Budhathoki and Nedovic-Budic (SDI Knowledgebase)

7/31/2019 Budhathoki and Nedovic-Budic (SDI Knowledgebase)

1/26

abstract

Expanding the Spatial DataInfrastructure Knowledge Base

NAMA RAJ BUDHATHOKI AND ZORICA NEDOVI-BUDI

University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, illinois, United states

Research on spatial data inrastructures (SDIs) is not well grounded in theory,and SDI practice oten does not adequately take into account previous experi-ences. The purpose o this paper is to raise awareness about knowledge areasavailable to academics and proessionals involved in studying or developing SDIs.Along with technical tools, both groups need to engage the theoretical and con-ceptual apparatus in their eorts to understand and address technological andorganizational processes and requirements o SDIs. Ater briey addressing theexisting SDI literature and identiying research gaps, the paper reviews the maindisciplinary areas that would contribute to institutionalization o SDIs and toensuring their broad utility: (1) inormation inrastructure, (2) interorganiza-tional collaboration-cooperation-coordination (3C), (3) intergovernmental rela-

tions, (4) action network theory, and (5) use-utility-usability (3U) o inormationsystems. We assess their value and limitations in supporting SDI research anddevelopment. The ollowing elements are identifed as potentially contributing tothe SDI conceptual ramework: the mutually supporting role o SDIs, geographicinormation systems (GIS), and inormation and communication technologies(ICT) and inrastructures; the notion o an installed base and capacity buildingactivities responsive to the local conditions and needs; consideration o political,social, economic, cultural, and institutional context; incorporation o 3C prin-

ciples and opportunities; attention to intergovernmental relations and the emer-gence o E-governance; understanding o the networked environment o datausers, producers, and managers; employing user-centered approaches; and eval-uating SDI accessibility and utility. The proposed ramework is comprehensive,although it excludes important but oten less challenging technical topics in orderto ocus on organizational and user perspectives.

This article from Research and Theory in Advancing Spatial Data Infrastructure Concepts(ed. Harlan Onsrud;

Redlands, CA: ESRI Press, 2007) is made available under a Creative Commons License, Attribution 2.5

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode). The selection, coordination, arrangement, layout, and

design of the compilation are the exclusive property of ESRI and are protected under United States copyright law

and the copyright laws of the given countries of origin and applicable international laws, treaties, and/or conven-

tions. Any use of the text contained in the individual articles in contradiction of the Creative Commons License,

Attribution 2.5, requires express permission in writing by the authors of the article.


2/26

ExpandingtheSpatialDataInfrastructureknowledgebase

INtrODUctION A unctional spatial data inrastructure (SDI) is an important asset in societaldecision and policy making (Feeney 2003), eective governance (Groot 2001),citizen participation processes (McCall 2003), and private sector opportuni-ties (Mennecke 1997). Driven by those expectations, national SDIs have grown

worldwide during the last decade (Crompvoets et al. 2004; Masser 2005a;Onsrud 1998). The benefts, however, have been slow to materialize. For exam-ple, Butler et al. (2005) assert that the United States national spatial data inra-structure (NSDI) has been only partially successul ater 15 years o struggle.Masser (2005a) categorizes a number o European SDIs as partially operationalor nonoperational. Similarly, Crompvoets et al. (2004), in their worldwide sur-vey o national spatial data clearinghouses, observe a declining trend o clearing-house use. In line with these observations, Masser (2005a) cautions that some

ormidable challenges lie ahead and the task o sustaining the momentum thathas been built up in creating SDIs in recent years will not be easy (p. 273).

The above cautions require close attention, particularly given the considerableamount o resources that SDIs require (i.e., on the scale o billions o dollars)(Onsrud et al. 2004; Rhind 2000). One way to secure the return on these invest-ments is to better conceptualize and understand SDI developments and ascer-tain their eects. However, the SDI knowledge base is quite limited (Georgiadouet al. 2005). Georgiadou and Blakemores (unpublished) examination o arti-

cles in seven major geographic science journals yields a disappointing fndingthat only 5 percent o SDI-related articles are theoretically grounded and critical.They report that most o the works are ocused on either technology or applica-tions; the conceptual domain and social and organizational ramifcations havebeen addressed the least. While a successul SDI balances the technology andapplication domains, it can hardly do so without a sound theoretical oundation.Without such a knowledge base, SDI development eorts are excessively drivenby either technology or application and are unlikely to become ully operational

and serve the expected purposes. The conceptual knowledge and ramework arecrucial or inorming the technological and institutional choices in a variety ocircumstances and or capitalizing on the SDI promise to aid problem solvingand decision making in dierent application realms.

In this paper, we attempt to expand the SDI theoretical base by reviewing theliterature on fve potentially useul knowledge areas. We frst briey identiythe existing SDI research and its gaps. We then point to sources in the areaso (1) inormation inrastructure (II), (2) interorganizational collaboration-

cooperation-coordination (3C), (3) intergovernmental relations (IGR), (4) actornetwork theory (ANT), and (5) use-utility-usability (3U) o inormation systems.We summarize the value and limitations o the reviewed knowledge areas andpropose a tentative but pragmatic conceptual ramework encompassing some othe key concepts. Those fve felds are not comprehensively treated, and a moreextensive literature review would present them more accurately and ully. Ourobjective is to provide inormation that would raise awareness o the poten-tial that those areas bring to advancing SDI research and practice and urther-

ing the transormation o the current worldwide SDI initiatives into unctionalinrastructures.


3/26

BudhathokiandNedovi-budi

Masser (2005a) maintains that an SDI:

. . . supports ready access to geographic inormation. This is achievedthrough the coordinated actions o nations and organizations that pro-mote awareness and implementation o complementary policies, com-

mon standards and eective mechanism or the development andavailability o interoperable digital geographic data and technologiesto support decision making at all scales or multiple purposes. Theseactions encompass the policies, organizational remits, data, technologies,standards, delivery mechanisms, and fnancial and human resources nec-essary to ensure that those working at the (national) and regional scaleare not impeded in meeting their objectives (p. 16).

This defnition emphasizes the ollowing three areas that underpin all SDIs:

1. Policy and organization (organizational, institutional, management, fnancial,political, and cultural issues)

2. Interoperability and sharing (backbone o SDIs)

3. Discovery, access, and use o spatial data (main purpose o SDIs)

Limited but important and encouraging seed research has been conducted in allthree areas.

Policy and organization. Ater a decade o SDI initiation worldwide, researchhas begun to ocus on various aspects o second generation SDI (Rajabiardet al. 2003). Georgiadou et al. (2005) underscore the shit rom data-centricresearch to the notion o inrastructure; Masser (2005b) and Rajabiard et al.(2003) promote a shit rom a product to a process model; Coleman et al. (2000)and Craig (2005) address human resources and leadership; Bernard and Craglia(2005) emphasize important but scarce research on the socioeconomic impact;Georgiadou and Blakemore (unpublished) sound a warning about the Western-

centric and technical nature o most o the ongoing research and call or a glob-ally relevant research program centered on the human component.

The most requent organizational approach to SDIs is hierarchical (Rajbiardet al. 2003), with a network model as an alternative. In his evaluation o frst-generation SDIs, Masser (1999) provides a generic model o national SDIs orSDI-like centers and, like most other authors, describes the growth and organi-zation o some o the major SDI-related organizations (e.g., EUROGI, PCGIAP,Global Map; Victorias Property Inormation Project) as a source o learning

(Jacoby et al. 2002; Lachman et al. 2002; Masser et al. 2003). It is clear, however,that existing organizational and institutional arrangements oten impede SDIadvancement, and new organizational and institutional mechanisms are needed(Kok and Loenen 2005; Masser 2005b).

