Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g o v i n f

Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal,

intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors
Tung-Mou Yang a,, Terrence A. Maxwell b
Department of Informatics, College of Computing and Information, University at Albany, State University of New York, 7A Harriman Campus, Suite 220,
1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222, USA
Department of Information Studies, College of Computing and Information, University at Albany, State University of New York, Draper 140D, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 17 March 2011

Information sharing
Information integration
Knowledge sharing
Cross boundary
Learning organization

a b s t r a c t
Information sharing is considered an important approach to increasing organizational efciency and
performance. With advances in information and communication technology, sharing information across
organizations has become more feasible. In the public sector, government agencies are also aware of the
importance of information sharing for addressing policy issues such as anti-terrorism and public health.
However, information sharing can be a complex task. Identifying factors that inuence information sharing is
critical. In the literature, research in information sharing focuses on the interpersonal, intra-organizational,
and inter-organizational levels. This paper reviews the current information-sharing research, discusses the
factors affecting information sharing at the three levels, and provides summative frameworks. These
frameworks provide a means to discover future research opportunities, and a systematic way for practitioners
to identify key factors involved in successful information sharing.
2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During the last fteen years, public organizations have shifted
from a model that emphasized information protection to one where
cross-organization information sharing is the new goal. Much of this
shift can be traced to three factors: events such as 9/11 that
underscored the failure of prior governmental information sharing
practices; policy changes that emphasized cross-government coordination to improve efciency and reduce waste, as evidenced in
welfare reform and health care informatics; and changes in
technology that allowed organizations to exchange information
based on standard transmission and information exchange protocols.
Although cross-boundary information sharing has received more
attention, initiatives often fail due to various reasons (Dawes, 1996;
Gil-Garcia, Schneider, Pardo, & Cresswell, 2005; Gil-Garcia, Soon Ae, &
Janssen, 2009; Landsbergen & Wolken, 1998; Pardo, Cresswell, Dawes,
& Burke, 2004; Zheng, Jiang, Yang, & Pardo, 2008). To facilitate crossboundary information sharing, an understanding of factors inuencing information sharing is critical to establish and maintain collaborative relationships (Pardo et al., 2004). This paper summarizes the
existing research literature and identies different factors inuencing
information sharing from three perspectives: interpersonal, intraorganizational, and inter-organizational. The purpose of this effort is
two-fold: 1) to help clarify the key factors and potential areas for
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: (T.-M. Yang),
(T.A. Maxwell).
0740-624X/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

government information sharing research; and 2) to provide a

framework for practitioners to use when assessing or implementing
information sharing projects.
In the next section, the literature review strategy that was chosen
to identify the relevant source material for the review is explained. In
Sections 3, 4, and 5, factors inuencing information sharing are
discussed through the aforementioned three perspectives. Because
researchers also clarify that information sharing is not only conned
to explicit artifacts and codiable information but also includes tacit
knowledge (Klischewski & Scholl, 2008; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Scholl, 1999), factors that inuence information and knowledge
sharing are discussed in this paper. Lastly, Sections 6 and 7 provide
some discussion and a conclusion.
2. Literature review approach
According to Webster and Watson's (2002) suggestion in writing a
literature review paper, the following steps are adopted to determine
a constructed approach to search the sources for the review.
The rst step: The major contributions are likely in the leading
journals so that it is recommended to start with them. Because
research on information and knowledge sharing is interdisciplinary,
the literature review targeted journals in three related disciplines:
Information Systems (such as MIS Quarterly, Information System
Research, Communication of the ACM, and Journal of Management
Information Systems), Management (such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Organization Science,
and Administrative Science Quarterly), and Public Administration

T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

(Such as Public Administration Review, Public Performance Management Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
and Government Information Quarterly). In addition, given the
increasing importance of information and knowledge sharing in eGovernment research, the literature review also searches the related
e-Government journals (such as Information Polity, International
Journal of Electronic Government Research, and International Journal
of Electronic Governance) and related conference papers (such as
HICSS, dg.o, and ICEGOV). Keywords such as information sharing,
information integration, knowledge sharing, intergovernmental,
cross boundary, and learning organization were used to identify
relevant literature by searching article titles, author supplied keywords, and author supplied abstracts.
The second step: A snowball approach was used to review citations
of the identied articles in the rst step to determine further
appropriate material.
The third step: To use Web of Science to search the database of
Social Sciences Citation Index to search the articles that cite the key
articles identied in the previous steps. Then determine whether the
articles are relevant to be included in the review.
Webster and Watson (2002) suggest that the review is near
completion when there is no more new concept identied in the
article set. This systematic approach is adopted to search for the
relevant literature. Various concepts regarding information and
knowledge sharing are discussed in the following sections.
3. Interpersonal information sharing
This section focuses on how and why individuals share information within the context of interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal
relationships occur within many contexts: neighbors, classmates,
friends, or members of a community. Information-sharing research at
the interpersonal level focuses on individual behaviors such as
motivations, approaches, and channels for an individual to share
information with others. Information sharing can be a volunteer
behavior to provide information to other people who have information needs (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). In eld of information science,
research into information acquisition and sharing has focused on user
information behaviors. According to Rioux (2005), an individual can
intentionally remember the information needs of other people. For
example, when the individual acquires new information, the
individual will make connections between acquired information
with the recalled information needs of acquaintances. They will
then share the acquired information with the target individual(s),
often using fairly simple technologies such as email and face-to-face
conversations (Rioux, 2005; Rioux, Hersberger, & Cruitt, 2005).
Derived from the cognitive stage of human actions, Rioux's (2005)
work is based on the assumption that a person is willing to share
information with other people. The information needs of other people
are stored by a recipient in potential memory through daily
interactions with other people. The representations of those interactions in the potential memory are inactive until a cognitive threshold
is achieved. This threshold can be achieved when an individual the
recipient acquires information that holds a certain degree of value
and usefulness. After the threshold is achieved, a cognitive trigger will
be activated. The individual will experience a series of mental states to
retrieve the cognitive representation stored in his or her potential
memory and make association between the acquired information and
the people who will possibly need the information. After the
association is connected, the individual distributes the information
to the person through various approaches. Usually lower cost internet
transmissions, such as email, are adopted (Erdelez & Rioux, 2000;
Rioux, 2005; Rioux et al., 2005).
Marshall and Bly (2004) have focused their research on the function
and value of information sharing. They propose three explanations for
why people might share information with others: (1) to establish


mutual awareness between information giver and information receiver;

