This chapter explores the divergent trajectories of the Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS) in Asia and Africa, highlighting the complex interplay between policy subsystems, actor dynamics and external influences in the adoption of transboundary information systems. Drawing on comparative case studies, the analysis reveals that technological efficacy alone does not guarantee system acceptance; rather, the alignment—or conflict—of policy beliefs among key coalitions, along with their relative resource capacities, plays a decisive role. In Asia, WEMS emerged within an adversarial subsystem marked by deep coalition conflicts and limited consensus, leading to its rejection. Conversely, in Africa, despite disagreements on core beliefs, coalitions were motivated by context-specific pressures, including the prominence of wildlife crime, to adopt a more collaborative approach. The study underscores the significance of policy-oriented learning, coalition reconfiguration and the evolving role of policy brokers such as the CITES Secretariat, which, constrained by limited resources, adopted strategic compromises to maintain influence. It also critiques the framing of WEMS purely as a scientific tool, arguing instead for its potential as a boundary object capable of reconciling competing policy interests. Ultimately, this chapter positions WEMS as both a technical and socio-political artefact, whose legitimacy and success depend on its capacity to mediate conflict and foster informed consensus among diverse stakeholders.