Technology

Technology barriers refer to any information sharing barrier that is caused by technology this “cover problems associated with hardware, software and/or communications networks” (Gil-Garcia, 20007, p.123).

2.3.3.1 Incompatible Technology and/or Data Structures

Incompatible technology is one of the more explicit barriers to information sharing (Dawes, 1996) as it is visible to the project. Organisations evolve over time and as new technology becomes available they make decisions about what technologies to implement. It is extremely unlikely that two disparate organisations will make exactly the same decisions regarding technology. Even if they have the same products they are unlikely to be utilised them in the same way e.g. databases will be configured differently.

If the organisations who wish to share information have wholly incompatible technologies they will be unable to share information without a large amount of work (increasing the cost of sharing). If there are only minor incompatibilities the organisations may be able to implement an interface which will automate the process of translating the information from one to another (reducing the cost of sharing to the individual).

Example:

A council shares information with a volunteer agency dealing with elderly members of the community.

Case A:

When the local council wishes to make a referral to the volunteer agency they look up the customer record in their database and press a button labelled “refer to volunteer agency”. This automatically generates an email with an attachment containing customer details. This is sent to the agency who are able to open and read the email and action immediately.

Case B:

When the local council wishes to make a referral to the volunteer agency they look up the customer record in their database and press a button labelled “refer to volunteer agency”. This automatically generates an email with an attachment containing customer details. This is sent to the agency who are using a different word processing package and they are unable to open the attachment. A conversion program is used to open. The conversion program does not always work and big portions of text are often missing. The volunteer agency has to go back to the council to get the correct information.

Figure 2-4 Incompatible Technologies example (created by Researcher)

In the scenario detailed in figure 2-4 information sharing is much more likely to occur in situation A where the technology is compatible and the costs of sharing are lower. This simplified example illustrates the potential for incompatible technologies to act as a barrier to sharing.

Inconsistent data structures (Dawes, 1996) are similar to incompatible technologies. The data structure is the organisation of the data i.e. how the data is stored. When two organisations wish to share information they must understand the differences in their data structures e.g. field names and types, so differences can be managed. As long differences are managed the barrier to information sharing will be minimised. However if not managed, inconsistent information may be passed back and forth between the agencies. In the best case scenario nothing will be done with the information (the alternative being the information is used incorrectly). A bigger problem is if organisations use the information they have been passed without considering the data structures; this could result in misleading information which could have consequences for the organisation.

Organisation A Organisation B Field Data contained infield Data contained in field

Name Persons name Persons name

Profit Yearly profit Monthly profit Number Reference number Phone number

Table 2-5 Data Structure Example

Table 2-5 shows data structures from organisation A and organisation B. The two organisations wish to share data regarding profits. Both organisations have a profit and number field the fields refer to different data items. Profit in organisation A refers to the yearly profit whilst in B this refers to monthly profit. If the two databases were shared between the organisations without explanation of the differences any profit analysis of the organisations would be skewed. Table 2-5 simple example shows how inconsistent structures could impact and act as a barrier to information sharing.

2.3.3.2 Security constraints

Sharing information with another organisation brings an immediate problem with security (Oliva, 2005). When the information is solely within one organisations’ domain they have complete control and oversight as to what is happening with it. By opening up information to another organisation a potential weakness is added in security which otherwise would not be there. The security aspects of the sharing process must be carefully considered. Security does not simply refer to technical security e.g. hardware and software but the processes surrounding the information e.g. people accessing the information having relevant security clearance.

If common security procedures cannot be agreed and put in place by all organisations sharing the information security constraints could act as a blocker to information sharing. For example police information requires a minimum security clearance of an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check to reduce the risk police information will be misused. Any proposed project requiring sharing of police information would require any people with access to it to have an enhanced CRB check. If this was not agreed or people did not pass this security test the information sharing could not go ahead.

2.4.3.3 Information Obsolescence

“Has the information been overtaken by events – has the information become incorrect due to new discoveries or information correction” (Oliva, 2005, p.2). Information obsolescence is the concept that each

piece of information has a limited useful life. The phenomenon of information obsolescence is a barrier to information sharing as depending on the information being shared its life cycle could be extremely short. The process of sharing the information needs to consider information obsolence. If the information cannot be shared and assimilated with the relevant organisations in a timely fashion there is no point in sharing the information once it has become obsolete. Keeping data up to date when it is replaced by newer information can be difficult to manage if information is being shared by replication rather than single copy approach (discussed in section 2.3.3.4).

2.4.3.4 Form of Information

Form of information is classified in two ways. Both classifications can act as a barrier to sharing:

• Copy or original? • Product or expertise?

2.4.3.4.1 Copy v Original

According to Bhoolpalam et al (2007) there are two approaches to information sharing (whilst the Bhoolpalam et al (2007) use the term information they are in fact discussing data):

• Single copy – “remains at source, and access queries are moved to that source” (Bhoolpalam et al, 2007, p.935) e.g. there is a central database all users have access to and update. When information is altered it is altered at source and becomes the information.

• Replicated copy – “is moved to other organizations, replicated there and access queries are handled locally” (Bhoolpalam et al, 2007, p.935) e.g. there is a central database, but extracts are carried out regularly and passed to users who maintain their own database. Any change is only in the replicated database not the central database; original information remains intact. Each approach to sharing information has advantages and disadvantages. In the single copy sharing approach there is less likely to be inconsistencies. Changes are made to the centrally stored single source. Everyone with access to the information has access to the same up to date information. A single copy of information minimises the chance of obsolete information stored in multiple copies of replicated data. The replicated sharing approach allows each party to make changes to the data without impacting on another party. For example merging fields into a more appropriate structure for a specific party’s use will not affect another party’s use of the information. Creators of information are more likely to share a replica of information as they are able to retain control of the original source information. For example market information is more suited to a single copy approach as multiple versions of market data could lead to poor decisions regarding

product releases etc. due to inconsistent data. Whereas designs for a new product are more suited to replicated copy; the original design stays intact and others can make changes to their copy, which can then be fed back to the lead designer to make changes where appropriate. The form of information is dependent on the information sharing situation. Using the incorrect form of information may act as a barrier.

2.4.3.4.2 Product v Expertise

Constant et al (1994) carried out a study where they gave respondents scenarios to examine how they would act in certain situations. The study looked to identify whether people shared information differently depending on the form the information took i.e. whether it was a tangible product a person had created or intangible expertise. The scenarios revolved around sharing information with a previously unhelpful colleague. The information they shared took the form of either a computer program (product) they had written or computer advice (expertise). The results showed “people would share a computer program because the work organisation has a right to it, they would share expertise because doing so has personal benefits.” (Constant et al, 1994, p.418). The form of information being shared impacts a persons’ attitude to the ownership of the information.

The study helps to show that if individuals are of the attitude that information is owned by the organisation they will share it. Effectively information constitutes an organisational resource. Sharing expertise brings personal rewards such as satisfaction and increased social status. The study suggests individuals will be more motivated to share expertise due to personal rewards though they will feel compelled to share a product. Depending on the information project either may be shared but different approaches will be required. For example sharing expertise would require greater promotion of the individual benefits i.e. intrinsic motivation, whilst sharing a product would require the creation/promotion of the products ownership by the organisation(s). The form of information therefore may be a barrier to information sharing dependent on the attitude of those sharing.

2.3.3.5 Infrastructure

Infrastructure refers to the hardware and software utilised by the organisation (Pan and Scarbrough, 1998). “A major obstacle to information sharing is the lack of a framework and an infrastructure that allows government organizations to share information” (Bhoopalam et al, 2007, p.1).

Although most organisations do have some network enabled systems in place the idea of giving another organisation access to their system can be an unfavourable one. Looking at the UK public sector where there is a push for organisations to share data and information there is a lack of infrastructure to facilitate information sharing. Programs of work such as e-government, the PSN (Public Sector Network) and the PND

(Police National Database) are looking to improve infrastructure to enable sharing but the process is slow and yet to reach suitable maturity to enable free sharing of information across government agencies.

2.3.4 Summary

Barriers to information sharing are numerous and varied with differing levels of impact at different stages of the information sharing process. The literature has identified these barriers from numerous studies covering both public and private sector studies, internal and external information sharing. All the barriers discussed in section 2.3 have been identified by the researcher from the literature as potentially impacting this research.