research-article

Examining Boundary Objects in Inter-Organizational Information Sharing (IIS) Success

Authors:

Felippe A. Cronemberger,

Djoko Sigit Sayogo,

J. Ramon Gil-GarciaAuthors Info & Claims

dg.o '17: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

Pages 167 - 176

https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085238

Published: 07 June 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Boundary Objects (BO) have been avidly discussed in research, particularly in some fields such as organization theory. Nonetheless, insufficient attention has been given to its relevance to information sharing and integration in inter-organizational systems in the public sector. We use structural equation modeling (SEM) to scrutinize data from a National Survey conducted in the United States in 2008 and look for evidence of the mediating role of boundary objects in contexts of complex organizational interactions. This preliminary study reveals insights about the relativistic nature BOs as mediating structures and draws conclusions about its actual weight with respect to successful collaboration in inter-organizational information exchanges across public organizations. We conclude with a research agenda for the future.

References

[1]

Mark S. Ackerman and Christine Halverson. 1999. Organizational memory: processes, boundary objects, and trajectories. Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE, 12--pp.

Digital Library

[2]

Sanne F. Akkerman and Arthur Bakker. 2011. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev. Educ. Res 81, 2: 132--169.

[3]

Adel M. Aladwani. 2001. Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Bus. Process Manag. J. 7, 3: 266--275.

[4]

Michael Barrett and Eivor Oborn. 2010. Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Hum. Relat. 63, 8: 1199--1221.

[5]

Laura J. Black and David F. Andersen. 2012. Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 29, 2: 194--208.

[6]

Laura J. Black, Anthony M. Cresswell, Luis F. Luna, et al. 2003. A dynamic theory of collaboration: A structural approach to facilitating intergovernmental use of information technology. System Sciences, 2003. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE, 12--pp.

Digital Library

[7]

Paul R. Carlile. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13, 4: 442--455.

Digital Library

[8]

Paul R. Carlile. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15, 5: 555--568.

Digital Library

[9]

Radaphat Chongthammakun and Steven J. Jackson. 2012. Boundary objects, agents, and organizations: Lessons from e-document system development in Thailand. 2012. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), IEEE, 2249-2258.

Digital Library

[10]

Jo Cooke, Joe Langley, Dan Wolstenholme, and Susan Hampshaw. 2016. "Seeing" the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of "Authenticity" in Co-production; Comment on "Collaboration and Co-production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges. Int. J. Health Policy Manag.

[11]

Felippe Cronemberger, Djoko Sigit Sayogo, and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia. 2017. Assessing the Role of Executive Involvement and Information Needs as Socio-Technical Determinants of Governance in IIS Success. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]

Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. 1997. Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge environment. Oxford University Press.

Digital Library

[13]

Sharon S. Dawes, Anthony M. Cresswell, and Theresa A. Pardo. 2009. From "Need to Know" to "Need to Share": Tangled Problems, Information Boundaries, and the Building of Public Sector Knowledge Networks. Public Adm. Rev. 69, 3: 392--402.

[14]

Sharon S. Dawes and Theresa A. Pardo. 2002. Building collaborative digital government systems. In Advances in digital government. Springer, 259--273.

[15]

Lawrence Dooley, Breda Kenny, and Michael Cronin. 2016. Interorganizational innovation across geographic and cognitive boundaries: does firm size matter? RD Manag. 46, S1: 227--243.

[16]

Bill Doolin and Laurie McLeod. 2012. Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21, 5: 570--586.

[17]

W. P. Fisher Jr and A. Jackson Stenner. 2015. The role of metrology in mediating and mobilizing the language and culture of scientific facts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, 012043.

[18]

Allan Fong, Ricardo Valerdi, and Jayakanth Srinivasan. 2007. Using a boundary object framework to analyze interorganizational collaboration. INCOSE International Symposium, Wiley Online Library, 1843--1857.

[19]

Nick J. Fox. 2011. Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology 45, 1: 70--85.

[20]

Mohammed Gharawi and Sharon Dawes. 2010. Conceptualizing knowledge and information sharing in transnational knowledge networks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ACM, 121--130.

Digital Library

[21]

Anthony Giddens. 1991. Structuration theory. Past, Present and Future. In: Bryant, C. and Jary, D.(eds.). Giddens' Theory of Structuration. A Critical Appreciation. London: Routledge.

[22]

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Ahmet Guler, Theresa A. Pardo, and G. Brian Burke. 2010. Trust in government cross-boundary information sharing initiatives: Identifying the determinants. In Proceedings of 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE, 1--10.

Digital Library

[23]

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Theresa A. Pardo, and G. Brian Burke. 2007. Government leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled networks: Lessons from the response to the West Nile virus outbreak. Workshop.

[24]

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Theresa A. Pardo, and Djoko Sigit Sayogo. 2016. From bureaucratic machines to inter-organizational networks: Characterizing the response to the World Trade Center crisis. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy, 10, 4: 568--590.

[25]

Jeremy M. Grimshaw and Ian T. Russell. 1993. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. The Lancet. 342, 8883: 1317--1322.

[26]

Francis Harvey and Nick Chrisman. 1998. Boundary objects and the social construction of GIS technology. Environ. Plan. A 30, 9: 1683--1694.

[27]

B. C. Hawkins, Annie Pye, and Fernando Correia. 2016. Boundary objects, power and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organisations.

[28]

Kathryn Henderson. 1991. Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 16, 4: 448--473.

[29]

Rui Huang, Robert W. Zmud, and R. Leon Price. 2010. Influencing the effectiveness of IT governance practices through steering committees and communication policies. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 3: 288--302.

[30]

Ghiyoung Im and Arun Rai. 2008. Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Manag. Sci., 54, 7: 1281--1296.

Digital Library

[31]

Marijn Janssen and Natalie Helbig. 2016. Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared! Gov. Inf. Q.

[32]

Naim Kapucu and Qian Hu. 2016. Understanding multiplexity of collaborative emergency management networks. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 46, 4: 399--417.

[33]

Chris Kimble, Corinne Grenier, and Karine Goglio-Primard. 2010. Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. Int. J. Inf. Manag.,30, 5: 437--444.

Digital Library

[34]

Bruce Kogut and Udo Zander. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organ. Sci., 7, 5: 502--518.

Digital Library

[35]

Kaj U. Koskinen. 2005. Metaphoric boundary objects as co-ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge sharing of innovation processes. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 8, 3: 323--335.

[36]

John P. Kotter. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.

[37]

Hyuckbin Kwon, Theresa A. Pardo, and G. Brian Burke. 2009. Interorganizational collaboration and community building for the preservation of state government digital information: Lessons from NDIIPP state partnership initiative. Gov. Inf. Q. 26, 1: 186--192.

[38]

Natalia Levina and Emmanuelle Vaast. 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Q: 335--363.

Digital Library

[39]

Xinping Liu and Lei Zheng. 2015. Cross-departmental collaboration in one-stop service center for smart governance in China: Factors, strategies and effectiveness. Gov. Inf. Q.

[40]

Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Laura J. Black, Anthony M. Cresswell, and Theresa A. Pardo. 2008. Knowledge sharing and trust in collaborative requirements analysis. System Dynamics Review 24, 3: 265--297.

[41]

Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Weijia Ran, Holly Jarman, et al. 2013. Group model building to support interdisciplinary theory building. Cent. Technol. Gov. Albany.

[42]

Junlong Luo, Wenfu Li, Jiang Qiu, Dongtao Wei, Yijun Liu, and Qinlin Zhang. 2013. Neural Basis of Scientific Innovation Induced by Heuristic Prototype. PLOS ONE 8, 1: e49231.

[43]

Marc Marheineke, Hagen Habicht, and Kathrin M. Möslein. 2016. Bridging knowledge boundaries: the use of boundary objects in virtual innovation communities. RD Manag. 46, S3: 1084--1094.

[44]

Albert Meijer and Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar. 2016. Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci., 82, 2: 392--408.

[45]

Wanda J. Orlikowski. 1992. The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organ. Sci. 3, 3: 398--427.

Digital Library

[46]

Cliff Oswick and Maxine Robertson. 2009. Boundary Objects Reconsidered: from Bridges and Anchors to Barricades and Mazes. J. Change Manag. 9, 2: 179--193.

[47]

Kellie Owens. 2015. Boundary objects in complementary and alternative medicine: Acupuncture vs. Christian Science. Soc. Sci. Med. 128: 18--24.

[48]

Theresa A. Pardo, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and G. Brian Burke. 2007. Informal leadership and networks: Lessons from the response to the West Nile Virus outbreak. Expanding the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

[49]

Suzanne D. Pawlowski, Dan Robey, and Arjan Raven. 2000. Supporting shared information systems: boundary objects, communities, and brokering. In Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems, Association for Information Systems, 329--338.