(2) to educate or raise consciousness; and (3) to develop rapport. The
second reason may reect a value that is of great importance to the
individual who shares the information, but the information is probably
unknown or not initially held by the information receiver. The shared
information may reect the common interests of the individual who
shares information and the individual who receives information. In such
instances, information-sharing behavior is employed as an approach to
strengthen social ties and relationships between information givers and
receivers (Marshall & Bly, 2004).
Other researchers have noted that there may be barriers to
interpersonal information sharing. For instance, concern about
information privacy has been identied as a main concern for people
who may otherwise exhibit information-sharing behavior. Ensuring
information privacy can help to create a trusted network for
information sharing and knowledge transfer between individuals
(Razavi & Iverson, 2006).
However, interpersonal information sharing can become more
complicated performed within an organizational context. Based on
the perception that information is power, more worrying is that
information can be hoarded as an asset to protect one's place and
enhance individual status and identity (Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull,
1994). In such cases, information can be viewed as a form of property,
which when surrendered, exposes the individual to threats of loss of
status within the organizational setting. In both positive and negative
cases, individual predilections regarding information sharing may also
interact with various organizational factors such as competition and
collaboration that either hinder or foster information-sharing
behavior. In the next section, we discuss information sharing from
the intra-organizational perspective.
4. Intra-organizational information sharing
Within organizations, there is a trend to encourage groups to share
information and knowledge (Zhang, Dawes, & Sarkis, 2005). Wheatley
(2006) points out, however, that in the bureaucratic model, information
ows in organizations are strictly controlled. With limited access to and
sharing of information and knowledge, organizational members lack the
capability to develop integrated solutions to problems. Often members of
an organization do not share information scattered among organizational
groups (Ardichvill, Page, & Wentling, 2003; Cress & Kimmerle, 2006).
According to the literature, there are various factors that can inuence
intra-organizational information sharing (see Fig. 1). The relationships
between factors are complex and each factor can inuence the other.
Organizational structure and organizational culture, ritual, and norm
are the two factors comprising the outer layer in Fig. 1 that have a
broad impact on all activities of an organization. The system of
reward and incentive, power games, social identity, social network,
and trust are factors comprising the second layer in Fig. 1 that can be
formed and inuenced by organizational structure and organizational culture, and they can inuence members' beliefs in intraorganizational information sharing. Similarly, the characteristics of
shared information, the adopted information technology (perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use), and the absorptive capability
also affect members' beliefs. While inuenced by the factors in layers
one and two, members' beliefs toward intra-organizational information sharing (represented by the inner layer in Fig. 1) can be
developed and mediated by self-interest and costbenet analysis,
information ownership and stewardship, and reciprocity. Based on
the literature, the following subsections provide more detail on the
factors of each of the three layers.
4.1. Factors of layer one
Weber (1958) claims that the ideal bureaucracy is an efcient and
fair organization with established laws and administrative


T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

regulations. However, as a bureaucratic organization grows larger

both vertically and horizontally, the distributed duties in different
hierarchies and sub-units become drivers of decreased efciency. The
formal hierarchical structure of bureaucracy can create barriers that
impede information sharing activities of an organization (Creed,
Douglas, & Miles, 1996; Tsai, 2002). Horizontal structures of
bureaucracy such as departmentalization inevitably bring obstacles
to information sharing between different departments of an organization because of different functional mandates, processes, and
expectations (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2000; Willem &
Buelens, 2007).
In addition, bureaucracy is an organizational structure where
power and authority are centralized in higher management levels
(Hall & Tolbert, 2004; Kim & Lee, 2006). Tsai (2002) argues that
centralization has a signicant negative impact on knowledge sharing
in a multiunit organization. Kim and Lee point out that centralization
can hinder initiatives of inter-group information exchange and
collaboration. Interest in sharing information and knowledge can be
reduced because an organizational member or group has limited
action autonomy and needs approval from supervising levels
regarding most decisions (Kim & Lee, 2006).
Formalization is dened as the formal rules, guidelines and
procedures, and regulations of an organization (Hall & Tolbert,
2004; Kim & Lee, 2006). According to Willem and Buelens (2007),
formal systems are less effective than informal systems in facilitating
the sharing of information and knowledge. Informal information rules
can lead to greater exibility and openness as well as increased
communication and interaction between organizational members
(Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000; Kim & Lee, 2006). In contrast to formal
systems, lateral and informal coordination, such as teamwork and
personal networks not dened by hierarchy and regulation, can result
in more intense and effective information sharing via cooperative
processes between departments (Tsai, 2002; Willem & Buelens,
2007). However, Kim and Lee (2006) do not nd evidence that
formalization, such as procedures and regulations, act as barriers to
negatively inuence sharing of information and knowledge. Willem
and Buelens (2007) also conclude that formal systems are not the
main obstacle to intra-organizational information sharing and claim
that other organizational factors are more critical to success.
Organizational culture is the patterned and persistent way for
organizations to carry out tasks and maintain human relationships
within the agency (Wilson, 1989). Researchers in organizational

culture have found that organizational members' decisions and

perceptions about individual benets and organizational interests
are mediated by instilled organizational cultures and values (Jian &
Jeffres, 2006; Martin, 1992; Schein, 2004). Therefore, organizational
members' attitudes and collective actions regarding sharing information are inuenced by organizational values, norms, and cultures
(Constant et al., 1994; Jian & Jeffres, 2006). According to Bock, Zmud,
Kim and Lee (2005b), when an organizational culture emphasizes
fairness, afliation, and innovation, the culture can positively
inuence its members' intentions to share information and knowledge. Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001) point out that if an organizational
culture is focused on solidarity, mutual interests, and shared goals,
members will hold stronger beliefs of organizational rather than
individual ownership of information and knowledge and, as a
consequence, they will tend to share information with one another.
However, Wilson (1989) claims that if a task is not viewed as a part of
organizational culture, members may undertake the task with less
energy or actively resist the mandate. Therefore, if the value of
information sharing is not part of an organization's culture, information sharing efforts can clash with its culture (Zhang et al., 2005).
Huang, Newell, Galliers and Pan (2005) also found that inconsistencies between organizational subcultures and any potential subsequent clashing values can also have a negative impact on information
4.2. Factors of layer two
Researchers assert the importance of incentive systems in
motivating organizational members to share information with others
in different groups or departments (Willem & Buelens, 2007).
Through direct and indirect effects of incentives, sharing of information and knowledge can be greatly increased (Connolly, Thorn, &
Heminger, 1992; Jian & Jeffres, 2006; Willem & Buelens, 2007). With
performance-based reward systems, organizational members are
more likely to share information and knowledge (Kim & Lee, 2006).
Bonus systems are also able to increase the quality of shared
information (Ardichvill et al., 2003). On the other hand, researchers
discovered that when the system is not specically designed for
encouraging information sharing, a general reward or incentive
system can actually deter the information-sharing activities of an
organization (Zhang et al., 2005). Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee (2005a)
claim that anticipated extrinsic rewards can have negative inuence

Fig. 1. Factors inuencing intra-organizational information sharing.

