Information systems and partnership in multi-agency networks: an action research project in crime reduction

Abstract Partnership working is becoming an increasingly common methodology in the public sector for addressing complex social issues such as poverty, economic development and crime. Information systems have a vital role to play in enabling such inter-organisational networks and in facilitating the multi-disciplinary collaboration that is essential to joint working. This paper reports a UK-based action research project in the field of community safety. The practical aim was to develop a multi-agency data exchange (MADE) to support 14 crime reduction partnerships in the county of Lancashire in the preparation of their crime reduction strategies, as required by recent government legislation. From a research perspective, the project afforded an opportunity to explore the role of information systems in supporting public sector partnerships, and hence to open up a relatively unresearched element of the broader eGovernment agenda. From a practitioner perspective, MADE has been highly successful; it has provided substantial help to partnerships in the production of their strategies and there is strong demand for the project’s continuation. On the research side, the work has provided valuable insights into the design and development of information systems to support multi-agency collaboration and on the barriers to information sharing. The concept of a “partnership decision support system” emerges from the work, and a number of profitable directions for future research are adumbrated. Methodologically, it is concluded that action research is a valuable research tool for developing relevant and holistic theory in IS.

[1]  Edgar H. Schein,et al.  Process consultation, action research, and clinical inquiry : are they the same? , 1995 .

[2]  Larry Downes,et al.  Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance , 1998 .

[3]  Gerry Stoker,et al.  The new management of British local governance , 1999 .

[4]  E. Schein The clinical perspective in fieldwork , 1987 .

[5]  David Graham Wastell,et al.  Barriers to effective knowledge management: Action Research Meets Grounded Theory , 2001, ECIS.

[6]  S. Easterbrook CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict? , 1993, Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

[7]  Judy McKay,et al.  The dual imperatives of action research , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[8]  P. Senge The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .

[9]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Conducting and Publishing Practice-Driven Research , 1998 .

[10]  D. Greenwood,et al.  Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change , 1998 .

[11]  Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: a proposed framework , 2002 .

[12]  M. Hult,et al.  TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF ACTION RESEARCH: A NOTE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY , 1980 .

[13]  P. Fowler,et al.  Experience using a benchmarking workshop to explore one route to practical technology introduction , 1997 .

[14]  G. Longford,et al.  Digital Restructuring: Gender, Class and Citizenship in the Information Society in Canada , 2000 .

[15]  S. L. Star,et al.  Cooperation Without Consensus in Scientific Problem Solving: Dynamics of Closure in Open Systems , 1993 .

[16]  David Graham Wastell,et al.  Learning Dysfunctions in Information Systems Development: Overcoming The Social Defenses With Transitional Objects , 1999, MIS Q..

[17]  James A. Senn Information Systems in Management , 1978 .

[18]  J. Hiscock,et al.  Looking Inwards, Looking Outwards: Dismantling the “Berlin Wall” Between Health and Social Services? , 1999 .

[19]  F. Leverick,et al.  Partnerships in the motor industry: Opportunities and risks for suppliers , 1998 .

[20]  E. Schein Process consultation revisited : building the helping relationship , 1999 .

[21]  Peter Kawalek,et al.  Plus ça change: defensive translations and resistance to IT-enabled change in local government , 2003, ECIS.

[22]  H. Bradbury,et al.  Handbook of action research , 2006 .

[23]  K. Hambridge Action research. , 2000, Professional nurse.

[24]  Lawrence Pratchett New Technologies and the Modernization of Local Government: an Analysis of Biases and Constraints , 1999 .

[25]  J. Manthorpe,et al.  Unequal Partners? Local Government Reorganization and the Voluntary Sector , 1999 .

[26]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[27]  Natasa Rupcic,et al.  The fifth discipline-the art and practice of the learning organisation , 2002 .

[28]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice , 1999 .

[29]  G. Stoker,et al.  Towards Holistic Governance , 2002 .

[30]  Jane P. Laudon,et al.  Management Information Systems: Organization and Technology in the Networked Enterprise , 1999 .

[31]  M. Rein,et al.  Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States. , 1968 .

[32]  R. Walters,et al.  Locally oriented crime prevention and the “partnership approach”: Politics, practices and prospects , 1999 .

[33]  Benoit Montreuil,et al.  Networked manufacturing:: The impact of information sharing , 1999 .

[34]  M. Craglia,et al.  Joined-up Government in Practice: A Case Study of Children's Needs in Sheffield , 2002 .

[35]  J. Kiely,et al.  Process Consultation: Managing the tensions between learning and performing , 2001 .

[36]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Crossing boundaries and conscripting participation: representing and integrating knowledge in a paper machinery project , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Clayton M. Christensen The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[38]  Sirpa Virta,et al.  Local security management , 2002 .

[39]  Marilyn Taylor,et al.  Partnership working: policy and practice , 2001 .

[40]  C. Ward Community crime prevention: Addressing background and foreground causes of criminal behavior , 1997 .

[41]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Diversity in information systems action research methods , 1998 .

[42]  Gilles Paquet,et al.  E-Governance & government on-line in Canada: Partnerships, people & prospects , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[43]  M. Venkatraman,et al.  Real Strategies for Virtual Organizing , 1998 .

[44]  S. Mackian Complex cultures: rereading the story about health and social capital , 2002 .

[45]  Wai Fong Chua,et al.  The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing , 2001 .

[46]  C. Glendinning,et al.  “Bridging the Gap”: New Relationships between Primary Care Groups and Local Authorities , 2001 .

[47]  Community policing and socialcapital , 2001 .

[48]  Truth or fiction: problems of validity and authenticity in narratives of action research , 2002 .

[49]  Francis Y. Lau,et al.  Toward a framework for action research in information systems studies , 1999, Inf. Technol. People.

[50]  Jan Damsgaard,et al.  Facilitating Technology Transfer Through Partnership : Learning from Practice and Research , 1997 .

[51]  J. Sides Institute of Governmental Studies , 1999 .

[52]  Alistair Mutch,et al.  The English Tourist Network Automation project: a case study in interorganizational system failure , 1996 .

[53]  David Taylor Breaking Down Barriers: Reviewing Partnership Practice , 2001 .

[54]  I. Illich Tools for Conviviality , 1973 .

[55]  Fay Cobb Payton,et al.  Lessons learned from three interorganizational health care information systems , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[56]  Gurpreet Dhillon,et al.  Positioning IS/IT in networked firms , 2003, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[57]  Athanasia Pouloudi,et al.  Information technology for collaborative advantage in healthcare revisited , 1999, Inf. Manag..