY., MezeiJ., KostakosV., and LiH. (2015). Applying configurational analysis to IS behavioral research: A methodological alternative for modelling combinatorial complexities, Information Systems Journal27:59–89.
49.
LynnL., HeinrichC. and HillC. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2):233–244.
50.
ManningP.K. (1996). Information technology in the police context: The “Sailor” phone, Information Systems Research7(1):52–62.
51.
ManningP.K. (2003). Policing contingencies, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52.
MarcumC., BevcC. and ButtsC. (2012). Mechanisms of control in emergent interorganizational networks, Policy Studies Journal40:516–546.
53.
MarkusM.L. and BuiQ. (2012). Going concerns: The governance of interorganizational coordination hubs, Journal of Management Information Systems28(4):163–198.
54.
MarxA., RihouxB. and RaginC. (2014). The origins, development, and application of qualitative comparative analysis: The first 25 years, European Political Science Review6(1):115–142.
55.
MilwardH. and ProvanK. (2000). Governing the hollow state, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2):359–379.
56.
MonteiroE., PollockN., HansethO., and WilliamsR. (2013). From artefacts to infrastructures, Computer Supported Cooperative Work22(4–6): 575–607.
57.
Noblis. (2006). Comprehensive regional information system project Volume 2: Concept of Operations, Noblis technical report MTR-2006-036, Falls Church, VA.
58.
NorthD. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
OstromE. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
60.
PardoT., Gil-GarciaJ. and BurkeG. (2008). Governance structures in cross-boundary information sharing: Lessons from state and local criminal justice initiatives, in SpragueR.H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 41st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
61.
PardoT., NamT. and BurkeG. (2012). E-government interoperability: Interactions of policy, management and technology developments, Social Science Computer Review30(1):7–23.
62.
PasqualeF. and CashwellG. (2015). Four futures of legal automation, UCLA Law Review Discourse63:26–48.
63.
PollockN. and WilliamsR. (2010). E-infrastructures: How do we know and understand them? Strategic ethnography and the biography of artefacts, Computer Supported Cooperative Work19(6):521–556.
64.
PowellW. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior12:295–336.
65.
PrasadA., GreenP. and HealesJ. (2012). On governing collaborative information technology: A relational perspective, Journal of Information Systems27(1):237–259.
66.
PrasadA., GreenP. and HealesJ. (2014). On governance structures for the cloud computing services and assessing their effectiveness, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems15(4):335–356.
67.
ProvanK. (1982). Interorganizational linkages and influence over decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2):443–451.
68.
ProvanK., FishA. and SydowJ. (2007). Inter-organizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks, Journal of Management33(3):479–516.
69.
ProvanK. and KenisL. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(2):229–252.
70.
ProvanK. and LemaireR. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice, Public Administration Review72:638–648.
71.
ProvanK. and MilwardH. (1995). Theory of interorganizational effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems, Administrative Science Quarterly40:1–13.
72.
ProvanK. and MilwardH. (2001). Do networks really work?Public Administration Review51(4):414–423.
73.
RaginC. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
74.
RaginC. (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.
RaginC. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage, Political Analysis14(3):291–310.
76.
RaginC. (2007). Fuzzy sets: Calibration versus measurement, in Box-SteffensmeierJ.M., BradyH.E. and CollierD. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of political methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 174–198.
77.
RaginC. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond, London: Wiley.
78.
RaginC. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA), in RihouxB. and RaginC.C. (eds.) Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 87–121.
79.
RaginC. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
80.
RaginC., DrassC. and DaveyS. (2006). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0, Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.
81.
RaginC. and GieselH. (2008). User's guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis, University of Arizona, 87.
82.
RaginC. and RihouxB. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83.
RaiA. and TangX. (2010). Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of inter-organizational relationship portfolios, Information Systems Research21(3):516–542.
84.
RivardS. and LapointeL. (2012). Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects, MIS Quarterly36(3):897–920.
SawyerS., SchrierR., FedorowiczJ., DiasM., WilliamsC.B., and TyworthM. (2013). US public safety networks (architectural patterns and performance)Information Polity18(2):139–156.
87.
SchlosserF., BeimbornD., WeitzelT., and WagnerH.-T. (2015). Achieving social alignment between business and IT—An empirical evaluation of the efficacy of IT governance mechanisms, Journal of Information Technology30(2):119–135.
88.
SchneiderC.Q. and GrofmanB. (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).
89.
SchneiderC. and WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets, Comparative Sociology9(3):397–418.
90.
SchryenG. (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 Systems22(2):139–169.
91.
SteinfieldC., MarkusM.L. and WigandR. (2011). Through a glass clearly: Standards, architecture, and process transparency in global supply chains, Journal of Management Information Systems28(2):75–108.
92.
TiwanaA. and KimS. (2016). Discriminating IT governance, Information Systems Research26(4):656–674.
93.
VaughanD. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. In RaginC.C. and BeckerH.S. (eds.) What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–202.
94.
Von BertalanffyL. (1968). General systems theory, New York, NY: George Braziller.
95.
WagemannC., BucheJ. and SiewartM. (2016). QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda?Journal of Business Research69: 2531–2540.
96.
WigginsE. (2006). The courtroom of the future is here: Introduction to emerging technologies in the legal system. Law & Policy, 28(2):182–191.
97.
WilliamsC., DiasM., FedorowiczJ., JacobsonD., VilvovskyS., SawyerS., (2009). The formation of inter-organizational information sharing networks in public safety: Cartographic insights on rational choice and institutional explanations, Information Polity14(1/2):13–29.
98.
WilliamsC. and FedorowiczJ. (2012). Rational choice and institutional factors underpinning state-level interagency collaboration initiatives, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy6(1):13–26.
99.
YangT.-M. and WuY.-J. (2015). Exploring the effectiveness of cross-boundary information sharing in the public sector: The perspective of government agencies, Information Research20(3):1–18.
100.
YinR. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
101.
YooY., HenfridssonO. and LyytinenK. (2010). Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research, Information Systems Research21(4):724–735.
102.
ZimmermanA., RaabK. and ZanotelliL. (2013). Vicious and virtuous circles of offshoring attitudes and relational behaviours: A configurational study of German IT developers, Information Systems Journal23(1):65–88.
