A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
capacity and led to the devolution of responsibilities to jurisdictions such as local
government (Commonwealth Government of Australia 2003).
3. Mutual Interdependence: In turbulent environments increased inter- and intra-
organisational interdependencies lead to increased collaboration and building of a
collective capacity (Gray 1989; Mulford & Rogers 1982). This interdependence
could be created by resource scarcity (Alter & Hage 1993) or the need to act on an
organisational goal (Halpert 1982). Gray (1989) identifies that local, state and
federal agencies are dependent on each other for information, policy decisions,
environmental management, social imperatives and economic management. In
Australia, state and local government agencies share the majority of
responsibilities for the management of property related information, so therefore
mutual interdependence should be a reasonably strong motivator.
4. Legitimacy: Oliver (1990) suggests institutional environments impose pressure
on organisations to justify or legitimise their activities and outputs. These
pressures can be motivated by the need to improve their reputation, image, prestige
or congruence with prevailing norms. For example, the prestige of having a
respected individual siting on an organisation’s board may assist in the perception
of improved influence or governance (Schoorman et al. 1981). In the context of
local and state government collaboration, the inclusiveness of stakeholders in the
membership of councils or committees has increased in recent years. Good
examples of this inclusiveness in the Australian environment have been the
inclusion of local government in the membership of state spatial industry councils
such as the Victorian Spatial Council and the Queensland Spatial Information
Council. In turn, this inclusiveness has the capacity to initiate more significant
efforts for collaboration. Lank (2006) suggests that it is much more powerful to be
able to say “we” rather than “I”. When seeking to influence governments or other
organisations it is important to legitimise the group’s role by appearing as a
cohesive force.
5. Fragmented Jurisdictional Structure: Rogers and Mulford (1982, p. 39)
describe fragmentation as “a division of responsibilities among multiple, separate
agencies, each having a unique purpose, but lacking a coherent policy purpose”.
Fragmentation within jurisdictions refers to the somewhat dysfunctional behaviour
that occurs within various levels of government due to efforts to protect “turf” or
the categorical funding by governments (Rogers & Mulford 1982). The result of
fragmentation is a decline in government service, increased inefficiencies,
62