Information Technology Reference
and buildings. The implementation is extensively documented in professional
magazines, regularly maintained websites, and newsletters of the Kadaster
agency and the Netherlands Ministry of environment and infrastructure.
Further evidence could be collected through staff members working on either
side of the Cadastral geoG2G.
2. Actual Heights Netherlands (AHN): This geoG2G is constructed by the
national agency of public works (RWS) and 12 regional water management
agencies. Both types of organizations follow a mutually agreed geoICT coor-
dination strategy on the production and distribution of accurate height data.
Both agencies maintained regular newsletters and publications on the devel-
opments and progress in AHN, which provided the documentary evidence.
In addition, staff members from both RWS and several regional water agen-
cies were interviewed on AHN.
3. Dataland: This geoG2G involves 300 municipalities who agreed to cooperate
on the specifications and distribution of local house and building data. All
municipalities adhere to a geoICT coordination strategy relying on national
“other government” objectives. Information on Dataland activities and deci-
sions was available through the regular Dataland newsletters and congresses.
Access to this information was possible through registration to both and
through personal contacts with the Dataland actors.
4. Sabimos: This geoG2G constitutes of 15 municipalities and a regional gov-
ernment, who agreed to collect, monitor, and distribute data in relation to
performance indicators and coordination of public transport. Both types
of organizations were collaborating on a geoICT coordination strategy on
regional mobility. The majority of data on this case could be collected through
interviews and observations of the main responsible actors in this geoG2G.
Based on the differentiation of discretions, empirical indicators needed to be
formulated for discretionary aspects. In total, there are five aspects that enable the
description of discretion characteristics: personal task simplification, adherence to
client interests, cognitive filter to the environment, personal access to resources,
and ability to envision alternative courses of action. Table 9.2 provides the details
of these aspects. The indicators of these aspects were evaluated through qualitative
analyses of interview transcripts, grey literature, progress reports, and other types
of documentation. A value of “high” was given if, in the different data sources
(interviews, documents, references), there was a relatively frequent and/or consis-
tent mentioning or reference to the particular indicator. Similarly, if this was lack-
ing or people systematically and consistently denied the presence of this aspect,
then the value was labeled as “low.” This process derived values that are, by nature,
qualitative and subjective and not quantitative. Hence, the discrete values low and
high describe the perceived degree to which the aspects are present given the avail-
able evidence to qualify the variation in aspects.