Interoperability and sharing. Despite the enhanced data transer capabilitiesallowed by advances in inormation and communication technologies (ICT) andthe World Wide Web in particular, sharing o spatial inormation is still impededby substantial noninteroperability. This noninteroperability can be broadly clas-

sifed into two categories: technical and nontechnical. According to Bishr (1998),technical interoperability has six levels: (1) network protocols, (2) hardware andoperating systems, (3) spatial data fles, (4) database management systems (DBMS),(5) data models, and (6) semantics. He argues that the frst our items have been

sDI research


4/26

10 ExpandingtheSpatialDataInfrastructureknowledgebase

reasonably resolved, and research in ederated database systems is expected tocontribute to resolving the fth one. The sixth one semantics o geographicinormation is addressed by a number o researchers (Bishr 1998; Fonseca et al.2000; Harvey et al. 1999; Klien et al. 2006; Kuhn 2003; Nogueras-Iso et al.

2005; Pundt and Bishr 2002; Visser et al. 2002) and has recently benefted roma discussion o spatial ontologies (Mark et al. 2000).

In data sharing, however, nontechnical interoperability (or sot interoperabilityas termed by Nedovi-Budi and Pinto 2001) is more challenging than the tech-nical issues. The impediments to sharing have been identifed, although the solu-tions to overcome them are not easily deployed (Azad and Wiggins 1995; Craig1995; Montalvo 2003; Nedovi-Budi and Pinto 1999a, 1999b; Nedovi-Budiet al. 2004; Pinto and Onsrud 1995). For example, Craig (2005) argues that

key individuals can make a dierence in a sharing scenario; Harvey (2003)underscores trust as the most important mutual eature o the sharing entities;Nedovi-Budi et al. (2004) comprehensively discuss the process and determi-nants o interorganizational sharing. While all these solutions are quite pragmaticand relevant to SDI policy, they are yet to be ully applied in practice.

Spatial data discovery, access, and use. Discovery o and access to spatial dataare necessary initial steps in SDI use, and true SDI utility is demonstrated with awide variety o users (Masser 2005a; Williamson 2003). The discovery o spatialdata is acilitated through metadata catalogues (Craglia and Masser 2002; Craig2005; Smith et al. 2004) and relies on metadata standards (Kim 1999). Recently,some o the metadata systems deploying a multiplicity o national and techni-cal standards have been gradually adopting the international ISO 19115 stan-dard, and translations have been created between dierent metadata standards(Nogueras-Iso et al. 2004). There are also a ew preliminary assessments o theusability o the metadata standards (Fraser and Gluck 1999; Walsh et al. 2002).Several studies discuss other aspects o geoportals as gateways to SDI: Bernard

et al. (2005), Maguire and Longley (2005), and Tait (2005) ocus on the capabil-ities o second-generation geoportals to access spatial data and services; Askewet al. (2005) and Beaumont et al. (2005) describe the UK experience in buildingon the governments ICT investments and the difculties in developing geoportal-related partnerships due to dierent levels o technological experience, goals, andexpectations among the partners.

Access to spatial inormation is usually measured as portal hits. For example, theGeography Network receives (an encouraging) 300,000 hits by an estimated50,000 users per day (Tait 2005). The use o spatial inormation seems to all abit behind, with some preliminary indications that contemporary SDIs do notulfll their purpose and expectations. Crompvoets et al. (2004) report that user-unriendly interaces and the discipline-specifc nature o metadata and clearing-houses are among the primary reasons or the declining trend in clearinghouseuse. Nedovi-Budi et al. (2004), in their evaluation o the use o SDIs or localplanning in Victoria, Australia, and Illinois, United States, also conclude thatSDIs do not eectively serve local needs. These studies reinorce the fndings

rom a large-scale survey conducted in the United States by Tulloch and Fuld(2001) who fnd that using ramework data in an SDI environment is challeng-ing both technically and institutionally technically because these data are in


5/26

BudhathokiandNedovi-budi 11

various ormats and o dierent accuracies and institutionally because the dataproducers are not ully prepared to share data.

Without claiming to be exhaustive and specifc, we identiy the ollowing gaps inthe current SDI literature and invite the research community to direct their uturework to these general areas and many potential topics within them.

Defnition and conceptualization. The many defnitions o SDI (Rajabiard et al.2003) dier in emphasis and purpose, and no clear consensus on the concepto SDI and its constituting elements and principles exists. While a multiplic-ity o defnitions and meanings is not unusual or any phenomenon, it tends to

rustrate research and development. Similarly, literature does not help much indierentiating between GIS and SDI and speciying their unique roles and rela-tionships. For example, Bishop et al. (2000) believe that a GIS cannot be builtwithout an SDI, whereas Georgiadou et al. (2005) argue that an SDI requires astrong GIS base. Inconsistent defnitions and concept operationalizations resultin ambiguous research fndings and prevent comparison o studies conductedindependently on the same subject (Budi 1994). In essence, they stand in theway o building a coherent body o SDI knowledge.

Models. Although the hierarchical model corresponds closely to current eortsat creating SDIs at dierent administrative levels, more complex horizontal andvertical interactions require urther exploration and more elaborate representa-tion. An alternative model (or models) is needed to outline SDI presence and useacross all levels and organizational confgurations and to accommodate all rele-vant participants. Public access, in particular, is a crucial component o the con-nectivity claimed by SDIs. While the general public is anticipated to eventually bethe largest SDI user group (Dangermond 1995; McKee 2000), very ew sources

discuss the issue o public access and explicitly include it in SDI modeling andbuilding attempts.

Standards. Other than the sporadic migration to ISO standards by somenational SDIs, little is known about which standards are used in SDIs world-wide. Moellering (2005) started to fll this gap by reviewing metadata technicalrequirements and developments around the globe, including many internationaland national examples. Still, robust empirical work on metadata systems is lacking,or example, in terms o their matching the users mental models, their value in

assessing the ftness-or-use o the underlying data, and the complementary use osocial networks in data discovery. Moreover, research on substantive standardsand compliance to them in a variety o data domains is important or advancingthe possibilities or transer, sharing, and use o spatial inormation.

Monitoring and evaluation. Ongoing SDI research is more ocused on access tospatial data than on the use and utility o the inrastructure. With utility in mind,looking at the process o SDI establishment comprehensively rom conception

to operation will help create a more relevant and useul inrastructure. Beyondcounting portal hits, there is no clear evidence about who the users are, what theyare using the inormation or, and how well they are served by the geoportals(Askew et al. 2005). In general, continuous monitoring and evaluation shouldcontribute to establishing eective and valuable SDIs. Georgiadou et al. (2006)

sDI research gaps


6/26


suggest a variety o methodologically rigorous evaluation approaches suited toprogressively complex oci on data, services, and E-governance. The ormationo a new Spatial Data Interest Community on Monitoring and Reporting (SDICMORE 2005) in conjunction with the implementation o the Inrastructure or

Spatial Inormation in Europe (INSPIRE) testifes to the importance o trackingthe establishment, contents, and use o SDIs. The group, however, is only begin-ning to identiy indicators and monitoring mechanisms and procedures.

Balancing the technical and the social. We need to better understand theinteraction between the technical and the nontechnical, but research eorts havebeen mostly limited to one or the other. In reality, the two realms interact andinuence each other to give rise to a whole new set o actors, which are cal-ibrated through a mutual adjustment between the two (Nedovi-Budi 1997).

Timely involvement o prospective users in the development o SDIs will contrib-ute to enhanced usability and overall success. The diverse backgrounds and otenlimited skills o nonspecialists require approaches dierent rom the ones taken orspecialist users. The traditional inormation system development methodology otechnology-centered design may work or small systems but is inadequate andtoo risky or SDIs. In addition, capacity building has to be included as an inher-ent part o SDI development (Enemark and Williamson 2004; Georgiadou andGroot 2002; Masser 2004; Williamson et al. 2003).

Politics and policy. SDIs are also susceptible to geopolitical, economic, and socio-cultural issues and all the associated opportunities and threats o cyber spacesand interactions (Pickels 2004). This is particularly obvious or national SDIs,which oten exhibit centralizing tendencies that run counter to ederated anddevolutionary system concepts. The SDI community cannot aord to over-look the relationship between the state and geographic inormation and therebybecome a nonplayer in addressing this crucial dimension o SDI policy.

Multi- and interdisciplinary approach. SDIs draw on knowledge rom manydisciplines, including but not limited to sociology, cognitive science, political sci-ence, organizational studies, economics, and computer and inormation science(Masser 2005b). Current research, however, tends to be inward oriented, ailingto reach out to other disciplines and their theories, concepts, and rameworks.

In sum, the current SDI knowledge base is not sufcient to inorm developmento sustainable SDIs. Thereore, in agreement with Georgiadou et al. (2005) andMasser (2005b), we direct the attention o the SDI academic and proessional

community toward alternative sources. The ollowing section provides a brieoverview o fve key knowledge areas that can strengthen the SDI theoretical andconceptual oundation.

Inormation inrastructure. Most literature considers inormation inrastructure (II)in a rather narrow sense within a specifed domain, or example, biology (Sepic

and Kase 2002), urban planning (Langendor 2001), academia (Begusic et al.2003; Cramond 1999; Sepic and Kase 2002), or media (Anderson et al. 1994).Some view the Internet as II, while others equate the digitalization o librarieswith II. However, the II envisioned by the ormer U.S. Vice President Al Gore,the U.S. Inormation Inrastructure Task Force (1993), and the European Union

FIve kNOwleDge

areas


7/26


task orce (Bangemann Group 1994) has much broader expectations and ram-ifcation or all sectors o society. A number o researchers also move rom thedomain-specifc to the broad societal ront and attempt to develop the general IIconceptual base (Hanseth and Monteiro 1998, 2004; Monteiro 1998; Monteiro

and Hanseth 1995; Star and Ruhleder 1996) (table 1). They suggest that all IIsbuild on their technological and social installed base and maintain that IIs areopen and support any number o users and their diverse needs. These authorsview inormation inrastructures as not only gradually expanding but also trans-orming, as work practices are continuously inscribed in them.

Star and Ruhleder (1996) argue that IIs cannot be independently built andmaintained, but rather, they emerge through practice and get connected to otheractivities and structures. They criticize the highway metaphor o II as technology

biased. Similarly to Borgman (2000), they view IIs as much more than the phys-ical substrate and consider broader social relations integral to IIs. Hanseth andMonteiro (2004) suggest that some o the II characteristics may be present in cer-tain inormation systems (IS), especially in interorganizational systems (IOS) ordistributed inormation systems (DIS), and thereore, some commonalities andoverlapping characteristics exist between IS and II. They state that IIs are initi-ated when (1) new and independent actors become involved in the developmento an IOS or DIS, so that development is not controlled by one actor anymore, or

Star and Ruhleder (1996)

Embeddedness Inrastructure is sunk into (inside o) other structures, social arrangements, and technologies

Transparency Inrastructure is transparent in use, in the sense that it does not have to be reinvented each timeor assembled or each task but invisibly supports those tasks

Reach or scope This may be either spatial or temporalinrastructure has reach beyond a single event or one-site practice

Learned as part o

membership

The taken-or-grantedness o artiacts and organizational arrangements is a sine qua nono

membership in a community o practice. Strangers and outsiders encounter an inrastructureas a target object to be learned about. As they become members, new participants acquire anaturalized amiliarity with its objects.

Links with conventionso practice

Inrastructure both shapes and is shaped by the conventions o a community o practice

Embodiment ostandards

Modied by scope and oten by conficting conventions, inrastructure takes on transparency byplugging into other inrastructures and tools in a standardized ashion

Installed base Inrastructure does not grow de novo;it wrestles with the inertia o the installed base andinherits strengths and limitations rom that base

Becomes visible uponbreakdown

The normally invisible quality o a working inrastructure becomes visible when theinrastructure breaks down

Hanseth and Monteiro (2004)

Enabling Inrastructures have a supporting or enabling unction

Shared An inrastructure is shared by a large community (collection o users and user groups)

Open Inrastructures are open and support heterogeneous environments

Sociotechnical network Inormation inrastructures are more than pure technology; rather, they are sociotechnicalnetworks

Ecology o networks Inrastructures are connected and interrelated, constituting ecologies o networks

Installed base Inrastructures evolve by extending and improving the installed base

Table 1. Characteristics o inormation inrastructures.Compiled rom Star and Ruhleder 1996; Hanseth and Monteiro 2004.


8/26


(2) one o the design objectives or IOS or DIS is growth and transormation intoan II (or a part o an II) in the uture.

Interorganizational collaboration-cooperation-coordination. The IS literaturereinorces the argument that organizational complexities increase urther in inter-

organizational contexts and thereore require dierent inormation system devel-opment, management, and use practices (Doherty and King 2001; Lambert andPeppard 1993; Mahring et al. 2004; Suomi 1994; Williams 1997). The elementso interorganizational collaboration-cooperation-coordination (3C) are otennecessary or IOS or DIS implementation and successul operation. Cooperationcovers the middle ground between collaboration and coordination, with the or-mer being least intensive and most autonomous and the latter being most inten-sive and least autonomous (McCann 1983).

The essential elements in studying interorganizational exchange include organi-zational exchange theory (Cook 1977), determinants o interorganizational rela-tionships (including necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, efciency, stability, andlegitimacy; Oliver 1990), and organizational interdependence (Thompson 1967).Levine and White (1969) defne exchange as any voluntary activity betweentwo organizations which has consequences, actual or anticipated, or the realiza-tion o their respective goals or objectives (p. 120). Exchange is usually soughtwith the minimum loss o organizational autonomy and power and depends onthe availability o alternative resources. Thompson (1967) identifes three typeso organizational interdependences: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal (in theorder o increasing complexity). Kumar and van Dissel (1996) provide a typol-ogy o interorganizational systems based on type o interdependence (table 2).Meredith (1995) postulates that already existing organizational interdepen-dence will reduce resistance to interorganizational sharing. This is particu-larly true or cooperative interdependence (Tjosvold 1988). However, increased

Dimension Characteristic or the ollowing type o interdependence

Pooled Sequential Reciprocal

Conguration

Coordinationmechanisms

Standards and rules Standards, rules, schedules, andplans

Standards, rules, schedules,plans, and mutual adjustment

Technologies Mediating Long-linked Intensive

Structurability High Medium Low

Potential or confict Low Medium High

Type o IOS Pooled inormationresource IOS

Value/supply-chain IOS Networked IOS

Implementationtechnologies andapplications

Shared databases,networks, applications,electronic markets

EDI applications, voice mail,acsimile

CAD/CASE data interchange,central repositories, desktopsharing, videoconerencing

Table 2. Organizational interdependence.Reprinted rom Kumar and van Dissel 1996, with permission o the University o Minnesota.


9/26


interdependence and need or cooperation can in some networked organizationslead to conicts over authority, jurisdiction, and distribution o power (Ekbiaand Kling 2005; Kumar and van Dissel 1996). The interdependence and greatermutual resources also tend to increase the number o decision points and thus

constrain joint actions and diminish the probability o successul implementation(Aiken and Hage 1968; Pressman and Wildavsky 1984).

Finally, underlying the discussion o the value and importance o 3C to inter-organizational IS and database activity is the need to identiy the motivationsthat would impel organizational units to get actively involved in multiparty rela-tionships and projects. A number o actors contribute to the perceived need toseek out interorganizational geographic inormation relationships, whether theyare voluntary or mandated (Cummings 1980). Gray (1989) reers to achievement

o a shared vision and conict resolution as the two main motivators o collabor-ative organizational design.

According to OToole and Montjoy (1984), coordination can be based on(1) authority (i.e., obligation), (2) common interest, or (3) exchange inducementsbased on expected or received returns.

Intergovernmental relations. As much as interorganizational systems and data-bases are maniestations o interorganizational relationships (Kumar and van

Dissel 1996), in the public sector they also reect models o government andintergovernmental relations (IGR). According to Cameron (2001), IGR varyalong three dimensions: degree o institutionalization, extent o decision making,and level o transparency. IGR also relate directly to political and administrativedecentralization (Koike and Wright 1998). For a ederal context like the UnitedStates, Australia, and potentially the European Union, Agrano (2001) proposesthe pattern o intergovernmental interaction known as cooperative ederalism,consisting o the ollowing elements: ederalist theory, administrative tech-

niques, dual government structure, and context-specifc cooperation. Nice andFrederickson (1995) advance a ew alternative models o ederalism: competitive(nation-centered, state-centered, and dual ederalism), interdependent (coopera-tive, creative, and new ederalism), and unctional (picket ence and bambooence ederalism). OToole (1985) dierentiates between ederalist models withoverlapping authority, coordinative authority, and inclusive authority.

Politics are inherent in government at all levels local, national, and inter-national. The evolution o government toward the practice o governance1 that

is increasingly accepted worldwide more explicitly incorporates intergovernmen-tal relations among a broader set o stakeholders and interest groups involvedin decision-making processes. The increasingly participative but also politicizedenvironment is not uncommon to collaborative alliances ormed around inter-organizational inormation systems (Kumar and van Dissel 1996). In addition tochanges in institutions and the political and economic context, the intensifed useo inormation and communication technologies (ICTs) also inuences the mod-els o governance and democratic processes (Falch 2006). For example, Radin and

Romzeks (1996) comparison o Weberian and virtual bureaucracies (table 3) dem-onstrates how ICTs acilitate transormations rom government to governance.Furthermore, Fountains (2001) analytical ramework (fgure 1) relates orga-nizational orms and institutional arrangements to the process o technology


10/26


Organizational forms

Bureaucracy Hierachy Jurisdiction Standardization Rules, files Stability

Networks Trust versus exchange

Social capital Interoperability Pooled resources Access to knowledge

Enacted technology

Perception Design Implementation Use

Outcomes

Indeterminate Multiple Unanticipated Influenced byrational, social,and political logics

Institutional arrangements

Cognitive Cultural

Sociostructural Legal and formal

Objective informationtechnologies

Internet Other digital telecomunications Hardware Software

Weberian bureaucracy Virtual bureaucracy

Functional dierentiation, precise divisiono labor, clear jurisdictional boundaries

Inormation structured using inormation technology rather than people;organizational structure based on inormation systems rather than people

Hierarchy o oces and individuals Electronic and inormal communication; teams carry out the work and make

decisionsFiles, written documents, sta to maintainand transmit les

Digitized les in fexible orm, maintained and transmitted electronicallyusing sensors, bar codes, transponders, handheld computers; chips record,store, analyze, and transmit data; systems sta maintain hardware, sotware,and telecommunications

Employees are neutral, impersonal, attachedto a particular oce

Employees are cross-unctional, empowered; jobs limited not only byexpertise but also by the extent and sophistication o computer mediation

Oce system o general rules, standardoperating procedures, perormanceprograms

Rules embedded in applications and inormation systems; an invisible,virtual structure

Slow processing time due to batchprocessing, delays, lags, multiple handos

Rapid or real-time processing

Long cycles o eedback and adjustment Constant monitoring and updating o eedback; more rapid or real-timeadjustment possible

Table 3. Weberian and virtual bureaucraciesReprinted rom Radin and Romzek 1996, with permission o Oxord University Press.

Figure 1. Technologyenactment: ananalytical ramework.

Reprinted rom Fountain2001 with permission o

Brookings Institution Press.


11/26


enactment. The author suggests that dierent cognitive, cultural, sociostructural,and legal orms are required or hierarchical and network organizations.

Actor network theory. Actor network theory (ANT) is oten used instead oconventional social theory (e.g., Giddens 1979; structuralist theory) to exam-

ine and explain the interaction between inormation technology and society(Hanseth et al. 2004; Monteiro and Hanseth 1995). ANT applies semiotics inexplaining social phenomena and their attributes and orms as resulting romrelations with other entities; in addition, all entities have to satisy the perorma-tivity aspect o ANT, in other words, to be perormed in, by, and through thoserelations (Law and Hassard 1999). The ocus is on undoing the artifcial bound-aries between social and technical systems and related processes. For example,Faraj et al. (2004) employ ANT in their study o the complex interdependences

that characterize the evolution o Web browsers and demonstrate that technologi-cal and human agents are inseparable in constructing new sociotechnical artiacts.

According to Callon (1986) and Mahring et al. (2004), creation o an actor net-work, which is also called translation, consists o our major stages: problemati-zation, interessement (recruitment), enrollment, and mobilization (table 4). Thetranslation process does not have to pass through all our phases and may ail atany stage. In addition to translation, there is the process o inscription o ideasin given technologies; as those technologies diuse within specifc contexts, they

are assigned relevance and help achieve sociotechnical stability (Latour 1987).Another ANT phenomenon is irreversibility, which is the degree to which a networkcan be brought back to a state where alternative possibilities exist. Hanseth andMonteiro (1998) fnd that irreversibility is due to the inscription o interests intotechnological artiacts, whereby those individual and organizational interestscustomize the system and become increasingly difcult to change. In the contexto changing but sometimes irreversible networks, the authors propose three actornetwork confgurations (elements o decomposition): disconnected networks,

gateways, and polyvalent networks.

Use, utility, and usability o inormation systems (3U). Although the termsusability and useulness (reerred to in this work as utility) are oten

Problematization An actor initiating the process (also called ocal actor) denes the identities and interestso other actors that are consistent with the interest o the ocal actor. In this initial stage obuilding the actor network, some actors position themselves as indispensable or solvingthe problems dened. They dene the problem and solution and also the identities and

roles or other actors in the network.

Interessement (recruitment) Convincing other actors that the interests dened by ocal actors are in line with their owninterest. Depending upon situation, this phase also involves creating incentives or actorsso that the obstacles to bringing these actors into the network are overcome. A successulrecruitment conrms the validity o problematization, locks new actors into the network,and corners the entities that are not yet co-opted.

Enrollment The roles o the actors in the newly created network are dened. The ocal actor strives toconvince other actors to ully embrace the underlying ideas o the growing network andbecome an active part o the mission. Multilateral negotiation takes place.

Mobilization Focal actor makes sure that al l actors are acting in accordance with the underlying spirito the network mission. The ocal actor seeks continued support rom all the enrolledactors in order to keep the network stable. The actors are mobilized to urther stabilize andinstitutionalize the network.

Table 4. Actor network theory: stages o translation.Adapted rom Callon 1986 and Mahring et al. 2004.


12/26


employed interchangeably in the context o ICT systems, they are not equivalent.Blomberg et al. (1994) suggest that usability reers to the general intelligibil-ity o systems, particularly at the interace; useulness means that a systems unc-tionality actually makes sense and adds value in relation to a particular work

setting (p. 190). The concept o eective use subsumes both usability and use-ulness. Eective use o ICTs, according to Gurstein (2003), is the capacity andopportunity to successully integrate these technologies to achieve the users sel-defned or collaboratively defned goals, and it requires carriage acilities (i.e.,appropriate communication inrastructure), input/output devices, tools and sup-ports, content services, service access/provision, social acilitation (e.g., network,leadership, training), and governance. In the IS realm, DeLone and McLean(1992) suggest the amount and duration o use (e.g., number o unctions per-ormed, reports generated, charges, requency o access) and nature and level ouse as objective measures.

