Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice of governance mechanisms to promote information sharing via boundary objects in the disaster recovery process

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the difficulties and criticality of information sharing in a multi-agency setting, this paper looks at the IT governance mechanisms used to promote information sharing via shared boundary objects in the disaster response and recovery process. A longitudinal, descriptive case study relates the experiences of a community of disaster recovery stakeholders from a coastal region as they work together to share digital geospatial data on the community’s physical utility infrastructure. Previous research is affirmed and extended in four empirically grounded research propositions addressing the nature of shared boundary objects, multi-agency governance, multi-agency performance metrics, and governance alignment. No exact governance configuration is deemed superior (except maybe avoidance of anarchy); however, there is a strong tendency not only to centralize, but also to retain localized control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adria, M., & Chowdhury, S. D. (2003). Centralization as a design consideration for the management of call centers. Information Management, 41(4), 497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, B. (2009, February 25). Officials eye a geospatial ‘Virtual USA’. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://fcw.com/Articles/2009/02/24/Virtual-USA.aspx?Page=1

  • Baltzan, P., & Phillips, A. (2011). M: Information systems (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information Management, 41(8), 1003–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernroider, E. W. N. (2008). IT governance for enterprise resource planning supported by the DeLone-McLean model of information system success. Information Management, 45(5), 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharosa, N., Lee, J., & Janssen, M. (2010). Challenges and obstacles in sharing and coordinating information during multi-agency disaster response: Propositions from field exercises. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. E., & Grant, G. G. (2005). Framing the frameworks: A review of IT governance research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2005(16), 696–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelnovo, W., & Simonetta, M. (2008). A public value evaluation of e-government policies. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(2), 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: Includes a 30-year retrospective. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, D. K., Lin, D. T., Kafeza, E., Wang, M., Hu, H., Hu, H., & Zhuang, Y. (2010). Alert based disaster notification and resource allocation. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumbie, B.A. (2008). The role of information technology in effective recovery and aiding sustainability of coastal regions after a disaster. (Doctoral dissertation), Available from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database. (UMI No. 3317306).

  • Cumbie, B.A., Cegielski, C.G., & Sankar, C.S. (2009). An exploratory Delphi study among small business executives on adoption of disaster recovery practices. Journal of Information System Security, 5(1), 61–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumbie, B.A., & Sankar, C.S. (2010). The need for effective network Interconnectivity among multiple partners in a disaster-embattled region: A content analysis of an exploratory focus group study. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(3), 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumps, B., Marten, D., De Backer, M., Haesen, R., Viaene, S., Deden, G., Baesens, B., & Snoek, M. (2009). Inferring comprehensible business/ICT alignment rules. Information Management, 46(2), 116–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Carte, T. A. (1998). Using geographical information systems for decision making: Extending cognitive fit theory to map-based presentations. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economic Impact Report (2008). Sweet Home Alabama: Economic Impact Report, http://www.alabama.travel/media-room/report2008/, Retrieved July 18, 2011.

  • Fedorowicz, J., & Gogan, J. L. (2010). Reinvention of interorganizational systems: A sase analysis of the diffusion of a bio-terror surveillance system. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flichy, P. (2007). Understanding technological innovation, a socio-technical approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal, U., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2008). The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organisational identities: The introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 290–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussenot, A., & Missonier, S. (2010). A deeper understanding of evolution of the role of the object in organizational process. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(3), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ipe, M., Raghu, T. S., & Vinze, A. (2010). Information intermediaries for emergency preparedness and response: A case study from public health. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Lee, J., Bharosa, N., & Cresswell, A. (2010). Advances in multi-agency disaster management: Key elements in disaster research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotulic, A. G., & Clark, J. G. (2004). Why there aren’t more information security research studies. Information Management, 41(5), 597–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., Andersson, M., & Hanfridsson, O. (2008). Multi-contexuality in boundary-spanning practices. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(6), 641–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado, E. A., Maitland, C. F., & Tapia, A. H. (2010). Collaborative systems development in disaster relief: The impact of multi-level governance. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, N. P. (2010). Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirchandania, D. A., & Lederer, A. L. (2004). IS planning autonomy is US subsidiaries of multidimensional firms. Information Management, 41(8), 1021–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007a). Successful response starts with a map: Improving geospatial support for disaster management. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007b). Improving Disaster Management: The Role of IT in Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peak, D., Guynes, C. S., & Kroon, V. (2005). Information technology alignment planning - a case study. Information Management, 42(5), 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 3(1), 2–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D., & Sahay, S. (1996). Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographical information systems in county government. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Arrangements for information technology governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 261–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, C., & Brown, C. V. (1997). Differences in end-user computing support and control across user departments. Information Management, 32(2), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translation’ and boundary objects. Amateurs and professionals, Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2009). National Infrastructure Protection Plan, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf, Retrieved July 10, 2011.

  • Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2005). A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5077, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406-0001, USA

    Barry A. Cumbie

  2. College of Business Advisory Council Professor of Information Systems, Auburn University, 415 W. Magnolia, Suite 401, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Chetan S. Sankar

Authors
  1. Barry A. Cumbie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chetan S. Sankar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry A. Cumbie.

Appendix A: Data collection survey

Appendix A: Data collection survey

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cumbie, B.A., Sankar, C.S. Choice of governance mechanisms to promote information sharing via boundary objects in the disaster recovery process. Inf Syst Front 14, 1079–1094 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-011-9338-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-011-9338-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation