Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

The boundaries of information sharing and integration: A case study of

Taiwan e-Government
Tung-Mou Yang a, Lei Zheng b,, Theresa Pardo c
a
b
c

Department of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, 10617 Taiwan, R.O.C.
School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University 220 Handan Rd., Shanghai 200433, China
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York 187 Wolf Rd., Suite 301, Albany, NY 12205, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 3 December 2011

Keywords:
Information sharing
Boundary
Electronic government
Taiwan

a b s t r a c t
The paper explores boundaries of cross-boundary information sharing and integration in the context of
Taiwan e-Government by using an integrated framework of boundaries adopted from the literature. The
discussion of the various boundaries provides a thorough lens to understand the complexity of crossboundary information sharing and integration. The adopted framework of boundaries is proved to be a
useful analytical tool to perceive various vertical and horizontal boundaries in initiatives of crossboundary information sharing and integration in different e-Government contexts. A new process
boundary in the vertical dimension is also identied. In addition, the case shows that centralized information
systems can help government agencies to cross the boundaries of information sharing and reduce the number
of boundaries government agencies may encounter. Lastly, it is perceived that vertical boundaries are not always
easier to cross than horizontal boundaries.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Electronic government (e-Government) has been an important
strategy for attaining effectiveness and efciency in government
administrations and public services (Dawes, 2008, 2009; Gil-Garcia,
Chengalur-Smith, & Duchessi, 2007; Pardo & Tayi, 2007). Researchers
dene e-Government as the delivery of government services (information, interaction, and transaction) through the use of information
and communication technologies to improve daily business, reduce
expenses, and increase the quality of services (Bekkers, 2007; GilGarcia & Martinez-Moyano, 2007; Moon, 2002). During e-Government
development, cross-boundary information sharing and integration is
important when critical information for running government
operations are usually scattered around government agencies
maintaining respective information systems. The demand for crossboundary information sharing and integration exists not only across
different levels of government agencies (the vertical dimension) but
also among government agencies with different functionalities (the
horizontal dimension) (Gil-Garcia & Martinez-Moyano, 2007; Klievink
& Janssen, 2008, 2009; Layne & Lee, 2001; Schooley & Horan, 2007;
Siau & Long, 2005). The scope of cross-boundary information sharing
and integration also varies in terms of involving national contexts and

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tmyang@ntu.edu.tw (T.-M. Yang), zhengl@fudan.edu.cn,
liddelz@gmail.com (L. Zheng), tpardo@ctg.albany.edu (T. Pardo).
0740-624X/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.014

levels of government while e-Government develops among local,

state, and national governments (Gil-Garcia & Martinez-Moyano,
2007). With cross-boundary information sharing and integration,
more effective actions can be applied to solve complex problems, and
electronic data can be easier to duplicate and manipulate. Hence, cost
is reduced, efciency is accomplished, and government agencies can
act faster to identify problems and react with prompt responsiveness
(Gil-Garcia, Soon Ae, & Janssen, 2009; Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001;
Luna-Reyes, Gil-Garcia, & Cruz, 2007).
Nevertheless, government organizations have different levels,
functionalities, goals, values, and cultures, and thus cross-boundary
information sharing and integration can become a complex task. In
the literature, Gil-Garcia, Pardo, and Burke (2010) provide preliminary
denitions of four components of cross-boundary information sharing
and integration. The proposed four components are trusted social
networks, shared information, integrated data, and interoperable
technical infrastructure, which cover both technical and social
aspects. In addition, the literature also discusses various barriers
and enablers of cross-boundary information sharing and integration
from different perspectives including technological, organizational,
sociological, ideological, and political contexts in order to comprehend the complexity of cross-boundary information sharing and
integration (Dawes, 1996; Dawes, Cresswell, & Pardo, 2009;
Fedorowicz, Gogan, & Williams, 2007; Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005;
Gil-Garcia et al., 2007, 2009; Harrison, Pardo, Gil-Garcia, Thompson,
& Juraga, 2007; Pardo & Tayi, 2007; Schooley & Horan, 2007; Yang &
Maxwell, 2011; Zhang & Dawes, 2006; Zheng, Jiang, Yang, & Pardo,
2008).

S52

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

2. What are the boundaries?

However, what are the boundaries in cross-boundary information
sharing and integration? In existing concepts such as working environment, organizational task, and relations with others, boundaries can be
described as discontinuities, representing the incoherence and gaps
between two entities (Espinosa, Cummings, Wilson, & Pearce,
2003; Zheng, Yang, Pardo, & Jiang, 2009). Regarding the denition
of boundary in the context of cross-boundary information sharing
and integration in the public sector, current literature has mainly
focused on organizational boundaries. In addition, personal, sectoral,
and geographic boundaries are also identied in the literature. Zheng
et al. (2009) give the following distinction between boundaries and
barriers in cross-boundary information sharing and integration: Put
simply, a boundary is a line we need or want to cross, and a barrier is
what prevents us from crossing. The difculty of crossing a specic
boundary is determined by the existence of certain political, organizational and technological barriers around it. The difculty of boundary
crossing can be much lower when signicant barriers do not exist or
have been removed. Barriers may therefore be overcome or eliminated
with some efforts, but boundaries tend to exist for a long period of time
unless signicant institutional changes occur to remove them. The
following subsections summarize the discussions about boundaries
of information sharing and integration in the literature.

