Key boundary object* | Attributes | Consequences (factors) |
---|---|---|
1. VIKING Alliance Governance Structure | ·Expanded partnership | ·Assured commitments of key stakeholders |
 | →Covers the full spectrum of necessary functions for collaborative DM & ISD. | ·Improved understanding on the division of duties. |
 | ·Mandated participation | ·Prevented cultural conflicts |
 | →Institutionalized positions for key stakeholders (e.g., end-user groups) in the governance structure | ·Ensured national-level consistency |
 | ·Dual-head leadership | ·Ensured political power to mobilize all alliance partners |
 | →Appoint an authoritative leader. | ·Provided a sense of equality and transparency |
 | →Confer enough legal authority. | →Promote trust among partners |
 |  | →Secure further funding |
2. Information Systems | ·Convenient & secure access to all partners | ·Created a new layer of direct communication links for DMOs. |
A. FLIWAS | →Web-based | →Bypass hierarchical controls |
B. VIKING Cockpit (Knowledge/Project Mgmt.) | ·Modular multi-version | →Remove stove-piping |
 | →Flexible implementation options | →Remove bottleneck at the border |
 | ·Multi-lingual | ·Increase knowledge sharing/creation for ISD |
 | ·Neutral design | ·Lowered adoption barrier |
 | →Use open standards | ·Interested other EU states |
 | →Independent of national DMO structure. | ·Increased acceptance of IS |
 | ·Mandated involvement of all key stakeholders | ·Increased interoperability |
3. Feedback mechanism (Cross-border DM Exercises) | ·Large scale to involve the full spectrum of | ·Improved individuals’ understanding of cross-border DM operations. |
 | →Partners | ·Provided a built-in feedback mechanism |
 | ·Recurrent exercise | →Offer DMIS evaluation opportunities |
 | ·Invite potential stakeholders | →Encourage expansive learning |
 |  | ·Demonstrated the progress of the ISD |
 |  | →Showcase for FLIWAS to EU states |
 |  | →Revamp internal interests, involvement, and commitment |
 |  | →Keep EU/external supports |