13.01.2013 Views

A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

A <strong>Local</strong>-<strong>State</strong> <strong>Spatial</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Sharing</strong> <strong>Partnership</strong> Model to Facilitate SDI Development<br />

Many of these benefits can be generalised to explain some of the impacts with spatial data<br />

sharing partnerships, however it would be expected that other benefits such as improved<br />

data quality, access to other organisational data sets and improved communication<br />

channels could also be evident.<br />

3.2.4 Strategies and Theories for Collaboration<br />

Strategies for collaboration refer to alternative plans or approaches available for<br />

structuring inter-organisational planning and action (Mulford & Rogers 1982). Strategies<br />

will vary from organisation to organisation and different strategies may be needed for<br />

public and private sectors. Wood and Gray (1991) assert that there is no single theory that<br />

explains the pre-conditions, processes and outcomes of alliances and collaborations.<br />

Strategies for collaboration can be founded on a variety of approaches such as economic<br />

theory, game theory, strategic management theory or organisational theory (Child &<br />

Faulkner 1998).<br />

Mulford and Rogers examined three managed coordination strategies namely: a mutual<br />

adjustment strategy, alliance strategy and a corporate strategy across six dimensions.<br />

Table 3.2 illustrates cooperation and the three coordination strategies mapped against the<br />

six dimensions of focus, actors, formalisation, resources, power and goals. This<br />

progression from less organisational inter-dependence (co-operation) to greater inter-<br />

dependence within the coordination strategies was described by Dedekorkut (2004) as a<br />

collaboration continuum.<br />

Mulford and Rogers (1982) classified cooperation as having independent goals, few rules<br />

or resources, no loss of autonomy and generally involving the lower ranking staff within<br />

the organisations. Mutual adjustment focuses more on the agencies, common goals tend to<br />

be of a temporary nature and there are few rules or resource commitments. Alliances tend<br />

to be more structured and established at the administration or professional staffing levels.<br />

Rules between the organisations are negotiated in more detail, additional levels of<br />

resources are set aside, more collective goals and joint decision making is required. At<br />

the corporate stage of coordination there are formal agreements, usually signed off by a<br />

CEO, resource commitments are significant, the focus of power is centralised and the<br />

collective goals of the venture are emphasised.<br />

66

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!