A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
It was also found that the determinants for establishing the collaboration could provide a
mechanism for predicting the performance of collaboration. The two partnerships which
were established in more turbulent economic environments, and with an appreciation of
their mutual interdependence, seem to have progressed far more positively. Conversely,
the partnership that was established on the basis of unequal data sharing, and a degree of
exertion of control, has developed less successfully.
The collaborative initiatives also show a direct linkage and correlation to the development
of the SDI at state level. Although this link always has been assumed to exist, little
previous work has attempted to map the determinants of collaboration and the subsequent
collaborative process to the contribution of SDI development.
5.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter has undertaken a comprehensive case study analysis of three state government
jurisdictions and documented their historical and contemporary progress. The qualitative
assessments provided a detailed understanding of the motivations, operation and issues
relating to each of the state initiatives, with particular focus and emphasis on why, how
and what events triggered their initiation and development. The comparisons have
identified important trends in the performance of each of the partnerships and key
operational and institutional issues.
Resource scarcity was found to be a strong positive determinant for collaboration across
the three states, particularly Victoria and Queensland. The alignment of organisational
goals and the recognition of a mutual interdependence promoted a growing level of trust
that was also evident in these two states. Legitimacy was highlighted as a positive
determinant in both Tasmania and Queensland, however the strength of legitimacy as a
long term driver is questioned. The Queensland case study has revealed that collaboration
through the exercise of power, although providing the basis for initiating collaboration,
does not appear to be a successful strategy.
The comparison of the performance of the partnerships has identified a number of
strengths and weaknesses across the six areas investigated. This analysis has found that
the Victoria and Tasmania partnerships appear to be performing more effectively than the
Queensland collaboration. The comparative findings emphasise the importance of
considering the full dimensions of the collaborative process to gain a more accurate
assessment of the partnership’s performance. The comparison of the contributions to SDI
development across the three states confirms the importance of the data sharing
154