A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

199
Chapter 7 – Model Development and Discussion
Table 7.1 Identification of significant issues and their source
Identified Issue
or Factor
Source Comments
Economic
S, Th Some evidence exists that the economic environment and shortage
Environment
of resources have influenced the development of data sharing
partnerships.
Geographical Context S The size of both the state and local government jurisdiction has the
potential to impact on the success of the partnership outcomes due
to its correlation with both capacity and support.
Political policies S, Th Impact of political policies such as economic reform, outsourcing of
services and service delivery filter through all jurisdictional levels
Technical Capacity S, L, Th The technical capacity of each organisation to engage in the sharing
of data is important, particularly at local level
Vision S, Th A vision for the future of the data sharing arrangement is important
from both partner perspectives
Shared goal S, L, Th The goal of the data sharing arrangement should be clearly defined
and shared by both partners
Defined Business
S, L, Th The partnership must be able to deliver a clear business benefit to
Need
both organisations for it to work effectively
Resourcing S, L, Th Resources are usually a primary motivator for collaboration or
partnerships. However, resources must be available from within
both organisations to facilitate the partnership operations. Human
and technical resources are important.
Leadership S, L, Th Strong leadership is important particularly at the early stages of the
development of the partnership. This is primarily at state
government level but extends to local governments
Organisational support S, L, Th Important for both state and local government, again particularly at
the start of the partnership. Identified in the factor and regression
analysis
Governance S, Th This was identified as a factor by state agencies particularly as the
partnership processes become more mature
Policy on access and S, L, Th Access and pricing policies are a significant factor in the
pricing
development of partnership arrangements
Capacity Building and S, L, Th The issue of training was highlighted as an important part of building
Training
skills levels in the partnership process
Standards and
S, L, Th Considered a lower priority for local governments but critical for
Metadata
state governments who merge data
Project Management S, Th Identified from the case studies at state government level to be a
critical factor in ongoing success of partnership
Performance
S, Th The outcomes of the partnership should be measurable and meet
Management
the initial goals and objectives
Communication S, L, Th Communication is seen as critical to all areas of collaboration and
data sharing
Measurable outcomes S, L, Th The outcomes from the data sharing partnership should be aligned
with the initial goals including benefits for each partner and wider
community benefits
Defined
S, L, Th Each partner’s responsibilities need to be clearly defined during both
responsibilities and
custodianship
the development and partnership process
Legal environment S, L, Th The legal framework for establishing and maintaining the
partnership agreements is often substantial and a simplified
approach is better. Overarching legislation may provide a supportive
framework.
Control Issues S, L, Th Loss of control is often an issue in sharing of data or resources. As
the understanding of the benefits to business become clearer these
issues become less important
Exchange mechanism S, L, Th An efficient exchange mechanism is required to ensure that the
exchange process is not too onerous
Trust S, L, Th All sources of research identified the need for trust
Negotiation S, Th The negotiation process for partnership development is critical but
often time consuming. The development of an effective negotiation
process will be required at the early stages of development
Note: S- State, L – Local, Th –Theory