Public Administration and Information Technology 32

Adegboyega Ojo
Jeremy Millard Editors

Government 3.0 –
Next Generation
Government
Technology
Infrastructure
and Services
Roadmaps, Enabling Technologies &
Challenges
Public Administration and Information
Technology

Volume 32

Series editor
Christopher G. Reddick, San Antonio, TX, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10796
Adegboyega Ojo  •  Jeremy Millard
Editors

Government 3.0 – Next

Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure
and Services
Roadmaps, Enabling Technologies
& Challenges
Editors
Adegboyega Ojo Jeremy Millard
Insight Centre for Data Analytics Danish Technological Institute
National University of Ireland Galway Taastrup, Denmark
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland

ISSN 2512-1812     ISSN 2512-1839 (electronic)

Public Administration and Information Technology
ISBN 978-3-319-63741-9    ISBN 978-3-319-63743-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017951722

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my dear wife, Lauretta, and our beautiful
children Seun, Ore, Jimmy, Jojo and Benny.
Also to my parents Julius and Mary, my
father-in-law George and to the loving
memory of my mother-in-law, Beatrice.
Adegboyega Ojo

To my loving wife and lifelong friend, Inger

Marie, who keeps me happy and sane when
deadlines converge, and to our wonderful
children Simon, Teresa and Peter, who
together keep me on my toes intellectually
and well and truly grounded.
Jeremy Millard
Preface

Policymakers and academics largely recognise the need for a fresh vision for public
sector innovation and the use of technology in government given the challenging
and turbulent contexts in which most public administrations operate. In response,
recent studies have sought to better understand the forces that will shape the future
evolution of the PA environment. For instance, in a report on Future Trends in
European Public Administration and Management, some megatrends that are
already shaping the future of PAs were identified (Pollitt 2014). These changes
include demographic change, climate change, economic trajectories, technological
developments, public trust in government and changes in the political
environment.
Historically, technological change has had a significant effect on the locus of
administrative activity, the costs involved, the nature of administrative tasks, the
skill sets needed by officials, rules and regulations and the types of interactions citi-
zens have with their public authorities (Pollitt 2014). In 2007, Frissen et al. (2007)
identified some disruptive technologies with strong potentials to transform govern-
ment functions, including mobile devices; intelligent agents (and robotics); sensors;
language processing technologies; semantic technologies; serious games; RFID and
biometrics; ICT infrastructures such as WiFi, WiMAX and broadband; Web 2.0
technologies (social software); and grid infrastructure. While mobile devices and
Web 2.0 and ICT connectivity technologies such as WiFi have had a transforma-
tional effect, some of these technologies are yet to have any major impact in the
government space. Unfortunately, we are yet to fully understand the reasons for this
very slow adoption of these technologies.
A recent study by the European Commission on ‘Powering European Public
Sector Innovation: Towards a New Architecture’ (EC-DG Research and Innovation
2013) has also identified new technology paradigms considered as enablers of inno-
vation and core to the delivery of public services or the design of public policy.
These technologies include the following:
• Social  – social networking offers new ways to deliver public services and to
enable citizens to participate.

vii
viii Preface

• Analytics – big data and predictive analytics offer new service opportunities for
citizens and businesses.
• Mobile – the advent of the smartphone enables citizens to access public services
from anywhere at any time.
• Cloud – cloud-based solutions, both public and private, can transform interoper-
ability and service provision.
• Open and big data paradigm  – new public services, transparency/democracy,
economic growth potential.
• Sensors and Internet of Things – harnessing an enormous amount of data gener-
ated from everything around with an Internet address for better decision-making
and problem-solving.
Among these new technological paradigms, open and big data stands out regard-
ing attention by policymakers. It is widely believed that big data will enable hitherto
slow-moving public services to move much faster and to treat citizens on an indi-
vidual rather than a categorised basis.
However, despite these exciting possibilities, many questions remain unresolved:
Can these new technologies deliver the radical innovation needed for the ‘entrepre-
neurial’ and ‘directing’ (Pollitt 2014) state? How should governments (at different
levels) reconfigure their relationships with citizens, the social sector and businesses
to effectively leverage these technologies to deliver public outcomes effectively? To
what extent can open data enable greater transparency that can increase social capi-
tal and public trust in the government? How can the public sector effectively tap into
the ‘data tsunami’ already engulfing us due to the explosion of social media and the
introduction of new low-cost data gathering tools that effectively make every citizen
with a smartphone a data source? What are the new data gathering trends most
likely to impact public services (Millard 2013)? What kind of capabilities must the
government develop to leverage these technologies? Finally, what are the negative
consequences (such as an exacerbation of the digital divide or threats to citizen
privacy) that the adoption of these technologies may present and what strategies are
available to mitigate undesirable effects?
This book attempts to answer some of these questions. Specifically, this book
will shed some light on the question about the next steps of e-government initiatives
and public sector innovation. This next generation public sector innovation is what
we have labelled ‘Government 3.0’. Technology policymakers should benefit from
the visions created by the various roadmaps in the first three chapters of the book
which describe some of the common strategies of the European Union member
states in the areas of open data and services, open processes and the use of digital
technologies in policymaking. The book also discusses in its fourth chapter some of
the issues associated with existing models for tracking progress in e-government
development and highlights how some of these shortcomings could be addressed.
Examples of emerging innovations in the areas of process engineering and open
innovation in the government domain based on linked open data are described in
chapters “Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public
Administration, Capability Development in Open Data Driven Organizations, Water
Preface ix

Analytics and Management with Real-time Linked Dataspaces, Fostering Citizens’

Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization, The 6  –
Values Open Data Business Model Framework, Technology Innovations in Public
Service Delivery for Sustainable Development, and Blockchain as a Next Generation
Government Information Infrastructure: A Review of Initiatives in D5 Countries”.
One of the new developments highlighted in chapter “Fostering Citizens’
Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization” is how new
generations of open data platforms are addressing the weak exploitation of available
open data resources through explicit support for social interactions among commu-
nity members of common interest on the platform. Given the increasing centrality
of United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) for governments in
different parts of the world, chapter “Technology Innovations in Public Service
Delivery for Sustainable Development” examines how ICT can be deployed to
assist in the design and delivery of innovative public services in support of sustain-
able development around the world. Chapter “Blockchain as a Next Generation
Government Information Infrastructure: A Review of Initiatives in D5 Countries”
discusses early adoption of blockchain and distributed ledger technology, a next-­
generation information infrastructure in the Digital 5 (D5) countries. Chapter
“Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data
Collaboration Platforms: Understanding Barriers, Options, and Needs Discusses the
Barriers and Design Options for Next-Generation Open Data Platforms”. The book
closes in chapter “The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government” with a
critical analysis of how to balance the transparency goals and privacy needs of citi-
zens in the open government era.

Galway, Ireland Adegboyega Ojo

Taastrup, Denmark Jeremy Millard

References

EC-DG Research and Innovation (2013) Powering European public sector innova-
tion: towards a new architecture, Brussels, pp 1–64
Frissen AV, Millard J, Huijboom N (2007) The future of eGovernment – an explora-
tion of ICT-driven models of eGovernment for the EU in 2020, vol 2020. pp 1–15
Millard J (2013) ICT-enabled public sector innovation  : trends and prospects. In
ICEGOV’13, October 22–25, 2013, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ACM International
Conference Proceedings Series, ACM Press, pp 77–86
Pollitt C (2014) Future trends in European public administration and management:
an outside-in perspective, pp 1–45. Retrieved from www.cocops.eu.
Acknowledgment

The publication of this book would not have been possible without the contributions
and support of many people. We use this medium to express our profound apprecia-
tion to all these people who helped and supported us from the conception of the
book to its publication. First on the list of these people is the PAIT book series edi-
tor, Chris Reddick, whose guidance was key in getting the project off the ground.
Next, we thank all the authors for sharing their work through our book. Very special
thanks to all the reviewers who gave their time, effort and constructive comments
that enhanced the overall quality of the chapters in the book. We particularly recog-
nise the dedication and commitments of Ed Curry, Peter Winstanley, Michael
Hogan, Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti, Niall O’Brolchain and Lukasz Porwol as review-
ers. Last but not least, we are grateful for the support of Samuel Adebayo (the book
project manager) and the Springer staff members for guidance in the final steps of
the publication process.

Ireland Adegboyega Ojo

Denmark Jeremy Millard

xi
Contents

 uropean Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond������������������������    1

E
Jeremy Millard
 ublic Administration for the Next Generation��������������������������������������������   27
P
Peter Winstanley
 he Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle������������������������������������������������������   37
T
Johann Höchtl, Judith Schossböck, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer,
and Peter Parycek
 overnance Failure in Light of Government 3.0: Foundations for 
G
Building Next Generation eGovernment Maturity Models ������������������������   63
Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
 echniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public
T
Administration ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  111
Wassim Derguech, Edward Curry, and Sami Bhiri
 apability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations��������������������  135
C
Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti and Adegboyega Ojo
 ater Analytics and Management with Real-­Time Linked Dataspaces����  173
W
Umair ul Hassan, Souleiman Hasan, Wassim Derguech,
Louise Hannon, Eoghan Clifford, Christos Kouroupetroglou,
Sander Smit, and Edward Curry
 ostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social
F
Tools and Personalization��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  197
Vittorio Scarano, Delfina Malandrino, Michael Baker,
Françoise Détienne, Jerry Andriessen, Mirjam Pardijs,
Adegboyega Ojo, Michael Hogan, Albert Meijer, and Erna Ruijer
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework ��������������������������������  219
Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti and Adegboyega Ojo

xiii
xiv Contents

 echnology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable

T
Development ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  241
Jeremy Millard
 lockchain as a Next Generation Government Information
B
Infrastructure: A Review of Initiatives in D5 Countries������������������������������  283
Adegboyega Ojo and Samuel Adebayo
 overnance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of 
G
Open Data Collaboration Platforms: Understanding Barriers,
Options, and Needs������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  299
Michael Hogan, Adegboyega Ojo, Owen Harney, Erna Ruijer,
Albert Meijer, Jerry Andriessen, Mirjam Pardijs, Paolo Boscolo,
Elena Palmisano, Matteo Satta, Jonathan Groff, Michael Baker,
Francoise Détienne, Lukasz Porwol, Vittorio Scarano,
and Delfina Malandrino
 he Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government��������������������������  333
T
Teresa Scassa and Amy Conroy

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  355
Contributors

Samuel Adebayo  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland
Galway (NUIG), IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
Jerry Andriessen  Wise & Munro Learning Res, Den Haag, The Netherlands
Michael Baker  CNRS – Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France
Sami Bhiri  ISIMM, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia
Paolo Boscolo  Comune di Prato, Prato, Italy
Eoghan Clifford  College of Engineering & Informatics, National University of
Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
Amy Conroy  Carleton University, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Ottawa,
ON, Canada
Edward Curry  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland
Galway, Galway, Ireland
Wassim Derguech  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of
Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
Françoise Détienne  CNRS – Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France
Jonathan Groff  CNRS – Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France
Louise Hannon  College of Engineering & Informatics, National University of
Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
Owen Harney  National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Souleiman Hasan  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of
Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
Umair ul Hassan  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland
Galway, Galway, Ireland

xv
xvi Contributors

Johann Höchtl  Department for E-Governance and Administration, Danube

University Krems, Krems, Austria
Michael Hogan  National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Christos Kouroupetroglou  Ultra4, Thessaloniki, Greece
Thomas J. Lampoltshammer  Department for E-Governance and Administration,
Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria
Delfina Malandrino  Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di
Salerno, Salerno, Italy
University of Salerno, Fisciano (Salerno), Italy
Albert Meijer  Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Utrecht University, School of Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen  Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse
Department of Innovation and Governance, Akadeemia tee, Tallinn, Estonia
Jeremy Millard  Danish Technological Institute, Taastrup, Denmark
Adegboyega Ojo  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland
Galway, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
Elena Palmisano  Comune di Prato, Prato, Italy
Mirjam Pardijs  Wise & Munro Learning Res, Den Haag, The Netherlands
Peter Parycek Department for E-Governance and Administration, Danube
University Krems, Krems, Austria
Lukasz Porwol  Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland,
Galway, Ireland
Erna Ruijer  Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Utrecht University, School of Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Matteo Satta  Issy-Média and Ville d’Issy-les-Moulineaux, Issey-les-Moulineaux,
France
Vittorio Scarano  Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Salerno,
Salerno, Italy
University of Salerno, Fisciano (Salerno), Italy
Teresa Scassa  University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Judith Schossböck Department for E-Governance and Administration, Danube
University Krems, Krems, Austria
Sander Smit  BM-Change, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Peter Winstanley  Semantechs Consulting Limited, Glasgow, UK
Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti  INSIGHT Centre for Data Analytics @NUI Galway,
Insight Centre, IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
Editors’ Biography

Adegboyega Ojo  is senior research fellow and head of the e-Government Unit at
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG).
His expertise is in the areas of open data strategies and infrastructures, data-­intensive
public services, e-government services, e-participation infrastructure and gover-
nance of smart cities. He is currently principal investigator on a number of EU
Horizon 2020 projects in the area of open data platforms and co-creation of data-­
driven public services. He has served as expert advisor to different UN organisa-
tions such as the e-Government Branch of the United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs/Division for Public Administration and Development
Management on the use of open and big data for integrating Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG2030). Adegboyega also led the development of technical paper for the
Open Government Partnership on how to benchmark initiatives from participating
countries. While at the United Nations University as research fellow and academic
programme officer at the Centre for Electronic Governance in Macao SAR,
Adegboyega led the development of National e-Government and IT Strategies for
countries in Asia and Africa. He has served as programme and track chair and pro-
gramme committee member in well over 70 international conference editions in the
domains of e-government, smart cities and formal software engineering. He cur-
rently serves as editorial board member for Elsevier’s Government Information
Quarterly journal and International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital
Age. He was elected secretary of the Digital Government Society (DGS) in
December 2016. Adegboyega obtained his doctorate in computer science from the
University of Lagos, Nigeria, in 1998.
Jeremy Millard  director of the non-profit consultancy Third Millennium
Governance, senior research fellow at Brunel University (London) and senior policy
advisor at Danish Technological Institute, has 40 years1 global experience working
with governments, development agencies and private and civil sectors in all parts of
the world. In the last 20 years, he has focused on how new technical and organisa-
tional innovations transform the government and the public sector. Recent assign-
ments for the European Commission include studies on administrative burden

xvii
xviii Editors’ Biography

reduction and on developing business models for ICT and ageing. He also recently
led an impact assessment of the European e-Government Action Plan and a large-­
scale Europe-wide survey and analysis of participation and developed the
e-­Government 2020 Vision Study on Future Directions of Public Service Delivery.
He has worked on the European e-Government annual benchmark since 2009 and
has assisted the EC in planning their research programme for ICT for governance
and policy modelling between 2008 and 2012 and then in designing inputs to the
Horizon 2020 research work programme (2014–2015) on ICT-enabled public sector
innovation. He is currently leading the EC1 Advisory Group providing inputs to the
Horizon 2020 work programme for 2016–2017, including public governance and
new economic models, and is a member of the EC1 Digital Entrepreneurship Forum.
Jeremy has also worked since 2008 as an expert for the UN on their successive
global e-government development surveys and has undertaken work adapted from
the UN approach in Oman, Georgia, China and Russia. He also provided inputs to
the UN1 debate on the post-2015 development agenda in relation to governance
issues and how these can be measured and to the World Bank on digital public sec-
tor services. He recently led the assignment for ReSPA on the Western Balkans
Comparative e-Government Study, as well as a survey for the OECD on back-office
developments in support of user-centred e-government strategies. In the Gulf, he
assists Oman develop their e-government services, prepared an e-government strat-
egy for the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council and has supported the devel-
opment of the Bahraini e-government strategy. Currently, he is undertaking a study
for ESCWA on integrated service delivery across the Arab Region. He also provides
e-government support services in India, Malaysia and Brunei.
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020
and Beyond

Jeremy Millard

Abstract  This chapter examines both academic and grey literature on the transi-
tions and developments in e-government towards notions of open government and
open governance. This is viewed through the prism of European level strategies, the
EU’s research and innovation programmes, as well as common strategies like the
European E-Government Action Plan agreed to by all EU Member States. The three
strands of the proposed European open governance setting, consisting of open data,
open service and open process, are examined, as is the conceptualization of govern-
ment as an open source service platform as well as a broader platform for collabora-
tion between all societal actors. The purpose is to support societal-wide innovation
for tackling pressing societal challenges where the role of ICT is seen more broadly
than has traditionally been the case, i.e. as a general purpose technology. In this
context, the chapter also examines emerging technologies likely to impact govern-
ment in the short as well as longer-term, such as big data, artificial intelligence,
drones and blockchain.

Introduction and Context

 rom Electronic Government to Open Government: Responding

F
to Market Changes

This chapter derives from both the academic and grey literature of e-government
and similar developments by examining the main conceptual paradigms which have
had real impact on how Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is used
by, and impacts, government over the last 20 years in Europe. Drawing on a review
by Millard (2015), the notion of electronic (e)-government, starting in the late
1990s, was explicitly linked to the ‘New Public Management’ philosophy which
emphasised inter alia how ICT could make the public sector much more efficient by
adopting private sector management disciplines which had already shown how to

J. Millard (*)
Danish Technological Institute, Taastrup, Denmark
e-mail: Jeremy.millard@3mg.org

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_1
2 J. Millard

maximise efficiency (Hood 1991).1 This typically meant focusing on measurement,

target setting and the outsourcing of some government functions to the private sec-
tor which was deemed to be more efficient in fulfilling them. In the 2000s, critics of
this approach included Dunleavy and Margetts (2006) as well as Stoker (2006) in
his proposals for Public Value Management2 which linked the changes seen or
required in the public sector to networked government and the need for open sys-
tems to ensure that ICT was not only used to improve efficiency but also the effec-
tiveness and reach of public services.
Other literature extended and nuanced these debates, notably work on the role of
strategic management in government (Moore 1995) and on the embeddedness of
public sector innovation in the politico-administrative system (Niehaves 2007). A
focus on public value in the context of ICT enabled public sector reforms started to
emerge (for example as crystalised by Cordella and Bonina 2012), and was seen as
contributing to making government processes, not only more efficient and effective
but also more transparent and accountable through transformational (t)-government
and business process reengineering (Weerakkody and Dhillon 2008; Van Veenstra
and Janssen 2012). Since the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the focus has shifted
again towards lean (l)-government, doing “more for less” and platform-based gov-
ernance which is seen as a new wave emphaising the orchestration role of govern-
ment where innovation, experimentation and user requirements are key factors
(Janssen and Estevez 2013).
In the last few years there has also been a new attempt to bring these threads
together through the lens of open (o)-government. For example, McDermott (2012)
looked at President Obama’s ‘Open Government Directive’ in early 20093 and the
launch of the global Open Government Partnership4 aimed to establish a system of
transparency, public participation and collaboration, whilst Lee and Kwak (2012)
proposed a five-level open government maturity model for social media-based pub-
lic engagement in response to Obama’s directive. Harrison et al. (2012) examined
the concept of open government from an ecosystem perspective as interdependent
social systems of actors, organisations, material infrastructures and symbolic
resources, and suggested that policy makers need to engage in such strategic ecosys-
tem thinking. More recently, Gascó-Hernández (2014) edited a wide-ranging col-
lection of papers on open government and the opportunities and challenges for

1
 The terms ‘public sector’ and ‘government’ are in practice used interchangeably in this paper as
in many others. The term ‘governance’ refers to public governance as “the role of governments,
working alongside other actors, in building, facilitating and overseeing political, social and eco-
nomic development. Irrespective of any intrinsic value it might have, public governance is there-
fore a crucial means to desired development outcomes.” (Bevir 2013)
2
 There are many established definitions of ‘public value’, for example “public value refers to the
value created by government through services, laws, regulation and other actions” (Kelly et  al.
2002). For the present purpose it can be also thought of as similar to the older notions of ‘public
goods’ and ‘good governance’.
3
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ (accessed 10
May 2015).
4
 http://www.opengovpartnership.org (accessed 10 May 2015).
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 3

public governance. These included papers proposing open government models,

their contextual and cultural underpinnings, the development and dynamics of open
data and big data for public governance, open government collaboration, and how
open government is developing in different countries and in smart cities. Millard
(2015) attempted to summarise and bring many of these strands together through an
overarching concept of open governance systems – see also below.
In a nutshell, it might be argued that these successive developments reflect
changing perceptions and uses of ICT by government. Whereas e-government sim-
ply took ICT, largely from the private sector, into an existing system making it more
efficient but without much change to its structures and modus operandi, the subse-
quent notion of t-government stressed how ICT could be used alongside other driv-
ers to transform these characteristics of government so that it became not only more
efficient but also more effective. In turn, l-government has been a dramatic response
to the financial and economic crisis in the aftermath of 2007–2008, whilst today
o-government is starting to form a cohesive conceptual framework, body of evi-
dence and policy programme to return the attention of government to the burgeon-
ing long-term global challenges the world is facing in close collaboration with
non-public actors. Indeed, some of these challenges have resulted directly from the
financial crisis itself and many governments’ immediate response to it.

 rom Open Government to Open Governance: Responding

F
to Global Challenges

Some clear conclusions emerge from the development of o-government. The opera-
tions of the public sector, public policy and public services are seen as needing to
become more open and innovative as well as efficient and effective. Indeed it is
argued in this chapter that these attributes are complementary, especially if seen
over the medium to longer term, but also that the public sector cannot successfully
tackle the global challenges on its own. The chapter goes further and argues that an
understanding of open government within an open governance system cannot sim-
ply look at what is taking place inside the public sector, but must also examine
wider developments in society and the manner in which other societal actors are
changing their roles and ways of operating. Government, as an actor, needs to col-
laborate, and a powerful tool in this context is ICT. This is the basic message of this
chapter which examines a new approach to public sector innovation based around
the notion of ‘open governance systems’, and which attempts to unpick its main
components as we can presently see them (Millard 2013, 2015).
The global financial crisis of 2007–2008 tended to mask the fact that there are
longer term and deeper rooted global societal challenges which preceded it, many
of which have since become even more acute. These include climate change,
increasing inequalities within countries, poverty, corruption, energy and job short-
ages, health and education under pressure, rapidly changing demographics (ageing,
4 J. Millard

migration, urbanisation), and governance deficits at all levels. As a result public

services are under severe strain and trust is being lost in governments’ ability to col-
lect taxes and provide good regulation. Indeed, Klein (2014) argues that the finan-
cial crisis was both caused by underlying societal system failures alongside these
other global challenges but that it is also itself a cause of exacerbating them. Many
of the proposed solutions to these challenges are today being influenced by new
bottom-up forms of open innovation and new open business models (Chesbrough
2003). They focus on societal goals and societal as well as technological means in
which new actors directly participate, especially the direct beneficiaries of such
innovations themselves. In Europe as elsewhere, these new trends are today often
termed ‘social innovation’ defined “as new approaches to addressing social needs.
They are social in their means and in their ends. They engage and mobilise the ben-
eficiaries and help to transform social relations by improving beneficiaries’ access
to power and resources.” (Tepsie 2014). Critical to such approaches is the need for
innovations to actually meet real social needs and to do so in a way that involves the
whole value chain, and specifically the beneficiaries of the innovation. This pro-
vides both challenges and opportunities for the public sector in its traditional role in
addressing societal needs, as well as how it relates to other societal actors in meet-
ing these. It is this issue that this chapter addresses, and in particular looks at the
critical role played by ICT.

 he Need for a Societal Level Perspective and a New Open

T
Governance Framework

As sketched above, the discourse and most literature to date have focused on
responses to the crisis which envisage the public sector, enabled and perhaps driven
by ICT, as becoming transformed, for example through business process reengi-
neering, as well as shrinking in size and becoming ‘lean’ in order to “do more with
less”. As also noted, these trends are well documented by Janssen and Estevez
(2013). The present chapter argues that the next step, and certainly a complemen-
tary perspective, is a notion of open government which is itself embedded in broader
open governance systems encompassing all of society’s actors. In this context, the
public sector needs to adapt its roles and relationships with these others actors. But,
according to Millard (2015) these adaptations do not insist that the public sector
necessarily reduces in size or becomes ‘lean’, although indeed that may happen in
some manifestations of the open governance system. Downsizing the public sector
is not a given nor is it always efficacious, but where it happens it is a politico-­
economic response to specific situations and may not always be relevant, although
of course it can be so. Assuming that a smaller leaner government is always the
answer to every challenge or context is a very fundamentalist approach.
The open governance system, just as in lean government, orchestrates networks
of actors to tackle society’s needs, but unlike in lean government, the public sector
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 5

does not thereby always need to become smaller. Instead it leverages and coordi-
nates unrealised and untapped assets and resources which otherwise lie dormant or
need catalysing and are thus in effect ‘wasted’. The public sector does this both
internally and across society, so it may need to remain the same size or in some
instances even grow larger depending on the context and the challenge. The public
sector might flexibly decrease or increase or otherwise transform in size, influence
and role in different sectors and localities at different times for different purposes in
a constant ‘dance’ with other actors to maximise public as well as private value
across the whole of society. Becoming a lean government is just one option along
this continuum, even though the driving features of lean as efficiency and productiv-
ity always remain important. Instead, such features need to be seen as interlinked
between actors across the whole of society and not just confined to the government.
Thus, efficiencies and productivity improvements are conceptualised at the societal
level over at least the medium-term where trade-offs and interactions are present
between actors, not only at the individual actor level.
According to Millard (2015), this is a very important observation. A lean govern-
ment might indeed save some money in a narrow context over the short-term, but
this could lead to overall loss of public value and thus additional costs on society,
especially in the longer term, if other actors or actor configurations are not able to
produce the value needed in the context of a shrunken public sector. Examples
include environmental degradation, social and economic inequalities and in main-
stream services like health, care and education, and these would be false economies
indeed.5 As shown below, such a flexible response to address the global challenges
is now possible in the context of ICT, although of course political, governance and
other issues are also critical. This is not an argument against lean government which
may often be relevant, but an argument for flexibility in the context of open gover-
nance systems made possible for the first time by ICT.
The current, but admittedly still tentative, move from ‘l-government’ to
‘o-­government’ is illustrated in Fig. 1, whilst emphasising that the four waves are
not mutually exclusive but instead complementary even though a clear progression
is envisaged. Open government (o-government) is the sine qua non for ICT-enabled
public sector innovation which is today one of the main policy agendas in Europe
and elsewhere (for example European Commission 2013a and 2013b, deriving from
European Commission 2010, and European Commission 2016, as well as the
OECD6).

5
 A recent example is the Danish tax system which has for many years been driven by an NPM
approach leading to downsizing, outsourcing and seeing hastily developed IT systems as a pana-
cea. In 2016, it became clear that this has strongly contributed to losses amounting to billions of
Euros of tax revenue, both internationally and domestically. In August 2016, the tax minister
announced a reversal of these policies with massive re-investment in the tax system, the re-employ-
ment of dismissed tax personnel, and employment of thousands of new personnel, and in much
better IT. This is a clear example where political decisions leading to cutting and blind over-opti-
mistic faith in untested IT can lead to massive inefficiencies and losses.
6
 See the OECD’s Observatory of Public Sector Innovation: https://www.oecd.org/governance/
observatory-public-sector-innovation/events/
6 J. Millard

Fig. 1  Four waves of e-government evolution (Source: Millard (2015), adapted from Janssen and
Estevez (2013))

Open government (o-government) is the sine qua non for ICT-enabled public
sector innovation which is today one of the main policy agendas in Europe and
elsewhere (for example European Commission 2013a and 2013b, deriving from
European Commission 2010, and European Commission 2016, as well as the
OECD7).

European Policy and Research

Although in a European Union context, the 28 Member States have full powers over
their own policies and strategies for the public sector and electronic government,
they have for many years participated in different types of mutually beneficial col-
laboration around the latter in particular. Since the early 2000s, one of the main
frameworks for this has been the regular five-yearly eGovernment Action Plans,
which, by the end of the eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015, have assisted
Member States in putting many eGovernment enablers in place, both technical and
non-technical.
The rationale for the new 2016–2020 European eGovernment Action Plan
(European Commission 2016) is to promote efficient and effective digital public
services as important components of the EU’s Digital Single Market,8 and which
together enable cross-border public services. To achieve this, the underlying vision
is threefold:
• By 2020, public administrations and public institutions in the European Union
should be open, efficient and inclusive, providing borderless, personalised, user-­
friendly, end-to-end digital public services to all citizens and businesses in the EU.

7
 See the OECD’s Observatory of Public Sector Innovation: https://www.oecd.org/governance/
observatory-public-sector-innovation/events/
8
 http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market_en
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 7

• Innovative approaches should be used to design and deliver better services in line
with the needs and demands of citizens and businesses.
• Public administrations should use the opportunities offered by the new digital
environment to facilitate their interactions with stakeholders.
The 2016–2020 Action Plan further stipulates that the following underlying prin-
ciples should be observed:
• Digital by default
• Once only principle
• Administrative burden reduction
• Inclusiveness and accessibility
• Openness and transparency
• Cross-border by default
• Interoperability by default
• Trustworthiness and Security
The policy framework for the Action Plan rests on the goal of opening up the
public sector between public administrations, across Member States and between
public administrations and other stakeholders. Three policy priorities make up the
framework of pillars:
• Pillar 1: Modernising public administration with ICT, using key digital enablers
• Pillar 2: Enabling cross-border mobility with interoperable digital public
services
• Pillar 3: Facilitating digital interaction between administrations and citizens/
businesses for high-quality public services, for example which are modular for
re-use, user-friendly and personalised, as well as for better policies based on
opening up.
The 2016–2020 Action Plan contains some new features compared with previous
plans.9 In order to remain relevant, up-to-date and to reflect as closely as possible an
evolving Europe, flexibility is being built-in to accommodate adjustments over the
next 5 years. The Action Plan is thus seen as a platform and catalyst where new
ideas, both for actions in the Action Plan itself as well as elsewhere, can be pro-
posed by Member States or other actors. A monitoring framework is being intro-
duced to track progress both on individual actions as well as overall using an
appropriate mix of indicators. In support of the dynamic nature of the Action Plan,
a stakeholder engagement plan is also being put in place, one aim of which is to
engage citizen and business interest groups through visits by the European
Commission to Member States. It relies on the use of multipliers, for example the
support of other Directorates General through inter-service collaboration and the
Regional and Structural Funds.

9
 Parts of this text are derived from the author’s participation in an Expert Consultation Workshop
on eGovernment in the Horizon 2020 Work Programme for 2018–2020, held on 27 April 2016 in
Brussels.
8 J. Millard

To back-up the eGovernment Action Plan, research and innovation funding

provides complementary support designed to involve a wide range of actors from
the public, private and civil sectors, as well as from academia. The main vehicle
for this is the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, 2014–2020,10
with a rolling schedule of work programmes, which up to 2017 have been
designed around the conceptualisation of an ‘open governance framework’, as
illustrated in Fig.  2. This is made up of three components which are open by
default, i.e. open data, open service and open process, at the confluence of which
is ‘joined-up government’. The focus of the Public Services Unit in the European
Commission, which supports these activities, is on modelling the public adminis-
tration in the context of the impact of ICT and other emerging technologies. The
unit does not itself develop new technology but has a strong interest in emerging
technologies including those developed in other areas that can be used in the
public sector.

New European Strategies for 2020 and Beyond

In a European context, on-going strategies to 2020 and beyond require continuing

focus and effort on back-office arrangements and on enablers in order to meet and
support on-going European and national policies. However, these should be seen as
a means to the ends of societal impact and the overall European strategic goals, so
there is need to shift emphasis more towards digital services, front-office arrange-
ments and impacts on society, in order to meet the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy
(European Commission 2010) in tackling its major societal challenges. The innova-
tive use of ICT, and particularly the emerging technologies underpinned by ICT,
constitute important game changers in addressing these challenges. Indeed this is
inherent in the ‘open governance framework’ depicted in Fig. 2 which continues to
be the overarching conceptual and operational approach of European policy, but re-­
orientated to take account of new challenges, perspectives and technologies to 2020
and beyond.
Taking account of this, three areas and strands of development are proposed by
the European Commission.11 First, the further development of the open governance
setting; second, the concept of government as a platform deriving from this; and
third in this context, the potential transformational implications of new and emerg-
ing technologies.

 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020
10

 Expert Consultation Workshop on eGovernment in the Horizon 2020 Work Programme for
11

2018–2020, held on 27 April 2016 in Brussels.

European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 9

Open Governance Setting

As depicted in Fig. 2, the open government setting examines open data, open
service and open process, within an overarching open governance framework,
where each of these three components is open by default. It recognises that,
given that government cannot address societal problems on its own, it needs to
collaborate openly, transparently and participatively using ICT, both within and
across the public sector and with all legitimate external actors. We need greater
understanding of how shared services (across government and with non-govern-
ment actors) can be developed through co-creation, and rolled out in order to
improve take-up, personalisation and impact. Standards are required for this,
open by default, not only in technical terms such as semantic interoperability,
but also to support quality of service standards to ensure universality and cross-
border applicability where appropriate, for example through procurement, plan-
ning and decision-making. It is not immediately clear how these objectives can
be achieved and what specific roles the government should play as compared to
the other actors, particularly in the digital context. How to ensure that privacy
and security issues are adequately taken into account also needs careful
consideration.

Fig. 2  Open governance framework (“Open, Innovative and Collaborative Government: towards
a new action plan”, 1 July 2015: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/open_and_collab-
orative_government.pdf)
10 J. Millard

Open Data

Open data is seen as essential for facilitating collaboration, co-creation and policy
making, but the barrier is that for many users this is a blackbox requiring new capac-
ities, skills and incentives, so government needs to provide much more support and
many more incentives. Some countries are starting to make much of their data avail-
able publically as so-called open government data (OGD). To date there is still only
a limited number of governments which have substantially embarked down this
path, and even fewer local and regional governments where the benefits are likely to
be greater. In order to maximise the benefits of OGD, it normally needs to be suit-
ably aggregated so individual persons or organisations cannot be identified, and to
make this available in machine readable linked datasets which can also be searched,
analysed and mashed with other data. Standards for data, quality, licensing, struc-
turing, linking, searching, etc., need to be developed as well as standard tool mod-
ules for compiling, analysing and visualisation. Appropriate cloud and other systems
to provide the underlying infrastructure and services both across government and
between different actors are also necessary.
Apart from OGD made available by the public sector, citizens also collectively
generate an enormous amount of economically valuable data through interactions
with companies and government. Such data is a public sector asset, but the value
created does not always go to the benefit of the individual, particularly when third
parties (whether governments, businesses or civil organisations) collect and keep it
closed. Smart disclosure is a tool that helps provide people with greater access to the
information they need to make their own informed choices, for example in health
care, education, employment, etc. In comparison, traditional OGD focuses on trans-
parency, accountability and decreasing corruption in government.
The smart disclosure approach is a step on from this and starts from the premise that
people, when given access to data and useful decision tools built for example by govern-
ments, can use both their own personal data disclosed by them together with other
appropriate data. Smart disclosure could be a useful way forward so needs much greater
emphasis as it strives to enable the user to mash their own personal and private data
together with those of one or more service providers, including commercial services
from the private sector. This is starting to be an important feature in both the USA and
UK, for example in the utilities sector, such as energy, water and gas, as well as mobile
phone usage. In both countries, the government provides an appropriate regulatory
framework and works with the service providers (which can be other parts of govern-
ment) to make it as easy as possible for users to see their own consumption patterns, for
example via a personal dashboard, and thereby adjust future consumption. The aim is to
assist users in reducing waste or over-use and to take account of often highly complex
tariffs and service charges from typically multiple potential providers. Users need as
much support and advice as possible, but although most examples are still only pilots,
they seem to hold much potential for users to take more control of their service use. In
this context, however, there are serious issues around transparency in terms of who is
seeing and using whose data and whether or not the data owners can correct it? For
example, can technical solutions be developed which incorporate privacy by design?
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 11

Open Service

An important strategy should be to focus strongly on accelerating the development

of highly personalised services rather than one-size-fits-all common services. The
use of alerts, invitations, prompts, as well as typical life events, user profiles and
locations, are all steps towards full personalisation. New forms of interaction need
to be devised which draw the user into a co-creative and collaborative relationship,
for example in specially designed public spaces and hubs, as well as by deploying
living labs methods. Personalisation means departing from the average, so it must
be accompanied by minimum, but still high, quality standards. Many services also
need to be universally available to all in the target group, given that government
cannot say no to a legitimate user, unlike a commercial service provider. This may
cause problems when services are outsourced to commercial and other non-public
providers, so marketization and who pays also become issues (Millard 2011).
The challenges of open service are however immense, technically, organisation-
ally and legally. For example, shared services will only fully work with semantic
interoperability across silos, between levels, cross-border and between service pro-
viders whether or not from the public sector. What is the extent to which state-of-­
the-art solutions from elsewhere should be used, how much should be developed
and tailored in-house (which can be much more expensive), and how can govern-
ments at the same time prepare for the impact of emerging technologies? As with
open data, there is also a demand-side weakness challenging open services with
their generally low or weak take-up, so again incentives, user-friendliness and high
impact need to be prioritised.
Another main driver of open service is the incorporation of behavioural
approaches and design thinking into creating, delivering and using both traditional
and e-services by using a holistic approach that attempts to understand the ‘full
architecture of a problem’ from end-to-end. It is an evolving and experiential prac-
tice pushing the boundaries, learning, experimenting and applying successful
approaches as it develops. A number of practitioners see design thinking as a para-
digm shift away from traditional top-down, expert- and often technology-driven
service design traditions. Instead it deploys a growing repertoire of techniques,
including those borrowed from the ethnographic and anthropological traditions,
observation, contextual dialogue and creative ideation processes (Bason 2010).
Related to these developments is the so-called ‘nudge’ approach which recognises
that, although traditional attempts to change behaviour by regulation are of course
important, they just as often fail and may even provoke opposite responses (Thaler
and Sunstein 2008). Nudge theory focuses on changing peoples’ behaviour without
binding regulation or legislation, for example using the insight that a very powerful
influence on an individual’s behaviour is linking this to what other people are doing
through social networks and social norms in behavior patterns.
12 J. Millard

Open Process

Open process is an important component of the open governance framework in

which all legitimate actors are able to participate in the policies, decisions and
arrangements of the public sector as long as this participation is itself open and
enhances public value. Open process goes much further than traditional
e-­participation of enhancing the democratic process using ICT, but although this is
a very important element, on its own it is a restrictive view of involving people in
government. Experiments in e-participation have so far provided mixed and mainly
disappointing results overall given original expectations. This has tended to lead to
reduced interest in e-participation at the very time that technology advances in areas
like social media and mobile have started to overcome the obstacles which enable a
much wider vision of open process. Apart from e-participation in public decision
making, it can increasingly encompass inputs to the processes, workings and
arrangements of the public sector and public governance more widely; planning and
development issues (for example through participative budgeting and where scarce
resources are allocated); dispute and conflict resolution; and in managing societal
assets, including data, land and buildings.
Given that open process, especially as enabled by ICT, is a relatively new con-
cept, a good approach for the public sector is to undertake many small experiments
with existing tools. This is likely to be much more successful than focusing on a
small number of ‘big-bang’ initiatives which experience shows are prone to high
failure rates leading to a waste of resources and reduced motivation. A bottom-up,
user-driven engagement process is more likely to succeed which takes account of
the drivers and incentives for citizens to engage in open process. At present, as with
open data and open service, there is a demand side deficit that needs to be addressed
by incentives, simplification and personalisation. There are also issues of the sus-
tainability and adaptability of open processes and economies of scale and scope to
ensure that it is efficient as well as effective. Involving all citizens in determining
public spending, for example through participatory budgeting, is often a useful
approach.
Another main driver of open service is the incorporation of behavioural
approaches and design thinking into creating, delivering and using both traditional
and e-services, as a holistic approach that attempts to understand the ‘full architec-
ture of a problem’ from end-to-end. It is an evolving and experiential practice push-
ing the boundaries, learning, experimenting and applying successful approaches as
it develops. A number of practitioners see design thinking as a paradigm shift away
from traditional top-down, expert- and often technology-driven service design tradi-
tions, and instead deploying a growing repertoire of techniques is evolving and
being applied in practice, including those borrowed from the ethnographic and
anthropological traditions, observation, contextual dialogue and creative ideation
processes (Bason, 2010). Related to these developments is the so-called ‘nudge’
approach which recognises that, although traditional attempts to change behaviour
by regulation are of course important, they just as often fail and may even provoke
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 13

opposite responses (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Nudge theory focuses on changing
peoples’ behaviour without binding regulation or legislation, for example using the
insight that a very powerful influence on an individual’s behaviour is linking this to
what other people are doing through social networks and social norms in behavior
patterns.

Government as a Platform

Conceiving of government as a platform arises directly out of the open governance

approach. In one manifestation, this might be an open source service platform in the
cloud providing government services, data and enablers as building blocks which
promise significant increases in both efficiency and effectiveness. There is a need to
examine both digital and non-digital platforms, as well as their inter-relationships,
to support the creation of public value through co-creation with other actors, so bet-
ter understanding is needed as to how government can adapt its roles as facilitator
and orchestrator, to provide appropriate tools and supports including big open and
linked data, to better manage assets, and to ensure sustainability and balanced pub-
lic value. Experience has shown that it is often at city level that governments are
successfully experimenting with these new roles especially enabled by ICT, so bet-
ter understanding is required of how such practices can become more widespread at
a variety of governance levels and across different national, political and cultural
contexts.
Government as a platform can support a range of actors to collaborate with each
other, as well as with government itself, to generate public value. Using ICT, citi-
zens, communities, civil groups, as well as businesses, are no longer simply passive
consumers of data and knowledge but increasingly become active producers. For
example, citizens share more and more with each other on social media platforms
and tend to consult other citizens, rather than the government for advice  – they
increasingly use the ‘social signal’ and ‘social search’ to organise and improve their
lives. A similar trend is now also being seen in the physical world, where the rapidly
growing ‘makers movement’ sees people exchanging, adapting and personalising
digital designs for the fabrication of physical objects, often as unique bespoke prod-
ucts for highly specialised purposes, using 3D–printers and related equipment
(Anderson 2012). Government thus needs to recognise the value of collaboration
and crowdsourcing which citizens and others can contribute as ‘co-creators’.
Although government should mobilise its own resources and talent better, there is
always more relevant talent outside any organisation (including government) than
inside.
The public sector as a platform facilitating public value creation in the most effi-
cient and effective way possible will support an ecosystem of actors with changing
roles and relationships. There are already numerous examples, including where
other actors have ‘usurped’ the erstwhile role of government using ICT. For exam-
ple, noise measurement around Amsterdam Airport in the Netherlands undertaken
14 J. Millard

by residents in the flight path12; Microsoft’s ‘health vault’ storing citizens’ health
records in the cloud13; ‘Fix-My-Street’ in the UK developed by the civil society
organisation MySociety not by government14; and the website ‘Patients know best’
which is a service provided by a social enterprise enabling patients to control their
own medical data when negotiating with public health authorities about their treat-
ment.15 An example from the ‘makers’ world uses digital technologies to open new
perspectives for locally manufactured and very cheap products for people who oth-
erwise have no chance of being helped. For example, in the health sector, using the
Internet to send algorithms for 3D printed prosthetic limbs designed for war victims
in developing countries for local production and use.16 These are examples where
ordinary citizens, civil organisations and many other actors have seen holes in what
government is doing and stepped in without always being invited to do so.
For the ‘government as a platform’ approach to succeed, Millard (2015) pro-
poses that at least four types of role and relationship changes are needed, and some
are already starting to be seen, as outlined below.

Government as Facilitator and Orchestrator

When government sets up collaboration platforms at many levels, its role changes
to become coordinator, facilitator and enabler, as well as regulator and arbiter for
the activities others undertake in delivering public value. Government’s role is to
ensure that public value is created by the most appropriate means in terms of what
works best in a given context and for given needs. As described earlier, this could
involve government having either a minor or major role in creating public value, but
even in the latter case government needs to be a facilitator and orchestrator to ensure
that it does.

 overnment as Provider of Tools, Guidance and Incentives

G
for Co-creation

The second new role for government is to provide tools, guidance and incentives for
collaboration. Although, the bottom-up, participatory co-creation of services can
lead to more effective and personalised experiences, doing so can increase the bur-
den placed on citizens and other actors to participate. The adoption of e-government

12
 http://www.sensornet.nl/english
13
 https://www.healthvault.com
14
 https://www.fixmystreet.com
15
 https://www.patientsknowbest.com
16
 http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/12/08/3d-life-print-3d-printing-prosthetics/
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 15

services often results in government outsourcing some of the work it has previously
done itself to the user. Co-created, or even fully user created, services take this step
much further. Developing more cost-effective and efficient public services should
mean more than assuming citizens will contribute time and other resources to create
their own services. To counter this, governments should provide structured guidance
within which service co-creation with service users can take place. ‘Guided’ sup-
port for co-creation should also be designed to reduce the burden on service users of
participating in this way, whilst optimising benefits for both public administrations
and citizens. In addition, governments should provide incentives by highlighting the
benefits service users can derive from the co-creation process, giving them more
power to make decisions about their services in adapting them to their own needs,
and supporting them with relevant data and other resources.

Government as Manager of Societal Assets

Third, government has an increasing role in managing the assets society has.
Especially in the context of Europe’s pressing global challenges, there is a need to
identify and deploy all society’s available assets and resources but which are often
under-used or not at all. These available assets, including government’s own, for
example, could encompass people’s time and expertise, finance, organisational
structures and competences, data, knowledge, content, networks, capacity, infra-
structures, service building blocks, things, places, buildings, spaces, vehicles, etc.
The role of government in using the power of ICT, particularly in collaboration with
other actors, is to identify, match, orchestrate, broker and coordinate assets which
can be shared and converted into public value impacts, instead of, if unused, going
to waste. Already many non-government actors are launching typically bottom-up
and small scale examples of ICT-based platforms that have such a role, for example
as part of the so-called sharing and collaborative economies, such as for example
the civil society organisation Shareable based in the USA17 (Gansky 2010).
Government has in many cases, however, greater power and scope to do this by link-
ing between actors as well as sharing its own assets internally, and this is both a
growing challenge as well as a huge opportunity. This would involve widening the
scope of ICT-based content management systems to become asset management
systems.

17
 www.shareable.net
16 J. Millard

Government as Guarantor of Public Value over the Longer Term

Fourth, as outlined above, seeing the public sector as a platform ensures that public
value is appropriately created and deployed. It is important to recognise, however,
that even when government collaborates with other actors in producing public
value, this does not necessarily imply that government becomes just one actor
amongst many, given that it still needs to fulfil roles that other actors normally can-
not. Such roles include being responsible for overall quality standards and mecha-
nisms for asset sharing, quality and legal frameworks, even in situations when these
are formally delegated to other actors. Accountability for services and performance,
and responsibility especially if things go wrong, is a critical issue. Other such roles
include data protection and security.
It is important to recognise that innovation and change in the public sector is not
the same as in the private sector. Government cannot pick and choose its customers
and government services cannot afford to ‘fail’ in the same way as in the private
sector. Because government is the only institution democratically accountable to
society as a whole, only it can ensure sustainable and balanced public value where
all parts of society derive benefit and where trade-offs are seen as proportionate and
fair. This shows how the overall sustainability of the governance system is impor-
tant. Governments provide longer term stability and continuity which other actors
are not able to do, and this is needed so that people and communities are able to live
stable lives, as well as so the market can have confidence that unpredictable gover-
nance changes will not upset their investment and innovation strategies. Governance
systems with short-term horizons encourage short-termism in business and an
unstable society. Instead of always the sole actor, the public sector is becoming one
player amongst many, albeit with unique responsibilities in new forms of open and
collaborative governance.

 he Role of the Citizen and the Reconfiguration

T
of Transparency, Participation and Collaboration

As described and exemplified above, open governance gives critical roles to the
whole range of non-government actors, and especially citizens. At the same time
that government is changing and needs to change much more, citizens are also
increasing their awareness and leverage on government but it is not yet clear whether
their future partnership with government will be a positive one. Although they need
strong support from a pro-active government as examined above, citizens should be
ready take more responsibility and become more constructively critical and produc-
tive in their own right, but this is in many ways the biggest challenge of all. Members
of the upcoming ‘net generation’ are already acting in this way in their private and
working lives enabled by digital technology, and are starting to demand that their
relationships and dealings with the public sector should take place on the same basis
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 17

(Tapscott 2009). The challenge is whether government can and will respond to these
demands, and this depends a lot on the adoption of appropriate policies, structures
and mindsets, as well as the education and incentives for citizens to support this.
Critically, it depends on government changing its roles in the ways described above.
Since President Obama launched the open government movement in early 2009
with his focus on transparency, participation and collaboration, making the USA the
first country to explicitly do so, there have been clear developments in how these
three pillars are perceived and are playing out in practice, particularly vis à vis citi-
zens. First, transparency has increasingly become the sine qua non of the successful
development of open governance systems but is also becoming better understood. It
is clear that total transparency is not the goal given that citizens, public employees
and politicians all have areas of legitimate privacy, the former in terms of the protec-
tion of their personal data and the latter two as they need confidential spaces for
dialogue and brainstorming as long as decisions themselves, as well as the evidence
and rationales for them, are transparent. Limits to transparency also need to be set
by legitimate interests, the potential for the misuse of information, slander, dis-­
respect, etc., but the nature of such limits and their definitions need to be clear and
open to debate. However, robust transparency is clearly necessary as this is the basis
for accountability and for tackling corruption in government as well as in the rest of
society (European Commission 2014; OECD 2014).
Second, the understanding of participation in open governance is moving towards
a broader notion of engagement in open process. The latter sees citizens and other
actors being invited to engage in all legitimate aspects of public sector activities, not
just decision making which, in Europe at least, has tended to be the focus of
e-­participation. In some ways therefore, participation perceived like this only
requires a re-active citizen, whilst engagement is more mixed and can—through
transparency and accountability—imply that citizens are more pro-active and take
into their own hands activities which traditionally have been purely public sector
responsibilities.
Third, collaboration is starting to be exemplified through co-creation and innova-
tion, as discussed above, and especially in the context of new forms of open, social
and inclusive innovation. The current governance and market systems are becoming
extremely good at ‘sweating’ assets on the supply side, so that both pubic ad private
producers become incentivized to squeeze their financial, human and other assets to
the maximum extent, and thereby increase their performance and productivity.
However, on the demand and consumption side, there is often massive asset waste,
resulting from the widespread practice of exclusive asset ownership. This has started
to be challenged in the last decade by a new sharing economy growing from a small
base, in which organisations, companies and individuals share with each other an
increasing range of their assets. These include skills, competences, time, spaces,
vehicles, tools, buildings, facilities of all types, organisational capacities and even
financial resources. Much of this sharing is enabled by ICT developments like
crowdsourcing and crowdfunding.
The sharing economy is starting to supplement exclusive asset ownership with
new forms of common, collective and collaborative ownership. The sharing
18 J. Millard

­ ovement started as mainly non-profit activities but is now spreading to the entre-
m
preneurial and profit sector with examples like ZipCar, Uber and Airbnb for renting
out shared cars and accommodation space respectively, and which have since grown
into global market leaders. In turn, this is threatening incumbent market and public
actors, current legal and regulatory systems as well as the frameworks of trust and
ethics we wish to maintain and build. In addition to the sharing of existing under-­
used assets, a new important trend is their use for the collaborative creation, innova-
tion and production of new products, services and other assets. This collaborative
economy is already underway starting with ‘pro-sumers’ (individuals who are both
producers and consumers) mainly in the digital sector, but is now rapidly expanding
into the collaborative innovation of physical goods and services, as discussed above.
(See also Rifkin 2014).
An important underpinning of both the sharing and collaboration economy is the
trend towards co-creation, originally conceived as a business strategy for identify-
ing new forms of customer engagement, it is being increasingly applied in other
environments including in the public sector and by non-profits and citizen groups.
Co-creation is understood as the active flow and exchange of ideas, information,
components and products across society which allows for a better understanding of,
as well as participation, engagement and empowerment in, policy development, cre-
ating and improving services and tackling societal challenges. Co-creation encom-
passes co-innovation, co-configuration, and co-production of products, services and
content through modularisation and digitisation, the role of social entrepreneurs in
these new processes, and creating platforms for creative organisations, for example
around ‘standard toolboxes’ for niche needs or markets.

Emerging Technologies Likely to Impact Government

As noted earlier in this chapter, government is typically one of the largest single
users of ICT and other new technologies, but also is often the most hesitant. There
are arguably understandable explanations for this, but it is also clear that, sooner or
later, governments will wish or need to avail of new and emerging technologies.
This is not least in order to save resources and become more efficient, but also
because the demands on governments for new and better services of all types is
growing, including from the Internet generation.
However, it is also important to recognise that ICT has become a general purpose
technology (Perez 2009) underpinning most if not all technological innovation and
development. This means that examining ‘digital’ government purely in the tradi-
tional arrow sense, of back-office and process re-engineering and front-office online
services, no longer makes much sense. Many of the main emerging technologies
which are having, and are likely to have in the future, significant impacts on the way
governments are organised and operated, as well as on how governments are per-
ceived and used, are arising out of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution (World
Economic Forum 2016): “The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 19

power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass
production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate
production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital
revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is charac-
terized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical,
digital, and biological spheres”.
Many of these emerging technologies have potentially profound implications for
the way governance for both the near and longer-term future is configured and expe-
rienced, as outlined in the following.

Big Data and the Internet of Things

The value and role of big data, and specifically big open linked data (BOLD), has,
as noted above, rapidly become as essential asset for developing and delivering both
commercial ad public services, as well as helping to determine and design public
policy. For example, for public sector resource planning and real time management
based on real time and archived data, for use by the police, hospitals, fire services,
the selection of politicians, staff recruitment by algorithm, etc. Big data is increas-
ingly derived, not only from archived information, but from real time sources
through the Internet of Things (IoT) as the network of physical objects and devices,
vehicles, buildings and other items that are embedded with electronics, software,
sensors, and network connectivity enabling them to collect and exchange data and
thereby also to interoperate. The IoT can optimise the use of physical objects, con-
structs and systems, such as buildings, electricity grids and utility systems, ensuring
efficient performance and reducing the carbon footprint through environmental
monitoring, disaster forecasting and management. IoT can enable the public sector
to better control and deploy its assets in real-time, such as vehicle fleets, buildings,
supplies and equipment, as well as for example manage and direct traffic flows and
other unfolding situations. In addition, geo-enabled service delivery and geo-related
information, for example on ownership, activities, functions and history, can be
used for tourism, cultural and business development.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning is the intelligence exhibited by a

machine as a flexible rational agent that perceives its environment and takes action
to maximize its chance of success in achieving a specific goal. Big data is typically
a major input mediated by advanced algorithms. According to the Work Economic
Forum, WEF (2016), AI systems are now able to make many decisions, both routine
and complex, which should improve the efficiency and quality of decisions in the
public sector, but thereby also threaten middle management and even senior jobs.
20 J. Millard

For example, Benedikt Frey and Osborne (2013) estimate that 47% of US jobs will
be at risk from automation, whilst the WEF (2016) suggest that by 2025, “robots
could jeopardise between 40m and 75m jobs worldwide”. The WEF also estimates
that “65% of children entering school today will end up working in jobs that cur-
rently do not exist.” There is little doubt that this will dramatically alter the lives of
most people employed in the public sector.

Virtual and Augmented Reality

Virtual reality (VR) is a computer technology that uses software-generated realistic

images, sounds and other sensations to replicate a real environment or an imaginary set-
ting, and simulates a user’s physical presence in this environment to enable the user to
interact with it as well as with other people at another location. A person using VR equip-
ment is typically able to “look around” the artificial world, move about in it and interact
with features or items that are depicted. Virtual realities artificially create sensory experi-
ences, which can include sight, touch, hearing, and, less commonly, smell. Related to VR
is Augmented Reality (AR) whereby people are still acting in the real physical world but
augment this by being given access to relevant content of different types so that such
action becomes more effective or meaningful. There are huge potential implication for
both VR and AR in the public sector, as well as in society more broadly, such as in educa-
tion, training, meetings, negotiations and remote interventions.

Robotics

Robotics are automating much physical work across all sectors. In the public sector,
this includes, for example, routine maintenance, fabricating spare parts or special-
ised components for machines, as well as accessing difficult and dangerous environ-
ments (as in disasters, fires and floods). Robots are also starting to be deployed in
human-interface situations, such as in caring and supporting older, disabled or ill
people, although such use is proving controversial in some contexts and also raises
potential ethical issues. In the public sector context, robotics can thus have immense
impacts on care, health, elderly and frail people, cleaning and maintenance, as well
as component assembly (including components from digital fabrication).

Drones

Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) utilised to transport packages, food or
other goods, as well as to provide real-time surveillance of unfolding situations.
They can be used in the public sector to facilitate the delivery or collection of small
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 21

items, such as post, medical equipment and spare parts. Drones are highly flexible
and manoeuvrable vehicles that are indispensable for low-height monitoring of
natural disasters and dangerous situations, as well as for example in traffic and secu-
rity related incidents. Thus, drones have huge potential for postal services, surveil-
lance, climatic and environmental monitoring, the delivery of equipment and
supplies, etc.

Digital and Biological Fabrication

Digital fabrication is the use of 3D printers, laser cutters and sinterers and other
equipment, to fabricate one-off or small production runs of unique, typically rela-
tively small objects using specifically designed algorithms. A variety of materials is
used, including metals, ceramics, plastics, glass, and increasingly organic matter
such as food and living tissue. This enables the public sector, for example, to drasti-
cally reduce its stock of equipment and components, given that these can be cheaply
fabricated only when required to highly precise and individual designs. Applications
in the health sector which are already significant include the decentralised fabrica-
tion of personalised prosthetic limbs as well as of dental replacements and implants,
and in the care sector of customised meals for people in hospitals or care homes who
have specific dietary needs. Further, and often more ethically controversial, implica-
tions include the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), espe-
cially in the context of rapidly advancing gene editing techniques such as CRISPR,
in sectors such as health, agriculture and food.

Blockchain Technology

Blockchain technology is a relative new, and still largely unknown, concept, par-
ticularly in the public sector, given that its main applications to date are in financial
technologies, for example as the basis of the ‘Bitcoin’. Blockchains are basically
decentralised databases that could be used, for example, for legitimation purposes,
registers, participatory decision-making, automatic taxation, social security, coun-
teracting fraud and corruption, fighting crime, etc. The impact of blockchain tech-
nology in particular on governance systems could thus be profound and lead to the
end of governance as we have known it for millennia to be replaced by, in effect, an
autonomous and independent system which everyone can contribute to and benefit
from, but which no one controls. There might be immense ‘democratic’ benefits
arising from such a scenario, but also dangers inherent in the fact that blockchains
are, in effect, an impenetrable black box.18

 This brief analysis is partially based on the Wikipedia entry for blockchains (accessed 24–4-16)
18

and the Nesta blog of 24–3-16 “Why you should care about blockchains: the non-financial uses of
22 J. Millard

A blockchain is a distributed database that maintains a continuously growing list

of data records hardened against tampering and revision. It consists of data structure
blocks holding data exclusively in initial blockchain implementations, as well as
both data and programmes in some of the more recent implementations, with each
block holding batches of individual transactions and the results of any blockchain
actions. Each block contains a timestamp and information linking it to a previous
block. The blockchain is seen as the main technical innovation of Bitcoin, where it
serves as the public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, so
every user is allowed to connect to the network, send new transactions to it, verify
transactions, and create new blocks, which is why it is called ‘permissionless’. This
original design has been the inspiration for other cryptocurrencies and distributed
databases.
In essence, therefore, blockchain technology can be seen as a programmable
distributed trust infrastructure. Transactions are the content which is stored in the
blockchain. Blocks timestamp, record and confirm when and in what sequence
transactions enter and are logged. Blocks are created by users known as ‘miners’
who use specialized software or equipment designed specifically to create blocks.
Every user in the decentralised system has a copy of the complete blockchain. This
avoids the need to have a centralised database managed or controlled by any party.
Thus, blockchains can be summarised as distributed databases but they exhibit new
and significant properties, including:
• Autonomous: no one person, group or organisation is in charge
• Permanent: no one can delete or tamper with the data
• Secure and cryptographically auditable: security has never been broken and it is
claimed that it is mathematically certain that entries cannot be forged. This prop-
erty signals a shift in thinking about security from one based on closed systems
to one based on security through transparency.
• Open: anyone can develop services and products on blockchains, control their
own data and audit the code.
• Whole and complete, i.e. blockchains cannot be fragmented or divided up: frag-
mentation is open to fraud.
• Trustworthy: the above properties and the fact that blockchains are open source
means they are also ‘trustless’, i.e. not reliant on any human agency but instead
on the consensus of the whole network.
In terms of applications, apart from financial such as in Bitcoin, blockchain tech-
nology can enable both the Internet of Things and supply chains to function
­efficiently, effectively and securely, as well as ensure highly secure identity. In the
public sector and governance context, blockchains could, for example, protect criti-
cal infrastructures, register and protect assets (such as intellectual property, health,
pension and other data), tackle tax and benefit fraud, and ensure that public spend-
ing is transparent and traceable.

blockchain technology” related to public (permissionless) blockchain: http://www.nesta.org.uk/

blog/why-you-should-care-about-blockchains-non-financial-uses-blockchain-technology
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 23

Conclusion and Reflection

Moving from electronic government to a broader vision of open governance, in

which the government is also perceived as a platform for the wider innovation and
support of society as a whole and in tackling pressing societal challenges and where
the role of ICT is seen more broadly than has traditionally been the case as a general
purpose technology, is likely to characterise much European strategy to 2020 and
beyond. This vision of open collaborative governance enabled by ICT refers to the
ability of the public sector, as appropriate to its mandate and resources, to become
more innovative and responsive to society’s needs in the way it operates. It encom-
passes open data, open service and open process. It involves breaking down, or at
least cooperation between, silos across different administrations, levels and loca-
tions, through sharing infrastructures, processes, data, assets, resources, content and
tools. It implies forms of federation and coordination which balance centralisation
and decentralisation as well as top-down and bottom-up approaches. This involves
huge challenges technically, politically, legally, organisationally and in terms of
working cultures. The vision is a ‘whole-of-government’ approach in which the
public sector acts as one entity, especially in its interactions with other actors includ-
ing citizens and businesses.
In changing and adapting the roles of government and other actors in these ways,
however, there are also real concerns that such changes will result in new types of
risk, for example related to loss of control and blurred accountability of services (by
whom to whom?). Quality standards are more difficult to determine and maintain
with many active designers and suppliers of services, and not least new digital
divides as the already better endowed and more competent segments of society are
able to reap the benefits of openness and of ICT more readily than others. There are
also dangers in putting too much faith in using OGD, and indeed big data in general,
as issues like its representative, mis-use or even corruption are ever present, as is the
need to apply a common sense test to algorithm-driven decisions and policies. Data
should always be put in the context of ‘soft data’ like values, ethics and
responsibility.
The side effects, risks, shortcomings, unanticipated and even negative conse-
quences of emerging technologies also need to be examined, including social
impacts, ethical concerns, uncertainty and lack of transparency of what is happen-
ing and who is in control, etc. Trust and transparency are thus important implica-
tions as algorithms can become impenetrable blackboxes. Careful and comprehensive
technology impact assessments will need to be undertaken concerning such effects,
including in relation to security and crime.
Despite these caveats, however, government as the only institution backed by
democratic accountability, is best placed to address these risks. It will need to retain
basic roles including setting overall quality standards, providing mechanisms for
resource sharing, and determining legal frameworks.
24 J. Millard

References

Anderson C (2012) Makers: the new industrial revolution. Random House, New York
Bason C (2010) Leading public sector innovation: co-creating for a better society. Policy Press,
Bristol, UK
Benedikt Frey C, Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to
computerization? Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bevir M (2013) A theory of governance. University of California Press
Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from tech-
nology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Cordella A, Bonina CM (2012) A public value perspec-tive for ICT enabled public sector reforms:
a theoretical reflection. Gov Inf Q 29:512–520
Dunleavy, P and Margetts H "New public management is dead: long live digital era governance",
J Public Adm Res Theory, July 2006
European Commission (2010) A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,
2010–2010. http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20
007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf
European Commission (2013a) A vision for public services. Prepared by DG CONNECT after
an expert workshop and open public consultation. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/
vision-public-services
European Commission (2013b) Powering European Public Sector Innovation: towards a new
architecture. Report of the Expert Group on Public Sector Innovation, Directorate-General for
Research and Innovation Innovation Union
European Commission (2014) EU anti-corruption report. Report from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, 3.2.2014 COM(2014) 38 final. http://ec.europa.
eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/
corruption/docs/acr_2014_en.pdf
European Commission (2016) Communication on EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020  –
accelerating the digital transformation of government. 19 April 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/
digital-single-market/en/news/communication-eu-egovernment-action-plan-2016-2020-acceler-
ating-digital-transformation
Gansky L (2010) The mesh – why the future of business is sharing. Penguin Group, New York
Gascó-Hernández (2014) Open government: opportunities and challenges for public governance.
Springer Science + Business Media, New York
Harrison TM, Pardo TA, Cook M (2012) Creating open government ecosystems: a research and
development agenda. Future Internet 4(4):900–928
Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons. Public Adm 69(Spring):3–19
Janssen M, Estevez E (2013) Lean government and platform-based governance: doing more with
less. Gov Inf Q 30 Suppl 1:S1–S8
Klein N (2014) This changes everything. Penguin, Random House UK
Lee G, Kwak YH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public
engagement. Gov Inf Q 29(4):492–503
McDermott P (2012) Building open government. Gov Inf Q 27(4):401–413
Millard J (2011) Are you being served? Transforming e-government through service personaliza-
tion. Int J Electron Govern Res 7(4)
Millard J  (2013) ICT-enabled public sector innovation: trends and prospects. Published in the
proceedings of the 7th international conference on the Theory and Practice of Electronic
Governance (ICEGOV2012), Seoul, 22–25 Octo 2013, the ACM Press
Millard J  (2015) Open governance systems: doing ore with less. Gov Inf Q. doi:10.1016/j.
giq.2015.08.003
Moore MH (1995) Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA
European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond 25

Niehaves B (2007) Innovation processes in the public sector – new vistas for an interdisciplinary
perspective on e-government research? Electron Gov, vol. LCNS 4656. Springer, pp 23–34
OECD (2014) OECD Foreign Bribery Report: an analysis of the crime of Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials. http://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecd-foreign-bribery-report-9789264226616-en.
htm
Perez C (2009) Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. TOC/TUT working
paper No. 20, 2009
Rifkin J (2014) The zero-marginal cost society: the internet of things, the collaborative commons
and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Stoker G (2006) Public value management: a new narrative for networked governance? Am Rev
Public Adm 3(1):41–57
Tapscott D (2009) Grown up digital: how the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-Hill,
New York
Tepsie (2014) Research Programme Synthesis Report: final reports for practitioners, research-
ers, and policymakers. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy
foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th
Framework, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. http://www.tepsie.eu. Accessed
30 Jan 2015
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.
Yale University Press
Van Veenstra AF, Janssen M (2012) Investigating out-comes of t-government using a public value
management approach. In Scholl HJ et  al (eds) IFIP EGOV 2012, Springer LNCS 7443,
Kristiansand, pp 187–197
Weerakkody V, Dhillon G (2008) Moving from e-government to t-government: a study of process
re-engineering challenges in a UK local authority perspective. Int J Electron Gov Res 4(4):1–16
World Economic Forum (2016) The fourth industrial revolution: what it means and how to
respond. http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-
means-and-how-to-respond

Jeremy Millard  is Director of the consultancy Third Millennium Governance, as well as having
senior research positions at the Danish Technological Institute in Denmark and Bradford University
in the UK. He has over forty years’ global experience on issues ranging from governance, ICT,
open and social innovation, participation, sustainable and socio-economic development, tackling
poverty and exclusion, the new economy, urbanization and nature-based solutions for growth, and
has published extensively in these and related fields. His many clients include governments, the
European Commission, United Nations, OECD and World Bank, as well as many non-profits and
companies around the world. Recent assignments in the area of e-government include on-going
support to both the United Nations regarding their biennial eGovernment Survey, and the European
Commission regarding e-government research and innovation, as well as a survey on back-office
developments in support of user-centred e-government strategies for the OECD.  He has also
worked with the UN on ICT and governance issues for the 2030 sustainable development agenda,
and with ESCWA on integrated service delivery across the Arab Region.
Public Administration for the Next Generation

Peter Winstanley

Abstract  Public Administration incorporates the development of statutes and regu-

lations to bring order and control to aspects of society. In democratic societies this
is accompanied by gathering opinion from the population on the span and degree of
this control and on some of the details. This essay explores ways in which develop-
ments in digital technologies can facilitate this process, aid policymakers in ensur-
ing consistency of regulations, and streamline the process between regulation and
software in situations where this is relevant and helpful. It looks forward to what the
coming generation of citizens might expect from their public administrators.

Exposition

From the times of Hammurabi, and slightly later, Moses, people have used written
law and regulation to guide the focus and interactions within states and communi-
ties. Both the law of Hammurabi and the Ten Commandments given by God to
Moses were writings in stone and this indicates the degree of consideration given to
them and to some extent too the duration for which they were expected to be effec-
tive. They were also conveyed in words, and in the case of Hammurabi’s Code we
know that it was written in Akkadian, the local language of the people, so that it
might be read and understood by all – it wasn’t in some language only understood
by learned judges and civil servants. Another feature that is worthy of note in the
case of Hammurabi’s Code is the “if this, then that” approach. Specific penalties
were appropriate for specified behaviors and acts.
The world of laws and the regulation of society had its ups and downs over the
past 4000  years since these early Biblical times, and the process of developing
laws and regulations has moved from it being the efforts of one or a small number
of people involved in the determination, documentation and publication process to
a formidable coordinated effort that in many instances spans multiple organisa-
tions and, in the case of trade regulations, many continents. The development of a
professional civil service skilled in regulatory policy (Organisation for Economic

P. Winstanley (*)
Semantechs Consulting Limited, Glasgow, UK
e-mail: p.w@semantechs.co.uk

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 27

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_2
28 P. Winstanley

Co-operation and Development 2016a) and practice has moved on from small
numbers of scribes and sculptors to large teams covering a very wide range of
disciplines and capabilities. This development of a professional civil service hasn’t
been without its problems. In the United Kingdom, for example, the development
of a modern civil service that works with the legislature of the day to provide
expert and impartial assistance in the business of government was set on its mod-
ern course by the work in the mid-nineteenth century of Stafford H Northcote and
Charles Edward Trevelyan that derived lessons learned from the operation of the
British government and trading companies in colonial India to develop a set of
minimum educational standards, remuneration, and principles of behavior for a
professional and permanent civil service (Wikipedia 2016a). The point of the com-
petency is obvious, but sometimes lost on people who see the outputs from the
civil service in the area of public administration as being less that of developing a
smooth-running machine to being a burden to their ease of living and transacting
the business of commerce and, in some cases such as the regulations relating to the
public availability of medication, the business of life itself (Australian Government
Department of Health 2016). In more recent times the skills and competencies of
the civil services in most countries and pan-national organization (e.g. United
Nations, European Commission, etc.), together with the routes to expressing their
outputs in the area of secondary legislation and regulation have been modernising
to adopt digital technologies.
In this chapter I will take a look at the ways in which computing technologies
and the Internet are operating within some areas of public administration, and spec-
ulate as to the areas for future benefit from more widespread adoption of existing
tools and technologies. This is a personal and perhaps predominantly Euro-centric
approach rather than a systematic review, but its intention is to stimulate the reader
to further investigation and action. The field is extremely dynamic and any review
would quickly be getting out of date, but I hope that these views might give impetus
to further work in this area.

Development

Reading the Runes

The first part that I am addressing relates to the forces within which any government
operates where, as described in the early twentieth century by A.F. Bentley, it is the
attitudes and activities of groups within society that will determine the course of
government (Lemman 2008). Gauging and defining the interests and activities of
these groups is not only the core of the pollsters’ art in “reading the runes” prior to
any democratic election, but it is also part of the public administrator’s required
assessment when providing impartial advice to government on the likely impact of
particular proposed courses of action (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development 2016b). Toolkits such as that used within the UK Government (UK
Government 2014) look to include some assessment of both monetized and non-
monetized costs/burdens of proposed regulation. In the UK the assessment of
Public Administration for the Next Generation 29

reaction to new regulation was traditionally undertaken by randomized, stratified

sampling of opinion in formal surveys combined with consultation with interested
parties including representative bodies. The advent of social media and large streams
of computer-friendly data has spawned multiple projects and services within gov-
ernment (Mikoleit 2014) to reduce political exclusion, increase the democratic
‘footprint’ of the opinion-gauging and opinion-forming consultation processes, and
act as one of the components to improve the efficiency, and effectiveness of service-
delivery, amongst other things (Chilean Government 2016). Just bringing the tradi-
tional to-ing and fro-ing of information to a greater scale doesn’t really help the poor
civil servant who has to make sense of this cognitive overload, and this is where
informatics has been starting to provide help. It is also an area where the profession
of the civil servant is needing to step up to the challenge by modernising specialist
IT divisions (UK Government Digital Service 2016). This is an absolute require-
ment to make the most of the information available through social media, because
although there are tools and framework for extracting topics, sentiment, and rela-
tionship amongst social network users and their contributions, the interpretation and
the communication of the interpretation in ways that the non-specialist can compre-
hend are significant challenges (Moss et al. 2015; Pedersen et al. 2014). The timeli-
ness of delivering insight from streams of social media such as Twitter are made
possible by the advances in lambda architectures (Amazon Web Services 2015) (that
give scope for both analysis of the stream of data and the aggregated data set) and
the technology stack is being provided as orchestrated sets of cloud services (Taieb
2016). The key challenges for public administrators are access and validation – are
they aware of and ‘allowed’ to use these tools in a timely manner, and can they be
sure that the results can be interpreted and communicated accurately?

Policy Engineering

The policy engineering process involves the preparation of secondary legislation,

regulations and associated guidance to provide some of the main levers of govern-
ment. At one time the involvement of engineers and IT specialists in this stage of
public administration was to some extent the promotion of self-interest, ensuring
that the civil servants were aware of the “facts”.
However, to reap the benefits of these technologies in our everyday lives it is critical that
industry, policy makers and the public support their development from ideas generated in
the laboratory to the commercial marketplace. (Carnegie Mellon University, Scott Institute
for Energy Innovation, Technology Guide 2014)

Increasingly, however, is the realisation that serious negative consequences come

from ambiguity and lack of external validation of the integrity of statutes and regu-
lations (DeLong 2002) and this can be mitigated by the application of (software)
engineering principles where the purpose of the regulation is clearly stated in a
“statement of basis and purpose” (U.S.C. § 553(c) 2006), which is in many ways
analogous to the Behaviour Driven Development and Test Driven Development
approaches taken in software engineering. “Am I doing the right thing?”. “Am I
30 P. Winstanley

doing the thing right?”. This approach would be a step change from the usual usage
of scientific computing where scientific or engineering knowledge base is taken into
account in the couching of regulation, but neither in testing the drafting of regula-
tion nor in determining consistency within and between regulations – this being the
craft of parliamentary draftsmen and other legal experts. There have been several
approaches using natural language processing and statistical analyses of natural lan-
guage to extract meaning from written regulations/policies and converting this into
an RDF or UML (Brodie et al. 2006) model in an attempt to validate the consistency
of the regulation/policy and assess compliance, but these have the same underlying
problem that they are making a best estimate of meaning. This is exactly the same
uncertainty experienced with extracting meaning from social media streams. In
order to develop a knowledge engineering approach to the crafting of regulation
unconstrained natural language is too variable to be used with existing parsing and
extraction tools such as UIMA, to give a high degree of parsing accuracy, and,
unsurprisingly, having some constraint has been found to work much better (Brodie
et al. 2006). Within the domain of legal XML markup, there are moves in the UK to
use Akomo Ntoso in addition to the relatively more complex metamodel Crown
Legislation Markup Language (CLML) for the markup of legal documents. The
Akomo Ntoso model has been shown in comparative studies (McGibbney and
Kumar 2013) to be more suited to marking up the end representation of the legisla-
tion. A related markup within this area is LegalRuleML (OASIS 2016) which is a
specialization of RuleML (RuleML Inc 2016). This is less a presentation markup
and more an exchange format for machine-to-machine communication of informa-
tion (Paschke and Boley 2009). Although there are specific editors, such as LIME
(LIME – CIRSFID, University of Bologna 2016), for XML markup of general rules,
including policies and regulation, these editors have steep learning curves and the
inputs and outputs tend to be difficult for non-specialists, including ordinary citi-
zens, to understand (Beach et al. 2015). Communication of the reasoning underpin-
ning decisions is something citizens have a right to in many countries, as for example
in New Zealand (New Zealand Law Commission 2012). This points to the advan-
tage of having a multi-purpose expression format for rules, policies, regulations/
statutes etc. that can be understood by both people and machines and be serialized
if a form that permits error-free transmission across machine and human interfaces
is used. End-users of all types need system interfaces and rule bases that are easy to
interact with. These types of interactions might be as part of the development route
or feedback loop of policy development and refinement or the formal expression of
policy for the purpose of implementation through regulation, and this latter more
often than not in the modern world is mediated, at least in part, through software.

Formal Modelling

The work of Wimmer and colleagues in the “Open Collaboration for Policy
Modelling” (OCOPOMO) project (OCOPOMO Project 2012) recognizes that there
has to be a direct and discoverable link between the narrative texts contributing to
Public Administration for the Next Generation 31

the domain expertise introduced into the policymaking mix and the formal models
that policymaking will use. Provenance is important. But so too is the approach for
collecting stakeholder input. In the OCOPOMO approach narrative text is the raw
material of policy making and from this there is a process of expert interpretation to
develop a conceptual model based on the stakeholder textual inputs and other docu-
ments. Expert annotation and interpretation by the policy analyst is the key distilla-
tion process through which the input becomes crystallised as formal models that
permit, through imperative code in “Declarative Rule-based Agent Modelling
Software” (DRAMS) the running models to determine the effects of policies,
including discovery of emergent behaviours. But DRAMS rules look like computer
programme language rather than natural language (Lotzmann and Meyer 2011) and
so might be impenetrable to the citizen who provided the original narrative text. The
gap between the citizen with domain expertise or stakeholder position and the
implementing specialist is perhaps too large to bridge to ensure effective feedback
within the policy process.

Pictures of Policy

At the other extreme are approaches to bridge the communication between citizens
and policymakers using mainly visualisations. “Policy Compass” (Policy Compass
2016) is looking to Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and other visual widgets and tools as the
route to bridging the divide between the citizen and the policymaker. This presents
issues of ambiguous interpretation due to the non-standardisation of symbols (unlike
e.g. road signs), and the potential disenfranchising of the visually impaired. The
development of ‘personas’ within policy modelling (Bennet 2015) is popular within
some interested in trying to open up the policy-making process, but although it may
provide scope for an inventive workshop, the longevity of the message in the graphic
artefacts is questionable. The restricted semantics and semiotics of issue based infor-
mation systems (Wikipedia 2016b) (IBIS) such as Compendium (Compendium
Institute 2012) provide graphics that can be interpreted and the underlying arguments
replayed long after they were crafted. I think that the similar level of replay from
graphics such as in the ‘personas’ referred to above would be extremely challenging.

The Dominance of Natural Language

Given that across many cultures words are the preferred form communication, a
focus on words provides the specificity and longevity required to pass around and
debate about the direction and detail of policy and regulation. This is still the pre-
ferred way for citizens to respond to government proposals. The commentariat of the
US government are prolific though, and Tyrus Manuel describes (Manuel 2015) not
only the overwhelming volume of this feedback (e.g. 800,000 public comments to the
US consultation on Net Neutrality) but also the palpable relief to some civil servants
32 P. Winstanley

as they discover the benefits of natural language processing (NLP) in distilling the
core messages (and isolating the “weak signals”) from large volumes of information
like this. Manuel sees NLP as a part of the answer.
…We can also use NLP to gain a better understanding of what citizens are trying to tell us
on any given issue or in general. It allows for a clearer understanding of items that may need
to be addressed, from healthcare to consumer safety. NLPs can help us do a better job of not
just listening to the people, but answering them as well.

My view is that persistence with NLP will only shift the problem to elsewhere.
There is such a diversity of language that with NLP we don’t arrive at a shared rep-
resentation in a social and democratically consensual way, but are shoehorned into
consensus by algorithm and heuristic. One simple improvement to soliciting text
input from citizens is to augment it with some fixed sentiments. For example, the
website patientopinion.org.uk (Patient Opinion website 2016) gets users to input
anecdotes about the workings of the UK health service together with some marked
up facts about what was good and what could be improved. This small change is an
improvement on machine-determined sentiment, whilst allowing the contributor to
use free text. There is also scope for selecting entities from a controlled vocabulary.
An extension of this would be the proposition developed in the “Integrated Method
for Policy making using Argument modeling and Computer assisted Text analysis”
(IMPACT) EC FP7 project to use a controlled natural language for all of the textual
input (Integrated Method for Policy making using Argument modelling and
Computer assisted Text analysis 2012). There are many challenges in this approach,
including tracking the argument both across sentences in the contribution from one
individual, and also in the ping-pong of contrapuntal debate. In both these cases
incorporation of globally-unique identifiers for ‘things’ and ‘relationships’  – the
kernel of the Semantic Web – can provide this continuity. Illustrations of registries
such as those for legal entities in the GLEIF project (GLEIF – Global Legal Entity
Identifier Foundation 2016), Open Corporates (OpenCorporates 2016) and Open
Charities (OpenCharities 2016) combined with identifiers for concepts (ConceptNet
5 2012) and diverse predicates (Linked Open Vocabularies 2016) are providing the
Lego™ building blocks for a constrained but rich set of fixed points that can enrich
an existing controlled natural language (CNL) approach to describe and comment
on policy and statute. Simple “What You See Is What You Meant” (WYSIWYM)
interfaces (Power and Scott 1998) have given way in recent years to sophisticated
ontology editors such as Fluent Editor (Cognitum 2016) which uses the Ontorion
Controlled Natural Language (OCNL) to guide the creation of WYSIWYM docu-
ments including ontologies and rules bases (Seganti et al. 2016).

Bridging the Gap

So my line of argument is clearly going in these lines: we need a dialogue between

citizens and those who make policy and regulation so that they can understand what
is being proposed and make comment in unambiguous ways to that the intent of citi-
zens’ comments in relation to proposed legislation are understood. But this has to be
Public Administration for the Next Generation 33

done in a way that copes with computational aggregation and summarization so that
the 800,000 responses to a consultation are undertaken and the single thread of
argument counter to the 799,999 others is discovered and considered on its merits.
The computational capacity and transformational fidelity of controlled natural lan-
guage allows this, and much more besides. Some of these additional benefits are
being played out in work ongoing in the Dutch Finance and Customs Administration
(Belastingdienst) where controlled natural language is being used to provide the
rule bases that are parsed using ANTLR to an intermediary that can be compiled
directly into code. This ability, even in a restricted domain such as finance and cus-
toms, to develop software artefacts directly from a human readable set of rules
opens up a wide range of new possibilities in public administration. In short, busi-
ness rules are prepared in “RegelSpraak”, a Dutch CNL based on “RuleSpeak”
(RuleSpeak 2016) that is fully consistent with Semantics for Business Vocabulary
and Business Rules (SBVR) (Object Management Group 2015) and is easily
human-readable. As Chris Maple of MMG Insurance (another organization that has
adopted CNL rule language deep into its business processes) states, “A lot of really
smart people have done really good thinking in this area.” (Maple 2014). The busi-
ness rules couched in the CNL can then be parsed and compiled into a form suitable
for e.g. the DROOLS rule engine.
But just as NLP is not necessarily going to provide the magic wand that allows
administrators to get computers to read their input from citizens, so the full-on appli-
cation of CNL is not going to allow citizens to provide their input to the process of
public administration in part because it requires some prior learning, and many peo-
ple are not going to adapt to that. It also potentially constrains the concepts and
constructs that a citizen might be able to use to connect with the administration, and
that would be politically untenable as it is likely to be seen as coercive and restric-
tive. There is potential scope for the scenario where citizens could be using argu-
mentation and debating technologies (IBM 2016) to facilitate constructing their
response to an administration’s proposals or actions in the same way that the legal
profession has AI tools such as “Ross” (ROSS 2016) at its disposal, but the outputs
are still in natural language and so there is an additional ‘layer’ or aspect needed to
help people use computers to process more effectively and efficiently the points
made and to aggregate them accurately and integrate them into other knowledge
accurately and efficiently. Equally, this move to a wholly IT-mediated discourse
based on argumentation alone fails to develop the trend to more inclusive and par-
ticipative democracy that is gaining momentum in countries such as Scotland where
recent conversations within the country have recognized that there needs to be both
online and offline interactions between government and citizens and the creation of
safe spaces for dialogue to help infuse ideas from all sectors of society into the mix,
and to mitigate the political risks of “getting it wrong” and the fears that stoke risk
aversion in administrations (Stoddart 2014). Collaborative Government that includes
administrators going to where the conversations are taking place requires some
mechanism of channel discovery, and this again is bringing us to the challenge of
scale. How can government monitor the online dialogues to identify which to join?
We are back to analyzing Twitter streams and the complexities and hazards of either
getting administrators to do this job themselves or using some algorithmic approach.
34 P. Winstanley

Ideality?

Smaller populations such as Iceland have the capacity to sample opinion in a much
more authoritative and interactive way and this was realized in 2009 and subsequent
years during a period of constitutional reform (Bergsson and Blokker 2014). This
exercise to update the constitution involved taking a random sample of c.1000 peo-
ple and getting them to talk about issues and then 25 of this assembly were selected
by the voting population (Iceland Review Online 2010) to address the issues identi-
fied by the larger assembly and write the revision of the constitution (Wikipedia
2016c). The large group was split into 128 smaller groups and their ideas were
condensed into word clouds as a rapid means of determining the topics of interest
(Blokker 2012). Clearly this is a circumstance where CNL could not only advance
this Icelandic approach but also allow it to scale effectively to larger numbers of
participants and provide in computable form greater complexity of input than sim-
ple word clouds.

Recapitulation

In summary, I see the incorporation of controlled languages, registries of identifiers

and technologies such as RDF and tools for computer facilitated reasoning and dis-
covery/description of arguments as underpinning the next generation of public
administration in ways that allow greater individual contribution to the ideas mix
from which policy is developed and more streamlined routes to the delivery of IT
services that implement and monitor the regulations derived from public policy. I
also see these technologies improving the quality of regulations as they provide
routes to use computer approaches to test the logical consistency of complex sets of
regulation to a scale that Hammurabi could only dream of.

References

Amazon Web Services (2015) Lambda architecture for batch and stream processing on AWS. Available
at https://d0.awsstatic.com/whitepapers/lambda-architecure-on-for-batch-aws.pdf
Australian Government Department of Health (2016) Regulation and red tape reduction. Available at
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/regulation-and-red-tape-reduction
Beach T, Rezgui Y, Li H, Kasim T (2015) A rule-based semantic approach for automated regula-
tory compliance in the construction sector. Expert Syst Appl 42(12):5219–5231. doi:10.1016/j.
eswa.2015.02.029
Bennet S (2015) Using design and open policy making techniques to address complex problems.
In UK government “Future of Aging” blog. Available at https://futureofageing.blog.gov.
uk/2015/10/01/design-and-open-policy-making/
Bergsson BT, Blokker P (2014) The constitutional experiment in Iceland (September 4, 2013). In: Pocza
K (ed) Verfassunggebung in kon-solidierten Demokratien: Neubeginn oder Verfall eines Systems?
Nomos Verlag. ISBN 3848709996. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2320748
Public Administration for the Next Generation 35

Blokker P (2012) Grassroots constitutional politics in Iceland. Available at https://blokkerpaul.

wordpress.com/2012/01/16/grassroots-constitutional-politics-in-iceland/
Brodie CA, Karat C-M, Karat J (2006) An empirical study of natural language parsing of privacy
policy rules using the SPARCLE policy workbench. Symposium on usable privacy and security
(SOUPS). Available at https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2006/proceedings/p8_brodie.pdf
Carnegie Mellon University, Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, Technology Guide. (2014)
Innovative energy technologies: the next generation. Available at http://www.cmu.edu/epp/
policy-briefs/briefs/Innovative-energy-technologies.pdf
Chilean Government (2016) Chile Atiende. Available at https://www.chileatiende.gob.cl/
Cognitum (2016) The Fluent Editor website. Available at http://www.cognitum.eu/semantics/
FluentEditor/
Compendium Institute (2012) Website available at http://compendiuminstitute.net/index.htm
ConceptNet 5 Website (2012) available at http://conceptnet.io/
DeLong JV (2002) Out of bounds, out of control: regulatory enforcement at the EPA. Cato Institute
GLEIF – Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (2016) Website available at https://www.gleif.org/en
IBM (2016) IBM Debating Technologies website. Available at http://researcher.ibm.com/
researcher/view_group.php?id=5443
Iceland Review Online (2010, 2014) Iceland election results announced. Available at http://icelan-
dreview.com/news/2010/12/01/iceland-election-results-announced
Integrated Method for Policy making using Argument modelling and Computer assisted Text anal-
ysis (2012) Project site available at http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93720_en.html
Lemman N (2008) Conflict of interests. The New Yorker. Available at http://www.newyorker.com/
magazine/2008/08/11/conflict-of-interests
LIME – CIRSFID, University of Bologna (2016) LIME: the Language Independent Markup Editor
website. Available at http://lime.cirsfid.unibo.it/
Linked Open Vocabularies (2016) Website available at http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/
Lotzmann U, Meyer R (2011) DRAMS  – a declarative rule-based agent modelling system. In:
Burczynski T, Kolodziej J, Byrski A, Carvalho M (eds) Proceedings 25th European conference on
modelling and simulation. ©ECMS ISBN: 978-0-9564944-2-9 / ISBN: 978-0-9564944-3-6 (CD)
Manuel T (2015) The content corner: using natural language processing to improve rule-
making. DigitalGov website. Available at https://www.digitalgov.gov/2015/08/17/
the-content-corner-using-natural-language-processing-to-improve-rulemaking/
Maple C (2014) Supporting a business rules approach with standards and patterns. Bus Rules
J 15(9). Available at http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2014/b774.html
McGibbney LJ, Kumar B (2013) A comperative study to determine a suitable representional data model
for UK building relations. J Inf Technol Constr (ITcon) 18:20–39. http://www.itcon.org/2013/
Mikoleit A (2014) Social media use by governments: a policy primer to discuss trends, identify
policy opportunities and guide decision makers. OECD working papers on public governance
no. 26. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmghmk0s-en
Moss G, Kennedy HN, Moshonas S, Birchall C (2015) Knowing your publics: the use of social
media analytics in  local government. Information Polity 20(4):287–298. ISSN 1570-1255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/IP-150376. Available at http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/91927/3/
Knowing_Your_Public.pdf
New Zealand Law Commission (2012) R125 the public’s right to know. Available at http://r125.
publications.lawcom.govt.nz/
OASIS (2016) LegalRuleML Technical Committee website. Available at https://www.oasis-open.
org/committees/legalruleml/charter.php
Object Management Group (2015) Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules™ (SBVR™)
website. Available at http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/Current/
OCOPOMO Project (2012) Open collaboration for policy modelling website. Available at http://
www.ocopomo.eu
OpenCharities (2016) Website available at http://opencharities.org/
OpenCorporates (2016) Website available at https://opencorporates.com/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016a) Regulatory policy. Available
at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/
36 P. Winstanley

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016b) Regulatory impact analysis.
Available at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ria.htm
Paschke A, Boley H (2009) Rule markup languages and semantic web rule languages. In: Giurca
A, Gasevic D, Taveter K (eds) Handbook of research on emerging rule-based languages and
technologies: open solutions and approaches. Chapter: 1. IGI Global, pp 1–24
Patient Opinion website (2016) Available at https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/
Pedersen S, Baxter G, Burnett S, Goker A, Corney D, Martin C (2014) Backchannel chat: peaks
and troughs in a twitter response to three televised debates during the Scottish independence
referendum campaign 2014. Aberdeen Business School Working Paper Series 7(2). Available
at https://openair.rgu.ac.uk/handle/10059/1086
Policy Compass (2016) Project website available at https://project.policycompass.eu/the-project/
Power R, Scott D (1998) WYSIWYM: knowledge editing with natural language feedback.
Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on natural language generation (INLG 98),
Niagara-on-the-Lake
ROSS (2016) Website available at http://www.rossintelligence.com/
RuleML Inc (2016) http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/RuleML_Home
RuleSpeak (2016) Website available at http://www.rulespeak.com/en/
Seganti A, Kapłański P, Zarzycki P (2016) Collaborative editing of ontologies using fluent editor
and Ontorion. In: 12th international experiences and directions workshop on OWL, OWLED
2015, co-located with ISWC 2015, Bethlehem, 9–10 Oct 2015, pp 45–55
Stoddart A (2014) Collaborative government in Scotland. Available at http://www.gov.scot/
Resource/0045/00459780.pdf
Taieb D (2016) Real-time sentiment analysis of twitter hashtags with spark. IBM cloud data ser-
vices developer center. Available at https://developer.ibm.com/clouddataservices/2016/01/15/
real-time-sentiment-analysis-of-twitter-hashtags-with-spark/
U.S.C. § 553(c) (2006) ([The agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general state-
ment of their basis and purpose.). Quoted in Kevin M. Stack (2012) Interpreting regulations.
Mich Law Rev 111(3):355–422. available at http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1080&context=mlr
UK Government (2014) Regulatory impact assessments: guidance for govern-
ment departments. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/
impact-assessments-guidance-for-government-departments
UK Government Digital Service (2016) Digital People blog website. Available at https://digi-
talpeople.blog.gov.uk/
Wikipedia (2016a) Northcote–Trevelyan report. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Northcote-Trevelyan_Report
Wikipedia (2016b) Issue-based information system. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Issue-Based_Information_System
Wikipedia (2016c) Icelandic constitutional reform, 2010–13. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Icelandic_constitutional_reform,_2010%E2%80%9313

Peter Winstanley  is a data and standards specialist with experience covering more than 25 years
in both government and private sector operations. Peter is a member of the UK Government Data
Standards Panel and Glasgow University School of Computing Science Industrial Advisory Board
and is a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society. He has contributed to the development
of European Community and W3C standards and recommendations on semantic interoperability.
Peter works routinely with smart data structures such as XML and RDF to develop and deliver high
impact, low maintenance solutions.
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle

Johann Höchtl, Judith Schossböck, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer,

and Peter Parycek

Abstract  This chapter discusses a participation and technology enabled model of

the citizen scientist in relation to the policy cycle. With interconnected personal
devices collecting a plethora of various data, citizens are capable to serendipitously
contribute to crowded knowledge generation. In the governance domain, the trend
towards more data-driven models of governance and decision-making has been con-
siderable. Big data contains the methodologies to cope with the wealth of data gen-
erated by the citizen scientist and in turn provides the tools and technologies to draw
actionable insights from this data, f.i. with predictive technologies that could opti-
mise resources across government sectors. After discussing the changing role of
science and the technological and participative enablers and methods of engage-
ment relevant for citizen participation, this contribution discusses the role of the
citizen scientist and his or her involvement in the big data enabled governance loop
by defining three use cases within the policy cycle. Furthermore, it addresses the
challenges that can arise in this context.

Introduction

The term science as well as the nature of conducting science evolved over time. Not
always has research revolved around the methodological approach as we know it,
and not always has it been driven by the measures of today. In this paper we start by
describing the nature of conducting science and how some scientific paradigms
changed over time. This is relevant for our analysis of citizen science in relation to
the ePolicy cycle, as changes like the focus on the openness paradigm combined
with available means for sharing and mass collaboration also changed how citizens
can participate in the research process.
The section Citizen Science focuses on how openness in the research process
combined with means for mass collaboration can empower citizens to enrich the

J. Höchtl • J. Schossböck • T.J. Lampoltshammer (*) • P. Parycek

Department for E-Governance and Administration, Danube University Krems,
Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Str. 30, 3500 Krems, Austria
e-mail: Johann.Hoechtl@donau-uni.ac.at; thomas.lampoltshammer@donau-uni.ac.at

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 37

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_3
38 J. Höchtl et al.

research arena. After describing these changes, we take a more detailed look at the
possible ways to engage citizens in this process. The section Enablers and Methods
of Citizen Engagement summarises some recent modes of citizen participation and
engagement, mostly in relation to ICTs and digitalization, and the participatory and
technological aspects of citizen engagement. We also briefly address the opposite of
those enablers in the form of hurdles to citizen science.
In the Big Data Enabled Policy Cycle we present the policy cycle as a theoretical
vehicle to structure public policy making in light of technological advance. Use
Cases for the Citizen Scientist in the Policy Cycle ties together intrinsic motivation
and external enablers in respect to the policy cycle. In Challenges, Issues and Future
Implications we discuss existing impediments to unleash the potential of Citizen
Science in policy making, ethical and cultural considerations as well as potential
implications of future research.
By combining insights from different disciplinary fields, we hope to point towards
the chance of engaging citizens on various stages of the policy cycle, in particular
with view to an increased culture of sharing and related possibilities for evidenced-
based and participatory policy making.

Changing Paradigms in Science

For the most part of history, science was not meant for everyone. In former times,
many people lacked the basic foundations of what was perceived to be a pre-­requisite
for scientific work, namely mathematics, jurisprudence, medicine, theology, and
philosophy. The lingua scientia was dependent on epoch and geography and differed
many times from the theodiscus, the people’s language. Thus, only people capable
to communicate in the scientific language were able to participate in the discourse.
Aristoteles created the nomenclature of practical science containing, f.i. politics and
ethics, theoretical science, mathematics and theology and poietic science, including
medicine and poetry. Elaborations meant for wider consumption were called exo-
teric, whereas those works targeting the circle of like brethren esotheric.
Methodology and reproducible results did not play the crucial role as they do
today. Alchemy, occultism, and religion where all closely related disciplines and
influenced what would become modern science. None of these areas is known for a
deep methodological foundation and for good reasons: to believe rather than to
know was an integral part of a scientific approach back in these days.
In his seminal work Saggiatore, published 1623, Galileo Galilei argued to under-
stand nature requires understanding mathematics, otherwise the inner workings of
nature would remain unintelligible. He also dismissed both Alchemy and Astrology
as incapable to describe nature, a view Francis Bacon already shared 1597 in his
essays: To master nature requires to understand nature. Bacons notion of understand-
ing was freed from influential idols of its time like the Greek philosophers Platon
and Aristoteles and, with Bacon’s words, their illusions. However, even a generation
later, science was still deeply embedded into religion, occultism and alchemy. Isaac
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 39

Newton described fundamental insights in the domain of optics, dynamics, mathe-

matics, and chemistry, using a systematic, methodological approach. When we make
use of the adage standing on the shoulders of giants, Newton is certainly at the very
base of that pyramid. Lesser known is Newton’s role as an alchemist. Three hundred
sixty-nine of his personal books deal with mathematics and physics, whereas a stun-
ning 170 books make reference to the Kabbala or Rosicrucianism to support his
endeavour to find the philosopher’s stone. So even Newton still believed in the unity
of science, religion, and occultism.
In 1661, Robert Boyle published the book The Sceptical Chymist, 1 year after he
and 11 further fellows founded the Royal Society. He called for experimental rigor
and for describing chemical experiments in a way that others would be able to repeat
and verify results. Robert Boyle and the many to follow him in spirit established the
mental model of science as a white collar working activity, producing results with a
small community, unintelligible to the people. Modern science, a science solidified
in methodology, empirical evidence, and reproducibility of results dates back to the
founding fathers of the Royal Society.
Over the years, the methodological aspect of conducting research increasingly
gained traction, leaving the aspect of reproducibility behind. This changed due to an
infamous Excel mistake, which happened to Harvard University economists Carmen
Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in 2010, to erroneously conclude a significant correla-
tion between high government debt and slow economic growth (Reinhart and Rogoff
2010). The model they employed in their research paper was grounded in theory, yet
their results where irreproducible by others, due to not releasing their research data.
As an increasing number of economists expressed disbelief in their findings, they
finally published the Excel file they based their investigations on. Soon afterwards,
other researchers identified that five rows were left out from a formula, which was
used to support their argument. However, the damage was done and it is partly to
this paper that Europe now experiences an era of government austerity as many
statesmen took reference to it. This poses the question of what is more important to
the scientific discourse: Methodological soundness or reproducibility of results
through availability of data? While reproducibility is a defining feature of research,
the extent to which it should characterize it is debated (Nosek 2015). It can be noted
that newer movements, in particular in relation to scientific computing or computa-
tional social science, with the increasing importance of big data research, social
network data, and machine-generated hypotheses (Lazer et al. 2009), emphasise the
importance of reproducibility; in particular since there have been claims of its
absence in some domains (f.i. in the area of psychology, where research subjects are
rarely static). “In short, a computational social science is emerging that leverages
the capacity to collect and analyse data with an unprecedented breadth and depth
and scale.” (Lazer et al. 2009, p. 722). Computation often reaches into traditionally
qualitative fields, also in the area of dissemination, where data sharing and open
standards are emerging, and sometimes endorsing pre-­publication and open science
on the complete research spectrum. Another popular example is Diederik Stapel, a
professor of social psychology, who could not produce the data behind his work
40 J. Höchtl et al.

until he admitted in 2011 that he had been fabricating the data. Apart from these
more extreme examples, a scientific movement called reproducibility movement has
been formed, and the community pushes not only for publication and sharing of
data, but also for the possibility to reproduce results. While irreproducible evidence
does not mean that results are wrong, it could also refer to undetected variables.
In his highly disputed book Against Method, Paul Feyerabend claims that the
idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles
for conducting science meets considerable difficulty, when confronted with the
results of historical research. There is not a single rule, however plausible, and how-
ever firmly grounded in epistemology that is not violated at some time or another.
He claims that such violations are necessary for progress (Feyerabend and Hacking
2010). This and many more propositions discussed by Feyerabend bear lots of con-
troversy, as they are shaking on the still young pillars of what just became “tradi-
tional” science.
Neglecting the discussion onto which more attention should be laid upon – the
availability of scientific data or a sound methodological approach – there seems to
be agreement that scientific research should become tangible for many more people
than it is today. Furthermore, we observe a shift towards research impact, visible in
the increasing importance of quantitative research measures and automatized cita-
tion indexes, like Google Scholar for impact monitoring1 (Harzing and van der Wal
2008). With an increasing amount of people becoming part of the scientific com-
munity, a term, which constitutes no sharply-delineated area anyhow, new ways of
how to conduct research are emerging.

Open Science

How science emerged and was conducted changed significantly over the past centu-
ries and is still undergoing rapid shifts and changes today. In former times, scientific
activities were rather performed by the aristocratic society than by common people,
as the trustworthiness of the associated results was strongly interconnected with the
scientist being a “gentleman”. Yet the situation has changed more and more in
favour of repeatability and availability of data than relying purely on big names and
the reputation of huge organizations. While science has sought to include outside
expertise (Carpenter 2001), the view on the notion of the expert itself also under-
went a significant shift. Taleb notes that a great deal of important scientific discover-
ies with significant impact did not result from planning and foresight, but mostly
resulted from a trial and error approach and the unexpected (Taleb 2007).
With view to the inclusion of expertise in ideation systems, different approaches
to include outside knowledge or expertise have been classified, mostly focusing on

1
 Also in the e-government or e-policy domain, cp. f.i. Scholl, H.-J. (2016), Profiling the Academic
Domain of Digital Democracy and Government, presentation at CeDEM16, conference for
e-democracy and open government, 18th May 2016, Krems, Austria.
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 41

a top-down approach. Management theory distinguishes between flat or hierarchical

forms of including outside perspectives: While the closed “elite cycle” is a more
traditional way of production mostly lead by public institutions, other models like
the “consortium” are based on a flat governance structure, but still focusing on
closed participation. Between the closed hierarchical model and an open-model,
communities of practice or creation have been proposed (Sawhney and Prandelli
2000). In particular with view to increased open research data output, community
innovation could be fostered in the research context, focusing on the role of com-
munities or crowds, networks, and less hierarchical structures (Parycek et al. 2016).
Methods such as crowdsourcing and crowd-based initiatives can be seen as a way to
use collective intelligence for innovation. Research further separates crowds and
communities, which are distinguished by a set of organizing principles and by “light
or heavy-weight models of peer-production” (Haythornthwaite 2009). An example
would be Wikipedia, which is mainly crowdsourced, yet also contains structural
aspects of communities. With view to citizen science, different levels of engage-
ment, involvement and participation are distinguished, which will be addressed later
in this chapter and related to the ePolicy cycle. It can be estimated that with increased
experience in network structures and crowds, institutions such as governments and
universities will gain more flexibility in utilizing the principles of the network soci-
ety and opening up their processes on different stages of the cycle.
The open paradigm has certainly found its way into science, next to a counter
movement of closed pay journals with other paradigms and goals. Looking at data
as one important element and basis of scientific output, the increase of open data
output in research as part of the open science concept is recently much supported by
the European Union. This is visible in efforts to make the results of publicly funded
research freely available within the next few years, as Competitiveness Council
agreed on the target year 2020.2 These changes are part of a set of recommendations
including improved access to and storage of research data. The next step in such
endeavours would be to enhance the value of open data by increasing activities to
transfer it into knowledge and to foster further evidence-building by its usage.
Friesike et al. (2015) extract the main streams within open science and define the
following four perspectives:
1. Philanthropic perspective: Until recently, scientific knowledge and outputs, paired
with the required tools and infrastructure were restricted to a particular group. Yet,
universities and research institutions are opening their courses and curricula to
public audiences via f.i. downloads or video streaming services such as YouTube.
In addition, the advance of open access journals distribute scientific contents to
everybody interested in the research.
2. Reflationary perspective: Another trend is the publication of intermediate work
results in form of pre-prints or even before submission. This approach supports

2
 Enserink, M., In dramatic statement, European leaders call for “immediate” open access to all
scientific papers by 2020. Science, 27th May 2016, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/
dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers (accessed
15th July 2016).
42 J. Höchtl et al.

researchers in reflecting on their initial thoughts, while at the same time promot-
ing new ideas within the scientific community and beyond; even influence entire
research directions in the long run. These published ideas can be commented,
evaluated, or even challenged by other scientists or amateurs. Furthermore, the
initial starting point of a concept and its evolution over time can be traced more
easily this way, as the pre-published versions stay within the Internet even after
the final paper has been accepted and published by a publisher.
3 . Constructivistic perspective: Arising co-creational processes open up new ways
of publication development. This includes new and innovative business models
as well as associated user models. A prominent example for such an approach is
crowdsourcing in which the wisdom of the crowd is used solve problems in a fast
and flexible manner and citizens are required to support professional scientists’
work, but raising scientific issues or drawing upon problem-solving strategies
are still done by professional scientists (Dickel and Franzen 2016). Open plat-
forms with small groups of experts loosely moderated and support the discussion
and dialogue between involved parties. But not only problem-solving but also
data collection are part of these perspective.
4. Exploitative perspective: This perspective refers to real life applications and
application-orientated knowledge exploitation in cooperation with practitioners.

Citizen Science

Finke notes that the English term “citizen science” is related to a predominance of
the Anglo-Saxon countries in this research area. However, with view to the actual
content, he constitutes no big national or cultural differences (Finke 2014, p. 37):
everywhere people participate on the collective acquisition of knowledge and on
forms of knowledge transfer. While his claim that scientific engagement is not based
on profession, titles or control structures, but on interest, skills and activities can be
debated, it seems obvious that citizen science can only be realized on the basis of
such attitudes. For Finke, the term of the amateur or layman is significant for citizen
science. Rationality (German: “Laienrationalität”) enables citizen science in a con-
tinuously more complex world. Citizenship means to be engaged for something.
Citizen science according to Finke satirizes a too narrow understanding of a science
that is done only by professionals (Finke 2014, p.  40). Irwin defines the term:
“Citizen Science” evokes a science which assists the needs and concerns of citizens.
He further notes that the term also makes the point for a science that is developed
and enacted by citizens themselves. (Irwin 1995, p. xi). Feyerabend (1978) even
claims that the amateurs are the only citizens that can be trusted to criticize or moni-
tor science independently. Crucial in this regard is that the distinction between citi-
zens and scientists is blurred, and emphasis is put on the context of scientific work:
on everyday life and the lifeworlds of citizens. This claim corresponds well with
newer theories of citizenship and participation fostered by the affordances of every-
day life, hybrid media environments, e.g. the concept of mundane citizenship by
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 43

Bakardjieva (2009) or, with reference to functions of monitoring and criticism, to

the monitorial citizen as described by Schudson (2000). Consequently, Finke (2014)
defines “being close to real life” as a principle of citizen science: everyday life
knowledge is situated in the scientific community. Citizen science is science in the
lifeworld of the people, whereas professional science decidedly seeks to abstract
from it (Finke 2014, p. 65). Citizen science as a situated and bottom-up practice tak-
ing into account broad networks of people is also referred to as “extreme citizen
science”, taking the participatory element of citizen science to the extreme (Haklay
2010).3 In this view, participatory science is the consequent next step of citizen sci-
ence (Stevens et al. 2014).
Newman et al. (2012) provide a comprehensive overview of the overall evolution
and current trends regarding the paradigm citizen science, which is summarized in
the following.
In the past, people acted mostly on an individual basis and were driven through
hobby-level scientific interests. In return, collaborations occurred on a local scale
only. The research questions to be pursued were based heavily on a top-down
approach. The process of collecting data was performed with the help of protocols
designed by experts in paper-based forms and therefore access to these data was very
limited in time and space. The analysis of the gathered data was solely performed by
scientists, who published their results in scientific publications. The impact caused
by the projects was not a focus and therefore was not a major concern at that time.
The motivation behind the conducted experiments was most of the time based on
individual interests, rooted in personal observations of the environment and was very
limited in terms of technological possibility regarding data collection and analysis.
Today, people cooperate on a national and international level via common proj-
ects. While the main source for research questions still is top-down, more and more
bottom-up methodologies are arising. Some approaches relate these methodologies
and the proliferation of citizen science explicitly to the availability of new technolo-
gies, e.g. by mobile data submission (mobile applications or online submission
forms) or social networking sites.
Data that have been collected in the course of the projects are now kept online,
with a particular focus on aspects such as data quality and data integration. In for-
mer times, analyses have been available for local micro scales only. Today, analyses
for macro scales are available as well. Further-more, additional efforts are put into
the investigation of spatio-temporal phenomena. Yet, the core analyses are still per-
formed by scientists. While the results are still published by scientists in most cases,
research related data is made available only to be accessed by all involved/interested
stakeholders. The evaluation of results is done via key performance indicators and
specific to the current project context, which in turn makes it difficult if not impos-
sible to transfer these assessments and often also to compare the results between
projects. While the composition of research teams has improved in terms of diver-
sity, demographic data still indicates the need for further developments in this

3
 The Extreme Citizen Science Group at UCL London is also working with marginalized commu-
nities in citizen science activities with the goal to enable wider participation by lay people.
44 J. Höchtl et al.

regard. The main motivational driver for participation in these projects is based on
individual interests regarding collaboration-related social aspects. The techno-
logical adoption rate has increased significantly, as online-based citizen science
resources such as blogs offer data publicly to be integrated in own projects.

Enablers and Methods of Citizen Engagement

Citizen science has been described as participatory science (Conrad and Hilchey
2010; Carr 2004). While the use of volunteers has always been an important com-
ponent, it has evolved into citizen science within the past two decades (Catlin-­
Groves 2012). This can partly be explained by the use of ICTs fostering forms of
participatory science.
While some forms of citizen science refer to a more active form of engagement, a
good deal of participation in digital late modernity is based on more mundane, implicit,
opportunistic or more passive forms of engagement. As Bennett and Segerberg note
on the characteristics of contemporary networked societies, a different form of organ-
isational structure enabled by phenomena of connective individualism (Bennett and
Segerberg 2012) and expressive issue-engagement (Svensson 2014) emerged. This
has mostly been explained by a specific form of collective action, initiated by the per-
sonalisation of actions. With this different “logic of connective action” (Bennett and
Segerberg 2012) and the ubiquitous utilization of new media and technologies, the
structures of mobilisation and techniques for citizen engagement have transformed.
The argument has been put forward that communication technologies replace the need
for traditional communities of action, in other words: those technologies take over
what has traditionally been done by humans, making it easier for humans to organise
themselves and to reduce the cost of organization and sharing.
Research has emphasised the importance of civic engagement as the actual
strength of citizen science (Finke 2014). This can also be done in a more continuous
form. Also monitoring function thus does not have to come at the end of a process,
but can be executed permanently. In this context the potential of online media can
create a multitude of responses and reactions (Papacharissi 2009, p. 230).
While modern citizenship assumes an active role (cp. The term “DIY Citizenship”
by Ratto and Boler 2014), not all modes of participation in the digital networked
society have to be completely active. Research has also emphasised the importance
of less active form of participation, e.g. in the form of so called “lurkers” (Nonnecke
and Preece 2000), who are less active and remain silent, but nonetheless are an
important factor of online engagement. In an extreme form, citizens can provide
their data as sensors. Information can now be packed digitally and travel anywhere
in the world. On the basis of this speed of flow of information coupled with its “rela-
tive uncensorability” (McNair 2009, p. 223) and the collapse of time-space “distan-
tiation” (Giddens 1990) and the assumption that members of society have access to
and can afford to buy the hardware, the sharing of information has become a com-
monplace of cultural life, leading to a different form of communication with a lot of
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 45

Fig. 1  A framework for engaging expertise, Dickel and Franzen (2016)

data remaining unused. This expanded information flow makes participants con-
stant producers of data, amounting to a globalized public sphere (McNair 2009).
Catlin-Groves distinguishes on the citizen landscape from volunteers, citizen sen-
sors and beyond (Catlin-Groves 2012). In this classification, virtual citizen science
refers to data mining in a passive framework (f.i. via social networking sites), which
can also have a more active form in the form of active participation. Furthermore,
citizen science can comprise “citizen sensing” as an active framework via mobile
submissions.4 Catlin-Groves notes a move “from standardised data collection meth-
ods to data mining available datasets”, well as the “blurring of the line between citi-
zen science and citizen sensors and the need to further explore online social networks
for data collection” (Catlin-Groves 2012). In the context of citizens providing data,
(Cooper et al. 2007) emphasise a distinction between “citizen science” and “partici-
patory action research”. Citizen science should ideally not use citizens on unequal
terms and treat them as scientists on equal terms and not foster a state of competition
(cp. Finke 2014).5 A framework for engaging expertise or knowledge has also been
proposed by Dickel and Franzen (2016), who categorize two dimensions in four
levels of expertise, which are comparable to science and relevant for policy makers
(Fig. 1).
These roles are not found in empirically pure form, but seek to conceptualise
inclusion efforts in citizen science. Apart from the differentiation along the needed
expertise, these roles distinguish whether the link to the expertise is characterised
by competition or cooperation. When characterized as competition, inclusion efforts
are expected to be rejected (Dickel and Franzen 2016; Finke 2014), and competition

4
 It can be noted that these newer forms of citizen engagement re less standardized, but mostly
opportunistic or directed.
5
 Data compilers should be able to utilize centralized data to produce scientific results in exactly the
same way as anyone else should be allowed.
46 J. Höchtl et al.

between amateur science and professional science is usually implicit. It can become
explicit f.i. when publications of amateur scientists are criticised by the academic
world or the other way round (Dickel and Franzen 2016).
Participation in the citizen science landscape can be based on more than intrinsic
motivation. The willingness to share can be based on civic engagement, the joy of
discovery, but also on more playful motives and play instinct (Finke 2014, p. 124).
Another enabler is the private knowledge motives of participants or self-selected
areas of interest, sometimes in the form of hobbies and the will to preserve and cre-
ate knowledge. Behavioural approaches to spatial data sharing have also empha-
sised the importance of the following contextual factors for the willingness to share:
attitude (f.i. strategic position or social outcomes), social pressure (f.i. of ­institutions,
moral norms or the market) and perceived control (f.i. technical or interpersonal
skills or finding sharing partners) (de Montalvo 2003).
While those motivational factors play a big enabling role it should also be noted
that limited access to technology or technophobia can play a role, and factors
explaining motivational access to technology can be of a social/cultural or a mental/
psychological kind (Van Dijk 2009). Many technologies do not have appeal for the
low-income or low-educated though, and if citizen science is to be appealing to such
people, computer anxiety or technophobia as major barriers to access has to be
taken into account, as these phenomena are not expected to disappear with the ubiq-
uity of networks in the digital age (Van Dijk 2009). However, technologies of com-
munities (Irwin 2001) make it easier for citizens to participate when they feel like.6
Another strategy in lowering the participation threshold is the integration of ele-
ments of gamification or game-related elements. Thiel (2016) undertook a meta-­
analysis of the use of such elements in the field of digital participation. She concludes
that while gamification does not work similar in all domains, if situated carefully in
the relevant context, gamification could increase the level of participation in some
areas and under specific circumstances. However, several studies have already
proven that the strategy of adding game elements to influence users’ behaviour can
be successful: “The most common objective behind gamification is to increase the
usage of a system. Other scholars have shown that game elements can increase the
perception of effort, make tasks or services more enjoyable and control behaviour.”
(Thiel 2016, p. 7).7 Others have found that gamification had no effect in the context
of a citizen science application (Bowser et al. 2013): it was found that in an intrinsi-
cally motivated user group the game elements in a citizen science application were
almost incidental. This can be explained as citizens were intrinsically interested in
the non-game context and did not need an additional motivator. Thiel concludes that
only if game aspects are utilised correctly and contextualized, they can build a
highly motivational user experience (Thiel 2016, p. 8). However, the gamification
approach can be effective in terms of influencing or tapping into users’ motivation

6
 Irwin explores the configuration of the scientific citizen within policy and consultation processes
and accesses the significance of such technologies for the practice of scientific citizenship.
7
 Thiel also addresses that ethical considerations need to be considered.
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 47

up to a certain level in order to create a first motivating environment (cp. f.i. on the
agenda setting level).
With view to digital infrastructures, methods of science-driven crowdsourcing
enabled by the digital are described by Dickel and Franzen (2016), in which a task
normally performed by members of an organization is outsourced. Forms of such
crowd science relevant in our context also comprise delegating online data collec-
tion and assessment to the public. That way, crowd science enables the implementa-
tion of large data-intensive projects, which could otherwise hardly be implemented
(Franzoni and Sauermann 2014). As Dickel and Franzen (2016) note, knowledge
production and the reception of knowledge are becoming increasingly socially
inclusive. This raises the question of how much more inclusive new institutions
should be and how confidence can be guaranteed if the cycle of experts is expanded.
They propose a typology of digitally-supported inclusion models, and on that basis
conclude that the line between certified experts and laypeople is blurring (Dickel
and Franzen 2016, p. 3).

Big Data as a Technological Enabler

The preceding section primarily dealt with intrinsic factors of motivating participa-
tion in citizen science, while this section focuses on extrinsic enablers, with a closer
look on big data related technology. We further ask what this could mean for sup-
porting and evaluating governance processes and policy.
It sometimes feels like our society is obsesses with numbers. Scientific theory
mostly sees this as a good thing – reproducibility requires prove on the basis of
facts, figures numbers. Deming, the inventor of modern quality management and
heavy influencer of the reconstruction of post-World War 2 Japan towards the
world economic powerhouse of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, coined the following
phrase: “In God we trust; all others must bring data”. Books on Amazon with titles
referring to data divination are selling well. What does this mean for the future
role of the citizen scientist and how does it affects our society? More precisely:
How will policy making be conducted in the future? Let’s start with some big
numbers first.
Our known universe consists of roughly 1080 atoms, a number impossible to
fathom. Written out it spells as one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion. Yet
Peter Norvig, Director of Research at Google, tends to disagree and argues the
(small) number of atoms in the universe. In a blog post referring to Googles break-
through in beating a human being in the board game of Go, Norvig addresses com-
binational theory. For example, the number of combinations made possible by a
40-character passphrase, consisting of uppercase, lowercase, numbers and special
characters, already reaches the numbers of estimated atoms in our universe.
Comparatively, the board game of Go with a 19 by 19 field setup entails 10170 legal
positions. In other words, combinational theory, which is by nature multiplicative,
48 J. Höchtl et al.

dwarfs every number of our additive physical nature.8 Translated to the citizen sci-
ence domain, in 2015, 3.2 billion people had access to the internet and they are all
potentially connected (ITU 2015). This theoretically entails an incredible number of
possibilities to share and re-combine data and translate it into valuable knowledge
for individuals, business making (What will be the next product a customer buys?)
and government (Where is the best place to build a new hospital?)
Combinational theory is just one aspect of the transformational power of ICT
enabled by network-connected infrastructure. It is reminiscent of Metcalfe’s law,
which states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the
square of the number of connected users of the system. In other words, every citizen
creating data theoretically exponentially increases the value of the network.

The Digitization of Information and a New Breed of Intelligence

Around 2000, two remarkable events related to digitisation took place. First, the
amount of digital information surpassed the amount of analogue information.
Second, the speed of data and information creation significantly accelerated. Today,
a multitude of devices is available at comparatively low costs, enabling the mainte-
nance of networked connections and sensing a multitude of data points; be it RFID-­
chips, the Internet of things, city sensors or connected sports gadgets. General
purpose computers with low power requirements like the Arduino9 or the Raspberry
Pi10 sell for around 50 € and enable their owners to conceive all sorts of integrated
gadgets like home automation devices, weather stations, and beer brewers11. However
the most widespread digitisation device in use is the smartphone. According to
Statista, in 2015 there were 1.8 billion smartphones in use worldwide,12 which are
connected to the Internet most of the time (Fig. 2).
How is this related to citizen science for twenty-first century policy making?
Another puzzle piece in our line of argumentation is that of intelligence. When
thinking about intelligence, what springs to our mind is human intelligence or secret
services. We do not know for sure if people’s intelligence changed much in the last
three hundred years – the time frame in which modern science formed. Certainly the
artefacts we create are increasingly impressive, but this may to a large extent be due
to collective intelligence and how we are able to pass knowledge through objects
rather than through genes. With view to citizen science something is of greater
importance: the ability of algorithms to cope with the plethora of data and informa-

8
 http://norvig.com/atoms.html, retrieved 2016-07-12.
9
 https://www.arduino.cc/
10
 https://www.raspberrypi.org/
11
 http://www.networkworld.com/article/2290609/computers/computers-153240-20-cool-things-
you-can-do-with-a-raspberry-pi.html, retrieved 2016-07-12.
12
 http://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/ (data from
eMarketer), retrieved 2016-07-12.
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 49

2007
ANALOG
18.86 billion gigabytes

2000

1986 1993
ANALOG
2.62 billion
ANALOG STORAGE DIGITAL

DIGITAL
0.02 billion

2007
DIGITAL
276.12 billion gigabytes

Fig. 2  As of 2000, more information is available in digital rather than analogue and the speed at
which data and information accrues tremendously increased (Hilbert and López 2011)

tion generated every day. While the combination of networked devices, exchanging
data and information can be the source for better decision-making, it’s the algo-
rithms that provide us with the means to actually do so.
Looking back at the combinatorial features we previously identified, the sheer
amount of data would be far too large to store, inspect and analyse by any computer
system using traditional algorithms. A new way of thinking about problem solving
emerged. Striving for optimal solutions in Big Data requires the usage of algorithms
which expose polynomial runtime behaviour. Dedicating more computational
power in terms of available computing cycles, network speed and storage capacity
becomes unfeasible and increasingly impossible. A practical solution outplays opti-
mal solutions which, due to their runtime complexity, may only be able to process a
fraction of the available data and thus lead to local optima. “Good-enough” algo-
rithms become necessary if the amount of available data gets too large to be handled
by traditional ICT systems (Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier 2013). Imagine an
international online retailer. Even such seemingly simple questions such as “How
many items of X have we sold today in region Y?” become impossible to answer,
given the amount of data accrued over time.
50 J. Höchtl et al.

