4.6 Mechanisms for Knowledge Sharing
In the previous sections we discussed the different types of information that coordinating agencies may find useful to share, as well as common challenges they may face when doing so. In this final section, we will provide an overview of the different mechanisms agencies might utilize to coordinate their information sharing efforts (See Box 4c). These mechanisms include communication through ad-hoc methods, via a spokesperson, through a third party, through a centralized system, and through joint production. These different approaches are associated with benefits and drawbacks that balance factors such as speed, effort, and efficiency in communication. Therefore, the most appropriate mechanism for each set of coordinating agencies depends on their specific situations and the relative influence of these factors for their coordination success.
Ad-hoc information sharing is an informal system where sharing occurs through chance meeting. In ad-hoc information sharing, each member of one agency has access to each member of the other agency, and communication occurs at the individual level. Ad-hoc systems tend to be the default when no other mode for information sharing is set up. The benefits of this mechanism include its tendency to broaden social learning and build morale amongst those communicating. The informal nature of ad-hoc sharing may also help more group members feel comfortable expressing new ideas. However, this informal nature also means that there is no record of who has spoken to whom, which can lead to redundancy or gaps in information sharing. Knowledge received by one group member may not be shared among all group members. There is also a greater chance for contradictory information to be passed along because of the large number of individuals involved in information sharing efforts.69
Unlike ad-hoc sharing, communication via a spokesperson tends to be a formalized system whereby each agency has one member through whom all knowledge is shared. This spokesperson may be assigned, elected, or volunteer. Compared to ad-hoc sharing, the main benefit of a spokesperson system is that it tends to be more efficient when many parties need to coordinate or a formal decision needs to be made. Because all information must flow through one individual, however, spokesperson systems tend to slow down the rate of communication. There is also a greater potential for bias in information sharing because only one person is responsible for interpreting and sharing information.69
Similarly to spokesperson systems, third-party communication is a formalized system. However, an external party such as a consulting group or information clearinghouse is responsible for knowledge sharing instead of an internal agency member.69,70 Third-party systems may be particularly useful if there is antagonism between the groups because the third-party serves as a neutral intermediary. Third parties may also have knowledge sharing expertise and capacity that an agency may need. Lastly, third parties may be especially useful for agencies with data that must remain confidential. In these situations, utilizing a third party may help the agencies address privacy concerns because the third party can analyze data and present results in aggregate form. Drawbacks of third-party systems include the need for trust, respect, and confidence in an outside party. Time and effort are required to find the right entity to serve as the third party, and this entity must be financially compensated for their service.69
A fourth system frequently utilized by coordinating agencies is centralization, whereby information sharing occurs through a central repository. Centralized information sharing may take several forms, such as hierarchical networks or central forums. In hierarchical networks, subordinated organizations submit information to a super-ordinated organization, which in turn is responsible for coordinating interactions and making integrated data accessible to the subordinated organizations. In central forums, agencies submit information to an entity at their same level of governance that they jointly created, such as a technical committee or online database. This entity serves as an intermediary information service through which information is shared and exchanged.
One of the main benefits of centralized systems is that information can be found in one place, which tends to increase the speed at which information can be obtained. Centralized systems may help reduce the cost of sharing information and can help increase the quality of shared information because the centralized system reduces the complexity of transferring, recalculating, and integrating information from different sources.70 However, for agencies with a pre-established information system, switching to a centralized system requires extra time, effort, and usually money. Centralized systems also need to be designed to match the broad range of data that will be aggregated, and consequently this system may not be tailored to the specific needs of an individual agency. In addition, relevant datasets can become very difficult to discover, identify, or utilize if data standards are not successfully matched when integrating data between the systems.71
The final approach to knowledge sharing that we wish to highlight is called joint production. Joint production is a direct collaboration between agencies, with each source contributing knowledge, capacity, and the shared intention of generating usable knowledge and tangible project outputs.72,73 This mechanism is likely to produce knowledge that is highly relevant, useable, and trustworthy for all stakeholders because the agencies work together to define which data, information and knowledge will be produced – and jointly implement the methods for producing that knowledge. Joint production may also be viewed as fairer and more ethical for the stakeholders involved.74,75 However, joint production tends to be complex; agencies have to work together to define the scope, select methods, allocate responsibilities and develop knowledge. The collaboration process requires a significant amount of time and effort from all parties, and it is not always possible for the direction of the research to reflect the values or priorities of all stakeholders.73,74 This may also increase financial costs and administrative burdens. There is potential for increased conflict, as tensions can arise more frequently due to the large number of interests involved.74 Lastly, the parties involved may also have different views about what the research findings show and what to do with these findings, resulting in delayed action.
Box 4c. Coordinating Knowledge – Example Methods Used by Some Agencies in California to Develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans
California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act mandated agencies sharing a groundwater basin coordinate to use the same data, methodologies, and assumptions in development of their groundwater sustainability plan(s). Agencies adopted a variety of strategies for coordinating information. The figure depicts strategies adopted by agencies in three separate basins. These strategies are not mutually exclusive; agencies could choose to utilize more than one strategy concurrently.
A. Shared Foundational Data: The Delta Mendota groundwater basin contains thirty-nine agencies that formed six groundwater sustainability planning groups. Agencies in the basin decided to use the same foundational data across the six groundwater sustainability planning groups. Representatives from each group worked together under the auspices of ad-hoc technical workgroup to coordinate the datasets used to develop a hydrological conceptual model and a water budget. Technical memorandums were produced to outline which data was going to be used to support certain aspects of the planning process. Some foundational data was shared among all agencies in the subbasin, whereas other data was local and shared among agencies within the same planning group.
B.Shared Methodologies and Assumptions: The Kings groundwater basin contains fifty-two agencies that formed seven groundwater sustainability planning groups. Agencies decided to use the same methodologies for groundwater data collection and analysis; for establishing a water budget; and for setting sustainability criteria. The coordination workgroup, containing members from each of the seven groundwater sustainability planning groups, jointly developed and formally approved the shared set of methodologies that would be used by each groundwater sustainability plan.
C. Shared Consultant: The Madera groundwater basin contains seven agencies that formed four groundwater sustainability planning groups. The agencies collectively hired two consultants to help with coordination of knowledge. The consultants coordinated data compilation, developed a hydrogeologic conceptual model, calculated water budgets, and identified data gaps. They then provided this information in reports to the groundwater sustainability planning groups.