To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information...

Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1

Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing

Asli Yagmur Akbulut Management Department Seidman College of Business Grand Valley State University Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA Fax: (616) 331–7445 E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Peter Kelle, Suzanne D. Pawlowski and Helmut Schneider Information Systems and Decision Sciences Department E.J. Ourso College of Business Administration Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Fax: (225) 578–2511 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Clayton A. Looney School of Business Administration University of Montana 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA Fax: (406) 243–2086 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The ability of local government agencies to effectively utilise technologies to share information constitutes a critical element in nationwide efforts to fight terrorism, combat crime, and protect citizen safety. Alarmingly, current practices have neither effectively transferred information that local government agencies need, nor adequately captured and propagated information generated by local authorities. The objective of this study is to understand the factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing. The results of an in-depth case study provide a comprehensive understanding of the technological, agency and environmental factors that promote or inhibit electronic information sharing by local agencies. An extensive set of recommendations is put forth to enable government officials to enhance the success of electronic information sharing initiatives. Moreover, the findings carry several important implications for theory and practice.

Please indicate the corresponding author.

2 A.Y. Akbulut, P. Kelle, S.D. Pawlowski, H. Schneider and C.A. Looney

Keywords: information sharing; digital government; collaboration; data sharing; interorganisational systems; homeland security; state and local government.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Akbulut, A.Y., Kelle, P., Pawlowski, S.D., Schneider, H. and Looney, C.A. (xxxx) ‘To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing’, Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.000–000.

Biographical notes: Asli Yagmur Akbulut is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems in the Management Department at Grand Valley State University. She received her PhD and MS degrees in Information Systems and Decision Sciences from Louisiana State University. She also holds an MBA degree. Her research interests include the application of social cognitive theory in IS, human-computer interaction, information sharing, digital government and enterprise systems. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in Communications of the ACM, Communications of the AIS, International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of International Technology and Information Management, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, International Journal of Business Information Systems, International Journal of Services and Operations Management and various international conferences.

Peter Kelle is a Professor in the Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences at Louisiana State University. He received his PhD from the University of Budapest. His current research focus is in the area of supply chain management including information sharing and cooperation, and operations research. His past research has appeared in publications such as International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production and Operations Management and Journal of Operational Research Society, among others.

Suzanne D. Pawlowski is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences at Louisiana State University. She holds a PhD degree in CIS from Georgia State University, and MBA and BA degrees from the University of California, Berkeley. Her primary research focus is to understand relationships involving information technology, cross-boundary knowledge and organisational capabilities such as organisational learning, organisational improvisation and knowledge integration. A second research interest is job-related stress and work commitments of IT professionals. Scholarly publications include papers in MIS Quarterly, Database, Communications of the AIS, Communications of the ACM, ACM Computing Surveys and IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

Helmut Schneider is the Ourso Family Distinguished Professor of Information Systems and the Chairman of the Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences at Louisiana State University. He received his PhD from the Free University of Berlin. His research interests are in interagency information systems, operations research and statistics. He has completed several major grant-funded studies with government agencies and has published over 60 papers in academic journals including Management Science, Operations Research, Production and Operations Management and European Journal of Operational Research.

To share or not to share? 3

Clayton A. Looney is an Assistant Professor in the School of Business Administration at the University of Montana. He earned his PhD in Information Systems from Washington State University. His areas of expertise involve electronic commerce, information sharing, human-computer interaction and decision support systems. His research focuses on the impact of web and mobile technology designs on decision-making processes and performance. His work has appeared in Decision Sciences, Communications of the ACM, Communications of the AIS, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Journal of Computer Information Systems, as well as various international conferences.

1 Introduction

The ability of local government agencies to share information effectively is a vital national concern. Failure to disseminate critical information to and from local authorities can have catastrophic consequences, as the following tragedies attest.

“In 1999, a local law enforcement agency in Minnesota released a career felon, who subsequently kidnapped and murdered a 19-year old woman. Although the perpetrator had committed numerous prior offenses, the individual had been using a series of aliases, which were stored in isolated state and local databases. As a result, his fingerprints could not be matched and local authorities were forced to release him.” (MacLellan and Lee, 2002)

“Ziad Jarrah, one of the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 crash of United Airlines flight 93, was cited on September 9th in Maryland by state trooper for driving 35 miles per hour over the speed limit. Unbeknownst to the trooper, Jarrah had committed two violations of federal immigration laws. Due to a lack of information sharing, Jarrah was able to elude authorities.” (Kobach, 2006)

These are just two examples of a widespread problem, where current information sharing practices have neither effectively transferred information that local agencies need, nor adequately captured and propagated information generated by local authorities (GAO, 2003; Kobach, 2006). Local agencies often handle vast amounts of information spanning a broad range of programmes including law enforcement, fire protection, education, healthcare, and welfare to name a few. As such, local agencies are the primary producers and consumers of public information, which must be successfully shared with other agencies to enable effective decision making and action taking (Roberts, 2004).

Alarmingly, the extent to which local agencies share information has been disappointingly deficient, and much of the information has been dated or inaccurate (GAO, 2003; MacLellan and Lee, 2002). As a result, the Department of Homeland Security has embarked upon a number of mission critical programmes to enhance information sharing among federal, state, and local agencies using Information Technologies (IT). Despite the concerted efforts current electronic information sharing processes have been hampered by a lack of local agency involvement (GAO, 2003; Rosencrance, 2006). Successfully engaging local agencies in the electronic information sharing process has, therefore, become a national priority (Bush, 2003; Chen et al., 2002; Department of Justice, 2005; GAO, 2007).


Fostering local agency participation in these initiatives is challenging as these agencies face several hurdles to sharing information electronically (Dawes et al., 2004). Unfortunately, the mechanisms driving information sharing at the local level are inadequately understood. To date, much of the scholarly work in interagency information sharing has focused primarily on federal and state agencies (e.g., Dawes, 1996; Landsbergen and Wolken, 2001). Given the importance of the topic and the relative absence of academic work at the local level, there is clearly a pressing need for research targeted specifically at local agencies. To this end, this study addresses the following questions: What are the major factors that influence local agency electronic information sharing? What strategies can be utilised to enhance local agency electronic information sharing?

To investigate these questions, this study focuses on local law enforcement agencies’ electronic information sharing practices with state agencies. As first responders, local law enforcement agencies serve as the principal providers of citizen protection and act as the first line of defense in the fight against terrorism and crime (Gilmore Commission, 2002; IACP, 2002). To support national security, intelligence and criminal information gathered by local law enforcement must be shared with state agencies. In turn, state agencies must share information that enables local law enforcement to carry out their missions and protect citizen safety (IACP, 2002; MacMellan, 2004).

Given the lack of knowledge on interagency information sharing at the local level, an exploratory case study of a major local-state electronic information sharing initiative is conducted to discover the salient factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In the following section, we describe electronic information sharing, review the pertinent literature, and present our conceptual framework. We then introduce our case study. The findings from the case study are presented, followed by a general discussion of the findings and insights gained. We conclude with a set of managerial recommendations and identify fertile areas for future research.

2 Literature review

2.1 What is electronic information sharing?

Information sharing refers to the volitional conveyance of information generated or obtained by one entity to another entity. The concept embraces the notion of willingness, as it refers to a voluntary act of making information available to another. A sharer can pass along information, yet does not have to do so (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000). Information sharing ensures that the receiving entity possesses the critical pieces of information necessary to make an informed decision or act. Consequently, failing to share information effectively may result in suboptimal decision making or taking inappropriate actions.

Since this study focuses specifically on electronic information sharing by local agencies, the distinction between non-electronic and electronic information sharing is an important one to make. Although local agencies are often required to share information with state agencies, they might not be restricted to doing so through electronic means. As such, the extent to which local agencies share information electronically can vary

Please provide reference.


considerably. One local agency, for example, might share information, but none of it electronically. At the other end of the spectrum, a local agency may conduct all its information sharing activities electronically.

Electronic information sharing refers to information sharing that occurs via computing and communication technologies such as electronic mail, EDI, intranets, extranets, shared databases, etc. Electronic information sharing can be accomplished directly (e.g., electronic mail) or indirectly through an information repository (e.g., data warehouse). Compared to non-electronic techniques, the utilisation of information technologies can streamline the information sharing process by improving communication efficiency, reducing duplicate data entry, integrating information, eliminating paperwork, as well as providing access to more timely, accurate, and complete information to name a few (Chen et al., 2002; Goodhue et al., 1992; Kelle and Akbulut, 2005; Pardo et al., 2006; Otjacques et al., 2007).

Information generated by local agencies allows state agencies to frame policies, improve public services, fight crime, and facilitate nationwide information sharing (GAO, 2003). Local agencies, in turn, rely on information issued by state systems to enable appropriate actions to be taken within their jurisdiction. While local-state electronic information sharing initiatives can be bi-directional in nature, this study seeks to understand electronic information sharing from the local agency perspective. As such, investigation focuses on the factors that promote or inhibit local agency information sharing via electronic means.

2.2 Prior research in information sharing

In general, prior research has focused on a mixture of non-electronic and electronic information sharing in one of three contexts:

• intraorganisational

• interorganisational

• interagency.

In the intraorganisational context, studies have tended to examine the factors that influence an individual’s intentions to share information/knowledge within an organisation (e.g., Bock et al., 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Pawlowski and Robey, 2004; Constant et al., 1994). At the interorganisational level, studies have acknowledged the importance of information sharing to cultivate effective relationships within supply chains (e.g., Guo et al., 2006; Kelle and Akbulut, 2005; Sahin and Robinson, 2002; Monczka et al., 1995). These studies, however, have not focused on the factors that affect decisions whether to share information with another organisation. Moreover, since these studies focus on private sector organisations, the findings might be readily applied to an interagency context (Lee and Rao, 2006; 2007).

In the interagency context, a synthesis of the literature suggests that research is extremely limited. In fact, we were able to identify only two major studies. Dawes (1996) put forth the earliest research in the area. After surveying 173 state officials in the state of New York, a theoretical model of interagency information sharing was developed. More specifically, the model focused on benefits and risks of information sharing among state agencies, while emphasising the necessity of a legal framework and



formal policies to promote information sharing. Although a useful foundation for understanding information sharing is provided, no differentiation is made between electronic and paper-based information sharing.

In the second study, Landsbergen and Wolken (2001) built upon Dawes’ work by focusing on electronic information sharing. The authors interviewed federal and state officials in five states and developed an expanded theoretical model of information sharing. The authors argued that agencies in Dawes’ study participated in information sharing because they were driven by clear and tangible benefits, as well as strong political pressures to share information. These kinds of isolated situations would not be sufficient to provide explanations under a broad range of circumstances, especially given the rapid pace of technological change. Based on these notions, the authors recommended that, in addition to developing and harmonising managerial, legal, and policy approaches, a robust technological infrastructure should be implemented to facilitate information sharing via electronic means.

Despite this extension, Landsbergen and Wolken focused on understanding the experiences and viewpoints of technologically advanced government agencies rather than those of the average government agency, which may be relatively unfamiliar with technology and/or lack the requisite know-how to implement and maintain complex systems. As a result, these findings may not generalise to government agencies that are unaccustomed to electronic information sharing technologies.

More recently, electronic information sharing has garnered considerable attention in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and the student massacre at Virginia Tech. Practitioners and academics alike have become more interested in inter-agency information sharing initiatives, as the lack of information sharing has been identified as a major point of failure leading to and responding to these horrific events.

For example, Pardo et al. (2006), conducted a comparative study of two inter-agency information sharing initiatives. The authors found the traditional control strategies used in intraorganisational information systems were insufficient in creating the necessary environment for governmental information sharing initiatives. The authors’ findings confirmed the difficulty of sharing information across agencies and revealed the important effects of incentives, risks and barriers, and trust on the effectiveness of information sharing.

Lee and Rao (2007) investigated the factors influencing the acceptance of inter-organisational information sharing systems among anti/counter terrorism agencies. The authors focused on the impacts of perceived information assurance of information sharing partners, organisational norm of inter-agency information sharing, existing IT infrastructure and utilisation, legal and authoritative pressure for information sharing, and availability of technical standards on the acceptance of inter-organisational anti/counter terrorism information sharing systems acceptance. The authors found that information sharing systems acceptance is determined by the sensitivity of information, availability of technical standards, and partners’ information assurance capability; rather than organisational needs of participating agencies.

In an another study conducted in this area (Gil-Garcia et al., 2007), the authors investigated data from six public sector information sharing initiatives and found out that certain impediments (e.g., managerial and cultural impediments) particular to the government environment limit the attainment of benefits associated with information


sharing, jeopardising the implementation of these initiatives. The authors also provided advice on how to better understand the perceptions and expectations of potential stakeholders to increase the success of information sharing initiatives.

While prevailing intraorganisational, interorganisational, and interagency views of information sharing can inform local agency electronic information sharing, they cannot explain the comprehensive set of factors involved. Even though similarities may exist with private sector firms, as well as federal and state agencies, local agencies might face unique challenges to sharing information electronically. As such, there is a pressing need for further investigation focused on the specific factors influencing local agency participation in electronic information sharing initiatives.

3 Conceptual framework

The lack of academic research in this area calls for the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework that enables the various factors affecting local agency electronic information sharing to be identified and categorised. In this study, local agency electronic information sharing is viewed from an innovation perspective. An innovation represents an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by the unit of adoption (Rogers, 1995). As such, an innovation might refer to a new technology or a renewal in terms of thought and action (Thong, 1999). Electronic information sharing between local and state agencies typically requires the introduction of new technologies, as well as new ways of thought and action. Hence, an innovation perspective provides a fitting theoretical lens.

Based on an extensive review of the literature on technology adoption (e.g., Kwon and Zmud, 1987; Rogers, 1995), interorganisational systems (e.g., Hart and Saunders, 1997; Iacovou et al., 1995; Williams, 1997), and IT in government (e.g., Danziger et al., 1982; Fletcher and Foy, 1994; Kraemer and Dedrick, 1997; Kraemer and King, 1986), the Technology-Organisation-Environment (TOE) framework developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) was adopted to guide our investigation.

TOE focuses on the organisational adoption of technological innovations. The framework has been successfully utilised to explain the adoption of diverse information technologies, including interorganisational systems (Chau and Tam, 1997; Iacovou et al., 1995; Ramamurthy et al., 1999). These studies have demonstrated consistent support for TOE’s ability to provide a comprehensive perspective on innovation adoption, while facilitating the flexibility to identify and categorise unique factors that may emerge in particular situations (Zhu et al., 2003).

As depicted in Figure 1, TOE suggests that technological innovation adoption is influenced by three contexts – technological, organisational (i.e., agency), and environmental.

The technological context focuses on the characteristics of the technology that can influence adoption. In this study, the technological context represents a local agency’s perceptions regarding the characteristics of electronic information sharing. The organisational context, which is herein referred to as the agency context, represents the characteristics of a local agency. Finally, the environmental context refers to the characteristics of the external environment in which a local agency operates. Combined, the technological, agency, and environmental context are proposed to influence electronic information sharing by a local agency.


Figure 1 Conceptual framework

4 Case study

Given that case studies are well-suited for the exploration, classification, and hypothesis development stages of the knowledge building process (Benbasat et al., 1987), the case study method presented an effective approach to facilitate the discovery process.

4.1 Description of the case

The case involved the State of Louisiana Uniform Motor Vehicle Crash Reporting System, which is herein referred to as the ‘system’. The system evolved as part of a mission critical initiative sponsored by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety-Highway Safety Commission (LHSC), which has responsibility for developing and administering the state’s traffic safety programme. The programme is designed to reduce traffic crashes and the resulting fatalities, injuries, and property damage, which cost Louisianans billions of dollars each year. In fact, in 2003 the total cost to Louisiana citizens exceeded $5.7 billion. Crashes resulted in 938 fatalities, 82 800 injuries, and 114 000 property damage incidents. The cost per injury and per fatality were estimated at $46,903 and $1.05 million, respectively (LHSC, 2005a; Schneider, 2004).

In 1998, LHSC launched an initiative to facilitate sharing of traffic crash information electronically between local law enforcement authorities, who are the primary collectors and disseminators of crash information throughout the state, and LHSC. A permanent Traffic Records Committee (LaTRC), which is represented by information services specialists, policymakers, information providers, and information users from around the state, was formed and a Traffic Records Incentive Grant was obtained from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to fund the implementation of the system (LHSC, 2005b).

As shown in Figure 2, the system consists of three key elements. First, a redesigned centralised database for traffic crash records is provided. Second, a secure web-based entry form is implemented to enable online entry of traffic crash information by local law enforcement agencies. Finally, local agencies can utilise a web-based retrieval application that allows them to view accident statistics, as well as download a flat-file containing their information.


Figure 2 The State of Louisiana uniform motor vehicle crash reporting system

Source: LHSC (2003)

Although local law enforcement agencies are required to report crash information to LHSC, no federal or state regulations dictate the use of the system. As such, local agencies can elect to bypass the system by submitting paper-based crash reports or utilising other electronic means, such as electronic mail or CD-ROM. In 2003, the year of the study, among the 378 local law enforcement agencies operating in the state, only 12 agencies were using the system to share crash information. Four agencies had elected to use stand-alone applications to store crash information, which were transmitted to the state electronically utilising file transfer protocol and subsequently uploaded directly into the system. Although LHSC had expended substantial effort (e.g., training, support, equipment, funding, etc.) over the years to increase system utilisation, merely 16 (4.2%) of the local law enforcement agencies were sharing information electronically. In other situations, local agencies used stand-alone record management systems, which were not compatible with the system, while some agencies preferred to use traditional hard-copy documents. Other agencies did not share any crash information, even though sharing is mandated state law.1

Local law enforcement agencies’ willingness to share information electronically is vital to the success of the state’s traffic safety programme. The lackluster participation by local agencies prevents access to timely, relevant, and accurate information that is needed to determine appropriate policies and improve decision making to reduce loss of life, injuries, and property damage. Moreover, millions of dollars are spent on duplicated data collection and entry, as all crash information not submitted through the system must be entered into the system by LHSC. In addition, non-electronic submissions often delay or omit critical information.



This particular initiative was selected as the case study for three primary reasons. First, despite the concerted efforts of LHSC, electronic information sharing by local law enforcement agencies had remained sluggish since the project’s inception. Consequently, the initiative provided fertile grounds for discovering the factors that not only promote, but also inhibit local agency electronic information sharing. Second, the ability of law enforcement agencies to share information effectively is a high national priority (Bush, 2003; Chen et al., 2002; Department of Justice, 2005). Local law enforcement agencies play a prominent role in state- and nationwide information sharing processes, as information generated and collected by local authorities must be transmitted upward to state systems to facilitate the nationwide information dissemination chain. Third, given the considerable losses in money, lives, and property at stake, this initiative represented an extremely important area in which the state needed to secure local agency participation. As such, the initiative represented an optimal case for the investigation.

4.2 Data collection

Case data were collected using multiple data collection methods to achieve triangulation of data and insights (Dubé and Paré, 2003; Yin, 2002). We began the effort by collecting and examining the relevant documentation about the initiative. As an observer, one researcher attended LaTRC meetings regularly throughout the study. At each meeting, notes were taken and informal conversations with knowledgeable informants from state and local agencies were conducted. In one of those meetings, a brief presentation about the research study was given. Attendees were asked to complete a short questionnaire, which included open-ended questions about the factors affecting local agency electronic information sharing. A preliminary investigation of the data provided the opportunity to develop an intimate understanding of the setting and the phenomenon of interest (Dubé and Paré, 2003), proving helpful in preparing the interview guides.

Interview guides were prepared based on the preliminary data collection and the conceptual framework. Prior to conducting interviews, the guides were revised based on feedback from academicians and practitioners. Subsequently, face-to-face semi-structured interviews with key informants were conducted.

Ten local law enforcement officers were interviewed, representing both sharing and non-sharing agencies.2 All interviewees from sharing agencies were directly involved in the initiative, whereas those from non-sharing agencies represented key decision makers with authority to decide whether their agencies would participate. The titles of the individuals that were interviewed included Computer Analyst, Chief Deputy, Grants and Programs Administrator, Data Processing Administrative Manager, Data Administrator, Lieutenant, Chief of Police, and Supervisor of Criminal Records. Four individuals from LHSC were interviewed as well, all of whom were directly involved in the initiative, including the Executive Director, Planning Coordinator, Crash Data Statistician, and Information Technology Project Leader. Interviewing various local agencies (sharing and non-sharing), as well as members of different stakeholder groups (state and local agencies) proved instrumental in capturing multiple perspectives (Webster, 1998).

Interviews were conducted by multiple researchers to establish investigator triangulation (Dubé and Paré, 2003). The length of the interviews ranged from 25 minutes to two hours. In each interview, extensive field notes were taken and verbal comments recorded on tape, which were later transcribed. Interviews started with questions regarding the interviewee’s background, followed by general open-ended


questions about the initiative and the factors affecting local agency electronic information sharing. Later, more specific open-ended questions were asked to solicit informant opinions associated with the technological, agency, and environmental contexts. In addition, interviewees were asked about the major incentives necessary to increase local agency electronic information sharing.

4.3 Data analysis

Data analysis took place in an iterative manner. Throughout the process we moved back and forth between the empirical data and theoretical conceptualisations from the literature (Montealegre and Keil, 2000).

The first phase of data analysis was conducted in parallel with data collection (Dubé and Paré, 2003; Webster, 1998). Based on the preliminary data, the conceptual framework, and the relevant literature, we identified an initial list of factors that might affect local agency electronic information sharing. After each interview, field notes and transcriptions were reviewed. New factors emerging from the data were then added to the list. Interview guides were modified to include these emerging factors in the next round of interviews.

Data analysis shifted towards a more holistic approach after the interviews were completed and the data from each interview were reviewed. During this stage, the granularity of the analysis evolved from the individual interviews to the comprehensive set of data that had been collected. The researchers individually and collectively analysed the data to allow the case to be viewed from different perspectives (Dubé and Paré, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989). Subsequently, the coding process started. The content of each sentence and/or paragraph was closely scrutinised. Data unrelated to electronic information sharing were disregarded. Otherwise, data were coded into:

• one of the factors that were predetermined based on the initial list of the factors

• a new factor that had emerged

• multiple factors.

This process was repeated until the data no longer revealed any unidentified factors (Eisenhardt, 1989; Montealegre and Keil, 2000). To be eligible for consideration as a factor, at least two or more sources of evidence needed to converge to establish that the factor influenced local agency electronic information sharing (Benbasat et al., 1987; Montealegre and Keil, 2000). Factors that failed to meet this criterion were not considered further.

Next, we compared and contrasted the emerging factors with those identified in our reference literature (Montealegre and Keil, 2000). Some of the factors were relabeled according to conventions utilised in the literature. A final coding scheme was prepared and the data were reanalysed to ensure its veracity.

To categorise similar factors into the contexts specified by our conceptual framework, we revisited the literature to identify commonalities among the factors. Similar factors were then classified into contexts accordingly. For example, trust, power, threats to programme integrity, policy/legal framework, and critical mass (discussed below) were grouped under the environmental context. By tying the factors and subsequent


classifications to the existing literature, external validity was strengthened (Eisenhardt, 1989). As such, it can be more confidently claimed that the findings are valid and generalisable because similar concepts have been identified in other settings.

As an additional test of external validity, we interviewed project leaders from two other major interagency information sharing initiatives that were being carried out in the same state. These two initiatives focused on the electronic exchange of criminal justice information between local and state agencies. The interviews confirmed the set of factors discovered in our case study.

When all the evidence had been reviewed and analysed, a case study report was prepared to document the study and summarise the major findings. Key informants were asked to review a draft of the case study report. The informants agreed with our findings and conclusions, enabling us to corroborate the essential facts and evidence gathered.

4.4 Findings

Twelve factors emerged from the case study and were grouped according to their associated contexts.

4.4.1 Technological context

In terms of the technological context, factors found to influence local agency electronic information sharing included benefits, complexity, and compatibility.

Benefits

Benefits refers to the anticipated advantages that a local agency can obtain by sharing information electronically (Chwelos et al., 2001). In our case study, sharing agencies thought that the initiative would help them achieve certain benefits, such as increased information accuracy and timeliness, reduced paperwork, freed up resources, expedited data management, and improved decision-making. For example, an informant3 from a sharing local agency commented:

“The benefits are, well, to expedite the process, to make reports available to us and the public on time…It is not time consuming at all. It frees up my other personnel to do the job that I need them to do. It benefits us a lot.”

In contrast, non-sharing agencies perceived the initiative as detrimental or were unaware of the potential benefits. It was found that one of the major reasons for the lack of perceived benefits was related to the problems with the initial system configuration. When the system was first introduced, it included some features that slowed down the data entry process and, at times, made it impossible for local agencies to retrieve their own information. Even though these problems were eventually corrected, they led some agencies to believe the system was only benefiting the state agency while placing an excessive burden on locals. Informants mentioned that the initiative required resources, which they didn’t feel motivated to mobilise, especially since they perceived no immediate gain for their agency. As a result, non-sharing agencies were reluctant to cooperate, as the following statement points out:

“It was a one-way street. They wanted us to submit the information electronically, but they didn’t want to give us anything in return, which means that there would be no benefits for us to do that.”


Complexity

Complexity refers to the degree to which electronic information sharing is perceived as a relatively difficult process. Electronic information sharing may contain complex ideas and/or processes. Moreover, the information technologies required for electronic information sharing might be difficult to implement and use. Compared to non-sharing agencies, sharing agencies perceived the system to be easier to use and more user-friendly, as the following quote demonstrates:

“We were initially using a mainframe system and keying in data to the system, which required a lot of effort. We moved to this system because it is easier to use. It is a little bit more up-to-date. It is in a format that is easier for the user.”

The data also showed that some agencies tried the system initially, but because of its complexity they decided to discontinue its use. An informant from the state agency revealed:

“But the city of [city name omitted] tested the Internet initially and told us that it took too long to get into the system. They made a decision based upon that they couldn’t do it [share crash information electronically]. The person inside the police department, unlike [city name omitted], couldn’t figure out how to take the data back and do things with it.”

Compatibility

Two types of compatibility emerged from the case: technological and organisational compatibility. Technological compatibility refers to the degree to which the technologies required for electronic information sharing are compatible with a local agency’s existing information systems (Premkumar et al., 1994). Sharing agencies mentioned that they did not encounter any problems integrating the system with their existing applications. The following comment from a sharing agency informant bears this out:

“It was very easy to integrate. We are already on a network. We have our records management system. The system is the same system. If you have a lot of different software programs, then it would be difficult to make them talk to each other.”

Incompatible technologies represented an important concern for non-sharing agencies. Although some agencies were capturing information electronically, it was stored on legacy systems. Since these systems were not linked to the LHSC system, the effort would involve duplicate data entry or costly software integration. An informant from a non-sharing agency made the following comment:

“[City/agency name omitted] Police, for instance, just went on entering in crashes or accidents on the Internet. Well, we are not ready to do that. We have a proprietary system that, if we try to do it now it is going to be double entry; enter it here and there. I would like to build a bridge in between.”

Organisational compatibility refers to the degree to which changes introduced by electronic information sharing are aligned with existing practices, value systems, and current needs of a local agency (Premkumar et al., 1994). Our data showed that non-sharing agencies were satisfied with their existing systems and/or the existing way of submitting crash information (e.g., sending paper reports). They felt that electronic information sharing would require significant changes to existing operating procedures


and functioning by introducing new ways of doing things. As a result, the initiative was often perceived as incompatible with current practices. As one state agency informant explained:

“It is the old standard axiom; if it is not broken, why bother to fix it? If they have a system that is working, that satisfies them, then why should they change? Those guys, if their office is functioning well the way it is, they don’t want to change that …Those guys do what is more comfortable to them and what they feel like that is most efficient for them. That keeps the paper [sending paper-based crash reports instead of sharing information electronically] involved in.”

Regarding the compatibility with current agency needs and objectives, the data revealed that non-sharing agencies did not perceive an internal need for participating in this initiative. An informant from a non-sharing agency mentioned:

“It all depends on the objectives of the agency, and their needs… Agency needs are really important. State wants us to do something, always forgets about whether we need it or not.”

Some local agencies alluded to the fact that sharing crash information electronically was not considered among their priority areas. Considering other law enforcement duties, citizen expectations, and administrative challenges, electronic sharing of crash information often had to take a back seat to more pressing issues. An informant from a non-sharing agency stated:

“We have 3 or 4 other computer projects. We would like to finish first things first. They are more important to us than accidents.”

Overall, three technological factors emerged from the case study. Of these, benefits and compatibility served as contributors, whereas complexity inhibited electronic information sharing.

4.4.2 Agency context

Four agency-related factors emerged from the case: top management support, IT capability, financial capability, and size.

Top management support

Top management support refers to the commitment of top management to provide a positive environment that encourages electronic information sharing. In sharing agencies, top management tended to be highly supportive of IT adoption in general, as well as the particular initiative studied. Informants mentioned that having a sheriff or police chief who is motivated and interested in the system was very important to overcoming potential obstacles and concerns. As one sharing agency informant mentioned, top management drove electronic information sharing:

“We were concerned about using the system to share information. But we were kind of pushed through it by the sheriff at the time. The sheriff really said we got to do it and so we did.”


The case also showed that, at times, willingness to share information electronically occurred at the operational level. These people, however, were either hesitant to confront top management or received little or no support from them. A state agency informant said:

“We have a lot of other departments where there may be a clerk or a supervisor or maybe an MIS director in the department that would really like to use one of these products to provide the information electronically, but they can’t get their chief to go along with it.”

Top management in non-sharing agencies was often unaware of the potential uses of crash information. In addition, they were not familiar with or interested in IT initiatives. As a non-sharing agency informant pointed out, when administrators are reluctant or afraid of change, electronic information sharing is less likely to occur.

“If your administration is not supportive, if they are afraid of change, if there is no one to motivate them; then it [electronic information sharing] will not occur.”

IT capability

IT capability refers to the availability of IT resources and expertise within a local agency that enables electronic information sharing. Our case data revealed that the IT capabilities of the local agencies varied substantially. Typically, the level of technological competence was higher in sharing agencies. These agencies seemed to have already acquired an adequate level of IT infrastructure and their employees received more computer training. A sharing agency informant summarised his agency’s IT capability:

“We have about 759 employees and 550 of them are on computers. We have a computer division. We get help from city information services office and we also have our own IT personnel in-house.”

Non-sharing agencies, in contrast, often lacked the equipment required to engage in the initiative. In general, there appeared to be a deficiency of operational computerisation, as well as limited IT skills. As a result, employee fears and concerns about the technology were often observed. In addition, some of these agencies experienced high turnover rates, leaving staffing holes that contributed to the dissipation of IT projects. The following quotes from state agency and non-sharing agency informants, respectively, point to inadequate infrastructure and IT skills:

“They don’t have the equipment to actually support the concept of what is required for electronic information sharing. They might not even have systems in their own environment.”

“I have done a brief survey just to get an idea about their basic computer knowledge, and how comfortable they feel typing and stuff. And roughly I would say about half of the guys were kind of scared when they looked at the keyboard.”

Financial capability

Financial capability refers to the availability of financial resources that a local agency needs to share information electronically. In our case study, one of the most frequently cited barriers to local agency electronic information sharing involved the lack of financial


resources. Sharing agencies were found to be more solvent or were able to obtain grants from government sources to support electronic information sharing, as the following statement suggests:

“Yes, there were costs involved. But we got government grants. There are law enforcement grants for agencies… There were some costs incurred for security. Computer operations division had to secure our connections. Those agencies [non-sharing agencies] need to get grants. Actually, the state will tell them which grants to apply for. Our grants people learned it from our communications and asked if we could do that.”

Informants also mentioned that local agencies wanted the state agency to pay for the costs involved in participating in the initiative. However, even though the state agency was providing the computer equipment to the local agencies at no cost, in many cases, this was insufficient to encourage local agencies to share information electronically. Many agencies had to confront limited budgets, which did not allow employees to be trained adequately or prevented the agency from hiring additional resources to do the work. One non-sharing agency informant told us:

“Actually they were going to provide us the computer, but like the chief was saying we lacked the personnel too. One of the major costs of implementation is that of the time involved in data entry, especially for small agencies in which the data entry function is assigned to a single unit. Who is going to pay the salaries of the people that we have to hire to do the work?”

Size

Our case data provided contradictory results about the effects of local agency size on electronic information sharing. Some large agencies shared information electronically since a traffic records division was already in place, along with a workforce responsible for data entry and IT staff to support the initiative. An informant from the state agency told us:

“Those [sharing agencies] have been the largest cities to some degree… A lot of large agencies have a traffic records division within their agency... Those agencies are using the Internet; they already have some workforce that is already intact. They didn’t have to go out and hire extra personnel to do the work. It was more of an easy transformation for them.”

Interestingly, an increase in size did not necessarily translate into electronic information sharing. Some large agencies viewed the initiative as a bottleneck to their operations because of the large volume of crash information that needed to be entered. Due to their heavy workload in other areas, they either chose not to share information electronically or were unable to enter information in a timely manner. Duties such as crime investigation and homeland security took priority. One state agency informant summarised these issues:

“Some cities don’t want to use the Internet. [City/agency name omitted] Police Department, which is the largest department in the state… Internet didn’t work for them… One of the problems of [City/agency name omitted] PD [Police Department] is, their data entry personnel is not devoted to just traffic crash data entry. They are doing criminal investigation, homeland security information, so the amount of time devoted to the initiative certainly does not present a large portion of their workload. So as a result of that their city backs up in terms of getting the information in a timely basis.”


For smaller agencies, the case revealed that the resources needed to share information electronically were lacking. However, some small agencies, especially those with supportive top management, were found to be more innovative and willing to share information electronically. The following quotes from non-sharing and state agency informants, respectively, bring out this contrast:

“Most of the information sharing deals with large agencies that have the manpower as well as specialized departments to address these issues. Small departments such as mine are often overlooked when they need assistance, both monetarily and physically. We do not have the luxury of specialized units, but rather have to be prepared to answer any and all types of calls whenever they come in.”

“You will be surprised. Sometimes you get these little departments that are very interested, they want to do this. The city of [city/agency name omitted] for example, they only do 300 wrecks a year. That chief over there found about [the initiative], we bought them a computer and they are doing the stuff on the Internet. That is just an example.”

To summarise, top management support, IT capability, financial capability, and size served as the main factors within the agency context that contributed to local agency electronic information sharing. With the exception of size, all of these factors were found to foster electronic information sharing. Specific to size, the results of the case suggested that size may have a positive or negative effect, depending on the specific situation.

4.4.3 Environmental context

The case revealed five environmental factors that influence local agency electronic information sharing: trust, power, threats to programme integrity, policy/legal framework, and critical mass.

Trust

Trust can be defined as a local agency’s belief that the state agency will:

• perform actions that will result in positive outcomes for the local agency

• not perform actions that would result in negative outcomes (Anderson and Narus, 1990).

The case revealed that local agency trust in the state agency served as a precursor to electronic information sharing in some situations. A few informants mentioned that there was limited communication and understanding, as well as ‘bad blood’ between local and state agencies, resulting in a lack of trust. These themes are summarised by the following statements received from a non-sharing and state agency informant, respectively:

“State is only interested in what the state wants, not the locals. And there is not much cooperation and mutual understanding. The biggest attitude to overcome is that.”

“It is a lot of history of bad relationships between the state and the locals. And there are many people coming on board who have concerns about how negative things used to be. I think that there have been certain problems and difficulties in the past. There are some issues of trust.”


Power

Power refers to the capability of a state agency to exert influence on a local agency to act in a prescribed manner (Hart and Saunders, 1997). We observed the state agency exerted various forms of power to increase electronic information sharing. Specific tactics included encouragement, recommendations, providing incentives, and imposing penalties. For example, the state agency invited the local agencies to LaTRC committee meetings, where the state sought local agency feedback about the initiative. The state agency also tried to convince local agencies by calling and visiting them, providing the necessary computer equipment at no cost, offering training and technical support, and assisting them in getting grants. In some cases these efforts worked well, as one state agency informant indicated:

“What we have tried to do is to give the opportunity by forcing electronic submission, sending the programming, providing data processing people, offering the expertise such as IBM, etc. We offered those services in case programming needed to be done to afford them to change. We offered to pay for it. In some agencies they accepted our assistance, and it worked well, but some agencies decided that they did not want to do it.”

In situations where persuasive approaches were ineffective, the state agency utilised a more coercive approach by putting pressure on the local agencies via political avenues. A state agency informant admitted:

“Had they [the local law enforcement agency] not given us those reports, we would have contacted the mayor, unless the chief was elected, because in some small towns, the chief of police is elected. If he is elected, the mayors cannot tell him what to do. In many cases, the chief is appointed by the mayor. In those cases you can call the mayor and the mayor can put pressure on and can make the chief do it. We have done that…”

Threats to programme integrity

Another factor that emerged from the case study was threats to programme integrity, which refers to the potential threats associated with information misuse and misinterpretation (Dawes, 1996). The case data showed that local agencies wanted to have full control over the information collected by their agencies. In some situations, local agencies resisted sharing information because they wanted to protect their territory from external interference. Non-sharing agencies tended to view information sharing as a potential threat. Fears of misuse (e.g., violation of privacy rights), misinterpretation, and external criticism of shared information commonly surfaced. Two quotes from state and non-sharing agency informants, respectively, reflect threats to programme integrity:

“There is another issue why people don’t want to give data to the state in electronic form. There is the city of [city/agency name omitted]. Their concern is who owns the data. They give us a crash report we put it into a dataset, and their concern is if they give it electronically something different will happen. They will lose control over it.”

“We have no idea what would happen to our information once we put it on the net. We are very concerned that any personal information we send will fall into the wrong hands or be used for other purposes. The last thing we need is a lawsuit on our hands.”


Policy/Legal framework

In our case study, one of the barriers to local agency electronic information sharing involved the lack of a policy/legal framework that requires and organises electronic sharing of crash information. Our case data revealed that local agencies were not committed or motivated to comply due to lack of legislation requiring electronic sharing of crash information. Since using the system was discretionary in nature, no federal or state government laws dictated use. Furthermore, the agencies were required to share particular information with the state, but there were no requirements regarding how to share it. These issues are captured in the following statement from a state agency informant:

“Basically, to my knowledge, the biggest problem is in the legislation or the lack of legislation. No one is really forced to submit crash information electronically….On the other side, they have designed their own database and agreed to give it to the state and then for whatever reason they backed out of that. …But that happens a lot in government when you got new people coming and this kind of stuff. Everybody has got his or her own ideas. When a sheriff leaves and the new one takes over, and doesn’t keep using the system, as there is no binding legislation. The prior commitments are gone…. Our hands are tied. We can’t tell them ‘you have to do this’.”

When an interviewee from a non-sharing agency was asked to comment on other interagency projects in which his agency was sharing information electronically, he stated that other initiatives were mandated by law. Our informant made the following interesting comment:

“Thank goodness it is state mandated reporting; LIBRS (Louisiana Incident Based Reporting) and UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting). It is a national thing; we have to report nationally LIBRS and UCR…the reason why I say it was a good thing was that because it is mandated, the software vendor we used. Because it is mandated throughout the state they can come in to make those program changes for us at no cost because it is mandated. So it hasn’t been a major burden reporting those sorts of data elements to the state to make it compliant with our system…”

Critical mass

Critical mass refers to the number of agencies currently sharing or planning on sharing information electronically in the initiative (Bouchard, 1993). Our data showed that local agencies were affected by the actions of similar agencies when they were making their decisions to share information electronically. Both state and local respondents agreed that agencies who were successfully sharing information electronically helped motivate non-sharing agencies. The essence of critical mass is exemplified by the following statement from a sharing agency informant:

“I will meet with them [a non-sharing agency] today. I will tell them about it [the initiative]. If we have it, they will want to do it too.”