Galivan, 2001), and the information ow across the sectoral boundary

has been further increased.
Furthermore, geographic boundaries exist in cross-boundary
information sharing when government agencies are spread in various
geographic locations (Williams et al., 2009). Different cultures and
time zones can cause challenges in collaboration work (Espinosa et al.,
2003; Orlikowski, 2002). Distance between two geographic locations
can also lead to inefcient communication, misunderstanding, and
conict (Armstrong & Cole, 2002; Espinosa et al., 2003). An international boundary exists further when information sharing initiatives
involve inter-organizational collaborations across nations (Navarrete,
Gil-Garcia, Mellouli, Pardo, & Scholl, 2010).
2.3. Development level and process boundaries
Zheng et al. (2009) claim that when gaps exist in the levels of
technological, managerial, personnel, and economic developments
of participating organizations, a development level boundary can
occur. It is observed that information sharing initiatives seem to
work better in organizations with similar development levels than
those with different development levels. In addition, process boundary
also takes place when organizations do not participate in the same
business process. It is believed that organizations participating in
the same business process are more likely to share information with
one another than those that are not (Zheng et al., 2009).

2.1. Organizational boundary

2.4. An integrated framework of the boundaries
Organizational boundary in information sharing and integration has
been studied from both the vertical and horizontal dimensions (Black,
Carlile, & Repenning, 2004; Bouty, 2000; Chen, Gangopadhyay,
Holden, Karabatis, & McGuire, 2007). Vertical hierarchical structure
can hinder information sharing and integration of organizational units
residing in different levels (Tsai, 2002). Horizontal departmentization
can also impede information sharing among horizontal departments
with different functionalities (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland,
2000; Willem & Buelens, 2007). Due to the differences in expertise,
experiences, and regulations in different domains, organizational
boundaries exist among different organizations or departments
(Carlile, 2004; Espinosa et al., 2003). It is also pointed out in literature
that organizational boundaries occur among government agencies due
to the differences in their dened missions, utilized resources, organized
capacities, assigned responsibilities, and respective accountabilities
(Artigas, Elefante, & Marti, 2009; Fedorowicz et al., 2007; Harrison et
al., 2007; Kettl, 2006; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007). In the public sector,
organizational boundaries are also the result of legislation creating
certain departments or agencies and dening their missions
(Dawes, 1996; Pardo, Cresswell, Dawes, & Burke, 2004).
2.2. Personal, sectoral, and geographic boundaries
Personal boundaries also play an important role in information
sharing and integration. Interpersonal relationships and interactions
can inuence attitudes and intentions to share information. Informal
relationships such as personal networks that are not previously
arranged and dened by hierarchy and regulation can result in more
intense and effective information sharing between departments of an
organization (Tsai, 2002; Willem & Buelens, 2007).
In addition, a sectoral boundary exists between the public and the
private sectors. Organizations in the public sector can own different
origins, values, and cultures from those in the private sector (Pardo
& Tayi, 2007; Pardo et al., 2004). Researchers suggest that governmental information sharing and integration should not be limited to
the public sector only. Both the private and the non-prot sectors
need to be included to provide more integrated services to the public
(Chan, Lau, & Pan, 2008). There are also more and more governmental
information systems outsourced to the private sector (Beyah &

Zheng et al. (2009) proposes a two-dimensional and interactive

framework to give a comprehensive illustration of the boundaries in
cross-boundary information sharing and integration (see Fig. 1). In
the vertical dimension of the framework, there are four boundaries,
which are the hierarchical boundary, the personal boundary, the
geographic boundary, and the development level boundary. In the
horizontal dimension of the framework, there are six boundaries,
the departmental boundary, the personal boundary, the geographic
boundary, the development level boundary, the process boundary,
and the sectoral boundary. When recent research seems to show
that boundaries of the vertical dimension are less complex than
those of the horizontal dimension (Chan et al., 2008; Klievink &
Janssen, 2009; Layne & Lee, 2001), Zheng et al. (2009) claim that
boundaries of the vertical and horizontal dimensions are equally
important and can exist simultaneously. For instance, crossing a
hierarchical boundary in the vertical dimension is not always easier
than crossing a departmental boundary in the horizontal dimension
as some researchers have suggested (Zheng et al., 2009).
While most information-sharing related literature is developed in
the context of Western countries, and Zheng et al.'s (2009) framework
of boundaries is built based on a case study in Mainland China, it is
interesting to further verify the framework of boundaries in other

Fig. 1. A framework of boundaries in cross-boundary information sharing and

integration.

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

e-Government contexts. In addition, a research gap in the literature

also emerges with regard to how these boundaries are bridged to
achieve information sharing and integration. The following research
questions are proposed for the study:
1. Can the proposed framework of boundaries be applied to other
national contexts of e-Government?
2. What are the boundaries of information sharing and integration in
other national contexts of e-Government?
3. How are the perceived boundaries bridged to achieve information
sharing and integration?
3. Research design and method
This study adopts a case study method to extend the framework in
literature to a different context. In particular, a case of the
e-Networking Project of Government Online Service in Taiwan is
studied in the research. This project was a sub-plan of the Challenge
2008Taiwan National Development Plan proposed by the Cabinet
of Taiwan in 2002, and the duration of the project was from 2002 to
2007. The research explores the case through both the vertical and
horizontal networks in the context of Taiwan e-Government (see
Fig. 2).
Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews
with key actors from central and local government who participated in
the related initiatives. A purposive sampling by using snowball
sampling method was adopted to identify relevant interviewees.
Purposive sampling is usually employed in the selection of
information-rich cases to conduct in-depth study (Wengraf,
2001). In total, twenty-eight participants were interviewed. The
average duration of the interviews was about one hour and thirty
minutes. In-depth and semi-structured interviews were used to collect
data for analysis. Semi-structured interviews have the exibility to
follow up on new information presented in the context of an interview
and to explore in-depth new ndings. According to Bryman (2004), an
interviewer using semi-structured interviews usually has a series of
questions that are in the general form of an interview protocol but the
sequence of interview questions can vary during interviewing.
The interviewer can ask further questions when something important
is provided (Bryman, 2004). In addition, government documentation
and reports, and related reports and documents from newspapers and
non-governmental organizations were also collected and used for the
purpose of data analysis.
The collected data were transcribed and analyzed by applying
grounded theory techniques. Three types of coding, open coding,
axial coding, and selective coding, are adopted to analyze and

S53

interpret qualitative data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). During the

data analysis, the qualitative software tool (Atlas.ti) is employed to
support coding and analysis activities.
4. Case study
Taiwan has started developing its e-Government since 1997. In the
past decade, Taiwan e-Government has focused effort on developing
initiatives of cross-boundary information sharing and integration. The
case of interest in the study, the e-Networking Project of Government
Online Service, was started as a follow-up project to continue promoting
cross-boundary information sharing and integration when information
systems were built across the government agencies of Taiwan.
The goal of the project is to provide integrated and efcient services
to the public, private rms, public organizations, as well as government
agencies through cross-boundary information sharing and integration
across several major information systems. The major information
systems include the Household Registration Information System
(HRIS), the Land Administration Information System (LAIS), the
Financial Taxation Information Systems (FTIS), the Commerce
Information Systems (CIS), and the Motor Vehicle & Driver Information
Systems (MVDIS). The ve systems are the backbone information
systems and the foundation of Taiwan e-Government. Most government
agencies of Taiwan have to acquire information periodically from the ve
major information systems to run their daily operations.
In the e-Networking Project of Government Online Service, in
addition to strengthening information sharing and integration
across the vertical boundaries of government agencies, the Taiwan
government endeavors most of its effort to promote information
sharing and integration across the horizontal boundaries. In the project,
a Government Service Platform was designed and established to act as
an intermediary for government agencies to develop and implement
cross-agency service integration. The network of Government Service
Platform is a star-shaped network that participating government
agencies connect to the platform. The platform is designed to save
time and expense so that government agencies can focus on developing
innovative services and leave the technical complexity enclosed in the
platform.
5. The ndings
Different boundaries of cross-boundary information sharing and
integration identied in the case study are presented and illustrated
from both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. In addition,
centralized information systems utilized in the both dimensions
are observed to help government agencies to cross boundaries

Fig. 2. The institutional context of the research.

S54

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

and reduce the number of boundaries government agencies may

encounter.
5.1. Vertical dimension
In the vertical dimension, ows of cross-boundary information
sharing are passed down or up vertically across government agencies.
The vertical dimension usually involves the interaction between central
government agencies and local government agencies.
5.1.1. Hierarchical boundary
A hierarchical boundary is dened as a boundary existing between
a higher-level government agency and a lower-level government
agency. In the case study, a hierarchical boundary can be recognized
between a central government agency and a local government agency,
for instance, in the Household Registration Information System
(HRIS), three levels of government agencies are involved in crossboundary information sharing and integration. The Department of
Household Registration (DHR) is a central government agency under
Ministry of the Interior. The Department of Civil Affairs (DCA) and
the Household Registration Ofces (HRO) are local government
agencies under County Government. There is a hierarchical boundary
between the DHR and the DCAs. The relationship between government
agencies at the two levels is indirect in terms of administrative structure
but direct in cross-boundary information sharing. A DCA usually directly
reports to a county government. However, the DHR and the DCAs have
the same core business (household registration), and the DHR provides
policy and operational guidance to the DCAs in the local government
level. The HROs are the township government agencies to obtain
household information directly from the public. The obtained household information is shared with the DCAs at the county government
level. Then the DCAs further share the information to the DHR at
the central government level. An interviewee stated:
Study participant P13: the local Household Registration Ofces are
very important. They are the front line to the public. Information
collected by them is shared to us, the Department of Civil Affairs,
and we share the information to the central government agency,
the Department of Household Registration. There are total three
levels, township level, county government level, and central
government level.
On the other hand, a reverse hierarchical boundary also exists
when there is an information-sharing requirement between two
local government agencies of different counties. For instance, when
the DCA in county A requires information sharing from the DCA in
county B, the DCA in county A needs to contact the DHR in the central
government to acquire information rather than to contact the DCA in
county B. Because the Household Registration Information System is
built in a centralized hierarchical structure, the information sharing
between the two DCAs of different counties needs the DHR to act as
an intermediary. Therefore, the information sharing activity between
the DHR and the DCAs is bi-directional to cross the hierarchical
boundary. Similarly, there are also hierarchical boundaries existing
in the other four aforementioned information systems.
5.1.2. Process boundary
When the literature identies a process boundary between
organizations with disparate business processes at the horizontal
level, the case study in Taiwan nds that a process boundary could
also exist between government agencies that are not connected
with the same business processes in the vertical dimension. In the
case study, if other central government agencies would like to have
information sharing from the local government agencies of the ve
major information systems, they would have to contact the responsible

central government agencies of the ve major information systems

rather than the local government agencies.
However, if a central government agency would like to have
information sharing from other local government agencies outside
of the ve major information systems, a process boundary in the
vertical dimension can appear if the central government agency does
not have connected business process with the local government
agencies. For instance, there is no centralized social affairs information
system. To run its new operation, in addition to acquiring information
from some major information systems, the Bureau of Labor Insurance
needs to have information sharing from every Department of Social
Affairs in the local government level. Because of different core
businesses and no connected business process, there is a process
boundary existing between the Bureau of Labor Insurance in the
central government and the Department of Social Affairs of every local
government. An interviewee from a central government agency stated:
Study participant P8: Although we have to acquire information
from the local government agencies, we actually have different core
business and our business processes are not connected. However,
we currently need their information to run our new business.

5.1.3. Geographic boundary

A geographic boundary is a naturally formed boundary that can
not be removed unless there is a signicant institutional change.
When a central government agency has information-sharing activities
with a local government agency, a geographic boundary naturally
exists between the two government agencies. A geographic boundary
could involve properties such as physical distance, geographic terrain,
and time zone. For a central government agency, some local government
agencies may be located just a few blocks or miles away, but some may
be located in remote areas. In the case study, each of the ve major
information systems involves a responsible central government agency
and local government agencies located in different counties, and
consequently geographic boundaries exist among them.
5.1.4. Development level boundary
Informatization asymmetry can be an example of development
level boundary. In the case study, central government agencies and
local government agencies located in metropolitan areas have better
funding and resources to develop their information infrastructure
than do those remote local government agencies. A development
level boundary in terms of informatization asymmetry between a
central government agency and a remote local government agency
is gradually formed and broadened. In addition, it is also evident
that some local government agencies located in large cities such as
Taipei and Kaoshiung are more advanced in terms of their information
infrastructure than central government agencies. Therefore, a reverse
informatization asymmetry appears. An interviewee from a central
government agency stated:
Study participant P4: According to our experience, local
government agencies in large cities such as Taipei, Tacichung,
and Kaoshiung do have much better information environments
for us to develop and deploy the information system. They have
more information professionals and sufcient funding than do
other local agencies in local governments such as Taidung, Yunlin
and Miaoli. If we don't give a hand to those local government
agencies with weaker information environments, they would
never make it

5.1.5. Personal boundary

In addition to the aforementioned four boundaries formed by
the organizational structures, the geographic locations, and the

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

development divides, there is also an informally formed personal

boundary existing in the vertical dimension of cross-boundary
information sharing. A personal boundary could appear between a
central government agency and a local government agency when
they communicate and negotiate an initiative of cross-boundary
information sharing. A personal boundary could exist between
representative personnel involved in the initiative. A personal
boundary is naturally formed thanks to various participating individuals
and their different standpoints and perspectives. Therefore, individual
characteristics, communication skills, and personal involvement are
important inuential factors when it comes to cross a personal boundary.
Some interviewees stated:
Study participant P2: In the stage of communication and negotiation
for information sharing, the leaders and the representatives of
government agencies matter. Their personal characteristics and
relationship building during interactions matter. It is sometimes
more complicated in the aspect of personal interaction than in
the aspect of regulation and legislation.
Study participant P10-1: The personal interaction, relationship
building, and the ability in communication skills are important.
When you have to deal with the government agencies in the local
government level, it means that you have to interact and negotiate
with many people from different areas and with different personal
characteristics.
In sum, in the case study, the ve identied boundaries in the
vertical dimension are hierarchical boundary, process boundary,
geographic boundary, development level boundary, and personal
boundary.

5.2. Horizontal dimension

In the horizontal dimension, ows of cross-boundary information
sharing are passed horizontally among parallel government agencies
at the same level. The following subsections discuss these horizontal
boundaries identied in the case study.

S55

5.2.1. Departmental boundary

A departmental boundary is dened as a boundary formed by
governmental structure. The boundary can occur between two or
more parallel government agencies at the same level.
At the central government level, an intra-ministry departmental
boundary can exist between two government departments within the
same ministry. For instance, the Department of Land Administration
needs to have information shared by the Department of Household
Registration for identity conrmation of land administration. The
two government agencies are both under the Ministry of the Interior
(see Fig. 3). An interviewee stated:
Study participant P2: We also share information with other
agencies within the Ministry of the Interior. Ministry of the Interior
is the largest governmental organization and contains many different
agencies. However, even within the same ministry, we also need to
follow the same procedure by using ofcial documents to understand
whether the information sharing is necessary. The process cannot be
ignored just because we are in the same ministry.
A departmental boundary can be further extended to the government
agencies across different ministries. For instance, to achieve efciency
and accuracy in its taxation business, the Financial Data Center requires
information shared by the Department of Household Registration. The
two central government agencies belong to two different ministries,
and clearly an inter-ministry departmental boundary appears between
them. Therefore a departmental boundary can exist at both intraministry level and inter-ministry level (see Fig. 3). In this case study, a
departmental boundary in the inter-ministry level is believed to be
more difcult to cross because of the increasing number of barriers
surrounding the boundary. An interviewee stated:
Study participant P14: I believe the bureaucracy structure is stricter
at the central government level. There is a structure formed to
separate different government agencies, especially those in different
ministries.
At the local government level, there is also a departmental boundary
between parallel local government agencies. For instance, if a Local Tax

Fig. 3. The departmental boundary in the horizontal dimension.

S56

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

Bureau cannot reach a certain taxpayer via its own information, the
agency needs to contact the Department of Civil Affairs in its county
to acquire taxpayers' updated contact information. The ow of information sharing is horizontal between the two parallel local government
agencies at the same level (see Fig. 3).
However, in this case study, a departmental boundary between
two local government agencies in two different counties was alleviated
to some extent. The ve major information systems in the case are
designed, deployed, and maintained in a centralized structure. If the
Local Tax Bureau of local government B needs to retrieve information
from the Department of Civil Affairs of local government A, the local
government agency has to go up to the central government level and
have the Financial Data Center act as an intermediary to contact the
Department of Household Registration to acquire the information
rather than directly contact the local agency of local government A
(see Fig. 3). The approach is to remove as many departmental boundaries as possible by utilizing the centralized information systems. Otherwise, the number of departmental boundary for a local government
agency may increase drastically, and the challenges to cross different
departmental boundaries can vary from one another. An interviewee
stated:
Study participant P3-1: If the local government agencies are within
the same county, they can directly share information. That is the
autonomy of a local government. However, if the information a
local government agency needs is national-wide information or is
information of other counties, it is necessary for the local government
agency to contact and acquire the information through its functional
government agency in the central government level.

5.2.2. Process boundary

In the horizontal dimension, a process boundary appears when
two government agencies at the same level do not have connected
business process. For instance, in its Financial Taxation Information
System, the Financial Data Center has its core business connected
with other central government agencies such as the agencies of
National Tax Administration. Because of this already connected
business processes, there is no process boundary between the
Financial Data Center and the agencies of National Tax Administration.
However, it often happens that a government agency needs to have
information shared by other government agencies to run its core
business, usually when two government agencies have no connected
core business process between them. For instance, the Department of
Land Administration focuses on land administration, and the Financial
Data Center concentrates on taxation business. There is no connecting
core business process between the two central government agencies.
However, the Financial Data Center needs information shared by the
Department of Land Administration because it believes the land
information from the Department of Land Administration is more
thorough and accurate to help it to increase taxation revenue. In
the situation, not only a departmental boundary but also a process
boundary exists between the two central government agencies.
The situation also applies to local government agencies in the same
county. However, within the scope of the ve major information systems,
a process boundary does not exist between two local government
agencies of different counties. The information sharing activity between
the two local government agencies is required to go through their
responsible central government agencies by using the centralized
information systems.
5.2.3. Geographic boundary
A geographic boundary also exists among parallel government
agencies. As aforementioned in subsection 5.1.3, a geographic boundary
is a naturally formed boundary involving properties such as physical
distance, geographic terrain, and time zone. In this case study, the

geographic boundary in the horizontal dimension is relatively narrow

because of the small territory of Taiwan. At the central government
level, almost all central government agencies are located in the capital
area. Therefore, the geographic boundaries among the central government agencies exist but with very narrow gaps. At the local government
level, although some counties are located in remote islands, most local
government agencies in the same county are located closely. Similarly,
because of the ve centralized information systems, a geographic
boundary of cross-boundary information sharing was alleviated
among local government agencies of different counties. Some interviewee pointed out that:
Study participant P5-1: If every government agency were in the
same building, there might be a better chance to develop closer
relationship. However, Taiwan is so small that I think there should
be few problems regarding where a government agency is located.
Especially our central government agencies are all located in Taipei
area. The geographic boundary does exist, but it is really small.
Study participant P1: Different geographic locations of government
agencies don't matter that much. By using the inter-organizational
information system, we can easily cross a geographic boundary
between two government agencies.

5.2.4. Development level boundary

A development level boundary does not just exist vertically
between a central government agency and a local government
agency. It also exists horizontally between government agencies
at the same level. Parallel government agencies could have different
budgets and resources, and their progress in informatization varies.
For instance, both the Department of Household Registration and
the Department of Land Administration have similar development
level in informatization and the information sharing between the
two central government agencies are uent. However, some juridical
agencies in central government level have very modest development
in terms of informatization, consequently, the information sharing
between the juridical agencies and other central government
agencies is more limited and less uent. Similarly, a development level boundary also occurs between two local government
agencies at the same level. However, a development level boundary
between two local government agencies of different counties does
not appear signicantly in the case because of the ve centralized
information systems. From central government agencies, some
interviewees stated:
Study participant P3: there is still paper-based information
sharing because the informatization in government agencies
is not equivalent. Some central government agencies may
have limited budget and their development of informatization
is much slower than others.
Study participant P10-1: Every government agencies has different
readiness to manage its information. Some conservative agencies
such as judicial agencies operate in an old-fashioned way. There is
a huge gap for them to share information to our information system.
The readiness of informatization between our agency and theirs is
totally different.

5.2.5. Personal boundary

A personal boundary in the horizontal dimension forms between
representative personnel of government agencies at the same level.
The interaction and relationship of personnel and leaders of government agencies matter especially for government agencies at the

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

same level. For instance, if the leaders of two parallel government

agencies have poor personal relationship, the personal boundary is
inevitably broadened, and information sharing between the two
parallel government agencies could be more difcult and even be
terminated. A personal boundary formed between two parallel
government agencies at the same level could be broader than
that formed between two hierarchical government agencies having
a supervisorsubordinate relationship. Similarly, because of the ve
centralized information systems, a personal boundary was reduced
between two local government agencies of different counties. Some
interviewees stated:
Study participant P2: In many situations, it is the issue of
interaction between people. The style and leadership of
leaders of government agencies matter. They can inuence
whether two government agencies cooperate. If the leaders of
two government agencies have poor relationship and unfavorable
opinions against each other, how can the two government agencies
share information to each other?.
Study participant P5: if there is a good social network built
between two government agencies to foster their relationship.
It should be able to benet their communication and negotiation
to achieve efcient information sharing between the two
agencies.

5.2.6. Sectoral boundary

In addition to the aforementioned ve boundaries in the horizontal
dimension between government agencies, there is also a sectoral
boundary existing between government agencies and private enterprises or non-prot organizations. Nowadays, the interactions between
the public sector and the private sector increase drastically. The crossboundary information sharing between the two sectors can be either
one-directional or bi-directional. In the case study, in order to help
small and medium companies to obtain bank loans, the Small and
Medium Enterprise Administration (SMEA) acts as an intermediary
to acquire company registration information from the Department
of Commerce and taxation information from the Financial Data Center.
Then the SMEA shares the information with banks to evaluate loan
applications. The information can help banks to alleviate information

S57

asymmetry, and the chance for small and medium companies to

obtain bank loans can thus increase. Furthermore, SMEA also considers
acquiring usage information from Taiwan Power Company and Taiwan
Water Corporation (pubic owned corporations) to give banks more
detailed information to evaluate loan applications from small and
medium companies (see Fig. 4). In this example, a sectoral boundary
exists between the SMEA in the public sector and banks in the
private sector. Similarly, the Department of Land Administration
also shares information across sectors with the real estate agents.
Some interviewees stated:
Study participant P7: In our project, in addition to acquiring
information from some government agencies, we also need to
have information sharing from non-governmental organizations
to fulll the needs of our business.
Study participant P11: Some private companies or non-prot
organizations also require information sharing from us. However,
those organizations are not government agencies. We tend to be
more conservative in term of information privacy and
condentiality.

5.3. Centralized information systems to cross and alleviate boundaries

It is observed that centralized information systems in the case
study can facilitate government agencies to share information across
boundaries. The following subsections discuss how centralized
information systems help from both the vertical and horizontal
dimensions.
5.3.1. Centralized information systems in the vertical dimension
In the case study, the ve major information systems were established to connect central government agencies and local government
agencies that are connected with same core businesses such as household registration, land administration, and taxation. The centralized
information systems are perceived as an effective approach to cross
the vertical boundaries between the participating central and local
government agencies and to increase the efciency of information
sharing. Because of the connected business processes and the existing
supervisorsubordinate relationships between the participating

Fig. 4. The sectoral boundary in the horizontal dimension.

S58

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

Fig. 5. The removed boundaries by the centralized information systems.

higher-level and lower-level government agencies, the vertical

process boundary and the vertical personal boundary become
much narrower than the other three vertical boundaries through
the implementation of the ve major information systems.
In addition, the centralized information systems also remove the
horizontal boundaries between local government agencies of different
counties as long as their information sharing is within the scope of the
centralized information systems. The information sharing between
local government agencies of different counties is required to go up
to the central government level by having the responsible central
government agencies act as intermediaries (see Fig. 5). On the
other hand, local government agencies of the same county have
autonomy and discretion to directly share information with one
another while horizontal boundaries still remain among them.
Furthermore, the centralized information systems not only remove
the horizontal boundaries between local government agencies of
different counties, but also remove the vertical boundaries between
central government agencies and local government agencies when
they do not have connected core businesses and are within the
scope of the centralized information systems. For each centralized
information system, there is a single window in the central government
level to resolve needs of cross-boundary information sharing. For
instance, when central government agency A and local government
agency A share the same core business and there is a centralized
information system connecting them, other central government
agencies can interact directly with central government agency A
to acquire the information of local government agency A. There is
no need for the other central government agencies to cross
the vertical boundaries in order to acquire information from local
government agency A (see Fig. 5).
5.3.2. Centralized information systems in the horizontal dimension
In the case study, it is observed that the implemented Government
Service Platform with star-shaped network acts as an intermediary to

facilitate central government agencies to share information across

horizontal boundaries. By participating and connecting to the
platform, central government agencies can leave the technological
complexity enclosed in the platform, and the development level
boundary between two central government agencies to share
information can become narrower or even be removed (see Fig. 6).
While the platform is a policy implementation by the Cabinet to
promote cross-agency integrated service, the platform also acts as
a legitimate warrant under legislative support to push and encourage
central government agencies to share information across the
other horizontal boundaries such as the departmental boundaries,
the process boundary, and the personal boundary. The platform
is an implementation of a cloud computing concept, Platform as a
Service (PaaS) and can also be perceived as a centralized information
system deployed in the central government level to facilitate
horizontal information sharing across government agencies.
6. Discussion
6.1. The framework of boundaries is generalizable
By using Zheng et al.'s (2009) framework of boundaries, boundaries
of information sharing and integration in both the vertical and horizontal
dimensions are discussed and illustrated in the previous sections. In this
case study, ve boundaries are identied in the vertical dimension, and
they are hierarchical boundary, process boundary, geographic boundary,
development level boundary, and personal boundary (see Fig. 7). The
four boundaries in the vertical dimension of Zheng et al.'s framework
of boundaries are all identied in the case study. In addition, although
the process boundary in the vertical dimension is not discovered in
Zheng et al.'s framework of boundaries, it is identied in the case
study, and the framework can be further extended.
In the horizontal dimension, six boundaries are identied. The six
boundaries are departmental boundary, process boundary, geographic

Fig. 6. A platform to facilitate information sharing across horizontal boundaries.

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

S59

social welfare information system. Five boundaries identied in the

vertical dimension in the case study. Therefore, when the BLI needs
to interact with twenty-ve local government agencies, there might
be one hundred and twenty-ve boundaries in the vertical dimension
that the BLI has to cross to fulll its information-sharing need. In this
example, crossing vertical boundaries is believed to be more complex
than crossing horizontal boundaries.
7. Conclusion

Fig. 7. The ve boundaries in the vertical dimension.

boundary, development level boundary, personal boundary, and

sectoral boundary (see Fig. 8). All the boundaries in the horizontal
dimension of Zheng et al.'s framework of boundaries are identied
in the case study.
The result of the boundaries identication in the case study could
verify that Zheng et al.'s integrated framework of boundaries in crossboundary information sharing could be generalizable to different
national contexts of e-Government.
6.2. Vertical boundaries are not always easier to cross than horizontal
boundaries
The case study does not assume that boundaries in the vertical
dimension are easier to cross than boundaries in the horizontal
dimension. Once outside the scope of the ve centralized information
systems in the vertical dimension, the story is different for a central
government agency to acquire information from local government
agencies when they have no connected business process. A central
government agency will have to interact with each local government
agency separately. For instance, in the case study, because of the
established Household Registration Information System, the Bureau
of Labor Insurance (BLI) can have information shared directly by the
Department of Household Registration (DHR) to acquire household
information of all twenty-ve counties of Taiwan. The boundaries
that the BLI needs to cross are just the horizontal boundaries between
it and the DHR. However, when the BLI needs to have social welfare
information sharing from the Department of Social Affairs (DSA) of
each local government, the BLI has to deal with one local government
agency by one local government agency because there is no centralized

In sum, a government agency commonly has to deal with different

government agencies to have cross-boundary information sharing to
run its operations or to make its operations more efcient in innovative
ways. A government agency inevitably encounters different vertical and
horizontal boundaries simultaneously, and the boundaries also interact
with each other. The more boundaries a government agency has to
cross in an information-sharing initiative, the more inuential factors
surrounding the boundaries the government agency has to encounter
and resolve.
By adopting Zheng et al.'s framework of boundaries, the discussion
of the various boundaries in this paper can provide a more thorough
lens to understand the preliminary complexity of cross-boundary
information sharing and integration. Zheng et al.'s framework of
boundaries is proved to be a useful analytical tool to perceive various
vertical and horizontal boundaries in different national contexts of
e-Government. In the case study, a new process boundary in the
vertical dimension is identied. In addition, it is observed that
centralized information systems in the case study can help to
cross or remove various boundaries of information sharing
among government agencies. Furthermore, it is veried in the case
study that vertical boundaries are not always easier to cross than
horizontal boundaries.
For future studies, it will be interesting to further apply the framework
of boundaries to other national contexts of e-Government, to explore
whether there are other boundaries that remain unidentied, and to
see how other contexts of e-Government interact with the boundaries
in their information-sharing initiatives. Lastly, the framework of
boundaries also provides a conceptual foundation for other related
research to further perceive the complexity of information sharing
arisen by inuential factors surrounding the boundaries.
Acknowledgment
The authors want to thank Dr. Yu-Hsieh Sung, the Deputy Minister
of the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission and other
government ofcials of the Taiwan government for their important
help during the interviewee recruitment of the research. The authors

Fig. 8. The six boundaries in the horizontal dimension.

S60

T.-M. Yang et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) S51S60

are also thankful to all the interviewees who participated in the research
for their time, patience, and valuable information and suggestions.
References
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 18.
Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (Eds.). (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Artigas, F., Elefante, D., & Marti, A. (2009). Geographic information sharing: A regional
approach in northern New Jersey, USA. Information Polity: The International Journal
of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 14(1/2), 127139. doi:10.3233/
ip-2009-0165 (Article).
Bekkers, V. (2007). The governance of back-ofce integrationOrganizing co-operation
between information domains. Public Management Review, 9(3), 377400.
Beyah, G., & Galivan, M. (2001). Knowledge management as a framework for understanding public sector outsourcing. Paper presented at the Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-34), Hawaii.
Black, L. J., Carlile, P. R., & Repenning, N. P. (2004). A dynamic theory of expertise and
occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: Building on Barley's
study of CT scanning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4), 572607.
Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction inuences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(1), 5065.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework
for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555568.
Chan, C. M. L., Lau, Y., & Pan, S. L. (2008). E-Government implementation: A macro
analysis of Singapore's e-Government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), 149346.
Chen, Z., Gangopadhyay, A., Holden, S. H., Karabatis, G., & McGuire, M. P. (2007). Semantic integration of government data for water quality management. Government
Information Quarterly, 24(4), 716735. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.004.
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benets, manageable
risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377394.
Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-Governance. Public
Administration Review, 86102 (Special issue).
Dawes, S. S. (2009). Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for
an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 257264.
Dawes, S. S., Cresswell, A. M., & Pardo, T. A. (2009). From "need to know" to "need to
share": Tangled problems, information boundaries, and the building of public sector knowledge networks. Public Administration Review, 69, 392402.
Espinosa, J. A., Cummings, J. N., Wilson, J. M., & Pearce, B. M. (2003). Team boundary issues across multiple global rms. Journal of Management Information Systems,
19(4), 157190.
Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J. L., & Williams, C. B. (2007). A collaborative network for rst responders: Lessons from the CapWIN case. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4),
785807. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.001.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Chengalur-Smith, I., & Duchessi, P. (2007). Collaborative eGovernment: impediments and benets of information-sharing projects in the
public sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 121133.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of eGovernment: The inuence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 266290. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2006.04.005.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-Government success factors: Mapping practical
tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187216.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, G. B. (2010). Conceptualizing information integration in government. In J. Scholl (Ed.), Electronic government: information, technology, and transformation (pp. 179202). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Soon Ae, C., & Janssen, M. (2009). Government information sharing and
integration: Combining the social and the technical. (Article). Information Polity:
The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age,
14(1/2), 110. doi:10.3233/ip-2009-0176.
Harrison, T. M., Pardo, T., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Thompson, F., & Juraga, D. (2007). Geographic
information technologies, structuration theory, and the World Trade Center crisis.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14),
22402254. doi:10.1002/asi.20695.
Kettl, D. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review, 1019 (Special Issue, December).
Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2008). Stage models for creating joined-up government:
From local to nation-wide integration. The 9th annual international digital government research conference (Montreal, Canada).
Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2009). Realizing joined-up government Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly,
26(2), 275284.
Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken, G. J. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206220.

Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-Government: A four stage
model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122136.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Cruz, C. B. (2007). Collaborative digital government
in Mexico: Some lessons from federal Web-based interorganizational information
integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 808826. doi:
10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.003.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-Government among municipalities: Rhetoric or
reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424433.
Navarrete, C., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, J. (2010). Multinational
e-Government collaboration, information sharing, and interoperability: An integrative model. Paper presented at the the 43rd Hawaii international conference on
system sciences (HICSS), Honolulu, HI, USA.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249273.
Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Dawes, S. S., & Burke, G. B. (2004). Modeling the social and
technical processes of interorganizational information integration. Paper presented
at the Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-37), Hawaii.
Pardo, T. A., & Tayi, G. K. (2007). Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 691715.
Schooley, B. L., & Horan, T. A. (2007). Towards end-to-end government performance
management: Case study of interorganizational information integration in emergency medical services (EMS). Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 755784.
Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing e-Government stage models A metasynthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 105(34), 443458.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization
Science, 13(2), 179190.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semistructured methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations:
The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 581606.
Williams, C. B., Dias, M., Fedorowicz, J., Jacobson, D., Vilvovsky, S., Sawyer, S., &
Tyworth, M. (2009). The formation of inter-organizational information sharing
networks in public safety: Cartographic insights on rational choice and institutional explanations. (Article). Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 14(1/2), 1329. doi:10.3233/ip-20090170.
Yang, T. -M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations A
literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational
success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164175.
Zhang, J., & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Expectations and perceptions of benets, barriers, and
success in public sector knowledge networks. Public Performance & Management
Review, 29(4), 433466.
Zheng, L., Jiang, Y., Yang, T. -M., & Pardo, T. A. (2008). Sharing information for product
quality and food safety in China: Barriers and enablers. In T. Janowski, & T. A. Pardo
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, Vol. 351. (pp. 9097)Cairo, Egypt: ACM International Conference
Proceeding Series.
Zheng, L., Yang, T. -M., Pardo, T. A., & Jiang, Y. (2009). Understanding the "boundary" in
information sharing and integration. Big Island, Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS 2009), 110 e-Government Track.

Tung-Mou Yang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Library and Information

Science at National Taiwan University, Taiwan. Tung-Mou Yang received his Ph.D. in
Information Science from the University at Albany, SUNY, in 2011. His research
interests include e-Government, cross-boundary information sharing, information
management, and information systems. He is also interested in digital divide and
other information-related sociotechnical systems.

Lei Zheng is an Assistant Professor in the School of International Relations and Public
Affairs at Fudan University, China. Lei Zheng received his Ph.D. in Public Administration
and Policy at the University at Albany, SUNY, in 2009. His research focuses on crossboundary information sharing, transnational information collaboration, government
information disclosure, and comparative digital government research.

Theresa A. Pardo is Director of the Center for Technology in Government located at the
University at Albany, SUNY. She is also a faculty member in Public Administration and
Policy and Informatics at the University. Theresa has directed numerous applied
research projects with government partners and written articles, research reports,
book chapters and case studies focusing on IT innovation in government, crossboundary information sharing and integration, trust and knowledge sharing,
preservation of government digital records, and XML.