Burton Trucking Company uses its information systems based on a single integrated data model for the entire company, where the integrated data was derived from each sub-unit. This integrated system allows them to link across both geography and functions. By using integrated, sharable data, they expanded their dispatch systems (the responsibility of operations) with little effort to have a much better shipment tracking system (the responsibility of marketing). Data integration made them capitalize on previously unrecognized interdependencies between dispatching and shipment tracking.

Though the new dispatching system "contained integrated data about all customers, equipment, and shipments, salespeople at each local terminal argued that in order for the information to be valuable to them, they needed to add additional fields such as permissible delivery hours, after-hours phone numbers, and special instructions for drivers. But the salespeople could not agree on exactly which additional fields should be added. Terminals with close-in satellites (trucks every 2-3 hours) had very different needs from those with distant satellites (trucks every 5 hours). It was decided that trying to standardize at this level did not make sense. They designed 10 extra fields that the local people could use as they saw fit and gave them search capabilities and screens to update and query whatever data they needed in those fields" (Goodhue, et al., 1992, p302).

Also at Burton Trucking Company, the operations group wanted to automate freight transfer recording using bar codes, but because the data administration group did not understand what they were trying to do so could not "square" it with their data model. After a delay of six months, the project could proceed and was quite successful (Goodhue, et al., 1992). This case indicates that the requests for change in the use of integrated data may involve certain bureaucratic delays.