Common data exchange standards: Determinants for adoption at the municipal level

16th Americas Conference on Information Systems 2010, AMCIS 2010

Volumn 7, Issue , 2010, Pages 5134-5144

  Veit, Daniel ^a   Parasie, Nils ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Data Exchange; E Government; Interoperability; Public Sector; Standards; Technology Adoption

Indexed keywords

COMMON STANDARDS; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; DATA EXCHANGE STANDARD; E-GOVERNMENT; FEDERAL SYSTEMS; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; PUBLIC SECTOR; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INTEROPERABILITY; STANDARDS;

ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE;

EID: 84870266388     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. Allison, G. T. (1982), in: Current Issues in Public Administration, F. Lane (Ed.), St. Martin's Press, New York, 14-29.
2. Banerjee, S., and Golhar, D. Y. (1994) Electronic data interchange: characteristics of users and nonusers, Information and Management, 26, 2, 65-74.
3. Barua, A., and Lee, B. (1997) An Economic Analysis of the Introduction of an Electronic Data Interchange System, Information Systems Research, 8, 4, 398-422.
4. Bhatnagar, S. (2004) E-Government: From Vision to Implementation, SAGE Publications, New Delhi.
5. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
6. Boyne, G. A. (2002) Public and Private Management: What's the Difference?, Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1, 97-122.
7. Bozeman, B., and Bretschneider, S. (1986) Public Management Information Systems: Theory and Prescription, Public Administration Review, 46, Special Issue: Public Management Information Systems, 475-487.
8. Bretschneider, S. (1990) Management Information Systems in Public and Private Organizations: An Empirical Test, Public Administration Review, 50, 5, 536-545.
9. Capgemini (2006) Online Availability of Public Services: How is Europe Progressing?, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/online_availability_2006.pdf, access date: 01/22/2010.
10. Caudle, S. L., Gorr, W. L., and Newcomer, K. E. (1991) Key Information Systems Management Issues for the Public Sector, MIS Quarterly, 15, 2, 171-188.
11. Charalabidis, Y., Lampathaki, F., and Askounis, D. (2009) A Comparative Analysis of National Interoperability Frameworks, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 6-9, San Francisco, CA, USA, Paper 694.
12. Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S. (2001) Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI Adoption Model, Information Systems Research, 12, 3, 304-321.
13. Coursey, D., and Norris, D. F. (2008) Models of E-Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment, Public Administration Review, 68, 3, 523-536.
14. Davis, F. D. (1986) A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
15. Dubé, L., and Paré, G. (2003) Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations, MIS Quarterly, 27, 4, 597-636.
16. Farrell, J., and Saloner, G. (1986) Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation, The American Economic Review, 76, 5, 940-955.
17. Ferguson, D. M., Hill, N. C., and Hansen, J. V. (1990) Electronic Data Interchange: Foundations and Survey Evidence on Current Use, Journal of Information Systems, 4, 2, 81-91.
18. Foley, P., and Alfonso, X. (2009) eGovernment and the Transformation Agenda, Public Administration, 87, 2, 371-396.
19. German Federal Ministry of the Interior (2008) Report on the Study 'XÖV-Landkarte' of the Deutschland-Online Project Standardization (in German), http://www.deutschland-online.de/DOL_Internet/binarywriterservlet?imgUid=4f030bab-2552-fe11-d88e-f1ac0c2f214a&uBasVariant=22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222, access date: 01/22/2010.
20. German Federal Statistical Office (2008) Gemeindeverzeichnis 2008-Administrative Gebietsgliederungen, Wiesbaden, http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichn is/Administrativ/AdministrativeUebersicht, access date: 11/25/2009.
21. Guijarro, L. (2007) Interoperability Frameworks and Enterprise Architectures in E-Government Initiatives in Europe and the United States, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 1, 89-101.
22. Hansen, J. V., and Hill, N. C. (1989) Control and Audit of Electronic Data Interchange, MIS Quarterly, 13, 4, 403-413.
23. Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., and Lacity, M. C. (2006) A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research, Journal of Information Technology, 21, 1, 1-23.
24. Jones, R., and Pendlebury, M. (2000) Public sector accounting, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
25. Katz, M. L., and Shapiro, C. (1985) Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, The American Economic Review, 75, 3, 424-440.
26. Kraemer, K. L., and King, J. L. (1986) Computing and Public Organizations, Public Administration Review, 46, Special Issue-Public Management Information Systems, 488-496.
27. Kubicek, H., and Wind, M. (2004) Integriertes E-Government auch im föderalen Staat? Herausforderungen auf dem Weg zu effizienten Verwaltungsverfahren (in German), Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften, 43, 2, 48-63.
28. Lampathaki, F., Gionis, G., Koussouris, S., and Askounis, D. (2009) Enabling Semantic Interoperability in e-Government: A System-based Methodological Framework for XML Schema Management at National Level, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 6-9, San Francisco, CA, USA, Paper 620.
29. Norris, D. F., and Lloyd, B. A. (2008), in: E-government Research: Policy and Management, D. Norris (Ed.), Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, USA, 21-41.
30. Parasie, N., and Veit, D. (2008) Nationale E-Government Standards: Mehr Interoperabilität durch zentrale Richtlinien? (in German), Proceedings of the Multi-Conference Information Systems (Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik), February 26-28, Munich, Germany, 403-417.
31. Rainey, H. G., and Bozeman, B. (2000) Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the A Priori, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 2, 447-469.
32. Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York.
33. Scharpf, F. W. (2006) The Joint-Decision Trap Revisited, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 4, 845-864.
34. Shapiro, C., and Varian, H. R. (1999) Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Havard Business School Press, Boston.
35. United Nations (2008) UN Government Survey 2008: From E-Government to Connected Governance, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan028607.pdf, access date: 01/22/2010.
36. Veit, D., and Parasie, N. (2009) Can National E-Government Standards find Acceptance?, Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 5-8, Waikoloa, HI, USA.
37. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003) User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View, MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425-478.
38. West, D. M. (2005) Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford.
39. Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles.