Assessment of Open Government Data Initiative - A Perception Driven Approach

  • Alka Mishra
  • D. P. Misra
  • Arpan Kumar Kar
  • Sunil Babbar
  • Shubhadip BiswasEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10595)


Evolution of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) and digital governance became the key enablers for open data initiative of the government to become more open, responsive, inclusive, transparent, accountable and efficient. Through the e-governance initiatives governments worldwide are focusing on the concept of open data and its huge potential to bring positive changes to the socio-economic value by developing and disseminating information within a vibrant mixed economy comprising of open source, government bodies, business houses, and hybrid solutions of various forms fueled with the sharp elevation of digitization. This study demonstrates assessment of open government data initiatives by the geometric mean method (GMM) of analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Few key factors i.e. people, technology scope, policy, economic and institution were identified which have a very strong impact for any e-governance initiative.


E-governance Open data Analytic Hierarchy Process Impact assessment Feature prioritization 


  1. 1.
    Aguarón, J., Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.: The geometric consistency index: approximated thresholds. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 147(1), 137–145 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Hujran, O., Aloudat, A., Altarawneh, I.: Factors influencing citizen adoption of e-government in developing countries: the case of Jordan. Int. J. Technol. Hum. Interact. (IJTHI) 9(2), 1–19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AlBalushi, T.H., Ali, S.: Evaluation of the quality of e-government services: quality trend analysis. In: 2015 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Research (ICTRC), Abu Dhabi, pp. 226–229. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alenezi, H., Tarhini, A., Sharma, S.K.: Development of quantitative model to investigate the strategic relationship between information quality and e-government benefits. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 9(3), 324–351 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amritesh, C., Misra, S., Chatterjee, J.: Conceptualizing e-government service quality under credence based settings: a case of e-counseling in India. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 31(7), 764–787 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anand, O., Mittal, A., Moolchandani, K., Kagzi, M.M., Kar, A.K.: Evaluating travel websites using WebQual: a group decision support approach. In: Buyya, R., Thampi, S.M. (eds.) Intelligent Distributed Computing. AISC, vol. 321, pp. 151–160. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11227-5_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arzberger, P., et al.: An international framework to promote access to data. Science 303(5665), 1777–1778 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Attard, J., et al.: A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 399–418 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhatnagar, S.C., Singh, N.: Assessing the impact of e-government: a study of projects in India. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 6(2), 109–127 (2010). Information Technologies & International Development, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 17(3), 233–247 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cao, D., Leung, L.C., Law, J.S.: Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Process: a heuristic approach. Decis. Support Syst. 44(4), 944–953 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan, F.K., Thong, J.Y., Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Hu, P.J., Tam, K.Y.: Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-government technology. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11(10), 519–549 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conradie, P., Choenni, S.: Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in local government. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ICEGOV, pp. 5–13. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crawford, G., Williams, C.: A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J. Math. Psychol. 29(4), 387–405 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong, Y., et al.: Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decis. Support Syst. 49(3), 281–289 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Economides, A.A., Terzis, V.: Evaluating tax sites: an evaluation framework and its application. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 5(3), 321–344 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Escobar, M.T., Aguarón, J., Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.: A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 153(2), 18–322 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fan, J., Zhang, P., Yen, D.C.: G2G information sharing among government agencies. Inf. Manag. 51(1), 120–128 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fitsilis, P., Anthopoulos, L., Gerogiannis, V.: Assessment frameworks of e-government projects: a comparison. In: The Proceedings of the 13th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2009), PCI, Corfu Island, pp. 10–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Funilkul, S., et al.: An evaluation framework for e-government services based on principles laid out in COBIT, the ISO 9000 standard, and TAM. In: ACIS 2006 Proceedings, 3, Adelaide (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Government Open Data License – India. Accessed 12 May 2017
  22. 22.
    Singh, H., Kar, A.K., Vigneswara Ilavarasan, P.: Assessment of e-governance projects: an integrated framework and its validation. In: ICEGOV 2017 SCII, New Delhi (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heeks, R.: Benchmarking e-government: improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-government. In: Evaluating Information Systems, p. 257. Elsevier, Hungary (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Implementation Guidelines for National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of India. Accessed 12 May 2017
