This paper explores the complexity of cross-boundary information sharing in the public sector. In particular, determinants influencing interagency information sharing are investigated and discussed, and a case study of Taiwan e-Government is employed. Four perspectives, including technology, organization, legislation and policy, and environment, are used to conduct this exploratory inquiry. Legislation and policy is found to be the most influential factor among government agencies participating in information-sharing initiatives. Organizational factors are also found to be significant, but less so than legislation and policy. Technological factors are considered relatively more easily addressed when compared with legislation and policy and organizational factors. Finally, situational factors are also found to have respective impacts on interagency information sharing. In addition to factors that are discussed in the current literature, newly identified factors are illustrated to provide insights. Moreover, in order to better conceptualize how identified factors determine agencies’ intentions towards cross-boundary information sharing, theory of planned behaviour is used to form a theoretical discussion by integrating the identified factors of the study. Practical implications are also provided to address how cross-boundary information sharing among government agencies can be better achieved. Lastly, the conclusion outlines the contributions and limitations of this research and suggests future studies related to the current work.
WilsonTD. Information sharing: an exploration of the literature and some propositions. Information Research2010; 15: paper 440.
2.
WilsonTD. On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation1981; 37: 3–15.
3.
JarvenpaaSLStaplesDS. Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems2001; 18: 151–183.
4.
RiouxK. Information acquiring-and-sharing. In: FisherKEErdelezSMckechnieL (eds) Theories of information behavior. Information Today, 2005, p. 431.
5.
MarshallCCBlyS. Sharing encountered information: Digital libraries get a social life. In: International conference on digital libraries, proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Tuscon, AZ. New York: ACM, 2004.
6.
VeinotTD. ‘We have a lot of information to share with each other’. Understanding the value of peer-based health information exchange. Information Research2010; 15: paper 452.
7.
PilerotOLimbergL. Information sharing as a means to reach collective understanding: A study of design scholars’ information practices. Journal of Documentation2011; 67: 312–333.
8.
PilerotO. LIS research on information sharing activities – people, places, or information. Journal of Documentation2012; 68: 559–581.
9.
DawesSS. Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management1996; 15: 377–394.
10.
Gil-GarciaJRChengalur-SmithIDuchessiP. Collaborative e-Government: Impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector. European Journal of Information Systems2007; 16: 121–133.
11.
PardoTATayiGK. Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government. Government Information Quarterly2007; 24: 691–715.
12.
PardoTANamTBurkeBG. E-government interoperability: Interaction of policy, management, and technology dimensions. Social Science Computer Review2012; 30: 7–23.
13.
MoonMJ. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review2002; 62: 424–433.
14.
BekkersV. The governance of back-office integration – Organizing co-operation between information domains. Public Management Review2007; 9: 377–400.
15.
KlievinkBJanssenM. Realizing joined-up government – Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly2009; 26: 275–284.
16.
LayneKLeeJ. Developing fully functional e-Government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly2001; 18: 122–136.
17.
SiauKLongY. Synthesizing e-government stage models – A meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems2005; 105: 443–458.
18.
Minister of State for the Cabinet Office. Open Data White Paper: Unleashing the potential. London: The Stationery Office, 2012.
19.
BarkiHPinsonneaultA. A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organization Science2005; 16: 165–179.
20.
LandsbergenDJWolkenGJ. Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Administration Review2001; 61: 206–220.
21.
Gil-GarciaJRPardoTABurkeGB. Conceptualizing information integration in government. In: SchollJ (ed.) Electronic government: Information, technology, and transformation. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 2010, pp. 179–202.
22.
YangT-MWuY-J. What to share and why to share? A case study of cross-boundary information sharing in Taiwan e-Government. Journal of Library and Informaiton Studies2013; 11: 25–53.
23.
ZhengLYangT-MPardoTAJiangY. Understanding the ‘boundary’ in information sharing and integration. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS). Big Island, HI: IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 1–10, E-Government Track.
24.
YangT-MZhengLPardoTA. The boundaries of information sharing and integration: A case study of Taiwan e-Government. Government Information Quarterly2012; 29: S51–S60.
25.
GroznikATrkmanP. Upstream supply chain management in e-government: The case of Slovenia. Government Information Quarterly2009; 26: 459–467.
26.
Gil-GarciaJRPardoTA. E-Government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly2005; 22: 187–216.
27.
DawesSSCresswellAMPardoTA. From ‘need to know’ to ‘need to share’: Tangled problems, information boundaries, and the building of public sector. Public Administration Review2009; 69: 392–402.
28.
BaruaARavindranSWhinstonAB. Effective intra-organizational information exchange. Journal of Information Science1997; 23: 239–248.
29.
ZhangJDawesSS. Expectations and perceptions of benefits, barriers, and success in public sector knowledge networks. Public Performance & Management Review2006; 29: 433–466.
30.
ChauMAtabakhshHZengDChenH. Building an infrastructure for law enforcement information sharing and collaboration: Design issues and challenges. In: National conference on digital government2001, 2001.
31.
LamW. Barriers to e-government integration. Journal of Enterprise Information Management2005; 18: 511–530.
32.
FedorowiczJGoganJLWilliamsCB. A collaborative network for first responders: Lessons from the CapWIN case. Government Information Quarterly2007; 24: 785–807.
33.
KlischewskiRSchollHJ. Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electronic Government, an International Journal2008; 5: 203–225.
34.
BajajARamS. IAIS: A methodology to enable inter-agency information sharing in eGovernment. Journal of Database Management2003; 14: 59–80.
35.
LiuPChetalA. Trust-based secure information sharing between federal government agencies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology2005; 56: 283–298.
36.
MeyerHWJ. The influence of information behaviour on information sharing across cultural boundaries in development contexts. Information Research2009; 14: paper 393.
37.
Luna-ReyesLFGil-GarciaJRCruzCB. Collaborative digital government in Mexico: Some lessons from federal Web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly2007; 24: 808–826.
38.
DrakeDBStecklerNAKochMJ. Information sharing in and across government agencies: The role and influence of scientist, politician, and bureaucrat subcultures. Social Science Computer Review2004; 22: 67–84.
39.
ConstantDKieslerSSproullL. What’s mine is ours, or is it: A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research1994; 5: 400–421.
40.
JianGJeffresLW. Understanding employees’ willingness to contribute to shared electronic databases: A three-dimensional framework. Communication Research2006; 33: 242–261.
41.
LinH-FLeeH-SDaWei Wang. Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Information Science2009; 35: 25–44.
42.
CressUKimmerleJ. Information exchange with shared database as a social dilemma: The effect of metaknowledfe, bonus systems, and costs. Communication Research2006; 33: 370–390.
43.
KimSLeeH. The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review2006; 66: 370–385.
44.
HallHGoodyM. KM, culture and compromise: interventions to promote knowledge sharing supported by technology in corporate environments. Journal of Information Science2007; 33: 181–188.
45.
PfefferJ. Political strategies and tactics. In: Power in organizations. Boston, MA: Putnam, 1981.
46.
ArdichvillAPageVWentlingT. Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing communities or practice. Journal of Knowledge Management2003; 7: 64–77.
47.
KolekofskiJr KEHemingerAR. Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to share information in an organizational setting. Information & Management2003; 40: 521–532.
48.
ChoiSYKangYSLeeH. The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination. Journal of Information Science2008; 34: 742–754.
49.
WillemABuelensM. Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2007; 17: 581–606.
50.
ZaheerAMcEvilyB. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science1998; 9: 141–158.
51.
DyerJHChuW. The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science2003; 14: 57–68.
52.
BaruaARavindranSWhinstonA. Enabling information sharing within organizations. Information Technology and Management2007; 8: 31–45.
53.
WuW-LHsuB-FYehR-S. Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer: a team-level analysis. Journal of Information Science2007; 33: 326–339.
54.
ZhangPLiN. The intellectual development of human–computer interaction research in MIS: A survey of the MIS literature (1990–2002). Journal of Association for Information Systems2005; 6: 227–292.
55.
PardoTAGil-GarciaJRBurkeGB. Building response capacity through cross-boundary information sharing: The critical role of trust. In: CunninghamPCunninghamM (eds) Exploiting the knowledge economy: Issues, applications, case studies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006, pp. 507–514.
56.
Hassan IbrahimNAllenD. Information sharing and trust during major incidents: Findings from the oil industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology2012; 63: 1916–1928.
57.
LiSLinB. Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain management. Decision Support Systems2006; 42: 1641–1656.
58.
Gil-GarciaJRPardoTABurkeGB. Government leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled networks: Lessons from the response to the West Nile virus outbreak. In: Leading the future of the public sector: The third transatlantic dialogue. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, 2007.
59.
6 P, BellamyCRaabCWarrenAHeeneyC. Institutional shaping of interagency working: Managing tensions between collaborative working and client confidentiality. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2007; 17: 405–434.
60.
PardoTACresswellAMDawesSSBurkeGB. Modeling the social & technical processes of interorganizational information integration. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-37), Hawaii, 2004.
61.
AkbulutAYKellePPawlowskiSDSchneiderHLooneyCA. To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing. International Journal of Business Information Systems2009; 4: 143–172.
62.
TornatzkyLFleischerM. The process of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990.
63.
BenbasatIGoldsteinDMeadM. The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly1987; 11: 369–386.
64.
YinRK. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd edn, RobinsonS (ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.
65.
BrymanA. Social research methods, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
66.
BoudreauMRobeyD. Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science2005; 16: 3–18.
67.
HansenBHansenKautzK. Grounded theory applied – Studying information systems development methodologies in practice. In: The 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2005), Big Island, HI, 2005.
68.
CalvinMLChanYLShanL. Pan E-government implementation: A macro analysis of Singapore’s e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly2008; 25: 239–255.
69.
MehmetogluMAltinayL. Examination of grounded theory analysis with an application to hospitality research. International Journal of Hospitality Management2006; 25: 12–33.
70.
AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes1991; 50: 179–211.
71.
DawesSS. Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly2010; 27: 377–383.
