Exploring stakeholders' expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing

– The issue of varying stakeholder expectations has significant implications for successful enterprise information system implementation. This issue becomes more prevalent in e‐government situations where a variety of stakeholders are influenced by inter‐organizational knowledge sharing. This paper presents an exploratory investigation of the diverging and converging expectations of various stakeholders at the initiation of e‐government projects with regard to the benefits of and barriers to interorganizational knowledge sharing., – Survey data were collected from seven cases within the New York State (NYS) government setting. We identified two sets of stakeholder groupings in this paper; core/key project participants and general participants (similar to developer/user stakeholder groupings); and; various organizational participants (state government, local government, non‐profit organization, and private organization stakeholders)., – Research results indicated that key participants' expectations were similar to those of general participants/users. Their perceptions converge on the relative likelihood of achieving benefits and relative severity of barriers; although significant differences do exist in discernment of the opportunity for achieving wider professional networks and the magnitude of control‐oriented management. Finally, we found significant differences among stakeholders groups based on the types of organizational membership. Local government stakeholders are considerably less optimistic in achieving goals, and more concerned about a variety of organizational, technological, and financial barriers., – The results provide guidance for e‐government design and implementation strategies that amplify common interests, contend with shared difficulties, and mitigate differences.

[1]  Jane P. Laudon,et al.  Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm , 2010 .

[2]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Understanding Success and Failure in Information Age Reform , 1998 .

[3]  S. Belardo,et al.  Strategic Information Management: Conceptual Frameworks for the Public Sector , 1994 .

[4]  D. Gilbert,et al.  Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e‐government , 2004 .

[5]  Matthew S. Kraatz.  Learning by Association? Interorganizational Networks and Adaptation to Environmental Change , 1998 .

[6]  Isabelle Bouty.  Interpersonal and Interaction Influences on Informal Resource Exchanges Between R&D Researchers Across Organizational Boundaries , 2000 .

[7]  W. Wong,et al.  Does E‐Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability , 2004 .

[8]  Thiagarajan Ravichandran,et al.  Quality Management in Systems Development: An Organizational System Perspective , 2000, MIS Q..

[9]  S. Dawes.  Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks , 1996 .

[10]  Shailendra C. Palvia,et al.  A socio-technical framework for quality assessment of computer information systems , 2001, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[11]  L. Caffrey.  Information Sharing between and within Governments , 2000 .

[12]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations , 1993 .

[13]  Kelly D. Edmiston.  State And Local E-Government , 2003 .

[14]  M. Baba.  Dangerous Liaisons: Trust, Distrust, and Information Technology in American Work Organizations , 1999 .

[15]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[16]  Paul Duguid,et al.  Structure and Spontaneity: Knowledge and Organization , 2001 .

[17]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[18]  M. Brewer,et al.  Collaboration Structure and Information Dilemmas in Biotechnology: Organizational Boundaries as Trust Production , 1994 .

[19]  P McCaffreyDavid,et al.  Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation , 2001 .

[20]  L. Hosmer.  TRUST: THE CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS , 1995 .

[21]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  PARTNERS IN STATE-LOCAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS: LESSONS FROM THE FIELD , 1997 .

[22]  C. Lane,et al.  The Social Constitution of Trust: Supplier Relations in Britain and Germany , 1996 .

[23]  J. Fountain.  Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[24]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[25]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[26]  J. Baron.  Thinking and Deciding , 2023 .

[27]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: A framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches , 1996, Requirements Engineering.

[28]  Carla O'Dell,et al.  If Only We Knew What We Know , 1998 .

[29]  Mary Maureen Brown,et al.  Technology Diffusion and the “Knowledge Barrier”: The Dilemma of Stakeholder Participation , 2003 .

[30]  Sue R. Faerman,et al.  Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation , 2001 .

[31]  S. Sitkin,et al.  Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust , 1993 .

[32]  Anthony M. Cresswell,et al.  Participants' Expectations and the Success of Knowledge Networking in the Public Sector , 2002 .

[33]  Gary Klein,et al.  Perception differences of software success: provider and user views of system metrics , 2002, J. Syst. Softw..

[34]  W. Powell.  Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries , 1998 .

[35]  D. Norris,et al.  Electronic Government at the Local Level , 2003 .

[36]  S. Sitkin,et al.  The Road to Hell: The Dynamics of Distrust in an Era of Quality , 1996 .

[37]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice , 1995 .

[38]  E. Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier , 2000 .

[39]  A. Pouloudi,et al.  Stakeholder identification in inter-organizational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems , 1997 .

[40]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Building Collaborative Digital Government Systems - Systemic constraints and effective practices , 2002, Advances in Digital Government.

[41]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[42]  Paul R. Murphy,et al.  EDI benefits and barriers , 1999 .

[43]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  Multiview - An Exploration in Information Systems Development , 1986, Aust. Comput. J..

[44]  M. J. Moon.  The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[45]  Sue R. Faerman,et al.  The Appeal and Difficulties of Participative Systems , 1995 .

[46]  Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou,et al.  Electronic commerce competitiveness in the public sector: the importance of stakeholder involvement , 2002, Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag..

[47]  Athanasia Pouloudi,et al.  Applying stakeholder analysis to inter-organisational systems in the context of health care in the UK , 1996 .

[48]  Paul J. Hart,et al.  Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Electronic Data Interchange , 1997 .

[49]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study , 1994 .