Drawing on the research literature of interorganizational relations and several other fields, the study team constructed a conceptual model that covers macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis of the collaboration projects (Prefontaine et al., 2001). This complex model attempts to represent influential factors that operate at these three different levels. The model (Figure 1) also comprises a temporal dimension as it takes into consideration the different stages of the collaboration process and accounts for change over time.

Figure 1. Preliminary Model

The first dimension includes factors in the political, social, economic, and cultural environment reflecting the international character of the research project. In order to evaluate the possibility of transferring lessons among countries, it is necessary to identify country-specific factors, such as governmental form and economic characteristics that have an impact on the collaboration process or use of IT (Lubatkin et al., 1999; Clift & Osberg, eds., 2000). Hofstede’s (1990) cultural factors (power distance, masculinity, individualism, risk avoidance, and time orientation) were also included as variables.

Dimension 2, includes factors in the institutional, business, and technological environment. The institutional environment refers to the legal framework of the project (such as privacy, trade, intellectual property, or procurement laws). “The legal framework of cooperation imposes structural barriers and creates opportunities that can make a substantial difference to agency managers” in their willingness and ability to engage in cooperative action (Weiss, 1987). The business environment refers to the characteristics of the industry or sector of activity in which the collaboration project takes place. The technological environment, (i.e., the role and use of IT) is pertinent because all the projects use information technologies as key agents of change (Heeks & Davies, 1999).

These first two dimensions constitute the macro environment. We hypothesize that factors in these environments influence the motivations of the project participants and may determine the limits of project performance. Other research in multi-organizational e-government projects shows that the variability across these environments can influence the focus and limits of technology-supported collaborations (Dawes et al, 1997). In this research, these environmental variations are important influences on the transferability of results from one culture to another.

The third dimension includes the characteristics and objectives or motivations of the different participants in the projects. Participation in cooperative projects is usually motivated by the need to secure greater control of or access to necessary resources, or to establish favorable exchange relationships (Williamson, 1991; Ouchi, 1980). However, cooperation can be difficult in many settings. Mc Caffrey, Faerman and Hart (1995) assert that these difficulties include past experiences, costs, uneven distribution of power, divergent interests, and conflicting incentives and purposes, leadership systems, and practices. In addition, strategic, cultural, and technological differences among the participants may accentuate differences and create difficulties in collaborating. We tried to understand how motivations, similarities, and differences were addressed and how they shaped the elements of Dimension 4, the collaboration process.

The fourth dimension includes factors related to the collaboration-building process per se, from inception to implementation. The research literature suggests specific stages of the collaboration process and certain success factors associated with these stages. For example, early successes and positive interactions are important to establishing the interpersonal basis of relationships (Larson 1992; Gulati, 1995; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994) which develop trust and reduces risk aversion (Gulati, 1998). This initial trust is of critical importance in the formation and early efficacy of collaborative networks (Lansbergen and Wolken, 1998; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). Strong supportive leadership has been identified as a crucial element in interorganizational projects (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Often, the implementation of the project depends on the presence of a champion, and the support of top management (Weiss, 1985; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Pfeffer, 1992; Mintzberg, 1983). In addition, the processes of negotiation-decision-action-evaluation that take place at each stage of the collaboration project (Grandori & Soda, 1995). These processes are influenced by knowledge sharing (Pardo, et al., 2003) and by the modes of collaboration employed (i.e., Dimension 5).

Dimension 5 includes factors related to collaboration methods, including the different governance schemes adopted (Gulati & Singh, 1998), the nature of risks and benefits, the nature of leadership (Huxham & Vangen, 2000), distribution of authority and control, resource sharing, and the interorganizational management of the collaboration process. We expect the governance scheme adopted to determine the power structure within the collaboration, the relationships among partners, and the participation of stakeholders (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992; Hill & Hellreiegel, 1994). Success of the collaboration process is likely to be affected by learning (Simonin, 1997), shared experience (Lambright, 1997), mutual adjustment and consensus building (DeHaven-Smith et al., 1996), and trust relationships (Rousseau et al., 1998). Conversely, the high levels of participation that are desirable for trust-building, may reduce the effectiveness of the collaboration by raising the costs and complexity of deliberation and increasing the opportunities for conflict and confrontation (Pfeffer, 1992; Mintzberg, 1989). We expect this set of choices and their effectiveness to have direct effects on project and collaboration performance. We also expect that performance will, in turn, prompt the participants to alter their methods to achieve better results.

Dimension 6 includes performance factors. “Performance” and “results” have emerged as the key measures of success for public investment in services (US Congress, 1993). Several aspects of performance were considered. DeLone and Mc Lean (1992) identified six measures of information system success: system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. Pitt et al (1995) added service quality. Zeithman et al. (1990), Gerhinger and Herbert (1991) and Provan and Milward (2001) also recommend measuring expectations versus perceptions of service performance. Evaluating the performance of collaboration methods is also important in order to determine whether the governance method leads to satisfaction among participants.