  25. 25.
    Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., Zuiderwijk, A.: Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf. Syst. Manag. 29(4), 258–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kar, A.K., Rakshit, A.: Flexible pricing models for cloud computing based on group decision making under consensus. Global J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 16(2), 191–204 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kar, A.K., Rakshit, A.: Pricing of cloud IaaS based on feature prioritization - a value based approach. In: Thampi, S., Abraham, A., Pal, S., Rodriguez, J. (eds.) Recent Advances in Intelligent Informatics. AISC, vol. 235, pp. 321–330. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01778-5_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kar, A.K.: Integrating websites with social media–an approach for group decision support. J. Decis. Syst. 24(3), 339–353 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khatwani, G., Kar, A.K.: Improving the Cosine Consistency Index for the Analytic Hierarchy Process for solving multi-criteria decision making problems. Appl. Comput. Inform. (2016). Elsevier, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kar, A.K., Pani, A.K.: Exploring the importance of different supplier selection criteria. Manag. Res. Rev. 37(1), 89–105 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., Persaud, A.: Factors for successful e-government adoption: a conceptual framework. Electron. J. e-government 5(1), 63–76 (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mates, P., Lechner, T., Rieger, P., Pěkná, J.: Towards e-government project assessment: European approach. J. Econ. Bus. 31(1), 103–125 (2013). ZbornikradovaEkonomskogfakulteta u Rijeci, časopiszaekonomskuteorijuipraksu-Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mennis, E.A.: The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. Bus. Econ. 41(4), 63–65 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Misra, D.P., Mishra, A.: Societal and economical impact on citizens through innovations using open government data: Indian initiative on open government data. In: Handbook of Research on Cultural and Economic Impacts of the Information Society, pp. 147–178. IGI Global, Salamanca (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Misra, D.P., Verma, N.: Enabling public participation through e-governance: an Indian context. IJeN 2(1), 20–41 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Misra, D., Mishra, A., Babbar, S., Gupta, V.: Open government data policy and Indian ecosystems. In: ICEGOV 2017 SCII, New Delhi (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy-2012. Accessed 12 May 2017
  38. 38.
    Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: A framework for evaluating web sites of public authorities. In: ASLIB Proceedings, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 517–546. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porumbescu, G.A.: Placing the effect? Gleaning insights into the relationship between citizens’ use of e-government and trust in government. Public Manag. Rev. 18(10), 1504–1535 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rotchanakitumnuai, S.: Measuring e-government service value with the E-GOVSQUAL-RISK model. Bus. Process Manag. J. 14(5), 724–737 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saaty, T.L.: Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sapru, R.K., Sapru, Y.: Good governance through e-governance with special reference to India. Indian J. Public Adm. 60(2), 313–331 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sharma, S.K., Govindaluri, S.M., Gattoufi, S.: Understanding and predicting the quality determinants of e-government services: a two-staged regression-neural network model. J. Model. Manag. 10(3), 325–340 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Singh Kalsi, N., Kiran, R.: E-governance success factors: an analysis of e-governance initiatives of ten major states of India. Int. J. Public Sector Manag. 26(4), 320–336 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tomashevskii, I.L.: Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: formulas for errors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240(3), 774–780 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tsohou, A., Lee, H., Irani, Z., Weerakkody, V., Osman, I.H., Anouze, A.L., Medeni, T.: Proposing a reference process model for the citizen-centric evaluation of e-government services. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 7(2), 240–255 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ubaldi, B.: Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22, 0_1. OECD Publishing, Paris (2013)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Verma, N., Gupta, M.P.: Open government data: beyond policy & portal, a study in Indian context. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Seoul, pp. 338–341. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xu, J.: Measurement of public satisfaction evaluation on e-government: based on structural equation model. In: 2009 IITA International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems Engineering, Zhangjiajie, pp. 418–421. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zimmermann, H.-J.: Fuzzy set theory—and its applications, 4th edn. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0646-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M.: Barriers and development directions for the publication and usage of open data: a socio-technical view. In: Gascó-Hernández, M. (ed.) Open Government. PAIT, vol. 4, pp. 115–135. Springer, New York (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9563-5_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alka Mishra
    • 1
  • D. P. Misra
    • 1
  • Arpan Kumar Kar
    • 2
  • Sunil Babbar
    • 1
  • Shubhadip Biswas
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.National Informatics Centre, DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.DMS, Indian Institute of Technology, DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Open Government Data Project, DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations