Mental models of the challenges of multi-agency information sharing projects: a study using cognitive maps

Electronic Government

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 384-397

  Woosley, John M ^a   Pawlowski, Suzanne D ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cognitive mapping; information sharing; organisational cognition; public sector

Indexed keywords

EID: 84969452167     PISSN: 17407508     EISSN: 17407494     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/EG.2004.005917     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Axelrod, J.R. (Ed.) (1976) The Structure of Decision: Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Barnard, C. (1938) ‘Uncovering cognitive maps: the selfQ technique’, in Morgan, G. (Ed.): Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
3. Baskerville, R., Pawlowski, S. and McLean, E. (2000) ‘Enterprise resource planning and organizational knowledge: patterns of convergence and divergence’, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, December 10–13, pp.396–406.
4. Dawes, S. (1996) ‘Interagency information sharing: expected benefits, manageable risks’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.377–380.
5. Dawes, S.S. and Bloniarz, P.A. (2001) Knowledge Networking in the Public Sector, Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany/SUNY, available at www.ctg.albany.edu/projects/kn/knmenu.html.
6. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998) Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, Sage, London.
7. Eden, C. and Spender, J-C. (1998) Managerial and Organizational Cognition, Sage, London.
8. Huff, A.S. (Ed.) (1990) Mapping Strategic Thought, Wiley, Chichester.
9. Landsbergen, D. and Wolken, G. (1998) Eliminating Legal and Policy Barriers to Interoperable Government Systems, prepared for the Intergovernmental Enterprise Panel, Ohio Supercomputer Center, ECLIPS Program, Columbus, Ohio, http://www.osc.edu/press/releases/1998/phase_1_Policy_Barriers.pdf.
10. National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) (2004) http://www.epa.gov/neengprg/.
11. Orlikowski, W.J. and Gash, D.C. (1994) ‘Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations’, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.174–207.
12. Rantanen, J. and Lehtinen, S. (1997) ‘Finland’s role in promoting collaboration in occupational health and safety’, Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.202–204.
13. Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program (2004) US Department of Justice, http://www.iir.com/RISS/.
14. Rocheleau, B. (1997) ‘Governmental information system problems and failures: a preliminary review’, Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, http://www.pamij.com/roche.html.
15. Rummelhart, D.E. and Ortony, A. (1977) ‘The representation of knowledge in memory’, in Anderson, R.C., Spiro, R.J. and Montague, W.E. (Eds.): Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
16. Schneider, S. and Angelmar, R. (1993) ‘Cognition in organizational analysis: who’s minding the store?’, Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.352–374.
17. Swan, J.A. and Clark, P.A. (1992) ‘Organizational decision making in the diffusion and appropriate of technological innovation: cognitive and political dimensions’, European Work and Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 2, pp.103–127.
18. Swan, J.A. and Newell, S. (1994) ‘Managers’ beliefs about factors affecting the adoption of technological innovation: a study using cognitive maps’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.3–11.
19. Swan, J.A. and Newell, S. (1998) ‘Making sense of technological innovation: the political and social dynamics of cognition’, in Eden, C. and Spender, J-C. (Eds.): Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Theory, Methods and Research, Sage Publications, London, pp.108–129.
20. Tolman, E.C. (1948) ‘Cognitive maps in rats and men’, Psychological Review, Vol. 55, pp.189–208.
21. Walker, D.M. (2002) ‘The implications for public-sector management’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, pp.94–97.