Although the postWorld War II growth o scientifc literature marked the beginningo a more systematic study o inormation systems, the ocus o research eortsdid not shit rom technology to inormation users and their behavior until the1980s (Wilson 1994, 2000). Consequently, the design o inormation systems andservices started to shit rom system-centered to user-centered approaches andsociotechnical designs (Eason 1988). User study is now a well-established area

o inormation science (Bates 2005; Dervin and Nilan 1986; Dervin 1989; Foster2004; Lamb and Kling 2003; Leckie et al. 1996; Orlikowski and Gash 1994;Savolainen 1995; Stewart and Williams 2005; Taylor 1991). Among the ques-tions it poses are the ollowing: How do people seek inormation? How is inor-mation put to use? How do inormation needs and activities change over time?The user-centered studies operate at two main levels o analysis: individual level(Attfeld and Dowell 2003; Brashers et al. 2000; Chatman 1996; Cobbledick1996; Ellis 1993; Savolainen 1995) and organizational level (Lamb and Kling2003; Leckie et al. 1996; Orlikowski and Gash 1994; Taylor 1991).

In addition to individual-level studies that consider users in a more passiveashion (i.e., as relevant but not substantially inuential and powerul partic-ipants), there is a prominent trend o viewing users as innovators, sense-makers, and domesticators o inormation technologies and systems (Bruceand Hogan 1998; Dervin 1989; Grifth 1999; Stewart and Williams 2005;Williams 1997). The central tenet o domestication and its associated con-cept o idealization-realization o technology (Bruce 1993) is that technology

gets appropriated and its meaning is constructed by situated use. By implication,designers cannot design the system; they can only invoke the design process. It isthrough the users continued appropriation that an inormation system andservices become useul.

This paper was motivated by the increasingly recognized ailure o SDI researchand practice to both utilize the existing theoretical and empirical knowledgebase and develop its own conceptual ramework. The majority o contribu-tions to gray and reereed literature tend to be anecdotal, unsystematic, and iso-lated rom the broader scientifc discourse. This situation limits the developmento unctional and relevant SDIs worldwide. The importance o expanding the

cONclUsIONs


13/26


knowledge base is even more obvious when considering the magnitude andmultiplicity o challenges the SDI eorts ace, including politics, fnance, tech-nical capacity, human resources, and utility. In this paper we oer a substantialoverview o existing SDI research, point to research gaps, and review fve areas

as potential major resources or strengthening the SDI conceptual base: inorma-tion inrastructure, interorganizational collaboration-cooperation-coordination,intergovernmental relations, action network theory, and use-utility-usability oinormation systems (table 5). Figure 2 shows a tentative but pragmatic concep-tual ramework or SDI development.

Conceptual ramework derived rom the expanded SDI knowledge base. Thenotions o inormation inrastructure and o the installed base, in particular, areuseul in taking a deeper look at SDIs. The concept o the installed base implies

that the existing technical systems (e.g., hardware, sotware, and data) and orga-nizational structures (e.g., human resources and skills, management practices, andlegal arrangements) may play acilitating or constraining roles. Inrastructure open-ness implies that SDIs should accommodate a growing number o heterogeneousactors and artiacts. Georgiadou et al. (2005) incorporate some o these conceptsin analyzing the Indian NSDI. The useulness o the concepts, however, needs to

Knowledge

area Key premises Value or SDI Limitations

II Open, transparent, standardized,and widely accessible networkbased on Internet and other ICT,serving a broad set o users andcommunities

Special type o inrastructureand the notion o the installedbase

Factors, strategies, andprocesses or developing IIsare not elaborated or tested

3C Interorganizational systemsrequire 3C; they relateto interorganizationalinterdependences, involve complex

mechanisms, and carry potentialor confict

Inormation sharing andexchange are undamentalto SDIs; successul 3C isnecessary or SDIs to become

unctional and relevant

Focus on private corporationsand prot maximization;diculty in identiying viablemotivators in the public sector

IGR Models o governments andsocietal decision making range ona continuum rom centralized todecentralized (including ederalist),with dierent types o authority andadministrative approaches

Governments at all levels arethe majority stakeholders oSDIs; SDIs build upon andadjust to (as well as aect)intergovernmental settingsand relationships; SDIs arean element o the envisionedvirtual bureaucracy

Nongovernmental actorsprivate sector, academia,nonprot organizations, andpopulation at large (citizenassociations and interestgroups) are not addressed

ANT All phenomena take their ormand attributes in relation to otherentities and are perormed in, by,and through them; membershipgrows through a process otranslation (problematization,interessement, enrollment, andmobilization)

SDIs are oten modeled ashierarchies, but they are morelikely to evolve as networks andInternet-based access pointsto acquiring data and services;the translation process is oneway o understanding andcultivating SDIs

Flexibility and uncertaintydo not easily translate intoimplementable models; morea method or explaining andinterpreting reality than oracting on it to stimulate newdevelopments

3U Extending traditional IS ocuswith sociotechnical design, user

involvement and action, andevaluation

Useul in bottom-upapproaches; recognizing the

major role o many potentialSDI users and their creativity

Developed or single systemsand organizations; needs

rigorous evaluation methodsto apply to the evolution o SDIrom data and service toE-governance

Table 5. Key premises, value, and limitations o the fve knowledge areas.


14/26


be explored urther. Creating SDIs with all the envisioned characteristics o a ull-blown and operational inrastructure is not easy. Moreover, inormation inra-structures are neither created rom a void nor completely designed. Rather, theprocess o building is replaced by cultivation o the sociotechnical installedbase to gradually incorporate diverse actors in a networked environment. The

cultivation approach has sufcient exibility to accommodate local circum-stances and practices. It also turns attention to capacity building needs at all lev-els, including the so-called interagency collaborative capacity (ICC) (Bardach1998), individual agency GIS capacity (Mackay et al. 2002), and citizen/usercapacity (Tettey 2002).

The ideas discussed in the studies on interorganizational relationships and3C are useul and easily applied. The majority o studies on interorganiza-tional IS are situated in the context o large corporations and employ produc-tivity and maximization o proft as success criteria (Doherty and King 2001;

Johnston and Gregor 2000; Munkvold 1999; Suomi 1992, 1994; Williams 1997).Interorganizational exchange and consensus are essential actors in SDI develop-ment. The 3C concept is employed in GIS research (Azad and Wiggins 1995;Craig 2005; Harvey 2001; Nedovi-Budi and Pinto 1999b; Nedovi-Budi et al.2004) but remains incompletely exploited and leaves the question o how to suc-cessully initiate and maintain SDI coalitions among diverse stakeholders incom-pletely answered. Also, in the context o the public sector, which prevails among

SDI participants, understanding intergovernmental relations and the impact onand o E-governance would also be indispensable to establishing eective SDIs.

Figure 2. Proposed ramework or SDI development.

Context: Social, economical,political, cultural, institutional

Actors/Networkdata users and

producers,portal managers,

and others.

SDI processcultivation, growth, user

involvement,domestication,

reinvention, inscription

+3C

Improvedlocal

conditiondecisionsprojects

programspolicies

IIE-gov

geoportalsSDI

ICTGIS

Accessand

utility

Installed base/Capacity building

Local conditions/Data needs/Applications


15/26


Actor network theory oers a rich perspective on how a network o alignedinterests, as well as nested smaller networks, can be created with diverse humanactors and heterogeneous technical systems. ANT provides a useul theoreticaltoolset to investigate the coalitions required or SDIs to become unctional and

eective within the context o overall societal progress. Though ew research-ers apply actor network theory to study GIS activities (Harvey 2001; Martin2000; Walsham and Sahay 1999), they use it within a limited organizationalcontext and do not employ it in studying the creation o SDI networks. Butmore generally, we fnd that ANT has more acility in research than in practice.It is more helpul or observing and interpreting sociotechnical networks thanor developing viable relations among targeted actors and ensuring specifc out-comes o such relations.

Between usability and utility, the latter is certainly more relevant or studyinglarge-scale inrastructures such as SDIs. The user perspective, in general, hasgained widespread popularity. Gursteins (2003) ramework o eective use oinormation resources is applicable to SDIs. It reveals that there are other impor-tant organizational and social structures that can enable or limit SDIs. The lenso eective use thus allows us to see SDIs beyond the current paradigm o pro-vision o and access to geospatial inormation. In the words o Stewart andWilliams (2005, p. 2):

Design outcomes/supplier oerings are inevitably unfnished in relation tocomplex, heterogeneous and evolving user requirements. Further inno-vation takes place as artiacts are implemented and used. To be usedand useul, ICT artiacts must be domesticated and become embeddedin broader systems o culture and inormation practices. In this processartiacts are oten reinvented and urther elaborated.

Despite the convincing criticism o the traditional user-centered and sociotechnicalapproaches and their limited applicability to single systems and organizations,

the proponents o more radical views have not operationalized their ideas oroered practical solutions that can be implemented in actual development proj-ects. In huge systems like SDIs, identiying who the potential users are and howto represent them in the process o an evolving SDI remains difcult. The com-plexities o SDIs require urther studies o use and users and continuous monitor-ing and evaluation. The challenges, however, should not undermine the essentialimportance o strong representation and active participation o users as domes-ticators, sensemakers, and innovators who ultimately evaluate the utility

o SDIs.The literature discussed in this paper suggests the ollowing conceptual base: cul-tivation approach to SDI; ocus on SDI users, access, and derived utility; capacitybuilding in the installed base; understanding o the networking relationships andattributes o data users, producers, and managers; incorporation o 3C principlesand opportunities; attention to intergovernmental relations and the emergingtrends in E-governance; capitalizing on mutually interdependent and supportingroles o GIS, ICT, and II; and evaluation o SDIs in terms o their ultimate goal

o improving local conditions by enabling various communities and stakeholdersto get involved in decision-making processes and aect implementation o localprojects, policies, and programs. Last but not least, all SDI activities and partic-ipants are situated within specifc societal, cultural, and institutional contexts.


16/26


17/26


Askew, David, Sharon Evans, Ruth Matthews, and Phillipa Swanton. 2005. MAGIC: Ageoportal or the English countryside. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems29 (1): 7185.

Attfeld, Simon, and John Dowell. 2003. Inormation seeking and use by newspaperjournalists.Journal o Documentation 59 (2): 187204.

Azad, Bijan, and Lyna L. Wiggins. 1995. Dynamics o inter-organizational geographicdata sharing: A conceptual ramework or research. In Sharing geographicinormation, eds. Harlan J. Onsrud and Gerard Rushton, 2243. New Brunswick,NJ: Center or Urban Policy Research.

Bangemann Group. 1994. Europe and the Global Inormation Society. Recommendationso the high-level group on the inormation highway to the Coru European Council.

Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory o

managerial cratsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Bates, Marcia J. 2005. An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In Theories

o inormation behavior, ASIST Monograph Series, eds. Karen E. Fisher, SandaErdelez, and Lynne E. F. McKechnie, 124. Medord, NJ: Inormation Today.

Beaumont, Peter, Paul A. Longley, and David J. Maguire. 2005. Geographic inormationportals: A UK perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (1): 4969.

Begusic, Dinko, Nikola Rozic, and Hrvoje Dujmic. 2003. Development o thecommunication/inormation inrastructure at the academic institution. Computer

Communications 26 (5): 47276.

Bernard, Lars, and Max Craglia. 2005. SDI: From Spatial Data Inrastructure to ServiceDriven Inrastructure. Position paper presented at research workshop on cross-learning between SDI and II. International Institute or Geo-Inormation Science andEarth Observation (ITC). March 31April 1. Enschede, Netherlands.

Bernard, Lars, Ioannis Kanellopoulos, Alessandro Annoni, and Paul Smits. 2005. TheEuropean geoportal: One step towards the establishment o a European Spatial DataInrastructure. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (1): 1531.

Bishop, Ian D., Francisco J. Escobar, Sadasivam Karuppannan, Ian P. Williamson, andPaul M. Yates. 2000. Spatial Data Inrastructures or cities in developing countries.Cities 17 (2): 8596.

Bishr, Yaser. 1998. Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability.International Journal o Geographical Inormation Science 12 (4): 299314.

Blomberg, Jeanette, Lucy Suchman, and Randall H. Trigg. 1994. Reections on a work-oriented design project. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conerence(PDC94). October. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Borgman, Christine L. 2000. The premise and the promise o a Global InormationInrastructure. Peer-Reviewed Journal o the Internet5 (8). http://www.frstmonday.org/issues/issue5_8/borgman/index.html (accessed January 15, 2006).

Brashers, Dale E., Judith L. Neidig, Stephen M. Haas, Linda K. Dobbs, Linda W. Cardillo,and Jane A. Russell. 2000. Communication in the management o uncertainty: Thecase o persons living with HIV or AIDS. Communication Monographs 67:6384.

Bruce, Bertram C. 1993. Innovation and social change. In Network-based classrooms:Promises and realities, eds. Bertram C. Bruce, Joy K. Peyton, and Trent W. Batson,932. Cambridge University Press, NY.


18/26


19/26

26 Expanding the Spatial Data Infrastructure knowledge base


20/26


Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure andContradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University o Caliornia Press.

Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground or multiparty problems.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Grifth, Terri L. 1999. Technology eatures as triggers or sensemaking. Academy oManagement Review 24 (3): 472488.

Groot, Richard. 2001. Reorm o government and the uture perormance o nationalsurveys. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 25 (45): 36787.

Gurstein, Michael. 2003. Eective use: A community inormatics strategy beyond thedigital divide. First Monday 8 (12).

Hanseth, Ole, Margun Aanestad, and Marc Berg. 2004. Actor-network theory andinormation system. Whats so Special? Inormation Technology & People 17 (2):11623.

Hanseth, Ole, and Eric Monteiro. 1998. Changing irreversible networks. Paper presentedat the 6th European Conerence on Inormation Systems, Aix-en-Provence, 46(June).

Hanseth, Ole, and Eric Monteiro. 2004. Understanding Inormation Inrastructure.(Forthcoming book).

Harvey, Francis. 2001. Constructing GIS: Actor networks o collaboration.Journal o the

Urban and Regional Inormation System Association 13 (1): 2937.Harvey, Francis. 2003. Developing geographic inormation inrastructures or local

government: The role o trust. Canadian Geographer 47 (1): 2836.

Harvey, Francis, Werner Kuhn, Hardy Pundt, Yaser Bishr, and Catharina Riedemann.1999. Semantic interoperability: A central issue or sharing geographic inormation.The Annals o Regional Science 33 (2): 21332.

Gore, Al (ormer U.S. vice president) and Inormation Inrastructure Task Force. 1993.The National Inormation Inrastructure: Agenda or Action. Washington, DC.

Jacoby, Steve, Jessica Smith, Lisa Ting, and Ian Williamson. 2002. Developing a commonspatial data inrastructure between state and local government: An Australian casestudy. International Journal o Geographical Inormation Science 16 (4): 30522.

Johnston, Robert, and Shirley Gregor. 2000. A theory o industry-level activity orunderstanding the adoption o interorganizational systems. European Journal oInormation Systems 9 (4): 24351.

Koike, Osamu, and Deil S. Wright. 1998. Five phases o IGR in Japan: Policy shits andgovernance reorm. International Review o Administrative Sciences 64:20318.

Kim, Tschangho J. 1999. Metadata or geo-spatial data sharing: A comparative analysis.The Annals o Regional Science 33 (2): 17181.

Klien, E., M. Lutz, and W. Kuhn. 2006. Ontology-based discovery o geographicinormation services: An application in disaster management. Computers,Environment and Urban Systems 30:10223.

Kok, Bas, and Bastiaan V. Loenen. 2005. How to assess the success o National SpatialData Inrastructures? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (6): 699717.

Kuhn, Werner. 2003. Semantic reerence systems. International Journal o GeographicalInormation Science 17 (5): 4059.

Kumar, Sundeep, and Han G. van Dissel. 1996. Sustainable collaboration: Managingconict and cooperation in interorganizational systems. MIS Quarterly 20:279300.

Budhathoki and Nedovi-budi 27


21/26

BudhathokiandNedovi budi 27

Lachman, Beth E., Anny Wong, Debra Knopman, and Kim Gavin. 2002. Lessons or theGlobal Spatial Data Inrastructure: International Case Study Analysis. Santa Monica:Rand Co.

Langendor, Richard. 2001. Computer-aided visualization: Possibilities or urban design,planning and management. In Planning Support Systems: Integrating GIS andVisualization Tools, eds. Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman, 30959. Redlands,CA: ESRI Press.

Lamb, Roberta, and Rob Kling. 2003. Reconceptualizing users as social actors ininormation systems research. MIS Quarterly 27 (2): 197235.

Lambert, Rob, and Joe Peppard. 1993. Inormation technology and new organizationalorms: Destination but no road map?Journal o Strategic Inormation Systems2 (3): 180205.

Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers throughSociety. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Law, John, and John Hassard. 1999. Actor network theory and ater. Oxord: BlackwellPublishers.

Leckie, Gloria J., Karen E. Pettigrew, and Christian Sylvain. 1996. Modeling theinormation-seeking o proessionals: A general model derived rom research onengineers, health care proessionals and lawyers. Library Quarterly 66 (2): 16293.

Levine, Sol, and Paul E. White. 1969. Exchange as a conceptual ramework or the

study o interorganizational relationships. In A Sociological Reader on ComplexOrganizations, ed. Amitai Etzioni. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Mackay, Ronald, Douglas Horton, Luis Dupleich, and Anders Andersen. 2002.Evaluating organizational capacity development. The Canadian Journal o ProgramEvaluation 17 (2): 12150.

Maguire, David J., and Paul A. Longley. 2005. The emergence o geoportals and their rolein Spatial Data Inrastructures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems29 (1): 314.

Mahring, Magnus, Jonny Holmstrom, Mark Keil, and Ramiro Montealgre. 2004. Trojanactor-network and swit translation: Bringing actor-network theory to IT projectescalation studies. Inormation Technology & People 17 (2): 21038.

Mark, David, Max Egenhoer, Stephen Hirtle, and Barry Smith. 2000. Ontologicaloundations or Geographic Inormation Science. University Consortium orGeographic Inormation Science (UCGIS). 2000 Research White Papers. http://www.ucgis.org/priorities/research/research_white/2000%20Papers/emerging/ontology_new.pd (accessed June 25, 2006).

Martin, Eugene W. 2000. Actor-networks and implementation: Examples romconservation GIS in Ecuador. International Journal o Geographical InormationScience 14 (8): 71538.

Masser, Ian. 1999. All shapes and sizes: The frst generation o National Spatial DataInrastructures. International Journal o Geographical Inormation Science13 (1): 6784.

Masser, Ian. 2004. Capacity Building or Spatial Data Inrastructure Development.Keynote presentation at 7th International Seminar on GIS or developing countries

(GISDECO). May 1012. Johor, Malaysia.Masser, Ian. 2005a. GIS Worlds: Creating Spatial Data Inrastructures, 1st ed. Redlands,

CA: ESRI Press.



22/26

Masser, Ian. 2005b. Some Priorities or SDI Related Research. Paper presented at theGlobal Spatial Data Inrastructure 8. Cairo, Egypt. April 1621.

Masser, Ian, Santiago Borrero, and Peter Holland. 2003. Regional SDIs. In DevelopingSpatial Data Inrastructures: From concept to reality, 1st ed., eds. Ian Williamson,Abbas Rajabiard, and Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, 5977. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

McCall, Michael K. 2003. Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: A reviewo processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatialplanning. Habitat International27 (4): 54973.

McCann, Joseph E. 1983. Design guidelines or social problem-solving interventions.Journal o Applied Behavioral Science 19 (2): 17792.

McKee, Lance. 2000. Who wants GDI? In Geospatial Data Inrastructure: Concepts,cases and good practice, 1st ed., eds. Richard Groot and John McLaughlin, 1324.

Oxord University Press, New York.Mennecke, Brian E. 1997. Understanding the role o geographic inormation technologies

in business: Applications and research directions.Journal o Geographic Inormationand Decision Analysis 1 (1): 4468.

Meredith, Paul H. 1995. Distributed GIS: I its time is now, why is it resisted? In Sharinggeographic inormation, eds. Harlan J. Onsrud and Gerard Rushton, 721.New Brunswick, NJ: Center or Urban Policy Research.

Moellering, Harold. 2005. World spatial metadata standards. Oxord: Elsevier Science.

Montalvo, Uta Wehn de. 2003. In Search o rigorous models or policy-oriented research:A behavioral approach to spatial data sharing. The Journal o Urban and RegionalInormation Systems 15:1928.

Monteiro, Eric. 1998. Scaling inormation inrastructure: The case o next-generation IPin the Internet. The Inormation Society 14:22945.

Monteiro, Eric, and Ole Hanseth. 1995. Social shaping o inormation inrastructure:On being specifc about the technology. In Inormation Technology and Changes inOrganizational Work, eds. Wanda J. Orlikowski, Goe Walsham, Matthew R. Jones,and Janice I. DeGross, 32543. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Munkvold, Bjorn E. 1999. Challenges o IT implementation or supporting collaborationin distributed organizations. European Journal o Inormation Systems 8 (4):26072.

Nedovi-Budi, Zorica, Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, Abbas Rajabiard, and Ian Williamson.2004. Are SDIs serving the needs o local planning? Case study o Victoria, Australiaand Illinois, USA. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28 (4): 32951.

Nedovi-Budi

, Zorica, and Jerey K. Pinto. 1999a. Interorganizational GIS: Issues andprospects. The Annals o Regional Science 33 (2): 18395.

Nedovi-Budi, Zorica, and Jerey K. Pinto. 1999b. Understanding interorganizationalGIS activities: A conceptual ramework.Journal o the Urban and RegionalInormation System Association 11 (1): 5364.

Nedovi-Budi, Zorica. 1997. GIS technology and organizational context: Interactionand adaptation. In Geographic Inormation Research: Bridging the Atlantic, eds.Massimo Craglia and Helen Couclelis, 16584. London: Taylor & Francis.

Nedovi-Budi, Zorica, and Jerey K. Pinto. 2001. Organizational (Sot) GISinteroperability: Lessons rom the U.S. International Journal o Applied EarthObservation and Geoinormation 3 (3): 29098.



23/26

Nedovi-Budi, Zorica, Jerey K. Pinto, and Lisa Warnecke. 2004. GIS databasedevelopment and exchange: Interaction mechanisms and motivations.Journal o theUrban and Regional Inormation System Association 16 (1): 1529.

Nice, David D., and Patricia Frederickson. 1995. The politics o intergovernmentalrelations, 2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Nogueras-Iso, J., F. J. Zarazaga-Soria, R. Bejar, P. J. Alvarez, and P. R. Muro-Medrano.2005. OGC Catalog Services: A key element or the development o Spatial DataInrastructures. Computers & Geosciences 31 (2): 199209.

