Journal of Law and Society Management 4 (1)

© Nabu Research Academy, 2017

Information Sharing into Electronic Information Sharing

Mohammed Abdulameer Mohammed, Mustafa Musa Jaber

Al-Rafidain University Colllege

[email protected]

Abstract- Information sharing refers to share data or information from one side to another which can be tacit
and explicit. Electronic information sharing means share data or information from one to other by using
electronic way. In electronic information sharing has two way of sharing which called direct and indirect. This
research introduces the information sharing and electronic information sharing concept. Moreover, the study
shows the previous studies about both principles. The paper also provides some theories that can use to
investigate the factors that affect on the two ways of information sharing.

Information Sharing

Information is based on data. Thus, it is important for this study to first giving some highlights on data.
Data can be identified in many ways for example: words, figures, voices and numbers which can be
gathered by different pathways such as experiment, observation, and research; and eventually can be
applied in order to make graphs, statistics, and reports (Kendal & Creen, 2006; Higgins, Taylor, Lisboa &
Arshad, 2014). An example of data shared between public universities and ministry include individual
students such as name and result. Information is a process of data which is attained after data is processed
and refined, transformed and shaped into a structured manner to make it helpful, significant,
comprehensible and clear to any individual (Harry, 1994).

Traditional information sharing means to exchange the information between one person to another, in
another word, exchange information between a sender and receiver. Thus, information sharing is based
on the personal behavior and self-interest to share his or her information to others (Constant, Kiesler &
Sproull, 1994; Razavi & Iverson, 2006). Jarvenpaa and Staples (2000, p. 130) state, “information sharing
embeds the notion of ‘willingness to share.’ Volition distinguishes information sharing from involuntary
information reporting. Information sharing is a voluntary act of making information available to others…
sharer could pass information on, but doesn’t have to”. Examples of information shared between public

1
 universities and ministry are student’s reports, employees’ reports, policies, rules, suggestions
scholarship documents.

Recently, information sharing has been hugely improvised by using information technology (Constant,
Kiesler & Sproull, 1994; Williams, 1997; Volkoff, Chan, & Newson, 1999; Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000).
Thus, it has been used widely in the last few years in the public sector because of the Internet and
smartphones (Cairns, Jackson, & Cooke, 2011). Information now is available for the user at anytime and
anywhere (Cairns, Jackson, & Cooke, 2011). In the last fifteen years, public sectors have shifted from
information protection principle into cross-organization information sharing. This shift happened based
on three main keys: “events such as 9/11 that underscored the failure of prior governmental information
sharing practices; policy changes that emphasized cross-government coordination to improve efficiency
and reduce waste, as evidenced in welfare reform and health care informatics; and changes in technology
that allowed organizations to exchange information based on standard transmission and information
exchange protocols” (Yang and Maxwell, 2011, p164). The next section will explain the electronic
information sharing in public organization in details.

1.1.1 Benefits of Information Sharing

According to human actions a person is willing to share information with other people (Rioux, 2005).
The sharing of information can be used as an approach to improve the relationship and social network
between the senders and receivers (Marshall & Bly, 2004). Information sharing usually uses simple
method of sharing such as face-to-face conversations (Rioux, 2005; Rioux, Hersberger, & Cruitt, 2005).
Marshall and Bly (2004), found out the function and value of information sharing by discovering three
reasons of why people share their information with others:

 To establish mutual awareness between information sender and information receiver.

 To educate or raise consciousness, and
 To develop rapport.

Dawes (1996) has identified the benefits of information sharing into three categories technical,
organizational and political.

 Technical Benefits
Information sharing can avoid duplicates of information storing, information processing and information
collection. Thus, avoiding the duplicate information can reduce paperwork, and it can reduce the costs of
information processing. Moreover, by avoiding the duplication of information, it can improve the

2
 productivity and reduce the operations cost. Information sharing encourages the government organization
to develop their technical resources. Finally, information sharing can provide the infrastructure of
information to the government operations.

 Organizational Benefits
Comparing the information of organization with other external information can improve the validity and
the accuracy of organization’s information. Validity and accuracy information can make the problem
solving easier with a better result because the information is considered as an important tool to solve the
problems. Moreover, information sharing activities can improve the quality, quantity and availability of
information in the organizations.

 Political Benefits
Information infrastructure of government organizations can provide better identifying and understanding
of the broad economic and demographic trends because it leads to less isolated departments and better
esteemed for the government aims. Information sharing supports the comprehensive among
organizations, and that can improve the budgetary and legislative of the resource allocation decisions.
Additionally, the quality and quantity of government information can be useful to the people who base on
the information that government provides to make their decisions. Information sharing between
government organizations can discover the errors and gaps that may be no one recognize them before.
Information sharing reduces the time of participation among organizations, and also it reduces the time
that these organizations need to reprocess of information duplication.

1.1.2 Information Sharing Models

Information sharing arises from the complexity of solving problems on the delivery of services to public
organizations (Bigdeli, Kamal, & de Cesare, 2011). Dawes (1996) proposed a theoretical model for
interagency information sharing (Figure 2-1), based on a survey of New York public managers. The
model demonstrates the learning of government agencies via information sharing. It includes factors such
as benefits, risks, and barriers to information sharing. This theoretical model also explains that the
sharing of experiences can be activated in order to find a solution for a particular information sharing
problem. Information sharing is clearly demonstrated when the staff wants to share their experiences and
opinions. This process of sharing is governed by the policy and management framework of a government
environment. New ideas on policy and management can enhance the framework for the benefits and of
risks in the future.

3
 Figure 2.1. The first model of information sharing among the agencies (Dawes, 1996).

Figure 2-2 shows the theoretical model of Landsbergen and Wolken (2001) that is also based on Dawes’
theoretical model and information system environment. This model compares three components that
support IS infrastructure: technical, interoperability, and institutional policies. The technical element
concerns the software and hardware compatibility within each agency. Interoperability policies pertain to
metadata and interagency architecture. Institutional policies provide clear and best practices for
information system support. This model uses five tools of information system:
1 Metadata to provide the nature, presence, and quality of information
2 Law and policy of sharing time and conditions among government agencies
3 Budgetary and economic implications of information system costs and benefits
4 Demonstration of successful information sharing
5 Management of support to control sharing and encouragements

Unfortunately, the work by Dawes failed to consider the technical factors related to more recently issues
because her study was in the early of 1990s, but it published in 1996. Hence, Landsbergen and Wolken
covered only the technical factors in their study. However, both studies did not consider the
characteristics of information sharing in government agencies.

4
 Figure 2.2. Expanded model of information sharing among the agencies (Landsbergen & Worken, 2001).

Public, private organizations and citizens are looking for methods in order to improve government
operations and services (Dawes, 1996). In the 1990s public organizations have restructured physically
and processes changed (Dawes, 1996). Thus, that leads later to shift from information protection into
information sharing within the organization or with others (Yang & Maxwell, 2011).

Information sharing might be more complicated within an organizational context because the information
is considered as a power. Thus, information can help the employee to protect one's place and enhance the
individual status and identity (Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull, 1994). Information can be viewed as
property, when staff shares it, that means he or she distributes his or her power and losing the position in
the organization.

Electronic Information Sharing

The revolution of information system has transformed information sharing into electronic information
sharing or the sharing of information electronically (Landsbergen & Wolken, 2001). Theoretical models
proposed by Dawes (1996) and by Landsbergen & Wolken (2001) are considered as the first information
sharing and electronic information sharing models, respectively (Estevez et al., 2010).These models
adopted information sharing of government agencies to make information sharing possible. With the
advent of ICT and Internet, the form of information sharing had been electronically upgraded. Electronic
information sharing means sharing the information electronically by using ICT such as, the Internet,
email, phone, mobile, and websites (Akbulut et al., 2009). The electronic mode of information sharing
increases and doubled up the transfer of information amount which can help the decision makers to make
better and faster decisions (Akbulut et al., 2009; Bigdeli, Kamal & de Cesare, 2013b).

5
 According to Gil-Garcia et al., (2009), sharing information electronically between the public
organizations is seen as a socio-technical phenomenon because inter-organizational sharing and
integration information is a mixture of both technical elements and social elements. They found four
related aspects starting from social to technical which can give a better understanding for electronic
information sharing concept: trusted social network, shared knowledge and information, integrated data
and interoperable technical infrastructure (Figure 2-3).

Figure 2.3. The concept of electronic information sharing between organizations (Gil-Garcia et al.,
2009).

Trusted social network is considered the first stage of electronic information sharing in inter-
organization. However, it refers to collaborations between employees who are involved in share the
information electronically and are trusted each other. Shared information and knowledge refer to explicit
and tacit knowledge in the form of general information, such as formal documents, email, messages and
information relationships. Integrated data means to integrate data at different levels of organizations
depended on standards of networking between them. Lastly, interoperable technical infrastructure refers
to information systems that use to communicate and exchange information electronically between
organizations (Gil-Garcia et al., 2009).

Functions of Electronic Information Sharing

There are two types of functions of electronic information sharing (vertical functioning and horizontal
functioning) that refers to interaction and collaboration between information system of organizations
(Jing & Pengzhu, 2009). The horizontal functioning of electronic information sharing means sharing

6
 information electronically within the same level of organization (M.A. Mohammed, Kadhim, Fuad, &
Jaber, 2014). In another word, horizontal electronic information sharing refers to sharing information
electronically with an organization that has the same criteria, goals, characteristics and so on, such as
sharing information between local governments electronically. Figure 2-4 shows the horizontal
functioning of electronic information sharing.

Figure 2.4. Horizontal electronic information sharing between organizations.

The vertical electronic information sharing refers to sharing information electronically with other
organizations that has lower or higher criteria, goals characteristics and so on, such as electronic
information sharing between central government and local government. Figure 2-5 shows the vertical
information sharing(M. A. Mohammed, Maroof, Thamer, & Huda, 2015).

7
 Figure 2.5. Vertical electronic information sharing between organizations.

1.1.3 Electronic Information Sharing Barriers in Public Organizations

Electronic information sharing causes many challenges in a public organization. These challenges are the
result of the electronic information sharing among different kinds of public organizations within different
level and background such as central organization and its sub (Mohammed Abdulameer Mohammed,
Ibrahim, Hussein, & Anad, 2013). Thus, there is a need for collaborations between public organizations
to provide better public services to citizens (Bigdeli, 2012). The sharing can be done by crossing the
barriers that public organization face. Pardo and Tayi (2007), pointed out four barriers of electronic
information sharing in Inter-Organizational. Figure 2-6 shows the four barriers of information sharing and
integration based on Pardo and Tayi (2007) research.

8
 Figure 2.6. Four barriers of electronic information sharing (Pardo & Tayi, 2007).

 Policy and Social Environment

The first layer refers to standards, rules and policies of electronic information sharing among government
organizations. This layer consists of many influential factors that have positive and negative effects on
inter-organizational information sharing, such as policy concerns, legislation, economic and political
situation (Pardo and Tayi, 2007). Legislation, policies, and politic factors are the most influential factors
in electronic information sharing, so they need to be required. Electronic information sharing
development and implementation are costly, with tangible resources (for example money, people,
equipment, etc.) and intangible resources (data and information). Moreover, benefits of electronic
information sharing project between government organizations are still not clear. Therefore, governments
prefer to spend their budget on other information technology projects.
 Inter-Organizational Setting
The second layer refers to external challenges that affect information sharing in the organization. Inter-
organizational relationships and network collaborations have a strong effect on information sharing
(Pardo and Tayi, 2007). Goals of adopting electronic information sharing project are quite diverse
between organizations (Navarrete, et al., 2010). Thus, this difference of sharing goals and objectives
between the government organizations can be identified as one challenge. Leadership can is an
influencing factor of electronic information sharing (Gil-Garcia et al., 2007; Zheng et al., 2009).
Leadership at all levels plays a significant role in order to define the rules and situation for the
individuals involved. Trust among inter-organizational can be identified as strong influence factor of
electronic information sharing (Pardo and Tayi, 2007; Gil-Garcia et al., 2010). Thus, creating a good
environment trust among organizations can be seen as an important step to establish successful electronic

9
 information sharing project. Furthermore, financial matters can influence electronic information sharing
in the public organization. Because organizations need the financial capability to procure and develop
hardware, software as well as improve the level of IT skill of employees (Kim and Bretschneider, 2004).

 Organization/Business Processes
The next layer refers to organization and business process factors that influence information sharing in
the organization. In general, information systems have a strong influence on the work process of
organizations as these systems embed the processes and information flow in complex software (Pardo
and Tayi, 2007). Information sharing and integration involve mutually adjusting work processes of
multiple organizations. It requires not only a technical transformation but also change in decision-making
policies and the mindset of the employees. Therefore, change in processes, functions and management
mindset, especially in the public sector, represents a key issue (Lam, 2005). However the development
and adjustment of separate processes, information flows and workflows is an extremely complicated task,
resulting in a significant reduction in overall integration cost as the integration time and maintenance
would be reduced(Mohammed Abdulameer Mohammed & Anad, 2014).

 Technology Solution
In order to develop information sharing project, it is necessary to purchase and/or develop software,
hardware, and telecommunication technologies. However, ICT infrastructure is considered as an
important challenge of electronic information sharing (Jing & Pengzhu, 2007). Moreover, information
sharing could be based on sharing and accessing information from multi data sources, such as documents,
images, and text files. Therefore, this diversity of resources would cause many critical problems like
different data format and information, and incompatible software and hardware. As a consequence, to
solve these problems, organizations should develop data standards, construct ontology systems and
interoperable design applications to provide a structure to across heterogeneous and unstructured
resources (Wixom & Watson, 2001; Lam, 2005; Pardo and Tayi, 2007). One of the biggest challenges in
information sharing is when different organizations in different locations shared huge amounts of data
and information that have different format and store in different platforms. This situation caused many
kinds of factors including information quality, security, accuracy, consistency, and completeness.

Pardo and Tayi (2007) identified the main challenges of electronic information sharing, which can be
used to show the barriers of electronic information sharing in this study. This study also suggests using
data warehouse as one of the technological factors in electronic information sharing.

10
 1.1.4 Benefits of Electronic Information Sharing in Public Organizations
Researchers have found that information sharing among government agencies is very important,
especially in the field of e-government systems (Pardo, Cresswell, Thompson & Zhang, 2006; Pardo &
Tayi, 2007; Zheng, Yang, Pardo & Jiang, 2009b). According to Akbulut et al., (2009), electronic
information sharing among government agencies assists them to achieve organizational benefits, such as
increased information accuracy, timeliness, resources and interaction organizations. Regarding technical
benefits, electronic information sharing has able to decrease paperwork, enhance data management and
improve decisions making, while from the political aspects, it can play an important role for cooperation
(Bigdeli, Kamal and de Cesare, 2011). According to Estevez, Fillottrani, Janowski and Ojo (2011),
electronic information sharing has different categories of benefits, such as technical, organizational, inter-
organizational and environmental.

Technical – Electronic information sharing can improve the use of ICT as solutions for government
organization exchange data issues.

Organizational – Electronic information sharing can increase the quality, quantity and availability of
data and information.

Inter-Organizational – Electronic information sharing benefits increase by interacting with others

because that can improve professional relationships or enhance collaborative networks.

Environmental – Electronic information sharing helps public administrations in delivering better

services, such as better understanding of economic and demographic trends.

According to Mendes Calo, Cenci, Fillottrani and Estevez (2012, 2014) (Abbas, Shibghatullah, Yusof, &
Jaber, 2016; Abd Ghani & Jaber, 2015; Alazzam et al., 2016; Ghani et al., 2016; M.A. Mohammed et al.,
2014; Mostafa, Saad, Jaber, Ali, & Dhafer, 2016; Naseem et al., 2017), benefits of electronic information
sharing are classified into three types, such as beneficiary (citizenship and government), target (product
and process) and impact (primary and secondary). Thus, based on these types the researchers proposed
five views of classification into benefits of electronic information sharing. The first is called nature view
which based on the technical, organizational and political benefits same as Dawes (1996). The second
view refers to primary and secondary impacts of electronic information sharing benefits (primarily comes
from the implementation and secondary is achieved form the primary). The third is a beneficiary view
that refers to internal beneficiaries (inside government organization like staff) and external beneficiaries

11
 (outside government organization like citizen and business). The fourth is target view, which based on
the product and process benefits. Fifth is a horizontal view which refers to benefits of the whole system,
such as efficiency, effectiveness, and response. Figure 2-7 shows all of the five views. Public universities
can gain all of these benefits if they manage to build a successful electronic information sharing project.

Figure 2-7 Benefits of electronic information sharing (Mendes Calo et al., 2012)

Thus, according to the above four categories, electronic information sharing between public universities
and ministry can provide several benefits. First, sharing information electronically can improve the use of
ICT as solutions for information sharing problems between public universities and ministry. Second,
electronic information sharing can increase the accessibility and availability of data and information for
each university with high quality. Third, benefits of electronic information sharing can also be achieved
by interaction with ministry because it enhances the relationships and improves collaboration between the
universities and ministry. Finally, it can help public universities to deliver better services, such as to
having a better understanding of Ministry rules and supporting decision makers at the proper time.

Social Exchange Theory

According to the social exchange theory, the result of a respondent’s behavior was based on the
responsive conduct of other respondents in an inter-organizational relationship (Son et al., 1999).
According to Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995), social exchange theory supplies the basics in the
study of relationships among organizations. IS researcher has initially utilized this theory as a basis to

12
 explore and observe the factors that influence inter-organizational relationship from a non-economic
perspective (ibid). The social exchange theory formulates a theoretical background so as to observe and
monitor non-profit inter-organizational operations (Humphreys et al., 2001). When the relationship and
partnership among different entities do not necessarily have any economic outcome, this theory can be
applied to the argument. According to Son et al., (2001), the factors derived from this theory, namely:
power, trust, interdependence and conflict, have been observed in dissimilar empirical research in order
to analyze different features of inter-organizational relationship and collaboration.

“Trust” and “Power” are recognized as two essential social factors that play important roles in the process
of decision making towards participation in electronic information sharing on inter-organizational
information sharing (Akbulut et al., 2009). Inter- organizational trust is explained as a company’s faith
that a different company or department will execute the actions that will provide positive results, and
simultaneously not undergo unpredicted actions that could give negative results for the company
(Anderson & Narus, 1986).

According to Gil-Garcia et al., (2010), inter- organizational trust can supply affirmative prospect and
buoyancy to the other side of the relationship so as to establish the efficiency of the departmental network
and achieve common goals. There is disparity between interpersonal trust and inter- organizational trust
whereby inter-organizational trust decreases conciliation cost and clashes, and promotes performance in
networked collaboration; however interpersonal trust is unable to give such significant effects (Zaheer,
McEvily & Perrone,1998).

“Power” is also a factor that manipulates any inter-organizational, and it is defined as the ability of the
field to apply control on a different field to act in a predicted circumstance (Hart & Saunders, 1997). It is
considered that based on its needs, low power side of the relationship can be highly manipulated by the
other powerful organization (Saunders & Clark, 1992). The role of power in inter-organizational
relationships has been studied with regards to the interdependency among organizations. According to
Ganesan (1994), in order to achieve an aim and ambition, dependency between organizations in a
networked collaboration environment must be preserved. Most of the studies do not point out the limit
that power can manipulate inter- organizational relationships and they explained that anyhow an
organization should have considered a number of activities; power could not be the reason to the action’s
happening.

13
 Critical Mass Theory
Critical Mass Theory is defined as a different point of view that can be useful to describe the execution of
new technological modernization (Bouchard, 1993). This theory studies the implementation of the
novelties that require collaboration among the participants. The decision of organizations’ participants
depends on the number of organizations that have already been implicated or will be involved soon (Hall
& Khan, 2003; Bouchard, 1993). The supreme decision of an organization to employ the innovation itself
might not manipulate any novelty; however it could be influenced by the number of partners and
competitors who already implemented it (Kuan & Chau, 2001).

Critical mass theory can provide an outcome in the construction of confident network externalities that
pass on to the positive external using benefits as a consequence of technology utilized (Lou et al., 2000).
It is also referred as the user of new technology that might have more advantage as the number of users
for the technology augments. The existence of network externalities has two essential influences on
technology implementations such as: increasing number of new technology users would make the
potential users estimate the technology to be more attractive and efficient and; existing users behave as a
positive advertiser for the non-users so that they start to make use of the novel technology (Lou et al.,
2000). Therefore, collaboration and network externalities must be acknowledged as a significant factor to
attract more contributors to participate in the notion when inter-organizational electronic information
sharing involves two or more organizations working together.

This study applies the three theories; Transactive Memory System, Social Exchange and Critical Mass
Theory as the foundation for the study to identify factors of electronic information sharing. .Data
warehouse factor have been investigated from the literature, and it has been supported by Transactive
Memory System Theory. Factors identified from the Social Exchange Theory are upper-level leadership,
top management support, trust, relationship, and collaboration, while from Critical Mass Theory are
critical mass and collaboration. The TOE framework is the root of Diffusion of Innovations Theory
which means a number of participants can affect the electronic information sharing. Thus, size factor has
been investigated base on TOE framework. Finally, many factors have been added based on the previous
studies of electronic information sharing.

Trust, Top management support, Upper-level leadership, Collaboration, Social Network, Size, Critical
Mass and Data warehouse factors have been investigated based on the theories. Researcher in this study

14
 aimed to present a more efficient model through combining significant factors from previous studies with
the factors related to applied theories in this research in order to present a more effective model. These
Additional factors such as Benefits, Risks, Costs, IT capability, Information quality, Complexity,
Compatibility and Policy/Legal framework can enhance the efficacy of the electronic information sharing
system.

Conclusion

Many studies nowadays illustrate the electronic information sharing and its effect on society because
human is communicated type of creature. That why this study introduces the information sharing and
electronic information sharing. This research shows the different between the two concepts and also how
to implement them. Moreover, it also explains the benefits of sharing the information. However, many
studies should be applied on this area special in sharing information by social media such as Facebook
and Twitter.

REFERENCE
Akbulut, A. Y., Kelle, P., Pawlowski, S. D., & Schneider, H. (2009). To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing
local agency electronic information sharing. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 4(2), 143-172.

Abbas, T., Shibghatullah, A. S., Yusof, R., & Jaber, M. M. (2016). Effective environmental factors to performance of electronic
information sharing in iraqi intelligence. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(3).

Abd Ghani, M. K., & Jaber, M. M. (2015). Willingness to Adopt Telemedicine in Major Iraqi Hospitals: A Pilot Study. International
Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/136591

Alazzam, M. B., Basari, A. S. H., Sibghatullah, A. S., Ramli, M. R., Jaber, M. M., & Naim, M. H. (2016). Pilot study of EHRs
acceptance in Jordan hospitals by UTAUT2. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 85(3).

Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1986) " Toward a better understanding of distribution channel working relationships" in Industrial
marketing: A German-American perspective, eds. K. Backhaus and D. Wilson, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 320–336.

Bigdeli, A. Z. (2012). Inter-departmental information sharing in local government authorities (LGAs): The case of the United
Kingdom, PhD thesisBrunel University London.

Bigdeli, A. Z., Kamal, M., & de Cesare, S. (2013b). Electronic information sharing in local government authorities: Factor

15
 s influencing the decision-making process. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 816-830.

Bigdeli, A. Z., Kamal, M., & deCesare, S. (2011). Inter-organisational electronic information sharing in local G2G settings: a socio-
technical issue.

Bouchard, L. (1993). Decision Criteria in the Adoption of EDI. Proceeding 14th Annua International Conference on Information
Systems (ICIS), Orlando, Florida.

Cairns, A., Jackson, T., & Cooke, L. (2011). The factors involved in sharing information between public agencies .

Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it: A study of attitudes about information sharing.
Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400−421.

Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 15(3), 377-394.

Estevez, E., Fillottrani, P., & Janowski, T. (2010). Information sharing in government–conceptual model for policy formulation.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of The 10th European Conference on e-Government (ECEG). University of Limerick,
Ireland.

Estevez, E., Fillottrani, P., Janowski, T., & Ojo, A. (2011). Government Information Sharing: A Framework for Policy
Formulation. Governance and Cross-boundary Collaboration: Innovations and Advancing Tools, 23-55.

Ganesan, S. (1994) "Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships". Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Chengalur-Smith, I., & Duchessi, P. (2007). Collaborative e-Government: impediments and benefits of information-
sharing projects in the public sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 121-133.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Burke, G. B. (2007). Government leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled networks: Lessons from the
response to the West Nile Virus outbreak. Paper presented at the Workshop 4: Leading in a Multi-Sector Environment.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Chun, S. A., & Janssen, M. (2009). Government information sharing and integration: Combining the social and the
technical. Information Polity, 14(1), 1-10.

Gil-Garcia, J.R., Guler, A., Pardo, T.A. and Burke, G.B. (2010) "Trust in Government Cross-Boundary Information Sharing
Initiatives: Identifying the Determinants", 43rd Hawaii International Conference onSystem Sciences, IEEE, pp. 1-10.

Hall, B.H. and Khan, B. (2003) "Adoption of new technology", NBER working paper,

Harry, M. (1994). Information systems in business. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.

Hart, P. , & Saunders, C. (1997). Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Electronic Data Interchange.
Organization Science, 8(1), 23-42.

Higgins, E., Taylor, M., Lisboa, P., & Arshad, F. (2014). Developing a data sharing framework: a case study. Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(1), 151-164.

Humphreys, P., Lai, M. and Sculli, D. (2001). An inter-organizational information system for supply chain management.
International Journal of Production Economics,70(3), pp. 245-255.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Staples D.S. (2000) “The Use of Collaborative Electronic Media for Information Sharing: An exploratory Study
of Determinants,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, pp. 129-154.

16
 Jing, F., & Pengzhu, Z. (2009). A Field Study of G2G Information Sharing in Chinese Context Based on the Layered Behaviora l
Model. In 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 1-13.

Kendal, S., and Creen, M. (2006). An introduction to knowledge engineering. London: Springer. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-667-4,.

Kuan, K. K.Y. and Chau, P. Y.K. (2001) "A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-
organization-environment framework". Information &Management, 38(8), pp. 507-521.

Lam, W. (2005) "Barriers to e-government integration", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 511-530.

Landsbergen Jr, D., & Wolken Jr, G. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of
information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206-220.

Marshall, C. C., & Bly, S. (2004). Sharing encountered information: Digital libraries get a social life. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Digital Libraries, Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital Libraries,
Tuscon, AZ.

Mendes Calo, K., Cenci, K. M., Fillottrani, P. R., & Estevez, E. C. (2012). Information sharing benefits. Journal of Computer Science
& Technology, 12(2), 49-55.

Mendes Calo, K., Cenci, K., Fillottrani, P., & Estevez, E. (2014). Government information sharing: a model for classifying benefits,
barriers and risks. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp.
204-212). ACM.

Mohammed, M. A., & Anad, M. M. (2014). Data warehouse for human resource by Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific
Research. In I4CT 2014 - 1st International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control Technology, Proceedings.
https://doi.org/10.1109/I4CT.2014.6914170

Mohammed, M. A., Ibrahim, H. B., Hussein, A. H., & Anad, M. M. (2013). General E-government Structure for Iraqi
decentralization government. In 2013 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services, IC3e 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2013.6735983

Mohammed, M. A., Kadhim, M. H., Fuad, A., & Jaber, M. M. (2014). Follow up system for directorate of scholarship and cultural
relations in Iraq. In I4CT 2014 - 1st International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control Technology,
Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1109/I4CT.2014.6914171

Mohammed, M. A., Maroof, E. Y., Thamer, A., & Huda, I. (2015). What are the Electronic Information Sharing Factors that
Influence the Participation Behavior in Higher Education Sector? In Procedia Computer Science.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.104

Mostafa, S., Saad, H., Jaber, M. M., Ali, M. H., & Dhafer, K. (2016). The design trends of keystream generator for stream cipher for
high immunity attacks. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (Vol. 362). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24584-3_74

Navarrete, C., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Pardo, T., & Scholl, J. (2010). Multinational e-government collaboration, information
sharing, and interoperability: An integrative model . In International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd
Hawaii (pp. 1-10). IEEE.

Ghani, M. K. A., Jaber, M. M., Aboobaider, B. M., Hussin, H., Mohammed, M. A., Yaacob, N. M., & Danawi, H. (2016). Analysis of
healthcare system in Iraq. Social Sciences (Pakistan), 11(11).

Naseem, M. T., Britto, K. R. A., Jaber, M. M., Chandrasekar, M., Balaji, V. S., Rajkumar, G., Elamaran, V. (2017). Preprocessing
and signal processing techniques on genomic data sequences. Biomedical Research (India), 28(22).

17
 Pardo, T. A., & Tayi, G. K. (2007). Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government. Government
Information Quarterly, 24(4), 691-715.

Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Thompson, F., & Zhang, J. (2006). Knowledge sharing in cross-boundary information system
development in the public sector. Information Technology and Management, 7(4), 293-313.

Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1995) "The Role of Interorganizational and Organizational Factors on the Decision Mode for
Adoption of Interorganizational Systems, Decision Sciences, 26(3), 303-336.

Razavi, M. N., & Iverson, L. (2006). A grounded theory of information sharing behavior in a personal learning space. In Proceedings
of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 459-468). ACM.

Rioux, K. S. (2005). Information acquiring-and-sharing. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. Mckechnie (Eds.), Theories of information
behavior (pp. 169−173). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Rioux, K. S., Hersberger, J. A., & Cruitt, R. O. (2005). Examining information sharing and relationship building in online social
networks: An emergent analytic framework. Paper presented at the 33th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for
Information Science, London, Ontario..

Saunders, C.S. and Clark, S. (1992) "EDI adoption and implementation: A focus on interorganizational linkages.", Information
Resource Management Journal, 5( 1), 9-19.

Volkoff, O., Chan, Y. E., & Newson, E. F. P. (1999). Leading the development and implementation of collaborative
interorganizational systems. Information & Management, 35(2), 63-75.
Williams, T. (1997). Interorganizational Information Systems: Issues Affecting Interorganizational Cooperation. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, (6), 231-250.

Wixom, B. H., & Watson, H. J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS quarterly,
25(1), 17-32.

Yang, T., & 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), 164-175.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust
on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141-159.

18