A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
level support, a clear aim and was well managed. It also had a strong emphasis on the
technical design of the project including the data model and appropriate standards.
Start-up funding was successfully acquired to initiate the project and early deliverables
were achieved. The ubiquitous nature of the LIST and the wide user base has meant that
the project has maintained its support both across state and local government agencies.
5.5 Case Study Comparison
5.5.1 Determinants and Motivations
The three cases studies were classified under eight determinants for initiating the
partnerships identified from the literature (Dedekorkut 2004; Gray 1985; Mulford &
Rogers 1982; Oliver 1990; Schermerhorn 1975). Table 5.1 summarises the possible
determinants for the establishment of the data sharing partnerships based on the
information gathered during each state government case study. A shaded cell in the table
indicates that the determinant has been assessed as being a significant positive contributor
to the formation of the data sharing arrangement.
The Victorian partnership initiative was developed during a turbulent state economic and
political period. This appears to have been a strong motivator for state government to
establish a collaborative arrangement with the Victorian local authorities. With the State
of Victoria in an economic slump during the mid 1990s, the progressive down sizing of the
public sector and outsourcing of many state government production functions, the State
Government environment was conducive to collaboration. The restructure of local
governments reduced the influence of the Municipal Association of Victoria, and also
created an improved environment for the negotiation with LGAs. The urgent need for the
formation and maintenance of a common cadastral mapbase created a common focus and
goal for both state and local government. The Victorian State Government also recognised
that development of a comprehensive property database relied on the contribution of local
governments. Similarly, LGAs realised that they did not have the resources to build all of
their data sets, so this provided the recognition of their mutual interdependence.
For the Queensland PLI, the motivation for its creation was identified as being a one-sided
data collection exercise by the state government with limited benefit for local government.
The underlying determinant was not so much a shortage of resources, but the recognition
by the state that they could exert some level of power over local governments in order to
obtain their property address databases. Overall, this approach was less than successful as
described in the case study.
148