Advertisement

Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration Platforms: Understanding Barriers, Options, and Needs

  • Michael Hogan
  • Adegboyega Ojo
  • Owen Harney
  • Erna Ruijer
  • Albert Meijer
  • Jerry Andriessen
  • Mirjam Pardijs
  • Paolo Boscolo
  • Elena Palmisano
  • Matteo Satta
  • Jonathan Groff
  • Michael Baker
  • Françoise Détienne
  • Lukasz Porwol
  • Vittorio Scarano
  • Delfina Malandrino
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 32)

Abstract

Developments in open data have prompted a range of proposals and innovations in the domain of governance and public administration. Within the democratic tradition, transparency is seen as a fundamental element of democratic governance. While the use of open government data has the potential to enhance transparency and trust in government, realising any ideal of transparent democratic governance implies responding to a range of sociotechnical design challenges. In order to address these design challenges it is essential to adopt an interdisciplinary and stakeholder-engaged approach to research and innovation. In the current study, we describe a contextualist approach to the design of an open data collaboration platform in the context of an EU innovation project, focused on enhancing transparency and collaboration between citizens and public administrators through the use of open government data. We report on a collective intelligence scenario-based design process that has shaped the development of open data platform requirements and ongoing system engineering and evaluation work. Stakeholders across five pilot sites identified barriers to accessing, understanding, and using open data, and options to overcome these barriers across three broad categories: government and organisational issues; technical, data, and resource issues; and training and engagement issues. Stakeholders also expressed a broad variety of user needs across three domains: information needs; social-collaborative needs; and understandability, usability, and decision-making needs. Similarities and differences across sites are highlighted along with implications for open data platform design.

