The digital transformation of local government brings about massive change in IT leadership. As the strategic designer and process developer for government data sharing, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) needs to build self-centered leadership systems with strong coordination capabilities and adaptable mechanisms. Through a qualitative multi-case comparative study of three provinces in China, we applied IS innovation ecosystem theory to construct a CIO-centric local government data-sharing leadership ecosystem. The competencies, behaviors, and mechanisms of leadership roles are analyzed in five dimensions (personal, interpersonal, organizational, inter-organizational, and socio-economic and generation). Results show that a CIO-centric local government data sharing ecosystem can be resilient to administrative structure change, facilitating data sharing across levels, regions, and departments through collaborative networks and rotation approach. It provides useful insights into similar practices for constructing data sharing leadership ecosystem in local government, and can bring public value to citizens.
AdnerR (2006) Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review84(4): 98–107.
2.
AuffretJEstevezEMarcovecchioI, et al. (2010) Developing a GCIO system: enabling good government through e-Leadership: enabling good government through e-Leadership. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities, Puebla, Mexico, 17-20 May 2010, pp.82–88. Digital Government Society of North America.
3.
BarkiHPinsonneaultA (2005) A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organization Science16(2): 165–179.
4.
BekkersV (2009) Flexible information infrastructures in Dutch E-government collaboration arrangements: Experiences and policy implications. Government Information Quarterly26(1): 60–68.
5.
BenbasatIGoldsteinDKMeadM (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly11(3): 369–386.
6.
Carnevale MaffèCA (2018) Future of the CIO: Towards an entrepreneurial role. In: BongiornoGRizzoDVaiaG (eds) CIOS and the Digital Transformation: A New Leadership Role. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 61–68.
7.
ChaeBK (2019) A general framework for studying the evolution of the digital innovation ecosystem: The case of big data. International Journal of Information Management45: 83–94.
8.
ChunMMooneyJ (2009) CIO Roles and responsibilities: Twenty-five years of evolution and change. Information & Management46: 323–334.
9.
ChunMWSSungKGriffy-BrownC, et al. (2014) One Country, Three Types of CIOs: The Emergence of Technology Executives in China. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, US, 1 June 2014, pp.4670–4679. IEEE Computer Society.
10.
CostelloGJDonnellanBCurleyM (2013) A theoretical framework to develop a research agenda for information systems innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems33: 433–462.
11.
CusumanoMAGawerA (2002) The elements of platform leadership. IEEE Engineering Management Review31(1): 8–8.
12.
DawesSS (1996) Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15(3): 377–394.
13.
DawesSS (2009) Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly26(2): 257–264.
14.
DawsonGSDenfordJS (2015) A playbook for CIO-enabled innovation in the federal government. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, DC.
15.
DawsonGSDenfordJSDesouzaKC (2016) Governing innovation in U.S. State government: An ecosystem perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems25(4): 299–318.
16.
DedehayirOMäkinenSJRoland OrttJ (2018) Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change136(NOV): 18–29.
17.
DequanCHaiboL (2020) On the cultivation of government data culture in government data governance. Social Science3: 33–42.
18.
DesouzaKCJacobB (2017) Big data in the public sector: Lessons for practitioners and scholars. Administration and Society49(7): 1043–1064.
19.
DuanN (2009) Design principles of a federated service-oriented architecture model for Net-centric data sharing. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology6(4): 165–176.
20.
DukićDDukićGBertovićN (2017) Public administration employees’ readiness and acceptance of e-government. Information Development33(5): 525–539.
21.
EgleneODawesSSSchneiderCA (2007) Authority and leadership patterns in public sector knowledge networks. The American Review of Public Administration37(1): 91–113.
22.
FanB (2012) Achieving horizontal integration of municipal e-government in China: Assessment of managerial mechanisms. Information Development29(4): 333–348.
23.
FanJZhangPYenDC (2014) G2g information sharing among government agencies. Information & Management51(1): 120–128.
24.
FlyvbjergB (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Social Science Electronic Publishing12(3): 219–245.
25.
ForakerRELaiAMKannampallilTG, et al. (2021) Transmission dynamics: Data sharing in the COVID-19 era. Learning Health Systems5: e10235.
26.
Gil-GarciaJRSayogoDS (2016) Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: Understanding the main determinants of success. Government Information Quarterly33(3): 572–582.
27.
Gil-GarciaJRSchneiderCAPardoTA, et al. (2005) Interorganizational information integration in the criminal justice enterprise: Preliminary lessons from state and county initiatives. In Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp.118c. IEEE Publishing.
28.
GregorS (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly30(3): 611–642.
29.
IansitiMLevienR (2004) Strategies as ecology. Harvard Business Review82(3): 68–73.
30.
KarlssonFFrostensonMPrenkertF, et al. (2017) Inter-organisational information sharing in the public sector: A longitudinal case study on the reshaping of success factors. Government Information Quarterly34(4): 567–577.
31.
LinxingZChenglaiXDachengS (2020) A study on government data opening model in Major epidemic disasters: An empirical analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic. Modern intelligence40: 3–18.
32.
LuftmanJKempaiahR. (2007) An update On business-It alignment: “A line” Has been drawn. MIS Quarterly Executive6(3): 165–177.
33.
Manuel De T, Meghan C, Megan S, et al. (2020) The leading role of the government CIO at the local level: Strategic opportunities and challenges. Government Information Quarterly 37(3): 101–218.
34.
MensahIKAdamsSAdjeiJK, et al. (2021) Drivers of egovernment adoption amidst COVID-19 pandemic: The information adoption model (IAM) approach. Information Development. Article first published online: May4: 2021.
35.
PangM (2014) IT Governance and business value in the public sector organizations — The role of elected representatives in IT governance and its impact on IT value in U. S. state governments. Decision Support Systems59(mar): 274–285.
36.
PardoTAGil-GarciaJRBurkeGB, et al. (2009) Factors influencing government cross-boundary information sharing: Preliminary analysis of a national survey. CTG Working Paper, 2009, Center for Technology in Government.
37.
ParkMJDulambazarTRhoJJ (2015) The effect of organizational social factors on employee performance and the mediating role of knowledge sharing: Focus on e-government utilization in Mongolia. Information Development31(1): 53–68.
38.
PrestonDSKarahannaERoweF (2006) Development of shared understanding between the chief information officer and top management team in U. S. and French Organizations: a cross-cultural comparison. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management53(2): 191–206.
39.
TassabehjiRHackneyRPopovičA (2016) Emergent digital era governance: Enacting the role of the ‘institutional entrepreneur’ in transformational change. Government Information Quarterly33(2): 223–236.
40.
TsaiW (2002) Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science13(2): 179–190.
41.
WangF (2018) Understanding the dynamic mechanism of interagency government data sharing. Government Information Quarterly35(4): 536–546.
42.
WohlersTEBernierL (2012) Innovative city Hall: A comparative case study of policy adoption in the U.S. and France. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9(4): 415–432.
43.
YangTMaxwellTA (2011) Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 164–175.
44.
YinRK (1981) The case study as a serious research strategy. Science Communication3(1): 97–114.
45.
YinRK (2019) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: SAGE Publications.
46.
ZhangJDawesSS (2006) Expectations and perceptions of benefits, barriers, and success in public sector knowledge networks. Public Performance & Management Review29(4): 433–466.
47.
ZhouLHuangRLiB (2020) “What is mine is not thine”: Understanding barriers to China's Interagency government data sharing from existing literature. Library & Information Science Research42(3): 101031.
