What are the knowledge network configurations associated with effective e-government? To answer this question, a social network perspective is applied to explore the connection between e-government actors’ social networks and their perception of e-government effectiveness. Specifically, this study closely looks at both intraorganizational networks between program and IT units and interorganizational relationships with IT vendors in the context of local e-government. Two Korean local governments who provide online parking services through the same IT vendor were selected as comparative cases. Through the network analysis of two local governments, the study suggests preliminary findings for the knowledge network conditions for effective e-government: e-government effectiveness is likely to be enhanced (1) members of IT and program units are linked through a greater number of strong cross-unit ties; (2) they maintain strong ties with IT vendors; (3) CUBS take central positions in knowledge networks in a program unit; and (4) they are embedded in high density of intra-unit networks within their units.
BrassD.GalaskiewiczJ.GreveH.TsaiW. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817.
5.
BrownM. (2007). Understanding e-government benefits: An examination of leading-edge local governments. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 178-197.
6.
BuglerD. T.BretschneiderS. (1993). Technology push or program pull: Interest in new information technologies within public organizations. In BozemanB. (Ed.), Public management: The state of the art (pp. 275-293). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
BurtR. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
8.
ChouduryV.XiaW. (1999). A resource-based theory of network structures. In VenkatramanN.HendersonJ. (Eds.), Research in strategic management and information technology (pp. 55-85). Stamford, CT: JAI.
9.
CohenW.LevinthalD. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
10.
ColemanJ. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
11.
CrossR.ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
12.
DanzigerJ.DunkleD.KingJ. (1993). Enhancing the quality of computing service: Technology, structure, and people. Public Administration Review, 53, 161-169.
13.
FredericksonG. (1999). The repositioning of American public administration-The John Gaus lecture. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 701-711.
14.
FreemanL. (1979). Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
GoerdelH. (2006). Taking initiative: Proactive management and organizational performance in networked environments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 351-367.
17.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
18.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
19.
HansenM. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111.
HerranzJ. (2010). Multilevel performance indicators for multisectoral networks and management. American Review of Public Administration, 40, 445-460.
22.
KilduffM.TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
KimH. (2005). Information technology outsourcing in public organizations: How does the quality of an outsourcing relationship affect the outsourcing outcome? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Public Administration, Syracuse University, New York, NY.
24.
KimH.LeeJ.KimS. (2008). Linking local e-government development stages to collaboration strategy. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 4, 36-56.
25.
KogutB. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 405-425.
26.
KogutB.ZanderU. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7, 502-518.
27.
KraatzM. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 621-643.
28.
KrackhardtD.SternN. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123-140.
29.
KraemerK.DedrickJ. (1997). Computing and public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 89-112.
30.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76-104.
31.
LeeJ. (2008). Determinants of government bureaucrats’ new PMIS acceptance: The role of organizational power, IT capability, administrative role and attitude. American Review of Public Administration, 38, 180-202.
32.
LeeJ.KimS. (2011). Exploring the role of social networks in affective organizational commitment: Network centrality, strength of ties, and structural holes. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 205-223.
33.
LevinaN.VaastE. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for information systems’ implementation and use. MIS Quarterly, 29, 1-29.
34.
McFadyenM.CannellaA. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 735-746.
35.
MeierK.O’TooleL. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, 11, 271-294.
36.
MeierK.O’TooleL. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689-699.
37.
MilwardB.ProvanK. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 359-379.
38.
MoonM.NorrisD. (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Information Systems Journal, 15, 43-60.
39.
NonakaI. (1994). A dynamic theory of knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
40.
NorrisD.MoonM. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65, 64-75.
41.
ObstfeldD. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.
42.
O’TooleL.MeierK. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 505-526.
43.
O’TooleL.MeierK. (2003). Plus ca change: Public management, personal stability, and organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 43-64.
44.
PawlowskiS.RobeyD. (2004) Bridging user organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 28, 645-672.
45.
Perry-SmithJ. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85-101.
46.
PetersG. (1998). Comparative politics, theory and method. New York, NY: New York University Press.
47.
ProvanK.MilwardB. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.
48.
PrzeworskiA.TeuneH. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
49.
RayG.MuhannaW.BarneyJ. (2005). Information technology and the performance of the customer service process: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 29, 625-652.
50.
ReagansR.McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.
51.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. (2001). Networks, diversity and performance: The social capital of R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502-518.
52.
SambamurthyV.ZmudR. (2000). Research commentary: The organizing logic for an Enterprise’s IT activities in the digital era—A prognosis of practice and a call for research. Information Systems Research, 11, 105-114.
53.
SparroweR.LindenR.WayneS.KraimerM. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316-325.
54.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Implements to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27-43.
55.
TortorielloM.KrackhardtD. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 167-181.
56.
TsaiW. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 996-1004.
57.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.
58.
Van der HeijdenH. (2001). Measuring IT core capabilities for electronic commerce. Journal of Information Technology, 16, 13-22.
59.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WestD. (2004). e-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64, 15-27.
61.
YinR. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