Nogueras-Iso, J., F. J. Zarazaga-Soria, J. Lacasta, R. Bejar, and P. R. Muro-Medrano.2004. Metadata standard interoperability: Application in the geographic inormationdomain. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28 (6): 61134.

Oliver, Christine. 1990. Determinants o inter-organizational relationships: Integration

and uture direction. Academy o Management Review 15 (2): 24165.Onsrud, Harlan J., Barbara Poore, Robert Rugg, Richard Taupier, and Lyna Wiggins.

2004. The uture o the Spatial Inormation Inrastructure. In A Research Agenda orGeographic Inormation Science, eds. Robert B. McMaster and E. Lynn Usery,22555. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Onsrud, Harlan J. 1998. Compiled Responses by Questions or Selected Questions:Survey o National Spatial Data Inrastructures. http://www.spatial.maine.edu/

~onsrud/gsdi/Selected.html (accessed December 3, 2005).

Orlikowski, Wanda J., and Debra C. Gash. 1994. Technological rames: Making sense oinormation technology in organizations. ACM Transactions in Inormation Systems12 (2): 174207.

OToole, Laurence J., Jr., ed. 1985. American intergovernmental relations: Foundations,perspectives, and issues. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

OToole, Laurence J., Jr., and Robert S. Montjoy. 1984. Interorganizational policyimplementation: A theoretical perspective. Public Administration Review84 (6): 491503.

Pickles, John. 2004. A History o spaces: Cartographic reason, mapping and the geo-codedworld. London: Routledge.

Pinto, Jerey K., and Harlan J. Onsrud. 1995. Sharing geographic inormation acrossorganizational boundaries: A research ramework. In Sharing geographic inormation,eds. Harlan J. Onsrud and Gerard Rushton, 4464. New Brunswick, NJ: Center orUrban Policy Research.

Pressman, J., and A. Wildavsky. 1984. Implementation, 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: Universityo Caliornia Press.

Pundt, Hardy, and Yaser Bishr. 2002. Domain ontologies or data sharing: An examplerom environmental monitoring using _eld GIS. Computers & Geosciences28:95102.

Radin, Beryl A., and Barbara S. Romzek. 1996. Accountability expectations in anintergovernmental arena: The national rural development partnership. Publius26 (2): 5982.

Rajabiard, Abbas. 2003. SDI diusion: A Regional case study with relevance to otherlevels. In Developing Spatial Data Inrastructures: From concept to reality, 1st ed.,eds. Ian Williamson, Abbas Rajabiard, and Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, 7894: BocaRaton: CRC Press.

Robey, D., and C. A. Sales. 1994. Designing Organizations.Journal o ManagementInormation Systems 10 (4): 183211.



24/26

Rajabiard, Abbas, Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, and Ian Williamson. 2003. Spatial DataInrastructures: Concept, nature and SDI hierarchy. In Developing Spatial DataInrastructures: From concept to reality, 1st ed., eds. Ian Williamson, AbbasRajabiard, and Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, 1740. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Rajabiard, Abbas, Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, Ian Williamson, and Ian Masser. 2003. NationalSDI initiatives. In Developing Spatial Data Inrastructures: From concept to reality,1st ed., eds. Ian Williamson, Abbas Rajabiard, and Mary-Ellen F. Feeney, 95109.Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Rhind, David. 2000. Funding an NGDI. In Geospatial data inrastructure: Concepts,cases and good practice, 1st ed., eds. Richard Groot and John McLaughlin, 3956.New York: Oxord University Press.

Savolainen, Reijo. 1995. Everyday lie inormation seeking: Approaching inormationseeking in the context o way o lie. Library and Inormation Science Research

17 (3): 25994.

Spatial Data Interest Community on Monitoring and Reporting (SDIC MORE). 2005.Spatial Applications Division o Leuven (SADL), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven andLaboratorio di Sistemi Inormativi Territoriali ed Ambientali (LABSITA), Universityo Rome La Sapienza. http://www.sdic-more.org (accessed April 11, 2006).

Sepic, Ron, and Kate Kase. 2002. The national biological inormation inrastructure as ane-government tool. Government Inormation Quarterly 19 (4): 40724.

Smith, Jessica, William Mackaness, Allison Kealy, and Ian Williamson. 2004. Spatial DataInrastructure requirements or mobile location based journey planning. Transactionsin GIS 8 (1): 2344.

Star, Susan L., and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. Steps toward an ecology o inrastructure:Design and access or large inormation spaces.Journal o Inormation SystemsResearch 7 (1): 11134.

Stewart, Murray. 2003. Towards collaborative capacity. In Urban transormation andurban governance: Shaping the competitive city o the uture, ed. Boddy Martin,7689. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Stewart, James, and Robin Williams. 2005. The wrong trousers? Beyond the designallacy: Social learning and the user. In User involvement in innovation processes:Strategies and limitations rom a socio-technical perspective, ed. Harald Rohracher,935. Munich: Profl-Verlag.

Suomi, Reima. 1992. On the concept o inter-organizational inormation systems.Journalo Strategic Inormation Systems 1 (2): 93100.

Suomi, Reima. 1994. What to take into account when building an inter-organizationalinormation system. Inormation Processing & Management30 (1): 15159.

Taylor, Robert S. 1991. Inormation use environments. Progress in CommunicationSciences 10:21755.

Tait, Michael G. 2005. Implementing geoportals: Applications o distributed GIS.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (1): 3347.

Tettey, Wisdom J. 2002. ICT, local government capacity building, and civic engagement:An evaluation o the sample initiative in Ghana. Perspectives on Global Developmentand Technology 1 (2): 16592.

Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tjosvold, Dean. 1988. Cooperative and competitive dynamics within and betweenorganizational units. Human Relations 41 (6): 42536.



25/26

Tulloch, David, and Jennier Fuld. 2001. Exploring county-level production o rameworkdata: Analysis o the national ramework data survey. The Journal o Urban andRegional Inormation Systems 13 (2): 1121.

Visser, U., H. Stuckenschmidt, G. Schuster, and T. Vogele. 2002. Ontologies orgeographic inormation processing. Computers & Geosciences 28:10317.

Walsh, Kuuipo A., Cherri M. Pancake, Dawn J. Wright, Sally Haerer, and F. J. Hanus.2002. Humane interaces to improve the usability o data clearinghouses. Paperpresented at the GIScience 2002 conerence.

Walsham, Geo, and Sandeep Sahay. 1999. GIS or district-level administration in India:Problems and opportunities. MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 3966.

Williams, R. 1997. The social shaping o inormation and communications technologies.In The Social Shaping o inormation superhighways: European and American roads

to the inormation society, eds. H. Kubicek, W. H. Dutton, and R. Williams, 299338.New York: St. Martins Press.

Williams, Trevor. 1997. Interorganisational inormation systems: Issues aectinginterorganisational cooperation.Journal o Strategic Inormation Systems6 (3): 23150.

Williamson, Ian. 2003. SDIs: Setting the scene. In Developing Spatial Data Inrastructures:From concept to reality, 1st ed., eds. Ian Williamson, Abbas Rajabiard, and Mary-EllenF. Feeney, 316. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Williamson, Ian P., Abbas Rajabiard, and Enemark Stig. 2003. Capacity building orSDIs. Proceedings o 16th United Nations Regional Cartographic Conerence orAsia Pacifc. July 1418. Okinawa, Japan.

Wilson, Thomas D. 1994. Inormation needs and uses: Fity years o progress. In Fityyears o inormation progress, ed. B. C. Vickery, 1551. A Journal o DocumentationReview.

Wilson, Thomas D. 2000. Human inormation behavior. Inorming Science 3 (2): 4955.


26/26

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	namabudhathoki
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Budhathoki and Nedovic-Budic (SDI Knowledgebase)

Documents