T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

on organizational members' attitudes toward sharing of information

and knowledge. Barua, Ravindran and Whinston (2007) assert that
general incentive systems can only increase information-sharing
activities when a special type of information dependency exists
between workgroups. Because of reward and incentive systems,
workgroups and/or organizational members may compete with each
other for better performance; one potential consequence of this is that
they might become reluctant to share information and knowledge
(Barua, Ravindran & Whinston, 2007; Bock et al., 2005a; Zhang, Dawes
& Sarkis, 2005).
Power games are dened as the unjust use of power to increase the
value or inuence or an individual or workgroup in an organization
(Willem & Buelens, 2007). Pfeffer (1981) points out that information
is an important source of power in organizations. Owning information
is often interpreted as owning power within an organization
(Ardichvill et al., 2003; Kolekofski & Heminger, 2003; Marks, Polak,
McCoy, & Galletta, 2008). Therefore, information and knowledge is
considered an asset and used by organizational members to elevate
their own power (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). For some members,
sharing information is viewed as a loss of individual power and social
inuence inside an organization (Ardichvill et al., 2003; Marks et al.,
2008). The more power games exist, the less sharing of information
and knowledge occurs (Willem & Buelens, 2007).
Social identity theory can be applied to a group of people who
share the same belief, symbol, attitude and behavior (Tajfel & Turner,
1979). Researchers (Jian & Jeffres, 2006; Shamir, 1990) have
discovered that people are motivated to contribute to the collective
good in organizations. By doing so, they maintain and assure their
identities as coherent with their organizational identities (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989; Jian & Jeffres, 2006). Willem and Buelens (2007) claim
that low social identication has a negative impact on the sharing of
activities. On the other hand, organizational members with strong
social identication are more likely to make sacrices to benet their
organizations. Therefore, strong social identication can increase
organizational commitment and facilitate sharing of information and
knowledge (Marks et al., 2008; Willem & Buelens, 2007).
Hansen, Mors and LVS (2005) dene social network of an
organization as subsets of established informal relations that exist
within teams and across subunits in an organization. Social networks
help to explain interpersonal mechanisms and social structures that
exist across interacting units ranging from groups, departments, and
regional groups (Hatala & Lutta, 2009; Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
According to several researchers (Kim & Lee, 2006; Kolekofski &
Heminger, 2003; Reagans & McEvily, 2003), social networks are
important for the promotion of sharing of information and knowledge
between members of an organization. Social networks include
individual and group contacts, communications, and interactions
that foster relationship and trust to enhance sharing behaviors
(Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Hatala & Lutta, 2009; Kim & Lee, 2006;
Kumar, Dissel, & Bielli, 1998; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Researchers
have discovered that although weak ties between subunits can lead to
efcient sharing of knowledge when the shared knowledge is not
complex, in multi-unit organizations, strong ties bring the highest
positive effect when tacit and complex knowledge is shared (Hansen,
1999; Levin & Cross, 2004). Wheatley (2006) believes that information and knowledge can grow from relationships in social networks
where ongoing circles of exchanges continue and information and
knowledge is not accumulated by individuals but shared with others.
Kolekofski and Heminger (2003) claim that some organizational
members may always question why individuals require the information they possess, while others will always keep an open mind to
requests for information in their possession. According to Willem and
Buelens (2007), people are only willing to share their knowledge
when they feel that they are protected against opportunistic people.
Hence, in sharing information and knowledge, trust between the
involving individuals is critical (Zhang & Dawes, 2006). Trust can


enhance better communication and promote efcient information

sharing (Willem & Buelens, 2007). Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001) also
claim that sharing of information and knowledge relies on trust in the
other party without requesting immediate reciprocal return. The lack
of trust among organizational members can create barriers to
information sharing in an organization (Ardichvill et al., 2003).
As Kolekofski and Heminger (2003) point out, the size, amount,
and perceived worth of requested information can inuence organizational members' attitudes and intentions to share information.
Furthermore, the type of knowledge also matters to information
sharing (Cress & Kimmerle, 2006). According to Polanyi (1966), there
are two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is
objective and rational knowledge that can be expressed in words,
numbers, formulas, or charts. On the other hand, tacit knowledge is
subjective, experience-based, and difcult to express and communicate. Explicit knowledge is easier and more tangible to share (Cress &
Kimmerle, 2006). According to Stenmark (2002), explicit knowledge
that can be articulated and made tangible outside of the human mind
is information. Researchers point out that information sharing is not
only conned to explicit knowledge and codiable information, but
also includes tacit knowledge (Klischewski & Scholl, 2008; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995; Scholl, 1999).
According to Cohen and Levinthal (1990), absorptive capability
is built on accumulated prior knowledge and is the ability of an
individual, group, or organization to recognize the value of new
information, and to assimilate and apply it to practical and
innovative use. An organization's absorptive capability depends on
its members' capacities and as well as the transfer of knowledge
across organizational subunits. With better absorptive capability,
individuals and sub-units of an organization are more capable of
receiving and using shared information and knowledge (Monteiro,
Arvidsson, & Birkinshaw, 2008; Tsai, 2001). Reagans and McEvily
(2003) also claim that to the extent that information and knowledge
is transferred across organizational boundaries, it is unlikely that
participants on either side of the boundary will have much
knowledge in common. From an absorptive capacity standpoint,
this lack of common knowledge is likely to frustrate attempts to
transfer information across boundaries of an organization.
With the advancement of information technology, organizations
develop information systems to facilitate sharing of information and
knowledge (Barua et al., 2007; Fedorowicz, Gogan, & Williams, 2007;
Otjacques, Hitzelberger, & Feltz, 2007; Schooley & Horan, 2007).
According to Davis's (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are two critical
determinants to decide organizational members' acceptance of new
information systems. Similarly, Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis
(2003) propose that performance and effort expectations are two
important constructs inuencing organizational members' intention
to use newly adopted information technology. In the informationsharing literature, Goodman and Darr (1998) claim that it takes time
and energy for organizational members to learn to use IT systems to
contribute to information sharing. Kim and Lee (2006) also discovered
that user-friendly IT applications and a high level of organizational
member use of IT applications can improve information sharing.
Therefore, within an organization, if the implemented information
technology is not easy and efcient to use, organizational member's IT
usage will be lower, and information and knowledge sharing activities
could be negatively inuenced.
4.3. The factor of layer three members' beliefs
According to Constant et al. (1994), member perceptions of selfinterest can reduce support for information sharing in an organization. Cress and Kimmerle (2006) claim that information sharing
presents a social dilemma. Social dilemmas are situations where
personal interests are inconsistent with collective interests. In social


T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

dilemmas, individuals are assumed to put more weight on their shortterm personal interests than on long-term organizational interests
(Dawes, 1980). Researchers point out many factors that organizational members may consider as costs to their sharing of information
(Cress & Kimmerle, 2006; Goodman & Darr, 1998). For instance,
before sharing tacit information and knowledge, a contributor may
need to spend signicant time and effort to articulate, prepare and
arrange the information. In addition, a contributor may expect that
sharing of information would evoke requests for further clarications
and assistances. The extra work may compete with the contributor's
work time and resources. Furthermore, the fear of incurring criticism
because of possible inaccurate and irrelevant information also affects
the cost/benet equation (Ardichvill et al., 2003). Without receiving
clear recognition and benet for his contribution, a contributor may
be reluctant to share information (Cress & Kimmerle, 2006; Goodman
& Darr, 1998). By applying theories of collective action (Hardin, 1971,
1982) and social dilemma (Dawes, 1980); Jian and Jeffres (2006)
extend the discussion by claiming that individuals are rational and
self-interested, acting to maximize individual benets and minimize
individual costs. In their proposed utilitarian perspective, a contribution to the collective good such as sharing of information and
knowledge is a matter of calculation and compromise between cost
and benet (Jian & Jeffres, 2006; Marks et al., 2008).
In Constant et al.'s (1994) information-sharing theory, organizational ownership is a concept that suggests organizations own the
products their members produce, and members are required to share
organizational information. From the organizational member's perspective, organizational information represented as a product is
easier to share between individuals and is more commonly viewed as
property owned by organizations. On the other hand, organizational
information such as expertise is more difcult to share between
individuals and is more commonly viewed as individual property
owned by organizational members. The likelihood that organizational
members share information or expertise is strongly inuenced by
their belief in organizational ownership regarding information and
expertise (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). Constant et al.'s (1994) claim
that fostering a belief in organizational ownership can improve
organizational members' attitudes toward information sharing.
Similarly, Kolekofski and Heminger (2003) assert that the idea of
information stewardship places external values before individual
claims of ownership. In their view, information ownership means that
an individual is the ultimate authority for information including all
associated rights and responsibilities, and information stewardship
means that an individual should manage information on behalf of
others. When organizational members are inclined toward information ownership, they treat information as a personal resource rather
than an organizational resource and limit their sharing to information
they see as beneting the entire organization rather than potential
internal competitors (Kolekofski & Heminger, 2003).
Relying on social exchange theory, Constant et al. (1994) propose
that social exchange in sharing of information and knowledge is
similar to economic exchange. Reciprocity is an important force
driving information-sharing behaviors among organizational members (Constant et al., 1994). In addition, based on the theory of
reasoned action, Bock et al. (2005b) have also argued that anticipated
reciprocity is an important positive factor inuencing organizational
members' attitudes towards the sharing of information and
Understanding information sharing on the intra-organizational
level can provide insights into information sharing on the interorganizational level. An organization is usually composed of different
subunits such as departments or groups. Within an organization,
subunits can be imagined as different sub-organizations while each
department or group has its respective function. Information-sharing
behaviors between those subunits can be perceived as a smaller scale
of cross-boundary information sharing at the inter-organizational

level. Some of the factors discussed in the intra-organizational

information sharing may be applied to the inter-organizational
scenarios. While focusing on the public sector, the following section
addresses information-sharing factors from the inter-organizational
5. Inter-organizational information sharing
Landsbergen and Wolken (2001) point out that interoperability
across organizations represents cross-boundary information sharing.
Researchers have recognized the importance of cross-boundary
information sharing, especially in the area of e-Government research
(Cresswell, Pardo, Canestrato, Dawes, & Juraga, 2005; Dawes, 1996;
Gil-Garcia et al., 2005; Pardo, Cresswell, Thompson & Zhang, 2006a;
Pardo & Tayi, 2007; Schooley & Horan, 2007; Zheng, Yang, Pardo &
Jiang, 2009b). Pardo et al. (2004) point out that leaders and IT
executives in the public sector have increasingly recognized the
importance of inter-organizational information sharing to improve
the efciency of government agencies. However, sharing of information and knowledge can involve complex interactions between
participating government agencies (Dawes, 1996; dos Santos, 2008;
Gil-Garcia, Chengalur-Smith & Duchessi, 2007a; Gil-Garcia, Pardo &
Burke, 2007b; Gil-Garcia et al., 2009; Klischewski & Scholl, 2006;
Luna-Reyes, Andersen, Richardson, Pardo & Cresswell, 2007a; Pardo &
Tayi, 2007; Zhang & Dawes, 2006). Dawes' (1996) research in
interagency information sharing and Zhang et al.'s (2005) research
in e-Government knowledge sharing both dene and view inuential
factors from three primary perspectives, technology, management,
and policy (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005; Gil-Garcia et al., 2007a, 2009;
Zhang & Dawes, 2006). According to the literature, various factors
from the three perspectives can inuence inter-organizational
information sharing in the public sector (Fig. 2). In the following
sections, the paper adopts these three perspectives as focal points for
the discussion.
5.1. The technological perspective
With the advancement of information technology, the effectiveness and efciency of inter-organizational collaboration can be
enhanced (Zhang & Dawes, 2006). Researchers believe that information sharing activities can be considered as IT projects involving
information systems construction, organizational structure change,
and business process reengineering (Gil-Garcia et al., 2007a).
Different organizations have various types of hardware and software
in their information systems, and it is a challenge to integrate
heterogeneous information systems of different platforms, data
standards, schemas and qualities (Atabakhsh, Larson, Petersen,
Violette, & Chen, 2004; Chau, Atabakhsh, Zeng, & Chen, 2001; Chen,
Gangopadhyay, Holden, Karabatis, & McGuire, 2007; Dawes, 1996;
Fedorowicz et al., 2007; Gil-Garcia et al., 2007a, 2009; Klischewski &
Scholl, 2008; Lam, 2005; Pardo et al., 2004; Zhang & Dawes, 2006).
Frameworks such as XML, Web Service, and Service Oriented
Architecture (SOA) are being applied to bridge information systems
and heterogeneous databases that have inconsistent data structures
and denitions (Bajaj & Ram, 2003, 2007; Gil-Garcia et al., 2009;
Matsunaga, Tsugawa, & Fortes, 2007; Saulo, 2009; Su et al., 2005). The
IT adoption of government agencies in information-sharing systems
can also be a challenge (Lee & Rao, 2007). In addition, because of
security and condentiality, it is critical to design a system that can
handle access authorization and authentication for shared information (Chau et al., 2001). Furthermore, in both the public and the
private sectors, more and more information systems are outsourced to
contractors (Beyah & Galivan, 2001; Sullivan & Ngwenyama, 2005).
Information system outsourcing also raises the difculty in crossboundary information sharing, because of system design and
specication details may not be well-written and preserved,

T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

contractors may compete with one another, and some contractors

may be out of business and fail to support information system
maintenance and changes (Gonzalez, Gasco, & Llopis, 2005; Park &
Kim, 2005; Sullivan & Ngwenyama, 2005). The technological
capability of the participating organizations is another critical factor
to the success of cross-boundary information sharing (Akbulut, Kelle,
Pawlowski, Schneider, & Looney, 2009; Driss & Asmae El, 2008;
Fedorowicz et al., 2007; Lam, 2005). However, researchers point out
that the technological challenge is less complex when compared with
challenges in organizational and political aspects (Atabakhsh et al.,
2004; Brazelton & Gorry, 2003; Landsbergen & Wolken, 1998, 2001).
They claim that overcoming technical issues in information sharing
merely lays the foundation for information sharing, and more
complicated challenges lie in organization and policy.
5.2. The organizational perspective
Researchers indicate that sharing of information and knowledge
can involve complex interactions between participating organizations
because of their different origins, values, and cultures (Drake, Steckler,
& Koch, 2004; Gil-Garcia et al., 2007a; Kellogg, Orlikowski, & Yates,
2006; Lam, 2005; Luna-Reyes, Gil-Garcia & Cruz, 2007b; Pardo & Tayi,
2007; Pardo et al., 2004). Drake et al. (2004) identify three
subcultures of the public sector: the politician, bureaucratic, and
scientist. People in one subculture are less likely to know what
information people in other subcultures may need from them, and
there is less trust as to the quality of information received from other
subcultures. Furthermore, government organizations can have competing interests. It is not an easy job to have several government
organizations target on one shared objective when they have diverse
organizational values (Atabakhsh et al., 2004; Fedorowicz et al., 2007;
Kim & Lee, 2006; Ring & Perry, 1985; Rohrbaugh, 1981).
Inter-organizational information sharing relationships rely heavily on
trust building between the organizations involved (Akbulut et al., 2009;
Canestraro, Pardo, Raup-Kounovsky, & Taratus, 2009; Chau et al., 2001;
Dawes, 1996; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Dyer & Chu, 2003; Gil-Garcia, Pardo &


Burke, 2010; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001; Li & Lin, 2006; Luna-Reyes
et al., 2007b; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Pardo & Tayi, 2007; Pardo
et al., 2004; Zaheer & McEvily, 1998). Gil-Garcia et al. (2010) point out that
trusted social network is one of four components in their conceptualization of information integration in government. However, trust decreases
when there are concerns of autonomy loss and information misuse by
other organizations that would incur liabilities for the sharing organization (Bellamy & Raab, 2005; Chau et al., 2001; Faerman, McCaffrey, & Van
Slyke, 2001; Zhang et al., 2005). When trust plays an important role in
cross-boundary information sharing, three types of trust are observed: (a)
calculus-based trust: the trustor needs to have the ability to assess the
trustworthiness of the trustee; (b) identity-based trust: trustworthiness is
based on long term established personal relationships with the trustee;
and (c) institution-based trust: trustworthiness is produced on the
institutional structures, organizational cultures, societal norms, and legal
systems (Black et al., 2002; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007b; Rousseau, Sitkin,
Burt, & Camerer, 1998).
Researchers also propose that clarity of roles and responsibility,
respect for autonomy, and the appropriate exercise of authority can
help build trust between participating organizations in public sector
cross-boundary information sharing (Pardo, Gil-Garcia & Burke,
In addition to trust, leadership can be utilized as a force to promote
cross-boundary coordination between organizations (Willem & Buelens, 2007). By providing vision, guidance, and resources, top management support can help initiate and sustain cross-boundary information
sharing (Akbulut et al., 2009; Li & Lin, 2006). According to Gil-Garcia
et al. (2007b), leadership can be exercised through executive involvement, formal authority, and informal leadership. Executive involvement
can help information sharing initiatives through supporting informal
leaders, respecting autonomy of participating organizations, encouraging employees to participate, and providing nancial resources. Formal
authority can help build agreement among participating organizations,
create an environment to develop appropriate and effective strategies,
and help key actors get involved. Informal leadership can help build
trust among participants, facilitate participant interactions, provide

Fig. 2. Factors inuencing inter-organizational information sharing in the public sector.


T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

localized solutions to complex problems, and clarify roles and

responsibilities of participants in the collaborative process (Gil-Garcia
et al., 2007b). Zheng, Dawes and Pardo (2009a) also indicate how
leadership inuences governmental inter-organizational information
sharing by studying its traits, power, behaviors, interventions, and
success criteria.
Researchers point out that some government agencies with little or no
experience in information sharing lack the understanding of benets that
can accrue from cross-boundary information sharing. In addition, because
of bureaucratic organizational boundaries, government agencies may be
less aware of what information can be shared with and retrieved from
other agencies (Lam, 2005; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001). Furthermore,
different organizations have their respective operation procedures,
control mechanisms, and work ows that increase the difculty to
information sharing (Canestraro et al., 2009; Pardo et al., 2004). When
cross-boundary information sharing involves reengineering of traditional
working processes among participating organizations, some individuals
may resist change because of inertia and loss of personal benet (Lazer &
Maria, 2005). Lack of resources such as staff shortages can also hamper
initiatives of cross-boundary information sharing. Because of limited
resources, an agency may focus on urgent issues within its own
organization when the immediate benets of sharing information cannot
be foreseen (Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001; Zhang & Dawes, 2006).
Through the perspective of transaction cost economic theory, incentive
can play an important role to cross-boundary information sharing (Pardo
& Tayi, 2007). Agencies have spent their resources such as budget, staff,
network, and time to collect information and build up knowledge.
Without appropriate compensation, agencies often are not willing to
share their information and knowledge with other agencies (Chau et al.,
2001; Pardo & Tayi, 2007).
5.3. The political and policy perspective
Legislation and policy have a strong inuence on the sharing of
information and knowledge across organizations, especially for
organizations in the public sector (Dawes, 1996; Gil-Garcia et al.,
2007a; Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001; Zhang
& Dawes, 2006). Researchers point out that legal and policy
regulations can facilitate relationship building, risk reduction, and
trust development in inter-organizational information sharing projects when specic guidance such as how to utilize information is
proposed (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005; Gil-Garcia et al., 2007a; Lam,
2005; Otjacques et al., 2007; Perri, Bellamy, Raab, Warren, & Heeney,
2007). They also claim that the lack of legislative support to assure the
privacy and condentiality of shared information can impede crossboundary information sharing in the public sector. A privacy policy
will also alleviate the concerns of general public by increasing their
trust in the government information sharing projects (Atabakhsh et
al., 2004; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001; Zhang & Dawes, 2006). In
addition, Bajaj and Ram (2003) suggest that multiple players should
be involved when determining what information to share in the
public sector. The suggested players are privacy advocacy groups,
involved government agencies, and legislatures (Bajaj & Ram, 2003).
Lastly, without support from legislatures and policymakers, crossboundary information sharing in the public sector can lose its priority
status and lack necessary funding and resources to make projects
sustainable (Dawes, 1996; Zhang et al., 2005).
However, laws and regulations also create barriers to obstruct
cross-boundary information sharing in government agencies. Crossboundary information sharing can be hindered because of policies
that prohibit government agencies from sharing sensitive and
regulated information in domains such as public safety and national
security (Dawes, 1996; Gil-Garcia et al., 2007a; Gil-Garcia & Pardo,
2005; Zhang et al., 2005). In addition, pre-dened policies in agencies
about program boundaries and goals may create barriers to
information sharing (Pardo & Tayi, 2007). An explicit statutory

authority should clearly dene the circumstances that information

collected in one agency can be shared to other agencies. The approach
will help eliminate the hesitation of agencies to share information
when they realize that collaborations are under statutory mandate
(Dawes, 1996; Lam, 2005; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001).
Partisan dynamics in different agencies and public organizations
also matter. Some participating organizations might fear the loss of
power relative to opposing parties or be afraid that the shared
information might help to accomplish goals belonging to an opposite
party's agenda (Lazer & Maria, 2005; Pardo et al., 2004; Zhang &
Dawes, 2006). Government agencies may resist sharing information
because information is the source of power and is perceived as a
symbol of authority (Dawes, 1996). Researchers also point out that
cross-boundary information sharing can increase the possibility that
involved agencies might receive more open and public scrutiny, or
incur performance evaluation (Clarkson, Jacobsen, & Batcheller, 2007;
Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001; Pardo & Tayi, 2007). Researchers
suggest that some barriers can be overcome by institutional pressure
and instilling a culture of information stewardship rather than
information ownership (Dawes, 1996; Pardo et al., 2004).
6. Discussion
Based on the literature review, several factors at the interpersonal,
intra-organizational, and inter-organizational levels important to
successful information sharing are identied. At the interpersonal
level, socialization is critical as both an inuential factor and a process
that facilitate the sharing of information, in the form of explicit
knowledge and tacit knowledge, between individuals. However, the
information-sharing behaviors become more complicated when
individuals are within the contexts of intra-organization and interorganization. The following subsections discuss the ndings in intraorganizational and inter-organizational information sharing and the
relationship among the three levels.
6.1. Intra-organizational information sharing
In the intra-organizational level, the summarized framework
(Fig. 1) provides comprehensive tools for practical use and stakeholder analysis when an organization begins to develop its intraorganizational information sharing initiative. At the research level, the
framework points to many intriguing questions for which little or no
empirical research has been undertaken. Some examples include:
What are the relationships among the factors in intra-organizational
information sharing? For instance, social network and trust are both
suggested as important factors facilitating intra-organizational
information sharing. In addition, social networks can help to
increase trust among organizational members or departments
(Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Kim & Lee, 2006; Kumar et al., 1998;
Reagans & McEvily, 2003). It is implied that social networks have
both direct and indirect (though trust building) inuences on intraorganizational information sharing. It would also be interesting to
know whether strengthened social networks can alleviate the
negative inuence of power games on intra-organization information sharing (Fig. 3).
Are certain factors more important than others in the framework of
intra-organizational information sharing? When an organization has
limited funding and resources, what are the priority issues on which to
focus to improve intra-organizational information sharing?
Do the key factors in the framework change with changes in the locus of
analysis? Since the framework is constructed by integration of
literature developed mostly in the context of western countries, it
would be interesting to apply the framework in non-western
countries to see whether the relative importance and relationship
between factors change.

T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175


Fig. 3. The relationship of factors inuencing intra-organizational information sharing.

6.2. Inter-organizational information sharing

As discussed in the paper, inter-organizational information sharing
is believed to be more complex than intra-organizational information
sharing (J. R. Gil-Garcia et al., 2005). Factors inuencing interorganizational information sharing are more diversied and complex
when different organizations and government agencies are involved.
The summarized framework (Fig. 2) can provide insights when public
organizations or government agencies intend to initiate interorganizational information sharing. The framework can be a comprehensive, analytical tool that can be used to perceive multi-faceted
inuential factors.
The framework also highlights potential research opportunities
regarding the directionality and dependence of factor relationships.
For instance, legislation and policies have both direct and indirect
effects on inter-organizational information sharing. Legislations and
policies can have direct impact on inter-organizational information
sharing when public organizations and government agencies are
prohibited from sharing sensitive and regulated information. Legislation and policies can also have indirect positive effects on interorganizational information sharing through increasing trust among
participants, alleviating concerns, and providing funding and
resources. On the other hand, legislation and policy can have indirect
negative effects by forming or strengthening program boundaries and
organizational structures that could hinder inter-organizational
information sharing (see Fig. 4).
In the future, it will be interesting to ascertain what factors in the
summarized framework have more signicant weight on interorganizational information sharing than others. Developed by the
integration of mostly western literature, the framework should also be

tested to see whether it can be applied to non-western contexts. Lastly,

factor analysis may be adopted to rene the framework since some
factors are highly correlated and seem to overlap with each other.
6.3. Three contexts of information sharing are interrelated
When viewing information sharing in public organizations, three
levels of information sharing in public organizations are interrelated.
Interpersonal information sharing is important both in its own right
and because it is embedded in the context of intra-organizational
information sharing. Information sharing between units within a
single organization can in turn be embedded in the context of interorganizational information sharing. This provides a challenge for
research, because three dimensions must be considered. The
consideration should not only include factors that are unique to the
level of information sharing studied, but also impact factors at other
levels that may have either upward or downward impact. Ideally the
three levels of information sharing should be connected seamlessly as
a continuous information-sharing environment (Fig. 5).
Ultimately the success of inter-organizational information
sharing cannot be measured simply by successful information and
knowledge transfer across different organizations or government
agencies. Once information and knowledge is successfully transferred among organizations, it is also important to know whether
the information and knowledge is circulated and shared effectively
and efciently within the information-acquiring organization. In
this sense, intra-organizational information sharing can be viewed
as a smaller-scale inter-organizational information sharing problem.
Intra-organizational information sharing exists among individuals,
groups, or departments in an organization. Similarly, in the public

Fig. 4. The relationship of factors inuencing inter-organizational information sharing.


T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

Fig. 5. The three contexts of information sharing are interrelated.

sector, inter-organizational information sharing can include several

public organizations and government agencies within the context of
government. This governmental context can be perceived as an
organization; the participating public organizations and govern-

ment agencies can be viewed as groups or departments of the

In reviewing the intra- and inter-organizational frameworks, some
factors identied in the two levels are similar: organizational

Fig. 6. Comparison of factors in intra-organizational and inter-organizational levels.

T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

structures and bureaucracy; organizational culture, values, and

norms; self-interest and costbenet analysis; incentive and reward;
trust; power games; and IT capability. These factors are recognized at
both the intra- and the inter-organizational levels (Fig. 6). However,
there are still differences between those recognized factors. For
instance, when reward and incentive is believed to bring positive
inuence on both intra-organizational and inter-organizational
information sharing, it is also pointed out that, in intra-organizational
information sharing, reward and incentive can result in a negative
impact because of competition if the reward and incentive is not
specically designed to encourage information-sharing initiatives.
Moreover, IT capability is emphasized at both levels. However, the IT
capability at the intra-organizational level stresses the importance of
organizational members' utilization and familiarity in operating IT
applications. IT capability at the inter-organizational level emphasizes
the technical ability to integrate shared information from heterogeneous information systems.
Some factors discussed solely in the intra-organizational context can
provide insights into inter-organizational behavior. For instance, beliefs
in information ownership and reciprocity, absorptive capability, social
networks, social identity, and characteristics of information are
recognized as important factors that inuence intra-organizational
information sharing; however, those factors do not attract much
attention in the literature of inter-organizational information sharing.
These anomalies point to further research opportunities. For instance, it
would be interesting to know the importance of absorptive capability
when organizations share not only information and explicit knowledge
but also tacit knowledge. Similarly, we might want to learn whether
social networks could facilitate inter-organizational information sharing
when the participating organizations are diversied and have very
different functions.
7. Conclusion
In sum, at the practitioner level, the frameworks suggest several
activities that might improve organizations' chances for successful
information sharing. At an operational level, establishment of
information systems that minimize changes to internal processes
and information ow appears to be important to success. Promotion
of a culture of information stewardship as opposed to ownership;
strong leadership support to information sharing efforts; legislative
and regulatory mandates; reward systems that promote information
sharing both within and across organizations; the establishment of
shared goals; and the development of ongoing trusted relationships
based on mutual understanding of needs and concerns and shared
responsibility are all positive actions suggested by the frameworks.
Information sharing across organizations is a key strategic activity
for organizations in the public and private sector. By having a clear
and comprehensive understanding of the factors that support and
constrain the development of effective systems to support information exchange and analysis and improve accuracy and timeliness of
decisions, policy makers, and practitioners can proceed with greater
condence in their outcomes. In addition, researchers can more
accurately and efciently target their research agendas to focus on the
most critical aspects of this complex problem. It is hoped that the
frameworks provided in this paper can assist in these critical
The authors would like to thank Dr. Theresa A. Pardo for her
valuable comments throughout the development of this literature
review. In addition, the authors also thank two anonymous reviewers
and the editorial assistant of GIQ, Stephanie Graham, for their
insightful suggestions and comments to help the authors to improve
the work of the paper.