In summary, trust, power, threats to programme integrity, policy/legal framework, and critical mass were identified in the case as the major environmental factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing. One of these factors, threats to programme integrity served as an inhibitor, whereas the remaining four promoted electronic information sharing.


5 Discussion

The objective of this study was to discover the factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing with state agencies. These factors are discussed below:

5.1 Technological context

The case study uncovered three technological factors that influenced local agency electronic information sharing: benefits, complexity, and compatibility.

As expected, local agencies tend to be less motivated to share information electronically unless they believe their agency will benefit from doing so.

Complexity also demonstrated a significant influence on local agency electronic information sharing. Agencies that perceived electronic information sharing to be a complex process tend to share information to a lesser extent. Complexity might also reduce the likelihood of sharing information electronically due to the additional skills and effort required to implement and support such systems. The significance of complexity is important to note. In some interorganisational information systems studies (e.g., Iacovou et al., 1995; Chwelos et al., 2001), the role of technological factors beyond benefits has been downplayed based on the assumption that “perceived benefits is the only variable that has been consistently identified as one of the most critical adoption factors” (Iacovou et al., 1995, p.466). Clearly, benefits represent only a piece of the puzzle.

Case data also suggested that agencies perceiving their existing information systems, functions, values, and objectives as compatible are more likely to share information electronically.

5.2 Agency context

The case data revealed four agency-related factors: top management support, IT capability, financial capability, and size. As expected, top management support is clearly needed to ensure that the necessary funding and other resources can be obtained for sharing information electronically. In many cases, management approval is required before agencies can release information about potentially sensitive incidents and vulnerabilities (GAO, 2001). Thus, without the support of top management, local agencies lack the sponsorship necessary to launch and sustain electronic information sharing initiatives.

The data also supported the positive relationship between IT capability and electronic information sharing. Local agencies that:

• have reached a certain level of IT infrastructure

• are equipped with skilled IT employees

• can obtain technical support are more likely to share information electronically.

It was observed that IT capabilities throughout the state varied substantially, resulting in uneven participation. Agencies possessing the required IT capabilities were found to share information electronically to a greater extent.

Like IT capability, a local agency’s financial strength influenced electronic information sharing. In general, the case data indicated that local agencies were highly concerned about the costs associated with electronic information sharing, as well as a


lack of financial resources. Local agencies tend to fall behind their federal and state counterparts in terms of financial resources. As a result, financial predicaments can hinder a local agency’s ability to take part in electronic information sharing initiatives.

Local agency size told an interesting story. Our case data suggested an ambiguous, and even contradictory, size effect. On one hand, larger agencies possess superior institutional capabilities compared to smaller agencies. On the other hand, smaller agencies have less data to enter, lighter overall workloads, and are, thus, willing to share information electronically.

5.3 Environmental context

The case study identified five environmental factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing: trust, power, threats to programme integrity, policy/legal framework, and critical mass. It was observed that the relationships between the local and state agencies had been problematic to some degree. As a result, agencies were hesitant to trust each other.

Specific to power, local agencies tend to share information electronically to a greater extent when state agencies successfully persuade or coerce them. For example, the case study showed that sharing agencies were encouraged by the state agency. These agencies were in constant contact with the state agency, receiving information about the initiative, as well as technological and financial incentives. The state agency provided them with computer equipment and training necessary to enter data and informed them about the available grants. Non-sharing agencies, in contrast, did not receive the same level of power-based influence from the state agencies, primarily due to two reasons. First, a number of local agencies were not approached by the state agency because its limited resources prevented power tactics from being applied in every instance. Second, in some situations, power tactics were ineffective despite the state agency’s efforts to get locals on board. These agencies indicated other pressing barriers to sharing information electronically.

In addition to power, threats to programme integrity played a significant role in local agency electronic information sharing. The case study revealed that local agencies are particularly concerned about making the information collected by their agencies available to outsiders. Electronic information sharing could result in openness to public scrutiny and, in turn, invite external evaluation or criticism. Moreover, other agencies may challenge the accuracy or validity of the shared information, as well as misinterpret or misuse it. Agencies wanted assurances that the information shared online was secured to prevent unauthorised access and protect privacy. Based on these notions, agencies that believed the initiative threatened their integrity tended to share information electronically to a lesser extent.

The importance of a policy/legal framework to organise electronic information sharing initiatives emerged in our case study. Our case informants mentioned the need for clear technical standards to enable interagency information sharing, as well as effective legal mandates and binding contracts to facilitate the initiative.

Critical mass emerged in the case study, showing that local agencies were affected by the actions of similar agencies when making decisions to share information electronically. In many situations, however, agencies were unaware that other agencies


were sharing information electronically in this initiative. Logically, agencies that are unaware of the actions of others are not likely to be influenced by those actions. As such, awareness represents a necessary precondition to facilitate the effects of critical mass.

6 Concluding remarks

6.1 Implications for research

This research constitutes a major stride towards understanding the factors affecting electronic information sharing by local governments. To our knowledge, this is the first academic study designed to examine electronic information sharing at the local level from a theoretical and empirical perspective. As such, our research broadly contributes to the state of the knowledge in interorganisational systems, interagency information sharing, and digital government.

Although our study revealed a number of important factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing, additional research is clearly needed to provide a more complete understanding of the ways in which government agencies choose to take part in electronic information sharing initiatives. At this early stage, we chose to examine electronic information sharing at the local-state level since it was desirable and necessary to further our knowledge in this high-priority domain. Electronic information sharing between local and state agencies, however, only represents a piece of nationwide information sharing initiatives. The entities involved in nationwide information sharing can vary substantially in terms of users, services, resources, and technologies across the federal, state, and local levels. Different factors may come into play when information is shared in these contexts. Thus, investigating these factors represents an important avenue for future work. Our research model provides a solid foundation for more intricate theorising and testing along these lines.

Future work would benefit from utilising other theory bases to shed light on the factors that influence electronic information sharing among government agencies. Information sharing among government agencies requires the participation of different stakeholders, who have different self-interests and priorities, as well as diverse perceptions and expectations about interagency information sharing. Therefore, other theoretical perspectives, such as Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984), may provide important insights.

Finally, our results could be leveraged to develop and apply intervention strategies (see the following section). The effectiveness of these intervention strategies could then be evaluated and the findings used to create a knowledge repository for best practices.

6.2 Implications for practice

Our results also carry several implications for practitioners. The success of state- and nationwide interagency electronic information sharing initiatives depends on:

• understanding the factors affecting local agency electronic information sharing

• applying solutions specifically tailored to address these factors.


Table 4 Summary of managerial recommendations

Area Recommendation

Benefits Design information sharing projects in a way to benefit all agencies.

Promote equal and adequate representation of local and state agencies on initiative committees.

Establish promotional programmes (e.g., seminars, presentations, conferences, on-site visits) to increase awareness about benefits.

Complexity Design systems that are easy to use and user-friendly.

Expose local agencies to prototypes during system design and development.

Provide training to local agency employees.

Compatibility Design systems after a careful investigation of existing information systems.

Provide guidelines for technology purchases and assist local agencies to procure compatible solutions.

Encourage local agency input during system design and development.

Top management support

Communicate the benefits of electronic information sharing directly to top management.

Understand the issues facing local agencies from top managements’ perspective.

Engage top management in initiative-related discussions (e.g., seek input, report status).

IT capability Provide equipment and technological assistance (e.g., training, on-site assistance, help-desk).

Establish a local agency technology resource centre.

Financial capability

Act as liaisons between local agencies and funding sources.

