Advertisement

An Online Transparency for Accountability Maturity Model

  • Rui Pedro Lourenço
  • Leila Serra
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8653)

Abstract

Online transparency for accountability assessment exercises reported in the literature rely solely on the analysis of public entities’ individual web sites, measuring the data disclosed and the way it is disclosed, and not taking into consideration the context in which these ‘target’ entities operate. This paper aims at identifying key contextual elements that may influence the way data is disclosed by public entities in their individual web sites, and therefore should be taken into consideration when designing the assessment models and exercises. The contextual elements identified were organized into an online transparency for accountability maturity model that may be used on its own to assess the overall level of sophistication of a country or region (‘context’), or it may be used in a stage-gate approach to define the appropriate type of entities assessment model. Researchers wanting to assess a set of ‘target’ entities should therefore begin by analyzing the context in which they operate (using the proposed maturity model) and then define their assessment model according to the recommendations proposed in this paper for the corresponding maturity level.

Keywords

Transparency accountability assessment maturity model 

References

  1. 1.
    Scholl, H.J.: Electronic Government Research: Topical Directions and Preferences. In: Wimmer, M.A., Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J. (eds.) EGOV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8074, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meijer, A.J., Curtin, D., Hillebrandt, M.: Open government: connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78, 10–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linders, D., Wilson, S.C.: What is Open Government? One Year after the Directive. In: 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (Dg.o 2011), pp. 262–271. ACM, College Park (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bovens, M.: Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal 13, 447–468 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C.: Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly 27, 371–376 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lourenço, R.P.: Data disclosure and transparency for accountability: A strategy and case analysis. Information Polity 18, 243–260 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coy, D., Dixon, K.: The public accountability index: crafting a parametric disclosure index for annual reports. The British Accounting Review 36, 79–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing Maturity Models for IT Management. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1, 213–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. In: 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Australia, New South Wales, Sydney, pp. 8–19 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klimko, G.: Knowledge Management and Maturity Models: Building Common Understanding. In: Second European Conference on Knowledge Management, pp. 269–278. Bled School of Management Bled, Slovenia (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen, K.N., Medaglia, R., Vatrapu, R., Henriksen, H.Z., Gauld, R.: The forgotten promise of e-government maturity: Assessing responsiveness in the digital public sector. Government Information Quarterly 28, 439–445 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andersen, K.V., Henriksen, H.Z.: E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly 23, 236–248 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Layne, K., Lee, J.: Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 18, 122–136 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, J.: 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly 27, 220–230 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siau, K., Long, Y.: Synthesizing E-government Stage Models - a Meta-synthesis Based on Meta-ethnography Approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems 105, 443–458 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., Tarabanis, K.: A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools. In: 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD/ROM), p. 90. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macintosh, A.: Using information and communication technologies to enhance citizen engagement in the policy process. In: Promises and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Citizen Online Engagement, pp. 19–142. OECD, Paris (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lourenço, R.P.: From e-Government and e-Democracy to e-Governance: a unified view. In: Janssen, M., et al. (eds.) Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP EGOV and ePart 2011, vol. 37, pp. 345–351. Trauner Verlag (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: Open Government Data: A Stage Model. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846, pp. 235–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, G., Kwak, Y.H.: An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly 29, 492–503 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: A classification scheme for open government data: towards linking decentralized data. International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology 6, 266–285 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huijboom, N., den Broek, T.V.: Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice 12, 1–12 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reggi, L., Ricci, C.A.: Information Strategies for Open Government in Europe: EU Regions Opening Up the Data on Structural Funds. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y.-h. (eds.) EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846, pp. 173–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heald, D.: Why is transparency about public expenditure so elusive? International Review of Administrative Sciences 78, 30–49 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bovens, M., Curtin, D., ‘t Hart, P.: Towards a More Accountable EU: Retrospective and Roadmap. Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scott, C.: Accountability in the Regulatory State. Journal of Law and Society 27, 38–60 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shadbolt, N., O’Hara, K., Berners-Lee, T., Gibbins, N., Glaser, H., Hall, W., Schraefel, M.C.: Linked Open Government Data: Lessons from Data.gov.uk. IEEE Intelligent Systems 27, 16–24 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked data – the story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 5, 1–22 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rui Pedro Lourenço
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leila Serra
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.INESC CoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do MaranhãoBrazil

Personalised recommendations