Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Open Data Exposed pp 149–172Cite as

Assessing Open Data

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 30))

Abstract

Open data assessment is about collecting, analysing and providing information on the performance of open data initiatives. Open data assessments are used to monitor the progress of open data initiatives, compare and benchmark the performance of different organizations or countries and hold governments and agencies to account for their decisions and investments. In the past ten years, many different open data assessment frameworks have been developed by researchers and practitioners around the world. Open data assessments can be divided into three main categories: open data readiness assessments, open data implementation assessments and open data impact assessments. Each of these three categories deal with the assessment of open data but focus on different aspects of open data initiatives and practices. In order to provide a better understanding of ongoing assessment initiatives and practices, this chapter reviews fifteen main open data assessment frameworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Open Data Institute 2016.

  2. 2.

    Van Dooren 2006.

  3. 3.

    Davies 2013.

  4. 4.

    Charalabidis et al. 2016.

  5. 5.

    Bouckaert and Halligan 2007.

  6. 6.

    Talbot 2005.

  7. 7.

    Homburg 2008.

  8. 8.

    Heeks 2006.

  9. 9.

    Hossain et al. 2016.

  10. 10.

    Li and Zhang 2005.

  11. 11.

    Open Knowledge International 2017.

  12. 12.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  13. 13.

    Capgemini Consulting 2015; Capgemini Consulting 2016.

  14. 14.

    Dodds and Newman 2015.

  15. 15.

    E.g. Lourenço 2015; Umbrich et al. 2015.

  16. 16.

    E.g. Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority 2010; Freebairn and Zillman 2002; Häggquist and Söderholm 2015.

  17. 17.

    Socrata 2011.

  18. 18.

    Zuiderwijk and Janssen 2014.

  19. 19.

    Tinholt 2013.

  20. 20.

    Davies 2014.

  21. 21.

    Socrata 2011.

  22. 22.

    Huijboom and Van den Broek 2011.

  23. 23.

    Open Government Partnership 2017.

  24. 24.

    World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group 2015.

  25. 25.

    Open Knowledge International 2017.

  26. 26.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  27. 27.

    ePSI Platform 2013.

  28. 28.

    European Commission 2003; European Commission 2013.

  29. 29.

    Tinholt 2013.

  30. 30.

    OD500 Global Network 2017.

  31. 31.

    Veljkovic et al. 2014.

  32. 32.

    Zuiderwijk and Janssen 2014.

  33. 33.

    Capgemini Consulting 2015.

  34. 34.

    OpenDataMonitor 2015.

  35. 35.

    OECD 2015.

  36. 36.

    Open Data for Development Network 2017.

  37. 37.

    The results of the fourth edition of the Open Data Barometer, the 2016/2017 Global Open Data Index and the 2017 OURdata Index were all published in 2017.

  38. 38.

    Open Government Partnership 2017.

  39. 39.

    Khan and Foti 2015.

  40. 40.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  41. 41.

    ePSI Platform 2013.

  42. 42.

    European Commission 2003; European Commission 2013.

  43. 43.

    World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group 2015.

  44. 44.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  45. 45.

    Huijboom and Van den Broek 2011.

  46. 46.

    Socrata 2011.

  47. 47.

    Huijboom and Van den Broek 2011.

  48. 48.

    Capgemini Consulting 2015; Capgemini Consulting 2016.

  49. 49.

    World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group 2015.

  50. 50.

    Capgemini Consulting 2015; Capgemini Consulting 2016.

  51. 51.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  52. 52.

    World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group 2015.

  53. 53.

    Socrata 2011.

  54. 54.

    OECD 2015.

  55. 55.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  56. 56.

    World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group 2015.

  57. 57.

    Zuiderwijk and Janssen 2014.

  58. 58.

    Huijboom and Van den Broek 2011.

  59. 59.

    Capgemini Consulting 2015; Capgemini Consulting 2016.

  60. 60.

    Open Knowledge International 2017.

  61. 61.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  62. 62.

    OECD 2015.

  63. 63.

    Veljkovic et al. 2014.

  64. 64.

    Zuiderwijk and Janssen 2014.

  65. 65.

    Tinholt 2013.

  66. 66.

    Open Knowledge International 2017.

  67. 67.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  68. 68.

    Open Knowledge International 2005.

  69. 69.

    Veljkovic et al. 2014.

  70. 70.

    Open Government Working Group 2007.

  71. 71.

    OpenDataMonitor 2015.

  72. 72.

    Status on 1 October 2017.

  73. 73.

    Open Knowledge International 2017.

  74. 74.

    World Wide Web Foundation 2017.

  75. 75.

    Capgemini Consulting 2015; Capgemini Consulting 2016.

  76. 76.

    Capgemini Consulting 2016.

  77. 77.

    Socrata 2011.

  78. 78.

    Open Data for Development Network 2017.

  79. 79.

    OD500 Global Network 2017.

  80. 80.

    World Wide Web Foundation.

References

  • Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2007) Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capgemini Consulting (2015) Open Data Maturity in Europe 2015. Insights into the European State of Play. http://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n1_-_final.pdf. Accessed June 2017. Accessed May 2018

  • Capgemini Consulting (2016) Open Data Maturity in Europe 2016. Insights into the European State of Play. https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n2_2016.pdf. Accessed May 2018

  • Charalabidis Y, Alexopoulos C, Loukis E (2016) A taxonomy of open government data research areas and topics. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 26(1/2):41–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority (2010) The value of Danish address data: Social benefits from the 2002 agreement on procuring address data etc. free of charge. http://www.adresse-info.dk/Portals/2/Benefit/Value_Assessment_Danish_Address_Data_UK_2010-07-07b.pdf. Accessed May 2018

  • Davies T (2013) Notes on open government data evaluation and assessment frameworks. http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2013/02/506. Accessed May 2018

  • Davies T (2014) Towards Common Methods for Assessing Open Data. https://webfoundation.org/2014/06/towards-common-methods-for-assessing-open-data. Accessed May 2018

  • Dodds L, Newman A (2015) A Guide to the Open Data Maturity Model. Assessing your open data publishing and use. Open Data Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003) Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information. OJ L 345/90

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013) Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 June 2013 amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the reuse of public sector information. OJ L 175/1

    Google Scholar 

  • ePSI Platform (2013) PSI Scoreboard

    Google Scholar 

  • Freebairn JW, Zillman JW (2002) Economic benefits of meteorological services, Meteorological Applications 9(1):33–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häggquist E, Söderholm P (2015) The economic value of geological information: Synthesis and directions for future research, Resources Policy 43:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeks R (2006) Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the National and International Measurement, Evaluation and Comparison of eGovernment. iGovernment Working Paper No. 18. University of Manchester, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg V (2008) Understanding E-Government. Information systems in public administration. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain MA, Dwivedi YK, Rana NP (2016) State-of-the-art in open data research: Insights from existing literature and a research agenda. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 26(1–2):14–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijboom N, van den Broek T (2011) Open Data: An International Comparison of Strategies. European Journal of ePractice 12:4–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan S, Foti J (2015) Aligning Supply and Demand for Better Governance: Open Data in the Open Government Partnership. Open Government Partnership, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Li NL, Zhang P (2005) The intellectual development of human-computer interaction research: A critical assessment of the MIS literature (1990–2002). Journal of the Association for Information Systems 6(11):227–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lourenço RP (2015) An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly 32(3):323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OD500 Global Network (2017) Open Data 500. http://www.opendata500.com/. Accessed May 2018

  • OECD (2015) OUR Data Index: Open, Useful, Reusable Government Data. In: OECD, Government at a Glance. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 201–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Data for Development Network (2017) Open Data Impact Map. http://opendataimpactmap.org. Accessed May 2018

  • Open Data Institute (2016) How to support the capacity of open data initiatives with assessment tools. Open Data Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  • OpenDataMonitor (2015) OpenDataMonitor platform. http://opendatamonitor.eu/. Accessed May 2018

  • Open Government Partnership (2017) Independent Reporting Mechanism. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/independent-reporting-mechanism. Accessed May 2018

  • Open Government Working Group (2007) Open Government Data Principles. https://opengovdata.org/. Accessed May 2018

  • Open Knowledge International (2005) Open Definition. http://opendefinition.org. Accessed May 2018

  • Open Knowledge International (2017) Global Open Data Index. https://index.okfn.org. Accessed May 2018

  • Socrata (2011) 2010 Open Government Data Benchmark Study Report version 1.4. http://www.socrata.com/benchmark-study

  • Talbot C (2005) Performance Management. In: Ferlie E et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 491–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinholt D (2013) The Open Data Economy. Unlocking Economic Value by Opening Government and Public Data. Capgemini Consulting

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbrich J, Neumaier S, Polleres A (2015) Quality assessment and evolution of open data portals. The International Conference on Open and Big Data. IEEE, Rome, Italy, pp. 404–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren W (2006) Performance measurement in the Flemish public sector: A supply and demand approach. KU Leuven, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  • Veljković N, Bogdanović-Dinić S, Stoimenov L (2014) Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly 31(2):278–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group (2015) Open Data Readiness Assessment. http://opendatatoolkit.worldbank.org. Accessed July 2017

  • World Wide Web Foundation (2017) Open Data Barometer. http://opendatabarometer.org. Accessed May 2018

  • Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly 31(1):17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the project ‘Effective Governance of Open Spatial Data’ (E-GOS). This project is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 706999.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Knowledge Centre Open Data, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Glenn Vancauwenberghe

Authors
  1. Glenn Vancauwenberghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn Vancauwenberghe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Bastiaan van Loenen

  2. Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Glenn Vancauwenberghe

  3. Public Governance Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Joep Crompvoets

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vancauwenberghe, G. (2018). Assessing Open Data. In: van Loenen, B., Vancauwenberghe, G., Crompvoets, J. (eds) Open Data Exposed. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 30. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-261-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-261-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-260-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-261-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation