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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Dimensions<br />

Actors Lower ranking<br />

members<br />

(subordinates)<br />

Chapter 3 – Collaboration, <strong>Partnership</strong>s and the <strong>Government</strong> Environment<br />

Table 3.2 Collaboration Continuum (Dedekorkut 2004, p. 5)<br />

Managed Coordination Strategies<br />

Cooperation<br />

Mutual<br />

Adjustment<br />

Alliance Corporate<br />

Professionals or<br />

staff members at<br />

the supervisory<br />

level<br />

67<br />

Administrators<br />

(agency heads) or<br />

professionals<br />

Administrators<br />

Formalisation No formal rules Few rules Negotiated rules High formality<br />

Resources Minimal<br />

resources<br />

committed<br />

Focus of<br />

power<br />

Focus of<br />

control<br />

Decentralised<br />

power, largely<br />

independent;<br />

little threat to<br />

autonomy<br />

Informal trade<br />

offs and<br />

reciprocity in<br />

the absence of<br />

rules<br />

Goals Vague,<br />

individual<br />

organisations’<br />

goals<br />

Few resources<br />

committed<br />

Decentralised<br />

power but<br />

interdependent<br />

Reliance on<br />

informal norms and<br />

benefits for<br />

agencies<br />

Primary focus on<br />

agency goals<br />

Medium level of<br />

resource<br />

commitment<br />

May or may not<br />

use central<br />

administrative unit<br />

Interagency system<br />

decisions may have<br />

to be ratified<br />

Agency goals and<br />

collective goals<br />

Resource<br />

commitment high<br />

Centralised power<br />

Interagency<br />

systems decide<br />

regulations that<br />

represent<br />

collective interest<br />

Collective goals<br />

stressed<br />

Wood and Gray (1991) identified that resource dependence, micro-economics and strategic<br />

management theories are effective in explaining some of the preconditions and outcomes<br />

of collaboration, but do not effectively describe the actual process of the collaboration.<br />

Other theories such as political, institutional or negotiated order theories focus on process<br />

but do not adequately examine the determinants or outcomes.<br />

Economic Strategies<br />

From an economic theory perspective, cooperative strategy is explained through a range of<br />

theories including market-power theory, transaction-cost analysis, resource-base theory,<br />

transaction-value theory and agency theory. Market-power theory is a strategy by which<br />

firms attempt to improve their competitive success by securing stronger positions within<br />

markets (Cousins 2001). A collaborative strategy may provide a mutually beneficial<br />

opportunity for organisations to modify the position that they occupy within the industry<br />

and enable them to increase their market power (Child et al. 2005). This strategy may be<br />

initiated through either an offensive or defensive coalition. The offensive coalition is<br />

intended to develop and extend the competitive advantage of that organisation whilst the<br />

defensive coalition would seek to stabilise a position to reduce a declining market.<br />

Market-power theory provides several useful insights into the initiation of collaborations.<br />

However, the theory does not readily explain the processes through which co-operative

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!