Akbulut, A. Y., Kelle, P., Pawlowski, S. D., Schneider, H., & Looney, C. A. (2009). To share
or not to share? Examining the factors inuencing local agency electronic
information sharing. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 4(2),
Ardichvill, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in
virtual knowledge sharing communities or practice. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(1), 6477.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in
organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 18.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 2039.
Atabakhsh, H., Larson, C., Petersen, T., Violette, C., & Chen, H. (2004). Information
sharing and collaboration policies within government agencies. Lecture notes in
computer science, Vol. 3073/2004. (pp. 467475)Springer: Berlin and Heidelberg.
Bajaj, A., & Ram, S. (2003). IAIS: A methodology to enable inter-agency information
sharing in e-Government. Journal of Database Management, 14(4), 5980.
Bajaj, A., & Ram, S. (2007). A comprehensive framework towards information sharing
between government agencies. International Journal of Electronic Government
Research, 3(2), 2944.
Barua, A., Ravindran, S., & Whinston, A. (2007). Enabling information sharing within
organizations. Information Technology and Management, 8(1), 3145.
Bellamy, C., & Raab, C. (2005). Multi-agency working in British social policy: Risk,
information sharing and privacy. Information Polity: The International Journal of
Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 10(1/2), 5163.
Beyah, G., & Galivan, M. (2001). Knowledge management as a framework for
understanding public sector outsourcing. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34), Hawaii.
Black, L. J., Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D. S., Cook, M., et al.
(2002). A dynamic theory of collaboration: A structural approach to facilitating
intergovernmental use of information technology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, U.S.
Bock, G. -W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. -G., & Lee, J. -N. (2005a). Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, socialpsychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87111.
Bock, G. -W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. -G., & Lee, J. -N. (2005b). Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, socialpsychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87111.
Boudreau, M., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A
human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 318.
Brazelton, J., & Gorry, G. A. (2003). Creating a knowledge-sharing community: If you
build it, will they come? Communications of the ACM, 46(2), 2325.
Canestraro, D. S., Pardo, T. A., Raup-Kounovsky, A. N., & Taratus, D. (2009). Regional
telecommunication incident coordination: Sharing information for rapid response.
Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the
Information Age, 14(1/2), 113126.
Chau, M., Atabakhsh, H., Zeng, D., & Chen, H. (2001). Building an infrastructure for law
enforcement information sharing and collaboration: Design issues and challenges.
Paper presented at the National Conference on Digital Government.
Chen, Z., Gangopadhyay, A., Holden, S. H., Karabatis, G., & McGuire, M. P. (2007).
Semantic integration of government data for water quality management.
Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 716735.
Clarkson, G., Jacobsen, T. E., & Batcheller, A. L. (2007). Information asymmetry and
information sharing. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 827839.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128152.
Connolly, T., Thorn, B. K., & Heminger, A. (1992). Discretionary databases as social
dilemmas. In W. Liebrand, D. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas:
Theoretical issues and research ndings (pp. 199208). Oxford: Pergamon.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it: A study of
attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400421.
Creed, W., Douglas, E., & Miles, R. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework
linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of
controls. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory
and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2006). Information exchange with shared database as a social
dilemma: The effect of metaknowledge, bonus systems, and costs. Communication
Research, 33(5), 370390.
Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T. A., Canestrato, D. S., Dawes, S. S., & Juraga, D. (2005). Sharing
justice information: A capability assessment toolkit. Albany, NY: Center for
Technology in Government.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169193.
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benets, manageable
risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377394.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.
Organization Science, 12, 450467.
dos Santos, E. M. (2008). Implementing interoperability standards for electronic
government: An exploratory case study of the e-PING Brazilian framework. (Special
Section). International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 4(3), 103110.
Drake, D. B., Steckler, N. A., & Koch, M. J. (2004). Information sharing in and across
government agencies: The role and inuence of scientist, politician, and bureaucrat
subcultures. Social Science Computer Review, 22(1), 6784.


T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

Driss, K., & Asmae El, M. (2008). Back ofce integration issues in developing country
context: Lessons learned from a case study in Morocco. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic
Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs
and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and
Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 5768.
Erdelez, S., & Rioux, K. (2000). Sharing information encountered for others on the web.
New Review of Information Behavior Research, 1, 219233.
Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2001). Understanding
interorganizational cooperation: Publicprivate collaboration in regulating nancial market innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372388.
Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J. L., & Williams, C. B. (2007). A collaborative network for rst
responders: Lessons from the CapWIN case. Government Information Quarterly, 24
(4), 785807.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Chengalur-Smith, I., & Duchessi, P. (2007). Collaborative e-Government: Impediments and benets of information-sharing projects in the public
sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 121133.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-Government success factors: Mapping practical
tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 187216.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, G. B. (2007, May 31June 2). Government
leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled networks: Lessons from the response to the
West Nile virus outbreak. Paper presented at the Leading the Future of the Public
Sector: The Third Transatlantic Dialogue. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, B. (2010). Conceptualizing information integration
in government. In J. Scholl (Ed.), Electronic government: Information, technology, and
transformation (pp. 179202). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Schneider, C. A., Pardo, T. A., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005). Interorganizational information integration in the criminal justice enterprise: Preliminary
lessons from state and county initiatives. Paper presented at the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38), Hawaii.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Soon Ae, C., & Janssen, M. (2009). Government information sharing and
integration: Combining the social and the technical. Information Polity: The
International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 14(1/2),
Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J., & Llopis, J. (2005). Information systems outsourcing risks: A
study of large rms. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(12), 4562.
Goodman, P. S., & Darr, E. D. (1998). Computer-aided systems and communities:
Mechanisms for organizational learning in distributed environments. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 417440.
Hall, R. H., & Tolbert, P. S. (2004). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (9th
ed). New York: Prentice Hall.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1),
Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & LVS, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations:
Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776793.
Hardin, R. (1971). Collective action as an agreeable n-prisoners' dilemma. Behavioral
Science, 16, 472481.
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Hatala, J. -P., & Lutta, J. G. (2009). Managing information sharing within an
organizational setting: A social network perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 21(4), 533.
Huang, J. C., Newell, S., Galliers, R., & Pan, S. L. (2005). Dangerous liaisons? Component
based development and organizational subculture. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 50(1), 8999.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for
information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(23), 129154.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational
ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 151183.
Jian, G., & Jeffres, L. W. (2006). Understanding employees' willingness to contribute to
shared electronic databases: A three-dimensional framework. Communication
Research, 33(4), 242261.
Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring
coordination across boundaries in post-bureaucratic organizations. Organization
Science, 17(1), 2244.
Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information
technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration
Review, 66(3), 370385.
Klischewski, R., & Scholl, H. J. (2006). Information quality as a common ground for key
players in e-Government integration and interoperability. Paper presented at the
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39), Hawaii.
Klischewski, R., & Scholl, H. J. (2008). Information quality as capstone in negotiating eGovernment integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electronic
Government, an International Journal, 5(2), 203225.
Kolekofski, K. E., Jr., & Heminger, A. R. (2003). Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions
to share information in an organizational setting. Information Management, 40,
Kumar, K., Dissel, H. G. V., & Bielli, P. (1998). The merchant of PratoRevisited: Toward
a third rationality of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 199227.
Lam, W. (2005). Barriers to e-Government integration. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 18(5/6), 511530.
Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken, G. J. (1998). Eliminating legal and policy barriers to
interoperable government systems. Washington, DC: Intergovernmental Enterprise

