The final products or mutual benefits of the ILDS were largely dependent on the actors' commitment to exchanging or sharing resources.
The above review of the antecedent conditions to the ILDS network does suggest that due to the mandatory nature of its formation the participants as inputs to the system were quite raw and not ready to operate as a collective.
Figure 2, below, depicts the overarching timeline of ILDS development.
Similar to the findings of Cummings (1984), due to asymmetries as to the benefits of participating in this effort, many ILDS actors needed some structural assurances that reductions in their autonomy would not be a threat to their survival.
This grant funding served as an important linking mechanism for ILDS actors.
Many policymakers and ILDS actors recognized the potential value associated with the inclusion of new participants, but at the same time this heightened the concerns of the mandated participants regarding data access and use.
Although the level of data access available through the ILDS has enormous value, it also contributes to concerns about the nature of the data and its use.
For example, at the January, 2011 ICCB meeting, a lengthy discussion about ILDS governance and data ownership opened with a Board member asking staff "if there was concern that there may be an attempt to take over the ICCB data system by the Illinois Board of Higher Education.
However, in the discussion it was noted by staff that "ICCB will fully participate in the ILDS and will partner with the IBHE on the IHEC, ICCB .
At the publication of the P-20 Council's annual recommendations in April of 2013, the question still remained an open one with the report including the Council's recommendation to "Adopt a governance model for the ILDS and develop legislation that codifies the role of governing structure in statute.
The slow process of reaching agreement on the governance structure for the ILDS overall was indicative of the concerns participants felt about uncertainties and risks inherent in the project.
Given the antecedent conditions to the ILDS network, exacerbated by its mandated formation, the failure to give the structural considerations their due attention at worst may have thwarted the potential of this endeavor and at best delayed its realization of a collaborative advantage for many years.