Make grant allocating policies and procedures inclusive.

Size Understand that smaller agencies require additional assistance.

Design special programmes that accommodate the unique needs of smaller agencies.

Trust Leverage formal or informal agency contacts and staff relationships to establish trust among agencies.

Encourage open and honest communication between agencies.

Utilise formal written interagency information sharing agreements.

Power Apply non-coercive influence strategies (e.g., financial incentives, awards, certification of appreciation).

As a last resort, consider coercive influence strategies (e.g., penalties, sanctions).

Threats to programme integrity

Establish and enforce formal privacy policies and security standards.

Identify potential sources of conflict in advance and develop specific strategies to address them.

Allay fears by clearly communicating initiative objectives to management and employees.

Policy/Legal framework

Promote legislation that facilitates electronic information sharing.

Establish clear data and technical standards.

Critical mass Utilise sharing agencies to promote electronic information sharing.

Keep local agencies abreast of success stories involving peer agencies via statewide presentations, newsletters, and conferences.


Concerning the latter, this research points to a number of recommendations that could be utilised by state and federal agencies to increase local agency electronic information sharing. Table 1 provides a summary of managerial recommendations, which are discussed according to their respective contexts below.

6.2.1 Technological context

To increase the extent of local agency electronic information sharing, initiatives could be designed in a way to provide benefits to all agencies. This can be achieved by thoroughly understanding local agency needs. State agencies could include locals on initiative committees to promote equal and adequate representation to identify common goals and tangible benefits. Moreover, promotional efforts could be targeted at non-sharing agencies to increase awareness of the benefits of electronic information sharing.

To alleviate complexity concerns, systems could be designed to be easy to use and user friendly. This will require an understanding of the capabilities and limitations across local agencies. Since our data revealed a wide disparity in IT capabilities, a system that is perceived as easy to use by a certain agency can be perceived as complex by another. Using prototypes during the system design and development processes can provide a cost-effective way to ensure usability. In addition, training programmes can be tailored to local agency employees. As employees learn to master these technologies through training, they are less likely to be intimidated by them (Compeau and Higgins, 1995).

To promote compatibility, electronic information sharing systems could be designed only after a careful investigation of the existing information technologies that are used by local agencies. To prevent future incompatibility issues, state agencies could provide guidelines to local agencies to assist them in identifying and procuring compatible IT solutions. State and local agencies need to work together in the early stages of development to ensure existing and new systems can be integrated. Gathering input from local agencies early on could also minimise the operational and procedural impacts of changes introduced by new systems, making it possible for agencies to identify and implement the systems that are more compatible with their existing functions, values, and objectives. In the long term, as agencies gain experience with electronic information sharing, a positive organisational culture that facilitates participation in similar initiatives would develop (Norris, 1999).

6.2.2 Agency context

The importance of top management support cannot be overstated. In this respect, actively communicating the benefits of electronic information sharing to top management should be given a high priority. Promotional seminars, presentations, and on-site visits could prove helpful. State agencies need to understand the issues facing local agencies from top managements’ perspective. Otherwise, top management may not provide the support needed to initiate and sustain electronic information sharing projects. Top management should be directly engaged in initiative-related discussions and kept updated throughout the project.

Our results indicate that many local agencies lack the IT skills and computing infrastructure required to share information electronically. As such, local agencies will likely require technological assistance, which could be provided in the form of on-site assistance, customer support, and temporary data entry help during peak workloads.



A local government technology resource centre can be very useful in helping local agencies acquire compatible technologies at low costs. Such a centre can also provide user training, as well as helpdesk functionality to assist local agencies when they encounter technical difficulties.

In addition to IT assistance, local agencies appear to need financial aid to share information electronically. Start-up, training, and operating costs can preclude local agency sharing, as procuring and implementing leading-edge technologies required for information sharing may be beyond local agencies’ financial means (Norris, 2003; Norris and Moon, 2005). As such, state agencies must understand that local agencies are constrained by budget limitations. State agencies can devise creative ways of furnishing the necessary funding to local agencies. State agencies could accomplish this by acting as liaisons between local agencies and funding sources. Information about available grants and other forms of funding should be clearly communicated to local agencies. Moreover, the current grant allocating process could become more inclusive, meaning that all agencies should be considered rather than a select few.

Regarding agency size, state agencies need to realise that smaller agencies will likely require additional assistance. State agencies can pay particular attention to smaller agencies and design special programmes that provide technological and financial assistance tailored to the unique needs of these agencies.

6.2.3 Environmental context

To build trust among state and local agencies, state agencies can encourage open and honest communications. Leveraging formal and informal agency contacts may help establish trust-based relationships. Our case data also indicated that local agencies wanted written agreements to provide assurances that the state would follow through. Thus, adopting formal written agreements can be considered. Once mutual trust is developed, state agencies should maintain bi-directional communication channels, encouraging dialogue and cooperation over the initiative’s lifetime.

Our investigation pointed to the strong influence of power on electronic information sharing. As such, state agencies may want to apply non-coercive and/or coercive influence strategies. Non-coercive efforts, such as financial incentives, awards, and certificates of appreciation, could help ‘tip the scale’ for local agencies. If these approaches prove unpersuasive, state agencies may want to consider coercion, which could include penalties, sanctions, or pressuring local agencies through political channels. However, it should be noted that coercive strategies should be kept to a minimum or used only as a last resort. In the long-term, coercion may result in negative outcomes (Iacovou et al., 1995).

To alleviate threats to programme integrity, state agencies could establish formal privacy policies, as well as implement security standards. Moreover, potential sources of conflict could be identified well in advance so that specific strategies can be developed to address these issues. Clearly communicating initiative objectives to managers and employees can also be helpful in allaying fears about potential threats to programme integrity.

State and federal legislation or formal policies should be put into place to organise electronic information sharing initiatives between state and local agencies. State and federal government may be able to develop ways to support interagency information sharing initiatives through legislation that provisions the necessary technical, financial,


and political support. This type of legislation could encourage electronic information sharing. In certain situations, mandates may be necessary. However, as our case informants noted, legislation alone may be insufficient if it is not enforced. Beyond legislation, frameworks clearly specifying data and technical standards can be developed to reduce data inconsistencies and simplify the sharing process (Goodhue et al., 1992).

Concerning critical mass, our case data revealed a general lack of awareness that other agencies were participating in the initiative. In order for critical mass to produce the desired effects, state agencies could launch marketing campaigns to increase awareness. Since peer agencies are believed to carry more weight, local agencies that are successfully sharing information electronically could be used to promote initiatives to non-sharing agencies. Representatives from sharing agencies could give presentations about their experiences and encourage non-sharing agencies to share information electronically. State agencies could also focus on disseminating information via traditional means such as newsletters, conferences, and press releases to keep local agencies abreast of success stories involving peer agencies.

6.3 Limitations

Like every research effort, our study is limited in certain respects. Our case data consisted of a limited number of interviews. The local agencies that participated in the study were selected based on their proximity and willingness to participate rather than being selected by a random process. Although we cannot be assured that these agencies are entirely representative of other local agencies in the state, we were able to identify salient factors fostering and inhibiting electronic information sharing. Also, it should be noted that our informants were restricted to the law enforcement community within the state of Louisiana. Thus, our findings may not generalise to other states and/or types of local agencies. Despite these potential issues, the data enabled us to gain insights into the manner in which local agencies share information electronically. Ultimately, however, the issue of generalisability is best addressed through replication in different contexts using complementary samples to identify the boundary conditions of our findings. Future research focusing on initiatives in other states and other types of government agencies is clearly needed.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments have improved this paper considerably. We also thank the Information Systems and Decision Sciences Department at Louisiana State University for providing support for this research.


References

Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990) ‘A model of the distributor-manufacturer working relationships’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.42–58.

Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. and Mead, M. (1987) ‘The case research strategy in studies of information systems’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.369–386.

Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005) ‘Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.87–111.

Bouchard, L. (1993) ‘Decision criteria in the adoption of EDI’, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida, pp.365–376.

Bush, G.W. (2003) ‘President speaks at FBI on new terrorist threat integration center’, White House Press Release, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-5.html (accessed 2 March 2007).

Chau, P.Y.K. and Tam, K.Y. (1997) ‘Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.1–24.

Chen, H., Schroeder, J., Hauck, R.V., Ridgeway, L., Atabakhsh, H., Gupta, H., Boarman, K., Ramussen, K. and Clements, A.W. (2002) ‘COPLINK connect: information and knowledge management for law enforcement’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.271–285.

Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (2001) ‘Research report: empirical test of an EDI adoption model’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.304–321.

Compeau, D.R. and Higgins, C.A. (1995) ‘Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.118–143.

Constant, D., Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994) ‘What is mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.400–421.

Danziger, J.N., Dutton, W.H., Kling, R. and Kraemer, K.L. (1982) Computers and Politics: High Technology in American Local Governments, New York: Columbia University Press.

Dawes, S.S. (1996) ‘Interagency information sharing: expected benefits, manageable risks’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.377–394.

Dawes, S.S., Cresswell, A.M. and Cahan, B.B. (2004) ‘Learning from crisis, lessons in human and information infrastructure from the world trade center response’, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.52–66.

Department of Justice (2005) ‘Executive summary: national criminal intelligence sharing plan’, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Global Information Sharing Initiative, http://it.ojp.gov/documents/NCISP_Plan.pdf (accessed 26 April 2006).

Dubé, L. and Paré, G. (2003) ‘Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.597–635.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.532–550.

Fletcher, P.T. and Foy, D.O. (1994) ‘Government and information: state and local perspectives on information management’, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 29, pp.243–275.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.

GAO-US General Accounting Office (2001) ‘Information sharing practices that can benefit critical infrastructure protection’, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0224.pdf (accessed 24 February 2007).

GAO-US General Accounting Office (2003) ‘Homeland security efforts to improve information sharing need to be strengthened’, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03760.pdf (accessed 24 February 2007).


GAO-US General Accounting Office (2007) ‘First responders, much work remains to improve communications interoperability’, www.gao.gov/new.items/d07301.pdf (accessed 2 September 2007).

Gil-Garcia, J.R., Chengalur-Smith, I. and Duchessi, P. (2007) ‘Collaborative e-government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector’, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.121–134.

Gilmore Commission – Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002) ‘Implementing the national strategy’, Arlington, Virginia, http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/terror4.pdf (accessed 29 April 2006).

Goodhue, L.D., Wybo, D.M. and Kirsch, D.L. (1992) ‘The impact of data integration on the costs and benefits of information systems’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.293–311.

Guo, Z., Fang, F. and Whinston, A.B. (2006) ‘Supply chain information sharing in a macro prediction market’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.1944–1958.

Hart, P. and Saunders, C. (1997) ‘Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange’, Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.23–42.

Iacovou, C.L., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1995) ‘Electronic data interchange and small organizations: adoption and impact of technology’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.465–485.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) (2002) ‘Criminal intelligence sharing report’, http://www.theiacp.org/research/CriminalIntelligenceSharingReport.pdf (accessed 24 January 2007).

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2000) ‘The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants’, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9, pp.129–154.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K. (2005) ‘Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.113–144.

Kelle, P. and Akbulut, A.Y. (2005) ‘The Role of ERP tools in supply chain information sharing, cooperation, and cost optimization’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vols. 93–94, pp.41–52.

Kobach, K.W. (2006) ‘Terrorist loophole: senate bill disarms law enforcement’, Issues, The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #1092, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/ wm1092.cfm (accessed on 2 September 2007).

Kraemer, K.L. and Dedrick, J. (1997) ‘Computing in public organizations’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.89–112.

Kraemer, K.L. and King, J.L. (1986) ‘Computing and public organizations’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 46, pp.488–496.

Kwon, T.H. and Zmud, R.W. (1987) ‘Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation’, in R.J. Boland and R.A. Hirscheim (Eds.) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp.227–251.

Landsbergen, D. and Wolken, G. (2001) ‘Realizing the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp.206–218.

Lee, J. and Rao, H.R. (2007) ‘Exploring the causes and effects of inter-agency information sharing systems adoption in the anti/counter-terrorism and disaster management domains’, in Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Digital Government Research, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol. 228, pp.155–163.

Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (LHSC) (2005a) ‘Overview’, http://www.dps.state.la.us/ hwswww.nsf/webpages/overview?opendocument (accessed 26 April 2005).

Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (LHSC) (2005b) ‘Traffic records’, http://www.dps.state .la.us/hwswww.nsf/$programs?OpenView (accessed 26 April 2005).


MacLellan, T.M. and Lee, E. (2002) ‘Improving public safety through justice information sharing’, Issue Brief, NGA Center for Best Practices, http://www.nga.org/cda/files/ justiceintegrationib.pdf (accessed 18 December 2006).

Monczka, R.M., Callahan, T.J. and Nichols, E.L. (1995) ‘Predictors of relationships among buying and supplying firms’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp.45–59.

Montealegre, R. and Keil, M. (2000) ‘De-escalating information technology projects: lessons from the Denver International Airport’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.417–447.

Norris, D.F. (2003) ‘Leading-edge information technologies and american local governments’, in G. David Garson (Ed.) Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishers.

Norris, D.F. and Moon, M.J. (2005) ‘Advancing e-government at the grassroots: tortoise or hare?’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp.64–75.

Otjacques, B., Hitzelberger, P. and Feltz, F. (2007) ‘Interoperability of e-government information systems: issues of identification and data sharing’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.29–51.

Pardo, T.A., Cresswell, A.M., Thompson, F. and Zhang, J. (2006) ‘Knowledge sharing in cross-boundary information system development in the public sector’, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.293–313.

Pawlowski, S.D. and Robey, D. (2004) ‘Bridging user organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.645–673.

Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. and Nilakanta, S. (1994) ‘Implementation of electronic data interchange: an innovation diffusion perspective’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.157–186.

Ramamurthy, K., Premkumar, G. and Crum, M.R. (1999) ‘Organizational and interorganizational determinants of EDI diffusion and organizational performance: a cause model’, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.253–285.

Roberts, D.J. (2004), ‘Integration in the context of justice information systems: a common understanding’, SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., New York, NY: The Free Press.

Rosencrance, L. (2006) ‘Senators call for better information-sharing at DHS’, Computerworld, http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName= storage&articleId=9005373&taxonomyId=19&intsrc=kc_top (accessed on 2 September 2007).

Sahin, F. and Robinson, E.P. (2002) ‘Flow coordination and information sharing in supply chains: review, implications, and directions for future research’, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.505–536.

Schneider, H. (2004) ‘Highlights of the 2003 Louisiana traffic records data report’, http://www.dps .state.la.us/tiger/Highlights2003TrafficRecordsDataReport.htm (accessed 26 February 2007).

Subramanian, G.H. and Iyigungor, A.C. (2006) ‘Information systems in supply chain management: a comparative case study of three organisations’, International Journal of Business Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.370–386.

Thong, J.Y.L. (1999) ‘An integrated model of information systems adoption in small business’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.187–214.

Tornatzky, L. and Fleischer, M. (1990) The Process of Technological Innovation, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Webster, J. (1998) ‘Desktop videoconferencing: experiences of complete users, wary users, and non-users’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.257–286.

Williams, T. (1997) ‘Interorganizational information systems: issues affecting interorganizational cooperation’, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 6, pp.231–250.

Please cite in the text or delete from the reference list.


Yin, R.K. (2002) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Applied Social Research Methods Series 5, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zhu, K., Dedrick, J. and Xu, S. (2003) ‘Assessing drivers of e-business value: results of a cross-country study’, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, Washington, pp.1–13.

Notes

1 The exact number of agencies that did not share crash information could not be determined, as agencies could have either failed to share crashes or simply had no crash information to share during the year.

2 The terms ‘sharing’ and ‘non-sharing’ agencies are used herein to describe local agencies that share or do not share, respectively, information electronically.

3 Per the request of state and local agencies, specific job titles are not disclosed to preserve anonymity.

Date post:	09-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lsu
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information...

Documents