Information Sharing (IS) among public and nonprofit organizations is quintessential for making meaningful decisions that serve the greater needs of 21st Century citizens. Unlike more traditional areas of public activity, IS does not constitute a public policy enacted by elected leaders. Rather, IS represents an inter-agency agreement over information technology (IT) procedure and processes. Consequently this makes the implementation of IS somewhat unique yet increasingly common in the new century. Based on examination of 35 agencies in north central Alabama, this study examines factors which tend to facilitate and hinder the implementation of IS procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellD. (1974). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. London: Heinemann; originally published, New York: Basic Books, 1973.
2.
BrownMary M, and JeffreyL. Brudney. (1998). “A 'smarter, better, faster, and cheaper” government: contacting and geographic information systems. PAR, 58 (4), 335–346.
3.
CastellsManuel, (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge MA. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers.
4.
DawesSharon S., (1996). Interagency Information Sharing: Expected Benefits, Manageable Risks Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, Vol. 15 Issue 3.
5.
DawesSharon S., BloniarzP., KellyK., and FletcherP. (1999). Some Assembly Required for the 21st Century, Center for Technology in Government, National Science Foundation, Washington D.C., p. 31. http://www.ctg.albany.edu/research/workshop/dgfinalreport.pdf
6.
FrisoneD. (2000). “Local government should consider privacy issues,” American City and County, 115 (13), 20–21.
7.
HaqueAkhlaque, (2001). “GIS, Public Service and the Issue of Democratic Governance,” Public Administration Review, 61 (3), 259–65.
8.
HaynesKingsley E. & StoughRoger R., (1997). “The federal urban policy agenda: Recent, past and new realities.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 55 (5), 73–99.
9.
KraemerKenneth L., and JohnLeslie King. (1986). “Computing and Public Organizations,” Public Administration Review, 46 (Special Issue): 488–96.
10.
LandsbergenDavidJr., and GeorgeWolken (2001). “Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation Information Technology,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 61(2)206–218.
11.
LelandSuzanne and KurtThurmaier, (2000). “Metropolitan Consolidation Success: Returning to the Roots of the Local Government Reform.” Public Administration Quarterly, 24(2)202–222.
12.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), 1998. Geographic Information for the 21st Century: A Strategy for the Nation.Washington DC.: NAPA.
13.
Nedovic-Budic Zorica and David Godschalk, (1996). “Human Factors in Adoption of Geographic Information Systems: A local government case study.”PAR, 56 (6), 554–568.
14.
NewcomerKathryn E. and SharonL. Caudle (1991). “Evaluating Public Sector Information Systems: More than Meets the Eye,” Public Administration Review, 51(5)377–384.
15.
NTIA, 2000. Advanced Telecommunications in Rural America: The Challenge of Bringing Broadband Services to All Americans, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Report. Washington D.C., April 2000.
16.
O'TooleLaurence. (1993). “Interorganizational Policy Studies: Lessons Drawn from Implementation Research,” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 3, 232–251.
17.
O'TooleLaurence. (1997). “Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-based Agendas in Public Administration,” Public Administration Review, 57(1)42–52.
18.
PressmanJeffery and AaronWildavsky, (1984). Implementation. 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
RivlinAlice M., (1987). “Economics and Political Process,” American Economic Review, 77 (1), 1–10.
20.
SchwartzEphraim, HeatherHerald, and TomSullivan (2001). “Data Sharing's Call to Arms,” www.infoworld.com, September, 24,p. 26.
21.
StahlStephanie, (2001). “Sharing Data is Key to Antiterrorism Efforts,” Informationweek.com, October 8, p. 8.
22.
U.S. Census, (2002). “Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000,” Electronically accessed through WWW at http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Profiles.shtml, Aug 8, 2002.
23.
WilsonBobby M, 2000. America's Johannesburg: Industrialization And Racial Transformation In Birmingham, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