Panel, Ofce of Information Resources Management, Department of Veterans

Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken, G. J. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government
information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public
Administration Review, 61(2), 206220.
Lazer, D., & Maria, C. B. -S. (2005). Information sharing in e-Government projects:
Managing novelty and cross-agency cooperation. Report for IBM endowment for the
business of government. VA: Arlington.
Lee, J., & 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. Paper presented at the The 8th Annual International Conference on Digital
Government Research. Philadelphia, PA: Bridging Disciplines & Domains.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role
of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 14771490.
Li, S., & Lin, B. (2006). Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply
chain management. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 16411656.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., Pardo, T. A., & Cresswell, A. M.
(2007). Emergence of the governance structure for information integration across
governmental agencies: A system dynamics approach. Paper presented at the The
8th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. Philadelphia,
PA: Bridging Disciplines & Domains.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Cruz, C. B. (2007). Collaborative digital government
in Mexico: Some lessons from federal web-based interorganizational information
integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 808826.
Marks, P., Polak, P., McCoy, S., & Galletta, D. (2008). Sharing knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 51(2), 6065.
Marshall, C. C., & Bly, S. (2004). Sharing encountered information: Digital libraries get a
social life. Paper presented at the International Conference on Digital Libraries,
Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital Libraries, Tuscon, AZ.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University
Matsunaga, A., Tsugawa, M., & Fortes, J. A. B. (2007). Integration of text-based
applications into service-oriented architectures for transnational digital government. Paper presented at the The 8th Annual International Conference on Digital
Government Research. Philadelphia, PA: Bridging Disciplines & Domains.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709734.
Monteiro, L. F., Arvidsson, N., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Knowledge ows within
multinational corporations: Explaining subsidiary isolation and its performance
implications. Organization Science, 19(1), 90107.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Otjacques, B., Hitzelberger, P., & Feltz, F. (2007). Interoperability of e-Government
information systems: Issues of identication and data sharing. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 23(4), 2951.
Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Dawes, S. S., & Burke, G. B. (2004). Modeling the social &
technical processes of interorganizational information integration. Paper presented
at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37), Hawaii.
Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Thompson, F., & Zhang, J. (2006). Knowledge sharing in
cross-boundary information system development in the public sector. Information
Technology and Management, 7(4), 293313.
Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Burke, G. B. (Eds.). (2006). Building response capacity
through cross-boundary information sharing: The critical role of trust (Vol. 3).
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Pardo, T. A., & Tayi, G. K. (2007). Interorganizational information integration: A key
enabler for digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 691715.
Park, J. -Y., & Kim, J. S. (2005). The impact of IS sourcing type on service quality and
maintenance efforts. Information Management, 42(2), 261274.
Perri, Bellamy, C., Raab, C., Warren, A., & Heeney, C. (2007). Institutional shaping of
interagency working: Managing tensions between collaborative working and client
condentiality. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 405434.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Political strategies and tactics. Power in organizations. Boston, MA:
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Razavi, M. N., & Iverson, L. (2006). A grounded theory of information sharing behavior
in a personal learning space. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The
effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240267.
Ring, P. S., & Perry, J. L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private
organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of
Management Review, 10(2), 267287.
Rioux, K. S. (2005). Information acquiring-and-sharing. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L.
Mckechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 169173). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Rioux, K. S., Hersberger, J. A., & Cruitt, R. O. (2005). Examining information sharing and
relationship building in online social networks: An emergent analytic framework.
Paper presented at the 33th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for
Information Science, London, Ontario..
Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). Operationalizing the competing values approach: Measuring
performance in the employment service. Public Productivity Review, 5(2), 141159.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393404.
Saulo, D. (2009). GEL-XML (e-Government Extensible markup language) implementation experience for Colombian government information exchange in the

T.-M. Yang, T.A. Maxwell / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 164175

environment sector. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Bogota, Colombia.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Scholl, H. J. (1999). Knowledge management and the vital organization. In R. Berndt
(Ed.), Management strategien 2000. Berlin: Springer.
Schooley, B. L., & Horan, T. A. (2007). Towards end-to-end government performance
management: Case study of interorganizational information integration in emergency
medical services (EMS). Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 755784.
Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources if collectivistic work
motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313332.
Stenmark, D. (2002). Information vs. knowledge: The role of Intranets in knowledge
management. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS-35), Big Island, Hawaii.
Su, S., Fortes, J., Kasad, T. R., Patil, M., Matsunaga, A., Tsugawa, M., et al. (2005).
Transnational information sharing, event notication, rule enforcement and process
coordination. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(2), 126.
Sullivan, W. E., & Ngwenyama, O. K. (2005). How are the public sector organizations
managing IS outsourcing risks? An analysis of outsourcing guidelines from three
jurisdictions. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 7387.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 3347). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of
network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 9961004.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organization:
Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179190.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unied view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425478.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Trans.). :
Oxford University Press.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing
a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2).
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The
effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 581606.


Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.
Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational
and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141158.
Zhang, J., & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Expectations and perceptions of benets, barriers, and
success in public sector knowledge networks. Public Performance & Management
Review, 29(4), 433466.
Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders' expectations of the
benets and barriers of e-Government knowledge sharing. The Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 18(5), 548567.
Zheng, L., Dawes, S., & Pardo, T. A. (2009). Leadership behaviors in cross-boundary
information sharing and integration: Comparing the US and China. Paper presented
at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of
Electronic Governance, Bogota, Colombia.
Zheng, L., Jiang, Y., Yang, T. -M., & Pardo, T. A. (2008). Sharing information for product
quality and food safety in China: Barriers and enablers. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Cairo, Egypt.
Zheng, L., Yang, T. -M., Pardo, T. A., & Jiang, Y. (2009). Understanding the boundary in
information sharing and integration. Paper presented at the The 42th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009), Big Island, Hawaii.

Tung-Mou Yang received his Ph.D. in Information Science from University at Albany,
State University of New York. His research interests include e-Government, crossboundary information sharing, information management, and information systems. He is
also interested in digital divide and other information-related socio-technical systems.
Terry Maxwell is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Information
Studies. He specializes in information management and policy, particularly the public
information domain. He has a B.A. in English from Bard College; a Master's in Public
Administration from the University at Albany, and a Ph.D. in Public Administration
from the Rockefeller College, University at Albany, specializing in Policy Analysis and
Organizational Behavior. Previously Terry served as the Executive Director of the New
York State Forum for Information Resource Management, a membership organization
of more than 2500 individuals and 70 NY state and local agencies. His experience with
government information resources management spans 30 years. He is a former
Eastern Regional Director for the National Association of State Information Resource
Executives, and serves as the Research Director for the University's Intergovernmental
Solutions Program. He has consulted on information policy issues for New York state
and local government agencies, the U.S. General Accountability Ofce, and the
government of Lebanon.