Digital Library

[50]

Reinhard Riedl. 2001. Interdisciplinary engineering of interstate E-government solutions. In Cognitive Technology: Instruments of Mind. Springer, 405--420.

Digital Library

[51]

Djoko Sigit Sayogo, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Felippe Cronemberger. 2016. Determinants of Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities in Interagency Information Integration and Sharing (IIS). International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective, Springer, 126--134.

[52]

Anne L. Schneider. 2009. Why do some boundary organizations result in new ideas and practices and others only meet resistance? Examples from juvenile justice. Am. Rev. Public Adm., 39, 1: 60--79.

[53]

Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology,translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907--39. Soc. Stud. Sci., 19, 3: 387--420.

[54]

Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Inf. Syst. Res., 7, 1: 111--134.

Digital Library

[55]

Susan Leigh Star. 2010. This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35, 5: 601--617.

[56]

Susan Leigh Star. 2016. 12 The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. Bound. Objects Work. Leigh Star: 243.

[57]

Jessica Thurk and Gary Alan Fine. 2003. The Problem of Tools Technology and the Sharing of Knowledge. Acta Sociol., 46, 2: 107--117.

[58]

Yenni Tim, Shan L. Pan, Peter Ractham, and Laddawan Kaewkitipong. 2016. Digitally enabled disaster response: the emergence of social media as boundary objects in a flooding disaster. Inf. Syst. J.

Digital Library

[59]

Phil Turner. 2005. Affordance as context. Interact. Comput. 17, 6: 787--800.

Digital Library

[60]

Andrew Van de Ven and Shaker A. Zahra. 2016. Boundary Spanning, Boundary Objects, and Innovation. Manag. Knowl. Integr. Boundaries: 241.

[61]

Anu Wadhwa, Corey Phelps, and Suresh Kotha. 2016. Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm innovation. J. Bus. Ventur., 31, 1: 95--112.

[62]

Chen Wang, Bertrand David, René Chalon, and Chuantao Yin. 2016. Dynamic road lane management study: A Smart City application. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp., Rev. 89: 272--287.

[63]

William H. Warren. 1984. Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 10, 5: 683.

[64]

Etienne Wenger. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Cited By

Cronemberger FGil-Garcia J(2024)Understanding the importance of collaborative problem formulation for data analytics: Key lessons about leadership, governance, and technologyInformation Polity10.3233/IP-211512(1-24)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-211512
Cronemberger FGil-Garcia J(2024)Understanding the importance of collaborative problem formulation for data analytics: Key lessons about leadership, governance, and technologyInformation Polity10.1177/15701255241304597Online publication date: 16-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/15701255241304597

Recommendations

Determinants of Cross-boundary Information Sharing Success: Comparing Intra-agency, Inter-agency, and Cross-sectoral Collaboration Initiatives
dg.o '20: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

Cross-boundary information sharing has been studied for many years now and it is still a very important challenge to government agencies from around the world. Existing literature points to important differences on the determinants of information sharing ...
Understanding the determinants of success in inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: results from a national survey
dg.o '14: Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

Inter-organizational collaboration and information sharing have the potential of generating great benefits to government agencies and other social actors dealing with complex public problems. However, these initiatives have proved to be difficult to ...
Boundary Objects, Agents, and Organizations: Lessons from E-Document System Development in Thailand
HICSS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Star and Griesemer's concept of boundary objects has become a central analytic framework in the fields of science and technology studies (STS), computer supported cooperative work (CSCW), information science, and organizational studies. Scholars have ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

dg.o '17: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

June 2017

639 pages

ISBN:9781450353175

DOI:10.1145/3085228

Copyright © 2017 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

IOS Press: IOS Press
Digital Government Society of North America

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 June 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

dg.o '17

dg.o '17: 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

June 7 - 9, 2017

NY, Staten Island, USA

Acceptance Rates

dg.o '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 66 of 114 submissions, 58%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
146
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Cronemberger FGil-Garcia J(2024)Understanding the importance of collaborative problem formulation for data analytics: Key lessons about leadership, governance, and technologyInformation Polity10.3233/IP-211512(1-24)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-211512
Cronemberger FGil-Garcia J(2024)Understanding the importance of collaborative problem formulation for data analytics: Key lessons about leadership, governance, and technologyInformation Polity10.1177/15701255241304597Online publication date: 16-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/15701255241304597

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten