Process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation in government: A comparative case analysis Hans Jochen Scholl a, ⁎, Herbert Kubicek b , Ralf Cimander b , Ralf Klischewski c a University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA b ifib, Institut für Informationsmanagement, Bremen, Germany c German University in Cairo, Egypt abstract article info Available online 6 May 2012 Keywords: Interoperability Interoperation Information sharing Wants/Needs Theory IT governance Process integration Stakeholder management In recent years, government agencies on all levels and in all branches have increasingly engaged in harmonizing business processes, standardizing information sharing, and interoperating their information systems, which in- dicates a rising need for intra- and inter-government collaboration. Simultaneously, the technical capacity for process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation/interoperability (INT-IS-IOP) has also great- ly increased. While a number of INT-IS-IOP projects have faced serious challenges leading to problematic project outcomes, other projects have produced the desired results. Using the amended Scholl/Klischewski (2007) framework this study systematically analyzes documents of nineteen cases of mostly successful projects, which were carried out across Europe. Based on the results of this analysis, we identify and document key foci and characteristics of successful projects. The comparative case analysis also helps assess the explanatory power of the Scholl/Klischewski framework, its applicability to practice, and its utility for evaluative purposes. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Process integration (Klischewski, 2004), information sharing (Dawes, 1996), and (information systems) interoperation (Guijarro, 2007; Lam, 2005) in government are closely intertwined phenomena exposing high degrees of complexity (Scholl & Klischewski, 2007). Whenever processes are to be integrated, or information is to be shared among government agencies, then some interoperation of systems has to be established (Scholl & Klischewski, 2007). Yet, whenever systems are to interoperate, then the integration of processes and the sharing of information will be involved in some way or the other as well (Scholl & Klischewski, 2007). It appears that integration, information sharing, as well as interoperation and interoperability are intertwined and inextricably interrelated. Therefore, we propose the use of the com- pound acronym of INT-IS-IOP as a summary term for integration (INT), information sharing (IS), and interoperation/interoperability (IOP). We understand that interoperation and interoperability are distinct: Interoperation refers to the actual processes of exchanges between information systems, while interoperability has been defined as the capacity to interoperate at any given time (Scholl & Klischewski, 2007). Interestingly, so far academic research has mainly focused on the technical aspects of INT-IS-IOP (for example, Alasem, 2009; Archmann & Nielsen, 2008; Charalabidis & Askounis, 2008; Davies, Harris, Crichton, Shukla, & Gibbons, 2008; dos Santos, 2008; Gottschalk, 2009; Paolucci, Chini, Pettenati, & Pirri, 2007; Younas, Chao, & Laing, 2005). However, stakeholders in administration have learned that mas- tering the technology is not only key to overall success but also to managing the interplay of organizational and technical aspects. At the same time, public spending on information technology (IT) has been increasingly put to test, putting public-sector CIOs and managers of e-government projects under pressure to evaluate the outcomes of interoperability efforts and justify investments. In the same line, in a number of recent case studies non-technical problems have also received attention as important elements of the overall equation (for example, Hjort-Madsen, 2006; Isomaki & Liimatainen, 2008; Klischewski & Scholl, 2006; Salhofer & Ferbas, 2007; Scholl, 2005; van Velsen, van der Geest, ter Hedde, & Derks, 2008). INT-IS-IOP pro- jects, if they are to be successful, seemingly need to take into account both technical and non-technical factors and their interplay (Janssen, Charalabidis, Kuk, & Cresswell, 2011; Luna-Reyes, Gil-Garcia, & Cruz, 2007; Pardo, Cresswell, Dawes, & Burke, 2004; Pardo, Nam, & Burke, 2011). Despite its relatively high volume and the great interest in the topic both in academia and practice, research in INT-IS-IOP has ventured into various directions employing a number of theoretical approaches. Scholl and Klischewski have addressed this variety of approaches and presented a framework along with a research agenda capable of providing an enhanced focus to INT-IS-IOP-related research (Scholl & Klischewski, 2007). Scholl and Klischewski argued that INT-IS-IOP research should be based on the analysis of stakeholders' wants and Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 313–323 ⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: + 1 206 616 3152. E-mail addresses: jscholl@uw.edu (H.J. Scholl), kubicek@ifib.de (H. Kubicek), cimander@ifib.de (R. Cimander), ralf.klischewski@guc.edu.eg (R. Klischewski). 0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.009 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf