Governance Configurations for Inter-Organizational Coordination: A Study of Public Safety Networks

Abstract

We focus on networked arrangements of digital resources that are shared among otherwise independent units to advance conceptual and empirical insights about their governance. We are motivated by the simple observation that, increasingly, independent organizations are engaging in shared activities, often relying on purpose-built digital infrastructures to support this move to inter-dependence. To advance current conceptualizations of networked governance, we draw on data from 42 public safety networks and use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. We do so because fsQCA allows us to account for the realities of inter-dependence among the concepts and variables we consider and to illuminate the multiple viable governance patterns that are possible. The results show the importance of network-level governance competencies to manage stakeholders and information infrastructure to achieve high effectiveness of PSN. Analysis makes clear that there exist five configurations of PSN governance practices that enable high levels of network governance effectiveness. Common to all these configurations are the network-level competence in managing both stakeholders and the digital infrastructure, suggesting these are necessary (but not sufficient) network-level governance competencies. Building from the analysis, we advance the role of specific network-level governance competencies, and the current conceptualization of network governance more broadly.

Examining the interplay between big data analytics and contextual factors in driving process innovation capabilities

“…Having established these parameters, the fsQCA analyses are then performed using high incremental and radical process innovation capabilities as the dependent variables. The truth tables for each of the two outcome variables is presented in Appendix E along with the number of cases each solution is composed of (Fedorowicz et al, 2018;Park et al, 2017). The algorithm used in our analyses utilises Boolean algebra to logically reduce the truth table rows to simplified combinations.…”

Digital contact-tracing adoption in the COVID-19 pandemic: IT governance for collective action at the societal level

“…This includes the governance of IT buyer-supplier relationships (Xiao et al, 2013) or other forms of external sourcing of IT products and services (Lacity & Hirschheim, 1993). Although still in a nascent stage, the past decade has seen a further increase in research focused on the governance of inter-organisational systems (Fedorowicz et al, 2018;Grant & Tan, 2013), giving rise to networked governance arrangements that emphasise shared accountability over hierarchical control and effectiveness over efficiency (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Closely related to research on networked governance arrangements is the recently growing literature on IT governance at the supra-organisational level, beyond a focal organisation or dyadic relationships.…”

“…Efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making processes in interorganisational systems, typically governed via markets or networked arrangements. (Grant & Tan, 2013); (Fedorowicz et al, 2018); (Lacity & Hirschheim, 1993); (Provan & Kenis, 2008) Supraorganisational governance…”

Investigating the determinants of inter-organizational information sharing within criminal justice: A context-mechanism-outcome approach

“…The fact that technical governance can be a key contributor to effective inter-organizational information sharing for one stream of literature (Fedorowicz et al, 2018) and a nonstatistically significant predictor for another stream (Gil-Garcia & Sayogo, 2016) raises the issue of validity. Are these findings truly inconsistent?…”

“…Or can they be reconciled somehow? Building on the fledgling literature on governance of information-sharing initiatives within the public sector (e.g., Fedorowicz et al, 2018;Sawyer et al, 2013;etc. ), we highlight an emergent approach of IT governance that challenges the traditional view of top-down governance.…”