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 />

• Tasmanian <strong>Government</strong> Department of the Premier <strong>State</strong> and <strong>Local</strong> <strong>Government</strong><br />

<strong>Partnership</strong> Agreements; and<br />

• A Protocol establishing roles and responsibilities of the <strong>State</strong> <strong>Government</strong> and<br />

<strong>Local</strong> <strong>Government</strong> in the Queensland System of <strong>Local</strong> <strong>Government</strong>.<br />

80<br />

(DLGRP 2006)<br />

Dollery (2005, p. 8) examined the effectiveness of the different state partnership strategies<br />

between Australian state and local governments and found that “the <strong>State</strong> of Tasmania<br />

undoubtedly leads the field in terms of its whole of government approach to engaging<br />

municipalities”. In 1999, the Tasmanian <strong>Government</strong> partnership strategy was initiated to<br />

improve the delivery of government and have a positive influence on the government’s<br />

social, economic and environmental strategies. Part of the Tasmanian partnership<br />

strategy’s effectiveness was the “whole of government” approach, high level support and<br />

well developed protocols (Dollery 2005).<br />

3.3.5 Hierarchical Organisations and <strong>Partnership</strong>s<br />

<strong>Partnership</strong>s operate differently from conventional organisational structures as they tend to<br />

operate horizontally across organisations rather than vertically in the typical hierarchical<br />

structures of government. Bergquist et al. (1995) examined the dimension of partnerships<br />

and hierarchical organisations and identified a number of differences in their operation.<br />

Table 3.6 highlights the differences across seven dimensions namely shared direction,<br />

structure, systems, culture, operations, competency and leadership.<br />

Table 3.6 Comparison of hierarchical organisations and partnerships (Bergquist et al. 1995, p. 20)<br />

Dimension Hierarchical<br />

Organisations<br />

<strong>Partnership</strong>s<br />

Shared Vision Company focus Industry or market focus<br />

Structure Pyramidal Flat or networked<br />

Systems Top down or bottom up Interactive<br />

Culture Paternalistic Collaborative<br />

Operations Productive Adaptive<br />

Competency Function-driven Process-driven<br />

Leadership and<br />

management<br />

Position-based Initiative or team based<br />

As can be seen in Table 3.6, partnerships are not organisationally focussed but are more<br />

process or product focussed. In terms of operation, partnerships are dynamic, and often<br />

will be in conflict with the conventional hierarchical operations and leadership.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!