Keywords

Governance Open Data Citizens Transparency Collaboration 

References

  1. Alexopoulos C, Zuiderwijk A, Charapabidis Y, Loukis E, Janssen M (2014) Designing a second generation of open data platforms: integrating open data and social media. In: International conference on electronic government, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 230–241Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1(2):1–17Google Scholar
  4. Attard J, Orlandi F, Scerri S, Auer S (2015) A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Gov Inf Q (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Bannister F, Connolly R (2011) The trouble with transparency: a critical view of openness in e- government. Policy & Internet 3(1):158–187. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, McClure CR (2008) Citizen-centered e-government services: benefits, costs, and research needs. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on digital government research, Digital Government Society of North America, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  7. Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Chang 19(3):366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broome BJ, Cromer IL (1991) Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management 2:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broome BJ, Fulbright L (1995) A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Res 26:25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broome BJ, Chen M (1992) Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Res 23:216–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappelli C, Engiel P, De Araujo RM, Cesar J, Leite P (2013) Managing transparency guided by a maturity model. In: 3rd global conference on transparency research, HEC, Paris, France, 24–26 October 2013, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  12. Caroll J (2000) Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers 13:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christakis AN (1987) Correspondence: Systems profiles. Systems Research 4(1):53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coke JG, Moore CM (1981) Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In: Burks SW, Wolf JF (eds) Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods. National League of Cities, Washington, DC, pp 72–85Google Scholar
  15. Cohn M (2004) User stories applied for Agile software development. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahlander L, Fredriksen L, Rullani F (2009) Online Communities and Open Innovation. Ind Innov 15(2):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawes S, Helbig N (2010) Information strategies for open government: challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. Electron Gov 6228:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deloitte (2013) Market assessment for public sector information. Written for UK, Department for Business, Innovation and SkillsGoogle Scholar
  19. Denis J, Goëta S (2014) Exploration, Extraction and “ Rawification ” The Shaping of Transparency in the Back Rooms of Open Data. In: Neil Postman Graduate Conference. New York, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  20. Dwyer C, Hogan M, Harney O, O'Reily J (2014) Using interactive management to facilitate a student-centered conceptualisation of critical thinking: a case study. Educ Technol Res Dev 62(6):687–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox J (2007) The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Dev Pract 17(4–5):663–671. doi: 10.1080/09614520701469955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feeg R (1988) Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st century. Pediatric Nursing 14:393–396Google Scholar
  23. Ghaus-Pasha A (2007) Governance for the millenium development: core issues and good practices. BuildingGoogle Scholar
  24. Greiner A, Isaac A, Iglesias C, Laufer C, Guéret C, Stephan EG, Kauz E, Atemezing GA, Bittencourt II, Almeida JP, Carrasco MT, Archer P, Albertoni R, Purohit S Córdova Y (2015) Data on the Web best practices – W3C working draft 25 June 2015. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/
  25. Grimmelikhuijsen SG, Welch EW (2012) Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Adm Rev 72(4):562–571. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02532.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Groarke JM, Hogan MJ (2016) Enhancing wellbeing: An emerging model of the adaptive functions of music listening. Psychology of Music 44(4):769–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes SC, Hayes LJ, Reese HW (1988) Finding the philosophical core: a review of Stephen C. Pepper’s world hypotheses: a study in evidence. J Exp Anal Behav 1(1):97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Habermas J (1962) The structural transformation of the public sphere (1962, trans: Cambridge Massachusetts, 1989, MIT Press)Google Scholar
  29. Heald D (2006) Varieties of transparency. Proceedings-British Academy 25–43. doi: 10.5871/bacad/9780197263839.003.0002
  30. Hilgers D, Ihl C (2010) Citizensourcing: applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. Int J Public Participation 4(1):67–88Google Scholar
  31. Hogan MJ, Johnston H, Broome B, McMoreland C, Walsh J, Smale B et al (2015) Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: lessons from a systems science application. Social Indicators Research 123(3):857–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaeger P, Bertot JC, Shilton K (2012) Information policy and social media: framing government-citizen Web 2.0 interactions. In: Reddick CG, Aikins S (eds) WEb 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance. Political, policy and management implications, Springer, New York, pp 11–25Google Scholar
  33. Janssen K (2011) The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: an overview of. Gov Inf Q 28:446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keever, D. B. (1989, April). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a computer-based organization information system. Paper presented at the International Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee G, Kwak Y (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov Inf Q 29(4):492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lourenço RP (2013) Open government portals assessment: a transparency for accountability perspective. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8074 LNCS, 62–74. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40358-3-6
  38. Mei CS, Dewan SM (2014) Towards conceptualizing information transparency and its role in internet consumers’ concerns: a literature reviewGoogle Scholar
  39. Meijer A (2009) Understanding modern transparency. Int Rev Adm Sci 75(2):255–269. doi: 10.1177/0020852309104175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meijer A (2015a) E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Gov Inf Q 32:198/206Google Scholar
  41. Meijer A (2015b) Government transparency in historical perspective: from the ancient regime to open data in The Netherlands. Int J Public Adm 38(3):189–199. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2014.934837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ojo A, Porwol L, Waqar M, Stasiewicz A, Osagie E, Hogan M, Harney O, Ahmadi-Zeleti F (2016) Realizing the innovation potentials from open data: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the desired affordances of open data environment, 17th IFIP working conference on virtual enterprises, Porto, Portugal, 3–5 October 2016, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  43. Ojo A, Mellouli S (2016) Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Gov Inf Q. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.001
  44. Peled A (2011) When transparency and collaboration collide: the USA open data program. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 62(11):2085–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pepper SC (1942) World hypotheses: a study in evidence. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Piotrowski S, Conference G, Sasaki D (2011) Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency Paper prepared for the 1, 0–27Google Scholar
  47. RezaeiZadeh M, Hogan M, O’Reilly J, Cunningham J, Murphy E (2017) Core entrepreneurial competencies and their interdependencies: insights from a study of Irish and Iranian entrepreneurs, university students and academics. Int Entrep Manag J 13(1):35–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosson MB, Carroll J (2002) Scenario-based design. In: Jacko J, Sears A (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 1032–1050Google Scholar
  49. Sandoval-Almazan R, Gil-Garcia JR (2012) Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly 29:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sato T (1979) Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research 3:67–75Google Scholar
  51. Van Velzen L, Van der Geest T, Ter Hedde MD (2009) Requirements engineering for e-Government services: a citizens-centric apporach and case study. Gov Inf Q 26:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warfield JN (1994) Science of generic design: managing complexity through systems design. Iowa State Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  53. Warfield JN (2006) An introduction to systems science. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a framework for comparison. Gov Inf Q 31:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Hogan
    • 1
  • Adegboyega Ojo
    • 2
  • Owen Harney
    • 1
  • Erna Ruijer
    • 4
  • Albert Meijer
    • 4
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 5
  • Mirjam Pardijs
    • 5
  • Paolo Boscolo
    • 6
  • Elena Palmisano
    • 6
  • Matteo Satta
    • 7
  • Jonathan Groff
    • 8
  • Michael Baker
    • 8
  • Françoise Détienne
    • 8
  • Lukasz Porwol
    • 3
  • Vittorio Scarano
    • 9
  • Delfina Malandrino
    • 9
  1. 1.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland GalwayLower DanganIreland
  3. 3.Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Utrecht University, School of GovernanceUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Wise & Murno Learning ResearchDen HaagThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Comune di PratoPratoItaly
  7. 7.Issy-Média and Ville d’Issy-les-MoulineauxIssy-les-MoulineauxFrance
  8. 8.CNRS – Telecom ParisTechParisFrance
  9. 9.University of SalernoFisciano (Salerno)Italy

Personalised recommendations