Another crucial aspect of today’s ICT systems is the capability to speedily react
on external events. This requirement for speed may either be triggered from a single
sensor continuously transmitting data, a sensor network whose collectively gath-
ered data results in a continuous data stream, or diverse and heterogeneous data
sources combined, like sensor and social media. Instant access to analysis results is
paramount.
An illustrative example to this new sort of intelligence we would like to present
is the HyperLogLog-Algorithm (Heule et al. 2013). This algorithm on the one hand
can deal with enormous amounts of data, yet at the expense of being not 100%
accurate. However, this is made up by the ability to analyse many facets in the data-
base to potentially identify multi-perspective patterns. Additionally, this algorithm
operates stream oriented, i.e. directly on the data as it arrives at ICT systems. Instead
of requiring an additional analysis step, analysis data is available in real time. This
is the sort of intelligence we introduced before and which completes the triangle of
The Digital Virtuous Forces. It is also this breed to algorithms which prevents mis-
interpretations in data sets by an ill-chosen or arbitrarily chosen data sampling rate.
The importance of correct sampling is well known to statisticians and an integral
part of every 101 statistics course. The danger of taking adverse decisions based on
incorrect or skewed samples can be adverse to harmful, depending on the conse-
quences drawn from the data. If it’s a million dollar business behind, correct sam-
pling becomes paramount. Imagine an online retailer, collecting a vast amount of
behavioural data (the “user journey”) every day to improve the customer experience
and to early react on changes to interaction patterns. Taking no decisions at all can
be better at times instead of taking the wrong decision. That’s what has happened to
Internet giant Ebay in 2003. Back in 2003, Ebay collected a vast amount of web
interaction patterns but was only able to analyse parts of that precious data. Future
decisions were based on the reliance on correct or good sampling techniques.
Analysts knew that due to their inability to incorporate all the data into their deci-
sion and alert models, valuable data patterns will remain undiscovered and spurious
patterns arouse where there are actually none.13 Using algorithms, which can inspect
the data in its entirety yet at the cost at not arriving at absolutely exact results, was
favourable for Ebay.
By describing the changed characteristics of ICT systems we introduced an
important concept which we think will change the way government policy is made
at each and every level in the future: big data analytics. Big data may be defined as
the “cultural, technological and scholarly phenomenon” made up of the interplay of
algorithmic analysis of large datasets in order to identify patterns (Boyd and
Crawford 2012; Ulbricht 2016).
While the technological dimension is emphasised, it should also be noted that
big data also entails an important cultural dimension, in our context referring to the

 Cliff Saran: How big data powers the eBay customer journey. Case study, Computer Weekly,
13

2014-04-29 (http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240219736/Case-Study-How-big-data-
powers-the-eBay-customer-journey, retrieved 2016-12-11).
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 51

growing significance and authority of quantified information in public administra-

tions and decision making (Rieder and Simon 2016). Drawing on the thesis that big
data is said to advance government efficiency and support evidence-decision mak-
ing, potential risks and challenges should also be considered. We will briefly cover
them in the last chapter.
This section explained the role of ICT to shape the digital citizen sphere and
presented some methods to foster citizen engagement. The following section will
discuss a big data powered policy cycle including the citizen scientist.

The Big Data Enabled Policy Cycle

The widely accepted model for the design of government policy making is the pol-
icy cycle. Originally described 1956 by US political science researcher Harold
Dwight Lasswell, the policy cycle provides a theoretical frame to explain govern-
ment policy making. Depending on the chosen abstraction level and granularity of
the step model, (a) Agenda Setting, (b) Policy Discussion, (c) Policy Formulation,
(d) Policy Acceptance, (e) Provision of Means, (f) Implementation and (g)
Evaluation can be distinguished. The cycle is a helpful instrument for all affected
stakeholders like politicians, public administration, NGOs, business entities, and
the public when organizing campaigns to respect regulations, or which supportive
or enabling ICT instruments can be considered. However, the policy cycle does not
come without criticism. First it should be understood as a heuristic which requires
tailoring to the actual needs. In practice, the sharply distinguished steps will overlap
or certain steps left out altogether (Prozesse—Der Policy-Cycle 2009, p.  110).
Everet et al. also identify an overemphasis on the process itself rather than quality
or performance (Everett 2003).
Arguably the biggest factor of influence to this approved model is technological
change. As we identified, the biggest amount of data today is digital, arrives at high
speed and is, due to its plentiful sources, of varying structure. Looking at the tradi-
tional policy cycle, the model is iterative, with evaluation happening at the last step.
This was justified at times when data was primarily analogue and information a
scarce good. However, Big Data methodologies provide the means to inspect mas-
sive quantities of data in or near real time, to discover new insights through mining
yet undiscovered patterns and to visualize complexities in such ways that action-
able results can be immediately derived from Kim et al. (2014). The most problem-
atic aspect of the traditional policy cycle is that evaluation happens as a separate
and detached process at the end of the policy making process, which wastes time
otherwise available for re-focusing of initiatives or dropping unsuccessful measures
altogether. It also does not account for the possibility of a continuous inclusion of
evaluation and simulation results to re-assess policies based on evidence (Höchtl
et al. 2015) (Fig. 3).
52 J. Höchtl et al.

Fig. 3  Left: The policy cycle as described by Nachmias and Felbinger, 1982 (Nachmias and
Felbinger 1982); Right: The big data enabled ePolicy cycle including continuous evaluation

The ePolicy Cycle and the Citizen Scientist

With view to the key concept introduced by Höchtl et  al. (2015) of continuous
evaluation happening all along the policy cycle, the crucial question is by whom and
how evaluation is executed? The administration itself can, will and already does
employ big data technologies to better detect tax evasion, forecast disasters based
on past damage records, or to address climate change and its effect on the availabil-
ity of food and water (Mather and Robinson 2016). The tighter integration of yet
dispersed data sources is expected to make data based evidence available quicker
with the aim to act or foresee large-scale, systemic changes. In the future, algo-
rithms will play an important role in helping policy makers to rectify changes to
agreed policies and to instantaneously act on change.
Despite algorithmic approaches, the human ingenuity still excels in detecting pat-
terns in seemingly unrelated data sets. Moreover, citizens increasingly own and
operate distributed computing and sensing devices, be it the smartphone or dedicated
small scale computers like Arduinos or Raspberries. Therefore the inclusion of citi-
zens into the policy evaluation phase in an organized, structured way including sci-
entific means could draw on citizens’ skills, creativity and curiosity for supporting
the evaluation of government policy making.
While the inclusion of citizens into government policy making is not new, the
ability of citizens to engage in evaluation and monitoring actions in a scientific way
is fostered by the availability of big data tools, methodologies and means. However,
in the same way as participation will not happen simply by providing the tools and
means, incentives and supportive measures will be required to promote citizen par-
ticipation in science. Depending on intrinsic motivations, personal skills, and inter-
ests, a different set of techniques can be employed to encourage citizens to engage
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 53

in policy evaluation, which may vary from levels of passive participation (lurking),
active participation, participation without taking explicit notice (implicit participa-
tion) up to coordinated citizen science leagues. Participation enhancing methods
such as gamification approaches could also create a breed of citizen scientists with-
out them actually taking notice. The ethical implications of this possibility have to
be considered.

Use Cases for the Citizen Scientist in the Policy Cycle

In this section we deduct three use cases of citizen scienceship in policy making,
summarise some evidence or enabling elements and analyse the required setup for
the successful application of these elements between government and citizens.
Augmented Reality and Gamification  Assuming a local authority is undecided
whether it should invest in renovating a school or building a new park. There are no
legal obligations to prioritize one measure over the other, and even experts are unde-
cided. In a virtual reality environment the government city planners sketch a model
of the actual city. People from all around the world subsequently connect to this open
playfield and start to model their ideal city. Their activities will become immediately
visible to all the other participants of this virtual city. Additionally, every virtual city
planner can inspect the planning efforts of the others and what infrastructure he or
she has built. After every planning period an election takes place to vote for the chief
city planner.
The city has access to the process data of this virtual environment, containing
information about which infrastructure was built, which was demolished and how
the virtual residents are using their city. They can also see who was elected as chief
city planner and replay and analyse the measures taken by her or him. By overlaying
the design elements of the virtual city with the actual city by means of augmented
reality, the virtual artefacts become immediately tangible.
Enabling elements  Assuming that a lot of people enjoy engaging in virtual environ-
ments, augmented reality methods for city planning can be successful. One example
of a city building simulation in the past is SimCity, which was a huge success even
when computers where not yet connected to the Internet. Today peoples’ interest in
creating an alternate or ideal world has not waned. Minecraft14 is one example of a
game which can be played in a massive multiplayer online mode to design virtual
worlds. In Civic Crafting in Urban Planning, Mather et al. discuss the potential of
using Minecraft for public consultations and argue that serious games in planning
can capture participants’ attention for a longer period of time, educate the public
about planning concepts and site-specific challenges (Mather and Robinson 2016).

 https://minecraft.net/en/, available on PC, handhelds and gaming consoles and found its way into
14

many more applications but designing virtual worlds.

54 J. Höchtl et al.

Analysis  In this use case scenario, the city planning council takes the role of a
facilitator by creating a model of the existing city. Additionally it sets the rules to
keep people engaged in participating in the virtual planning process, for example
by promoting participants to become planning directors, etc. through other players
vote. The citizens need not necessarily know that they are taking part in a serious
game and that their actions might have an influence in the real world. By choosing
a gamification approach, the citizen scientist uses his devices and means to partici-
pate, yet the incentives of participation can be “hidden”. Instead of scheduling
assignments, it is the quest and challenge of the virtual environment which will
attract the participants. By using virtual reality elements, the rules of the game can
be kept within reasonable constraints, reducing the risk that the citizen scientists
create infrastructure which in reality would be inconceivable. The application of
augmented reality and gamification to support policy making could be used in the
Agenda Setting step, where citizens’ wishes in the virtual world can be used to
prioritize actions in reality.
Ubiquitous computing devices  Most smartphone apps fulfil a very specific user
need and most users accept trading usability in exchange for granting access to her
or his phones sensors (e.g. location) and even more so to contact details. The com-
bination of increased tools usability in conjunction with communicating the goals of
the authority could provide another use case. State services would need to provide
increased usability levels compared to the offline version or the browser version,
e.g. by being seamless integrated into more backend systems without requiring the
service user to log into multiple sites to collect information just to enter this infor-
mation onto another site. Users might then accept the fact that these apps access the
phones sensors to deliver data to the authorities, which could support a number of
goals, e.g. to reduce traffic jams, or to support early warning systems (rise of tem-
perature in certain regions) in exchange for increased usability. Depending on
whether the goal is communicated, users could become citizen sensors knowingly
or unknowingly.
Enabling elements  The University of Vienna engaged in a joint venture with Samsung
to utilize the capacity of smartphones during charging. Cancer and Alzheimer research
is computationally intense and involves scanning protein sequences for patterns. Only
after the phone is fully charged, a roughly one megabyte large data package will be
downloaded by the app Power Sleep,15 which comes as an alarm clock. The App then
inspects and analyses the data package and sends results back to the medical research
units.
Analysis  The capability to effectively distribute work to many participating nodes
in such a way that only little effort is wasted in the coordination of work, combined
with algorithms which can efficiently operate on a mere subset of the data, is an
achievement of big data research. The citizens’ role in the above scenario is that of
an active facilitator – he or she will most likely deliberately participate out of altru-

15
 http://www.iflscience.com/technology/new-app-crunches-scientific-data-while-you-sleep/
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 55

istic motives. In this role the citizen scientist is unable to influence the details, like
the used algorithms, of the performed analysis, which remains under the control of
the institution or organisation who is issuing the data for inspection. This is also true
for the research results: While the citizen scientist contributes resources, the bene-
fits are harvested elsewhere. The usage of citizen resources by the government is
best employed in the Provision of Means policy cycle step.
Co-creation  Complementary to the voluntary offering of resources by citizen scien-
tists via smartphones in exchange for usability is the idea of planning, designing, and
implementing citizens’ devices or even infrastructures to sense social and/or environ-
mental phenomena, to collect and aggregate the associated data, and to stream them
to a central repository or to provide access to the device/installation via an open
API. Such an actively developed networking infrastructure goes beyond the concept
of pure data collection and enable participants to actively develop and enhance the
underlying scientific ICT infrastructure, transforming the associated projects into
living environments. Additionally, the gathered data as well as the research results
remain und the control of the.
Enabling elements  A prominent example for such an user-implemented sensor net-
work infrastructure can be found in form of the Citizen Weather Observer Program
(CWOP),16 in which private individuals host weather stations that are either using
amateur radio or Internet connectivity to transmit collected data. The available sen-
sors range from humidity and temperature sensors, up to sensors for wind speed,
barometric pressure and rainfall. While a lot of vendor-sold setups for weather
observation exist, a huge group of individuals works with small computerized
boards such as the Arduino platform or Raspberry Pies, which provide a high level
of extensibility and interconnectivity with other devices and electronic components.
Furthermore, the open platforms enable users to freely program their setups in vari-
ous computer languages. This opens up a plethora of possibilities with view to ana-
lytical processes or visualizations.
Analysis  Extending the idea to use citizens computing resources, co-creation by citi-
zens requires more intense and ongoing participation levels. Here, a crowd or com-
munity of citizen scientists needs to organize themselves, define the objectives, agree
on the tools and infrastructure, schedule tasks and governance structures to accom-
plish a goal. In the most likely case, the government will profit from the results, but
seek to secure methodological rigor and soundness of science projects’ outcome. The
government can support such efforts by legally endowing the opening up of govern-
ment data and APIs, through specialized research grants also targeting individuals,
by providing cloud computing infrastructure which can be used by the citizens like
EU’s FIWARE platform,17 or by providing crucial software components as open
source like NASA’s open source building blocks.18 Big data tools like platform as a

16
 http://wxqa.com/, retrieved 18.07.2016.
17
 https://www.fiware.org/
18
 https://code.nasa.gov/#/
56 J. Höchtl et al.

service (PaaS) cloud-computing and cloud-backed decentralized code management

services represent technological enablers for citizen science co-­creation. Co-creation
is best employed in the Implementation step of the ePolicy cycle.

Challenges, Issues and Future Implications

Citizen science in combination with big data and evidence-informed decision mak-
ing raises some issues that should to be addressed at the beginning of projects and
throughout the course of scientific investigation (Resnik et al. 2015). In this con-
text, ethical, legal, social and project-related challenges can arise,19 not only as
technology is always situated in a political context (Feenberg 2010), and critical
data studies, while in its infancy, have addressed such issues. It seems that all
around the world, policy-makers have taken on a hype, and big data is often referred
to as the “new oil of the digital age” (European Commission 2012), while at the
same time criticised as support of techno-capitalism (Rieder and Simon 2016).
Going even further, there is an increasing tendency among citizenry to ignore facts
obtained by investigative and data driven journalism. The Trump election campaign
or the Brexit were two examples of phenomenon which we might increasingly
observe: Neglecting factual proof, irrespective of the efforts and clarity which has
been laid on data gathering, model crafting and visualisation making. People
believe in what they want to believe.20 This raises questions of which areas in policy
making do make sense to include the citizenry in data driven policy making and to
what extend large scale policy making will always remain driven by sentiments
rather than by facts, independent of how tangible and easy to understand these facts
will ever be presented. This situation is likely to be aggravated by recent advances
in non-­deterministic and self-improving algorithms like Artificial Intelligence with
feedback loops or stacking of algorithms in deep learning arrangements. While the
results obtainable by these algorithms or algorithmic arrangements are stunning
and are an important aspect to master the complexity of e.g. autonomous vehicles,
they are hardly suited for automated decision making, affecting citizens life.
Transparency involves many areas such as the availability of data and information
for once - the ability to explain citizens why a decision has been made will rise in
its importance. The jurisdictions of Germany and Austria have already reacted and
grant citizens the right to access the algorithms which have been used to support
decision making. This, however, requires the used algorithms to be accessible in a
way so their inner working can be explained to the ordinary citizen.21

19
 Metcalf and Crawford identified several cases of an “ethics divide” in the big data context and
address disputes about human-subjects research ethics in data science.
20
 Down on the Data: facts are not the only truth in life. Greg Jericho, The Guardian, 2016-09-19
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/down-on-the-data-facts-are-not-the-
only-truth-in-life, retrieved 2016-12-11).
21
 Data Protection Act Austria (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG), BGBl. I Nr. 165/1999, §49 (3).
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 57

While the general consensus is that data analysis can lead to important insights,
significant power shifts and advantages and disadvantages for individuals, groups or
communities, can arise. Some voices, like cultural critic Slavoj Žižek, have empha-
sised that humans would not benefit from it, and leaders would probably make deci-
sions not based on data evidence, but still on their own ideological fantasies, claiming
that big data analytics would be like “showing Hegel’s logic to a cow”.22
Rieder and Simon (2016) argue that while the consequences of big data have been
a concern, the underlying culture of measurement and quantification has not, and
discussions have focused on modalities of change rather than forms of continuity,
framed in a narrative of novelty and disruption. Culturally, this can be explained by
an effort to reduce uncertainty in societies. The authors address the recent interest in
evidence-based policy making and more data-driven forms of governance and relate
big data to a distinct political culture based on public distrust and uncertainty.
However, more data does not necessarily equal better insights (Rieder and Simon
2016). With the demand for quantitative rigor increasing in societies, a culture of
quantification risks reducing the human element, and why the reasons for this shift
can be explained as a strategy to adapt to new external pressures, it can also be inter-
preted as a chance to de-politicize legislation (Rieder and Simon 2016). A framework
for addressing ethical challenges in citizen science has been provided by Resnik
et al. (2015). They propose that for promotion of ethical research, scientists should
develop guidelines and provide laymen with education and training on the conduct of
research.
Conrad and Hilchey (2010) identified three main areas for challenges regarding
the concept of citizen science. While these challenges are situated within their work
in the field of community-based monitoring, the authors see them as generic issues
regarding the concept of citizen science in general. The first area relates to the
aspect of the number of people involved as well as how to trigger their interest to
participate. This also interrelates to whether or not there exists an established and
well-curated network for communication and exchange, which furthermore is also
impacted by the provided funding, not only for the citizen science project itself but
also for related environmental, organizational, and infrastructural aspects.
The second area covers challenges in terms of data collection and associated
processes. In order to fulfil many analytical tasks, it is imperative that data are avail-
able on a continuous time basis. If the collected data is heavily fragmented, analyses
over time become very difficult. Furthermore, there have to be processes defined
which provide the necessary means of a guaranteed level of accuracy regarding
measurements. Mistakes or measurement errors in the early phase of the project can
negatively impact all other succeeding steps. Furthermore, data collected by indi-
viduals are always prone to a certain personal bias, and in a more general way,
modern data analysis software is often not understandable for the average citizen.
The third area is the actual use of the data collected within the actual policy/
scientific context, i.e., the adaption by policy-makers in their decision-making pro-
cess or the publication in a suitable journal. Due to the before-mentioned quality

22
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBBzYG8szmc (accessed 15th July 2016).
58 J. Höchtl et al.

aspects, results are often disregarded as invalid or processes not compatible with the
expected level of scientific rigor.
Future citizen science projects have therefore to adapt their processes and overall
strategy to overcome these challenges, therefore Newman et  al. (2012) foresees
future directions of citizen science strongly be based on concepts such as viral mar-
keting, e.g., using social media, interconnected databases, and the initiation of
cyberinfrastructures as flexible and scalable backbones. The development of research
questions will be predominantly via bottom-up approaches, bringing together prac-
tices of amateur research and open science and open source (Dickel and Franzen
2016), supported by intuitive visualization for displaying and navigation data, avail-
able in real-time. High quality data will be available 24/7 via globally distributed,
high-availability databases. In addition to accessibility, the newly designed cyberin-
frastructures offer high-performance, cloud-based computing for everyone, foster-
ing joint collaborations between quantitative and qualitative science fields such as
natural and social sciences. The dissemination process will improve due to peer-
assessments via social community platforms across the globe. At the same time, this
will lead to overall community-accepted key performance indicators, which can be
adapted to projects of various scales. The newly formed (virtual) citizen science
communities will bridge existing geographical gaps, to enable better and faster
exchange and adoption of gained knowledge. The motivation behind participating in
these communities will be based on gamification-driven processes, which reward
individuals not only with new technological insights but also with reputation within
the community, e.g., expressed via achievement badges or ranks.
If citizen science wants to address these challenges, it will be necessary to ask the
question how big data relates to power, and how we want to shape the big data soci-
ety. It is important to note that unethical use of big data can be controlled, and
unequal power balances can be recalibrated (Ulbricht 2016). Ulbricht mentions
granting wider access to data and data analysis as one way to challenge the privi-
leged position of data collectors and controllers, and also to provide data subjects
with participation rights and comprehensible formation. Open data initiatives and
increasing public transparency about datasets will be crucial in this context. However,
every project should address questions of possible power shifts that might arise, and
which unintended consequences they could cause. On the basis of wider knowledge,
it will be possible for policy makers to choose the appropriate protection measure-
ments against such threats (Ulbricht 2016). In this context, more empirical studies
about the consequences of such projects in the governance field will be necessary in
order to be able to make good use of the new instruments.

References

Bakardjieva M (2009) Subactivism: lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet. Inf Soc
25(2):91–104
Bennett WL, Segerberg A (2012) The logic of connective action. Digital media and the personal-
ization of contentious politics. Commun Inf Soc 15(5):739–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13
69118X.2012.670661
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 59

Bowser A, Hansen D, Preece J, He Y, Boston C, Hammock J (2013) Gamifying citizen science: a

study of two user groups. Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM confer-
ence on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, ACM, pp 137–140
Boyd D, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Inf Commun Soc 15(5):662–667. doi:
10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
Carpenter DP (2001) The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy
innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Carr AJL (2004) Why do we all need community science. Soc Nat Resour 17:841–849
Catlin-Groves C (2012) The citizen science landscape: from volunteers to citizen sensors and
beyond. Int J  Zool 2012(2012):349630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/349630. http://www.
hindawi.com/journals/ijz/2012/349630/. Accessed 15 July 2016
Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2010) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental
monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176(1–4):273–291
Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in
residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/.
Accessed 15 July 2016
de Montalvo UW (2003) In search of rigorous models for policy-oriented research: a behavioural
approach to spatial data sharing. URISA J 15(1):19–28
Dickel S, Franzen M (2016) The ‘Problem of Extension’ revisited: new modes of digital participa-
tion in science. J Sci Commun 15:1–15
European Commission (2012) From crisis of trust to open governing. Http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_SPEECH-12-149_en.htm. Accessed 15 July 2016
Everett S (2003) The policy cycle: democratic process or rational paradigm revisited? Aust J Public
Adm 62:65–70
Feenberg A (2010) Between reason and experience. Essays in technology and modernity. MIT
Press, Cambridge/London
Feyerabend P (1978) Science in a free society. Verso Books, New York
Feyerabend P, Hacking I (2010) Against method. Verso, London/New York
Finke P (2014) Citizen science. Das unterschätzte Wissen der Laien. oekom, München
Franzoni C, Sauermann H (2014) Crowd science: the organisation of scientific research in open
collaborative projects. Res Policy 43(1):1–20. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005
Friesike S, Widenmayer B, Gassmann O, Schildhauer T (2015) Opening science: towards an
agenda of open science in academia and industry. J Technol Transf 40(4):581–601
Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge
Haklay M (2010) ‘Extreme’ citizen science, London Citizen Cyberscience Summit, London, 2–3
Sept
Harzing AW, van der Wal R (2008) Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis? Ethics
Sci Environ Politics 8(1):61–73
Haythornthwaite C (2009) Crowds and communities: light and heavyweight models of peer pro-
duction, in proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference of system sciences. IEEE
Computer Society, Los Alamitos
Heule S, Nunkesser M, Hall A (2013) HyperLogLog in practice: algorithmic engineering of a
state of the art cardinality estimation algorithm. Proceedings of the EDBT 2013 conference,
Genoa, 2013
Hilbert M, López P (2011) The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and com-
pute information. Science 332:60–65
Höchtl J, Parycek P, Schöllhammer R (2015) Big data in the policy cycle: policy decision making
in the digital era. J Organ Comput Electron Commer
Irwin A (1995) Citizen science. In: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development.
Routledge, London/New York
Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen. Science and democracy in the biosciences.
Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–18
ITU: ICT facts and figures – the wold in 2015 (2015) Geneva
Kim G-H, Trimi S, Chung J-H (2014) Big-data applications in the government sector. Commun
ACM 57:78–85
60 J. Höchtl et al.

Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabási A-L, Brewer D, Christakis N, Contractor N,

Fowler J, Gutmann M, Jebara T, King G, Macy M, Roy D, Van Alstyne M (2009) Computational
social science. Science 323(5915):721–723. doi:10.1126/science.1167742
Mather LW, Robinson P (2016) Civic crafting in urban planning public consultation: exploring
Minecraft’s potential. Int J E-Plan Res 5:42–58
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live,
work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston
McNair B (2009) The internet and the changing global media environment. In: Chadwick A, Howard
PN (eds) The Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routeledge, New York, pp 217–229
Nachmias D, Felbinger C (1982) Utilization in the policy cycle: directions for research. Rev Policy
Res 2:300–308
Newman G, Wiggins A, Wiggins A, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K (2012) The future of citi-
zen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):298–230
Nonnecke B, Preece J (2000) Lurker demographics: counting the silent. Proceedings of CHI 2000.
CHI 2000, ACM, The Hague
Nosek B (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 248(6251).
doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
Papacharissi Z (2009) The public sphere and beyond. In: Chadwick A, Howard PN (eds) The
Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routeledge, New York, pp 230–245
Parycek P, Schöllhammer R, Schoßböck J  (2016) Governmental ideation systems. In: Carlsen
A, Cerne M, Dysvik A, Skerlavaj M (eds) Capitalizing on creativity at work: fostering the
implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., Cheltenham,
pp 305–319
Prozesse—Der Policy-Cycle (2009) In: Politikfeldanalyse. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften,
pp 101–140
Ratto M, Boler M (2014) DIY citizenship. Critical making and social media. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA
Reinhart CM, Rogoff KS (2010) Growth in a time of debt. National Bureau of Economic Research
Resnik DB, Elliot KD, Miller AK (2015) A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen sci-
ence. Environ Sci Pol 54:475–481
Rieder G, Simon J (2016) Datatrust: or, the political quest for numerical evidence and the episte-
mologies of big data. Big Data Soc 2016:1–6. doi:10.1177/2053951716649398
Sawhney M, Prandelli E (2000) Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in tur-
bulent market. Calif Manag Rev 42(4):24–54
Schudson M (2000) Good citizens and bad history: today’s political ideals in historical perspec-
tive. Commun Rev 1(4):1–20
Stevens M, Vitos M, Altenbuchler J, Conquest G, Lewis J, Haklay M (2014) Taking participatory
citizen science to the extremes, pervasive computing. IEEE CS 13(2):20–29
Svensson J (2014) Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today: connective
individualism, expressive issue-engagement and disciplined updating. Int J Media Cult Politics
10(3):347–354
Taleb NN (2007) The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York
Thiel S-K (2016) A review of introducing game elements to e-particpation. In: Edelmann N,
Parycek P (eds) CeDEM 16. Proceedings of the 6th international conference for e-democracy
and open government, IEEE computer society no. P5845, 3-9
Ulbricht L (2016) Big data: big power shifts? Internet Policy Rev 6(1):1–8
Van Dijk JAGM (2009) One Europe, digitally divided. In: Chadwick A, Howard PN (eds) The
Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routeledge, New York, pp 288–304

Johann Höchtl  is senior researcher at the Centre for E-Governance at Danube University Krems
and holds a doctoral degree in Business Informatics. The projects he is involved in include
EU-funded research projects and national grants in the domain of large-scale data governance,
social media application in administration, open data and inclusive approaches of ICT application
in public administration. He is former member of OASIS SET TC standardisation group, member
The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle 61

of OKFN Austria and member of Cooperation Open Government Data Austria, where he is head-
ing data quality sub working group. He was advisor to the E-Georgia strategy for the public admin-
istration and advisor to Macedonia (FYROM) to raise interoperability capabilities among federal
ministries.

Judith Schossböck  is a research fellow at the Centre for E-Governance at Danube University
Krems, Austria. Among her research interests are online participation and activism, open govern-
ment and open access, digital literacy, the sociopolitical effects of ICTs and occasionally cyber
utopia or dystopia. She was involved in a study on the internet skills of the 14 years old youth in
Austria, the development of a youth participation platform on which four European countries
cooperated and a project researching electronic identification in online participation. In 2016, she
won a scholarship from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (HK PhD Fellowship Award)

Thomas J. Lampoltshammer  holds a doctoral degree in Applied Geoinformatics in addition to

his Master’s degrees in the fields of Information and Communication Technology, Embedded and
Intelligent Systems, as well as in Adult Education. He currently works as a Senior Scientist (Post
Doc) at the Department for E-Governance and Administration at the Danube University Krems/
Austria. Prior to his current position, he has worked as a Researcher and Lecturer in Applied
Informatics at the School of Information Technology and Systems Management at the Salzburg
University of Applied Sciences Salzburg/Austria. His research experience covers national and
EU-funded projects in ICT-related topics, such as Geoinformatics, Semantics, Social Media, Legal
Informatics, and E-Health. He is member of the ICA Commission on Cognitive Issues in Geographic
Information Visualization and acts as reviewer for several SCI-indexed journals.

Peter Parycek  is full professor for eGovernance and head of the department for eGovernance and
Administration at the Danube University Krems. He holds a doctoral degree in legal sciences
(University Salzburg) and a master’s degree in telematics management (Danube University Krems).
As head of the department he is responsible for coordinating the eGovernance research groupe,
development and coordination of academic programmes and for the management of national and
international cooperations with public and private partners. He conducts research at the intersection
of legal science, technology and political science. From 2006 until 2011, he was chairman of the
Austrian working group e-democracy and e-­participation of the Federal Chancellery. From 2010
until 2011, he contributed to the conceptualization of an E-Government-Act for the Principality of
Liechtenstein. He has founded the International Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government
(CeDEM) and is co-initiator of the open access journal JeDEM
Governance Failure in Light of Government
3.0: Foundations for Building Next Generation
eGovernment Maturity Models

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Abstract  Demographic, economic and other challenges is putting the public sector
and service deliver under increasing pressure. ICT as an enabler of increased effi-
ciency, effectiveness and transformation has long been recognized as part of the
solution. National experiences show that the potential of ICT has not been fully
realized, especially not in relation to Government 3.0 (Gov3.0). Existing public
administration, information systems management and eGovernment literature and
individual studies all point to the role of governance and cross-organisational coop-
eration in successfully introducing eServices and citizens actual use of them.
With a specific focus on eGovernment and eGovernance maturity and stage mod-
els, the literature attempt to unearth the underlying reasons why countries with simi-
lar infrastructures and eService availability experience very different levels of
online interaction with the public sector, and in particular whether existing stage
models address governance and cooperation.
Unfortunately, the review highlight a number of gaps including: Focus on out-
comes and actual use is missing; most lack a real understanding of core government
service concepts; decision-making should not be considered an eGovernment matu-
rity level; front-office service provision and back-office integration is mixed-up;
none addresses governance directly; most models are merely restructure or adjust
existing ones, and none address Gov3.0 as such.

Introduction

With demographic, economic and even climatic changes, the public sector and ser-
vice delivery will to face change in the coming years. In this regard the potential of
Information Communication Technology (ICT) as an enabler of public sector

M. Meyerhoff Nielsen (*)
Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance,
Akadeemia tee 3, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia
e-mail: morten.nielsen@ttu.ee; https://www.ttu.ee/nurkse

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 63

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_4
64 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

efficiency, effectiveness, modernization and transformation as long been recognized

by academia, international organisations, governments and public administra-
tions alike.
Gov3.0 is loosely defined as the capture next generation infrastructure, organiza-
tional structures, process and services required for the ICT-enabled transformation
of the public sector (Janssen et  al. 2009). Through openness, sharing, increased
communication and cooperation the public sector, citizens, businesses and non-­
governmental stakeholders, the aim is for government to be more service-oriented,
competent, and transparent, to proactively provide personalized and customized
public services and generate new jobs in a creative manner by opening and sharing
government-owned data to the public and encouraging communication and collabo-
ration between government departments (Charalabidis 2015; Ministry of Interior
Korea 2016).
As technology change, so do the skills, rules and regulations, costs, organisa-
tional models, service types and delivery channels required to transform gov-
ernment functions and public service delivery in light of Gov3.0 (Pollitt 2014;
Frissen et  al. 2007). Various case studies and international benchmarks show
that individual authorities and governments have had vastly different degrees of
success in utilizing the benefit of ICT in public administration, especially in
light of rapid technological change. Still the failure of public administrations to
successfully the full potential of ICT is not fully understood. This chapter will
emphasis the need for strong governance and cross-governmental models of
cooperation in order to harness ICT efficiently and effectively to transform pub-
lic sector, service delivery and relationship between the public sector, business
and citizens (EC 2012; OECD 2014; UNDESA 2014; Christine Leitner et  al.
2003; Millard et al. 2007; Huijboom et al. 2009a).
Governance and cooperation has long been the focus of academic discourse,
including: Public administration, in particular ICT enabled public sector reform
(Brown and Magill 1994; Heeks 2005; Bannister and Connolly 2011; Pollitt and
Bouckaert 2011; Cordella and Bonina 2012); information systems (IS) manage-
ment (Brown and Magill 1994; Brown and Grant 2005; Klischewski and Scholl
2008; Ross et  al. 2006; Weill 2004; Poeppelbuss et  al. 2011), and; electronic
government and governance research (i.e. eGovernment and eGovernance)
(Heeks and Bailur 2007; Millard et al. 2008; Huijboom et al. 2009b). Several
authors have highlighted failures to address specific issues including merely
digitizing existing processes (Bannister 2001; Traunmüller and Wimmer 2003;
de Bri and Bannister 2010), only addressing technology and supply (Janssen
et al. 2012; Lips 2012; Meyerhoff Nielsen 2015), and ignoring the outcome and
impact of ICT use (Cordella and Bonina 2012; Bannister 2007; Andersen and
Henriksen 2006). The aim of this chapter is to identify and review the existing
literature to assess the degree to which governance and cooperation is
addressed – elements which are essential if public authorities are to realise the
potential of ICT and Gov3.0.
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 65

First public administration, IS management and eGovernment literature will be

explored. The aim is to identify the most relevant stream for a literature review (sec-
tion “Background”). The literature review methodology (section “Methodology”)
and its findings are presented and discussed (sections “Stage and Governance
Models” and “Review of Existing Stage Models”). The article concludes by recom-
mending potential further research (sections “Conclusion” and “References”).

Background

Research related to IT and technology use in public administration has progressed,

and consequently the focus has shifted over time. Researchers such as Bannister
(2007), Brown and Grant (2005), Heeks and Bailur (2007), Scholl (2009), Yildiz
(2007), and ongoing research by Jukić et al. (2015), illustrate the changing focus of
academic discourse. Initially the focus was on measuring and evaluating the matu-
rity of ICT in public administration (from 1999/2000), followed by analysis of envi-
ronmental and precondition issues (e.g. awareness, infrastructure, digital divide,
etc.). The focus shifted to the evaluation of the availability of eGovernment services
(i.e. supply, maturity level, etc.). Subsequently the research focus has moved to the
actual use eGovernment solutions (i.e. demand usage, the gap between interest and
use, the factors that affect the use, etc.) and the evaluation of eGovernment impacts
(i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, equity, etc.). Of late, the innovative use of ICT in
“SMART city” and decision making (e.g. eParticipation and eDemocracy) has been
in vogue.
The term ‘electronic government’ was first coined in 1993 by the US National
Performance Review, while the abbreviated form ‘eGovernment’ became promi-
nent around 1997 (Heeks and Bailur 2007). That said, ICT has played a role in
public sector service delivery since the middle of the twentieth century – as exem-
plified by Gammon’s 1954 review article on the automatic handling of paper work
in the public sector (Gammon 1954). In this chapter, eGovernment is defined as “the
use of ICT and its application by government for the provision of information and
public services to the people” (UNDESA 2014).
The definition of eGovernment stands in contrast to electronic governance (i.e.
eGovernance), which encompass all processes of governing, whether undertaken by
a government, market forces, a network (e.g. family, tribe, professional), formal or
informal organization, a geographical territory or whether through laws, norms,
power or language (UNDESA 2014). In other words, governance refers to what the
‘governing bodies’ responsible for eGovernment do to ensure success.
Governance and cooperation in relation to public sector service delivery matters
for a number of reasons. An early estimate indicate that top performing companies
generate up to 40% greater return than their competitors for the same investment in
ICT (Weill 2004).
66 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

ICT Enabled Reform in Public Administration

ICT use in public administration is in the literature seen in two ways: As a tool to
rationalize existing process or as an instrument to rethink the public sector, re-­
engineer processes and organisations (Cordella and Bonina 2012).
ICT as a tool to increase public sector performance and efficiency is closely
associated the New Public Management (NPM) literature (Cordella and Bonina
2012; Cordella 2007; Demmke 2006). NPM brings the private sector corporate way
of thinking to public administration, thus shifting the focus from effectiveness to
efficiency through a new management culture and a focus on measurable results,
often cost savings (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011; Cordella and Bonina 2012; Self
2000).
The expectations of ICT enabled NPM reforms has nonetheless be questioned
due to the complexity of organisational change and the political ramifications
(Cordella and Bonina 2012; Peters and Pierre 1998; Iribarren et al. 2008). Authors
like Bannister highlight the ability of ICT to transform the public sector, creating a
Joined-up Government (JUG) where inter-governmental collaboration and coordi-
nation is supported by technology (Bannister 2001; de Bri and Bannister 2010).
In contrast to NPM, JUG (also known as collaborative public management or
Gov 2.0), aim to reintegrate the public sector often fragmented by NPM reform
(Cordella and Bonina 2012; Huijboom et al. 2009b; Christensen and Lægreid 2007;
O’Leary et al. 2006). Lips’ definition of Public Administration 2.0 (Lips 2012) goes
as far as dropping the “e” in order to accommodate the complex and dynamic none-­
technical and contextual aspects of public administration reform.
What classical public administration literature seem to lack, is the merger NPM
and JUG, i.e. the role governance in the introduction of ICT in public administra-
tions in combination with measuring maturity levels and ICT take-up.

IS Management

Like the definitions of ‘public administrative reform’ and ‘eGovernment’, IS man-

agement and computer science literature offer a host of definitions and semantic
variations (Brown and Grant 2005). A simple one states that, “IT governance repre-
sents the framework for decision rights and accountabilities to encourage a desir-
able behavior in the use of IT” (Weill 2004). This definition is in line with the
chapters earlier definition of governance, i.e. what the ‘governing bodies’ respon-
sible for eGovernment do to ensure success.
Two parallel streams of research emerge as dominant in the IT governance litera-
ture. One focus on forms of IT governance, the second on IT governance contin-
gency analysis. IT governance forms is summarized by Brown and Grant (2005) in
an attempt to define the various structural forms that governance models may take.
Moving from a debate on the merits of centralized vs. decentralized design,
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 67

r­ esearchers have explored less rigid alternatives. These in turn are modelled on the
operational realities of public sector organisations including vertical and horizontal
integration, centralized, federal, decentralized organizational forms of
government.
In contrast, IT governance contingency analysis unanimously agree that no uni-
versal best practice IT governance structure exist (Brown and Magill 1994; Brown
and Grant 2005). Research therefore explore the basic structural options available,
and attempt to unearth the logical and best options for different types of organisa-
tions. Similarly research focus on the contingencies which influence the adoption of
a particular IT governance model, the role of actors, organisational maturity, size,
structure, time frames, psychological climate, extra-organisational situations,
resources, rank and location of responsible executives and steering committees, risk
adversity, degree of centralisation etc. (Brown and Grant 2005).
For over 40 years, a recurring subtopic in this literature has been staged maturity
models: models that morphed into capability maturity models (CMM) for assessing
software development processes in the 1980s and, since 2002, the integration of
product and service development, management, and acquisition (Poeppelbuss et al.
2011; Röglinger et al. 2012). While IT governance models, such as the US Federal
Enterprise Architecture (Peters and Pierre 1998) and Chilean CMMI-inspired eGov-
ernment maturity model and toolkit (Iribarren et  al. 2008), address political and
legal dimensions, most focus on business processes in single organisations, not the
cross-organisational, national, or international ones of PA and eGovernment
(Pöppelbuß and Röglinger 2011).What the IT governance literature lack, is the
political and legal dimensions found in the public administration and eGovernment
literature.

eGovernment and eGovernance

Two avenues of thinking dominates the eGovernment literature when it comes to

ICT use in public sector. Both are similar to the public administration literature and
sees technology as a tool to increase efficiency of existing processes, or as a way to
radically transform the way government function (Cordella and Bonina 2012). This
is mirror by authors like Lips (2012), Millard et al. (2007), Huijboom et al. (2009b),
Traunmüller and Wimmer (2003) who see the role of ICT in public administration
as changing over time. That is from eGovernment 1.0 where technology is seen as
driving change in public administration and governance, to eGovernment 2.0 and
3.0 directly (Cordella and Bonina 2012; Cordella 2007; Demmke 2006). ICT is
explicitly seen as an enabler of transformational change of government processes
and its external relationships – including for SMART City concepts, transparency
and democracy decision making (Huijboom et al. 2009b; Edelmann et al. 2008).
A stream within the eGovernment literature has since 1999 focused on the so-­
called stage and maturity models for use of ICT in public administration. Models
have focused on mapping capabilities, maturity and progressive. Layne and Lee
68 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

(2001), West (2004), Moon (2002), Heeks (2015), Andersen and Henriksen (2006),
Traunmüller and Wimmer (2003), Klievink and Janssen (2009) etc., have all argued
in favour of the usefulness of stage models to guide policymakers and to stimulate
the developments of capabilities needed by organisations to migrate from one stage
to another – albeit from different perspectives.
A gap in the stage models and eGovernment literature is a clear link between the
role governance and cooperation play in the successful implementation and subse-
quent use of ICT and eServices solutions. Similarly, most models merely focus on
supply and technology, and less on outcomes or results.

Other Streams of Discourse

In addition to the academic discourse, relevant analysis and data is published by

international organisations, including the European Union (EU), OECD
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and United Nations
(UN). The 2014 EU digital scoreboard (EC 2014) and the UN eGovernment Survey
(UNDESA 2014) highlight the rapid rise in Internet use (e.g. 72% in the EU) and
the provision of high-speed broadband (e.g. 62% in the EU) over time. The EU,
OECD and UN has traditionally focused on the availability of Internet and eSer-
vices, key technical enablers such as, data registries and unique identifiers and elec-
tronic identification (eID) (EC 2014). In their latest reports, the focus has shifted
and now highlights effectiveness (OECD 2014), accountability (UNDESA 2014),
and transparency and user-centricity (EC 2014) as critical enablers of eGovernment.
Still, the mere introduction of technology do not guarantee success or additional
value creation. The challenge of increasing the use of the digital service delivery
channels and to increase public-sector efficiency and effectiveness persist. This is
exemplified Japan (among others) where ICT infrastructure is well established, but
actual use and efficiency gains have been limited or stagnant, due in part to frag-
mented organisational and project-governance structures (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014,
2016a; Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012; Meyerhoff Nielsen and Mika 2014).

Research Stream and Potential Gaps

The technology and supply-side focus of most evaluations (incl. benchmarks,

indexes and rankings) fail to provide an explanation for the discrepancies between
the availability (i.e. supply) and the use (i.e. demand) of online public services
(Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014; Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012). Wimmer (Traunmüller
and Wimmer 2003), Leitner et al. (Christine Leitner et al. 2003), Huijboom et al.
(Frissen et  al. 2007; Huijboom et  al. 2009b), Millard et  al. (Millard et  al. 2007;
Millard 2013) and Bannister (de Bri and Bannister 2010) all highlight a lack of a
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 69

holistic approach, while Brown (Brown and Magill 1994) recommend an merger of
the classical IT governance streams of thinking.
To illustrate the importance of governance models and outcomes is the discrep-
ancy between Denmark and Japan online address changes (via the Internet). In
Demark close to 80% of address changes are made online, while this is a scant
0.0002% in Japan (Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012; Igari 2014). Statistical analy-
sis also fails to shed light on the underlying reasons why Danes use the Internet to
interact with public administration (85%) more often than their Dutch and Swedish
counterparts (79% and 78%, respectively)  – although similar numbers of house-
holds in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden pay for having access to the
Internet (all in the 90+ percentile), and why their citizens have similar patterns of
Internet use (also in the 90+ percentile) and private sector services such as online
banking (all, 82%) (EC 2014; Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014, 2016b; Eurostat 2016).
In light of these challenges, the OECD on 15 July 2014 adopted a number of
recommendations for public sector digitisation and eGovernment strategies (OECD
2014). The recommendations address the strategic direction of eGovernment,
implementation, governance, and cooperation models. The OECD’s recommenda-
tions are anchored in the realisation that, in order to successfully introduce ICT
infrastructure and online services for improved public-sector efficiency and effec-
tiveness, more than just a technological and supply-oriented approach is required
(OECD 2014; O’Leary et al. 2006).
These practical examples hint also at potential limitations in current research.
This chapter will therefore review the existing literature in an attempt to unearth the
underlying reasons why countries with similar infrastructures and eService avail-
ability experience very different levels of online interaction with the public sector,
and in particular whether existing stage models address governance and cooperation
(sometimes known as maturity models).
Based on the initial exploration of current literature (above), an appropriate theo-
retical framework to assess and map the degree to which governance and coopera-
tion models ensure the successful supply and use of online eServices, is found in the
eGovernment stage model literature, and therefore be the focus of this chapters lit-
erature review.

Methodology

Framing the Literature Review

To address the two potential gaps identified in current eGovernment and governance
research (in section “Background”), this chapter sets out two questions:
1. Does the literature address the degree to which, and in what way, governance and
cooperation models ensure success supply and use (i.e. demand) of online citi-
zen services?
70 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

2. Does the literature identify the success factors and are they mapped and devel-
oped into a universal governance model for successful digitisation of public sec-
tor service delivery (i.e. supply) and eService take-up (i.e. demand) by citizens?
To address the two research questions, a literature review is carried out. The
focus of this review included the identification of existing models and their key dif-
ferences (i.e. can the identified models and theories be mapped). What does current
academic and practitioner debate focusing on? What is the current state-of-affairs?
What are the clusters of theory, models and critique? What is the real life applicabil-
ity of the theories and models?

Classic Literature Review

The literature review follow a classical pattern for systematic information retrieval as
outlined by e.g. Roberts (1977) and the Walsh and Downe (2005) qualitative meta-
synthesis procedure. The seven-step Walsh and Downe model is adapted to include
‘berrypicking’ (Bates 1989). The adapted methodology consists of the following six
steps: Frame the exercise; Locate relevant studies; Decide what to include and a degree
of ‘berrypicking’; Appraise studies; Compare and contrast, and finally; Conclude.

Locating Relevant Studies, Models and Concepts

Primary and secondary key word searches were used. Primary key words were:
eGovernment and stage, or model, or level, or tier, or development. Secondary key
works included: eGovernment and/or maturity, governance, cooperation models,
technology maturity, transformation, benchmarks, indexes. Other secondary key
words were: Use, take-up, benefits, impact, output, efficiency, effectiveness, return
of investment, eGovernment Readiness Index, eGovernment Benchmark.
To ensure that relevant literature and arguments were identified, Web of Science
managed by Thomson Reuters, Scopus managed by Elsevier and EGRL  -
E-Government Reference Library (version 11.5) managed by the University of
Washington, Information School online libraries were selected based on their rele-
vance, scope and size to the literature review. Each of the reference libraries were
searched and cross-referenced to ensure as complete and up-to-date picture of the
academic discourse and the state-of-affairs as possible.
To ensure the quality of the literature review, the reference libraries was compli-
mented with online research for number of secondary sources including key topic
journals i.e.: GIQ – Government Information Quarterly by Elsevier, MIS Quarterly –
Management Information Systems Quarterly MIS Quarterly by the Management
Information Systems Research Center at the Carlson School of Management,
University of Minnesota, and Information Polity by published by IOS Press.
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 71

Other complimentary sources are non-academic reports related to stage- and

maturity models, benchmarks and rankings. Key publishers were the United Nations
for the UN eGovernment Readiness Index, relevant surveys and country studies, the
European Commission for the EU eGovernment benchmarking, studies, factsheets
and good practices.

Deciding What to Include

To frame and define the parameters of the literature review, a publication had to be
published in English, in the proceedings of an academic conference or in an aca-
demic journal (preferably GIQ, MISQ or Information Polity) or a recognized inter-
national body (mainly UN, EU or OECD), been subject to peer review (exception
possible if published by the UN, EU or OECD), a minimum seven pages (or approx.
3700 words) in length including references, after 1 January 1995.
Where appropriate a second stage of screening, or ‘berrypicking’ as outlined by
Bates (EC 2014), is applied. The robustness of the theoretic models identified, sec-
ondary sources and key words is of particular relevance in this regard.

Appraise Studies

As eGovernment is maturing as a distinct field of study, and Gov3.0 is only just

emerging as a concept, it is important to weed out low quality studies and models in
the appraisal stage of the literature review. Studies and models which highlight the
same points are identified based on their relevance to the research frame and ques-
tions, the models and studies robustness and contribution to the literature. Depending
on the finding the rigor of the theoretical foundation on which the model is founded
is applied with various degree, i.e. ‘berrypicking’ (Bates 1989).
Models are compared and contracted in a mapping exercise (in section “Stage
and Governance Models”) to identify homogeneity or heterogeneity between the
various models, their strengths and weaknesses. The purpose is to identify potential
areas of future research in the in the area of stage, cooperation and governance mod-
els for successful introduction and use of eServices.

Stage and Governance Models

In light of the potential research gaps identified in section “Background”, an appro-

priate theoretical framework to assess and map the degree to which governance and
cooperation models ensure the successful supply and use of online eServices, may
be found in the eGovernment stage models literature and the IT governance models,
72 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

developed in the field of IS management and computer science. This section there-
fore outlines the characteristics and focus of number of key eGovernment stage and
maturity models.

Stage Models Identified and Described

Layne and Lee refer to the experiences of eGovernment as chaotic and unmanage-
able, arguing for the division of development into distinguishable stages (Layne and
Lee 2001). To this effect eGovernment research has largely focused on stage, or
maturity, models.
Multiple stage models has been suggested by researchers, consultants, national
authorities and international organisations. In this context academics differentiate
between three types of stage-models (Fath-Allah et al. 2014; Persson and Goldkuhl
2005):
• Governmental models: Models developed by governments, consultants and aca-
demics to help authorities identify and improve their level of maturity (generally
using predefined models and toolkits).
• Holistic approach models: Models designed to assist authorities (generally pre-
defined models, toolkits and indicators) in project implementation and to deter-
mine if the project will be successful or not.
• Evolutionary eGovernment maturity models: Models which focus on sequential
evolutionary steps, for instance from immature to mature eGovernment with
improved quality (often from an academic perspective).
The primary focus of this review is on governmental and evolutionary stage
models, since the holistic maturity model approach focuses on project implementa-
tion and organisational capabilities, and particularly relevant in relation to IS man-
agement and CMM literature (Ross et al. 2006; Poeppelbuss et al. 2011; Persson
and Goldkuhl 2005).
Using the methodology outlined in section “Methodology”, 42 stage models are
identified. The following subsections clusters the various models based on their
respective characteristics.
ANAO  – Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO 1999) 1999, four-stage
maturity model was introduced to categorize and evaluate process to guide agencies
in their decision as to what services could and should provide. The model is national
in character and takes an abductive-deductive approach to eGovernment maturity.
The model is developed based on experiences in Australia. The levels of maturity
are: Publishing and information; Interaction; Transaction of secure information
(incl. login), and; Sharing information with other agencies (incl. business and
citizens).
Gartner Group (Baum and Di Maio 2000) published a four state model in 2000.
It is one of the earliest eGovernment maturity models not emerging out of a national
context. The Gartner model focus is on supply and technology with a degree of
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 73

Fig. 1  Gartner four-stage model (Baum and Di Maio 2000)

integration. The model is developed by a consultancy and takes a deductive approach

to eGovernment maturity. The stages of maturity are (see Fig. 1): Information incl.
information, websites with static content; Interaction such as e-mails and download-
able forms; Transaction incl. integrated websites with transaction (i.e. eService),
and; Transformation, i.e. seamlessly integrated websites (i.e. a degree of vertical
and horizontal integration).
SAFAD (Swedish Agency for Administrative Development / Statskontoret)
(Statskontoret 2000) in 2000 published a four-stage maturity model inspired by the
Australian National Audit Office model and Swedish experiences. It was introduced
to categorise and evaluate process to guide agencies in their decision as to what
services could and should provide. The model is national in character and takes an
abductive-deductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The stages of maturity are
(see Fig. 2): Websites i.e. packages of information, Interactive websites, Web and
communication that is information plus entry and retrival of personal information,
and Website and network functions.
Deloitte Research (Deloitte and Touche 2001)¨in 2001 proposed a model focus-
ing on supply, technology and organizational integration. It adds a dimension of
engagement and co-creation (indirectly by none-governmental stakeholders). The
model is developed by a consultancy and takes a deductive approach to eGovern-
ment maturity. The model has been applied to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK
74 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 2  SAFAD four-stage maturity model (Statskontoret 2000)

and USA. The maturity levels are: Information publishing/dissemination: Websites

with static information;
“Official” two-way transaction: electronic identity management (eID) and eSer-
vices; Multi-purpose portals: portals (i.e. a degree of vertical and horizontal integra-
tion); Portal personalization: basic personalization and life-events; Clustering of
common services (i.e. increased personalization and life-event, increase integra-
tion), and; Fully integration and enterprise transaction: Life-events, full personal-
ization, user-centric and engagement in service choice and delivery.
Hiller and Bélanger’s (2001) 2001, five-stage maturity models focus on supply,
technology and organisational integration and some aspects of participation in a
democratic sense. It is also one of the most sited models to date. It is a scientific
model, with an inductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The maturity levels
are: Web presence incl. technological leap-frogging, websites with static informa-
tion); Interaction such as simple interaction, e-mail and downloadable forms;
Transaction i.e. eServices; Transformation/integration incl. back office automation
and digitization of processes, aspects of vertical and horizontal integration, and;
Participation covering transparency, release of data.
Howard (2001), in 2011, propose a simple three-stage maturity model. It is a
scientific model, with an inductive approach to eGovernment maturity and present
it as a classical curve consisting of technical sophistication and benefits. The matu-
rity levels are (see Fig. 3): Publish (i.e. static information); Interact (i.e. information
increasingly updated, downloadable forms etc.), and; Transact (i.e. eServices).
Layne and Lee’s (2001) 2001 maturity model is the most cited to date. The focus
is on technology, supply and organizational integration. It is a scientific model,
which takes an abductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The model is devel-
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 75

Fig. 3  Howard’s three-stage eGovernment maturity curve (Howard 2001)

Fig. 4  Layne and Lee model four-stage maturity model (Layne and Lee 2001)

oped based on observations in the USA and earlier models. The four-stages of matu-
rity are defined as (see Fig. 4): Catalogue i.e. online presence (i.e. websites with
static information and downloadable forms); Transactional incl. service and forms
(i.e. eServices); Vertical integration, that is local system integration, and; Horizontal
integration i.e. integration across function (i.e. life-events and personalisation).
United Nation’s (UNDESA 2014, 2008, 2010, 2012; Ronaghan 2002) is best
known for its biannual UN eGovernment Readiness Index. The model has been in
76 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

use since 2001 when the first Index was first published. It covers pre-conditions
such as supply, technology and integration. The original focused has been on the
five-stages of maturity. The UN publishes the bi-annual eGovernment Readiness
Index, but has in the last few years refocused the models to include additional
aspects of engagement and transparency (e.g. the UN eParticipation Index). The
model is “international” in character and takes an abductive-deductive approach to
eGovernment maturity. The model consists of a biannual ranking of 193 countries.
The model has a pre-condition stage, which focus on at network preparedness,
access to PCs, the Internet and literacy and digital competences (i.e. TII Index). The
maturity levels are (see Fig.  5): Emerging presence such as basic websites with
static information; Enhanced presence e.g. emerging portals (i.e. a degree of vertical
and horizontal integration), interactivity, and customer services (i.e. eServices);
Interactive such as two-way interactivity (i.e. eServices and communication),
searchable intranet; Transactional i.e. eServices, and; Seamless incl. sully net-
worked government (i.e. horizontal and vertical integration).
Wescott’s (2001) 2001 model consist of six stages. It is a scientific model, with
an abductive approach to eGovenment maturity. It has been developed based on

Fig. 5 (a) The original four-stage UN model, 2002 (Ronaghan 2002). (b) The updated version of
the UN model, 2012 (UNDESA 2012)
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 77

observations in the Asia-Pacific. The maturity levels are: Setting up an email system
and internal network e.g. feature e-mail systems to improve information sharing,
coordination and feedback; Enabling inter-organisational and public access to infor-
mation e.g. information is department centric, shared between organisations and can
be accessed by the public over the Internet; Two-way communication such as basic
eServices and citizens can make suggestions using emails or ask questions in forums
and receive answers. Exchange of value e.g. eService features applications such as
tax assessments and license renewals. At this stage, the citizen can make secure pay-
ments online; Digital democracy incl. focus is on empowering the civil society (e.g.
increasing awareness of government corruption) and allowing citizens to vote and
express their opinions and feedback, and; Joined-up government incl. vertical and
horizontal integration allowing for citizens to execute services without knowing
which government agency is responsible for.
Chandler and Emanuel (2002) in 2002 proposed a four-stage model. It is a sci-
entific model, with an indicative approach to eGovernment maturity. The maturity
levels are: Information i.e. online information about government services and poli-
cies; Interaction such as basic level of interaction between governments and citizens
such as email systems; Transaction i.e. features eServices, and; Integration e.g. fea-
tures integrated services across various departments and agencies.
European Union (2012) has since 2002 used a eGovernment benchmark model
similar to the UN. The focus is on supply, technology and integration and initially
included five-stages of maturity. The European Commission publishes its eGovern-
ment benchmark yearly, but has since 2010 started including additional biannual
focus areas, and has moved from benchmarking services to life-events, user engage-
ment, access to personalized data and user-rating – through mystery shoppers and
surveys. The model is “international” in character and takes an abductive-deductive
approach to eGovernment maturity. The model is developed with inspiration from
the SAFAD model (Statskontoret 2000) and experiences in the EU+ member states.
The model forms the basis of the EU’s annual eGovernment Benchmarks and
Surveys. A pre-condition stage looking at PC and Internet accessibility as well as
digital literacy compliments its five stages (see Fig. 6): Emerging presence i.e. basic
websites with static information; Enhanced presence e.g. emerging portals (i.e. a
degree of vertical and horizontal integration), interactivity, and customer services
(i.e. eServices); Interactive, that is two-way interactivity (i.e. eServices and com-
munication), searchable intranet; Transactional i.e. eServices, and; Seamless such
as fully networked government (i.e. horizontal and vertical integration).
Hodgkingson (2002), in 2002, present a two phased, five-stage model, focusing
learning cycles and an s-shaped curve for learning (see Fig. 7). The model focus the
rate of technology diffusion in government, service impact and technical aspects
such as interoperability before data exchange and vertical and horizontal integration
is possible. It is inspired by diffusion of innovation (DOI) and innovation diffusion
theory (IDT), technology acceptance (TAM) and IS management models. The
stages are: Government online i.e. initiation of idea generation, analysis and pilot
implementation and contagion such as wider adoption of technology and benefits of
ICT, business needs, decentralization of strategy and resources; eGovernment i.e.
78 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 6 (a) The original four-stage EU model, 2002. (b) The updated five-stage EU model, 2009
(EC 2012)

control (i.e. re-focus on cost, efficiency and quality, re-centalisation of some strate-
gies and control), interoperability, and data management.
Moon’s (2002) 2002 five-stage model by M.J. Moon focus on supply, technology
and organisational integration and some aspects of participation in a democratic
sense. It is very similar to the 2001 model proposed by Hiller and Belanger (2001).
It is a scientific model, with an abductive approach to eGovernment maturity. It was
developed based on observations and data from 2000 US municipality websites.
The maturity levels are: Web presence i.e. technological leap-frogging, websites
with static information); Interaction such as simple interaction, e-mail and down-
loadable forms; Transaction i.e. eServices; Transformation/integration such as back
office automation and digitization of processes with aspects of vertical and horizon-
tal integration, and; Participation for transparency and release of data.
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 79

Fig. 7  Hodgkingson’s five-stage maturity model and learning curve (Hodgkinson 2002)

Netchaeva’s (2002) 2002 five-stage model for eGovernment and eDemocracy

does not name the individual maturity levels. It is a scientific model, with an induc-
tive approach to eGovernment maturity, and focus on the following aspects:
Scattered information e.g. websites with department information; e-mails and FAQ;
Other online services such as features forums and opinion surveys; eGovernment
portal incl. eServices such as license renewals and payment of fines, portals and
one-stop-shops, and; Possible democracy e.g. citizens can vote, contribute in online
discussions and make comments on policy and legislation proposals.
UKNAO – UK National Audit Office (NAO 2002) in 2002 presented a report to
the House of Commons, in which a five-state maturity model was introduced. The
model is “national” in character and takes an abductive-deductive approach to
eGovernment maturity. The model is developed based on experiences in UK. The
maturity levels are: Basic site with limited information available online, mainly
information about authorities; Electronic publishing incl. increasing number of
website and more content; ePublishing e.g. use of personalization options and cus-
tomizable search tools, some forms can be submitted online and others can be
downloaded and increasing use of e-mails and the timely responses, alerts about
new content is an offered; Transactional incl. secure eService transactions, and;
Joined-up eGovernance: featuring one-stop-shops and joined-up governments
through vertical and horizontal integration.
World Bank (Toasaki 2003; InfoDev, C.f.D.a.T. 2002) published a three-stage
model in 2002. The model is “international” in character and takes a deductive
approach to eGovernment maturity. The model is developed as part of the World
Bank’s Center for Democracy and Technology eGovernment handbook for develop-
ing countries. The maturity levels are (see Fig. 8): Publish online information such
as rules, regulations, documents and forms; Interact, with users providing feedback
and submit comments on legislative or policy proposals, and; Transact, i.e. secure
eService transactions.
80 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 8  World Bank four-stage maturity model (Toasaki 2003)

Accenture (Rohleder and Jupp 2003) in 2003 published a five-stage model. The
model is developed by a consultancy and takes a deductive approach to eGovern-
ment maturity. The model has been applied to Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, the
UK and USA.  Based on the model Accenture publish an annual eGovernment
Ranking of selected countries. The model consisting of the following maturity lev-
els: Online presence with information published online; Basic capability i.e. secu-
rity and certification is developed and the online presence is broadened; Service
availability with eServices increasingly available on portal(s) and features of cross
agency cooperation and services increasingly designed to meet customer needs;
Mature delivery with eServices clustered with clear ownership and authority – CIO
(Chief Information Officer) or central agency the involvement of customer in the
process of eGovernment and the services are marketed; Service transformation i.e.
improved customer service delivery is the objective and multi-channel integration is
common.
Koh and Prybutok (2003) in 2003 presented a three-element model (see Fig. 9).
The model is scientific and takes a inductive approach to eGovernment maturity.
The model focus on internal and external factors and three stakeholder groups i.e.
employees in public authorities, suppliers (i.e. IT vendors or IT departments) and
customers (i.e. citizens and businesses). Visualised as circles of there are overlaps
between the three elements thus providing a degree of granularity with a degree of
inspiration from the IS management and computer science literature. The elements
are: Informational i.e. online information; Transactional i.e. online transactions,
and; Operational i.e. operational, vertical and horizontal integration.
Reddick’s (2004) 2004, two-stage model, is one of the most simple maturity
models identified. It is a scientific model, with an abductive approach to eGovern-
ment maturity. The model is developed based on observations in the USA, The
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 81

Fig. 9  Koh and Prybotok’s three-stage and users of internet maturity model (Koh and Prybutok
2003)

maturity levels are: Cataloguing online information about the government and its
activities, and; Transactions incl. eServices and one-stop-shops.
Waseda (Obi 2014, 2012, 2015) first published the Waseda model and its annual
benchmarks for selected countries in 2004. The model is “international” in charac-
ter and takes an abductive-deductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The model
is used for an annual eGovernment ranking list for an increasing number of coun-
tries. The model differs somewhat from other stage models as it does not define
distinct levels of maturity. It covers managerial and organisational aspects also seen
in CMM/CMMI models and the IS management literature. The focus is on qualita-
tive and quantitative indicators including: Network preparedness and infrastructure;
Management optimization and efficiency; Online presence of information, services,
national portals and websites; Governance incl. cooperation and promotion; ePar-
ticipation and digital inclusion; Open government, and; Cyber security. The indica-
tors can be grouped into four-stages, that is: Networked preparedness and
infrastructure; Online services; Management optimization, and; eParticipation.
West (2004) first published the four-stages model in 2004. It is a scientific model,
with an abductive-deductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The model is
developed based on observations and data from 1813 and 1680 US municipality
websites model in 2000 and 2001. The West Index on US municipalities and a num-
ber of countries is based on the model. The maturity levels are: Bill-board i.e. web-
sites as billboards mainly used for posting information; Partial-service-delivery
with the ability to search for data via search engines with some eServices available;
Portals containing all information and eServices (i.e. a one-stop-shop), and;
Interactive democracy incl. ortals offers personal and proactive online service, uti-
lise push technology and feedback forms.
Windley’s (2002) 2002, four-stage model. It is a scientific model, which takes a
deductive approach to eGovernment maturity. It is developed based on observations
82 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

from the US Utah.gov site and consists of the following maturity levels: Simple
website with static pages with downloadable forms; Online government featuring
interaction mechanisms such as e-mails, online forms, help and FAQs; Integrated
government incl. end-to-end eService transactions, but also emerging internal inte-
gration as information is shared between departments, and; Transformed govern-
ment: Customer centric eServices organized according to user needs and segmented
according to population groups and life events. Vertical and horizontal integration is
also a feature.
Davison et  al. (2005) in 2005 presents a four-element model combining the
insights of the strategy and maturity alignment models form the IS management and
computer science literature (see Fig. 10). The model focus on internal and external
factors in both the government (i.e. the public sector in general) and eGovernment
domain (i.e. ICT within the public sector). Rather than looking at the supply-side
issues related to digitization of service delivery and ICT enabled reform Davison
et  al. focus on the key elements enabling the successful use of ICT. The models
cover eGovernment services (i.e. information and transaction), processes (i.e. verti-
cal and horizontal integration) and transformation within the four elements of:
Government strategy with choices pertaining to positioning of government and
business strategies; Government infrastructure and processes incl. choices pertain-
ing to internal arrangements and configurations supporting authorities chosen
­position including public sector culture; eGovernment strategy incl. choices per-
taining to IT scope, systemic capabilities and IT governance, and; eGovernment
infrastructure and processes e.g. internal arrangements and configurations deter-
mining data, applications and technology infrastructure used to deliver eGovern-
ment services.
Siau and Long’s (2005) 2005 five-stage maturity models focus on supply, tech-
nology and organisational integration and some aspects of participation in a demo-
cratic sense. It is a scientific model, with an inductive approach to eGovernment
maturity. It differs from the Moon (2002), Hiller and Belanger (2001) models by
including engagement and political decision making to the fifth stage in the form of

Fig. 10  Davison’s et al. four stage strategy and maturity model (Davison et al. 2005)
 Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 83

a “eDemocracy stage”. The maturity levels are: Web presence incl. technological
leap-frogging, websites with static information); Interaction e.g. simple interaction,
e-mail and downloadable forms; Transaction i.e. eServices; Transformation/integra-
tion such as back office automation and digitization of processes and aspects of
vertical and horizontal integration, and; eDemocracy incl. engagement, political
decision making, transparency, release of data.
Persson and Goldkuhl (2005) in 2005 evaluates a number of existing models and
propose a two-stage model from a computer science perspective. The maturity lev-
els are: Integration of services with a focus on public services, directed services,
concentrated services and portals, and; Integration in services incl. elements such as
the integration of services and agencies, transparency in processes of independent
processes, database access in information gathering, information or decision provi-
sion requirements and joint information services.
Andersen and Henriksen’s (2006) 2006 Public Sector Process Rebuilding Model
(PPR) builds on Layne and Lee four-stage maturity model (Layne and Lee 2001). It
is a scientific model, with an abductive-deductive approach to eGovernment matu-
rity. It is developed based on observations and data from 110 central government
sites in Denmark. The PPR model focus on supply, organizational integration, pro-
cesses and differs from other models by emphasising user-centricity rather than
technological aspects. Four-stages of maturity, of which the first two stages com-
prise the four-stages proposed in the Layne and Lee model (see Fig. 11): Cultivation
e.g. websites with static information, downloadable forms, vertical and horizontal
integration; Extension such as eServices, basic personalization and life-events and
a focus on data ownership; Maturity of eServices, none-Internet interphases,
General, widely applied

Phase IV: Revolution

Data mobility across organizations
Application mobility across vendors
Ownership to data transferred to customers

Phase III: maturity

Abandoning of intranet
Customer centric

Accountability + transparent processes

Personalized web-interface for customer processes

Phase II: extension

Extensive use of intranet
Personalized Web-interface for customer processes

Phase I: cultivation
Exeption,

Horizontal & vertical integration within government

Front-end system
sparse

Adoption and use of Intranet

Few, rare Widely applied

Activity centric applications

Fig. 11  Andersen and Henriksen PPR model (Andersen and Henriksen 2006)
84 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Document

Vitality Review

Compliance Communica-
tion

Fig. 12 (a) eGOV-MM’s three dimension and interrelated elements (NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O.
2006). (b) eGOV-MM’s domain level and key domain areas (NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O. 2006)

increased personalization, user-centricity and outcome based organisations with

economics of scale being sought, data ownership more fluid, mobility of data and
open data based infrastructure; Revolution i.e. seamless organizational structures,
fully personal and outcome based service delivery, with data ownership and focus
fully transferred to the end-user.
National Association of State Chief Information Officers’ (NASCIO) (NASCIO,
N.A.o.S.C.I.O. 2006) 2006 Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model and toolkit, is
not a eGoverment matority model par say, but it is exemplifies a lot of the IS man-
agement CMM/CMMI model thinking which has inspired many future models. The
model and toolkit is national in nature, takes an inductive-deductive approach to
eGovernment, and is developed in corporation with CIO’s in the USA. The aim of
the model is to introduce a cyclic process and approach to IT development in single
organisations. Based on documentation, review, compliance, communication, and
vitality elements framework and procedures must be reviewed and updated to prop-
erly reflect environmental changes (see Fig. 12). The model has six-levels of matu-
rity and each consist of a number of eight categories of factors. The stages are: Level
0 No programme; Level 1 Informal program; Level 2 Repeatable program; Level 3
Well-defined program; Level 4 Managed program, and; Level 5 Continuously
improving vital program. The categories are: Administration i.e. governance roles
and responsibilities; Planning incl. EA program road map and implementation plan;
Framework e.g. processes and templates used for EA; Blueprint i.e. a collection of
the actual standards and specifications; Communication such as education and dis-
tribution of EA and Blueprint detail; Compliance ensuring adherence to published
standards, processes and other EA elements, and the processes to document and
track variances from those standards; Integration of touch-points of management
processes to the EA, and; Involvement and support of the EA Program throughout
the organisation.
Cisco (2007), the IT and consultancy firm, in 2007 published a three-stages. It is
a scientific model, with an abductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The matu-
rity levels are: Information interaction featuring departmental websites, legislative
posting, public notices, online forms, webcasting and personalized portals;
Transaction efficiency i.e. eServices and portals including electronic payments like
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 85

online taxes and eProcurement, and; Transformation citizen centric, i.e. consoli-
dated and shared administrative services at this stage are across various government
jurisdictions.
Almazan and Gil-Garcia’s (Almazan and Gil-Garcia 2008; Luna et al. 2013) six-­
stage model published in 2008 (presence, information, interaction, transaction, inte-
gration and participation). It was updated in 2013 by merging the initial two stages
information based stages (i.e. presence and information) and adjusting the remain-
ing four stages. The 2013 model consists of five-stages and 172 indicators, which
aim to highlight the performance and efficiency of portals by including supply and
actual use in relation to the online population  – thus, indirectly including pre-­
conditions (Luna et al. 2013). It is a scientific model, with an abductive approach to
eGovernment maturity. It has been developed based on observations and data from
32 Mexican state portals and includes ranking (in 2013). The 2013 levels of matu-
rity are: Information Online information, static or updated; Interaction e.g. down-
loadable forms, communicate with the government via e-mail and forums;
Transaction such as secure eService transactions and payment options via portals;
Integration incl. one-stop-shops/portals, vertical and horizontal integration, and;
Political participation offering users voting and participation in opinion polls, sur-
veys and public forums.
Chan et al. (2008) in 2008 proposed a model focusing on supply, technology and
organizational integration. It adds none-governmental stakeholders to the mix. It is
a scientific model, with an abductive approach to eGovernment maturity. The model
is developed based on observations and data from regional government in China.
The five-stages of maturity are: Publish websites with static information; Interact
i.e. downloadable forms; Transact though eServices; Integrate though vertical and
horizontal integration of service providing agencies, and; Tri-party integration i.e.
integration of public, private and stakeholder organisations.
Iribarren et  al. (2008) proposed an IT focused eGovernment Maturity Model
(eGov-MM) based on four domain levels, in 2008. It is a multi-dimensional model
and assessment tool in the form of a capability maturity framework to ensure con-
tinued measurement and control. It is a national model developed for the Chilean
government and borrows from experiences in the UK, US, Australia, Canada,
Sweden, South Korea and others. It distinguish between maturity and capabilities
and is inspired by the IS management’s US CMMI and EA models (NASCIO,
N.A.o.S.C.I.O. 2006), ISO/IEC 15504  in Europe and supports Wimmers holistic
view (Traunmüller and Wimmer 2003; Iribarren et al. 2008). The domain levels on
effectiveness, efficiency, confidentiality, integrity, availability, compliance, man-
ageability on one axis and IT resources like applications, data, infrastructure and
facilities on the other (see Fig. 13). The four domain levels are: eStrategy; IT gover-
nance; Process management; People and organisation capabilities.
Shahkooh et  al. (2008) in 2008 proposed a five-stage model. It is a scientific
model, which takes an abductive approach to eGovernment maturity, proposing the
following maturity levels: Online presence i.e. online information; Interaction with
citizens interacting with governments through e-mail to officials and downloading
forms; Transaction though secure eService transactions like payments and tax fill-
86 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 13 (a) eGOV-MM’s three dimension and interrelated elements (Iribarren et  al. 2008). (b)
eGOV-MM’s domain level and key domain areas (Iribarren et al. 2008)

ing; Fully integrated and transformed eGovernment with services organized as a

single point of contact such as portals, and; Digital democracy featuring online vot-
ing, public forums and opinion surveys.
Kim and Grant (2010) in 2010 published a five-stage model. It is a scientific model,
with an inductive approach to eGovernment maturity with the following maturity levels:
Web presence featuring simple and limited information online; Interaction focus on
search engines and downloadable forms; Transaction incl. online transactions with the
possibility of electronic payments; Integration i.e. horizontal and vertical integration and
performance measurements using statistical techniques, and; Continuous improvement
featuring political activities and a focus on continuous improvements and performance.
Kalambokis et  al. (2011) focus on data in their 2011 Open Government Data
(OGD) Stage Model. Like Andersen and Henriksen (2006) focus on value creation
in light of organisational and technical complexity (see Fig.  14). Other sources
includes Deloitte and Touche (2001), EU (2012), Layne and Lee (2001), Siau and
Long (2005) and West (2004). It is a scientific model, with an inductive approach to
eGovernment maturity and open data use – and indirectly on eServices. The matu-
rity levels presented are: Aggregation of government data; Integration of govern-
ment data; Integration of government data and non-government formal data;
Integration of government data with non-government formal and social data.
Shareef et al. (2011) in 2011 present the eGovernment Adoption Model (GAM)
(see Fig. 15) focus on five overaching categories, 11 sub-categories and 73 factors
which influences citizens adoption of eGovermment. It focus on attitudes, digital
literacy, assurance, adherence and adaptability to use. It is a scientific model with an
inductive approach to eGovernment. It is based technology adoption model (TAM),
diffusion of innovation (DOI) and planned behavior theory (TPB). Previous models
have been considered, and empirical work has been carried out in Canada. The five
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 87

Fig. 14  OGD Maturity Model (Kalampokis et al. 2011)

Fig. 15  GAM dimensions (Shareef et al. 2011)

88 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

categories of factors influencing citizen take-up of eGovernment solutions at

various stages of maturity are: Attitude to use i.e. received compatibility, perceived
awareness, availability of resources, computer-self efficancy; Ability to use i.e. per-
ceived ability to use, multilingual option; Assurance to use that is the perceived
information quality and trust; Adherance to use i.e. perceived functional benefits,
perceived image, and; Adaptability to use that is the perceived service response.
Alhomod and Shafi (2012) in 2012 propose a redefined four-stage model, based
on their evaluation of 25 existing models. It is a scientific model, with an abductive
approach to eGovernment maturity. The maturity levels are: Presence on the web
with portals merely providing information; Interaction between the citizen and the
government i.e. downloadable and e-mail forms made available for use; Complete
transaction over the web that is secure eService transactions and two-way commu-
nication, and; Integration of services i.e. horizontal and vertical integration between
authorities to share information and data.
Lee and Kwak (2012) in 2012 suggest a five-stage model with a focus on engage-
ment and data exchange. It is a scientific model, which takes an abductive approach
to eGovernment maturity. The model is developed based on observations and data
from the US health sector and propose the following maturity levels: Initial condi-
tions not to be confused with “pre-conditions” (e.g. UN, EC and Waseda models)
the focus is on one-way static interaction from authorities to citizens; Data transpar-
ency with limited use of Web2.0 and social media. Objective is to get public feed-
back on the usefulness and data quality; Open participation with increasing use of
Web 2.0 and social media tools to increase transparency and engagement, and
includes eVoting and ePetitioning; Open collaboration incl. interagency collabora-
tion by sharing data and public input and public contests are organised and data is
analyzed for obtaining new insights and improving decision-making; Ubiquitous
engagement with data easily accessible via mobile devices and data being vertically
and horizontally integrated and data analytics is used for decision making processes
for authorities continuous improvement of performance.
Dias and Gomes (2014) in their 2014 evaluation of local eGovernment maturity
in Portugal propose an adjusted model based on Layne and Lee (2001) and the EU
benchmarking models (EC 2012). It is a scientific model, which takes an inductive
approach to eGovernment maturity. The model is developed based on observations
and data from 239 local authorities in Portugal in 1999, 2007, 2010 and 2013. The
proposed model consists of three parallel dimensions each consisting of four stages:
Information incl. generic information (i.e. presence), downloadable forms (i.e.
interaction), search functionality (i.e. interaction) and parameterize search (i.e.
interaction); Service incl. information (i.e. one-way), authentication of user (i.e.
two-way), eService transaction (i.e. two-way) and authentication and eService
transaction (i.e. transaction); Participation e.g. features (i.e. two-way), authentica-
tion and features (i.e. two-way), participative process (i.e. transaction) and advanced
participative process (i.e. transaction).
Janowski’s (2015) four-stage Digital Government Evaluation Model from 2015,
is a scientific model, which takes an inductive approach to eGovernment maturity.
It has many of the same features as earlier models but attempt to provide it as a
practical tool. It is developed based on observations in developed and emerging
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 89

Fig. 16  Digital Government Evolution Model (Janowski 2015)

economies around the world. Rather than mere levels of maturity it propose four-­
stages of complexity depending on three binary variables: (1) whether digitisation
adds to internal work and structures of government without affecting them; (2)
transforms internal processes and structures; whether the transformation is internal
with, or without affecting the end-users; (3) whether the transformation is depend-
ing on a particular application context. The four levels of maturity are (see Fig. 16):
Digitisation or technology in government (i.e. precence); Transformation being
eGovernment (i.e. transaction and transformation); Engagement or eGovernance
(i.e. eParticipation/eDemocracy), and; Contextualisation i.e. policy-driven
eGovernance.
Heeks’ (2015) Manchester eGovernment Maturity Model from 2015, adapt the
Layne and Lee (2001) be less linear in it process, differentiate between the front-
and back-office and less “US-centric”. It is a scientific model, which takes an induc-
tive approach to eGovernment maturity. The model is developed based on
observations in developed and emerging economies around the world. The result is
two parallel dimensions consisting of three and four elements respectively, thus
forming a matrix (see Fig. 17). The stages are: Sophistication of digitised ­interaction
(i.e. front-office) incl. informed/one-way interaction, interact/two-way interaction
and transaction/complete service; Extent of process change (i.e. back-office) incl.
digitisation (simple automation), improvement (process integration), redesign (e.g.
proactive transaction) and transformation (fundamental change e.g. process
elimination).

Stage Models by Origin and Type

The literature review has identified 42 different stage-models. Looking closer at

their description, in section “Stage Models Identified and Described”, their origin
can be traced to either national authorities such as national auditors, or international
90 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 17  Manchester eGovernment Maturity Model Metaphores (Heeks 2015)

organisations like the EU or UN, consultancy firms like Deloitte and CISCO or
academia. Table 1 present the number of models identified for each of these four
categories.
The first model was published by the Australian National Auditing Office in
1999 (ANAO 1999). The latest models are published by Heeks and Janowski in
2015 (Heeks 2015; Janowski 2015). Using the year of publication, the timeline (see
Fig. 18) highlight a number of developments.
The first models to emerge are from national authorities, international organiza-
tions and consultancies. National models from Australian ANAO (ANAO 1999) to
the UK equivalent were published in 1999–2001. International organisations fol-
lowed with the UN (UNDESA 2014) in 2001 and the EU (EC 2012) and World Bank
in 2002 (Toasaki 2003; Alhomod and Shafi 2012). The Deloitte (Deloitte and Touche
2001) through to the Accenture model (Rohleder and Jupp 2003) were published in
2000–2003. The first scientific models were published by (in alphabetical order) in
2001 by Hiller and Belanger (2001), Howard (2001), Layne and Lee (2001) and
Silcock (2001), followed by Wescott (2001), Chandler and Emanuel (2002), Moon
(2002) and Netchaeva (2002) in 2002. The most recent models includes Dias and
Gomas (2014) in 2014 and Janowski (2015) and Heeks (2015) in 2015.
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 91

Table 1  Stage models by origin (incl. names of model)

Number
Type of model of models Name of model
National 5 ANAO (1999), SAFAD (2000), UKNAO (2002), NASCIO
(2006), Iribarren et al. (2008).
International 3 UN (2014, 2008, 2010, 2012), EU (EC 2014; European
Commission and D.R.a.I. 2013), WB (Toasaki 2003).
Consultant 4 Deloitte (Deloitte and Touche 2001), Gartner (Baum and Di Maio
2000), Accenture (Rohleder and Jupp 2003), Cisco (Cisco 2007).
Scientific 30 Hiller and Belanger (2001), Howard (2001), Layne and Lee
(2001), Silcock (2001), Wescott (2001), Chandler and Emanuel
(2002), Hogdgkinson (2002), Moon (2002), Netchaeva (2002),
Koh and Prybutok (2003), Reddick (2004), Waseda (Obi 2012,
2014, 2015), West (2004), Windley (2002), Davison et al. (2005)
Persson and Goldkuhl (2005), Siau and Long (2005), Andersen
and Henriksen (2006), Chan et al. (2008), Shahkooh et al. (2008),
Almazan and Gil-Garcia (2008),Luna et al. (2013), Kleivink and
Janssen (2009), Kim and Grant (2010), Kalampokis et al.(2011),
Shareef et al. (2011), Alhomod and Shafi (2012), Lee and Kwak
(2012), Dias and Gomes (2014), Heeks (2015), Janowski (2015).

2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Academic National International Consultancy

Fig. 18  Stage-models published over time

What is also clear from the literature review is that stage models were of particular
interest in 2000–2004 when 23 of the 42 identified models were published (i.e.
54.8%)  – including all models originating in international organisations and
consultancies.
As presented in Table 2, 22 (i.e. 52.4%) of the identified models are based on
practical experiences and case studies with 15 (i.e. 35.7%) being based largely on
observations of ICT use in a single country and at a single level of government
(e.g. local, regional, or central) public administration. Seven (i.e. 16.7%) models
are based on the experiences in multiple countries, i.e. Accenture, UN, EU,
Iribarren et al., Janokowski, Wescott and West. Three models (i.e. 7.1%), Windley,
Chan et  al. and Almazan et  al., are based on regional observations in a single
92 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Table 2  Stage-models based on practical experiences and case studies

Model Type Experiences/case study
ANAO National Australian experience.
SAFAD National Swedish experience and ANAO model.
UKNAO National UK experiences.
NASCIO National USA States.
Iribarren et al. National Chilean experience plus experiences of 22 countries.
Annual ranking of Australia, Canada, South Korea,
Sweden, UK, USA and others.
Accenture Consultant Observations in 22 countries. Annual ranking of Australia,
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore,
South Africa, Spain, the UK and USA.
UN International Observations in 193 countries.
EU International Observations in 28 EU plus associated member states.
Based on SAFAD model. Annual ranking of the countries.
Layne and Lee Scientific Observations in the US.
Moon Scientific Case study of 2000 US municipalities.
Reddick Scientific Observations in US municipalities.
Wescott Scientific Observations in Asian-Pacific countries.
Waseda International Observations in multiple countries.
West Scientific Case studies of from 1813 and 1680 US municipalities in
2000 and 2001 plus observations in multiple countries e.g.
in 2006.
Windley Scientific Case study of US Utah.gov.
Andersen and Scientific Case study of 110 Danish stage sites and Layne and Lee
Henriksen model.
Shareef et al. Scientific Case study in Canada.
Chan et al. Scientific Case study of selected Chinese regional portals.
Almazan et al. Scientific Case study of 32 Mexican state portals.
Dias and Scientific Case studies of 239 Portuguese municipalities in 1999,
Gomes 2007, 2010 and 2013.
Lee and Kwak Scientific Observations in US health sector.
Janowski Scientific Observations in multiple developing countries.

country, whereas Moon, Reddick and Dias & Gomes (i.e. 7.1%) are based on case
studies in municipalities.
The most cited model is hard to asses as the original source of national, interna-
tional and consultant models are often not citied or referenced appropriately in the
literature, is neither publically available, not included in scientific databases, nor
available on sites such as research gate and Google scholar. Using Google scholar
(accessed on 15 April 2016) the most frequently cited models are all scientific:
Layne and Lee’s 2001 model (Layne and Lee 2001) with 2031 citations, Moon’s
2002 model (Moon 2002) with 1550 citations, Hiller and Belanger’s 2001 model
(Hiller and Belanger 2001) citied 952, and Andersen and Henriksen’s 2006 model
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 93

(Andersen and Henriksen 2006) model being cited 453 times. The most cited model
not published by academics are Gartner’s (Baum and Di Maio 2000) 2000 model
with 302 citations.

Maturity Levels in Stage-Models

Analysing the 42 models, 11 different stages are identified: From pre-conditions to

transformation (or morphing) and eDemocracy. As illustrated in Fig. 19 (at the end
of the chapter), the models and their respective complexity and maturity levels (or
stages) varies from simple models such as Reddick’s (2004) two-stage model pre-
senting information online and transactional eServices, and the World Bank’s
(Toasaki 2003) three-stage model, which adds user-engagement to Reddick’s ver-
sion. More complex models includes Dias and Gomes’ three-dimensional, 12-stage
model (Dias and Gomes 2014), Waseda’s four-stages with seven cross cutting
themes (Obi 2015), Iribarren et al. with five-stages and 172 indicators, or the UN
model with its four-stages and over 200 indicators for its eGovernment Readiness
Index (UNDESA 2008). It is particularly interested that models like Dias and
Gomes, Heeks and Waseda borrow heavily from the CMM / CMMI models with
their multi-dimensional approach.
Two clusters of development are identified in literature (and visualized in
Fig. 19). The first cluster appear in the period 1999–2004 and consists of 23 models
(i.e. 54.8%). Three of five models published by national authorities, all three inter-
national organisations and the four consultancy models are from this period. All
models (except Waseda) in this cluster includes maturity stages for publication of
static information online, transactional services (i.e. eServices), aspects of back-­
office integration and a degree of public sector reform. Only the UN, EU and Waseda
address pre-conditions such as the availability of internet access, digital literacy and
internet use. Similarly, only Gartner, Silcock and Accenture included ICT enabled
transformation (or morphing) of public administration. Hiller and Belanger, Wescott,
Moon and Netchaeva by contract, address user engagement, participation and deci-
sion making (i.e. eParticipation and eDemocracy) to some degree.
A second cluster of emerge from 2005 (but over a longer period) and consist of
19 models (i.e. 45.2%). Three trends emerge within the second cluster. First, all
build on the ideas from the 1999–2004 cluster, and includes the presentation of
static information online (except Iribarren et al. and Kleivink and Janssen), eSer-
vices transactions (except Iribarren et al. and Kleivink amd Janssen), back-office
integration and a degree of ICT enabled public sector reform. Second, public sector
reform becomes more prominent and is included in 14 models (i.e. 14/19, compared
to 4/23). Lastly, eParticipation and eDemocracy is also included in more models. In
addition to the 12 models (i.e. 12/19, compared to 7/23) addressing user engage-
ment and decision making published from 2005, the period also see the UN and EU
extending their models in order to address these aspects (EC 2012; UNDESA 2012).
94 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 19 (a) Identified stage models mapped in accordance with their different maturity levels. (b)
Identified stage models mapped in accordance with their different maturity levels
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 95

Fig. 19 (continued)
96 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

The vast majority of the 42 models use different semantics and metaphors, simi-
larly many models and individual stages overlap (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016a; b;
Alhomod and Shafi 2012; Lee 2010). This means that some general categories exist.
In fact, commonalities between national, international and consultancy models, are
also shared with many of the scientific models, and is visualized in Fig. 19 (Lee
2010).

Overarching Characteristics and Meta Stages

As the various models are based on different perspectives and use different defini-
tion and metaphors, they can be difficult to understand and summarise. To alleviate
this difficulty, the 11 meta stages presented in Fig.  19 are distilled further using
Lee’s qualitative meta-synthesis framework (Lee 2010).
Using a detailed qualitative meta-synthesis procedure Lee use 12 stage-models
to develop a new semantic framework consisting of five general metaphors namely:
Presenting, Assimilating, Reforming, Morphing, eGovernance. The Lee’s five met-
aphors are defined and described in Table 3 below.

Table 3  Metaphors: their definitions, related stages, and themes (Lee 2010)
Metaphors Description Stages/concepts
Citizens and Operation and
services technology
Presenting Presenting information in the Information
information space
Assimilation Assimilates (or replicates) Interaction Integration
processes and service in the
information space with the ones
in the real world
Reforming Reform the processes and Transaction Streamlining
services in the real world to
match the information space
requirements, fitting for
efficiency
Morphing Change the shape and scope of Participation Transforming
processes and services in the
information space as well as the
ones in the real world, fitting for
effectiveness
eGovernance Processes and services in both Involvement Process
worlds are synchronously management
managed, reflecting citizen-­
involved changes with
reconfigurable processes and
services
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 97

From the analysis of the 42 models, identified in the literature review, it becomes
clear that the 11 overarching stages identified represents six specific meta stage char-
acteristics. With respect to Lee’s framework, an initial ‘pre-condition’ stage is miss-
ing. A pre-condition stage is therefore added to Lee’s framework for the purpose of
this article (bringing the number of stages to six) (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016a).
The 42 models and their respective overarching stages are, in Fig. 20, mapped in
accordance with the six meta characteristic described in Table 3. The models are
presented chronological and in alphabetical order within said year.

Review of Existing Stage Models

The stage and meta characteristic mapping in Fig. 20 highlight a number of interest-
ing aspects. Table 4 below summaries the number of models, which address each of
the six meta stages. The main differences in the models unearth relates to ICT
enabled morphing (i.e. transformation) of public administrations and eParticipation
and eDemocracy (i.e. user engagement and decision-making).

Preconditions

Models, like the UN (UNDESA 2014), EU (EC 2012), Waseda (Obi 2015) and
Iribarren et al. (Iribarren et al. 2008) which include preconditions generally focus
on the availability of key enabling factors such as digital literacy, Internet availabil-
ity and use, electronic identifiers (eID), availability of a basket of electronic ser-
vices, accessing public sector information, downloadable forms and transactional
eServices in aggregated terms. The aim is to enrich analysis and monitor the avail-
ability of key enablers. Unfortunately, none of the models addresses the actual use
of key enablers like eID’s.
While Lee’s framework include management and governance issues in the final
maturity level (Lee 2010), it may be argued  – in line with the IT governance
literature (Brown and Magill 1994; Brown and Grant 2005) (see section
­
“Background”), recommendations by the OECD (OECD 2014) and authors like
Iribarren, NASCIO and Janowski (Iribarren et al. 2008; NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O.
2006; Janowski 2015) – that governance structures and cross-governmental coop-
eration are preconditions for successful ICT implementation and take-up. For
instance, is the eGovernment Strategy legally binding for one or all levels of govern-
ment, what mechanisms govern decision-making, legal changes and coordination
processes, benefit realization etc. While most would agree on the objective of IT
governance, the Waseda, NASCIO, Iribarren et al., Shareef et al. and Janowski mod-
els are the only one, which address it directly (e.g. governance, cooperation and
promotion structures, management optimization, policy driven eGovernment)
(Iribarren et al. 2008; Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016a; Obi 2015; NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O.
2006; Shareef et al. 2011; Janowski 2015; Lee 2010).
98 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Fig. 20  Identified stage models mapped in accordance with Lee’s qualitative meta-synthesis
framework (Adapted by author to incl. pre-conditions) (Lee 2010)
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 99

Table 4  Metaphores: their definitions, related stages, and themes

Pre-conditions: United Nations, EU, Waseda, NASCIO, Iribarren et al., Shareef et al.
6/42 (i.e. 14.3%)
Presenting: 39/42 ANAO, Deloitte, Gartner, SAFAD, Hiller and Belanger, Howard, Layne
(i.e. 92.9%) and Lee, Silcock, UN, Wescott, Chandler and Emanuel, EU, Moon,
Netchaeva, UKNAO, World Bank, Accenture, Reddick, West, Windley,
Siau and Long, Persson and Goldkuhl, Andersen and Henriksen, NASCIO,
Cisco, Almazan and Gil-Gaarcia, Chan et al., Shahkooh et al., Kim and
Grant, Kalambokis et al., Shareef et al., Alhomod et al., Lee and Kwak,
Dias and Gomes, Heeks, Janowski (except Waseda, Iribarren et al.,
Klievink and Janssen).
Assimilation: ANAO, Deloitte, Gartner, SAFAD, Hiller and Belanger, Howard, Layne
38/42 (i.e. 90.5%) and Lee, Silcock, UN, Wescott, Chandler and Emanuel, EU, Moon,
Netchaeva, UKNAO, World Bank, Accenture, Reddick, Waseda, West,
Windley, Siau and Long, Persson and Goldkuhl, Andersen and Henriksen,
NASCIO, Cisco, Almazan and Gil-Gaarcia, Chan et al., Shahkooh et al.,
Kim and Grant, Shareef et al., Alhomod et al., Lee and Kwak, Dias and
Gomes, Heeks, Janowski (except Iribarren et al., Klievink and Janssen,
Kalambokis et al., Lee and Kwak).
Reforming: 36/42 ANAO, Deloitte, Gartner, SAFAD, Hiller and Belanger, Layne and Lee,
(i.e. 85.7%) Silcock, Hodginson, UN, Wescott, Chandler and Emanuel, EU, Moon,
Netchaeva, UKNAO, World Bank, Accenture, Reddick, Waseda, West,
Windley, Siau and Long, Persson and Goldkuhl, Andersen and Henriksen,
NASCIO, Cisco, Almazan and Gil-Gaarcia, Chan et al., Shahkooh et al.,
Kleivink & Janssen, Kim and Grant, Kalambokis et al., Shareef et al.,
Alhomod et al., Heeks, Janowski. (Exempt Howard, Hodginson, Iribarren
et al., Shareef et al., Lee and Kwak, Dias and Gomes).
Morphing: 18/42 Gartner, Silcock, Hodginson, Accenture, Windley, Siau and Long, Persson
(i.e. 42.9%) and Goldkuhl, Andersen and Henriksen, NASCIO, Cisco, Chan et al.,
Iribarren et al., Kleivink and Janssen, Kim and Grant, Kalambokis et al.,
Lee and Kwak, Heeks, Janowski.
eDemocracy: Hiller and Belanger, UN, Chandler and Emanuel, EU, Moon, Netchaeva,
19/42 (i.e. 45.2%) Waseda, West, Siau and Long, Persson and Goldkuhl, Andersen and
Henriksen, NASCIO, Almazan and Gil-Gaarcia, Shahkooh et al., Kim and
Grant, Kalambokis et al., Lee and Kwak, Dias and Gomes, Janowski.

Presenting Online Information and Services

Emerging from a national context, the Australian ANAO and SAFAD models (see
Fig. 2) (Persson and Goldkuhl 2005) were introduced to categorize, evaluate pro-
cess and guide government organisations’ decisions on what services could and
should provide. Layne and Lee’s (2001) 2001 maturity model streamlines the devel-
opment stages online information and transactional services by merging different
aspects into two categories (see Fig. 4), that is: Catalogue of static information and
downloadable forms one websites and transactional aspects such as online service
and forms (i.e. eServices).
Dias and Gomes (2014) adjust the Layne and Lee (2001) and the EU benchmark-
ing models (EC 2012) in their 2014 evaluation of local eGovernment maturity in
100 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Portugal. The proposed model consists of three parallel dimensions each consisting
of four stages: (1) Information: Generic information (i.e. presence), downloadable
forms (i.e. interaction), search functionality (i.e. interaction), parameterize search
(i.e. interaction); (2) Service: Information (i.e. one-way), authentication of user (i.e.
two-way), eService transaction (i.e. two-way), authentication and eService transac-
tion (i.e. transaction); (3) Participation: features (i.e. two-way), authentication and
features (i.e. two-way), participative process (i.e. transaction), advanced participa-
tive process (i.e. transaction).
Iribarren et  al. eGOV-MM model (see Fig.  13) (Iribarren et  al. 2008) takes a
multi-dimensional approach including the front- and backoffice, policy, manage-
ment and oranisational capacities. Criticizing the Layne and Lee’s model (2001) for
being too linear and too ‘US-centric’ Heeks’ Manchester eGovernment Maturity
Model differentiate between the front- and back-office (Heeks 2015). The result is
two parallel dimensions which forms a matrix (see Fig.  17). One focus on the
sophistication of digitised interaction (i.e. one and two-way interaction plus transac-
tion) and the extent of process change (i.e. simple digitisation and automation,
improvement process integration, redesign/reform and transformation) which is
similar to Waseda (Obi 2015), IT governance and CMM/CMMI approach by
NASCIO, Iribarren and others (Iribarren et  al. 2008; NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O.
2006).
While these adjustments to the presentation and publication of information
and eServices have evolved over time, none of the models includes actual use.
This is in sharp contrast to research in public administration reform – whether it
is a NPM efficiency or a JUG effectiveness approach (Bannister and Connolly
2011; Cordella and Bonina 2012; Bannister 2001; Meyerhoff Nielsen and Mika
2014). This is unfortunate as the value added of a project comes from its use, not
its existence.

Vertical and Horizontal Integration (Reforming)

Layne and Lee’s stage model breaks with the initial models, by including vertical
and horizontal integration as two distinct, and most advanced, levels of maturity to
their model (see Fig. 4) (Layne and Lee 2001). Both Deloitte (Deloitte and Touche
2001) and Gartner (Baum and Di Maio 2000) mirror this development.
Persson and Goldkuhl (2005) in 2005 evaluates a number of existing mod-
els and propose a two-stage model with a clear computer science perspective.
Based on Layne and Lee (2001), their focus is on the integration of services
(i.e. services, directed services, concentrated services and portals) and inte-
gration in services including horizontal and vertical integration of organisa-
tions, processes, the exchange and re-use of data - with the data focus being
similar to OGD Maturity Model by Kalambokis et al. (see Fig. 14) (Kalampokis
et al. 2011).
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 101

I CT Enabled Reform and Transformation (Reform

and Morphing)

The review in section “Preconditions”. (see Table 4, Figs. 19 and 20) identified 36
(i.e. 85.7%) models which includes ICT enabled reform of public administration as
a maturity level. Of these only half (i.e. 18 models or 42.9% of all models) address
ICT enabled transformation (or morphing).
The Klievink and Janssen (2009) five-stage is of particular interest. The level of
customer orientation increases with every stage of the model, as does the level of
flexibility and includes: Stovepipes, integrated organisations, nationwide portals,
inter-organisational integration and customer-driven, joined-up government. The
Klievink and Janssen model clearly reflect joint-up government (i.e. integration)
and outcomes based thinking seen in public administration and eGovernment
literature.
Kim and Grant (2010) propose continuous improvement as a fifth and final matu-
rity level in their 2010 model. Featuring political activities and a focus on continu-
ous improvements and performance it sees ICT as a tool enabling public sector
innovation and reform – on par with the logic behind agile development in the IT
sector. Lee and Kwak’s (2012) takes a similar approach in their data based model
for collaboration and ubiquitous engagement. Although data and collaboration
forms the core of Lee and Kwak’s model, the development stages follow a ‘classi-
cal’ stage-model pattern, i.e. publication, assimilation, reform and transformation
and does therefore not cover Gov3.0. Janowski’s (Janowski 2015) model focus on
complexity of ICT enabled reform and move from a ‘classical’ model focus to a
fourth and final contextual stage.
The IT governance and CMM/CMMI models, like Davison, Iribarren et  al.,
NACSIO and Waseda, provides a particular interesting multi-dimensional perspec-
tive and inclusion of both human, management and organisational capacities
(Iribarren et  al. 2008; Davison et  al. 2005; Obi 2015; NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O.
2006).
Considering the level of academic consensus of ICT as an enabler of public
sector reform and transformation, the limited attention paid to actual outputs
and results is surprising. Similarly, not of the models adequately address the
Gov3.0 concept.
Cooperation is indirectly addressed by all the models addressing reform and
transformation, but none look at the role governance play to ensure backoffice inte-
gration or the outcomes required to move from one stage to another. Here the IT
governance and CMM/CMMI models, like Davison, Iribarren et al., NACSIO and
Waseda, stands out with their multi-dimensional perspective and the inclusion of
both human, management and organisational capacities (Iribarren et  al. 2008;
Davison et al. 2005; Obi 2015; NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O. 2006).
102 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

 tage Models with a Participative and Democratic Dimension

S
(eGovernance)

The Hiller and Bélanger (2001) and Deloitte and Touche (2001) – and in 2003 the
World Bank (Toasaki 2003) with respect to legislative consultations – are the first to
add a dimension of engagement and co-creation (indirectly by none-governmental
stakeholders) and aspects of participation in a democratic sense. The focus is non-­
the-­less on supply, technology and organisational integration.
In contract active engagement, participation and democratic decision making are
aspects of the most advanced maturity levels proposed by authors like Moon (2002)
and Siau and Long (2005) while Chan et al. (2008) adds none-governmental stake-
holders to the mix of their five-stage model focusing on supply, technology and orga-
nizational integration. Similarly the UN eParticipation index was introduced in 2012
(UNDESA 2012) and EU benchmark has included aspects since 2013 (EC 2012).
Lee and Kwak’s (2012) five-stage model focus on engagement and data exchange
between authorities (i.e. horizontal and vertical integration), transparency by
increasing access to data, user-engagement and participation in decision making
(i.e. eParticipation and eDemocracy), and lastly on the total transformation of the
way public administration deliver services and make decisions (i.e. ubiquitous
engagement).
While increased levels of transparency in the government, political and demo-
cratic processes is laudable, the latter two does not necessarily constitute a maturity
level in their own right. Especially, when focusing on ICT use to improve the effi-
ciency, effectiveness, quality and value added of public sector service delivery.

 ealigning the Stage Model to Focus on Integration,

R
User-­Centricity and Outcomes

While stage models like indexes and benchmarks are helpful in mapping the supply
and sophistication levels of eService offerings, they all have a technological focus.
The relevance of these different models is therefore limited in terms of governance,
cooperation and measuring the successful use of online offerings  – and thus the
value added. In contrast to other stage models, Andersen and Henriksen (2006) fol-
low an activity- and user-centric approach to personalisation of online services in
their Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR) model (illustrated in Fig.  11).
Andersen and Henriksen extends the Layne and Lee’s model (see Fig. 4) (Layne and
Lee 2001) by making an online presence, horizontal and vertical integration the
foundation of their PPR model (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2015, 2016a; Alhomod and
Shafi 2012). Klievink and Janssen also address outcomes but anchor their model in
the joint-up government research stream (Klievink and Janssen 2009). The approach
is interesting as it also reflects ideas around whole-of-government approaches
(Frissen et al. 2007; Huijboom et al. 2009b; Traunmüller and Wimmer 2003; Millard
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 103

2010), JUG (Bannister and Connolly 2011; de Bri and Bannister 2010) and person-
alisation of online service delivery (Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012; Meyerhoff
Nielsen and Robert 2015).
The importance of outcomes is a key topic with the both the public administra-
tion reform (Bannister and Connolly 2011; Bannister 2001, 2007; de Bri and
Bannister 2010), IT-governance and computer science (Brown and Grant 2005) and
eGovernment literature (Cordella and Bonina 2012; Traunmüller and Wimmer
2003; Scholl 2009; Janowski 2015). Seven models are complimented with various
benchmarks, indexes and rankings (EC 2012; UNDESA 2014; West 2004; Rohleder
and Jupp 2003; Obi 2014; Almazan and Gil-Garcia 2008; Luna et al. 2013; Dias and
Gomes 2014) but several researchers have questions the value of their due to their
simplicity, their supply and technology focus (Lips 2012; Meyerhoff Nielsen 2015,
2016a; Bannister 2007; Heeks 2006, 2015; Rorissa et  al. 2011). Andersen and
Henriksen are the first researchers, which have taken an outcomes based approach
but do not include take-up, qualitative or quantitative indicators. The Waseda (Obi
2015) model differs somewhat from other stage models as it does not define distinct
levels of maturity. The focus is on qualitative and quantitative indicators including
network preparedness and infrastructure, management optimisation and efficiency
etc. Unfortunately, it does not directly address the actual use of eServices, but rather
pre-conditions like internet and mobile subscriptions.

Conclusion

The review of the 42 stage-models identified, their respective maturity levels and
meta charateristics show that aspects of Gov3.0 aspects such as ICT enabled inte-
gration, transformation, sharing of data and increased participation a number of
weaknesses persists.
First, all models, with the exemption of the PPR (Andersen and Henriksen 2006),
Howard (2001) and Klievink and Janssen (2009) models, have a technology and
supply orientated, i.e. no focus on outcomes or actual use (Meyerhoff Nielsen
2016a, b; Alhomod and Shafi 2012; Lee 2010). This is unfortunate as the tangible
benefits of any ICT solution and eServices in particularly can only be realized
through the actual and effective use of supplied eServices by citizens (OECD 2014;
UNDESA 2014; Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016a; Meyerhoff Nielsen and Mika 2014;
Meyerhoff and Kelly 2011).
Second, most of the models have no real understanding of core government ser-
vice concepts. For instance individual service elements – that is information, trans-
action capability, personal data – are not separate maturity levels but rather elements
in a given service request and subsequent delivery. Similarly downloadable forms
are merely a type of static information and does not warrant a separate maturity
level (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016a, b). This is particular surprising considering that 22
models (i.e. 52.4%) are partially based on observations, experiences and case stud-
ies in one or more countries (see Table 2).
104 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Third, decision-making, as illustrated by the eParticipation and eDemocracy

stages, should not be considered an eGovernment maturity level. Dias and Gomes
(2014) makes this argument indirectly, when defining engagement, petition and vot-
ing solutions as types of public services. That is, public services which consist of
information, transaction capability and some form of data, e.g. information about an
election, and internet voting solution allowing for vote casting, plus data such as
unique ID numbers, name and address for authorizing a vote. Thus the eParticipa-
tion and eDemocracy stage(s) should be seen as an indication of democratic matu-
rity and degree of transparency in a country not as eGovernment maturity levels
(Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014, 2016a; Dias and Gomes 2014).
Fourth, front-office service provision and back-office integration are mixed-up in
a number of models. For instance, one-stop-shop portals does not constitute a form
of transaction, but is rather an indicator of degree to which authorities cooperate and
integration in the provision of services via a portal (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2015,
2016a). Heeks attempt to address this by proposing a two dimensional matrix model
distinguishing between the front- and the back-office (Heeks 2015). Unfortunately,
Heeks does not account for governance or take-up.
Fifth, none of the identified models addresses governance directly. Some, like the
Davison et al. (2005), Iribarren et al. (2008), Janowski (2015), Kalambokis et al.
(2011), Shareef et al. (2011) and Waseda (Obi 2015) models, highlight management
and coordination issues such as the existence of chief information officers.
Cooperation on the other hand is indirectly addresses in most models. This is
­manifested in terms of vertical and horizontal integration, and the existence of one-
stop-­shops, the sharing of information and data between different authorities and
levels of government – even private and third party stakeholders (Lee and Kwak
2012; Chen and Mingins 2011).
Sixth, as illustrated by Figs. 19 and 20 most models merely restructure or adjust
existing ones. Key exemptions are the IT governance models like NASCIO
(NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O. 2006) and Iribarren et  al. (2008), Andersen and
Hendriksen’s PPR model (Andersen and Henriksen 2006), Hodgkingson’s focus on
learning curves (Hodgkinson 2002), Davison’s four elements (Davison et al. 2005),
Shareef’s (Shareef et  al. 2011) dimensions, Waseda’s approach (Obi 2015) and
Janowski’s (2015) approach, all of which builds on existing models while attempt-
ing to address outcomes and governance issues.

Acknowledgement  This chapter is a result of the project “SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for
Smart Governance (Foundations, methods, Tools)/NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037”, supported
by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020
Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (EFDR). It work was
also supported in part by funding from Tallinn University of Technology, Project B42; OGI – Open
Government Intelligence project in the EU Horizon 2020 framework program, grant agreement
693849.
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 105

References

Alhomod SM, Shafi MM (2012) Best practices in e-government: a review of some innovative
models proposed in different countries. Int J Electri Comput Sci 12(2):1–6
Almazan RS, Gil-Garcia JR (2008) e-Government portals in Mexico. Electron Gov Concepts
Methodol Tools Appl 6:1726–1736
ANAO (1999) Electronic service delivery, including internet use by Commonwealth government
agencies. ANAO, Australian National Auditing Office, Canberra, p 87
Andersen KV, Henriksen HZ (2006) E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and
Lee model. Gov Inf Q 23(2):236–248
Bannister F (2001) Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public
administration. Inf Syst J 11(1):65–84
Bannister F (2007) The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of
e-­government comparisons. Int Rev Adm Sci 73(2):171–188
Bannister F, Connolly R (2011) Transformation and public sector values, in tGov 11. Brunel
University, London
Bates MJ (1989) The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search inter-
face. Online Review 13(5):407–424
Baum C, Di Maio A. (2000) Gartner’s four phases of e-government model. In: Gartner Group
Brown AE, Grant GG (2005) Framing the frameworks: a review of IT governance research.
Commun Assoc Inf Syst 15(1):38
Brown CV, Magill SL (1994) Alignment of the IS functions with the enterprise: toward a model of
antecedents. MIS Q:371–403
Chan CM, Lau YM, Pan SL (2008) E-government implementation: a macro analysis of Singapore's
e-government initiatives. Gov Inf Q 25(2):239–255
Chandler S, Emanuels S (2002) Transformation not automation. In: Proceedings of 2nd European
conference on E-government. Management Center Europe, Brusseles
Charalabidis Y (2015) What is government 3.0? In: Charalabidis Y (ed) Governance and transfor-
mation. Yannis Charalabidis, Athens
Chen JYY, Mingins C (2011) A three-dimensional model for e-government development with
cases in China’s regional e-government practice and experience. In: ICMeCG, 2011 fifth
international conference on management of e-commerce and e-government. The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Wuhan
Christensen T, Lægreid P (2007) The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform.
Public Adm Rev 67(6):1059–1066
Christine Leitner, J.-M.E., François Heinderyckx, Klaus Lenk, Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen, Roland
Traunmüller (2003) eGovernment in Europe: the state of affairs. p 66
Cisco IBSG (2007) e-Government Best Practices learning from success, avoiding the pitfalls.
Cisco IBSG
Cordella A (2007) E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form? J Inf Technol 22(3):265–274
Cordella A, Bonina CM (2012) A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms:
a theoretical reflection. Gov Inf Q 29(4):512–520
Davison RM, Wagner C, Ma LC (2005) From government to e-government: a transition model. Inf
Technol People 18(3):280–299
de Bri F, Bannister F (2010) Whole-of-government: the continuing problem of eliminating silos.
Proceedings of the 10th European conference on eGovernment. National Centre for Taxation
Studies and University of Limerick, Ireland, pp 122–133
Deloitte and Touche (2001) The citizen as customer. In: CMS management. Deloitte and Touche,
p 58
Demmke C (2006) Governmental, organisational and individual performance. Performance myths,
performance “hype” and real performance. EIPAScope 2006(1):4–11
Dias GP, Gomes H (2014) Evolution of local e-government maturity in Portugal. In: Information
systems and technologies (CISTI), 2014 9th Iberian conference on. 2014. IEEE
106 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

EC (2012) E.C., Public services online ‘Digital by default or by De-tour?’ Assessing user centric
eGovernment performance in Euorpe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012. European Commission,
Brussels
EC (2014) E.C., Delivering the European advantage? ‘How European governments can and
should benefit from innovative public services’. European Commission DG Communications
Networks, Content & Technology, Brussels
Edelmann N, Krimmer R, Parycek P (2008) Engaging youth through deliberative e-participation:
a case study. Int J Electron Gov 1(4):385–399
European Commission, D.R.a.I (2013) Powering European public sector innovation: towards a new
architecture. D.R.a. Innovation, Editor. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation,
Brussels, pp 1–64
Eurostat (2016) Information society household survey [cited 28 March 2016]; Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/database
Fath-Allah A et al (2014) eGovernment maturity models: a comparative study. Int J Software Eng
Appl 5(3):72–91
Frissen V et al (2007) The future of eGovernment: an exploration of ICT-driven models of eGov-
ernment for the EU in 2020. D. Osimo, D. Zinnbauer and A. Bianchi, Joint Research Centre
Gammon H (1954) The automatic handling of office paper work. Public Adm Rev 14(1):63–73
Heeks R (2005) Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text. Sage, Los
Angeles
Heeks R (2006) Understanding and measuring eGovernment: international benchmarking studies.
UNDESA workshop “E-participation and e-government: understanding the present and creat-
ing the future”. Budapest, Hungary, pp 27–28
Heeks R (2015) A better eGovernment maturity model. In: iGovernment Briefing. Manchester,
University of Manchester
Heeks R, Bailur S (2007) Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories,
methods, and practice. Gov Inf Q 24(2):243–265
Hiller JS, Belanger F (2001) Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-government
200:162–198
Hodgkinson S (2002) Managing an e-government transformation program. Working Towards
Whole-of-Government Online Conference, Canberra
Howard M (2001) E-government across the globe: how will “e” change government? Gov Finan
Rev 17(4):6–9
Huijboom N, van der Broek T, Frissen V, Kool L, Kotterink B, Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Millard
J (2009a) Public services 2.0: key areas in the public sector impact of social computing. p 134
Huijboom N et al (2009b) Public Services 2.0: the impact of social computing on public services, in
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Igari N (2014) How to successfully promote ICT usage: a comparative analysis of Denmark and
Japan. Telematics Inform 31(1):115–125
InfoDev, C.f.D.a.T (2002) The e-government handbook for developing countries. World Bank,
Washington, DC, pp 1–41
Iribarren M et  al (2008) Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: a multi-dimensional
model and assessing tool. In: Electronic government. Springer, pp 136–147
Janowski T (2015) Digital government evolution: from transformation to contextualization. Gov
Inf Q 32(3):221–236
Janssen M, Chun SA, Gil-Garcia JR (2009) Building the next generation of digital government
infrastructures. Gov Inf Q 26(2):233–237
Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open
data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268
Jukić TT, Ljupčo N, Nameslaki A (2015) Investigation of e-government research field: what has
been done and how to proceed? NISPAcee J Public Admin Policy 23
Kalampokis E, Tambouris E, Tarabanis K (2011) Open government data: a stage model. In:
Electronic government. Springer, pp 235–246
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 107

Kim D-Y, Grant G (2010) E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model inte-
gration. J Syst Inf Technol 12(3):230–244
Klievink B, Janssen M (2009) Realizing joined-up government—dynamic capabilities and stage
models for transformation. Gov Inf Q 26(2):275–284
Klischewski R, Scholl HJ (2008) Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government
integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electron Gov Int J 5(2):203–225
Koh CE, Prybutok VR (2003) The three ring model development of an instrument for measuring
dimensions of E-government functions. J Comput Inf Syst 43(3):34
Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model. Gov Inf Q
18(2):122–136
Lee J (2010) 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: a qualitative meta-synthesis.
Gov Inf Q 27(3):220–230
Lee G, Kwak YH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public
engagement. Gov Inf Q 29(4):492–503
Lips M (2012) E-government is dead: long live public administration 2.0. Inf Polity 17(3):239–250
Luna DE et al (2013) Improving the performance assessment of government web portals: a pro-
posal using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Inf Polity 18(2):169–187
Meyerhoff M, Kelly A (2011) Scandinavia 2.0: efficiency, cooperation and innovations to alleviate
the economic crisis. Eur J ePract 11:19–38
Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2014) Identifying eGovernment success factors: an analysis of selected
national governance models and their experiences in digitising service delivery. Proceedings
of the 2014 conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: challenges in Eurasia,
2014, pp 19–25
Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2015) Supply and use of citizen eServices: an analysis of selected national
experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models. NISPAcee J  Public
Admin Policy 23
Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2016a) The role of governance, cooperation, and eService use in current
eGovernment stage models. Hawaii
Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2016b) eGovernance and stage models: Analysis of identified models and
selected Eurasian experiences in digitizing citizen service delivery. Int J  Electron Gov Res
x(x):2016
Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Igari N (2012) Speaking Danish in Japan. CeDEM 12 conference for
E-Democracy and Open Government 3–4 May 2012 Danube-University Krems, 2012, p 137
Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Mika Y (2014) An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit
realisation. Internet Technologies and Society 2014 conference proceedings, 2014, pp 47–58
Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Robert K (2015) Reuse of data for personal and proactive service: an
opportunity not yet utilised. In: CeDEM 15 conference for e-democracy and open government
20–22 May 2015, Danube-University Krems, Austria. Krems an der Donau: Donau-Universität
Krems; eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government
Millard J (2010) Government 1.5 – is the bottle half full or half empty? Eur J ePract (9):35–48
Millard J (2013) ICT-enabled public sector innovation: trends and prospects. In: Proceedings of the
7th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACM
Millard J, Luca C, Galasso G, Riedl R, Neuroni AC, Walser K, Sami Hamida A, Huijboom N,
Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Leitner C, Fehlmann RS (2007) European eGovernment 2005–2007:
Taking stock of good practice and progress towards implementation of the i2010 eGovernment
Action Plan. p 80
Millard J et al (2008) Social computing: trends in public services and policies. JRC-IPTS
Ministry of Interior Korea (2016) Government 3.0. Ministry of Interior Korea, Seoul
Moon MJ (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public
Adm Rev 62(4):424–433
NAO (2002) N.A.O., Government on the Web II. UK National Audit Office, London
NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O. (2006) Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (EAMM), version 3.1.
National Association of State Chief Information Officers, Lexington
108 M. Meyerhoff Nielsen

Netchaeva I (2002) e-government and e-democracy a comparison of opportunities in the North and
South. Int Commun Gaz 64(5):467–477
O’Leary R, Gerard C, Bingham LB (2006) Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public
management. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):6–9
Obi T (2012) WASEDA  – IAC Internationl e-Government Index. Waseda University and IAC
International Agency of CIO, Tokyo
Obi T (2014) WASEDA  – IAC internationl e-government index. Waseda University and IAC
International Agency of CIO, Tokyo
Obi T (2015) WASEDA  – IAC Internationl e-Government Index. Waseda University and IAC
International Agency of CIO, Tokyo
OECD (2014) Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies 15 July 2014 –
C(2014)88. OECD, Paris
Persson A, Goldkuhl, G (2005) Stage-models for public e-services-investigating conceptual foun-
dations. 2nd Scandinavian Workshop on e-Government, Copenhagen
Peters BG, Pierre J (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration.
J Public Adm Res Theory 8(2):223–243
Poeppelbuss J et al (2011) Maturity models in information systems research: literature search and
analysis. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 29(27):505–532
Pollitt C (2014) Future trends in European public administration and management: an outside-in
perspective. COCOPS Coordination for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future
Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis-new public
management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pöppelbuß J, Röglinger M (2011) What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general
design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management.
ECIS
Reddick CG (2004) A two-stage model of e-government growth: theories and empirical evidence
for US cities. Gov Inf Q 21(1):51–64
Roberts SE (1977) Theories and Models in Information Retrieval. J Doc 33(2):126–148
Röglinger M, Pöppelbuß J, Becker J (2012) Maturity models in business process management. Bus
Process Manag J 18(2):328–346
Rohleder SJ, Jupp V (2003) e-Government leadership: engaging the customer. Accenture,
Arlington, pp 1–94
Ronaghan SA (2002) Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective: assessing the progress of
the UN member states United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration
Rorissa A, Demissie D, Pardo T (2011) Benchmarking e-Government: a comparison of frame-
works for computing e-Government index and ranking. Gov Inf Q 28(3):354–362
Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson D (2006) Enterprise architecture as strategy: creating a foundation for
business execution. Harvard Business Press, Boston
Scholl HJJ (2009) Profiling the EG research community and its core. In: Electronic government.
Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–12
Self P (2000) Rolling back the state. Economic dogma & political choice. St Martin’s Press,
New York
Shahkooh KA, Saghafi F, Abdollahi A (2008) A proposed model for e-Government maturity. In:
Information and communication technologies: from theory to applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008.
3rd international conference on. 2008. IEEE
Shareef MA et al (2011) e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): differing service maturity levels.
Gov Inf Q 28(1):17–35
Siau K, Long Y (2005) Synthesizing e-government stage models-a meta-synthesis based on meta-­
ethnography approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 105(4):443–458
Silcock R (2001) What is e-government. Parliam Aff 54(1):88–101
Statskontoret (2000) 24-timmmarsmyndighet: Förslag til kriterier för statlige elektronisk förvalt-
ning i medborgarnas tjänst. Statskontoret, Stockholm, pp 1–80
Toasaki Y (2003) e-Government from a user’s perspective. World Bank, Taipei
Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0… 109

Traunmüller R, Wimmer MA (2003) E-government at a decisive moment: sketching a roadmap to

excellence. In: Electronic government. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–14
UNDESA (2008) E-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected government.
United Nations, New York
UNDESA (2010) E-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and
economic crisis. United Nations, New York
UNDESA (2012) E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New York
UNDESA (2014) E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. United
Nations, New York
Walsh D, Downe S (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review.
J Adv Nurs 50(2):204–211
Weill P (2004) Don’t just lead, govern: how top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Q Exec 3(1):1–17
Wescott CG (2001) E-Government in the Asia-pacific region. Asian J Political Sci 9(2):1–24
West DM (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes.
Public Adm Rev 64(1):15–27
Windley PJ (2002) eGovernment maturity [Online]. USA: Windleys’ Technolometria. Available:
http://www.windley.com/docs/eGovernment% 20Maturity.pdf
Yildiz M (2007) E-government research: reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward.
Gov Inf Q 24(3):646–665

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen  Researcher at Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse

School of Innovation and Governance (www.ttu.ee/nurkse), in Estonia and an academic fellow at
the United Nation University, Operating Unit for Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (https://
egov.unu.edu), in Portugal. He currently work on: eGovernment strategy development and evalua-
tion (Albania, Faroe Islands); performance management and benefit realisation (Albania, UNU-
EGOV); reuse of public sector information (Horizon 2020); Interoperability (Macedonia); ICT
enabled administrative burden reduction and public service delivery (UNU-­EGOV); research and
teach on eGovernment, eService usability, social media use and stakeholder engagement, gover-
nance and intergovernmental cooperation models (www.msm.nl and www.ttu.ee); ICEGOV 2017
(www.icegov.org). Morten is the author and co-author of various publications, reviewer and track
chair for multiple conferences and academic journals, regularly run executive training courses and
present at various conferences.
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process
Modeling in Public Administration

Wassim Derguech, Edward Curry, and Sami Bhiri

Abstract  As part of the Smart Cities movement, public administrations are con-
stantly in need to create new and innovative public services. Innovative services can
be derived from exiting best practices. Reuse is a key enabler for cost effective
customization of their processes for delivering effective and timely services. The
literature exhibits a wide variety of techniques that can be applied. This paper con-
ducts an analysis of major reuse-oriented process modeling techniques with respect
to available means of maintainability, user support, compression rate gained when
storing process models as well as traceability of modeling decisions. Furthermore,
we empirically evaluated the technique of configuration-based process modeling to
validate its applicability in modeling municipal processes.

Introduction

Processes in public administrations have distinguishing characteristics from private

organizations such as the significant diversity of administrative services (Karow et al.
2008). For example, processes in municipalities include more than 1000 services and
workflows (Karow et al. 2008). This diversity is driven by multiple factors such as
directives, federal and state laws. Furthermore, public organizations such as munici-
palities have the authority to customize their processes independently. This adds a
significant number of entries in public administrations’ portfolios of processes.
Another characteristic of public administrations is the transparency in delivering
and using open data for enhancing public services (Zillner et al. 2016). As part of
the Smart Cities movement (Curry et al. 2016), government agencies in cities like
Helsinki, Manchester, Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Chicago are using big and open
data from open sensor data, public sector processes, and citizen generated social

W. Derguech (*) • E. Curry

Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: wassim.derguech@insight-centre.org; edward.curry@insight-centre.org
S. Bhiri
ISIMM, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia
e-mail: sami.bhiri@gmail.com

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 111

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_5
112 W. Derguech et al.

data to enhance the dynamic design of new and innovative public services (Chouikh
et al. 2016; Ojo et al. 2015).
While public administrations are constantly required to deliver improved and
efficient public services, they are facing various challenges such as cost reductions,
change management in organizational work concepts, political pressures, etc.
(Karow et  al. 2008). Consequently, public administrations have to redesign their
processes and resource allocations to meet cost and time requirements. Reusing and
customizing existing proven practices is an important pillar for driving innovative
services in a cost-effective and rapid manner.
Reuse in process modeling has been proven to be effective using techniques that
vary from establishing a common repository of processes (Beeri et al. 2008a; Lu
and Sadiq 2007; Rosa et al. 2011; Vulcu et al. 2011) to creating reference process
models that can be tailored to each organization needs (Baran et al. 2013; Derguech
et al. 2010; Rosemann and van der Aalst 2007; Sadiq et al. 2001). However, choos-
ing the right technique to apply within an organization requires a proper analysis of
available tools for maintainability, user support and alignment with the organiza-
tions’ strategies regarding transparency and traceability (Karow et al. 2008).
The aim of this paper is to analyze major reuse-oriented process modeling tech-
niques with respect to a set of requirements that are identified in section
“Methodology”. The outcome of the analysis can serve as a guideline for choosing
which technique to apply in certain organizations. The analyzed approaches are
classified in two families: techniques using repositories of process models in section
“Business Process Models Repository” and techniques using reference process
models in section “Reference Business Process Modelling”. Before concluding the
chapter in section “Conclusion”, we conduct an evaluation of one of the techniques
that uses reference process models, in section “Configurable Models for
Municipalities”, to assess its applicability in modeling municipal processes.

Methodology

In this section, we define the methodology that we use in conducting the analysis of
the state of the art related to the topic of reuse in business process modelling. Our
analysis starts by classifying research contributions with respect to the categories
shown in Fig.  1. That is: sections “Business Process Models Repository” and
“Reference Business Process Modelling” respectively outline contributions in two
main categories of reuse-oriented business process modelling techniques: (i) using
Business Process Repositories and (ii) using Reference Business Process Models.
The first category is investigated in section “Business Process Models Repository”
by considering various implementations of business process repositories that permit
either to discover an entire business process model or to discover business process
building blocks that can be used later for composition.
The second category is investigated in section “Reference Business Process
Modelling” by considering three implementations of reference process models
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 113

Business Process
Models Reuse

Reference BP
BP Repositories
Models

Business Process Business Process Hierarchical Configurable

Placeholders
Models Fragments Reference Business Process
Refinement
Repository Repository Process Models Models

Fig. 1  Classification of reuse-oriented business process modelling approaches

either by refining placeholders, using hierarchical reference models or customising

configurable models.
The analysis of these contribution is done with respect to the following
requirements:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate – Managing multiple variants of the same busi-
ness process should consider common elements and avoid redundancy, especially in
large business process repositories (La Rosa et al. 2009). This results in a reduced
size for input process elements with a high compression rate if there is a high similar-
ity between the variants (Gottschalk et al. 2008). This requirement was elicited from:
La Rosa et al. (2009), Assy et al. (2015) and Derguech and Bhiri (2011).
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability – In order to adopt a process modeling solution,
maintainability tools should be provided (Derguech and Bhiri 2011). In our anal-
ysis, this requirement answers the following question: What mechanisms does
the proposed approach support for maintainability? This requirement was elic-
ited from: Gottschalk et al. (2008), La Rosa et al. (2009), Assy et al. (2015) and
Derguech and Bhiri (2011).
–– Requirement 3: User Support – This requirement is aligned with the ease-of-use
of the proposed approach by answering the following question: How does the
current approach help end-users that have little or no modelling experience? An
approach is easy to use if it provides and facilitates access to the required model-
ling tools. This requirement was elicited from: La Rosa et al. (2009), Vulcu et al.
(2011) and Derguech and Bhiri (2011).
–– Requirement 4: Traceability – In public administration, decision making is based
on the principles of transparency and traceability (Karow et al. 2008). It is crucial
for a process modeling solution to trace the origin of process elements that are
taken into account in the management of public administration processes (Karow
et al. 2008). This requirement was elicited from: Karow et al. (2008), La Rosa
et al. (2009) and Derguech and Bhiri (2011).
These requirements constitute guidelines for adopting reuse-oriented process model-
ling approaches in public administrations. Each of the reviewed approaches in section
“Business Process Models Repository” and “Reference Business Process Modelling”
will be assessed against these requirements. One of the reviewed solutions will be evalu-
ated using real municipal processes in section “Configurable Models for Municipalities”.
114 W. Derguech et al.

Business Process Models Repository

In the first part of the analysis, we study related work in the area of business pro-
cess model discovery. The discovery operation consists of querying a business
process repository in order to find a relevant business process model satisfying
particular needs. In this section, we investigate various implementations of pro-
cess repositories.

The Process Variant Repository

Description  The Process Variant Repository (Lu and Sadiq 2006, 2007; Lu et al.
2009a) or PRV for short, defines a repository of both business process models and
associated “preferred work practices”. A preferred work practice is a process vari-
ant that is captured from the process execution logs and is suitable for a particular
situation. Each process model is stored with its historical information about the
execution instances in order to achieve new operational goals in similar situations.
For example, we can refer to the registration of a newborn child of parents from
either the local or a foreign country. Here the process will be the same with some
changes in the required documents.
PVR provides a support for querying business process models and their vari-
ants where a query is a partial or complete description of a process variant. On
the basis of similarity metrics, the authors measure the equivalence and sub-
sume relations between the process query and the stored processes using reduc-
tion techniques in graphs. The results are then ranked based on these similarity
values.
Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: not fulfilled. The PVR focus is on providing
a discovery mechanism while ignoring any challenges related to managing com-
mon process parts. Business process variants are stored individually without per-
forming any compression.
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: not discussed.
–– Requirement 3: User Support: not fulfilled. Querying the repository requires
expert knowledge for creating queries.
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: partially fulfilled. In essence, the use of process
repositories guarantees traces of all process variants. However, traces of user
queries are not logged in this work.
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 115

BP-Suite

Description  BP-Suite is a tool-set for querying BPEL-based business process

repositories. It consists of three query subsystems: (1) BP-QL (Beeri et al. 2008a) is
used to query business process specifications (which is the system related to this
work); (2) BPMon (Beeri et al. 2008b) is used for monitoring process instances at
run-time and (3) BP-Ex (Balan et al. 2010) allows for querying business process
execution logs.
The focus of BP-QL is to use XQuery (Walmsley 2007) to discover business
processes given a structural pattern. Entries of the repository (i.e., business pro-
cesses) are described using AXML, an abstraction of BPEL. The proposed language
represents business processes as graphs, i.e., with nodes and links between them.
Since the BPEL specification is also XML-based, an obvious question is why not
query it directly? The answer to this question, according to the authors (Beeri et al.
2006), is ease of use. Indeed, the BPEL format is complex and extremely inconve-
nient for querying.
Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: not fulfilled. The BP-Suite focus is more on
providing a user friendly discovery mechanism while ignoring any challenges
related to maintainability and particularly to managing common process parts.
Business process variants are stored individually without performing any
compression.
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: not discussed.
–– Requirement 3: User Support: partially fulfilled. The authors claim that their
query building mechanism is user friendly as it is similar to those used by com-
mercial vendors for the design of BPEL processes. However, it is important to
notice that “BPEL more closely resembles a programming language than a mod-
eling language” (van der Aalst et al. 2005) which requires some learning. This
makes the proposed approach helpful for reducing the learning curve of
non-experts.
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: partially fulfilled.

Semantic Business Process Repositories

Description  In this section, we review four repositories of business process models

that use semantics.
First, the Semantic Business Process Repository, or SBPR (Ma et  al. 2007),
describes business processes using ontologies such as: process, organizational and
business function (i.e., business capability) ontologies. They use relational data-
bases to store these descriptions. A reasoner such as Integrated Rule Inference
116 W. Derguech et al.

System – IRIS1 is integrated with the semantic business process repository to reason
over the business processes described using ontologies.
Second, while the framework for querying business process models proposed by
Markovic et al. (2008) uses ontologies for describing business process models, Sakr
and Awad (Sakr and Awad 2010) use ontologies only in the query matching process
and tackle the problem of applying different terminologies when modelling pro-
cesses. The former (Markovic et al. 2008) uses Web Service Modeling Ontology
(WSMO) for describing functional and non-functional related properties and a pro-
cess algebra, pi-calculus, for the structural properties of a business process model.
They use Web Service Modeling Language (WSML) logical expressions as a query
language and ontological reasoning for query answering. Whereas the latter (Sakr
and Awad 2010) relies mainly on activity labels for describing functional properties
and uses BPMN-Q (Awad and Sakr 2012) for querying business process models
with an underlying classical database management system.
Last, the oryx (Decker et al. 2008) extension for semantically-enabled business pro-
cess discovery (Vulcu et al. 2011) proposes the use of ontologies for modelling and stor-
ing business process models. The authors propose an ontology for describing graph-based
and block-based business processes while capturing their functional (i.e., Input, Output,
Precondition and Effect) and non-functional properties at multiple levels of abstraction.
Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: not fulfilled. The reviewed solutions investi-
gate the use of ontologies for storing and querying business process models.
They use graphical querying mechanisms for supporting users to avoid learning
a complex querying language. However, none of them deals with how to effi-
ciently store process variants: compression is out of scope.
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: fulfilled. Standard CRUD operations and ver-
sion management were investigated (Ma et al. 2007; Sakr and Awad 2010).
–– Requirement 3: User Support: partially fulfilled. Although an extensive work has
been put towards creating graphical query mechanisms, users still need to manually
define some difficult parameters such as Input, Output, Precondition and Effect.
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: fulfilled. In essence, the use of process repositories
guarantees traces of all process variants. Furthermore, version control adds
another traceability dimension for verifying the evolution of changes in the pro-
cess models.

APROMORE

Description  APROMORE (Advanced PROcess MOdel REpository) (La Rosa

et al. 2011) is a recently proposed process models repository supporting multiple
modelling languages including EPC, BPMN, Protos, WF-Nets, YAWL, and

 http://www.iris-reasoner.org/
1
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 117

WS-BPEL.  It manages company specific process models, reference models and

process patterns. The strength of this repository is that it builds on a large set of
existing contributions in terms of approaches and techniques which have been
adapted and incorporated as evaluation, comparison, management and presentation
functionalities.
APROMORE is open to integrate multiple contributions related to the manage-
ment and maintainability of business process repositories. Examples of such contri-
butions include the detection of clones (Dumas et al. 2013; Uba et al. 2011) and
errors (Mendling et al. 2008) in the repository.
Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: fulfilled. In order to overcome the problem of
resource efficiency and propose a suitable compression of the stored business
process variants, APROMORE proposes the integration of merging and individ-
ualisation features which relate to the area of configurable process models
(Rosemann and van der Aalst 2007).
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: fulfilled. The fact that APROMRE is open to
integrate business process modelling contributions, it makes most maintainabil-
ity issues resolved.
–– Requirement 3: User Support: not discussed.
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: partially fulfilled.

 usiness Process Models Repositories: Summary

B
and Discussion

The reviewed business process models repositories (summarized in Table  1)

share in essence the same objective: discovering a business process model by
querying a repository and selecting the most suitable one. As depicted in Fig. 2,
this technique involves a process variant repository and two kinds of stakehold-
ers: (i) a process modeller and (ii) a business expert. The process modeller is
responsible for regularly updating the process variant repository. The business
expert has to query this repository in order to find a particular business process
variant. Learning a customized query language for retrieving a suitable business
process model is far from being user-friendly. This motivated current approaches
to propose graphical querying languages and interfaces for end-users (Requirement
3: User Support).
For Requirement 1: Compression Rate: This requirement is needed in order to
avoid duplication of common process parts and ensure consistency (i.e, every
change of a process model has to be propagated in all similar models) and correct
(i.e., without clones and errors). As these solutions do not consider managing com-
mon process parts as single elements, additional maintainability effort (Requirement
118 W. Derguech et al.

Table 1  Comparative analysis of approaches using process models repositories

Compression
Approach rate Maintainability User support Traceability
The process variant Not fulfilled Not discussed Require experts Partially
repository (Lu and knowledge for fulfilled
Sadiq 2006, 2007; writing queries
Lu et al. 2009a)
BP-suite (Beeri Not fulfilled Not discussed Effort to Partially
et al. 2008a, b) providing a query fulfilled
language that is
easy to use are
investigated
(Beeri et al. 2006)
aiming to reduce
the learning curve
of non-experts
Semantic business Not fulfilled Standard CRUD Using graphical Partially
process operations and querying fulfilled
repositories (Ma version mechanisms for
et al. 2007; management in avoiding learning
Markovic et al. (Ma et al. 2007; a complex
2008; Sakr and Sakr and Awad querying
Awad 2010; Vulcu 2010) language
et al. 2011)
APROMORE (La Not discussed Detection of Not discussed Partially
Rosa et al. 2011) clones (Dumas fulfilled
et al. 2013; Uba
et al. 2011) and
errors (Mendling
et al. 2008)

Fig. 2  A process variants

repository for reusing 1. Query the Process
business process models Variants Repository

Business Expert

2. Choose the most suitable

Process Variant

Update the Process

Variants Repository

Modeller
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 119

Fig. 3  Using process

building blocks for 1. Query the Process
modelling business Building Blocks
processes
Business Expert

2. Modelling the Process

Using Building Blocks

2: Maintainability) for ensuring a clean repository, maintainability operations such

as the detection of clones (Dumas et al. 2013; Uba et al. 2011) and errors (Mendling
et al. 2008) are required.
With respect to Requirement 4: Traceability, in essence the use of process reposi-
tories guarantees traces of all process variants. However, traces of user queries are
not logged in these works. Nevertheless, version management has been proposed as
a solution for keeping track of on changes to process models (Ma et al. 2007; Sakr
and Awad 2010).
A key point of this analysis is: Even though it is well recognized that process
variants share some commonalities, this has not been taken into account in these
approaches. In fact, each process variant is stored as a standalone entity.
Consequently, this method suffers from resource redundancy because it does not
consider common parts of process models which are duplicated in each entry of the
repository. This can be resolved by storing business process building blocks instead
of entire models. These building blocks can be later retrieved and aggregated in
order to construct a business process model (Mancioppi et al. 2011; Schumm et al.
2012). As depicted in Fig. 3, the business expert will have to, first, query the build-
ing blocks he needs and then aggregate them in order to derive his entire business
process model. Modelling business process models from building blocks still
requires some skills in modelling but this can be reduced using dynamic composi-
tion (Sirbu et al. 2011).

Reference Business Process Modelling

In this part of the analysis, we study three implementations of reference business

process modelling techniques. A reference process model is a generic model that
can be tailored to specific needs and adapted to various situations. Stakeholders
benefit from these models by avoiding the need to create a model from scratch and
use the reference model as a starting point. The main challenge with such solutions
is that a reference model has to be properly managed in order to help derive a proper
process variant.
120 W. Derguech et al.

Placeholders Refinement: Late Modelling

Description   Creating a model with a placeholder, or a pocket of flexibility,

as introduced by Sadiq et al. (2001), provides the means for creating flexible
business process models. The idea is to create a partially completed business
process model with placeholders that require late modelling. The late mod-
elling allows business processes to be tailored either to a process model dur-
ing the modelling phase or to individual instances at runtime (Weber et al.
2009).
During the late modelling users can refine the placeholders using their own mod-
elling skills. They can be assisted either with a set of activities and/or constraints as
it has been highlighted by Sadiq et al. (2001). The authors also distinguish three
options for implementing late modelling:
–– Option 1: Reference Process Model. Placeholders may be defined without any
constraints or predefined activities.
–– Option 2: Reference Process Model  +  Set of Activities. Placeholders may be
defined using the predefined set of activities without any constraints.
–– Option 3: Reference Process Model  +  Set of Activities  +  Set of Constraints.
Placeholders may be defined from the predefined set of activities under the given
set of constraints.
Sadiq et  al.  (2005) propose an implementation of option 3 for late modelling.
Figure 4 illustrates the proposed approach. This example defines a set of activities
and constraints that are needed to define the placeholder (i.e., task B) of the process
model. At runtime, the placeholder/pocket of flexibility is defined for a given pro-
cess instance based on tacit knowledge.

Fig. 4  Using placeholders for managing business process variants (Adapted from Weber et  al.
2009)
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 121

Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: fulfilled. In essence, the use of a reference
model guarantees that duplicate process elements are merged, ensuring a high
compression rate.
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: fulfilled. Maintainability, has been tackled from
a technical perspective. Indeed, the literature proposes various algorithms for
checking the satisfiability of the constraints (Lu et al. 2009b; Pesic et al. 2010)
used with the predefined set of activities.
–– Requirement 3: User Support: partially fulfilled. Even though it has been noticed
that there is a need to help users create sound and correct models (van der Aalst
et  al. 2009), we could not find any contribution that creates and updates such
reference process models. However, during the customisation phase, users can
be assisted either with a set of activities and/or constraints as it has been high-
lighted by Sadiq et al. (2001).
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: not discussed.

Hierarchical Reference Process Models

Description  In most cases, business process models tend to be very large and are
difficult to manage by end-users. Reducing the complexity of large models can be
achieved by representing them at different levels of detail. The general idea is to
reduce the complexity of business processes and reveal to the end-user a partial
model by applying abstraction techniques. This fosters the reuse of similar process
fragments as well as reducing inconsistency. In this context, some researchers tried
to manage reference process models at various levels of abstraction while explicitly
capturing variation points. The object of this section is to review the proposed
approaches that study such models, i.e., hierarchical reference process models.
Razavian and Khosravi (2008), propose a variability modelling method which is
specifically designed for the component and connector view of UML 2. The authors
introduce multiple mechanisms for modelling variation points depending on the
variable element (component, connector or interface). Variation points are presented
at various levels of abstraction by having optional or alternative architectural ele-
ments. An example is shown in Fig. 5 where the top level component “UI Manager”
can be further refined to one of the two associated variants: “JavaScript UI Manager”
and “HTML UI Manager”. Each element is annotated by specific stereotypes: the
variation point is marked by << alt vp >> and its lower level sub processes express
all details related to higher level activities and variabilities residing in them and they
are annotated by << variant >>.
Baran et al. (2013) investigated the use of hierarchical reference business process
models using BPMN. Such models are created in a two-step operation. First, the
proposed algorithm transforms the input BPMN models into two-level hierarchy.
122 W. Derguech et al.

Fig. 5  “UI Manager” <<component>>

variation point using <<alt_vp>>
hierarchical representation UI Mgr
(Razavian and Khosravi
2008)

<<component>> <<component>>
<<variant>> <<variant>>
JavaScript UI Mgr HTML UI Mgr

Customer
Registration*

Office Office Membership Online

Registration Registration Upgrade Registration

Fig. 6  A hierarchical indexing structure for modelling one variation point of a process for register-
ing a customer to an insurance contract (Derguech and Bhiri 2010)

The authors use a very simple abstraction technique that takes as input a BPMN
model and the set of interlinked high-level and low-level tasks and delivers the cor-
responding hierarchical model. Second, the BPMN models are merged into a single
one that requires additional transformations to become well formed.
In previous works, we explored the use of hierarchical reference process models
(Derguech and Bhiri 2010; Derguech et al. 2010) by proposing the use of an index-
ing structure for representing process models at different levels of abstractions as
depicted in Fig.  6 We  used the concept of abstract tasks for capturing variation
points, it is marked with a “*” at the end of the task label (see “Customer
Registration*” on Fig. 6). An abstract task can be refined/concreted by selecting one
of its concrete alternatives which are associated to it via dotted lines. In addition to
this customised notation, we  proposed an algorithm for updating the reference
model by inserting a new node (either a task or sub-process). The work looked
promising, however, it has not been implemented or further investigated.
Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:
–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: fulfilled. In essence, the use of a reference
model in general, and hierarchical model in particular, guarantees that duplicate
process elements are merged, ensuring a high compression rate.
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 123

Fig. 7  Configurable business process model (Adapted from La Rosa 2009)

–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: partially fulfilled. Algorithms and proposal of

maintainability solutions are discussed but have not been implemented and fur-
ther investigated.
–– Requirement 3: User Support: partially fulfilled. We assume this requirement is
partially fulfilled as an automation support to reduce manual efforts to create
those models has been proposed but needs further investigation.
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: not discussed.

Configurable Business Process Models

Description  A configurable business process model (Rosemann and van der Aalst
2007) is the result of merging process variants into a single model. This model can
be tailored to the analysts’ needs by enabling or disabling different branches of the
configurable model. Figure 7 depicts, in the left-hand side, two variants of the same
business process. These two variants reflect two common tasks (i.e., Task A and B),
however after this, each variant ends with a different task (i.e., C or D). This differ-
ence introduces the choice between the task C or D that represents a variability
depending on various indicators, e.g., cost, quality of service, user preference, etc.
The right-hand side of the Fig. 7 shows the configurable process model which is
a merger between the two process variants. The variation point is represented by a
configurable gateway: an inclusive split gateway marked with a thick red border.
Unlike a “normal” BPMN gateway, it does not represent a choice or a parallel split,
instead, it represents a design choice that needs to be made by an analyst to adapt
the configurable process model to a particular requirement. In this example, the
124 W. Derguech et al.

configurable gateway captures the fact that one needs to choose whether to select
one path (i.e., task C) or the other (i.e., task D), or possibly both.
In this case, the modelling phase consists of enabling or disabling different
branches of the configurable process model. This allows customization of the con-
figurable process model by choosing the right variant. However, the main weakness
of this solution is that it does not allow the business users to understand the relation-
ship each variant has with the business domain. There are two important challenges
for adopting these models: (1) automation support for creating a configurable model
and (2) assisting end-users during the configuration. Multiple contributions provid-
ing algorithms for automatically creating configurable process models either by
merging a set of input variants or mining process logs have been investigated (Assy
et al. 2015; Derguech and Bhiri 2011; La Rosa et al. 2013).
La Rosa recognises the need to make the configuration phase user-friendly and
proposes a questionnaire-driven configuration (La Rosa 2009; La Rosa et al. 2009).
The proposed approach is sketched in Fig. 8. A process modeller has to define the
configurable process model and meet with the domain expert in order to define
domain constraints (i.e., business capabilities) and their mapping to the model. The
configuration is then performed via an interactive questionnaire. The domain
expert’s answers are then mapped to the configurable model in order to “individual-
ize” it in a process model.
Analysis  With respect to the identified requirements, the key points of analysis are
as follows:

Fig. 8  Questionnaire-driven approach for configurable business process modelling (La Rosa
2009)
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 125

–– Requirement 1: Compression Rate: fulfilled. In essence, the use of a reference

model in general, and configurable process model in particular, guarantees that
duplicate process elements are merged, ensuring a high compression rate.
–– Requirement 2: Maintainability: fulfilled. Automatically creating configurable
models has been the subject of extensive research.
–– Requirement 3: User Support: fulfilled. User friendly configurations have been
considered for these models.
–– Requirement 4: Traceability: fulfilled. Several contributions for automatically
creating a configurable business process model from a set of process variants
keeping track on the origin of process elements are proposed in the literature
(Assy et al. 2015; Derguech and Bhiri 2011; La Rosa et al. 2013).

 eference Business Process Modelling: Summary

R
and Discussion

This section analysed reuse in the context of reference process modelling. The
results of the analysis are summarised in Table 2 that clearly shows the use of such
models fulfills already the first requirement of compression rate.
For maintainability, the approaches considered in this analysis exhibit a hetero-
geneous set of methods for maintainability and more specifically in automatically
creating such process models (Derguech and Bhiri 2011; Gerth et al. 2009, 2010;
Gerth and Luckey 2012; Kuster et al. 2008a; b; La Rosa et al. 2013).
For user support, customizing a reference model is difficult and has been
extensively discussed in the literature. Even though La Rosa (2009) proposes a
prevalent solution to this problem, it still suffer for a major shortcoming: the
need for an extensive manual matching between the model and the domain
constrains.
Traceability has been covered by covered by La Rosa et al. (2013) and Derguech
and Bhiri (2011) as it was considered as part of their requirements when merging
business process variants for creating configurable process models.
From our analysis, we found that configurable business process models are the
most mature contributions with respect to the considered requirements. The use of
configurable models in public administration is assessed in section “Configurable
Models for Municipalities”.

Configurable Models for Municipalities

In this section, we implemented an existing business process models merging algo-

rithm (Derguech and Bhiri 2011) for creating configurable business process mod-
els. The algorithm has been implemented as an extension of EPCTools (Nicolas
126 W. Derguech et al.

Table 2  Comparative analysis of approaches reference process models

Compression
Approach rate Maintainability User support Traceability
Placeholders Fulfilled Checking the Users require Not discussed
refinement: late satisfiability of modelling
modelling the constraints expertise to model
(Sadiq et al. (Lu et al. 2009b; placeholders; they
2001, 2005) Pesic et al. 2010) can be assisted to
create sound and
correct models
Hierarchical Fulfilled Maintaining an Abstract nodes in Not discussed
reference indexing structure the models reduce
process models for such models their complexity.
(Baran et al. has been The configuration
2013; Derguech investigated phase is complex
and Bhiri 2010; (Derguech and (Razavian and
Derguech et al. Bhiri 2010; Khosravi 2008)
2010; Razavian Derguech et al.
and Khosravi 2010) but
2008) requires further
research
Configurable Fulfilled Solutions for Questionnaire-­ Fulfilled:
business process automatically driven Annotations of
models creating configuration process elements
(Rosemann and configurable phase is proposed with their origins
van der Aalst process models but requires
2007) have been intensive manual
proposed (Assy work beforehand
et al. 2015; (La Rosa 2009; La
Derguech and Rosa et al. 2009).
Bhiri 2011; La
Rosa et al. 2013).

and Ekkart 2006) for covering Requirement 2: Maintainability, section “Tool

Support” reports on this extension. This tool has been used, in section “Compression
Rate and Time Evaluation”, to carry out further evaluations for measuring the com-
pression rate gained by using this tool for merging a set of business process models
and assess the required execution time in order to report on Requirement 1:
Compression Rate. The tool uses annotations of process elements with the identi-
fier of the original model in order to fulfill Requirement 4: Traceability. Requirement
3: User Support is partially fulfilled in this work, as we simply provide the user
with the required tools to create the model but do not assess the user support in the
configuration part, this remains as part of our future work.

Tool Support

The designed business process merging algorithm (Derguech and Bhiri 2011) has been
implemented as an extension of EPCTools (Nicolas and Ekkart 2006). EPCTools is an
open source initiative toward a tool for Event Driven Process Chains (EPCs) that
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 127

Fig. 9  Extended version of EPCTools that supports the creation of capability-annotated configu-
rable business process models

supports the tool independent EPC interchange format EPML (Mendling and Nuttgens
2006) implemented as an Eclipse Plug-in. As shown in Fig. 9, after opening one of the
two process models, the user has to click on the “Merging models” button (see 1 in
Fig. 9), then a new dialog window is open, the user selects the second process model
and clicks on ok, in this step the new configurable process is created. The user can
optionally decide to apply a reduction step by selecting the “Reduce” button (see 2 in
Fig. 9) to further reduce the generated model by applying reduction rule defined in
Derguech and Bhiri (2011). The tool support is a proof of concept that has been imple-
mented to carry out compression rate and execution time evaluations. Further evalua-
tions regarding the user interface and how the user interacts with this tool is part of our
future work. The user experience evaluation might be influenced by the modelling
environment and is out of the scope of the contribution of this research.

Compression Rate and Time Evaluation

Methodology  The objective of the compression rate evaluation is to highlight

the benefit of merging business process variants into a single configurable busi-
ness process model by avoiding duplicate process elements in process repositories.
128 W. Derguech et al.

For organisations time is important and should not be spent on manual creation of
configurable models, this evaluation shows how quickly the merging algorithm
delivers configurable process models.
The evaluation of compression rate and execution time has been carried out as
follows:
1. A test collection of real-world municipal process models have been manually
created.
2. Each of the input models have been quantified in terms of the number of process
elements (i.e., events, functions and connectors).
3. Using the tool support, we have created configurable process models from the
input models.
4. Each resulting configurable process model has been quantified in terms of the
number of process elements.
5. Measure the compression rate by comparing the sizes of the input models and
the output configurable model.
6. Measure the execution time of the merging process.
Please note that the execution of the merging steps has not been interrupted with a
manual task. In this regard, all the model variants are merged at once (instead of
merging each pair one by one manually). Furthermore, the reduction step has been
carried out automatically after merging (no manual decision is needed regarding the
reduction step).
Test Collection  The process variants that we used in the experiment are those that
have been used in a case study (Gottschalk et  al. 2009) in which techniques for
managing configurable process models were extensively tested in a real-world sce-
nario. The process models used in this case study are four processes out of the five
most executed registration processes in the civil affairs department of Dutch munic-
ipalities (Gottschalk et al. 2009):
–– P1: Acknowledging an unborn child: This process is executed when a man wants
to register that he is the father of an unborn child in case he is not married to his
pregnant partner. Figure 10 shows an example of this process.
–– P2: Registering a newborn: This process describes the steps for registering a
newborn and get his birth certificate.
–– P3: Marriage: This process describes all the steps required before getting mar-
ried in a Dutch municipality.
–– P4: Decease: This process describes the steps required by relatives to burry the
deceased and get a death certificate.
The process variants considered in this evaluation are initially available in
Protos.2 Each process has five process variants. Consequently, a total of 5 × 4 = 20
process models were considered in this work (similar to the case study (Gottschalk
et  al. 2009)). We have manually translated these models into EPC and used the

 Protos is part of Pallas Athena’s BPM toolset BPM|one.

2
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 129

Arrival of a Request Identification Conform Authorisation Determine

Citizen Acknowledgement Required Identification Requried Authorisation

Check for Authorisation

Permission OK

Certificate Decide Choice of Permission

Ready to be Name OK
drawn Over
No No
Permission Authorisation

Draw Up ACK Certificate No

Hand Over Copy Acknowledgement
Certificate Ready

Document Archive Document

Copy hand End without
Archived Over ACK

Fig. 10  Example of a process for acknowledging an unborn child

extended version of EPCTools (see section “Tool Support”) for merging them in
order to create configurable process models for each process.
Observations  During the merging steps, two metrics were observed: process mod-
els sizes (before, and after the merging) and the execution time of the merging steps.
These metrics are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 shows the size of the input and output models (size in terms of number
of EPC nodes). The percentage value between parenthesis shows the compression
rate gained from the creation of the configurable process models. And the last
­column shows the execution time in milliseconds needed for merging the input pro-
cess models.
Discussion  The reduction approach can gain around 50% in terms of space for
storing several process variants. Besides the space gain, we can see that in a
few milliseconds a set of five process variants can be automatically merged
which would take much longer for a business analyst to perform the task
manually.
In general, compression rates are high because most of the process models
share various process elements. Indeed, all the used variants, are from various
Dutch municipalities that are initially defined from a high level reference
model (Gottschalk et al. 2009). Depending on the population and the available
resources of each municipality, few process tasks are either skipped or replaced
by other ones. This keeps most of the process functions sequentially aligned.
Consequently, the merged model observe a large number of common functions
and events.
130 W. Derguech et al.

Table 3  Results of merging registration processes of Dutch municipalities

Output size Output size
Process before after Exec.
number Input size (Number of nodes) reduction reduction time (ms)
P1 190 (29 + 56 + 52 + 29 + 24) 131 (31%) 71 (62%) 157
P2 347 (63 + 84 + 73 + 57 + 70) 276 (20%) 180 (48%) 235
P3 507 (76 + 127 + 127 + 114 + 63) 298 (41%) 214 (57%) 407
P4 355 (56 + 111 + 91 + 67 + 30) 266 (25%) 160 (54%) 282

Conclusion

As public administrations are constantly in need to create new and innovative public
services, they need to face challenges related to cost reductions, reorganizations and
political pressures. Reuse of their existing best practices is a key enabler for cost
effective customization of their processes. The literature exhibits a wide variety of
techniques that can be applied. However, in the absence of a guideline for choosing
what technique to apply, this task remains difficult.
This paper, helps overcoming this issue by providing an analysis of major reuse-­
oriented process modeling techniques with respect to their maintainability, user
support, compression rate gained when storing the models as well as traceability of
modeling decisions.
The analysis shows that the use of configurable process models is a promising
technique that covers all the requirements. The technique has been evaluated in this
paper for assessing its applicability. However, the user support requirement has not
been validated in this paper and is kept as part of our future work.

Acknowledgment  The research leading to these results has received funding from Science
Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289. It is supported in part by the
European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme from ICT grant agreement
WATERNOMICS no. 619660.

References

Assy N, Chan NN, Gaaloul W (2015) An automated approach for assisting the design of configu-
rable process models. IEEE T Services Computing 8(6):874–888
Awad A, Sakr S (2012) On efficient processing of bpmn-q queries. Comput Ind 63(9):867–881
Balan E, Milo T, Sterenzy T (2010) Bp-ex: a uniform query engine for business process execution
traces. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on extending database technology,
EDBT ‘10. ACM, New York, pp 713–716
Baran M, Kluza K, Nalepa GJ, Ligeza A (2013) A hierarchical approach for configuring business
processes. In: Ganzha M, Maciaszek LA, Paprzycki M (eds) FedCSIS. pp 915–921
Beeri C, Eyal A, Kamenkovich S, Milo T (2006) Querying business processes. In: Dayal U, Whang
KY, Lomet DB, Alonso G, Lohman GM, Kersten ML, Cha SK, Kim YK (eds) VLDB. ACM,
New York, pp 343–354
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 131

Beeri C, Eyal A, Kamenkovich S, Milo T (2008a) Querying business processes with bp-ql. Inf
Syst 33(6):477–507
Beeri C, Eyal A, Milo T, Pilberg A (2008b) Bp-mon: query-based monitoring of bpel business
processes. SIGMOD Record 37(1):21–24
Bichler M, Hess T, Krcmar H, Lechner U, Matthes F, Picot A, Speitkamp B, Wolf P (eds) (2008)
Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, MKWI 2008, Mu¨nchen, 26.2.2008–28.2.2008,
Proceedings. GITO-Verlag, Berlin
Chouikh A, Ojo A, Driss OB (2016) Exploring the affordances of social media platforms in support-
ing emerging public service paradigms. In: Bertot JC, Estevez E, Mellouli S (eds) Proceedings
of the 9th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, ICEGOV
2016, Montevideo, 1–3 Mar 2016. ACM, pp 177–186
Curry E, Dustdar S, Sheng QZ, Sheth AP (2016) Smart cities  – enabling services and appli-
cations. J.  Internet Services and Applications 7(1):6:1–6:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/
s13174-016-0048-6
Decker G, Overdick H, Weske M (2008) Oryx – an open modeling platform for the bpm com-
munity. In: Dumas M, Reichert M, Shan MC (eds) Business process management, 6th interna-
tional conference, BPM 2008, Milan, 2–4 Sept 2008. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 5240. Springer, pp 382–385
Derguech W, Bhiri S (2010) Reuse-oriented business process modelling based on a hierarchical
structure. In: zur Muehlen, M, Su J (eds) Business process management workshops. Lecture
Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 66. Springer, pp 301–313
Derguech W, Bhiri S (2011) An automation support for creating configurable process models.
In: Bouguettaya A, Hauswirth M, Liu L (eds) Web information system engineering – WISE
2011 – 12th international conference, Sydney, 13–14 Oct 2011. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 6997. Springer, pp 199–212
Derguech W, Vulcu G, Bhiri S (2010) An indexing structure for maintaining configurable process
models. In: Bider I, Halpin TA, Krogstie J, Nurcan S, Proper E, Schmidt R, Ukor R (eds)
BMMDS/EMMSAD.  Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 50. Springer,
pp 157–168
Dumas M, Reichert M, Shan MC (eds) (2008) Business process management, 6th international
conference, BPM 2008, Milan, 2–4 Sept 2008. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 5240. Springer
Dumas M, Garcia-Banuelos L, Rosa ML, Uba R (2013) Fast detection of exact clones in business
process model repositories. Inf. Syst. 38(4):619–633
Gerth C, Luckey M (2012) Towards rich change management for business process models.
Softwaretechnik-Trends 32(4):32–34
Gerth C, Küster JM, Engels G (2009) Language-independent change management of process mod-
els. In: Schurr A, Selic B (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems, 12th inter-
national conference, MOD-ELS 2009, Denver, 4–9 Oct 2009. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 5795. Springer, pp 152–166
Gerth C, Luckey M, Küster JM, Engels G (2010) Detection of semantically equivalent fragments
for business process model change management. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on
services computing, SCC, Miami, 5–10 July 2010. IEEE Computer Society, pp 57–64
Gottschalk F, van der Aalst WMP, Jansen-Vullers MH (2008) Merging event-driven process
chains. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2008,
OTM 2008 confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, IS, and ODBASE
2008, Monterrey, 9–14 Nov 2008, Proceedings, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
5331. Springer, pp 418–426
Gottschalk F, Wagemakers TAC, Jansen-Vullers MH, van der Aalst WMP, Rosa ML (2009)
Configurable process models: experiences from a municipality case study. In: van Eck P,
Gordijn J, Wieringa R (eds) Advanced information systems engineering, 21st international con-
ference, CAiSE 2009, Amsterdam, 8–12 June 2009. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 5565. Springer, pp 486–500
132 W. Derguech et al.

Karow M, Pfeiffer D, Rackers M (2008) Empirical-based construction of reference models in

public administrations. In: Bichler M, Hess T, Krcmar H, Lechner U, Matthes F, Picot A,
Speitkamp B, Wolf P (eds) Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, MKWI 2008, Munchen,
26–28 Feb 2008, Proceedings. GITO-Verlag, Berlin
Kuster JM, Gerth C, Forster A, Engels G (2008a) Detecting and resolving process model differ-
ences in the absence of a change log. In: Dumas M, Reichert M, Shan MC (eds) Business pro-
cess management, 6th international conference, BPM 2008, Milan, 2–4 Sept 2008. Proceedings,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5240. Springer, pp 244–260
Kuster JM, Gerth C, Forster A, Engels G (2008b) A tool for process merging in business-driven
development. In: Bellahsene Z, Woo C, Hunt E, Franch X, Coletta R (eds) Proceedings of
the forum at the CAiSE’08 conference, Montpellier, 18–20 June 2008. CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, vol. 344, pp 89–92. CEUR-WS.org
La Rosa M (2009) Managing variability in process-aware information systems. Ph.D. thesis,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
La Rosa ML, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP, Dijkman RM, Mendling J, Dumas M, Garcia-
Banuelos L (2011) Apromore: An advanced process model repository. Expert Syst. Appl
38(6):7029–7040
La Rosa M, van der Aalst WMP, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM (2009) Questionnaire-based vari-
ability modeling for system configuration. Software and System Modeling 8(2):251–274
La Rosa M, Dumas M, Uba R, Dijkman R (2013) Business process model merging: an approach to
business process consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22(2):11
Lu R, Sadiq S (2006) Managing process variants as an information resource. In: Proceedings of
the 4th international conference on business process management. BPM’06, Springer, Berlin/
Heidelberg, pp 426–431
Lu R, Sadiq SW (2007) On the discovery of preferred work practice through business process vari-
ants. In: Parent C, Schewe KD, Storey VC, Thalheim B (eds) ER. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 4801. Springer, pp 165–180
Lu R, Sadiq SW, Governatori G (2009a) On managing business processes variants. Data Knowl
Eng 68(7):642–664
Lu R, Sadiq SW, Governatori G, Yang X (2009b) Defining adaptation constraints for business pro-
cess variants. In: Abramowicz W (ed) BIS. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing,
vol. 21. Springer, pp 145–156
Ma Z, Wetzstein B, Anicic D, Heymans S, Leymann F (2007) Semantic business process reposi-
tory. In: Hepp M, Hinkelmann K, Karagiannis D, Klein R, Stojanovic N (eds) SBPM. CEUR
Workshop Proceedings, vol. 251. CEUR-WS.org
Mancioppi M, Danylevych O, Karastoyanova D, Leymann F (2011): Towards classification crite-
ria for process fragmentation techniques. In: Daniel F, Barkaoui K, Dustdar S (eds) Business
process management workshops (1). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol.
99. Springer, pp 1–12
Markovic I, Pereira AC, Stojanovic N (2008) A framework for querying in business process
modelling. In: Bichler M, Hess T, Krcmar H, Lechner U, Matthes F, Picot A, Speitkamp B,
Wolf P (eds) Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, MKWI 2008, Munchen, 26–28 Feb 2008,
Proceedings. GITO-Verlag, Berlin
Mendling J, Nuttgens M (2006) EPC markup language (EPML): an xml-based interchange format
for event-driven process chains (EPC). Inf Syst E-Business Manage 4(3):245–263
Mendling J, Verbeek HMW, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP, Neumann G (2008) Detection
and prediction of errors in epcs of the sap reference model. Data Knowl Eng 64(1):312–329
Nicolas C, Ekkart K (2006) EPC tools. http://www2.cs.uni-paderborn.de/cs/kindler/research/
EPCTools/
Ojo AK, Curry E, Zeleti FA (2015) A tale of open data innovations in five smart cities. In: Bui TX
Jr, RHS (eds) 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS 2015, Kauai,
5–8 Jan 2015. IEEE Computer Society, pp 2326–2335
Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration 133

Pesic M, Bosnacki D, van der Aalst WMP (2010) Enacting declarative languages using ltl: avoid-
ing errors and improving performance. In: van de Pol J, Weber M (eds) SPIN. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 6349. Springer, pp 146–161
Razavian M, Khosravi R (2008) Modeling variability in business process models using uml. In:
ITNG. IEEE Computer Society, pp 82–87
Rosemann M, van der Aalst WMP (2007) A configurable reference modelling language. Inf Syst
32(1):1–23
Sadiq SW, Sadiq W, Orlowska ME (2001) Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification. In:
Kunii HS, Jajodia S, Sølvberg A (eds) ER.  Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2224.
Springer, pp 513–526
Sadiq SW, Orlowska ME, Sadiq W (2005) Specification and validation of process constraints for
flexible workflows. Inf Syst 30(5):349–378
Sakr S, Awad A (2010) A framework for querying graph-based business process models. In:
Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web. WWW ‘10, ACM,
New York, pp 1297–1300
Schumm D, Dentsas D, Hahn M, Karastoyanova D, Leymann F, Sonntag M (2012) Web ser-
vice composition reuse through shared process fragment libraries. In: Brambilla M, Tokuda T,
Tolksdorf R (eds) ICWE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7387. Springer, pp 498–501
Sirbu A, Marconi A, Pistore M, Eberle H, Leymann F, Unger T (2011) Dynamic composition of
pervasive process fragments. In: ICWS. IEEE Computer Society, pp 73–80
Uba R, Dumas M, Garcıa-Banuelos L, Rosa ML (2011) Clone detection in repositories of business
process models. In: Rinderle-Ma S, Toumani F, Wolf K (eds) BPM. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 6896. Springer, pp 248–264
van der Aalst WMP, Pesic M, Schonenberg H (2009) Declarative workflows: balancing between
flexibility and support. Computer Science – R&D 23(2):99–113
van der Aalst WMP, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Russell N, Verbeek HMWE, Wohed P Life
after bpel? In: Bravetti M, Kloul L, Zavattaro G (eds) EPEW/WS-FM, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol 3670. Springer, New York, 2005, pp 35–50
Vulcu G, Bhiri S, Derguech W, Ibanez MJ (2011) Semantically-enabled Business process models
discovery. Int J Bus Process Integr Manag 5:257–272
Walmsley P (2007) XQuery. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Weber B, Sadiq SW, Reichert M (2009) Beyond rigidity  – dynamic process lifecycle support.
Computer Science – R&D 23(2):47–65
Zillner S, Becker T, Munne R, Hussain K, Rusitschka S, Lippell H, Curry E, Ojo AK (2016) Big
data-driven innovation in industrial sectors. In: Cavanillas JM, Curry E, Wahlster W (eds) New
horizons for a data-driven economy  – a roadmap for usage and exploitation of big data in
Europe, pp 169–178. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21569-3

Dr. Wassim Derguech  (www.wassimderguech.org) is a postdoctoral researcher at the Insight

Centre for Data Analytics at the National University of Ireland, Galway. In his research, Wassim
investigated the use of semantic web and related technologies for managing services and business
processes applied to the e-government domain, customs clearance procedures and Internet of
Things. He also tackled the problem of decision support and data analytics in the area of energy
intelligence and smart water management. He is actively involved as a program committee mem-
ber and reviewer of international journals, conferences and workshops

Dr. Edward Curry  (www.edwardcurry.org) is Vice President of the Big Data Value Association
(www.BDVA.eu) a non-profit industry-led organisation with the objective of increasing the competi-
tiveness of European Companies with data-­driven innovation. He is a research leader at the Insight
Centre for Data Analytics (www.insight-centre.org) and a funded investigator at LERO The Irish
Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie). Edward has worked extensively with industry and govern-
ment advising on the adoption patterns, practicalities, and benefits of new technologies. Edward has
published over 120 scientific articles in journals, books, and international conferences
134 W. Derguech et al.

Dr. Sami Bhiri  is an associate professor in computer science at the ISIMM: Institut Suprieur
d’Informatique et Mathmatiques Monastir, at the University of Monastir, Tunisia. His research
interests include service computing and business process management. Before joining ISIMM, he
served as an associate professor at Telecom SudParis. Prior to that, he was the leader of the SOA
unit at DERI, and adjunct lecturer at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Before joining
DERI, he was a research and teaching assistant in the University of Nancy 1 and in the ECOO team
of the LORIA-INRIA research laboratory from where he holds an M.S. (2001) and a Ph.D. (2005)
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven
Organizations

Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti and Adegboyega Ojo

Abstract  Open data (OD) is increasingly considered as a core resource for many
organizations in the emerging data economy. Open data-driven organizations
(ODDOs) like any other organizations must develop capabilities for generating
value from OD, agility, and competitiveness to survive. This chapter investigates the
salient factors for generating value from OD and agility in a dynamic data ecosys-
tem by developing an operationalization of the Resource-based View Theory (RBV)
and Dynamic Capability Theory (DCT) for ODDOs. As a first step towards deter-
mining the critical factors for developing value capabilities (VCs) and dynamic
capabilities (DCs) in these organizations, we analyzed the information gathered
from expert interviews on the saliency of the different aspects and stages of VCs and
DCs in developing VCs for a down-stream organization and the agility of an up-­
stream organization or OD supplier in the data ecosystem. Both frameworks were
enhanced based on the feedbacks received from interviewees and as a result new
open data value capabilities are discovered. Our findings further suggest that critical
factors for DCs differ for organizations in the upstream and downstream sectors,
albeit some core elements are shared across sectors in data ecosystem.

Introduction

The increasing number of ODDOs and their centrality in the new data economy; calls
for scholarly works on the competitiveness and survivability of these entities. Studies
attempting to understand the required capabilities for value generation, agility and
competitiveness like (Zeleti and Ojo 2014) are emerging. Specifically Zuiderwijk

F.A. Zeleti (*)

Insight Centre for Data Analytics @NUI Galway, Insight Centre,
IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: Fatemeh.Ahmadizeleti@insight-centre.org
A. Ojo
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway,
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: Adegboyega.Ojo@insight-centre.org

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 135

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_6
136 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

et al. (2015) examined conditions for using OD for competitiveness in companies,

while Zeleti and Ojo (2014) elaborated on the different kinds of capabilities required
for producing and capturing value in ODDOs and businesses. In these studies,
Resource Dependency Theory and Capability Constructs were used as analytical
frameworks. However, research on the how ODDOs develop the necessary capabili-
ties for generating value and addressing agility to cope with the rapidly changing
stakeholder’s need, data ecosystem, and data marketplace are yet to be carried out.
In the area of firm competitiveness, the Resource-based View (RBV) and Dynamic
Capability Theory (DCT) have been the two influential theoretical framework for
understanding how value is generated, how agility within an organization is achieved,
and how competitive advantage might be sustained over time (Eisenhardt and Martin
2000; Mata et al. 2013; den Hertog et al. 2010; Vivas López 2005; Ambastha and
Momaya 2004; Augier and Teece 2007). Theories assume organizations as collec-
tions of specific physical, human and organizational resources (Wernerfelt 1984;
Oliveira et al. 2002) which are “Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Non-substitutable”
(VRIN) (Daniel and Wilson 2003) that can be used to implement value-creating
strategies (Griffith and Harvey 2013; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000). However, RBV
has been criticized for conceptual vagueness and for its adequacy in a context char-
acterised by unpredictable change (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Oliveira et al. 2002),
termed high-velocity or dynamic markets (Daniel and Wilson 2003).
To creating and capturing value for open data stakeholders, ODDOs are required
to employ emerging set of capabilities to catalyze positive change in the organiza-
tion (van den Broek et al. 2012). This has led to the concept of ‘value capabilities’
(VCs). In addition, in high-velocity markets, where the competitive landscape is
shifting, organizations must continually reconfigure, gain and dispose internal and
external competencies and resources to meet the demands of a shifting market
(Eisenhardt and Martin 2000) and maintain the source of sustained competitive
advantage (Daniel and Wilson 2003). This has led to the concept of dynamic capa-
bilities (DC) (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Helfat and Peteraf 2003). DCs develop
systemic coherence while recognizing the unique features of each market’s environ-
ment to facilitate customization of individual market strategies and adapt, integrate
and reconfigure internal and external resources to match opportunities in the global
marketplace (Griffith and Harvey 2013).
This chapter attempts to provide a better understanding of the important factors
for developing open data value capabilities (ODVCs) and open data dynamic capa-
bilities (ODDCs) in this category of organizations and firms by operationalizing
RBV and DCT for ODDOs. This chapter attempts to the emerging literature on
capabilities and specifically VCs and DCs in ODDOs some guide for both research-
ers and practitioners on what factors matter most in generating value from open data
and enabling agility in these class of organizations or firms.
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 137

Theoretical Background

Research Concept: Types of Business Capabilities

Many organizations today wonder what exactly organizational capability means and
why it is so important (Brits et al. 2007). While there are different definitions and con-
ceptualizations for the concept of organization capability in research literature, exten-
sive experience from practice clearly indicate that the concept represents “organization
capacity to successfully perform a unique organization activity period of overtime”.
Along this perspective, Brits (2006) defines capability as a “special type of a
resource whose function improves the productivity of other resources”. This implies
that resources can represent a cluster of elements that constitute a capability. In
addition, Townsend and Cairns (2003) argue that there is a considerable difference
between competency and capability. Competency, as it is more regularly defined
and theorized, is basically a term that covers observable current skills based on cur-
rent knowledge while capability is beyond competency. Capability is a more “holis-
tic, broad-based concept that includes the additional elements of values and
self-efficacy as core components and it describes how an individual or organization
applies their ability in a confident manner to problems in new and unfamiliar cir-
cumstances as well as in familiar situations” (Townsend and Cairns 2003). Townsend
and Cairns (2003) identified three fundamental organization capability attributes:
(1) ability (the current organization competence), (2) self-efficacy (belief in one’s
‘capability’ to perform satisfactorily) and (3) shared appropriate values (sharing
values across organization such as trust and valuing diversity).
In the study completed by Zeleti and Ojo (2014) and Bhatt and Grover (2005),
three types of organization capabilities are introduced based on the well-known
edicts of Resource-Based View and Dynamic Resource-Based Theory (Helfat and
Peteraf 2003). The Resource-Based View naturally evolved into studying how
intangible resources, such as intellectual assets, could be leveraged in order to
accelerate organizational learning and competitive advantage (Oliveira et al. 2002;
Bharadwaj 2000). Dynamic Resource-Based Theory simply facilitates the evolution
of these capabilities over time (Helfat and Peteraf 2003). The three capability types
include (1) Value capabilities, (2) Competitive capabilities and (3) Dynamic capa-
bilities (Bhatt and Grover 2005).
Value Capability  this includes capabilities that are characterized by value, heterogene-
ity, and imperfect mobility. Value capabilities are necessary to produce value which was
promised by the organization. Value capabilities include all capabilities which assist an
organization to deliver the organization value to the customers. Value capabilities are not
source of competitive advantage as they only produce the promised necessary customer
value. For example, IT infrastructure falls into this type of capability. IT infrastructure
has been described as an important organization capability that can be an effective
source of value (Bhatt and Grover 2005; Bharadwaj 2000; Zeleti and Ojo 2014).
Dynamic Capabilities  this includes capabilities involved in dynamic nature of com-
petitive environment. The concept of dynamic capability reflects the ability of the orga-
138 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

nization to renew capabilities (integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external
competences (Helfat and Peteraf 2003)) to address rapidly changing environments.
Dynamic capabilities capture the ability to search, explore, acquire, assimilate, and
apply knowledge about resources, opportunities, and how resources can be configured
to exploit opportunities (Bhatt and Grover 2005). Dynamic capability can also facilitate
branching of other capabilities as it is changing the organization capabilities. According
to Brits (2006), differential performance of organisations over time is because of their
capacity in the (1) accumulation, (2) deployment, (3) renewal, (4) reconfiguration of
resources in response to changes in the internal and external environment, (5) Attempts
to explain the process of how capabilities are created, (6) Emphasises the strategic
value of higher order resources because of its dynamic nature, and (7) Renewal of core
competencies and competitive advantage. For example, Research and Development
capability falls into this type of capability (Helfat and Peteraf 2003).
Competitive Capability  this includes capabilities that foster the organization competi-
tive advantage and allow organizations stay competitive. These capabilities also impact
the future competitive capabilities because of the dynamic and long-term effect (Bhatt
and Grover 2005; Oliveira et al. 2002). For example, IT strategic choices fall into this
type of capability. IT strategic choices are source of competitive advantage because
they develop through years of experience by learning by doing (Oliveira et al. 2002).
IT experience allows the organization the ability to integrate IT strategy and organiza-
tion strategy, develop reliable and cost-effective systems for the organization and antic-
ipate organization needs sooner than the competitors (Bhatt and Grover 2005).
There are other types of capabilities such as competitive capabilities and dynamic
capabilities. In dividing capabilities, it is very important to distinguish the differ-
ence between capabilities that produce value and capabilities that are source of
competitive advantage and capabilities that are dynamic. Value capabilities are
effective and primary source of value while competitive and dynamic capabilities
are secondary which means value capability is prerequisite and is necessary for the
others to occur (Bhatt and Grover 2005; Zeleti and Ojo 2014).
Summary of the capability types and capabilities associated with each type is
illustrated in Table 1. Dynamic capability and competitive capability are briefly dis-
cussed in this section. The six types of value capabilities are described in section
“Value Capabilities: Theory Background”.

Table 1  General business capabilities

Innovative/Dynamic
Value capability capability Competitive capability
Individual/competences Process innovation IT (Strategic choices)
Business process Knowledge mgt. Manufacturing strategy
Organization Manufacturing Business operational
IT infrastructure performance (Localization/Internationalization)
Management/governance Supply chain integration
Technological
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 139

Value Capability

Individual/Competences  Jaques and Stamp (1995) define it as the extent and com-
plexity of the context within which an individual can operate. For example, specific
employee skills required performing a specific task.
Business Process  is a collection of related, structured activities or tasks that produce
a specific service or product for a particular customer or customers. For example,
Standardization and harmonization process, validation and visualization process
(Steiner et al. 1997; Symphony Technologies Pvt Ltd n.d.).
Organization refers to the way systems and people in the organization work
together to get things done. For example collaboration mechanisms, organization-­
specific competencies (marketing, finance, etc.), employees motivation, efforts
towards organizational goal, adaptability, and flexibility, creativity and innovation
(Ambrosini and Bowman 2009).
IT Infrastructure  IT infrastructure can provide an organization the ability to share
information across the organization (Bhatt and Grover 2005). Another word, IT
infrastructure is the technological foundation of equipment, computer, communica-
tions, data and basic systems used in common across an organization. It includes
software (ERP), internal and external network resources (servers and switches) and
services (software setup, help desk and computer administration) (Bhatt and Grover
2005; Bharadwaj 2000; Mithas et al. 2009; Gheysari et al. 2012; Xia and King 2002).
Technological Infrastructure  technology is knowledge embedded in products and
processes on doing practical things, especially producing things or data. It includes
any sensor-based devices, sensing/sensor phones and smart grids (Gheysari et al.
2012; Arnold and Thuriaux 1997; Brazilian National Council for Scientific and
Technological Development (BNCSTD) 2011).
Management/Governance  is about controlling things (people and resources) and
action of governing the organization. Different management skills or actions might
be required for different stages of the value chain. For example, staffing, training
programs, compensation, a quick response accepting additional data for advanced
features, technical management expertise and managing risks (Ambrosini and
Bowman 2009).

Dynamic Capability

Process Innovation  is required to improve the processes for the production of new
product or output (Verworn and Herstatt 2002).
Knowledge Management  encompasses identifying and mapping intellectual assets
within the organization, generating new knowledge for competitive advantage,
making vast amounts of corporate information accessible, sharing of best practices,
and technology (Tanriverdi 2005; Easterby-Smith and Prieto 2008).
140 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Manufacturing Performance  are characterized by the set of practices in use for the
manufacturing system (Hallgren 2007).
Supply Chain Integration  enables firms to share information with their chain to
create supply partners information-based approaches for superior demand planning,
for the staging and movement of physical products, and for streamlining volumi-
nous and complex financial work processes (Rai et al. 2006).

Competitive Capability

IT (Strategic Choices)  are the main forces for competitive advantage. IT strategies
increase competitive pressure in the marketplace (Xia and King 2002).
Manufacturing Strategy  are set of strategies organizations define for improvement
of manufacturing processes and performance (Hallgren 2007).
Business Operational  capability of the whole system (organization) to operate
locally/globally (Cepeda and Vera 2007).
In addition, all the aforementioned capability types and their associated
capabilities have lifecycle which indicates the potential for development of a
capability over time. According to Helfat and Peteraf (2003), capability life-
cycle has three stages which are (1) Founding (capability is identified and
starts functioning), (2) Development (capability is developed gradually over
time) and (3) Maturity (capability meets its highest level of functionality and
impact) (Helfat and Peteraf 2003). Not all capabilities may reach the maturity
stage due to poor development.
Moreover, all aforesaid aspects of capabilities are found in both the Resource-­Based
View and Dynamic Resource-Based View. That is why both are seen as essential
towards identifying, managing and in the end modelling organization capabilities.
In classifying capabilities, it is important to distinguish between those that have
value and those that can be a source of competitive advantage (Fig. 1). Value capa-
bility is necessary for the competitive advantage to occur but value capability alone
does not lead to competitiveness of an organization. Bhatt and Grover (2005) argue
that competitive capabilities are not only valuable but heterogeneously distributed
and difficult to transfer. Further, Bhatt and Grover (2005) argue that competitive
capability is a major source of competitive advantage of an organization. On the

Fig. 1  Organizational capability model and competitiveness of a firm

Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 141

same page, Mata et al. (2013) claim that an organization is said to have a competi-
tive advantage when it is deploying its DCs sufficiently. For example, an organiza-
tion has competitive advantage if it is formulating and implementing a strategy,
which is not simultaneously implemented by many other organizations and where
these other organizations face significant disadvantages in acquiring the resources
necessary to implement this strategy.
Although value and competitive capabilities are important, we also need to recog-
nize the dynamic nature of both. Organizations that are involved in such (dynamic)
activities have greater absorptive capacity and can build and renew value and com-
petitive capabilities, which could be a source of competitive advantage. For example,
knowledge management which is a dynamic concept involves accumulation, sharing,
and application of knowledge which could be heterogeneous across organizations,
and thereby also a source of competitive advantage (Bhatt and Grover 2005).

Value Capabilities: Theory Background

Value Chain

For a better understanding of the activities through which an organization creates and
develops value for shareholders, it is useful to separate the organization system into a
series of value-generating activities known as the value chain (Brits et al. 2007). Value
chain consists of stages of the process of creating value for stakeholders (Rayport and
Sviokla 1995). Value chain as described in Rayport and Sviokla (1995) is a model to
describe a series of value-adding activities and processes known as value production
connecting an organization’s supply side to its demand side. Moreover, value chain
offers organizations a means by which they can evaluate both existing and new strate-
gic opportunities to create customer value (Walters and Rainbird 2007).
Organizations should oversee a physical value chain but, they must also build
and exploit a virtual value chain. This is possible in three stages (1) Visibility (orga-
nization can see physical operations more effectively through information), (2)
Mirroring capabilities (organization substitute virtual activities for physical activi-
ties and they start building capabilities) and (3) Customer relationship (organiza-
tions can deliver value to customers in new ways based on the flow of information
in the virtual value chain). The three processes (Fig. 2) show that physical value
chain is linear and deliberates on physical activities while virtual value chain is
nonlinear and deliberates on information space or the flow of information in an
organization (Rayport and Sviokla 1995).

Mirroring Customer
Visibility
Capabilities Relationship

Fig. 2  Value chain adaptation process

142 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Given the sufficiency in research in the area of the value chain, three well-known
value chain frameworks are illustrated. Porter’s Value Chain which lies on the concept
of physical value chain of the organization (Bhatt and Emdad 2001; Porter 1985);
Rayport and Sviokla’s Value Chain which lies on the concept of virtual value chain of
the organization (Rayport and Sviokla 1995) and the Open Government Data Value
Chain which lies on the concept of Public Sector Information (Ubaldi 2013).
Below we present the physical and virtual value chain, the value chain that inte-
grates both physical and virtual, and the Open Government Data Value Chain. As
we employ the context of Open Government Data Value chain in this research – due
to the nature of our research – Open Government Data Value chain is extensively
explained in section “Synthesis of an Open Data Dynamic Capability Framework”.
Porter’s Conceptualization of Value Chain  Porter’s value chain lies in the con-
cept of the physical value chain of the firm (University of Cambridge 2016) which
means that value chain is targeted toward manufacturing firms in which value of the
organization activities are mostly concerned with the physical flow of material
(Bhatt and Emdad 2005). Porter’s value chain consists of two sets of activities: pri-
mary and secondary activities.
Primary Activities  this includes Inbound Logistics or Input (receiving, storing, and
disseminating inputs to the product), Process or Operation (transforming inputs into
the final product), Outbound Logistics or Output (collecting, storing, and physically
distributing the product to buyers), Marketing and Sales or Share (providing a
means by which buyers can purchase the product and inducing them to do so),
Service or Maintain (providing service to enhance or maintain the value of the prod-
uct) (Finne 1997).
Secondary/Support Activities  this includes Procurement (the function of purchas-
ing inputs used in the organization value chain), Human Resources Management
(the recruiting, hiring, training, development, and compensation of all types of
personnel), Technology Development (know-how, procedures, or technology
­
embodied in process equipment) and Infrastructure (general management, planning,
finance, accounting, legal, government affairs, and quality management which sup-
port the entire chain and not individual activities) (Porter 1985; University of
Cambridge 2016; Julien 2012; W3C Brazil 2012).
Figure 3 shows Porter’s value chain.
Rayport and Sviokla’s Conceptualization of Value Chain  Rayport and Sviokla
value chain lie on the concept of the virtual value chain of the firm which means
‘information’ play the key role in the chain. The virtual value chain is all about
utilizing information to enhance the value chain. Therefore, in the virtual value
chain, strategic decisions, and activities are built around information (Rayport and
Sviokla 1995; Bhatt and Emdad 2005).
According to Rayport and Sviokla (1995), a virtual value chain consists of five
stages; Gathering, Organizing, Selecting, Synthesizing, and Distributing. Figure 4
shows Rayport and Sviokla’s value chain.
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 143

Primary Activities
Inbound Operations Outbound Marketing
Logistics Logistics & Sales Service

Support Activities
Firm Infrastructure
Human resources management
Technology development
Procurement

Fig. 3  Porter’s value chain (Pant and Hsu 1996)

Fig. 4  Rayport and Sviokla virtual value chain (Rayport and Sviokla 1995)

Integration of Physical and Virtual Value Chains  Integration of Porter’s and

Rayport and Sviokla’s value chains can also happen in an organization when the
organization aims to adopt both virtual and physical activities for offering custom-
ized products and services. Virtual value chain makes a large part of the transactions
transparent by providing the organization with customer, suppliers and manufacturers
information while physical value chain allows the organization to fulfill customer
orders and assembling final product and services (Bhatt and Emdad 2005).
In the physical value chain, information performs a support function but, in vir-
tual value chain information plays a critical and strategic role.
Open Government Data Value Chain  The understanding of value chain is essen-
tial to grasp the vital elements of various activities related to open data (Ubaldi
2013). Value is not only money when speaking of value in open data context, the
value can also be economic, social, transparency, democratic, etc. (Guidoin n.d.).
By utilizing value chain, organizations can identify internal and external activities
or processes to create value and improve efficiency and effectiveness (Rayport and
Sviokla 1995; de Vries 2012). So, it is essential for an organization to establish
value chain that suits the purpose of the organization (Rayport and Sviokla 1995).
Similarly, to create value from (government) open data, public sectors are
required to utilize Open Government Data Value Chain in respect to European
Commission Public Sector Information Directive. The value chain identified four
main phases: Data Generation; Data Collection; Aggregation and Processing; Data
Distribution and Delivery and Final Data Use (Ubaldi 2013).
144 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Phase 1: Data Generation  according to OECD working paper (Ubaldi 2013), data
generation phase covers all capabilities required for generating data. This phase
requires capabilities related to ‘generating data’, for example, technologies to col-
lect substantial amount of data.
Phase 2: Data Collection, Aggregation and Processing  Raw data may not have
enough quality and meaning to be used, therefore; as it was reported in OECD
working paper (Ubaldi 2013); data need to be aggregated, linked, and or manipu-
lated in order to add value before being open and freely distributed. This phase
requires capabilities related to ‘data processing’ and ‘data storage and computing
facilities’, for example, data cleansing, mash-up, analysis, invalid or duplicate data
deletion, standardization. Moreover, data storage and computing facilities are
necessary to be pooled together for efficiency of data processing and aggregating,
for example, computing facilities.
Phase 3: Data Distribution and Delivery  according to OECD working paper
(Ubaldi 2013), data processed need to be distributed to enable access and re-use.
Public sector entities and other organizations are obliged to define precise publish-
ing solutions, providing access to data and APIs and ultimately releasing data. This
phase requires capabilities related to ‘publishing solution’, ‘providing access to data
and APIs’ and ‘data release’, for example, publishing as linked data, data exposure
via APIs and proactively releasing data.
Phase 4: Final Data use  data previously distributed need to be re-used by different
users to sustain public value creation (Ubaldi 2013). This phase requires capabilities
related to ‘data retrieval’ and ‘data usage’, for example, guidelines on how to use
data and supporting intermediaries.
The next section underlines what each aforementioned capability areas mean and
briefly describes capabilities associated with them.

Value Capability Frameworks

Organization is seen as a tree, “mission and vision feed the tree, core competencies
serve as roots and processes produce the fruits in terms of services and products”
(Brits et  al. 2007). According to Brits (2006), with the organization capability
framework insight, an organization should be analyzed to extract the critical organi-
zational information. This information includes (1) strategic artefacts such as vision,
mission, objectives and goals, (2) organization entities such as suppliers and cus-
tomers, (3) organization rules such as facts, derivations and definitions and (4) orga-
nization processes such as corporate, business units and operational. This information
will serve as the foundation to construct business capability framework.
According to Keller (2010), capability is the ability to perform actions and in the
context of the organization, capabilities:
• are the building blocks of the organization;
• represent stable organizational functions;
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 145

• are unique and independent of each other, however, one’s result affect the
others;
• are abstracted from the organizational model;
• capture the organizational interests.
Keller (2010) further presents a top-level capability model that he claims to be
applicable to any industry and organization domain. Model is shown in Fig. 5.
While Keller’s capability model captures top-level capabilities, the model
described in Moller and Torronen (2003) presents a more detailed framework
(Fig. 6) describing the capabilities organizations require for value production.
As shown in Fig. 6, value production is obviously dependent on the capabilities
organization defines. Being able to produce core value is a necessary condition for
achieving innovation and competitive advantage. Figure 6 clearly highlighted that
different capabilities are the essence of value adding processes and value produc-
tion. For example, a supplier with broad knowledge of process improvement and its
respective capabilities could come up with more effective and efficient products and
services for the customers (Moller and Torronen 2003).

Fig. 5 Top-level B. Customer facing channel

A. Customer
organization capability partners
model (Brits et al. 2007) 1.Develop 2. Generate
Product demand
/ service

D. Logistic providers
C. Suppliers

5. Collaborate
3. Deliver 4. Plan and
product/ service manage the
business

E. Financial providers F. Infrastructure &

compliance

Fig. 6  Capability base and value production (Moller and Torronen 2003)
146 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Open Data Value Capability Areas

To be competitive and generating robust and thriving revenue streams, open data-­
driven organizations tend to increase efficiency and effectiveness in respect to
value-adding processes related to generating data, processing data and re-using
data. To increase efficiency and effectiveness, organizations are required to identify
set of capabilities. List of open data value capability areas have been identified and
extracted from open data literature. Capability areas are ‘data generation’, ‘data
processing’, ‘data storage and computing facilities’, ‘data release’, ‘providing
access to data and APIs’, ‘publishing solution’, ‘data retrieval’ and ‘data usage’.
Data Generation  This capability is associated with generating a new set of data
from existing information, text, other raw data or from any device or software col-
lecting data. This can include data generation from sensors or smart grids.
Data Processing  This capability is associated with processing the generated or the
original data to meet its potential purpose of use. Examples in this vein include
utilizing processing software to mash-up of original data with other sources of
information, harmonization of data with a specific application and cataloging data
to suit the expected need and to the fruitful use of such data to enhance the organiza-
tion (Ferro and Osella 2013).
Data Storage and Computing Facilities  This capability is associated with data stor-
age and back-ups such as storage capacity and computing facilities such as com-
puter hardware or software, computer networks and communications systems and
all networking and communications provision including connections to external
computers. It is essential for an organization to estimate data storage and computing
capacity appropriately to ensure data quality.
Data Release  This capability is associated with the release of processed data to its
users to enable data reuse. Capabilities such as data structuring, classification, and
regular update. Data is considered as a good. Therefore, data should be released by
the data release rules and regulations of a particular organization (Zuiderwijk et al.
2015; HM Government 2013).
Providing Access to Data and APIs  This capability is associated with availability
and accessibility of APIs to outside- organization users such as developers.
Capabilities such as API development, data exposure via GUI and APIs and testing
and bug fixing. There is still plenty more to do on making more data and APIs acces-
sible (HM Government 2013).
Publishing Solution  This capability is associated with publishing data in compel-
ling formats which require methods and mechanisms. For example, publishing as
Linked Data is one publishing solution.
Data Retrieval  This capability is associated with data query. This includes extract-
ing the requested data from data storage or datasets. This process requires sophisti-
cated querying and appropriate planning for data retrieval.
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 147

Data Usage  This capability is associated with enabling and supporting data users
such as data intermediaries and developers to be able to use data. Data re-use will
enrich the value of data.
Open data value capability areas and capabilities associated with each area are
presented in Table 2.

Dynamic Capabilities: Theory Background

DCs have their antecedents in the RBV of the organization (Daniel and Wilson
2003). They are those specific physical (e.g., specialized equipment, geographic
location), human (e.g., expertise in chemistry), and organizational (e.g., superior
sales force) resources that can be used to implement value-creating strategies
(Wernerfelt 1984). They include the local abilities or competencies’ that are funda-
mental to the competitive advantage of an organization (Eisenhardt and Martin
2000; Alsos et al. 2008). Distinctive processes support the creation, protection, and
augmentation of organization-specific resources and competencies (Griffith and
Harvey 2013). If an organization possesses processes, resources, and competencies
but lacks DCs, it has a chance to make a competitive return for a short period, but
superior returns cannot be sustained. The possession and deployment of DCs pro-
vide the business enterprise with a chance to generate superior profitability over the
longer run. When organizations are dynamically competitive, management will be
active at sensing and seizing opportunities (Augier and Teece 2009).
According to Griffith and Harvey (2013), “DCs are derived from an organization
leveraging its internal and external resources which in turn enhance its power in its
global relationships, thereby enabling it to coordinate inter-organizational activities
and respond rapidly, in a flexible manner, to global competitors' strategies”.
Therefore, the organization has to be continuously alert and in a process of identify-
ing and exploiting new opportunities in order to transform its resources effectively
into new competitive advantages (Alsos et al. 2008).

Dynamic Capability Constructs

A study by Teece and Pisano (1994) advances the argument that the capabilities of
an organization rest on three main constructs: organizational processes, position,
and the path/strategies available to it and these capabilities can provide competi-
tive advantage. Teece (2014) also identified the core building blocks of DCs under
the tripartite rubrics of processes, positions, and path/strategies. Below, we classify
the dynamic capability types (Table 1) according to the three main constructs.
1. Process
According to Teece and Pisano (1994), the organizational process is referred to
as the way things are done in the organization or what is called the organization’s
148 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Table 2  Open data value capability areas

OD value capability areas and capabilities
associated with each area References
Data Generation
Efficient design and features to collect massive data Ferro and Osella (2013)
Technology and Infrastructures HM Government (2013)
Reuse of public sector information HM Government (2013 and Rojas et al.
(2013)
Linking information from different sources Rojas et al. (2013)
Data Processing
Cleaned data to fill gaps, eliminate invalid records Julien (2012)
or duplicates, standardize attribute values
Harmonizing data regarding format Musings (2012)
Format transformations to allow effective machine Julien (2012)
reading
Create mash-up Julien (2012) and Ferro and Osella (2013)
Data reform and refine Julien (2012) and Ferro and Osella (2013)
Data Analysis, Visualization and Visual analytics van den Broek et al. (2012), Julien
(2012), Ferro and Osella (2013), and
Musings (2012)
Data Validation (Julien 2012; Musings 2012)
Data Quality (Julien 2012; Musings 2012)
Cataloguing data Julien (2012)
Usage of platforms capable of converting datasets Musings (2012)
into data streams
Data geo-referencing Ferro and Osella (2013)
Provision of computing capacity Ferro and Osella (2013) and Avital and
Bjorn-Andersen (2012)
Standardizing Linked Data to allow joining to other Julien (2012)
datasets
Data Storage and Computing Facilities
Data storage Ferro and Osella (2013)
Computing capacity Ferro and Osella (2013)
Data Release
Proactively release data Musings (2012)
Data structuring Julien (2012) and Ferro and Osella (2013)
Data classification Julien (2012) and Ferro and Osella (2013)
Support data with metadata Musings (2012)
Data update and maintenance Julien (2012) and Musings (2012)
Providing Access to Data and APIs
Guarantee on data availability Julien (2012) and Musings (2012)
Commoditization and democratization of data Ferro and Osella (2013)
Data distribution channel quality Julien (2012), Ferro and Osella (2013)
and Osterwalder (2004)
Data exposure via GUI Ferro and Osella (2013)
(continued)
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 149

Table 2 (continued)
OD value capability areas and capabilities
associated with each area References
Data exposure via APIs Ferro and Osella (2013) and Musings
(2012)
Freeing data Julien (2012)
API development Musings (2012)
Using APIs Musings (2012)
Testing and Bug Fixing Musings (2012)
Data change feed Musings (2012)
Publishing Solution
Publishing as Linked Data Julien (2012)
Sustainable Publishing Solution Ferro and Osella (2013)
Publishing in different format; machine-readable van den Broek et al. (2012), Ubaldi
data (2013), Julien (2012) and Musings (2012)
Publishing on the web as API to be queried or data Julien (2012)
dump to be downloaded as a whole
Development of software tools to visualize and Julien (2012)
create API services on the web
Data Retrieval
Sophisticated Querying Musings (2012)
Data Usage
Help and guideline on accessing, using and adding van den Broek et al. (2012), Julien (2012)
data, information or knowledge to the original data and Musings (2012)
source
Available data on the Web to the public and in Rojas et al. (2013)
formats that citizens can reuse
Support data intermediaries van den Broek et al. (2012)
A general search engine helping to locate data Julien (2012)
Dedicated service searching purely for datasets and Julien (2012)
providing useful categorization and tagging

‘routines’ or ‘patterns’ of the practices being performed in the organization. To bet-

ter understand and achieve the necessary capabilities for renewing organizational
processes, two types of general DCs are required: (1) DCs related to Process
Innovation and (2) Knowledge Management. Both types are presented below.
Process Innovation  The organization’s processes use resources – specifically the
processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain and release new resources – to match and
even create market change (Daniel and Wilson 2003; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000).
Processes embed the strategy and business model of the organization into the day-­
to-­day routines of employees and leadership skills and ability of the organization’s
top management to design, develop, implement, and modify these routines in order
to adjust to changing environments, and also to shape the (business) environment
(Teece 2014).
More frequently, in dynamic markets, it makes sense to use DCs to build new
resource configurations and move into new competitive positions using a path-­
150 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

breaking strategic logic of change (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000). Although often
neglected, jettisoned resource combinations that no longer provide competitive
advantage are also critical DCs as markets undergo change (Eisenhardt and Martin
2000). The organization’s processes and positions collectively encompass its capa-
bilities or competencies. According to Ambrosini et al. (2009) “DCs are built rather
than bought in the market”, and they include organizational processes or ‘routines’
that are employed to reconfigure or to combine the organization’s resources and
paths which are the choices open to the organization today and likely to be in the
future. The main four processes are reconfiguration – transformation and recombi-
nation of resources and resources; leveraging – extending a resource by deploying
it into a new domain; learning – allows tasks to be performed more effectively and
efficiently; and integration – ability of the organization to integrate and coordinate
its resources and resources). Similarly, Teece (2014) identifies the three classes of
processes that are relevant to DCs: integration, guided learning, and
reconfiguration/transformation.
In the same vein, Teece et  al. (1997) identified technological, complementary
(technological or otherwise), financial, reputational, market structure, and institu-
tional resources. Teece and Pisano (1994) further claim the importance of external
integration and sourcing, integration of external activities and technologies, and
reconfiguration of resources on the competitiveness of the organization. In rapidly
changing environments, there is obviously value in the ability to sense the need to
reconfigure the organization’s processes, and to accomplish the necessary internal
and external transformation (Teece and Pisano 1994). The processes of organiza-
tional renewal are essential for the long-term survival and prosperity of the business
organization. Enterprises must also combine the exploration of new opportunities
with exploitation and renewal (Augier and Teece 2009). This requires constant sur-
veillance of markets and technologies and the willingness to adopt best practices. In
this regard, benchmarking is of considerable value as an organized process for
accomplishing such ends (Teece and Pisano 1994).
Knowledge Management  The essence of the DCs approach is that competitive
success arises from the continuous development, alignment, and reconfiguration of
organization-specific resources (Griffith and Harvey 2013; Augier and Teece 2009).
This broader organizational capability is concerned with how organizations create
and/or access new knowledge (Augier and Teece 2007; Bhatt and Grover 2005;
Griffith and Harvey 2013), search, explore, acquire, assimilate, and apply knowl-
edge about resources (Vivas López 2005; Griffith and Harvey 2013), opportunities,
and how resources can be configured to exploit opportunities (Augier and Teece
2009), and how organization makes investment choices, and achieve necessary busi-
ness model and organizational transformation. This is referred to as the ‘intensity of
organizational learning’, which involves accumulation, sharing, and application of
knowledge (Bhatt and Grover 2005). Some scholars including Weerawardena et al.
(2007) suggest that whilst market-based learning enables the organization to learn
what the market needs, the organization must acquire knowledge from other sources
to develop leading edge innovative products and services that will fulfill organiza-
tion’s needs. This is called ‘acquisition’ and is one of the additional knowledge
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 151

acquiring capability of a organization for speedier internationalization. Following

this analogy, Weerawardena et al. (2007) suggests that a organization’s capacity to
acquire new knowledge depends on its internal knowledge base that directly relates
to its internally focused learning activities.
In addition, in a fast-paced competitive environments where technological and
market change rapidly, resource coordination, resource orchestration, creation of
critical co-specialized resources, and adapting effectively to the changing environ-
ments are of several elements of a organization’s DCs and are the central economic
activities which are often difficult to achieve. However, to address the rapidly
changing environment, there is the need for organization to engage in trading activi-
ties, and for managers to decide what investments are to be made, what resources
are to be purchased, how to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external
competences, and how complementarities are to be achieved (Augier and Teece
2009).
2. Position
The position is referred to as the current endowment of technology and intellec-
tual property and organization’s customer base and upstream relations with its sup-
pliers (Teece and Pisano 1994) and is enhanced if the resources meet the RBV
criteria. The way in which resources need to be deployed is likely to be dynamic
(Teece et  al. 1997) as in globally competitive environments, positions alone are
generally of fleeting value (Teece and Pisano 1994). To better understand and
develop the necessary capabilities for renewing organizational position in the mar-
ket, two types of general DCs are essential: DCs related to Manufacturing
Performance and Supply Chain Integration. Both types are presented below.
Manufacturing Performance  Technological and non-technological opportunities
and know-how allow innovation in all areas of value creation. In addition, they sup-
port superior organizational performance including manufacturing of products and
services in several ways. First, organizations that emphasize technological know-­
how are better at adapting to and growing in new markets. Second, organizations
that emphasize technological and non-technological know-how generate knowledge
in greater amounts for more efficient retrieval that they can apply to address internal
and external environmental challenges (Weerawardena et  al. 2007). However,
addressing Technological and non-technological opportunities involve maintaining
and improving technological competencies and complementary resources and then,
when the opportunity is ripe, investing heavily in the particular technologies and
designs most likely to achieve marketplace acceptance (Teece 2007).
Supply Chain Integration  To achieve the effective coordination of inter-­
organizational relationships, on a global basis that can provide a organization a com-
petitive advantage (Griffith and Harvey 2013), decision makers need information on
changing consumer needs and technology. Such information is not always available,
or if it is available, is likely to be incomplete. Managers are of course decision mak-
ers and they must collect information, analyze it, synthesize it, and act upon it inside
the organization (Augier and Teece 2009). The manager skills in coordinating and
resource allocating capabilities featured in the DCs shape markets, as much as mar-
152 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

kets shape organizations however, these alone do not shape markets and provide
information manager needs to implement goals. The organization and managers also
require organization-level responses by competitors, suppliers, and customers
(Augier and Teece 2009; Griffith and Harvey 2013). The network relationship spe-
cifically with the suppliers plays a significant role in enhancing the supplier network,
sensing and seizing opportunities, knowledge creation, resource configuration and
integration and know-how exchange (Augier and Teece 2009; Teece 2007).
3. Path / Strategy
Path is refered to as the strategic alternatives available to the organization (Teece and
Pisano 1994). Authors of Griffith and Harvey (2013) highlight both internal (RBV) and
external (Market Based View) resources which provide the power basis necessary for
developing strategies. To better understand and achieve the necessary capabilities for
renewing organizational path or strategies, Managerial Strategic Functions or capabili-
ties are required. Managerial Strategic Functions is presented below.
Managerial Strategic Functions  Once an organization is established, continuing
to succeed in an open competitive economy requires high management and employ-
ees skills with capacities to combine and integrate (Augier and Teece 2007, 2009;
Alsos et al. 2008). In particular, managers must think strategically and execute flaw-
lessly (Augier and Teece 2009) to access niche markets and for building market
positioning (Weerawardena et al. 2007) if they want to succeed (Augier and Teece
2009). They must also figure out how to harness competences (Daniel and Wilson
2003) and the skills of highly skilled employees who play a much more significant
role in creative success and performance of the organization. Survival of a organiza-
tion is not only about executing well but, about figuring out where to put resources,
realizing opportunities and then moving on when competition arises (Augier and
Teece 2009). Such capabilities, if built, constitute the DCs of a organization through
allowing managers to strategically combine, recombine, and reconfigure resources
and resources inside and outside of the organization’s boundaries in order to gener-
ate and exploit strategic internal and external organization-specific competences
(Augier and Teece 2009). Not many managers have the necessary skills, and fewer
still succeed in building them into their businesses (Augier and Teece 2009; Daniel
and Wilson 2003).

Linking Constructs to the Types

From the DC Theory literature, we identify three core constructs: Process, Position,
and Path or Strategy. Based on extensive literature review of the domain, we have
found sub-constructs and related dimensions to each sub-construct. In addition, pre-
vious studies show and investigate four types of DCs (Table 1). Here, we categorize
DCs into five types: Process Innovation, Knowledge Management, Manufacturing
Performance, Supply Chain Integration, and Strategic Managerial Function. In
Table 3, we establish relations between the three main DCs constructs, DCs types,
DCs sub-constructs and their respective dimensions.
Table 3  DCs constructs linked to the dynamic capability types
Three Constructs of DCs Dynamic Sub-Constructs
(Brazilian National Council for Capability Types (Tanriverdi 2005;
Scientific and Technological (Bhatt and Verworn and
Development (BNCSTD) 2011; Grover 2005) Herstatt 2002)
Verworn and Herstatt 2002) Dimensions
Process Process Integration Integrating and Adapting Resource; Combine the Exploration of new
Innovation Opportunities with Exploitation and Strategic Renewal
Leveraging Extending, Building and Releasing Resources by Deploying it into a new
Domain; Leveraging Critical Co-specialized Resources; Innovative Capability
Reconfiguration Transformation, Recombination, and Reconfiguration of Resources; Jettison
un-necessary Resources; Quick Response to Strategic Renewal; Innovative
Capability
Knowledge Learning and Coordinate Resources; Resource Alignment: Resource Orchestration;
Management Knowledge Mngt. Resource Continuous Development; Search, Explore, Configure, Acquire,
Share, Assimilate, Accumulation, Integrate, and Apply knowledge; Strength
Organizational Learning; Disseminate Information; Unlearning Routines;
Unlearning Knowledge-­based Practices; Creativity and Idea Management;
Integrate Internally Generated Information
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations

Position Manufacturing Technology Seize Technological Opportunities, Acquisition

Performance Intellectual Property
Supply Chain Customer Positive Relationship and Quick Response to Customers
Relationship
Upstream Positive Relationship and Quick Response to Upstream Suppliers
Relationship
Path/Strategy Strategic Strategies Deploying Resources to Support Market Needs; Constance Surveillance of
Managerial Market and Technologies; Make Timely and Market-­Oriented Decisions;
Function Niche Market Access; Adopt Best Practices; Benchmarking; Alliancing
153
154 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Three Stages of Dynamic Capabilities

Drawing on existing empirical findings (Wang and Ahmed 2007), we identify three
main stages for DCs: (1) Adaptive capability, (2) Absorptive capability and (3)
Innovative capability.
Adaptive Capabilities (Search/Variations/External Observation)  DCs which
monitor the environment, to discover external knowledge (Büchel and Sorell 2012)
and new possibilities. Searching for new ideas in this manner can provide an insight
into how existing problems or new challenges may be managed and solved. To
reveal the potential in the environment may be said to be the core of all entrepre-
neurial and innovative activities. An organization must have the ability to appraise
the environment so as to constantly develop new ideas and business opportunities.
This adaptive ability to appraise markets and technologies, and the willingness to
adopt best practice, are therefore important (Alsos et al. 2008). In addition, adaptive
capabilities can also help to trigger and guide strategic renewal processes (Rouse
and Ziestma 2008).
Absorptive Capabilities (Selection/Evaluation/Acquisition)  DCs which recog-
nize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial
ends (Wang and Ahmed 2007). Knowledge may be acquired through external
­contacts and connections. However, the acquisition of new knowledge is very time
consuming and challenging as there may be considerable risks involved in investing
in new acquired knowledge (Alsos et al. 2008). Yet, the expectations of advantages
derived from new ideas may be achieved by analysis and debate concerning the
values and risks. The ideas are evaluated on the basis of previous experience, exper-
tise, and capabilities (Alsos et al. 2008). Stronger ability of learning from partners,
integrating external information and transforming it into organization-embedded
knowledge are the outcome of organizations with higher absorptive capability
(Wang and Ahmed 2007).
Innovative Capabilities (Routinisation/Implementation/Reconfiguration and
Renewal)  DCs comprise product development routines, development and launch
of new profitable products and services, strategic decision-making, introduce, com-
bine or modify resources, and integrate new resources (Alsos et al. 2008) with inno-
vative behaviors and processes (Wang and Ahmed 2007). This includes implementing
newly approved initiatives to change within the organization and provides the
opportunity to reorganize the organization’s resources and the possibility to experi-
ment with new ideas (Alsos et al. 2008). In this stage, organization puts the ideas
from the selection phase into place in a competitive business platform. Thus, the
process ends in a form of utilization through the implementation of the ideas (Alsos
et al. 2008). Authors of (Wang and Ahmed 2007) suggest a range of possible inno-
vative alternatives, such as developing new products or services, developing new
methods of production, identifying new markets, discovering new sources of supply
and developing new organizational forms.
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 155

Synthesis of an Open Data Value Capability Framework

The deconstruction of open data capabilities is a framework of strategic manage-

ment and value chain analysis for open data-driven organizations, which aims at
capturing all capabilities an open data-driven organization require – from generat-
ing data to final use and re-use of data – for creating and capturing value from open
data.
The framework is a strategic tool for open data-driven organization of any scale
to exercise and exploit for their organization. Capability framework allows open
data-driven organizations to identify what capabilities are valuable to the organiza-
tion. As different organizations have a different business model, specific open data
capabilities for open data-driven organizations need to be specified.
Open data value capability framework (Fig. 7) is based on the general organiza-
tion value capabilities, open data capability areas and the open government data
value chain phases.
There is only one approach to utilizing capability framework in an open data-­
driven organization. Organizations need to identify specific individual, process,
organization, IT infrastructure, technological infrastructure, and management
­capabilities for all value chain phases. The open data-driven organizations can use
the capability tool to identify what capabilities are required for the organization.
The process is initiated by identifying what capabilities are required for each capa-
bility areas correlated with the first stage of the value chain. For example, the first
value chain phase is Data Generation, and this includes a set of capabilities required
for generating data. Managers should identify what individual, process, organiza-
tion, IT infrastructure, technological infrastructure, and management capabilities
are required for generating data. Open data organization management/governance is
necessary throughout the value chain to ensure the quality of the process.

Fig. 7  Open data value capability framework

156 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Synthesis of an Open Data Dynamic Capability Framework

In this section, we define what DCT constructs (Process, Position, and Path) means
in each the dynamic capability stages  – Adaptive, Absorptive, and Innovative. In
Table 4, we specify nine conditions for agility of ODDCs following the descriptions
in section “Dynamic Capabilities: Theory Background”. In addition, corresponding
propositions are provided to succinctly capture these conditions.
Adaptive Position Capabilities (Sense and Search)  ODDCs which monitor the
environment, to discover external knowledge (Büchel and Sorell 2012) and new
possibilities for positioning ODDOs in the OD industry. This capability includes:
Search for knowledge that can be acquired from OD ecosystem such as maturity of

Table 4  DC constructs vs. DC stages – The definition in OD context

Adaptive Capability Absorptive Capability Innovative Capability
Position The ability to sense the The ability to seize the The ability to use
need to reconfigure knowledge from OD knowledge from OD
current endowment of ecosystem and to ecosystem to enhance and
open (linked) data recognize OD market develop difficult-to-trade
technology, intellectual and technological knowledge OD resources
property and OD-driven opportunities in order to and resources
organization customer develop organization’s complementary to them, as
base and upstream scarce open (linked) well as its reputational and
relations with OD data technological and relational resources which
suppliers from OD non-technological determine OD market share
ecosystem. resources to support and profitability at any point
market needs and gain in time.
advantage over rivals.
Process The ability to sense the The ability to seize and The ability to transform the
need to reconfigure OD integrate the external knowledge and information
existing value-added knowledge and acquired from OD
processes by learning information an ecosystem into OD-driven
from OD ecosystem. OD-driven organization organization-embedded
possess about the OD knowledge in order to
ecosystem in order to develop new value-added
reconfigure the existing processes. This also includes
value-added processes. balancing between existing
value-added processes and
the acquired value- added
processes.
Path The ability to sense the The ability to seize and The ability to deploy the
need to reconfigure the assimilate knowledge knowledge from OD
OD strategies in order to acquired from OD ecosystem to re-shape the
accomplish effective ecosystem to develop past OD strategies and
exploration and OD strategic solutions shape new OD strategies to
exploitation of OD and decisions. be used in the future.
strategies and the
necessary internal and
external transformation.
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 157

the existing OD ecosystem; Strength of the OD-driven organizational Learning

skills and capabilities; OD product/service Intellectual Property; Network analysis
of OD actors (businesses, government bodies and civil society actors); Learn about
structure of the OD market and knowledge about the level of engagement of the
organization with OD agencies, other organizations and developers.
Adaptive Process Capabilities (Sense and Search)  ODDCs which monitor the
environment, to discover external knowledge (Büchel and Sorell 2012) and new
possibilities around processes for adding value to OD products and services. This
capability includes: Search for and knowledge about the list of compatible licenses
and knowledge on the number of businesses or other organizations using/seeking/
demanding OD.
Adaptive Path Capabilities (Sense and Search)  ODDCs which monitor the envi-
ronment, to discover external knowledge (Büchel and Sorell 2012) and new possi-
bilities for formulating new and reformulating existing OD strategies. This capability
includes: Knowledge on OD marketplaces; Knowledge on the actors who have
stopped releasing/using OD; Knowledge on actors using OD in existing field versus
actors entering new fields and their purposes and knowledge about the types of
datasets most published and used, types of actors most involved and types of outputs
most produced from OD.
Absorptive Position Capabilities (Seize and Select)  ODDCs which recognize the
value of new, external information and knowledge, assimilate it, and apply it (Wang
and Ahmed 2007) in ODDOs positioning in the OD industry. This capability
includes: Seize open (linked) data technological opportunities, OD product/service
acquisition; Measure of the centrality in openness in policy; Measure of the central-
ity of technology and data to government policy and Discovering new sources of
OD supply and investment in open (linked) data technology.

Case Studies

To profoundly understand the open data value and dynamic capability framework in
practice, this research conducts two case studies (open-ended interview) on both
public and private ODDOs in Ireland.

 ase Study of Open Data Value Capability Framework:

C
The Case of Xpreso

This section describes findings from the use of the operationalization in Table  2 in
investigating the VCs of Xpreso; one of the ODDOs in the downstream sector of the
Irish OD Ecosystem. This case is used to validate our value capability framework oper-
ationalization and identification of critical factors based on the interviewee’s opinion.
158 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Brief Background of Xpreso

Founded on 2013, Xpreso is an open data-driven private organization based in

Dublin, Ireland with a focus on communication platform which connects courier
drivers with parcel recipients in real-time. The founders of Xpreso consider the
business as both the data consumers and the data producers. Xpreso’s business
model is ‘supporting primary businesses’ according to the model definition in Zeleti
et al. (2014).

Xpreso’s Open Data Value Capability Framework

As a starting point, Xpreso attempts to understand fully the capability framework

and its purposes. While there are obvious differences between value chain stages,
capability areas, and general business value capabilities, to assist Xpreso to under-
stand the capability framework as a whole and each component of the framework in
specific, we developed and provided Xpreso a document containing detailed infor-
mation of the capability framework. In the document, value chain stages, capability
areas and general business value capabilities were described. Table  5 shows the
Xpreso’s open data capability.
Xpreso had four attempts towards completing the capability framework. During
the completion of the framework, Xpreso raised some issues regarding the difficulty
understanding the framework. About this, the following was expressed and argued
by the COO of Xpreso, the interviewee:
We did find it difficult to populate the cells at each stage in the value chain.

In respect to the components of the capability framework, the interviewee further

adds:
We found it somewhat difficult to differentiate between IT Infrastructure and Technological
Infrastructure when filling out the database. Also, we found it difficult at first to fill out
details for Individual/Competences for certain value chain stages. Also, while at certain
value stages there was a clear division between Organisational competences and
Management/Governance competences, at other stages we found it quite difficult to make a
decision between the two areas.

Equally important is to note that Xpreso verifies the significance of utilizing the
capability framework in open data-driven organizations more especially start-ups in
order to generate and capture the real value of data. With reference to this, the inter-
viewee adds:
The framework allowed us to, for the first time, fully examine the processes required to
produce and publish the datasets which we are considering, which helped to greatly clarify
the requirements of producing such data. It also allowed us to examine our organization
from in terms of the key business areas described in the framework, which we found to be
a very useful tool in its own right.

Consequently, Xpreso has never carried out any capability audit before engaging
in this research, and they find the capability framework a very useful tool to identify,
create, develop and manage open data capabilities.
Table 5  Xpreso’s capability framework
Data Data Collection, Aggregation and
Generation Processing Data Distribution and Delivery Final data Use
Data Storage Providing
Generating & Computing Access to Data Publishing Data
Data Data Processing Facilities Data Release & APIs Solution Data Retrieval Usage
Individual/ App-­ Capability to Understanding Have member Understanding Competency
competences development, efficiently process of Database of OSM of REST, with REST
Competency geographical data architecture community Understanding APIs and OSM
with GPS understanding of GIS, verify data of API design APIs,
technology, Understanding of integrity Knowledge of
Ability to OSM data-formats, Xpreso API
produce Ability to aggregate implementation
reliable API, Lat-Lng occurrences, specifics
Ability to add Understanding of
GPS recording Database Architecture
redundancy
Business Address data, Geocoding, Parcel Data is
Process Parcel data data are correlated to automatically
source, Drivers GPS data from uploaded to
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations

driving around, driver, GPX data OSM, Postcode

using tablet-app used to understand data is
Driver click on the route of the automatically
finish button on driver available
the app through API
Organization Drivers must The GPS
know to finish aggregation process
jobs at the must be monitored
correct address
(continued)
159
Table 5 (continued)
160

Data Data Collection, Aggregation and

Generation Processing Data Distribution and Delivery Final data Use
Data Storage Providing
Generating & Computing Access to Data Publishing Data
Data Data Processing Facilities Data Release & APIs Solution Data Retrieval Usage
IT GPS Sensors, Extract traffic data, We could store GPX Data API for traffic Publish Traffic Data Web
Infrastructure Android Database in different uploaded to data, documentation REST API, End
Tablets for Implementation data system OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap for traffic API, Postcode REST
App, Mapping Relational automatically Pub lie API
software database/ provides open documentation
in- app webserver access to for Postcode
Geo-Data API
Technologies GPX traces GPS Data is Relational
Infrastructure recorded on correlated with databas e/
app, Record: driver territory, GPX webserver
GPS position traces are cleaned to
of driver remove incorrect
finishing job, data, Algorithm
API receives required for spotting
data from table incorrect data
Management/ App must be Cleaned data must Must ensure
Governance deployed across undergo clerical that user
full courier, review understand
Driver-­Trainer that these APIs
must teach are less
drivers correct accurate than
use commercial
alternatives
F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 161

 ase Study of Open Data Dynamic Capability Framework:

C
The Case of the Marine Institute

This section describes findings from the use of the operationalization in Table 4 in
investigating the available DCs and their relative importance at the Irish Marine
Institute; one of the major players in the upstream sector of the Irish OD Ecosystem.
This case is used to validate our dynamic capability framework operationalization
and identification of critical factors based on expert opinion.

Brief Background of the Marine Institute

The Marine Institute is an agency which operates under the aegis of the Department
of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM), and the national agency, responsible for
undertaking marine research and development that critically informs policy, regula-
tory objectives, management and sustainable development strategies for Ireland’s
marine resources. The Marine Institute Act states that the Institute will have the
following general functions:
to undertake, to co-ordinate, to promote and to assist in marine researchand development
and to provide such services related to marine research and development that in the opinion
of the Institute will promote economic developmentand create employment and protect the
environment

The Marine Institute’s Open Data Dynamic Capabilities

During the interview with Marine Institute, a variety of ODDCs and identified:

Dynamic Capabilities for Positioning

Adaptive Position Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Searching for exist-
ing OD Products and services, technological opportunities, potential government
agencies, potential partners for collaboration, skills and expertise necessary, exist-
ing interest groups or agencies, future market.
Absorptive Position Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Marine data col-
lection; developing agreement with other government agencies for data services;
identifying new technologies, platforms and applications; Identifying skills and
expertise required.
Innovative Position Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Producing as
much marine data as possible; leading provider of data on marine environment and
Data Cataloging in Ireland; Feeds information into making decisions and support
growing resources of marine environment; Experts for technologies for provision of
162 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

online services; Brand recognition; Generate economic activities; Facilitate data to

aid other agencies for their decision making.

Dynamic Capabilities for Processes

Adaptive Process Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Searching for exist-
ing knowledge from outside organization in order to identify potential processes,
OD standards and European directives, linked-data opportunities, data management
tools, set of requirements to develop prototypes, best practices around adding value
to data and processes, agencies and companies for resource exchange and integra-
tion, other potential project resources; aquaculture process opportunities; discover-
ing new online cataloging systems.
Absorptive Process Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Assess and evalu-
ate processes, platforms, and applications in order to define potential tools for add-
ing value to marine data; Adopting new online cataloging systems such as
GeoNetwork; assessing and identifying series of best practices (W3C best prac-
tices); Open license for Marine Institute; Developing a set of technical requirements
and specifications for developing the planned prototype; adopting appropriate data
standards such as ISO 19139 (Data Standardization) and ISO 19156 (Observation
and Measurements); adopting appropriate European Directives such as OD Standard
for Inspire Directive, Standards for Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and Data
Standards for Water Framework Directive.
Innovative Process Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Improve marine
data management processes; data cataloging; data management processes (using
generic marine related Data Models); software development and project manage-
ment processes; linked marine data; connecting to processes of agencies; develop
and enhance internal processes; utilizing defined specification to develop the proto-
type further; added value to data through new prototype and initiatives such as
Ireland’s Marine Atlas, Irish Spatial Data Exchange, Ireland’s Digital Ocean,
Ireland’s Marine Renewable Energy Portal and connecting to Ireland’s OD Portal;
utilizing evaluated tools such as ERDDAP to add value to marine data and enhance
data cataloging; Encourage and enhance Marine Institute Data License (existing for
11  years); developing new application that handles standards; developing new
application that deliver data to user.

Dynamic Capabilities for Path/Strategies

Adaptive Path Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Searching for smart
strategies from potential and influential actors/players and experts in the industry;
searching for best practices around strategies in general and data strategies in spe-
cific; Seeking new and unique expertise; organize workshops for strategic decision
making; Searching for other organization’s advanced projects In order to identify
new areas and new knowledge.
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 163

Absorptive Path Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Assessing and evalu-
ating identified actors/players and experts and connect with them; Developing new
expertise; Adopting best possible collaborative approach; identifying and assessing
series of best practices that could help organization’s expert groups to define strate-
gic areas and decisions; define strategic objectives or areas to tackle during the
workshop; assess and evaluate new knowledge gained from existing projects and
develop new objectives for organization.
Innovative Path Capabilities  Marine Institute’s DCs include: Big and leading con-
tributor of environmental data in Ireland; Strengthening marine environment status;
Close and constant collaboration with companies and continuously providing them
with the data being produced; open and constant communication with expert groups
within organization; Working with and in parallel with big Irish players such as
Sustainable Energy Ireland and Department of Communication Energy and Natural
Resources; Provide high quality support services for marine food safety; use marine
data for service area collaborations; acting as one primary communication forum
between agencies; directive driven organization; standard driven organization; strength-
ening the organization brand; high level and educated employees; share capabilities
within organization and with other agencies; strengthening the collaborative environ-
ment; Organization’s expert groups to make smart decisions; adopting OD strategy best
practices; moving from 3 (CSV) star to 5 star (linked-data); adopting other organiza-
tion’s strategic best practices; follow and maintain citation strategy; encouraging orga-
nization’s employees to use best practices for their tasks; making sure all data are of
high quality and available online; easy and usable data; more datasets; other project
connectivity; always use powerful tools; always be ahead of other agencies; always
monitor market; Access resources from other agencies; to grow jobs in sector.
After carefully analysing the interview, in Table 6, we present a set of critical
factors for developing ODDCs.

Discussion

Transformation in the market requires the development of capabilities and develop-

ment of capabilities require the organization to understand them very well. To our
understanding, the capability is the ability to perform better than competitors, using
a set of organizational attributes that is distinctive and difficult to replicate. Similarly,
Brits et al. (2007) highlights that capability is a capacity for a set of resources to
interactively perform a stretch task.

Open Data Value Capability Framework

As a basis for clarification, orientation and better understanding of the ODVCs

framework, we aim at case study research to explore the framework in practise.
Number of organizations was contacted but, we were able to include Xpreso’s case
Table 6  Critical factors for developing DCs
164

Adaptive Capability Absorptive Capability Innovative Capability

MA for downstream Position Discovering the OD market niche Developing agreement with Producing as much valuable data as
organizations Discovering and identifying potential other agencies for possible
collaborators and projects collaboration and data Brand recognition
services Generate economic activities
Absorption of new Facilitate data to aid other agencies
technologies, platforms and for their decision making
applications
Introducing new OD products
or services
Developing OD Business
Model

MA for upstream Process Discovering Data Management Tools Define and assess Tools, Adopt Tools, Processes, Platforms,
organizations and Processes, OD online cataloging Processes, Platforms, and and Applications to add value to the
systems, OD standards and related Applications to add value to Data
European Directives, and Linked- the Data Improve Data Cataloging Process
Data opportunities Define and assess appropriate and (Relational) Data Model
Discovering OD best practices European Directives Improve Data Management,
Discovering Data Licenses Define and assess series of Software Development, and Project
Discovering successful (Relational) best practices Management Processes
Data Models Define and assess OD license Alliance-based processes
Define and assess appropriate Heavily utilize well-known and
Data Standards Define and completed projects for adding more
assess appropriate value to the OD product or service
(Relational) Data Model and to fasten the customer-supplier
communication (Sufficient
delivery)
Active participation to the Local
and National Portals
F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo
Applicable for Path/Strategy Strategic coordination/collaboration Define strategic objectives Strengthening the collaborative and
downstream (Strategic Alliances) through knowledge gained communicative environment –
organizations Seeking new and unique data/OD from existing projects, Internally and externally (Expert
Applicable for strategic solutions from potential and partners and OD products and groups, projects, and resources)
upstream influential actors/players, successful services Educated human resource –
organizations national and international level Define and assess best Domain specific education
projects, and experts in the industry possible strategic Continuously provide available and
Discovering best practices on data/ collaborative approach easy-to-use high quality OD
OD strategies Assess and evaluate identified products and services and support
Discovering differentiation strategies actors/players and experts in Differentiating OD products and
the field services
Identify new domain experts Maintain standard-driven
Define and assess series of organization status
OD strategic best practice Constantly magnify and strengthen
Define and assess unique organization’s brand
strategy for differentiation Use organization’s capabilities to
identify areas of collaborations
Share capabilities and resources
within organization and with other
organizations
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations

Generating OD strategic best

practice out of employed ones
Promote and use citation strategy
for OD products and services
Constantly monitor market for
powerful tools
165
166 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Table 7  Discovered open data value capabilities

Data storage and
Data processing computing facilities Data release Data usage
Aggregation process Database architecture Verifying data Web-based
(GPS) integrity front-end

in this study. During our various attempts in involving other organizations, we dis-
covered that new and small establishments have difficulty understanding different
elements of the framework and that how framework can be used in assisting them in
identifying value capabilities while, the framework was fully understood and appre-
ciated by medium to larger organizations as they could relate to all the elements and
the integration. In parallel, our experience in engaging organizations specially new
and small establishments in this research process show that open data-driven orga-
nizations and start-ups also need to be eager and more engaged with the research
community in the domain if they want to defeat the challenges of the dynamic
market.
Previously in open data and organization literature, no open data value capability
framework exist. Therefore, comparison of the developed open data capability
framework with similar frameworks is not possible. Therefore, we have sought to
analyze this convergence as a form of alignment in which we expect open data value
chain to support directly open data value capability framework to shape open data-­
driven organization value capabilities. The analysis of the value capability frame-
work and case study research show that value chain stages (data generation; data
collection, aggregation and processing; data distribution and delivery; and final
data use) extracted from open government data value chain by providing us the
baseline to cluster top-level capabilities have significant impact on shaping open
data value capabilities. As the framework can be explored in practice and by open
data-driven organizations, new open data value capabilities can emerge that can be
useful to other organizations in building their value capabilities (Table 7).
Moreover, we observe that open data-driven organizations out more emphasis on
‘generating data’, ‘data processing’ and ‘publishing solution’ capabilities. This
shows that the open data-driven organizations are more eager to develop capabilities
which result on generating data, processing data and publishing data. Other open
data capability areas receive less attention.

Open Data Dynamic Capability Framework

Despite existing critiques and ambiguities in literature on RBV, DCT and DCs, we
have found these three paradigms not as challenging as presented in the literature
and we have been able to join them very adequately and generate an easy-to-­
understand dynamic capability framework taking into an account essentialities of
the two theories and the DCs of the organization. The framework can be utilized by
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 167

all types of organizations specially ODDOs regardless of their size and maturity
levels. However, we encountered number of challenges in identifying the critical
aspects of the theories and the organizational DCs for addressing the objectives of
our study but, relying on our experience and knowledge in the domain, and by uti-
lizing the critical aspects identified, we developed a framework that can address
critiques and ambiguities exist in the literature. The framework is applicable for all
types of organizations and the application of the framework is fairly simple how-
ever, we have number of observations regarding how framework could be more
effectively used by organizations.
Positioning  Upstream and leading organizations have already positioned them-
selves in the market. In this regard, defining organizational position in the market is
mostly applicable for downstream organizations, new entrants to the industry and
small organizations.
Process Development  Upstream and leading organizations should constantly seek
and discover powerful data management tools, platforms and technologies and
reconfigure their existing value-added processes due to the fact that many down-
stream and small organizations rely on the OD products and services they provide.
In this regard, engaging in process configuration and reconfiguration is highly rec-
ommended and MA to upstream organizations.
Strategy Development  Strategy must go hand in hand with processes. Strategy
needs to be consistent, coherent, and embrace innovation. While it is necessarily
shaped by the legacy of the past, it also shapes the path ahead. Strategy will deter-
mine which products to make, which customers to target, how to deploy the organi-
zation’s resources, what the optimal timing will be, and how to keep competitors at
bay. Downstream organizations must develop an effective strategy and renew
­strategies every often in order to defeat the challenges in the dynamic market, while
upstream organizations set long-term strategies.
ODDOs regardless of being at upstream or downstream, need to recognize and
utilize the successful experiences or what is so called “best practices” of other orga-
nizations. It is very essential to develop a collaborative and communicative environ-
ment with other organizations and use organization’s capabilities to identify areas of
collaborations. In OD industry, being connected to a network of organizations plays
a significant role in the success of the organizations in the network as shared resources
and capabilities can lead to innovative OD products and services (Zhenbin Yang and
Kankanhalli 2013; Conradie and Choenni 2014; Wang and Lo 2015). ODDOs’ man-
agers and experts groups should constantly monitor the market for changes in order
to move toward the dynamic market and be able to be ahead of the competitors.
ODDOs must establish strategies to ensure desired participation rate and those orga-
nizational technological and human resources are used in a way that innovative OD
products and services are produced. In addition, the ODDOs should increase the
number of domain-specific experts as in OD industry, domain knowledge is very
vital as many OD products and services are domain specific. However, success hap-
pens in an environment with learning, sharing, and collaborating culture.
168 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Conclusion

A number of list of political, social and economic benefits have been associated
with the use and impact of OD. The economic aspect of OD has naturally generated
a lot of interest resulting in a number of OD business models. In this paper, we
developed an OD capability matrix as a tool to support design of OD business capa-
bilities. In addition, the OD Capability Matrix could help the implementation of OD
business models. Matrix can assist OD business managers to understand and
describe how capabilities should be utilize and extended throughout the OD value
chain of the business. As there is no OD capability framework in literature, our OD
Capability Matrix provides a significant starting point for OD businesses to plan and
develop the requisite capabilities to support their business models. With time, con-
crete experience from practice will be useful in refining the capability framework.
Regarding future work, our main interest is to develop the framework into a con-
crete tool (similar to the Business Model Canvas) to support OD practitioners. In
this regard, business modelers and managers are encouraged to utilize the Matrix.
From the research perspective, we intend to refine the capability matrix to reflect
maturity levels of OD capabilities. To represent the matrix as a modeling technique,
a potential future work would be to offer more specific guidelines for designing the
matrix. Moreover, we are considering the possibility of generation of OD capability
patterns from the OD capability matrix. Another potential future work would be to
study how capability driven development approach can support evolving OD busi-
nesses and facilitates adjustment of capabilities according to changing context.

References

Alsos GA, Borch OJ, Ljunggren E, Madsen EL (2008) Dynamic capabilities – conceptualization
and operationalization. In: The academy of management conference, pp 1–28
Ambastha A, Momaya K (2004) Competitiveness of firms: review of theory, frameworks and mod-
els. Singapore Manag Rev 26(1):45–61
Ambrosini V, Bowman C (2009) What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in
strategic management? Int J Manag Rev 11(1):29–49
Ambrosini V, Bowman C, Collier N (2009) Dynamic capabilities: an exploration of how firms
renew their resource base. Br J Manag 20(SUPP. 1):1–41
Arnold E, Thuriaux B (1997) Developing firms’ technological capabilities
Augier M, Teece DJ (2007) Dynamic capabilities and multinational enterprise: Penrosean insights
and omissions. Manag Int Rev 47(2):175–192
Augier M, Teece DJ (2009) Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and
economic performance. Organ Sci 20(2):410–421
Avital M, Bjorn-Andersen N (2012) The value of open government data: a strategic analysis
framework. In: SIG eGovernment pre-ICIS workshop, no. 2002
Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm
performance: an imprical investigation. MIS Q 24(1):169–196
Bhatt GD, Emdad AF (2001) An analysis of the virtual value chain in electronic commerce.
J Enterp Inf Manag 14(1):78–84
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 169

Bhatt GD, Emdad AF (2005) An analysis of the virtual value chain in electronic commerce. Logist
Inf Manag 14(1):78–85
Bhatt GD, Grover V (2005) Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competi-
tive advantage: an empirical study. J Manag Inf Syst 22(2):253–277
Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (BNCSTD) (2011) The
relationship between technological capability and firm performance in an emerging economy,
Rio
Brits J-P (2006) Conceptual framework for modeling business capabilities. Tshwane University
of Technology
Brits J, Botha GHK, Herselman ME (2007) Conceptual framework for modeling business capa-
bilities. In: Proceedings of the 2007 informing science and IT education joint conference
conceptual
Büchel B, Sorell M (2012) Assessing your adaptive capability: Where do you ‘stand out’ within
your industry
Cepeda G, Vera D (2007) Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: a knowledge manage-
ment perspective. J Bus Res 60(5):426–437
Conradie P, Choenni S (2014) On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Gov Inf
Q 31:S10–S17
Daniel EM, Wilson HN (2003) The role of dynamic capabilities in e-business transformation. Eur
J Inf Syst 12(4):282–296
de Vries M (2012) 14 years of PSI policy and its impact. In Madrid conference, February
den Hertog P, van der Aa W, de Jong MW (2010) Capabilities for managing service innovation:
towards a conceptual framework. J Serv Manag 21(4):490–514
Easterby-Smith M, Prieto IM (2008) Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: an inte-
grative role for learning? Br J Manag 19(3):235–249
Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag
J 21(10–11):1105–1121
Ferro E, Osella M (2013) Eight business model archetypes for PSI re-use, London
Finne T (1997) Information security implemented in: the theory on stock market efficiency,
Markowitz’ s portfolio theory and porter’ s value chain. Comput Secur 16(May 1967):469–479
Gheysari H, Rasli A, Roghanian P, Jebur H (2012) The role of information technology infrastruc-
ture capability (ITIC) in management. IJFPSS 2(2):36–40
Griffith DA, Harvey MG (2013) A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities. J Int Bus
Stud 32(3):597–606
Guidoin S The value of open data
Hallgren M (2007) Manufacturing strategy , capabilities and performance. Linköping University,
Linköping
Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg
Manag J 24(10):997–1010
HM Government (2013) Seizing the data opportunity: a strategy for UK data capability, UK
Jaques E, Stamp G (1995) Level and type of capability in relation to executive organization, Brunel
Julien N (2012), Business opportunities arising from open data policies. Imperial College London
Keller W (2010) Using capabilities in enterprise architecture management, Lochham
Mata FJ, Fuerst WL, Barney JB, Mata BFJ (2013) Information technology and sustainable com-
petitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. MIS Q 19(4):487–505
Mithas S, Ramasubbu N, Krishnan MS, Sambamurthy V (2009) Information technology infra-
structure capability and firm performance: an empirical analysis, Michigan
Moller KEK, Torronen P (2003) Business suppliers’ value creation potential: a capability-based
analysis. Ind Mark Manag 32:109–118
Musings J (2012) Open data business models. [Online]. Available: http://www.jenitennison.com/
blog/node/172
Oliveira P, Roth AV, Gilland W (2002) Achieving competitive capabilities in e-services. Technol
Forecast Soc Chang. 69:721–739
170 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Osterwalder A (2004) The business model ontology: a proposition in a design science approach,
UNIVERSITE DE LAUSANNE ECOLE
Pant S, Hsu C (1996) Business on the web: strategies and economics. In: Fifth international world
wide web conference
Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free
Press, New York
Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N (2006) Firm performance impacts of digitally supply chain integra-
tion capabilities. MIS Q 30(2):225–246
Rayport JF, Sviokla JJ (1995) Exploiting the virtual value chain. McKinsey Q
Rojas LAR, Lovelle JMC, Tarazona GM, Montenegro CE (2013) Open data as a key factor for
developing expert systems: a perspective from Spain. Int J Interact Multimed Artif Intell 2(2):51
Rouse MJ, Ziestma C (2008) Responding to weak signals: the emergence of adaptive dyanmic
capabilities for strategic renewal. In: The international conference on organizational learning,
knowledge and capabilities, pp 1–23
Steiner S, Abraham B, Mackay J (1997) Understanding process capability indices, Waterloo
Symphony Technologies Pvt Ltd, Measuring Your Process Capability, India
Tanriverdi H (2005) Information technology relatedness , knowledge management capability , and
performance of multibusiness firms. MIS Q 29(2):311–334
Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundation of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(August):1319–1350
Teece DJ (2014) A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enter-
prise. J Int Bus Stud 45(1):8–37
Teece D, Pisano G (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Ind Corp Chang
3(3):537–556
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Slwen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg
Manag J 18(7):509–533
Townsend P, Cairns L (2003) Developing the global manager using a capability framework. Manag
Learn 34(3):313–327
Ubaldi B (2013) Open government data: towards empirical analysis of open government data
initiatives, 22
University of Cambridge (2016) Porter’s Value Chain. University of Cambridge. [Online].
Available: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/value-chain-/
Verworn B, Herstatt C (2002) The innovation process: an introduction to process models, 12
Vivas López S (2005) Competitive advantage and strategy formulation: the key role of dynamic
capabilities. Manag Decis 43(5):661–669
W3C Brazil (2012) Open government data value chain, Brussels
Walters D, Rainbird M (2007) Cooperative innovation: a value chain approach. J Enterp Inf Manag
20(5):595–607
Wang CL, Ahmed PK (2007) Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag
Rev 9(1):31–51
Wang H, Lo J (2015) Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Gov Inf Q.
Weerawardena J, Mort GS, Liesch PW, Knight G (2007) Conceptualizing accelerated international-
ization in the born global firm: a dynamic capabilities perspective. J World Bus 42(3):294–306
Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180
van den Broek T, Rijken M, van Oort S (2012) Towards open development data
Xia W, King WR (2002) Determinants of organizational IT infrastructure capabilities: an empiri-
cal study
Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2014) Capability matrix for open data. In: 15th IFIP working conference on
virtual enterprises.
Zeleti FA, Ojo A, Curry E (2014) Business models for the open data industry: characterization and
analysis of emerging models. In: 15th annual international conference on digital government
research
Capability Development in Open Data-Driven Organizations 171

Zhenbin Yang, Kankanhalli A (2013) Innovation in government services: the case of open data.
IFIP Adv Inf Commun Technol 402:644–651
Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Poulis K, van de Kaa G (2015) Open data for competitive advantage:
insights from open data use by companies. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual international
conference on digital government research (dg.o 2015), pp 79–88

Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti  is a researcher at the e-Government unit at the Insight Centre for Data
Analytics @ National University of Ireland Galway (formerly Digital Enterprise Research Institute
(DERI) – a leading center in Semantic Web and Linked Open Data research). At the Insight Centre,
her research and development work addresses capabilities for open data-driven organizations and
how business (for-profit and nonprofit) entities can effectively leverage [Linked] Open
[Government] Data for optimizing business processes and product and service innovation. In 2016,
her research results have been selected as the best practice to address and achieve European PSI
Directive (2003/98/EC). She is the moderator of the World Bank Open Data Innovation Network
and an active member of the Swedish Research Network in e-Government and ImmigrationPolicy2.0.

Dr. Adegboyega Ojo  is Senior Research Fellow at the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National
University of Ireland Galway (NUIG). He leads the E-Government Group at Insight Centre, serves
as Adjunct Lecturer at the College of Engineering and Informatics. His current research interests
include data driven innovations in government, Open data policies and Infrastructures, data analyt-
ics and governance of smart cities. He is member of the Editorial Boards of the Government
Information Quarterly and International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age.
Water Analytics and Management
with Real-­Time Linked Dataspaces

Umair ul Hassan, Souleiman Hasan, Wassim Derguech, Louise Hannon,

Eoghan Clifford, Christos Kouroupetroglou, Sander Smit,
and Edward Curry

Abstract  Due to predictions of water scarcity in the future, governments and public
administrations are increasingly looking for innovative solutions to improve water
governance and conservation. The problem is exasperated due to low levels of
awareness about water consumption among the general public. This calls for a
holistic approach to effectively manage resources during all stages of water usage.
Implementation of such an approach heavily relies on advanced analytics technolo-
gies that combine data from different sources to enable decision support and public
engagement. The next-generation of water information management systems must
overcome significant technical challenges including integration of heterogeneous
and real-time data, creation of analytical models for diverse users, and exploitation
of ubiquitous devices to disseminate actionable information. This chapter presents
a new approach for water analytics in public spaces that is built upon the fundamental
concepts of Linked Data technologies. The chapter also presents a concrete realization
of the Linked Data approach through the development of water analytics applications
for buildings in public educational institutions.

U. ul Hassan • S. Hasan • W. Derguech • E. Curry (*)

Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: umair.ulhassan@insight-centre.org; souleiman.hasan@insight-centre.org;
wassim.derguech@insight-centre.org; ed.curry@insight-centre.org
L. Hannon • E. Clifford
College of Engineering & Informatics, National University of Ireland Galway,
Galway, Ireland
e-mail: louise.hannon@nuigalway.ie; eoghan.clifford@nuigalway.ie
C. Kouroupetroglou
Ultra4, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: kouroupetroglou@ultra4.eu
S. Smit
BM-Change, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
e-mail: sander@bm-change.nu

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 173

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_7
174 U. ul Hassan et al.

Introduction

One of the sustainable development goal set out by the United Nations, as part of its
agenda for 2030, is to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all (General Assembly, United Nations 2015). Furthermore, recent
projections by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development esti-
mate that more than 40% of the world’s population will be living in areas under
severe water stress by 2050 (OECD 2012). This problem is expected to worsen due
to a high global demand for water from manufacturing, thermal electricity genera-
tion and domestic use. Commercial uses of water are depleting the world’s freshwa-
ter supply in both quantity and quality. A key factor contributing towards scarcity of
water is the historical belief that water is not a vital resource that needs to be man-
aged. Nonetheless, a recent study has highlighted the effects of water scarcity on
economic growth (Hertel and Liu 2016). The same study also recommends conserv-
ing water through increased efficiency in existing uses. This underlines a significant
opportunity for research and development of ICT tools to raise awareness, improve
management, and increase conservation of water (Pereira et al. 2003).
In order to manage water holistically, it is important to use decision support tools
that present meaningful and contextual information about usage, pricing, and avail-
ability of water in an intuitive and interactive way. Different users have different
information requirements to manage water, from home users managing their per-
sonal water usage, business users managing the water consumption of their com-
mercial activities, to municipalities managing regional distribution and consumption
at the city level. In order to develop water information services for such diverse
users, it is necessary to leverage knowledge from across a number of different
domains, including metering, collection and catchment management, environmen-
tal, water quality, energy usage, utility information, end-user feedback, occupancy
patterns, meteorological data, etc. However, many barriers exist to interoperability
across domains and there is little interaction between these islands of information.
The design of next-generation water information management systems poses sig-
nificant technical challenges in terms of information management, integration of
heterogeneous data, and real-time processing of dynamic data.
Linked Data technology leverages open protocols and W3C standards for shar-
ing structured data on the Web. In this chapter, we discuss the use of Linked Data as
an enabling technology for water data services. The objective of this approach is to
create an integrated well-connected Real-time Linked Dataspace (Franklin et  al.
2005; Heath and Bizer 2011) of information relevant to managing water in public
spaces. Representing water usage data within the Linked Data format makes it open;
thus, allowing it to be easily combined with data from other relevant domain silos.
This chapter describes the fundamentals of the Linked Data approach for water data
services (Curry et al. 2014); in addition, it details a concrete implementation of this
approach for water analytics in public spaces. Section “Motivation” motivates the
need for contextual water information management. Section “Linked Data for Water
Information Integration” introduces the main concepts of the Linked Data approach.
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 175

Section “Linked Real-time Dataspace for the Waternomics Project” details the
architecture developed for enabling this approach, in the context of Waternomics
project. Section “Water Management in Public Spaces” describes the pilots used for
testing and validation of proposed approach. Section “Realization of Waternomics
Platform” details the water management applications designed a university building
and a school. Section “Related Work” discusses related literature and section
“Summary” provides a brief summary of this chapter.

Motivation

Sustainability requires information on the use, flows, and destinies of energy, water,
and materials including waste, along with monetary information on environmental
costs, earnings, and savings. This type of information is essential if we are to under-
stand the causal relationships between the various actions that can be taken, and
their impact on sustainability. However, the problem is broad in scope, and the nec-
essary information may not be available, or difficult to collect. Within the context of
water management, improving the sustainability of water consumption, especially
through changing the way a household, organization, or city operates (Curry and
Donnellan 2012). This requires a number of practical steps that will include the
need for a systematic approach for information-gathering and analysis.

Contextual Water Management

One of the key problems of modern water management systems is the lack of data
management and decision support tools that present meaningful and personalized
information about usage, pricing, and availability of water in an intuitive and inter-
active way to end-users. This introduces limitations in the efforts to manage water
as a resource, including:
• User Awareness: End-users do not have access to water information (i.e. avail-
ability, consumption, and pricing) at the moment water consumption decisions
are being taken.
• User Incentives: Due to billing, pricing, awareness, or metering aspects, end-­
users may not have an incentive to change their behavior.
• Integrated Information Provision & Analysis: Decision makers do not have
access to information platforms to make organizational changes. Personalized
water information can only be created by combining publicly available water
data with private water usage data that is only available to water service
providers.
• Benchmarking: End-users do not know if their individual water consumption
pattern is high or low compared to others.
176 U. ul Hassan et al.

Water Footprint and Water Information Ecosystems

The demand for business transparency is driving multinational companies towards

more holistic assessments of their water footprint and associated impact. By
understanding all the freshwater sources and uses related to a business or a prod-
uct, decision-­makers can identify environmentally conscious and programmatic
changes to reduce their freshwater impact or footprint. Water footprint assess-
ments are emerging concepts that require obtaining water data from many partici-
pants within an organization’s supply chain. Numerous data sources can be used
for this purpose, including weather data, geo-location data, historical records,
product usage data, user behavior habits, etc. There is no single source to provide
such data and a considerable number of different data sources must be integrated
to collect the information necessary to generate an accurate water footprint. In
short, successful management of water data requires consideration of all sources
of water consumption, including indirect ones, augmented with water network
distribution information.

Linked Data for Water Information Integration

Information integration projects typically focus on one-off point-to-point integra-

tion solutions between two or more systems in a customized but inflexible and ulti-
mately non-reusable manner. The fundamental concept of Linked Data is that
information is created with the mindset of sharing and reuse. Linked Data leverages
open protocols and W3C standards, emerging from research into the Semantic Web,
for sharing structured data on the Web. It proposes an approach for information
interoperability based on the creation of a global information space. Linked Data
has the following advantages:
• Separate systems that are designed independently can be later linked at the edges.
• Interoperability is added incrementally when needed and where it is cost
effective.
• Data is expressed in a mixture of vocabularies.
Linked Data is facilitating the publishing of large amounts of structured data on
the web. The resulting interlined data can be considered as a Web scale dataspace
supported by the Semantic Web technologies. The Linked Open Data1 represents a
large number of interlinked datasets that are being actively used by industry, gov-
ernment, and scientific communities. Linked Data promotes four basic principles
for exposing, sharing and connecting data. The first principle encourages the use of
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs2) for naming things. The second principle

 http://lod-cloud.net/
1

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
2
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 177

r­ ecommends the use of Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP3) for URIs, so that data
can be retrieved from names using standard protocols. The third principle promotes
the use of standard web formats, such as the Resource Description Framework
(RDF4) or the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON-LD5), for making data available
through URIs. The fourth principle encourages contextualization of data by provid-
ing links to other related URIs, thus creating a data network. Within the context of
water analytics, following these principles enables standardized access and supports
interoperability for applications that aim to exploit water information.

Linked Real-Time Dataspace for the Waternomics Project

The goal of the Waternomics6 project is to provide personalized and actionable infor-
mation about water consumption and water availability to households, companies,
and cities in an intuitive and effective manner at a time-scale that is relevant for effec-
tive decision making (Curry et al. 2014). Access to such information will increase
end-user awareness and improve the quality of the decisions regarding water man-
agement and governance. Waternomics accomplishes this by combining water usage
related information from various sources and domains to offer water information
services to end-users. The Waternomics platform enables sharing of water informa-
tion services across different groups of users by providing a convergence layer on top
of existing water infrastructures with minimal disruption. The objective is to expose
the data within existing systems, but only linking the data when it needs to be shared.
Representing water usage data within the Linked Data format makes it open; thus,
allowing it to be easily combined with data from other relevant domains.

Architecture

The main components of the envisioned architecture, as illustrated in Fig. 1, are the
data sources of water usage on existing metering systems, a dataspace consisting of
Linked Data, a set of support services, and the resulting applications for water
management.
• Water Metering: At the bottom of the architecture are the operational and legacy
information systems. Adapters perform the “RDFization” process, which trans-
forms multiple formats and legacy data to lifts it to the dataspace. Linked Data
principles play a crucial part here since they enable interoperability a cross-­linking

3
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616
4
 https://www.w3.org/RDF/
5
 http://json-ld.org/
6
 http://www.waternomics.eu
178 U. ul Hassan et al.

Fig. 1  The Waternomics platform

of water information across different sensors. Furthermore, this RDFization

enables contextualization of local water information with the openly available
Linked Data such as geographical and meteorological information.
• Data Integration: The Linked Data integrates at the information-level (data),
instead of at the infrastructure-level (system), by focusing more on the concep-
tual similarities (shared understanding) between information. The resulting
Realtime Linked Dataspace is rich with knowledge and semantics about water
usage performance indicators and forms the basis for real-time water usage ana-
lytics and other applications with the help of support services. A key aspect of
integration based on Linked Data principles is the re-use or mapping of existing
vocabularies and ontologies for describing water data, thus facilitating semantic
linkage within and beyond the dataspace.
• Dataspace Support Services: The support services are designed to simplify the
consumption of the Real-time Linked Dataspace by encapsulating common ­services
for reuse (e.g. search and query, entity management, event processing, etc.). These
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 179

support services exploit Linked Data technologies and provide additional tools for
aggregation, analysis, and improvement of basic data gathered through water meter-
ing. Furthermore, these services enrich the aggregated data for complex analytical
queries. The primary purpose of these services is to provide Application
Programmable Interfaces (APIs) over the dataspace that can be re-used by applica-
tion developers.
• Water Analytics Applications: At the top of the architecture are the water usage
and management applications that consume the resulting data and events from
the Real-time Linked Dataspace. These applications not only consume the infor-
mation from the dataspace but also generate user-friendly views over the under-
lying data.
The support services play a crucial role in realization and exploitation of the
Real-time Liked Dataspace. These services include but are not limited to:
• Search & Query Service: The query service concerns the technical aspects of
enabling access to the data in the Real-time Linked Dataspace through structured
queries or RESTful API calls. The query service also enables low latency data
analysis. The search service provides keyword-based lookup queries over under-
lying data sources and their descriptions. The objective of such a service is to
help developers and applications in a situation when their queries are not
well-defined.
• Entity Management Service: This service provides a catalog that serves as the
central registry of entities, datasets, and data sources. Within the catalog, all
water related datasets, entities, and other sources of information are declared
along with their descriptions. This includes a) the list of entities such as sensors
or locations that are important for understanding water data and b) open data
sources that are relevant to water management such as weather observation sta-
tions or forecast services. Besides the APIs and query endpoints provided by the
individual data sources, the catalog also provides queries services over the
descriptions of entities and datasets.
• Event Processing Service: The event processing service allows automatic
matching of events similar to users defined rules based on a semantic model for
water management. Thus, it simplifies the task of water sensor management. It
allows the system to go up early, while administrators can add more meta-data
for sensor management in a pay-as-you-go manner (Derguech et al. 2015; Hasan
and Curry 2014; Hasan et al. 2013b).
• Human Computation Service: The support services, as described above, are pri-
marily focused on providing management tools and programmable access to the
constituent information of the Real-time Linked Dataspace. These services are fur-
ther complemented with a human computation service that is concerned with the
collaborative aspect of data management (Ul Hassan et al. 2013, 2016). Essentially,
it allows small tasks for data management to be distributed among people who are
willing to participate in the dataspace management and i­mprovement process (Ul
Hassan et al. 2012). The same service is further utilized for spatial tasks of data
management in public spaces (Ul Hassan and Curry 2016).
180 U. ul Hassan et al.

Water Management in Public Spaces

One of the distinguishing aspects of the Waternomics project is its wide variety of
end-users. Waternomics has four pilot sites to test and validate its research activi-
ties, data platform, and applications. The pilot sits represent use cases of water
management in public spaces, as summarized in Table 1.

Linate Airport

The Linate Airport pilot targets corporate users that are staff members of the air-
port including building managers, technicians, and engineers. These are adult users
that have an advanced level of education and skills to work in such environment.
Besides staff members of the airport, target users also include passengers that
range from a wide variety of casual to business travelers from different age groups
from kids to adults.
Linate Airport is deeply embedded in the urban belt of the city of Milan in
Italy. It has a total area of approximately 350 hectares. The airport clientele is
predominantly passengers on particular national and international particular
routes. In 2012, the Linate airport has operated for 6.3% of the passengers, and
2.2 % of the goods in transit through Italian airports. The airport has two runways
for landing and take-­off. The first runway (2442 m long) is intended for commer-
cial aviation and the second runway (601 m long) is intended for general aviation.
The airport aprons, ramps, and parking stands allow for the simultaneous parking
of 46 aircraft. The passenger terminal extends over five levels with a total area of
about 75,000 m2 (of which about 33,000 m2 are open to the public). The terminal
is equipped with 71 check-in counters and 24 gates, five of which serve as a load-
ing bridge. Approximately 21% of the area open to the public is dedicated to com-
mercial activities (shops, restaurants, bars, car rentals, banking services, post
offices, branches of public services) and 7.5% to the services provided by airlines
(check-in, ticketing).
Given the complexity of an airport, a key aspect of this pilot site has been the
cooperation with the company that operates the airport. In particular, information on
commercial activities and information on key water consumers within the airport, as
well as the water and wastewater infrastructure, have been readily made available.

Table 1  Summary of pilots for the Waternomics project

Pilot Usage User Groups
Linate Airport Corporate Corporate Staff, Travelers, Shop Owners
Municipality of Thermi Domestic Families
NUIG Engineering Building Public Building Managers, University Staff, and
Students
Coláiste na Coiribe School Public Building Managers, School Staff, and Students
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 181

Municipality of Thermi

The pilot concerning the Municipality of Thermi in Greece targets domestic users.
Families are the primary users including children, young adults, and adults. The
Municipality of Thermi is situated in the eastern area of the prefecture of
Thessaloniki, at a distance of 15 km from the metropolitan center of Thessaloniki.
The Municipality of Thermi consists of 14 communities with Thermi being the
seat of the Municipality, covering an area of 38.34 hectares. The total population of
the Municipality of Thermi is 53,070 according to the census in 2011; however, the
actual population is now estimated at 70,000.
The main land use in the area is agriculture; however, land use is changing with
more land being dedicated to various types of buildings and infrastructure. Thermi
has a strong developmental relationship with an urban area located in close proxim-
ity: the Thessaloniki Urban Agglomeration (TUA). It is a rapidly growing and eco-
nomically viable zone, which is developed as a residential expansion of the TUA,
but also as a pole for the location of industrial plants, tertiary sector activities, and
highly specialized services, maintaining, at the same time, the characteristics of a
developed suburban agricultural economy. At the southeast part of the settlement,
there is a planned area of soft manufacturing activities. Finally, there are some large
land property areas, such as the military installations, the airport, the American
Farm School and the buildings of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH),
which cover a significant amount of land in the area.
For the purpose of water management pilot, a selection of 10 households was
made. These households were selected so that they represent a wide variety of types
of houses and families in order to examine the effects of different types of domestic
users.

NUIG Engineering Building

The pilot in National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) targets staff members
(including managers, technicians, and researchers) and students (including under-
graduates and postgraduates). While staff members are interested in understanding
water usage behaviors and detecting saving opportunities, students are interested in
visualizing the building consumption and water consumption data in their projects
and research works. The age groups of this pilot site range from young adults to
adults. NUIG is one of the Ireland’s national universities, founded in 1845, it is
ranked among the top 2% of universities in the world. Located in the city of Galway
(population 70,000 approximately) on the west coast of Ireland, NUIG has more
than 17,000 students and 2500 staff. The Engineering Building at NUIG is a state of
the art educational facility designed to be a “living laboratory” where the building
itself is an interactive teaching tool. The Engineering Building opened in 2011; it is
the largest engineering building in Ireland and includes lecture halls, classrooms,
182 U. ul Hassan et al.

offices, laboratory facilities, a café, showers, and bathrooms. The building accom-
modates approximately 1100 students and 100 staff on four floors (in 14,000 m2 of
floor space). The majority of students are undergraduates aged 18–24 years.

Coláiste na Coiribe School

Similar to the university, a secondary school in Galway has both staff members and
students as target users. The main difference is the age groups of users which range
from kids to adults on this site. Coláiste na Coiribe (CnaC) is an Irish language
secondary school with approximately 350 students and 25 teaching and administra-
tive staff. The existing school is housed at a small location in the city center. To
facilitate the demand for places at the school and to address space pressures, a new
school (7400 m2) was under constructed at a suburban location in Galway.
This new school building serves as a pilot for Waternomics. The new school
accommodates up to 720 students (aged 12–18) and includes classrooms, offices,
sports halls and associated toilet and shower facilities. As the school was identified
as a suitable pilot site at the early stages of construction it provided an opportunity
for the Waternomics project team to engage with the designers and contractors in
the deciding on the provision of water metering and water information infrastruc-
ture for the building. In addition, it provided a unique opportunity to monitor this
new building from the beginning of its occupation.
The new school building opened in October 2015, it facilitated engagement with
students at an early age regarding water consumption behavior. Furthermore, these
students tested and gave feedback to the project on how the platform functions in
communicating complex water-related data to a wider audience. The collaboration
between the school and the Waternomics project resulted in students actively pro-
viding inputs to the project (e.g. user interface design, applications etc.). The school
management faces key budgetary and conservation targets; to date reporting on
water and associated energy consumption has been very limited. The pilot informs
future design of similar buildings with a particular focus on water conservation
measures and rainwater harvesting systems.

Realization of Waternomics Platform

In this section, we provide a concrete realization of the Real-time Linked Dataspace

using the tools and techniques discussed in previous sections. We have implemented
the dataspace, for the Waternomics project, as a realization of the Lambda architecture.
The Lambda architecture was introduced with the aim of allowing seamless ingestion
and processing of streaming events data (Yang et al. 2014). It consists of three layers:
the batch layer deals with processing of large quantities of historical data, the speed
layer processes real-time data to minimize latency, and the serving layer provides com-
bined query access to data from other two layers. Our implementation departs from the
original Lambda architecture due to the central role of catalog service in the
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 183

Fig. 2  Lambda architecture realization of the Real-time Linked Dataspace for the Waternomics
project

implementation of the batch, speed, and serving layers. The support services in the
dataspace are mainly implemented through customization of following open source
software: Druid, Apache Spark, MySQL, Apache Kafka, and Apache Cassandra.
Figure 2 shows the data from a building management system (BMS) and water sen-
sors in the Galway pilot being processed in the dataspace. All data sources and entities
are defined in the catalog (WKAN) . The batch layer is implemented using Spark SQL
when historical data from BMS is fed into the indexer node of Druid. Real-time data
from sensors is fed into the Kafka message broker, which provides a high availability
integration point for speed layer data from the different pilots. Real-time data from
Kafka is processed through Spark Streaming to a real-time node of Druid. The com-
bined code from Spark Streaming and Spark SQL provides a standardized way of gen-
erating dimensional data that is served using the Druid cluster. The Druid nodes use
Cassandra as deep storage for historical data. The batch data is made available through
the historical node and streaming data is made available through the real-time node.
Periodically, the streaming data is pushed to the historical node as new data arrives. The
broker node of Druid seamlessly exposes batch data and real-time data, without the need
for writing queries for real-time and batch data separately.

Data Sources and Open Data

The pilots in the Waternomics project aim to collect both real-time and historical
data for water management. For instance, the NUIG and CnaC pilots include fol-
lowing data sources for large buildings.
184 U. ul Hassan et al.

• Historical and batch data from building management system

• Real-time data from ultrasonic water sensors
A set of relevant open datasets for both pilot sites are included in the Waternomics
catalog:
• Open data from weather prediction and observation services
• Public calendar data used by analytics services for distinguishing between water
consumption in working days and holidays.
• Drought data in Ireland
• Updates from Irish Water services
All of the above-mentioned data sources joined the real-time dataspace for
NUIG and CnaC pilots through definition in the WKAN catalog. Figure 3 shows
a list of datasets for the NUIG pilot. It shows summary meta-data for each data-
set in the form of tags and description. Users can select a data source to reveal
further meta-­data which includes the location of data. As a convention, all data-
sets for historical and real-time data from sensors of pilots are tagged as private.
This way there associated meta-data is only visible to authorized users. By com-
parison, open data sets are defined as public datasets which can be used by
everyone.

Fig. 3  Datasets and data sources in the WKAN catalog for the NUIG pilot
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 185

Applications

The applications that may be built on top of Waternomics dataspace are diverse;
they include water awareness dashboards, decision support for the different targeted
users (i.e. domestic users, organizations, cities), and water availability/forecasting,
dynamic pricing, and water footprints.
• Water awareness: Low comprehension of water flows by users and over usage
is one of the biggest causes of water wastage. A lack of awareness on the amount
of water consumed leads to the lack of incentives to monitor and affect the
­situation. Water awareness requires different information for household, com-
pany, and city level, and where different decisions are taken to manage water on
these levels. Therefore, water awareness dashboards need to be tailored to differ-
ent needs of different water usage levels. The data collected by smart water
meters is enriched with contextually Linked Data and processed in real-time;
hence, allowing for deeper data analysis and faster reactions.
• Water consumption: Hydro-meteorological forecasts predict natural demand and
supply of water and can be used to prepare and adjust water supply. Forecasting
systems can achieve different goals depending on the level of the system deploy-
ment. At the household level, forecasts include analysis of occupants’ behavior and
water consumption based on similar historical water usage. These forecasts can be
incorporated into dashboards and used as the drivers for water saving goal.
Forecasting models can further leverage Linked Open Data at the neighborhood or
city-level. At the company-level forecasts similar to those of the household level
are also augmented by models or simulations of the water needs of subsystems
within the organization. Linked Data can be used to perform benchmarking
between similar organizations to identify areas of potential water optimization.
• Water education: Understanding the impact of a product or service requires an
analysis of all potential water consumption associated with its entire lifecycle.
For instance, a water footprint of a product would provide a quantitative cradle-­
to-­grave analysis of the product/services global water costs (i.e., water used in
raw materials extraction, through materials processing, manufacture, distribu-
tion, use, repair and maintenance, electricity generation, and disposal or recy-
cling). Building a water footprint requires the gathering of water data from many
participants within the supply chain. Linked Open Data can be a key enabler for
the development of a global information ecosystem of water footprint inventory
data on products, services, and organizations.
In the following, we present a set of applications developed for the NUIG
Engineering Building and the CnaC School. Since both pilot sites have many com-
monalities, they share two main applications: the Public Display and the Manager
Dashboard. Table 2 presents an overview of the applications developed in terms of
their objective and target user groups.
186 U. ul Hassan et al.

Table 2  Mapping of applications against objectives and user groups

Water Goal-­
Retention oriented
Public Manager Time Observatories Wearable Accessing
Display Dashboard Observer Control Panel Info-centre Water
Objectives of Applications
Increase ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Water
Awareness
Reduce ✓ ✓
Water
Consumption
Promote ✓
Water
Education
User Groups in University
President ✓ ✓
Building ✓ ✓ ✓
Services
Manager
Chief ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Technical
Officer
Consultants/ ✓
Contractors
Technicians ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Staff/ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lecturers
Researchers ✓ ✓ ✓
(PG/PD)
Students ✓ ✓ ✓
User Groups in School
School ✓ ✓
Principal
Building ✓ ✓
Contractor
Teachers ✓
Students ✓

Public Display

A key objective for both pilot sites in Galway was to increase water usage awareness
in public spaces. Towards this objective, setup of a kiosk with an interactive dashboard
can help attract people and engage them with discovering water usage details of their
building. A public dashboard is a web application that shows generic information of
the site’s water consumption as compared with social norms; in addition, it displays
information related to consumption per student, toilet flushes per day, etc.
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 187

Fig. 4  Public Display showing water data from the NUIG Engineering Building

The web application developed for Galway pilots, as shown in Fig. 4, serves as a
communication medium to display the amount of water being consumed in various
parts of the building. This application shows volumetric values of water usage in
other dimensions such as cost, metaphors, and footprints. The image on left side of
Fig. 4 shows the amount of water in terms of the number of standard size of water
cooler bottles. This application visualizes water quantities in circles using colors to
indicate if the water usage is high or low. This application also uses social media to
inform users about the technology used within the Waternomics project, and its
updates. Users can interact further with the application to explore the water usage
data over a full month; furthermore, they can get more details about technologies
used within the Waternomics project.
The public dashboard application uses the Water Analytics Support Service for
querying the data from the dataspace. This service has been extended to serve as an
extension of the public dashboard and allow users to explore further the water data
by scanning QR codes near the sensors. As shown in Fig. 5, users are able to visual-
ize the entire month’s consumption. This extension aims to support students and
researchers who can retrieve the data from this service via its API to use in their
research projects.

Manager Dashboard

Managers in the NUIG Engineering Building and CnaC school are interested in
watching the consumption at different points of the water network. In both pilots,
dashboards can be considered rather as a family of applications targeting the
188 U. ul Hassan et al.

Fig. 5  Visualizing Water Analytics for the sensor 309 in February 2016

specific needs of managers than as a single application aiming to solve all prob-
lems for all users. One of the key elements used in the Manager dashboards are
historical graphs showing the consumption in various points or groups of inter-
ests (see Fig. 6). Goal setting and tracking is also an important aspect for manag-
ers in the Galway pilots so comparison graphs are an important part of their
dashboards.

Water Retention Time Observer

Making drinking water available becomes a major concern in public spaces. This can
be guaranteed through a carefully selected location for drinking water fountains in
order to make sure that water is always flowing in the pipes. However, in spaces such
as a university building, drinking water fountains can remain unused during long holi-
days and weekends. Consequently, drinking water can reside in the pipes for long
periods. Building managers want to make sure that residual water is still safe to drink.
In this context, the water retention time observer application can assist managers
to guarantee that they receive timely notifications regarding water that has been
residing for a long period in drinking water pipes. This is done by allowing them to
setup a set of rules for tracking periods of inactivity in specific measurement points
and automatically send notifications through the system to selected user groups.
Figure 7 shows the list of active alarms detected by the application. The application
is well aligned with one of the objectives of Waternomics project, i.e. giving action-
able information to water users and managers.
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 189

Fig. 6  Manager Dashboard for NUIG Engineering Building

190 U. ul Hassan et al.

Fig. 7  Retention time observer and active alarms

Observations Control Panel

Both pilot sites in Galway also aim to improve water network management by
assisting staff in coordinating and making better-informed decisions. An addi-
tional aspect in this context is the ability to communicate messages to specific
user-groups related to their consumption in order to require actions or encour-
age behavior change. The observations control panel is an application that gives
an overview of the status of all notifications within a timeframe. It provides an
interface for managing notifications that can originate from any application that
uses data from the dataspace. Based on the activity logging on different notifica-
tions, the user can see how much time it takes from the time of creation of a
notification to the time of action or expiry. The application also allows to filter
notifications based on the group they were targeting, criticality level and the
source application. The control panel allows managers to not only show but
generate custom notifications themselves to facilitate this communication with
specific user groups.

Wearable Info-Centre

Managers at the Galway pilots are very mobile and they require instant notifications
of important aspects of the water consumption in their building. In this case, how-
ever, users are more technology friendly and expressed their willingness to use more
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 191

Fig. 8 Wearable
info-centre, receiving
notification from the water
retention time observer

advanced mechanisms for receiving notifications through smart devices. The wear-
able info-center application was developed for mobile notifications.
The wearable info-centre is an application that the user installs on a smartwatch
to display notifications as they are received on the mobile phone. This way users
don’t have to check on their phones every time they receive notifications from the
platform. Instead, they can check their smartwatches which is less obtrusive while
communicating the information at any time. Figure 8 shows an example of using the
wearable info-centre. The application provides an interface for displaying notifica-
tions that can originate from any application which uses data from the real-time
dataspace. So, the application is indirectly uses all kinds of data provided by the
real-time dataspace.

Goal-Oriented Accessing Water

One of the ideas explore during the user tests was the concept of allowing users to
track their own personal consumption patterns. The patterns are based on the appli-
cations that are activated and connected with specific micro-sessions of user con-
suming water such as preparing coffee, drinking water, washing hands etc. One of
the key outcomes in user tests was that mobile and wearable devices can offer a
great opportunity in personalized tracking but this is hard to do if it requires an
additional action to already existing routine (e.g. if it requires you to get your phone
out of your pocket and scan a QR code). So, in the goal-oriented accessing water
application we experimented with the idea of replacing an action in user’s routine
while in parallel providing some short pieces of information (Fig. 9).
This concept challenges the centuries old mechanism of operating a faucet, which
in fact is a valve of various designs. The new system transforms water usage into goal-
oriented activity such that accessing water is no longer just about enabling a valve. By
setting up a touch enabled sink display next to a faucet (without its original turning
knob), users were able to choose certain water activity such as “one cup of tea” or
192 U. ul Hassan et al.

Fig. 9 Goal-oriented
Accessing water application

“one bottle of water”. This message will be sent through wireless to a solenoid valve
connected to a water pipe or faucet that provides a certain amount of water. In this
manner, users were always aware of their water usage thus lowering the chance of
wastage. A social network system was also implemented into the system such that
users could report issues to each other or even to the building manager so that urgent
problems can be solved more rapidly to prevent waste of water in any case.

Related Work

In general, data management is seen as a challenge for smart infrastructures

(Cavanillas et al. 2016; Curry et al. 2016; Nam et al. 2011). As recent surveys show,
a number of policies and standards for smart metering have been adopted in differ-
ent countries, but most standards still contain a fragmented set of solutions with
little support for adding contextual data (Liotta et al. 2012). Most policies and stan-
dards appear in the smart grid area and are adopted by other areas (Fang-Yuan Xu
et al. 2010). Hydro-meteorological information is mainly described by drought indi-
cators (Barua et  al. 2011) such as Standardized Precipitation Index (Cancelliere
et al. 2007) and Temperature Condition Index (Kogan 1995). Mostly these indices
describe the present state of the system (Boken 2009).
It has been shown that water consumption awareness and the strength of moti-
vation greatly affect the potential for water saving. For example, in Kappel and
Grechenig (2009) the deployment of an experimental system that provided
detailed water usage information in the shower showed the resulting decrease in
water consumption. It also showed the division of users into two groups: those
who continued to pursue conscious water behavior even after the experiment was
over, and those who returned to previous water habits after the removal of infor-
mational displays. An overview of pro-environmental behavior models and key
human-computer interaction techniques to promote and motivate such behavior
are presented in Froehlich et al. (2010). In Makonin et al. (2011), a display to
present gas, electricity, and water consumption in an artistic way is described. In
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 193

Lepe-Salazar et al. (2012), a persuasive application to promote a responsible atti-

tude towards natural resources, food, and water during family interactions is
described. The comparison between lightweight ambient and numeric displays is
performed in Kuznetsov and Paulos (2010). Results showed that an abstract
ambient display with color-coded visualization of water usage causes bigger
water-saving behavior changes comparing to a numeric display. In Hasan et al.
(2013a), group-based feedback is used to reduce the consumption of paper within
an office environment.
All of these techniques are complementary to real-time dataspaces for water ana-
lytics. The approach we propose here aims to make it easier to implement such
applications by reducing the cost of gathering the necessary data to drive the
applications.

Summary

This chapter motivates the need for efficient water information management in pub-
lic spaces and presents a Real-time Linked Dataspace approach for water data ser-
vices. A high-level architecture, for the Real-time Linked Dataspace, realizes this
approach in the context of the Waternomics project. The Waternomics project estab-
lished the utility of this approach with the help of four pilot sites that represent dif-
ferent scenarios of public spaces. This chapter describes a concrete instantiation of
the Real-time Linked Dataspace approach for two educational institutions, along
with applications supported by the water data services.

Acknowledgments  The research leading to these results has received funding under the European
Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme from ICT grant agreement WATERNOMICS no.
619660. It is also supported in part by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number
SFI/12/RC/2289.

References

Barua S, Ng AWM, Perera BJC (2011) Comparative evaluation of drought indexes: case study on
the Yarra River catchment in Australia. J Water Resour Plan Manag 137(2):215–226
Boken VK (2009) Improving a drought early warning model for an arid region using a soil-­
moisture index. Appl Geogr 29(3):402–408
Cancelliere A, Mauro GD, Bonaccorso B, Rossi G (2007) Drought forecasting using the standard-
ized precipitation index. Water Resour Manag 21(5):801–819
Cavanillas JM, Curry E, Wahlster W (2016) New horizons for a data-driven economy: a roadmap
for usage and exploitation of big data in Europe. Springer, Cham
Curry E, Donnellan B (2012) Sustainable information systems and green metrics. In: Harnessing
green it: principles and practices. Wiley, Chichester, pp 167–198
Curry E, Degeler V, Clifford E, Coakley D, Costa A, van Andel SJ, van de Giesen N, Kouroupetroglou
C, Messervey T, Mink J, Smit S (2014) Linked water data for water information management.
In: 11th international conference on hydroinformatics (HIC)
194 U. ul Hassan et al.

Curry E, Dustdar S, Sheng QZ, Sheth A (2016) Smart cities enabling services and applications.
J Internet Serv Appl 7(1):6
Derguech W, Bhiri S, Hasan S, Curry E (2015) Using formal concept analysis for organizing and
discovering sensor capabilities. Comput J 58(3):356–367
Fang-Yuan Xu, Long Zhou, Yi Lin Wu, Yingnan Ma (2010) Standards, policies and case studies in
smart metering. In: IEEE PES general meeting, pp 1–5
Franklin M, Halevy A, Maier D (2005) From databases to dataspaces. ACM SIGMOD Rec
34(4):27–33. doi:10.1145/1107499.1107502
Froehlich J, Findlater L, Landay J (2010) The design of eco-feedback technology. In: Proceedings
of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1999–2008
General Assembly, United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustain-
able development. Tech. Rep. 1
Hasan S, Curry E (2014) Approximate semantic matching of events for the internet of things. ACM
Trans Internet Technol 14(1):1–23
Hasan S, Medland R, Foth M, Curry E. (2013a) Curbing resource consumption using team-based
feedback. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial
intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 7822 LNCS, pp 75–86
Hasan S, O’Riain S, Curry E (2013b) Towards unified and native enrichment in event processing
systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on distributed event-based
systems (DEBS ’13). ACM Press, New York, p. 171. doi:10.1145/2488222.2488347
Heath T, Bizer C (2011) Linked data: evolving the web into a global data space. Synthesis lectures
on the semantic web: theory and technology. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael
Hertel TW, Liu J (2016) Implications of water scarcity for economic growth
Kappel K, Grechenig T (2009) “Show-me”: water consumption at a glance to promote water con-
servation in the shower. In: Persuasive 09 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on
persuasive technology, pp 1–6
Kogan FN (1995) Application of vegetation index and brightness temperature for drought detec-
tion. Adv Space Res 15(11):91–100
Kuznetsov S, Paulos E (2010) UpStream: motivating water conservation with low-cost water flow
sensing and persuasive displays. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human
factors in computing systems – CHI ’10. ACM Press, New York, p 1851
Lepe-Salazar F, Yamabe T, Alexandrova T, Liu Y, Nakajima, T (2012) Family interaction for
responsible natural resource consumption. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual confer-
ence on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’12), pp 2105–2110
Liotta A, Geelen D, van Kempen G, van Hoogstraten F (2012) A survey on networks for smart
metering systems. Int J Pervasive Comput Commun 8(1):23–52
Makonin S, Pasquier P, Bartram L (2011): Elements of consumption: an abstract visualiza-
tion of household consumption. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries
Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol. 6815 LNCS,
pp 194–198
Nam T, Aldama FA, Chourabi H, Mellouli S, Pardo TA, Gil-Garcia JR, Scholl HJ, Ojo A, Estevez
E, Zheng L (2011). Smart cities and service integration. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual
International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Innovation in
Challenging Times, dg.o ’11, New York, pp 333–334
OECD (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050. OECD environmental outlook. OECD
Publishing, Paris
Pereira AG, Rinaudo JD, Jeffrey P, Blasques J, Quintana SC, Courtois N, Funtowicz S, Petit V
(2003) ICT tools to support public participation in water resources governance & planning:
experiences from the design and testing of a multi-media platform. J Environ Assess Policy
Manag 05(03):395–420
Ul Hassan U, Curry E (2016) Efficient task assignment for spatial crowdsourcing: a combinatorial
fractional optimization approach with semi-bandit learning. Expert Syst Appl 58:36–56
Water Analytics and Management with Real-Time Linked Dataspaces 195

Ul Hassan U, O’Riain S, Curry E (2012) Towards expertise modelling for routing data cleaning
tasks within a community of knowledge workers. In: Proceedings of the 17th international
conference on information quality, Paris
Ul Hassan U, Bassora M, Vahid AH, O’Riain S, Curry E (2013) A collaborative approach for
metadata management for Internet of things: linking micro tasks with physical objects. In:
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on collaborative computing: networking, appli-
cations and worksharing. IEEE, pp 593–598
Ul Hassan U, Zaveri A, Marx E, Curry E, Lehmann J (2016) ACRyLIQ: Leveraging DBpedia for
Adaptive Crowdsourcing in Linked Data Quality Assessment. In: Blomqvist E, Ciancarini P,
Poggi F, Vitali F (eds) Knowledge engineering and knowledge management. Springer, Cham,
pp 681–696
Yang F, Tschetter E, Léauté X, Ray N, Merlino G, Ganguli D (2014) Druid: a real-time ana-
lytical data store. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD international conference on
Management of data – SIGMOD ’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 157–168

Dr. Umair ul Hassan  (www.umairulhassan.org) is a postdoctoral researcher at the Insight Centre

of Data Analytics, National University of Ireland, Galway. He has extensive work experience in
industry, government, and academia. Umair has been directly involved in research and industry
collaboration projects funded by the European Commission, the Science Foundation Ireland, and
Enterprise Ireland. He regularly contributes to the programme task force of the Big Data Value
Association. His general interests include collective computing, crowdsourcing, collective data
management, collaborative dataspaces, Linked Data, Semantic Web smart cities, and smart build-
ings. Umair has published several research papers in well-recognized scientific conferences and
journals, and served on the technical committee of international conferences and workshops.

Dr. Souleiman Hasan  (www.souleimanhasan.org) is an adjunct lecturer and postdoctoral

researcher at the Insight Centre for Data Analytics at the National University of Ireland, Galway.
He leads the Big Data Processing Architectures special group at the Big Data Value Association
(www.BDVA.eu), a non-profit European industry-­led organisation for data-driven innovation.
Souleiman investigates the data coupling and scalability problem of distributed event processing
systems within heterogeneous environments, such as the Internet of Things, using advanced data
analytics techniques for data representation. He has served as a program committee member and
reviewer for several scientific venues and his work has been published in various journals and
international conferences.

Dr. Wassim Derguech  (www.wassimderguech.org) is a postdoctoral researcher at the Insight

Centre for Data Analytics at the National University of Ireland, Galway. In his research, Wassim
investigated the use of semantic web and related technologies for managing services and business
processes applied to the e-government domain, customs clearance procedures and Internet of
Things. He also tackled the problem of decision support and data analytics in the area of energy
intelligence and smart water management. He is actively involved as a program committee mem-
ber and reviewer of international journals, conferences and workshops.

Louise Hannon  is a Senior Research Associate in Civil Engineering at NUI Galway, she is a
Chartered Engineer with extensive experience in engineering infrastructure design and project
management. Louise has spent most of her career to date in civil engineering consultancy involved
in the design and management of highway infrastructure projects. Louise has been involved in civil
engineering research at NUI Galway research since 2013, completing a Research Masters in 2016
as well as managing and contributing to a number of EU and Irish research projects. Her research
interests include water and wastewater management, she has authored/contributed to a number of
papers in the area in particular related to Sustainable management of water resources, Fault
Detection and Diagnosis, Sustainable wastewater treatment, Effecting Water Use Behavioural
Change, Operational Testing and monitoring at De-centralized Wastewater Plants.
196 U. ul Hassan et al.

Eoghan Clifford  is a lecturer in Civil Engineering, NUI Galway with 15 years’ experience in the
areas of water and wastewater engineering in the academic, research and private spheres. His key
research interests lie in the development of tools and technology that can improve outcomes in the
water and wastewater sectors. He also has a particular interest in areas such as policy development
and improving interaction between end users and technology that that lead to more sustainable
water and energy usage at a local, national and international scale. He has managed national, EU
and industry funded research projects with a total value of € 8 m in the last 7 year, has 100+ scien-
tific articles in peer reviewed international journals and conference proceedings. He has written
numerous reports for the Irish Environmental Protection Agency and has 3 patents in the wastewa-
ter technology sphere. Eoghan is a Chartered Engineer with a PhD in Environmental Engineering.

Christos Kouroupetroglou  was awarded his PhD in 2010 and his thesis subject was “Semantically
enhanced web browsing interfaces”. During his PhD research he investigated the impact of
Semantic-Web based assistive interfaces in web browsing for blind people and worked as a pri-
mary researcher of SeEBrowser project. In parallel, he also taught as a scientific and laboratory
associate at the ATEI of Thessaloniki and in Mediterranean college of Thessaloniki in modules
related to Web Applications Development. His latest research efforts include the participation in 2
EU funded projects dealing with the use of ICT to raise awareness for water conservation issues
(http://www.waternomics.eu) and the use of robotics to combat loneliness and isolation of people
with dementia (http://www.mario-porject.eu). He is the author of “Enhancing the Human
Experience through Assistive Technologies and E-Accessibility” and has chaired a number of con-
ference sessions and online symposia.

Sander Smit  is founder and owner of BM-Change, a Dutch consultancy firm specialised in stra-
tegic innovation. For the past twenty years he has been working as a Project Manager and Business
Consultant in product- and service-development projects in the domains Consumer Electronics,
Telecom & Media, Smart Mobility, Smart Energy Networks and Smart Water Systems. Since
2006, Sander has specialised himself in strategic innovation. He has been responsible for business
model design and exploitation activities in national- and international research projects. Sander has
published multiple papers on business model innovation and is co-­creator of the international best-
selling book “Business Model Generation”.

Dr. Edward Curry  (www.edwardcurry.org) is Vice President of the Big Data Value Association
(www.BDVA.eu) a non-profit industry-led organisation with the objective of increasing the com-
petitiveness of European Companies with data-­driven innovation. He is a research leader at the
Insight Centre for Data Analytics (www.insight-centre.org) and a funded investigator at LERO The
Irish Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie). Edward has worked extensively with industry and
government advising on the adoption patterns, practicalities, and benefits of new technologies.
Edward has published over 120 scientific articles in journals, books, and international
conferences.
Fostering Citizens’ Participation
and Transparency with Social Tools
and Personalization

Vittorio Scarano, Delfina Malandrino, Michael Baker, Françoise Détienne,

Jerry Andriessen, Mirjam Pardijs, Adegboyega Ojo, Michael Hogan,
Albert Meijer, and Erna Ruijer

Abstract  In this paper we present innovative solutions to the problem of transpar-

ency in Public Administrations (PAs) by opening up public data and services so that
citizens participation is facilitated and encouraged with a Social Platform and a
personalized user-friendly Transparency-Enhancing Toolset.

Introduction

In our research, transparency is a characteristic of an interactive collaborative

process between local government and its citizens. Different forms of collaboration
are characteristic of how local governments and its citizens interact, specific for

V. Scarano (*) • D. Malandrino

Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Salerno, Italy
e-mail: vitsca@dia.unisa.it; dmalandrino@unisa.it
M. Baker • F. Détienne
CNRS - Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France
e-mail: michael.baker@telecom-paristech.fr; francoise.detienne@telecom-paristech.fr
J. Andriessen • M. Pardijs
Wise & Munro Learning Res, Den Haag, The Netherlands
e-mail: jerry@wisenmunro.eu; mirjam@wisemunro.eu
A. Ojo
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway,
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: Adegboyega.Ojo@insight-centre.org
M. Hogan
National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: michael.hogan@nuigalway.ie
A. Meijer • E. Ruijer
Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: A.J.Meijer@uu.nl; H.J.M.Ruijer@uu.nl

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 197

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_8
198 V. Scarano et al.

each local context. When such interactions become more transparent, this may
mean greater accessibility, more sharing of ideas, better understanding on how the
other works and thinks, etcetera. Such processes can be studied at different levels of
abstraction, from that of individuals to that of democratic systems. It is our conten-
tion that social media can support transparency, especially when the interactions are
meaningful and deliberately focused on joint issues and backed up with knowledge
about ongoing developments and facts related to the issue at stake. Such knowledge
comes from the use of Open Data. Wide-spread access to the Internet has greatly
reduced the cost of collecting, distributing, and accessing government information.
But an important effect of the diffusion of networks in the population is the potential
of ICT, by promoting good governance, strengthening reform-oriented initiatives,
reducing potential for corrupt behaviours, enhancing relationships between govern-
ment employees and citizens, allowing for citizen tracking of activities, and by
monitoring and controlling behaviours of government employees, is able to effec-
tively reduce corruption (Bertot et al. 2010).
Open data are significantly seen, in general, as the main instrument to improve
transparency, at every level. In fact, transparency for local government can be
defined in different ways. The traditional view of transparency is that governments
provide information on their work, on the other hand, governments are requiring
transparency also from their dependents (such as non-profit-organizations and enti-
ties that they regulate in the private sector) (Michener and Bersch 2011). Hence,
transparency is an interactive concept.
The early attempts and most of the current open data efforts are somehow failing
to enable the transparency in its interactive aspects. Some of the main barriers often
cited by researchers is the complexity of the information that is provided and the
lack or inadequateness of tools that can help citizens in making sense out of the
highly specialized datasets that are provided by government. Of course, this is cru-
cial, as noticed by Michener and Bersch (2011), since the quality of transparency
does not only depend on how (and how much) information is made visible and
accessible, but also on how the information provided can be fruitfully used to accu-
rate inference.
Some researchers (Mishory 2013) have indeed noticed that transparency is not
an “object” but it is rather a “relationship”, and, in order to yield better outcomes
from transparency programs, it is of primary importance to design a relationship
toward greater trust between the “supplier” of open-data based transparency (gov-
ernment) to the “recipients” (i.e. the citizens). In this context, it is crucial to ensure
that citizens must be facilitated in their work toward comprehension of what data is
important for them.
Many have observed (Bonsón et al. 2012) that local governments in Europe are
often well behind their citizens in the use of the social dimension of the Internet,
since they usually prefer to use ICT technologies (and social networks and the
Internet) only as a one-way channel where they can communicate easily and at
low cost.
As noticed by Davies (2012), the task of opening up data to citizens is seen as
completed once data is correctly published, missing the important dimension of
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 199

open data as the catalyser of discussions, conversations and collaborations around

data, between citizens and between citizens and the government. The lack of citi-
zens engagement has led Tim Davies to present the “Five stars of Open Data
Engagement”, that range from the data being demand-driven (1 star), being put in
context (2 stars), being supporting conversations (3 stars), being able to build capac-
ity, skills and network (4 stars), to the full collaboration on the data as a common
resource (5 stars) (Davies 2012).
Furthermore, as noticed in Colpaert et al. (2013), not only open data needs to be
of good quality for others to transform them into knowledge and make them useful,
but open data programs must also ensure that the citizens as well as developers can
discuss about the datasets and around them, in order to stimulate and favor its
re-use.
Summing up, research is clearly pointing out the direction where citizens
(1) must not be left alone in making their comprehension of open data and should
be able to collaborate and interact socially around them,
(2) must be provided with tailored and contextualized data,
so that they can relate open data and transparency as a relationship between them
(and their daily problems) and the government.
Our research is, then, motivated in providing an interactive solution for improv-
ing the engagement of the citizens
• by making them able to socially interact over open data, by forming or joining
existing online communities that share common interest and discuss common
issues of relevance to local policy, service delivery, and regulation;
• by providing a robust and more holistic understanding of transparency, by under-
pinning the next generation open-data based transparency initiatives, ensuring
that published data are those of value to citizens, with a personalized view in
different forms to different segments of the citizens and public based on their
profiles for facilitate better understanding.
Our main purpose here is to engage citizens through a “purposeful and person-
alized relationship” between citizens and open data, not only on a personal basis,
but between government and networks of citizens that collectively attribute
meanings to this information. The information provided by Open Data is shared,
interpreted, personalized, made easier to understand and discussed, to assess its
meanings.
Concretely, we describe here our approach instantiated in the design, develop-
ment and evaluation of
• a Social Platform for Open Data (SPOD) enabling social interactions among
open data users and between open data users and government data;
• a Transparency-Enhancing Toolset (TET) as extension for existing major Open
Data Platforms, enabling easier access to the relevant dataset, a better under-
standing of these datasets and integration with social platforms for sharing and
discussing datasets
200 V. Scarano et al.

Our research is conducted within a Horizon 2020 European funded innovation

project, called ROUTE-TO-PA (www.routetopa.eu) to improve the impact of ICT-­
based technology platforms for transparency. The ROUTE-TO-PA team is strongly
heterogeneous and multidisciplinary. It integrates theory, research, innovation and
transformation of local practices, by encompassing research partners, small and
large companies, pilot Public Administrations (from four different countries) and
one non-profit foundation. Our research partners have expertise in e-government,
computer science, learning sciences and economy. In a sense, our team has been
designed to tackle the challenges of transparency with a trans-disciplinary approach.
To wit, the research described here is strongly embedded into all the areas of refer-
ence for the project.

Organization of the Chapter

The cyclical approach involves elicitation of requirements, design and implemen-

tation of the technology and evaluation of the result, in our trans-disciplinary effort
consist of four phases. The first two phases involve focussing on user requirements
from the bottom up (user workshops) and from a top-down perspective (model of
the societal context). In out bottom-up approach we adopted a collective intelli-
gence and scenario-based design approach (Warfield, 19..; Hogan, ....). Based on
initial scenarios developed for each Public administration site we derived user
stories based on general TET and SPOD affordances. On these, we collected user
feedback about barriers and possible solutions to develop use case models and
descriptions to obtain more detailed functionalities and capabilities of the
system.
At the same time, we studied the context around the platform, i.e. the people and
their relations, within their professional practices, in order to provide further
requirements coming from an abstract representation of the “Societal Activity
Model of Open Data Users” described in successive Section.
At this point we were able to begin the third phase, i.e., to provide the design and
implementation of the ROUTE-TO-PA platform, that encompasses the two tools:
the Social Platform for Open Data (SPOD) and the Transparency-Enhancing Toolset
(TET), as described in section “The ROUTE-TO-PA Platform”. The details on each
tool is given in dedicated subsection.
Finally, in the fourth phase, the platform is undergoing an evaluation at the same
user sites that were involved already during the user workshop, in Prato (Italy), The
Hague and Groningen (The Netherlands), Dublin (Ireland) and Issy-les-Moulineaux
(France).
It is worth noticing how the phases of modeling, design and evaluation are occur-
ring iteratively, in repeating cycles, during the project, in order to allow experiments
and pilots’ feedback to be directly taken into consideration into the design and
implementation.
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 201

Requirements and User Involvement

A series of carefully designed workshops were conducted, one in each pilot site, for
the purpose of developing a comprehensive set of user needs, from the viewpoint of
key stakeholders. Each workshop brought together experts, academics, industry
specialists, open data practitioners, representatives of governments, open data
researchers, and potential users (including citizens, representatives of citizens and
social service institutes, and journalists) to brainstorm on open data platform adop-
tion challenges, solutions to the challenges and a set of needs and requirements
necessary for consideration in the design of the ROUTE-TO-PA platform. The
emphasis on citizen participation and collaborative design in the methodology seeks
to address the goals of improved government transparency and accountability for
decision-making. Each workshop began with a collective intelligence (CI) analysis
of barriers to accessing, understanding and using open data, followed by an analysis
of options that may overcome these barriers. Participants then worked to develop
scenario-based user needs, which involved profiling user needs in light of the barri-
ers and options and high level scenarios of open data usage.
The methodology used to gather user-level requirements is inspired by a scenario-­
based design (SBD) approach (Rosson and Carroll 2002), but builds upon this
approach by adding a collective intelligence (Warfield 2006) and agile user story
development (Cohn 2004) approach. In the current application of CI, workshop
participants worked to develop scenario-based user needs, which involved profiling
user needs in light of the barriers and options and high level scenarios of open data
usage. This included a separate focus on (1) information needs, (2) social and col-
laborative interaction needs, and (3) understandability, usability and decision-­
making needs. Idea writing was used for each cluster of needs. High level scenarios
including multiple users were used to prompt thinking in relation to user needs. All
the short user stories generated by participants were generated in the form:
As user type ________ , I want ______, so that I can _______
The wants (or needs) generated by participants across each pilot site were then
analysed and key categories of user needs identified. Reasons for specified user
needs were also analysed, and this analysis was used to advance our understanding
of the scenarios and prospective use case models. This work in turn has shaped the
test and evaluation framework (see Fig. 1).
The scenarios used addressed various contextual issues, relevant to each of the
workshop sites, and aligned with the primary case focus in each pilot site. For exam-
ple, the Dublin workshop focused on community networking and opportunity cre-
ation; the Groningen workshop focused on the use of Open Data in overcoming
issues associated with population decline; the Den Haag workshop focused on Open
Data in relation to employment and opportunity creation; the Prato workshop cen-
tered on local policy and budget issues; and finally, the workshop in Paris focused
on Open Data in relation to start-up companies and the digital economy.
As such, there was some variety in user needs generated, across all there catego-
ries of needs: information needs, social and collaborative needs, and understand-
ability, usability and decision-making needs (Hogan et al., submitted).
202 V. Scarano et al.

Fig. 1  Workflow for collective intelligence and link between collective intelligence and evaluation
framework and test specifications

As workshop participants in each pilot site were working with a variety of sce-
narios, the user information needs generated were numerous and diverse. The infor-
mation needs included, for example, demographic information needs; legal
information needs; health information needs; social and community information
needs; planning information needs; services, amenities and event information
needs; business and financial information needs; jobseeker information needs.
Essentially, the data and information that different pilot sites need depend on the
problems they are working to solve in their scenarios. The ROUTE-TO-PA team are
working to collate all available open data to make it available on the platform.
Participants then moved on to identify social and collaborative needs based on
the user stories, in order to provide input for the design of SPOD. Social and col-
laborative needs were commonly specified across pilot sites. Categories of needs
here included: dialogue and discussion spaces; moderation and maintenance of
these spaces; platform tool capabilities for interaction; varied forms of social media
interaction; personalisation of user spaces; and requesting and sharing information.
Broadly speaking, participants identified a variety of forms of interaction which
could be used over Open Data, and suggested a number of considerations and
­affordances which would increase the impact and appeal of such social and collab-
orative platforms.
Participants also used the scenarios provided to design user stories around under-
standability, usability, and decision-making needs, which will inform the design of
the TET. The major categories of understandability, usability and decision-making
needs were common across sites. Categories of needs here included: Affordances
for the visualisation of complex information; data analysis and reporting tools;
decision-­making support tools; guidance and usage support tools; affordances for
personalising platforms and/or data; and certification tools. Broadly speaking, par-
ticipants frequently cited the need for data visualisation tools, among others, which
would make data more easily understood, whether for personal or professional use.
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 203

Subsequent to gathering and integrating scenario-based user needs across all

pilot sites, the Route-to-PA design team engaged in an exercise designed to rate the
relative impact and feasibility of specified needs. This resulted in the first set of user
needs selected for agile software development from M6 to M12 and this process
continues iteratively into Year 2 as the design team revisits user needs and ways in
which SPOD and TET design features can support those needs.

Societal Activity Model of Open Data User

Next to identifying user requirements for an open data platform from the bottom-up
via collective design based workshops, we also identified user requirements from a
top down perspective. After all, in order to design and implement a successful ICT
platform, “the context” that includes people and their relations (Kuutti 1999) needs
to be taken into account as well.
Information technologies should be able to support active users, while dealing
with the organizational and societal context (Kuutti 1999). Yet, often this context of
broader social forces and structures that influences the interaction between users
and information technology, is left unexamined (Engeström 2005).
Therefore, based on democracy, transparency and activity theory, the Societal
Activity model of Open Data use (Ruijer et al. 2016) was developed. The model
takes three democratic processes as a starting point for the design of open data plat-
forms: monitorial, deliberative and participatory democracy (Meijer 2012).
The Societal Activity Model of Open Data Use (Ruijer et al. 2016) enhances our
understanding of user requirements of open data in a societal context. It helps to find
the best fit between; on the one hand, the impetus for governmental organizations to
provide open data, to increase accountability and transparency, and on the other
hand the specific needs of citizen-users in particular domains.
The model was tested in five pilot sites, using interviews, analysis of official
documents (where available), and workshops or focus groups where open-data pro-
viders and users met and discussed The findings show that different societal pro-
cesses call for different roles of citizens and government and different user
requirements for the design of open data platforms, and, also, provided input for the
design of the ROUTE-TO-PA platform.

The ROUTE-TO-PA Platform

Our project will produce software by using open-source licensing model, and the
platform will be given to the community of PAs and developers that, after the end of
the project, will ensure further development and widespread, sustainable and scal-
able exploitation of the results achieved. The results of the project (both software
and guidelines) will allow PAs to follow the economic and budgetary pressures that
204 V. Scarano et al.

Fig. 2  ROUTE-TO-PA architecture

force administration to be more efficient and to reduce cost (EU DGCONNECT

2013) by adhering to the philosophy of “Doing more with less”.
The software and the experiences will be highly reusable, given that they will be
piloted in different contexts, in different countries, whose results will be elaborated
in guidelines and recommendations at the end of the project. “Reuse rather than
reinvent” is one of the guidelines to long-term success of ICTs in Transparency
(Bertot et al. 2010) that we adopt as project “mantra” both from technological point
of view (i.e., integration of existing popular open source products) and from the PA
point of view (plug ROUTE-TO-PA onto existing experiences and needs by involv-
ing the Pilots) (Fig. 2).

Social Platform for Open Data (SPOD)

The SPOD platform architecture has multiple decoupled and modular components
that communicate together. The architecture is based on mainstream, open source
and modular technologies to guarantee interoperability with other external systems.
The overall architecture is distributed, as the load of different tasks is taken by dif-
ferent servers (components), both server-side and client-side (e.g., the client-side
visualization of data), thereby achieving the important non-functional requirement
of Performance Efficiency.
SPOD is a Social Platform for Open data, so its primary requirement is the
retrieval of data from Open data Providers. Therefore, SPOD interoperates with
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 205

TET, any CKAN based platform, UltraClarity and OpenDataSoft (and additional
interoperability with OASIS is planned).
In addition, SPOD can retrieve open data from other existing third party data
providers that use restful API. Hence, the interoperability with data provider plat-
forms is based on Web 2.0 mainstream technologies (fulfilling an important non-­
functional requirement of Interoperability); in this way, SPOD can retrieve the open
data to use within the social discussions. For instance, the user can create visualiza-
tions from the data available in the open data provider and use them to support its
argumentation. SPOD can be configured to allow easy access to associated data
providers, so that their datasets can be shown easily used to build visualizations (see
Datalets below).
The platform administrator, using the administration pages, can add another data
provider and make it available to end-users. In addition, in order to maximize the
flexibility, during the creation of a data visualization, any user can copy and paste
the data URL from any other external open data Provider as well as post directly the
link or content on SPOD (Fig. 3).
The architecture has a ROUTE-TO-PA Authentication Server (RAS), which acts
as OpenID Authentication Provider and administration tool to manage users’
accounts. In accessing to the ROUTE-TO-PA platforms, users must seamless switch
between SPOD and TET features in a user-friendly way. Therefore, a user must
access to SPOD and TET, and any other feature federated system, with a unique

Fig. 3  SPOD architecture

206 V. Scarano et al.

username and password credential. In order to provide this, the architecture has a
ROUTE-TO-PA Authentication Server (RAS) based on the OpenID protocol. Any
time a user logs in SPOD or TET, his/her browser redirects to the authentication
provider log in page. All the authentication server pages have a consistent Graphical
User Interface (GUI) with SPOD and TET, indeed they have been specifically
designed within the ROUTE-TO-PA project and it is based and compliant with the
material design. In this way, TET, SPOD and authentication look and feel is the
same, and the switching among their pages is seamless.
The overall architecture has a specific server for the authentication and the entire
platform has deployed with a dedicated authentication server. In order to support the
authentication through OpenID, SPOD team developer designed a new Oxwall
plug-in that supports OpenID. SPOD can be deployed without the activation of the
OpenID plug-in so it works without a dedicated authentication server and uses the
existing Oxwall registration, log in pages and user accounts management.
The introduction of a ROUTE-TO-PA Authentication Server allows the interop-
erability of other systems with the ROUTE-TO-PA platforms, following the non-­
functional requirement of Interoperability. Both SPOD and TET can provide specific
services and data to external systems in form of Restful API. Therefore, not only
SPOD interoperates with existing data providers, but also itself can provides ser-
vices to other platforms. Any other external system can authenticate to RAS and
interact with SPOD through the restful API services. For instance, based on this
architecture, the platform can provide a social widget to embed within any web site
to easily share open data, add the content in the own private room or participate in a
discussion. In a federated architecture, after the authentication the federated system
can invoke a restful API service to perform an action on SPOD (e.g., post of content
on SPOD, etc.).
SPOD enables the social collaboration around open data; in particular, it aims to
support the collaboration around visualization of open data, allowing their creation,
sharing, change and comment. The SPOD architecture provides the visualizations
and their services through the DatalEt-Ecosystem Provider (briefly DEEP). DEEP
is a repository of visualization web-components to use within SPOD and within any
other web site or system that needs to visualise data.
The overall architecture is also useful to envision a “federation” of ROUTE-­
TO-­PA systems. Several federated SPODs and TETs or other institutional systems
can access to the ROUTE-TO-PA Authentication Server and share the same ID.
The SPOD architecture is modular and scalable: for instance, the DEEP compo-
nent can be replicated and distribute around the world to improve performances and
serve visualizations to end-users with high availability. Of course, multiple architec-
ture instances can be deployed in different places.
Our distributed architecture, in general, follows the non-functional requirement
of Replaceability, as each single component can be substituted with another specific
one with the same interface (like a different dataset provider, or another
Authentication server with OpenID).
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 207

SPOD on Oxwall

Oxwall is a free and Open Source Software (FOSS) social network engine that is
able to power customizable online social networks and community-enabled web-
sites. It provides all the basic functionalities of a social network, such as users’
friendship, posting text or media comments, handling (private) groups group or
event creation/joining. Oxwall architecture is based on plugins, few core plugins
handle user/platform/access management. Additional features can be provided by
plugins.
SPOD consists of several additional plugins for Oxwall that add to the “stan-
dard” social network (friends, status, etc.) the following functionalities:
• It is possible to attach to any social comment, status or answer a Datalet (i.e. a
re-usable Web Component that provides real-time visualization of datasets,
located on any compatible server (see the subsection below). In this way social
interactions become enriched with the actual datasets, providing discussions
with easy-to-use and easy-to-understand factual evidence. The process to build a
datalet is provided by a user-friendly, wizard-like component, that provides the
choice of the dataset (among the suggested ones from known providers or from
a new one added by providing the link to the RESTful call), the filtering capabili-
ties (choicing columns and rows) and the visualization (choice of the charts,
parameters, preview). It is a very important characteristics of Datalets that load
and show the actual dataset (1) directly from the source and (2) in real-time,
when the user is loading the page, i.e., ensuring authoritative datasets.
• Any user is given the possibility to access a Personal space, i.e. a place where he/
she can collect and annotate material that can be fruitfully re-used in social dis-
cussions later. The user can collect links to webpages, by providing URLs and a
datalet is showing the real page in a miniature (that can be also navigated),
Datalet for particular visualizations, and plain text notes. All the items can be
further annotated, and full text search capabilities allow easy management of the
material. The main purpose of the Personal space is to provide a space for
reflection as the citizen may need time and thoughts to build an argument to be
re-used in discussions.
• Discussions occur in Public Rooms grouped in an Agora. Each Public Room is a
traditional threaded chat on the left, with the possibility to add Datalets to the
discussion and the possibility to add an opinion (Neutral, Agree, Disagree) to the
comment. The right part of the screen is used to provide synthetic information
about the discussion, that also makes easier to navigate through long discussions.
A graph based representation of the discussions is shown, where nodes are the
comments and edges join the answer to a comment, with colors to represent
opinions and size of the node representing the number of answers below the
comment (see Fig. 6). Navigation is synchronized: clicking on a node on the tree
shows the corresponding comment on the threaded chat on the left. Other graphs
showing the datalets and the users can be also shown.
208 V. Scarano et al.

Datalets and DEEP

The ROUTE-TO-PA software architecture exploits a modular programming design

in order to develop independent software. To achieve this design goal, an architec-
ture completely decoupled from the main project SPOD was designed. The key idea
was to realize a repository of components (software services) to be used for differ-
ent purposes, so that it is possible to enclose some functionalities in a kind of widget
and make it available on the Web. This architecture is realized using the Web-­
Component (WC) standard. We designed a Web service that allows distributing the
code of each software component dynamically.
Therefore, each software component is a WC that is, an auto-consistent and inde-
pendent component that provides some functionalities. A datalet is a Web
Component that is an output presentation to the user based on the data dynamically
loaded from the data source.
The service that allows downloading and using the Datalets is the DatalEt-­
Ecosystem Provider (DEEP). Within the SPOD software, DEEP architecture is an
open, extensible, modular and pluggable service that provides WCs for visualiza-
tion of open data datasets. DEEP allows sharing, collaboration and creating around
customized data visualizations. Further users can create, reuse and share visualiza-
tions both in SPOD or in any Web page or other Web-based systems. Its modularity
and extensibility fulfils the non-functional requirements of Adaptability and
Replaceability.
DEEP is developed as a simple Restful service, providing the list of available
datalets (i.e., listing service) and the mapping among the visualization names and
their relevant URL within the WC repositories. The system is online and is the base
of the architecture of SPOD (http://deep.routetopa.eu/).
Both the DEEP and the WC repository have been designed to be extensible: they
can collect all the visualization requests so, as planned future work, they could also
provide aggregated statistics on both users preferences and on data and their visual-
izations. For instance, the most popular datalet visualizations, most used datasets,
most popular visualizations for a particular dataset, most visualised fields for a par-
ticular dataset, and so on.
The DEEP main task are the listing services which provides a list of available
dataset and the mapping between the visualization names and their relevant URL
within the “datalets repositories”.

Transparency-Enhancing Toolset (TET)

What Is TET?  The TET comprises a set of tools designed to extend available
features on popular Open Data Platforms (ODP) to more adequately support trans-
parency related qualities desirable by different categories of ODP end-users. Starting
with the Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN) Platform (OKF
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 209

2014), the vision for TET is to extend major open ODPs platforms with features
enabling easier access to the relevant dataset, a better understanding of these datasets
and integration with social platforms for sharing and discussing datasets.
Technical Features  TET is implemented as a set of plugins to extend the available
features on the well-known CKAN Open Data Platform. The Alpha version of TET
described in this report supports the following eight extensions: (1) Support for the
use of the WordPress Content Management System as a rich client for CKAN, (2)
Enhanced metadata schema to support provenance and alignment with latest W3C
guidelines for publishing data on the web, (3) Validation of metadata quality, (4)
Linking of related datasets, (5) Enhanced user profiles for personalization and rec-
ommendation, (6) Personalised search and dataset recommendation to users, (7)
Recommendation of similar dataset to users and (8) Extension of data analytics
function on CKAN to support pivot operations on datasets, (9) Interface with the
Social Platform for Open Data (SPOD). These features are explained in briefly
explained below.
1. Integration of Content Management System for Richer Client Experience  –
CKAN Integration with content management system enables publishers to pub-
lish content related to datasets and publish updates related to portal in an easy
way. TET Wordpress plugin seamlessly integrates TET enabled CKAN to pro-
vide rich content publishing features to publishers and intuitive interface to
end-users.
2. Enhanced Metadata for Improved Context – More metadata fields are added to
dataset upload form to enable data publishers to specify richer metadata that
will help users in discovery and in getting better understanding of the datasets.
The metadata fields are guided by and comply with aligned with the “W3C
guidelines for publishing data on the web”. Additional fields supported
include: Basic details related to the dataset; Target audience of the dataset;
Theme/Category; Versioning; Provenance; Geospatial Coverage; and Temporal
Coverage.
3. Metadata Quality Check and Validation – Additional validations to dataset entry
form are added to prevent data entry errors and to ensure consistency. Quality
check indicators guide publishers about the quality of metadata being entered. The
features will also help end-users in assessing the metadata quality of dataset.
4. Relating Datasets – Dataset linking feature allow users to specify explicit links
between datasets, which can be exploited for recommendations and data integra-
tion purposes.
5. Enhanced User Profiles for Personalization and Recommendation  – Default
CKAN user registration page is modified to allow more details related to the user
to be captured, the feature plays essential role in creating a personalized user
experience for the end user.
6. Personalization Search and Dataset Recommendation for users – enables users
to search for datasets based on their profile or based on the desired category.
210 V. Scarano et al.

Users can select appropriate profile from the list of profiles provided or could
select the category they are interested in from the list (see Fig. 7).
7. Recommendation for related datasets – enables recommendation of more datas-
ets based on user group and dataset category selected in the user profile in addi-
tion to other contextual information. The feature guides users to find potentially
useful and relevant datasets.
8. Extension of Available of Data Analytics Functions – CKAN platform lacks data
analysis capabilities essential for working with data. To overcome this limitation
as the first step, we added PivotTable feature which allows users to view, sum-
marize and visualize data.
9. Enhanced Interface with the SPOD – builds on the CKAN APIs to enable the
SPOD platform access datasets managed on the CKAN with the enhanced fea-
tures for visualisation, sharing and discussion.
The above features resulted from analysis of the information on the barriers to open
data use and needs of end-users gathered from the series of Collective Intelligence
Sessions hosted by pilot partners in respective partner countries. In addition,
transparency qualities including Accessibility, Usability, Understandability,
Informativeness and Auditability described in Cappelli et al. (2013) and other trans-
parency constructs such as those in Fung (2013) underpinned the development of
the above features.

TET “Plug-and-Play” Architecture

In implementing the above features, the base CKAN platform were extended with a
number of additional components implemented as “plug-ins”. The architectural
decision to implement TET as plug-ins is to enable easy coupling and removal of
TET components and consequently minimal operational impact to the based open
data platforms. This architectural style allows us to experiment easily with alterna-
tive design and implementations of the feature (Wang and Avrunin 2008). The TET
components are grouped into three categories: Frontend, Data Platform and
Analytics components as shown in Fig. 4.
In addition, an additional element (or plugin) enables integration with the social
platform. The development of the above features was carried out through an Agile
Software Development process which enabled the development an early prototype
and subsequent short “develop-test-release” cycles to engage potential end-users of
TET platform.
Status and Exploitation  The above features have been successfully implemented
as part of the Alpha release available at http://srvgal100.deri.ie:8081/. Some of the
functionalities have already been deployed as part of CKAN instance managed by
the Dublin City Council, Republic of Ireland.
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 211

Fig. 4  TET architecture

Evaluation Plan and Pilots Description

Description of the Five Pilot Sites

The City of Prato (Italy) scenario case concerns city budget management. The goal
is for citizens to monitor the allocation of the city budget by municipality and to
propose expenditure priorities and suggestions. The city would like to increase trans-
parency on budget management and possibly collect some of citizens’ expenditure
suggestions. It is important to know that this process is intended to be an improved
version of existing democratic procedures of involving citizens in budget decisions.
The object or policy issue in Groningen (NL) focuses on population decline.
One of the areas with the highest population decline in the Netherlands is situated
in Groningen. The potential community of stakeholders is diverse consisting of citi-
zens, public organizations (schools, health care organizations etc.) and private com-
panies. Open data as an instrument can provide insight in the consequences of and
might be able to contribute to innovative and collaborative solutions for population
decline.
The Dublin, Ireland City Council is one of the founding partners of Dublinked.
Dublinked is an ideas and information sharing network which connects the Dublin
212 V. Scarano et al.

region’s four local authorities with universities, companies and entrepreneurs. The
scenario chosen for ROUTE-TO-PA evolves around capacity building, which
focuses on increasing citizen engagement in a deliberative process with their city or
more specifically their community. The scenario thus focuses on building commu-
nity awareness with the ultimate outcome to “make my city great”.
Issy- les- Moulineaux (France) is a city located near Paris. The city hosts many
IT companies and welcomes start-up companies in the field of new technologies.
The scenario focuses on the activity of two central groups: young entrepreneurs in
ICT domain who form a major part of the local economic base and public adminis-
trators from Paris Region who collaborate with Issy-les-Moulineaux in the global
open data policy.
The pilot in The Hague (NL) focuses on collaboration between public adminis-
trators and employers and can be characterized as a participatory process. Employers
and the City of The Hague have a longer history of collaboration and meeting, the
relationship between the Department and the local employers is quite good. The
specific scenario or policy issue suitable for exploiting Open Data will be jointly
developed, whereby the focus is on finding solutions for existing problems together.
This is called co-creation.

Research Approach: Four Levels of Evaluation

Concerning evaluation of developments and outcomes at the five user sites, in terms
of transparency, we have several sources of criteria. The identification of users’
needs (section “Requirements and User Involvement”), are translated into design
specifications for the tool, that is, the actions users are supposed to perform with the
tool leads to a set of evaluation criteria at the technology and user levels. The model-
ling activity (section “Societal Activity Model of Open Data User”) has provided
abstract models at the society and community-levels. On the basis of these models
we will be able to characterise and compare all cases with respect to their current
and future states at four different levels:
1. The technology functioning according to design specifications, tested by usabil-
ity studies and user consultation.
2. The individual user carrying out different actions: we shall develop a framework
based on the well-known and studied Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(more details in the next subsection).
3. The community, or small group working together to generate new ideas: the
main dimensions of evaluation on this level can be formulated in terms of the
characteristics of the participants, the structure of their interactions and their
content within the OECoP, studied from a developmental perspective (Engeström
1987). The developmental, or diachronic, analysis draws on synchronic analysis
of the OE-CoP (at a given point in time), and identifies relevant differences
across time-points, with a view to identifying the overall trajectory (Dreier 1999;
Ludvigsen et al. 2011) of the community, i.e. where it is heading.
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 213

4. The society, or the organisational context, adapting to the new possibilities for
creating transparency. We will investigate the impact of our project within the
organisation by observations, interviews and surveys.
Our evaluation activity also relates closely to the Models and Methods
developed:
1. The Societal Model (year 1) relates to the above in terms of analysis of the object
of activity (including community rules), and the expression of tensions. In these
cases, the level of content analysis is relevant, for identifying ‘what the partici-
pants are trying to achieve’ (i.e. object of activity) in given exchanges, and, on
the level of communicative functions, given that tensions will be correspond to
argumentative functions and, most likely, to the salient expression of strong
emotions.
2. The Community Model (year 2) provides the theoretical background and meth-
odological tools for addressing the main research question, concerning evolution
of SPOD-TET mediated collective activity towards a veritable epistemic
community.
3. The Social Representations Model (year 3) concerns the evolutions of the OE-­
CoP participants’ representations (attitudes, appraisals) of the community, of
their perceived self-efficacy, of the degree of transparency and cooperativity of
the Public Administration, and of the SPOD-TET tools themselves. This will be
studied using interviews and questionnaires, but also on the basis of content
analysis (what are the attitudes expressed using SPOD?). This can draw on
appraisal theory (White 2002), i.e. the positive and negative attitudes and affects
expressed in language.

The User Level

To evaluate the artifacts, we shall develop a framework based on the well-known and
studied Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The model was published by Davis
(1989) and is the most widely accepted model for understanding the usage of
Information Systems (IS) and its acceptance. It suggests, that external variables (such
as system design and rich features) influence the perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use. Over time the model evolved to TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis 2000) and
was extended with additional external variables, relevant to IS utilised in the work-
place: the social influence variables (i.e. subjective norm) and the cognitive instru-
mental variables (i.e. result demonstrability). Original TAM is presented in Fig. 5.
The definitions of the additional variables in TAM2 are defined as follow:
1. Voluntariness  – “the extent to which potential adopters perceive the adoption
decision to be non-mandatory”.
2. Subjective norm – “a person’s perception that most people who are important to
him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question”
214 V. Scarano et al.

Fig. 5  Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

3. Image – “the degree to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s

status in one’s social system”
4. Job relevance – “an individual’s perception regarding the degree to which the
target system is applicable to his or her job”
5. Output quality – “the tasks a system is capable of performing and the degree to
which those tasks match the job goals”
6. Result demonstrability – “the tangibility of the results of using the innovation”
Based on the Technology Acceptance Model in the pilot evaluation, we evaluate
the following parameters:
1. Relevance – how relevant is the use of open data and the TET/SPOD to the user’s
job and daily life,
2. Output quality – what is the quality of datasets available on the platform? What
is the perceived quality of TET and SPOD platforms?
3. Result Demonstrability – does the use of the TET and SPOD address the relevant
user needs provided by users during the Scenario development workshop?
4. Perceived Ease of Use – how easy is it for non-technical users to use TET and
SPOD?
5. Perceived Usefulness – how useful do users perceive TET and SPOD?
6. Intention to use – how wiling are the users to use TET and SPOD to support their
information needs and decision making needs?

Conclusions and Future Actions

The team has just released the first Alpha prototypes of SPOD and TET as the proj-
ect first year just finished (January 2016). SPOD and TET will be tested (in a first
round) in the five pilots for the year 2016, starting late September. In 2017 a new
version, beta, will be submitted to another round of testing from the pilots, leading
to the release of a highly tested, jointly designed and citizen-centered software.
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 215

In this paper we have described a holistic, multi-disciplinary approach that start-

ing from collective intelligence and scenario-based design approach, produced first
scenarios and then user stories that were used to feed the initial technological
design. At the same time, the activities on modeling, with the Societal Activity
model of open data user provided contextual information, that further motivated the
design. The design produced the first prototypes of a Social Platform for Open Data,
for fostering participation, and Transparency-Enhancing Toolset, for improving
transparency for citizens. The prototypes are going to be tested in September 2016
on five pilot sites that provide diversity and heterogeneity in our evaluation.
It must be stressed that our holistic multidisciplinary approach employs method-
ologies that, although coming from different fields, share a common vision of con-
tinuous user-centered design, from the collective intelligence approach, to the
activity model to the technological employment of agile methodologies. We believe
that our approach, that involves stakeholders since the very beginning of the design
and development will be one of the key factors to the success of our project.
Of course, we are well aware that our research is strongly based on only five
pilots in Europe, that, although heterogeneous in countries, size, state of the open-­
data programs, and scenarios, do offer a limited view of the overall scenario in the
whole world with very diverse needs and contexts. Nevertheless, we are confident
that, as the limitations of our work are evident to us as researchers, that methodolo-
gies and the technologies that have been designed and developed in order to be of
wide impact, could be partly re-used and fruitfully employed to tackle, at least par-
tially, the engagement of citizens through Open Data in diverse contexts.
The project will finish its activities on January 2018, with two rounds of pilot
studies (February 2016 and February 2017) of SPOD and TET in the five pilots (see
http://www.routetopa.eu for updates on the status of the activities) (Figs. 6 and 7).

Fig. 6  SPOD example screenshot

216 V. Scarano et al.

Fig. 7  TET example screenshot

Acknowledgments  This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 645860.

References

Bertot J, Jaeger P, Grimes JM (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government
and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information
Quarterly 27:264–271
Bonsón E, Torres L, Royo S, Flores F (2012) Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate
transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly 29(2):123–132
Cappelli C, Engiel P, Araujo RMD, Cesar J, Leite P (2013) Managing transparency guided by
a maturity model. In: 3rd global conference on transparency research, HEC, Paris, 24–26
October 2013, pp 1–17
Cohn M (2004) User stories applied for agile software development. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Colpaert P, Sarah J, Peter M, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2013). The 5 stars of open data por-
tals. In: 7th international conference on methodologies, technologies and tools enabling
e-­Government (MeTTeG), University of Vigo, Spain, pp 61–67
Davies T (2012) Supporting open data use through active engagement. In: Proceedings of W3C
workshop “using open data: policy modeling, citizen empowerment, data journalism”, 19–20
June 2012. http://www.w3.org/2012/06/pmod/pmod2012_submission_5.pdf
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly 13:313–339
Dreier O (1999) Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. Outlines:
Critical Social Studies 1:5–32
Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity theoretic approach to developmental
research. Orienta Konsu, Helsinki
Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization 217

Engeström Y (2005) Developmental work research: expanding activity theory in practice.

Lehmanns Media, Berlin
EU DG-CONNECT (2013). A vision for public services. European Commission, “Public
Services” unit of Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
(DG-CONNECT). 13 June 2013
Fung A (2013) Infotopia: unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Polit Soc 41:183–212
Kuutti, K. (1999) Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design.
In: Engestrom, Y.; Miettinen, R. & Punamaki, R.-L. (eds) Perspectives on activity theory.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 360-376
Ludvigsen S, Rasmussen I, Ingeborg K, Moen A, Middleton D (2011) Learning across sites: new
tools, infrastructures and practices, Intersecting trajectories of participation: temporality and
learning. Routledge, London, pp 105–121
Meijer AJ (2012) The do it yourself state. Inf Polity., IOS Press 17:303–314
Michener G, Bersch K (2011) Conceptualizing the quality of transparency. In 1st global confer-
ence on transparency. Political concepts, Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper
No. 49
Mishory E. N (2013). Clarifying transparency: transparency relationships in government procure-
ment. In Government Procurement Seminar, Chris Yukins & David A. Drabkin, 4 November
2013
Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) (2014). Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network
(CKAN) Developer Documentation
Rosson M, Carroll J  (2002) Scenario-based design. In: The human-computer interaction hand-
book: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah
Ruijer E, Grimmelikhuijsen S, Enzerink S, Meijer AJ (2016) The societal activity model of open
data use. Deliverable 3.1
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46:186–204
Wang S, Avrunin G (2008) Plug-and-play architectural design and verification. In: Architecting
dependable systems V. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
Warfield J (2006) An introduction to systems science. World Scientific, Hackensack
White PRR (2002) Appraisal—the language of evaluation and stance. In: Verschueren J, Östman
J-O, Blommaert J, Bulcaen C (eds) The handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins, Philadelphia,
pp 1–23

Vittorio Scarano  is Computer Science Associated Professor at the Dipartimento di Informatica

of Università di Salerno. He is coauthor of more than 150 papers in journals and international
conferences (with reviews) at IEEE, ACM etc. and was advisor (or co-advisor) of 12 PhD thesis in
Computer Science at the University of Salerno. His research is mainly focussed on open data,
distributed, parallel and cooperative systems, and to their applications in the fields of collaborative
learning and virtual interactive environments (Cultural Heritage).

Delfina Malandrino  is an Assistant Professor at the Dipartimento di Informatica of the University

of Salerno. Her research activities mainly focus on: privacy, distributed systems, collaborative
systems, social networking, privacy, social network analysis, green computing.

Michael Baker  is a Research Director (tenured Research Professor) in psychology and language
sciences, of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). He currently works in the
Social and Economics Science Department of Telecom ParisTech, the French National
Telecommunications Engineering School. His research aims to analyse and model the processes
of knowledge elaboration in dialogues produced in learning and work situations, focussing on
argumentation and the role of technological mediation. Michael Baker recently published the
following book, with Baruch Schwarz: “Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History,
Theory and Practice” (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2017).
218 V. Scarano et al.

Françoise Détienne  is research director at CNRS, Paris. Her research in cognitive ergonomics
focusses on collaboration, design, creativity and online communities as well as on the role of
socio-technical systems. She is associate editor of International Journal of Human Computer
Studies, and member of the editorial board of Interacting With Computers and CoDesign.

Jerry Andriessen  is a senior scientist and research director of Wise & Munro learning Research,
The Hague, Netherlands. Wise & Munro participates in many innovative European projects, on
technology, open data, collaboration, primary education, and cybersecurity. These projects add
societal relevance to their scientific implications. Jerry has more than 25 years of experience in
uses of technology for support of learning and collaboration in various settings. His current interest
is in the qualitative interpretation of discourse and action, including the roles of emotions.

Mirjam Pardijs  is an independent educational scientist. She is co-director of Wise & Munro
Learning Research, the Hague, Netherlands. She specialises in the design, coaching, and interpre-
tation of collaborative learning in educational and professional contexts. Her main interests are
narratives as a tool for learning, appropriation of technology, and the role of pedagogical support
for innovation in learning settings.

Dr. Adegboyega Ojo  is Senior Research Fellow at the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National
University of Ireland Galway (NUIG). He leads the E-Government Group at Insight Centre, serves
as Adjunct Lecturer at the College of Engineering and Informatics. His current research interests
include data driven innovations in government, Open data policies and Infrastructures, data analyt-
ics and governance of smart cities. He is member of the Editorial Boards of the Government
Information Quarterly and International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age.

Michael Hogan  is a senior lecturer and researcher at NUI, Galway, Ireland. His research foci
include individual, social and technology factors contributing to adult learning, motivation, and
collaborative performance. He is a co-director of the Structured PhD in Perception, Cognition and
Action, co-director of the Structured PhD in Learning Sciences, and a co-leader of the Health and
Wellbeing theme at the Whitaker Institute for Innovation and Social Change, NUI, Galway.

Albert Meijer  is a Professor of Public Innovation at the Utrecht School of Governance in the
Netherlands. His research focusses on e-government, government transparency, co-production in
the public sector and public innovation.

Erna Ruijer  is a postdoctoral researcher at the Utrecht School of Governance in the Netherlands.
Her research focuses on open data, government transparency, open government and government
communication.
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model
Framework

Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti and Adegboyega Ojo

Abstract  Business models for open data have emerged in response to the eco-
nomic opportunities presented by the increasing availability of open data. However,
scholarly efforts providing elaborations, rigorous analysis and comparison of open
data models are very limited. This could be partly attributed to the fact that most
discussions on open data business models are predominantly in the practice com-
munity. This shortcoming has resulted in a growing list of open data business mod-
els which, on closer examination, are not clearly delineated and lack clear value
orientation. This has made the understanding of value creation and exploitation
mechanisms in existing open data businesses difficult and challenging to transfer.
Following the Design Science Research (DSR) tradition, we describe a 6-Value
(6-V) business model framework built as a design artifact to facilitate the explica-
tion and detailed analysis of existing open data business models in practice. Based
on the results of the analysis, we identify business model patterns and emerging
core value disciplines for open data businesses. Our results not only help streamline
existing open data business models but helps in linking them to the overall business
strategy through value disciplines.

Introduction

Recently, attention of major stakeholders in the open data (OD) community, includ-
ing policymakers have shifted to the economic value of OD assets. OD constitute
an important resource around the world due to its potential to empower citizens,
businesses, change how government performs, and improve the delivery of public

F.A. Zeleti (*)

Insight Centre for Data Analytics @NUI Galway, Insight Centre, IDA Business Park,
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: Fatemeh.Ahmadizeleti@insight-centre.org
A. Ojo
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway,
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: Adegboyega.Ojo@insight-centre.org

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 219

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_9
220 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

services (Manyika et  al. 2013). Consequently, e-Government programs increas-

ingly support opening up data and publishing OD on regional, national and inter-
national portals. This has spurned a growing number of small and medium
enterprises seeking to tap into the potential of OD. As new entrants flood the mar-
ketplace, businesses are seeking to position themselves uniquely through special-
ization to create and capture value for their stakeholders (IBM Business Consulting
Services 2005).
Business models are conceptual instruments for describing how value is created
for OD customers (IBM Business Consulting Services 2005; Krcmar et al. 2011;
Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010; Brettel et al. 2012) and how revenue is gener-
ated and captured by organizations (Zott et  al. 2010; Plé et  al. 2008; Bekkelund
2011). Business models developed to harness the potential value of OD are increas-
ingly available but not well understood. There are very few scholarly studies on
business models for the OD industry. The lack of rigor (e.g. the use of a proper
conceptual framework) in describing and analyzing existing Open Data Business
Models (ODBMs) makes delineation and comparison of the models difficult. In
fact, ODBMs are used interchangeably with revenue models, pricing strategies, dis-
tribution models, marketing techniques and architectural models (HM Government
2013; Relations et al. 2011). For example, while Howard (2014) claims that Open
Source is an ODBMs, The 451 Group (2008) claims otherwise. Another example is
the use of different names and labels for very similar business models making anal-
ysis difficult.
In this chapter, we address this problem by consolidating reported business
models in both academic and practice literature, rigorously describe the models
based on a 6V business model conceptual framework, and determining the
ODBMs patterns and OD business value disciplines. Our contribution in this
work is three-fold: (1) Consistent elaboration of existing business models based
on the 6V business model conceptual framework we constructed grounded in
traditional business models literature, (2) Determination of core OD business
model patterns, (3) Determination of value disciplines for the open data-driven
organizations.

Literature Review

Open Data

Nowadays, a surprising amount of data is generated and stored than at any other
time in history (van den Broek et  al. 2012; Avital and Bjorn-Andersen 2012).
However, not all data can be published or made available to public for free. Some
data is commercially confidential; some are sensitive personal information, which
cannot be shared for reasons of privacy and security. However, where it is appropri-
ate to do so, and the right protections have been taken, such as removing personal
identifiers or aggregating data, sharing or linking data can bring both social and
economic benefits (HM Government 2013; Fensel 2013).
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 221

As a practice of good governance, governments globally started to open up their

public information in various domains, such as transportation, education, mobility,
and meteorology (van den Broek et al. 2012; Relations et al. 2011). This is what is
so-called OD. When data is freely accessible and re-usable by public, it could have
a larger impact on citizens’ ability to hold governments accountable and stimulate
innovation (van den Broek et al. 2012).
The more technical view of OD is when OD is considered as machine-readable
information, particularly government data available to others (Manyika et al. 2013;
Davies et al. 2013). OD is published in common standards, accessible through non-­
proprietary software, and subject to open licenses (Julien 2012). Data can be raw
data or processed data. It may be related to public services or related to internal
processes (Julien 2012; Vickery 2011; Ren and Glissmann 2012; IBM Institute for
Business Value Government 2011; Deloitte 2012). However, there are also limits to
what can be released (Vickery 2011).
OD can help uncover consumer preferences, allowing businesses to improve new
products (Manyika et al. 2013), increase revenue, and expand the supply and value
chain (Capgemini Consulting 2013). Julien (2012) has also claims that OD will
provide market intelligence for businesses. However, to benefit and capture value
from OD and build or expand the business value chain, businesses are required to
develop sufficient business model.

Business Models

A business model describes how value is created and captured by an organization

through the decisions made and the resulting consequences (Lambert 2008). In our
study, we adopt the notion of the business model provided by Osterwalder (2004)
which considers a business model as a conceptual tool that contains a set of inter-­
related elements that allows a company to earn money. It comprises a description of
the value a company offers to one or several segments of customers, the architecture
of the firm, and its network of partners for creating and delivering this value to gen-
erate profitably and sustainable revenue streams.
Three major business models are reviewed in this section. The various elements
or components of these models were elicited from various sources including Plé
et al. (2008), Morris et al. (2005), Calia et al. (2007), Lambert and Davidson (2013),
Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2009),
Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu (2011), Bonina (2013), Lüdeke-Freund (2009), Angot
(2010), and Janssen and Zuiderwijk (2014).

Osterwalder and Pigneur Business Model

Osterwalder and Pigneur (Osterwalder 2004; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2009) pres-
ents a business model canvas with nine building blocks. Model is presented in
Fig.  1. The model includes key partnership, key activities, key resources, value
222 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Key Activities Customer

Relationships Customer
Key Partners Value Segment
Proposition
Key Resources Channels

Cost Structure Revenue Streams

Fig. 1  Osterwalder business model canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2009)

proposition, relationships with the customers, customers, channels, revenue stream

and cost structures.
Customer Segment: It defines the groups of people or entities a business aims to
reach and serve.
Customer Relationship: It describes the types of relationships a business establishes
with specific Customer Segments.
Channel: It describes how a company communicates with and reaches its Customer
Segments to deliver a Value Proposition.
Value proposition: It describes the bundle of products and services that create value
for a specific Customer Segment.
Key activities: They describe the most important things a company must do to make
its business model work.
Key resources: They include important assets required to make a business model work.
Key partners: They describe the network of suppliers and partners that make the
business model work.
Revenue stream: It represents the cash a business generates from each Customer
Segment (costs must be subtracted from revenues to create earnings).
Cost structure: It describes all costs incurred to operate a business model.

Shafer, Smith and Linder Business Model

Shafer et al. (2005) based their framework on the four elements common to most
business models: Strategic choices; value creation; value network; and capture
value. Figure 2 presents the model.
Strategic choices: It defines strategies a business has to be able to develop to offer a
unique product to the customer. This is an element of the strategy formulation
process. Strategic choice adds value to a strategy.
Value network: It defines a network of suppliers and partners required to implement
the business model.
Create value: It describes value creation mechanisms from the different activities.
Capture value: It defines the process of recovering some or all of the value created
for the customer.
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 223

Components of a Business Model

Strategic Choices

Value Network
Customer (Target Market,
Scope)
Value Proposition Supplier
Capabilities/Competencies Customer Information
Revenue/Pricing Customer Relationship
Competitors Information Flow
Output (Offering)
Strategy Capture Value

Differentiation Cost
Mission Create Value Financial Aspect

Resources/Assets

Fig. 2  Four components of a business model (Shafer et al. 2005)

Hamel Business Model

The business model framework described by Hamel (2000) characterizes a business

model with three main components: Customer benefits (link between the strategy
and the customer needs), Configuration (company-specific combination of
resources, skills and procedures, which is used to support a given strategy) and
Company frontiers (decisions regarding activity, which require recourse to the
added value of an external network). Figure 3 presents the framework.
Customer logic: It defines a segment of people a business aim to reach and serve.
The Logic part defines all the activities required to maintain and improve the
segment.
Strategy: It defines strategies a business must develop to offer a unique product to
the customer. This is an element of the strategy formulation process. Strategic
choice adds value to a strategy.
Resources: It describes the most important assets required for a business model work.
Network: It defines a network of suppliers and partners that make the business
model work.

Existing Business Models

Various business models have been identified in the literature, mainly in the
practice community. These include: Howard (2014), Ferro and Osella (2013)
identified eight ODBMs: Premium, Freemium, Open Source, Infrastructural
224 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

CUSTOMER BENEFITS CONFIGURATION COMPANY FRONTIERS

Customer Logic Strategy Resources Network

Customer Service Objective Skills Suppliers
Information and Products and Market Strategic Resources Partners
Anticipation Segments Methodologies or Alliances
Relational Dynamics Differentiation Manufacturing

Fig. 3  Hamel business model (Hamel 2000)

Razor and Blades, Demand-Oriented Platform, Supply-Oriented Platform, Free

as Branded Advertising and White-Label Development. Models identified by
Musings (2012) are Cost Avoidance, Sponsorship, Dual Licensing, Support, and
Services, Charging for Changes, Increasing Quality through Participation, and
Supporting Primary Business. Description of each model above is presented in
the appendix as well as in Zeleti et  al. (2014)). Models above are not clearly
defined and mix many concepts. Table  1 presents a very brief description of
each model.

Conceptualization

Building on existing conceptual and theoretical roots, it is possible to develop a

standard framework for characterizing a business model. Therefore, our 6V concep-
tual model is grounded in the extant literature of business models, as shown in
Fig. 4. By consolidating elements of the various business model frameworks and
careful analysis of the literature, we identified six core elements of a successful
business model. We refer to our resulting framework as the 6-V Business Model
Framework (see Fig. 5).
The elements of the 6-V framework include value proposition; value adding
process; value network; value in return; value capture; and value management.
Value Proposition  specifies the value that business is offering. Value proposition
included product, services, distribution channel, information, and price.
Value Adding Process  delivering value requires value-adding process including
key activities and resources such as physical resources, human resources, supply
chain management, partnerships, and technology. Value adding process is classified
into three:
Operational includes activities, organizational structure, technologies and logistics
systems, revenue model, resources and assets and financial model;
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 225

Table 1  List of existing ODBMs

Models Description
Premium In the premium business model, the offering is high-end products and
services, and the customer has to pay (Huber 2011).
Freemium In the freemium, quality product is given away for free for a short
period and then customers are asked to pay when they are hooked on
the free product (Teece 2010).
Open Source Product in this model is provided in a totally open format that allows
free elaboration, usage, and redistribution without any technical
barrier (Ferro and Osella 2013).
Infrastructural Razor A razor-blade business model is about selling a product for a low
and Blades price to generate revenues from the complementary products (Graeme
Pietersz 2013).
Demand-Oriented This model involves charging consumers (e.g. developers) for the
Platform added value (Howard 2014)
Supply-Oriented This business model entails the presence of an intermediary business
Platform actor having an infrastructural role (Ferro and Osella 2013).
Free as Branded This model encourages audience towards a brand or a company by
Advertising delivering commercial messages through visualized data which is also
called “display advertising” (Ferro and Osella 2013).
White-Label A white-label product is a new product or service developed by one
Development company but acquired and rebranded by another as theirs (Howard
2014).
Cost Avoidance This model reduces the cost of data publishing by having a
sustainable publishing solution (Epimorphics Ltd 2012).
Sponsorship This model entails giving the product for free to customers and
obtaining revenue from some sponsors (Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu
2011).
Dual Licensing Dual licensing is based on the idea of the simultaneous use of both
open source and proprietary licenses (Välimäki 2003). Products are
given away in an open license for certain purposes and under a closed
license for others (Musings 2012).
Support and Services This model ensures that the paid packages are given away with
guarantees for paying customers (Musings 2012).
Charging for Changes In this model, the fee is applied for changes made to the product
(Musings 2012).
Increasing Quality This model involves increasing participation and satisfaction of the
through Participation customer with the goal of generating higher margins (Angot 2010).
Supporting Primary This model is used when releasing product naturally supports the
Business primary goal of business or organization (Musings 2012).

Strategic planning includes market or the target customer, competencies, capabili-

ties, pricing and the control of costs, branding, differentiation, legal issues, mis-
sion and trust;
Knowledge management includes innovation and documents.
The Value in Return  what is received from the value adding process either mon-
etary or non-monetary value including revenue, advertising space, future contracts
and opportunities and rent or commission.
226 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Value Capture  Value capture is the process of retaining some percentage of the
value provided in every transaction. This allows the business to use the output from
the value in return to rethink and redesign to support the value proposition.
Value Management  top managers play a significant role in the whole process.
This includes mindset, organization, governance, stakeholders and shareholders.
Value Network  all the business activities are done within the value network. This
includes customers, suppliers, information flow, product flow, service flow and part-
ner businesses.
Extending the 6-V business model framework presented in Fig. 4 and to better
understanding the model components, we present the 6-V model in table form that
provides second-level and third-level components. Each of the 6-V business model
main component includes sub-components (second-level components) in which
each sub-component consists of other sub-components (third-level components).

Fig. 4  Components of a business model

The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 227

Fig. 4 (continued)

Fig. 5  The 6-V business model conceptual framework

228 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Table 2  6-V model’s top-level and low-level components

6-V Model Second-Level
Components Components Third-Level Components
Value Offer Product, Service; Information
Proposition Channel Delivery Method
Value Price/Value for Money
Value Adding Operational Activities and Processes; Technologies and Systems;
Process Resources and Assets
Strategic Market Segment/Position/Geographical Expansion;
Logistic Systems; Competencies and Capabilities;
Profit Model/Stream/Formula; Revenue Model/
Sources/Stream/Mechanisms; Financial Model; Pricing
Mechanisms; Competitors and Competitive Outcomes;
Internal Value Chain Structure; Cost Structure and
Pricing; Branding and Marketing; Networking and
Resource Leveraging; Differentiation; Legal Issues;
Mission
Knowledge Innovation (Incremental and Disruptive); R&D
Management
Value in Return Volume of Sale Volume of Product Sale
Income Revenue; Rent and Commission
Future Income Advertising Space; Future Contract
Opportunities
Value Capture Market Size Product Cost and Quality
Profit/Margin Profit/Margin; Financial Performance
Model
Value Network Actors Customer; Partner Businesses
Supporting Customer Relationship/Interface; Product, Service,
Infrastructure Information and Resource Flow; Supplier/Supply
Chain; Logistical Stream
Value Discipline Mind-Set and Dynamic Consistency
Management Governance Governance
Structure Organizational Structure (Organization Entity and
Arrangement);
Administration Administrative Processes

For example, value proposition can include an offer, channel, and value in which
offer can include product, services and information; channel can include a delivery
method and value can include better price or the value for money. Table 2 shows this
classification.

Model Elaboration

In this section, we apply the 6-V model described in section “Conceptualization” to

characterize the 15 business models in the context of OD. We do not include Value
Management in the analysis because it executes control over the performance of the
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 229

entire model to ensure the components are set appropriately to meet the objective/s.
The resulting information is presented in Table 3 and highlighted below.
Cost Avoidance offers sustainable publishing solution, cost avoidance, and improved
meaning of data and data integration as a value in return.
Sponsorship offers free and useful data to the public and provides availability of
data to public as a value in return.
Freemium offers free but limited data and high-quality data at some cost and pro-
vides limited availability of useful free data to public and perceived value of data
as a value in return.
Premium offers specific customer need and provides perceived value of data as a
value in return.
Dual-Licensing offers free data for non-commercial uses and high-quality data for
commercial use and provide limited availability of useful free data to public and
perceived data as a value in return.
Support and services offer high value-adding data services and provide perceived
value of data as a value in return.
Charging for changes offers free but limited data services and high-quality data at
some cost and provides limited availability of useful free data to public and per-
ceived value of data as a value in return.
Increasing quality through participation offers a higher quality of data and provides
higher data quality as a value in return.
Supporting primary business offers strategic support to the business objective and
provides improved in business results as a value in return.
Open source offers free data for non-corporate use and quality data for corporate
use and provides limited availability of useful free data to public and perceived
value of data as a value in return.
Infrastructural razor and blades offer incomplete data at a discount price while the
complementary parts cost higher. It provides perceived value of data as a value
in return.
The demand-oriented platform offers high quality and reliable data at some cost and
provides commoditization and democratization of data as a value in return.
Supply oriented platform offers efficient and scalable infrastructure and provides
perceived value of data as a value in return.
Free as branded advertising offers useful data for public and provides perceived
value of data as a value in return.
The white-label development offers useful data services and Apps and provides sav-
ing in development time and budget as a value in return.

 nalysis: Open Data Business Model Partners and Value

A
Disciplines

The ultimate goal of understanding the business model variations in the digital
world is to be able to analyze them to address the real-world problems that the busi-
ness faces. It’s one thing to understand what business model mean for different
 230

Table 3  ODBMs elaboration based on the 6-V model

Value Proposition Value Adding Process Value Network Value in Return Value Capture
Premium • Meeting specific • Publishing • Mostly • Perceived value of • Lump sums
customer data • Data maintenance business clients data Revenue
need
Freemium • Free, but limited • Availability of different machine- • Clients (mostly • Limited availability of • Revenue from the
data services readable formats consumers useful free data to small % of the free
• High-quality data • Unconstrained numbers of API calls B2C) public users
at some cost • More sophisticated querying, • Perceived value of • Charges for
• Access to data dumps rather than data additional data or
through an API (or vice versa) advanced features
• Provision of feeds of changes to the
data
• Enhancement of the data with
additional information
• Early access to data
• Provision of data on DVDs or hard
disks rather than over the net
Open Source • Free data for • Publishing data • Mixed clients • Limited availability of • Revenue from
non-corporate use • Data maintenance (B2B,B2G, useful free data to added value
• High-quality data B2C) public services
for corporate use • Perceived value of
data
Infrastructural • Incomplete data at • Update data • Developers • Perceived value of • Revenue from data
Razor & Blades low cost • Maintenance • Clients data
• Complete data at
higher cost
F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo
Demand-Oriented • High quality and • Refining Datasets • Developers • Commoditization and • Revenues in
Platform reliable data at • Collecting and cataloging data democratization of exchange for
some cost • Harmonizing data regarding formats data advanced services
and exposed through APIs and refined
datasets or data
flows
Supply-Oriented • Efficiency • Data retrieval • Technology • Perceived value of • Revenue from
Platform • Scalable • Standardization of formats companies data potential
infrastructure • Automated external exposure of data • Publisher (who advertisers
via APIs and GUI is selling)
Free, as Branded • Useful data for the • Data visualization • Software • Perceived value of • Revenue from
Advertising public development data Adverts
• Companies
• Developers
White-Label • Useful data • App making • Mostly • Save development • Lump sum
Development services and Apps • App upgrading Business time and budget Revenue
Clients
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework

• Developers
Cost Avoidance • Sustainable • Publishing data as Linked Data • EU, • Improve the meaning • Sustainable
publishing • Data retrieval parliaments of data and data publishing practice
solution • Government integration • Proactive data
• Cost avoidance department release
• People
Sponsorship • Free data and • Publishing process • Sponsors • Availability of data to • Revenue from
useful for public • Clients public sponsors
Dual Licensing • Free data for • Publishing data • Developers • Limited availability of • Revenue from
non-commercial • Data maintenance • Clients useful free data to added value
use public services
• High-quality data • Perceived value of
for commercial data
use
231

(continued)
Table 3 (continued)
232

Value Proposition Value Adding Process Value Network Value in Return Value Capture
Support and • High value-adding • Guarantees on data availability • Mostly • Perceived value of • Revenue
Services data service • Prioritization on bug fixes (both in business clients data • Presence in the
data and its provision) for paying service market
customers
• Timely help for customers using the
data
• Services around data visualization
• Analysis and mashing with other data
Charging for • Free, but limited • Update data • Mostly • Limited availability of • Revenue from
Changes data services • Availability of different machine- business clients useful free data to added value
• High-quality data readable formats public services
at some cost • Unconstrained numbers of API calls • Perceived value of
• More sophisticated querying data
• Access to data dumps rather than
through an API (or vice versa)
• Provision of feeds of changes to the
data
• Enhancement of the data with
additional information
• Early access to data
Increasing • Availability of • Update data • Developers • Higher quality data • Revenue
Quality through higher quality data • Cleansed data • Lawyers • Client satisfaction
Participation • Feedback • Academics and
government
• Clients as an
active player
Supporting • Open data • Publishing data • Developers • Improved business • Revenue
Primary Business supporting • Providing APIs • Clients results • Customer
strategic business satisfaction
objective
F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 233

businesses, but it’s quite another for a business to be able to distinguish different
business models and understanding what business model suits their business. The
elaboration in Table 3 shows that the 15 reported business models are ODBMs as
they are well defining each component in the context of OD and therefore can be
utilized by OD businesses. We further seek commonalities in the 15 ODBMs, and
this will give us insight into what are the core ODBM patterns available and what
OD business value disciplines can best define the model a business wish to employ.
ODBMs patterns and value disciplines aid businesses especially innovative start-­
ups to define the right business model. Business model patterns and value disci-
plines are described below.

Open Data Business Model Patterns

The first part of our analysis identifies the major patterns of business models
focusing on value propositions – a central element of the business model which
are directly associated with customers and external entities. The centrality of
the value proposition in the design of business models is clearly reflected in our
6V business model conceptual model in section “Conceptualization”.
Specifically, we determined the business model patterns from the 15 ODBMs
(see Table 3) by examining the similarities between value propositions as well
as a careful comparison of what each model offers, tries to achieve and how. Our
analysis resulted in five major business model patterns including Freemium,
Premium, Cost Saving, Indirect Benefits and Parts of Tools categories. In
Table 4, we describe specific ODBMs comprising each pattern. We also identify
what ‘offer,’ ‘Channel for delivering value’, and ‘Price/Value for money’ mean
and can include in each pattern.
Fermium  includes Fermium, Dual-Licensing, Charging for Changes, Open Source,
and Free as Branded Advertising models. All the models in this category offer lim-
ited data free of charge and apply fees for additional request for complete and higher
quality datasets.
Premium  includes Sponsorship, Support and Services, Demand-Oriented Platform,
Supply-Oriented Platform, White-Label Development and Premium models. Data in
this category is not offered free of charge. However, data are offered in high quality
and complete form at some cost.
Cost Saving  includes Increase Quality through Participation and Cost Avoidance
models. Models in this category do not entirely cover the cost, but reduce the cost
of opening and releasing data by engaging participants and publishing data as
Linked Data. Data user or re-user participants play a vital role in this category as by
active participation publishing data can happen at a lower cost.
Indirect Benefit  includes Supporting Primary Business model. Opening up data in
this category is strategic and releasing open data naturally supports the primary goal
234 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Table 4  ODBM categories

Fermium Pattern Offer Channel Price/Value for Money
Fermium, Dual-­ Limited data Data Portals, Data Limited dataset for free
Licensing, Charging for services, Quality visualization of charge, quality dataset
Changes, Open Source, data, Useful data platforms or at some costs
and Free as Branded display advertising
Advertising
Premium Pattern
Sponsorship, Support and Data services, Data Portals, Data Quality data provided at a
Services, Demand- Quality data, Publishing fee
Oriented Platform, Efficient and Platforms, APIs,
Supply-­Oriented Platform, scalable and Graphical User
White-Label Development infrastructure, Interfaces
and Premium Useful data
Cost Saving Pattern
Increase Quality through Quality data, Data portals, Reduce cost of opening
Participation and Cost Sustainable Linked Data and releasing data
Avoidance publishing
solution, Cost
reduction
Indirect Benefit Pattern
Supporting Primary Quality data for Data portals, Apps, Releasing organization’s
Business supporting Marketplace of data for free that can be
business created tools and used by others to make
strategic Apps by other tools that improve the
objectives organizations releasing organization
Parts of Tools Category
Infrastructural Razor and Incomplete data, Cloud computing Incomplete data for lower
Blades Complete data platforms, API cost and complementary
or dependent data at a
higher cost.

of the business. Model in this category allows the business to develop its data and
data infrastructure by using the third-party infrastructures that are created because
the data is open and available.
The Parts of Tools  includes Infrastructural Razor and Blades model. The business
strategy in this category is to offer the first set of data at a discount while offering
complementary or dependent data at a considerable higher price.
As can be seen from Table  4, most of the 15 ODBMs belong to Fermium and
Premium categories. Consequently, in the open data business community, more
emphasize is given to Fermium and Premium models than the other three categories.

Value Disciplines

A business model – and value proposition in particular – is shaped by the business’s

underlying value discipline which describes different ways a business can differen-
tiate itself from competitors. It is a strategic focus that enables a business to set its
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 235

vision and objectives. Value discipline helps a business to tailor value proposition to
exactly match the need. Therefore, before identifying the business model, defining
business value discipline is necessary.
Our approach to identifying the implicit value disciplines for ODBMs patterns is
based on the analysis of the model attributes such as value proposition and value in
return. Determination of the value disciplines enables analysis of the required capa-
bilities to enable attainment overall business objectives. A Delphi-like process
involving the three co-authors of the research was adopted in the analysis of Table 3,
resulting in four types of value disciplines for OD businesses. The identified value
disciplines converged on Usefulness, Process Improvement, Performance and
Customer Loyalty, which are explained below:
Usefulness, tailors, value proposition to support directly the needs of consumers in
one way or another. Business strategic focus, corporate vision, and business
objectives should be defined to meet usefulness of the offer. Usefulness is associ-
ated with the Freemium, Dual-Licensing, Charging for Changes, Open Source
and Free as Branded Advertising. These models all somewhat focus on the use-
fulness of the data offered to the clients as the business value disciplines.
Process Improvement, tailors value proposition to match to the needs of the cus-
tomer specifically for improving processes. Process improvement is associated
with Cost Avoidance model. Business oriented on Process Improvement, aim at
greater efficiency to reduce cost by optimizing its processes. OD published based
on this discipline targets improving business processes.
Performance, tailors, value proposition for better performance. Performance is
associated with Support Primary Business model. Businesses with this orienta-
tion aim to release data which support their primary business objectives.
Customer Loyalty, tailors, value proposition to target customer loyalty. This is asso-
ciated with Premium and Infrastructural Razor and Blades. Business with
Customer Loyalty value discipline should apply Premium or Infrastructural
Razor and Blades model to adjust their processes to meet the clients’ satisfaction
and build customer loyalty.
Table 5 shows that Usefulness value discipline is the most popular value disci-
pline in the open data industry followed by the Customer Loyalty.

Summary

Finally, we organize existing ODBMs regarding their inherent value disciplines and
their respective categories as shown in Table 5. For instance, an OD business which
aims to focus on customer loyalty can have two choices for their business model
which are Infrastructural Razor and Blades and Premium. Business can choose one
depending on the business model category they aim to target.
For OD businesses aiming at increasing performance as their value discipline
can have one choice for a business model which is Support Primary Business.
236 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Table 5  ODBMs and value proposition categories

Value Disciplines
Process
Usefulness Improvement Performance Customer Loyalty
Category Parts of NA NA NA Infrastructural
Tools Razor and Blades
Indirect NA NA Support NA
Benefit Primary
Business
Cost Increasing Quality Cost NA
Saving through Avoidance
Participation
Premium Sponsorship, NA NA Premium
Support, and
Services,
Demand-­Oriented
Platform,
Supply-Oriented
Platform,
White-Label
Development
Fermium Fermium, NA NA NA
Dual-Licensing,
Charging for
Changes, Open
Source, Free as
Branded-­
Advertising

Similarly, for OD businesses aiming at improving processes as their value disci-

pline can have one choice for a business model which is Cost Avoidance.
Most of the business models are targeting Usefulness value discipline. The
nature of useful value provided will vary from one customer to another. Increasing
Quality through Participation, Sponsorship, Support and Services, Demand-
Oriented Platform, Supply-Oriented Platform, White-Label Development,
Freemium, Dual-­Licensing, Charging for Changes, Open Source, and Free as
Branded-Advertising belongs to this value discipline. Depending on the business
model patterns, a business can come up with a proper business model for the
business. Table 5 shows this positioning.

Conclusion

All businesses either explicitly or implicitly should employ a particular business

model. Similarly, OD businesses must utilize ODBMs. The first and foremost activ-
ity of emerging businesses is to identify the value discipline before identifying a
particular business model. This particular research field; OD business value
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 237

disciplines; is missing and literature on ODBMs is also very limited to some num-
ber of websites and presentation files. Besides, regarding business models, various
scholars present generic business model differently.
Our research findings clearly answered to the problems above both at the research
and business levels. We also confess that the 6V business model conceptual frame-
work, core ODBMs patterns – Freemium, Premium, Cost Saving, Indirect Benefit
and Parts of Tools – and new OD business value disciplines – Usefulness, Process
Improvement, Performance and Customer Loyalty – contribute significantly to busi-
ness model and ODBMs literatures and assist not only start-ups and SMEs but also
big businesses to deliver full value to their stakeholders.
This study provides insight to governments and government authorities by pro-
viding knowledge of the importance of availability and accessibility of OD for inno-
vation and transparency. This allows more businesses and development of OD
products like APIs. For example, with a focus on realistic local solutions, initiatives
like CitySDK are working with pilot cities to create uniform APIs that have standard
approaches to how APIs expose local government data. Therefore, governments
have a new way of saving and making money by becoming a provider for the city.
By opening the data, governments allow city (businesses and developers) to create
products. Governments can also establish a partnership with private sectors to ben-
efit. Therefore, governments should seek to identify how publishing OD can be
done in a way that it provides value to general public and facilitates the development
of both free and commercial products.

References

Angot J  (2010) Customer-integrated business models  : a theoretical framework. Management

13:226–265
Avital M, Bjorn-Andersen N (2012) The value of open government data: a strategic analysis
framework. In: SIG eGovernment pre-ICIS Workshop, no. 2002
Bekkelund KJ (2011) Succeeding with freemium. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim
Bonina CM (2013) New business models and the value of open data: definitions , challenges and
opportunities, London
Boons F, Lüdeke-Freund F (2013) Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and
steps towards a research agenda. J Clean Prod 45:9–19
Brettel M, Strese S, Flatten TC (2012) Improving the performance of business models with rela-
tionship marketing efforts – an entrepreneurial perspective. Eur Manag J 30(2):85–98
Calia RC, Guerrini FM, Moura GL (Aug. 2007) Innovation networks: from technological develop-
ment to business model reconfiguration. Technovation 27(8):426–432
Capgemini Consulting (2013) The open data economy unlocking economic value by opening gov-
ernment and public data
Casadesus-Masanell R, Ricart JE (2009) From strategy to business models and to tactics
Casadesus-Masanell R, Ricart JE (2010) From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long
Range Plann 43(2–3):195–215
Casadesus-Masanell R, Zhu F (2011) Business model innovation and competitive imitation: the
case of sponsor-based business models
238 F.A. Zeleti and A. Ojo

Davies T, Perini F, Alonso JM (2013) Researching the emerging impacts of open data ODDC
conceptual framework
Deloitte (2012) Open data driving growth, ingenuity and innovation
Doligalski T (2010) Strategies of value proposition on the Internet. Perspect Innov Econ Bus
5(2):2–4
Epimorphics Ltd (2012) Linked open data business models. Epimorphics Ltd. [Online]. Available:
http://www.epimorphics.com/web/blogs/martin.
Fensel D (2013) Steps towards a data value chain, Salzburg
Ferro E, Osella M (2013) Eight business model archetypes for PSI re-use, London
Graeme Pietersz (2013) Razor-blade model. Graeme Pietersz. [Online]. Available: http://money-
terms.co.uk/razor-blade-model/
Hamel G (2000) Leading the revolution, New York
HM Government (2013) Seizing the data opportunity: a strategy for UK data capability, UK
Howard A (2014) Open data economy: eight business models for open data and insight from
Deloitte UK.  O’Reilly Media, Inc.,. [Online]. Available: http://radar.oreilly.com/2013/01/
open-data-business-models-deloitte-insight.html.
Huber MH (2011) Designing your business model slideshare.net. [Online]. Available: http://www.
slideshare.net/hubesm/designing-your-business-model
IBM Business Consulting Services (2005) Component business models Making specialization real
IBM Institute for Business Value Government (2011) Opening up government: how to unleash the
power of information for new economic growth, New York
Janssen M, Zuiderwijk A (2014) Infomediary business models for connecting open data providers
and users. Soc Sci Comput Rev 32:694–711
Julien N (2012) Business opportunities arising from open data policies. Imperial College London
Krcmar, H, Böhm, M, Friesike S, Schildhauer T (2011) Innovation , society and business: Internet-­
based business models and their implications. In: 1st Berlin symposium on Internet and society
Lambert S (2008) A conceptual framework for business model research. In: 21st Bled eConference
on eCollaboration: overcoming boundaries through multi-channel interaction, pp 277–289
Lambert SC, Davidson RA (2013) Applications of the business model in studies of enterprise suc-
cess, innovation and classification: an analysis of empirical research from 1996 to 2010. Eur
Manag J 31(6):668–681
Lüdeke-Freund F (2009) Business model concepts in corporate sustainability contexts for “busi-
ness models for sustainability”
Mai L, Zhang Z, (2011) The Freemium Business Model in Gävleborg’s Open Source Software
Industry – a Case Study on ArcMage AB
Manyika J, Chui M, Groves P, Farrell D, Van Kuiken S, Doshi EA (2013) Open data: unlocking
innovation and performance with liquid information
Morris M, Schindehutte M, Allen J (2005) The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified
perspective. J Bus Res 58(6):726–735
Musings J (2012) Open data business models. [Online]. Available: http://www.jenitennison.com/
blog/node/172
Osterwalder A (2004) The business model ontology: a proposition in a design science approach,
UNIVERSITE DE LAUSANNE ECOLE
Osterwalder A. Pigneur Y (2009) Business model generation
Plé L, Lecocq X, Angot J (2008) Customer-integrated business models: a theoretical framework.
Management 13:226–265
Relations K, Huijboom N, Van Den Broek T (2011) Open data: an international comparison of
strategies
Ren G-J, Glissmann S (2012) Identifying information assets for open data: the role of business
architecture and information quality. In: IEEE 14th international conference on commerce
enterprise computing, pp 94–100
Shafer SM, Smith HJ, Linder JC (2005) The power of business models. Bus Horiz 48(3):199–207
Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plann
43(2–3):172–194
The 6-Values Open Data Business Model Framework 239

The 451 Group (2008) Open source is not a business model, New York
Välimäki M (2003) Dual licensing in open source software industry. Syst d’Information Manag
8(1):63–75
van den Broek T, Rijken M, van Oort S (2012) Towards open development data
Vickery G (2011) Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market development, Paris
Zeleti FA, Ojo A, Curry E (2014) Business models for the open data industry: characterization and
analysis of emerging models. In: 15th annual international conference on digital government
research
Zott C, Amit R, Massa L (2010) The business model: theoretical roots, recent developments and
future research, Madrid

Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti  is a researcher at the e-Government unit at the Insight Centre for Data
Analytics @ National University of Ireland Galway (formerly Digital Enterprise Research Institute
(DERI) – a leading center in Semantic Web and Linked Open Data research). At the Insight Centre,
her research and development work addresses capabilities for open data-driven organizations and
how business (for-profit and nonprofit) entities can effectively leverage [Linked] Open [Government]
Data for optimizing business processes and product and service innovation. In 2016, her research
results have been selected as the best practice to address and achieve European PSI Directive
(2003/98/EC). She is the moderator of the World Bank Open Data Innovation Network and an active
member of the Swedish Research Network in e-Government and ImmigrationPolicy2.0.

Dr. Adegboyega Ojo  is Senior Research Fellow at the Insight Centre for Data Analytics,
National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG). He leads the E-Government Group at Insight
Centre, serves as Adjunct Lecturer at the College of Engineering and Informatics. His current
research interests include data driven innovations in government, Open data policies and
Infrastructures, data analytics and governance of smart cities. He is member of the Editorial Boards
of the Government Information Quarterly and International Journal of Public Administration in the
Digital Age.
Technology Innovations in Public Service
Delivery for Sustainable Development

Jeremy Millard

Abstract  This chapter focuses on how ICT can be deployed to assist in the design
and delivery of innovative public services in support of sustainable development. In
many parts of the world, and especially in developing countries, basic public ser-
vices like education, health, basic infrastructures, as well as water and sanitation,
are often poor and patchy even when available. Such services are reflected in the
United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda for 2030, and also address chal-
lenges like poverty, food, housing and employment. All of these need innovative
public service delivery if targets are to be achieved by 2030. However, the provision
of such services is increasingly challenged by the diversity of social needs across
different locations and population segments. Mainstream, largely off-the-shelf, ICT
has tremendous potential today and in the near future to innovatively address these
needs and challenges, and there are already many valuable experiences both from
developed and developing countries about how this can make huge differences to
public service delivery. The chapter also addresses the governance and policy issues
that need to be addressed in this context.

Introduction

The use of new technologies by governments in many countries around the world
has led to widespread innovations and transformations across many aspects of the
public sector over the last 15 years. The most significant technological advance over
this period has been in information and communications technology (ICT) which
has dramatically impacted public services and their delivery, both via websites and
portals over the Internet, mobile and especially smart phones and social media, as
well as being available through kiosks located in places accessible to the public.
ICT-enabled public service delivery is having significant impact by generally being
more cost effective than traditional supply investments. They also give the service
user large benefits in terms of access, convenience through 24/7 availability, savings

J. Millard (*)
Danish Technological Institute, Taastrup, Denmark
e-mail: Jeremy.millard@3mg.org

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 241

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_10
242 J. Millard

in time and the cost of travel to physical premises, as well as the possibility of com-
pletely new types of public services.
The role of ICT in public service delivery needs to be seen in context. First, espe-
cially in developing countries, non-digital service delivery channels, such as tradi-
tional post, telephone call centers, over the counter face-to-face services in citizen
centers, as well as TV and radio, remain important. However, these can be signifi-
cantly improved by adding a digital channel, for example, by using satellite broad-
casting and multi-channel learning services through mobile Internet centers
connecting teachers, learners and communities. The back offices of service provid-
ers can also be digitized and joined-up to provide innovative solutions for enhancing
service delivery.
Secondly, many service components require direct human interaction in health,
care, education and building personal and trusting relationships through dialogue
and empathy, where ICT can be a valuable support tool for front-line staff. ICT is
being used innovatively to provide instant access to remote and hard-to-reach people
regardless of time or location over large areas and distances. ICT solutions have
been used to better handle and analyze large amounts of data in more standard, rou-
tine and rule-governed processes and transactions, thereby reducing overall transac-
tion costs and increasing process efficiency. It can, when this is rationally planned,
enable the re-deployment of staff and other resources away from routine government
processes into face-to-face engagement with users where this adds most value.
Third, ICT has emerged as a key tool for capacity building by streamlining admin-
istrative processes and providing opportunities for the learning and training of public
servants. ICT should thus be seen as a very powerful additional channel enabling new
types of innovative service delivery. It should be on the agenda of all public service
providers alongside existing traditional channels, and for delivering new services for
which previously there were neither adequate resources nor means of delivery.
A basic aim of innovative public service delivery is to ensure the universality of
basic services in order to “leave no one behind”1 as this is absolutely essential in
order to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by
2030.2 Given that many developing countries still have not been able to deliver basic
services like education, health, water and sanitation, as well as infrastructures and
other utilities, to all their population regardless of who they are or where they live,
a much greater focus on ICT needs to be made given its extremely low cost, its
power of reach and its ability to be relatively rapidly rolled out (Ericsson and the
Earth Institute 2016). Thus, the aim in these countries is to ensure access for all
through the universal availability of such basic services. The more developed econ-
omies have, by and large, already realized universal access, so here the focus tends
to be on more advanced and personalized services enabled by ICT as the next step,
although there are also many examples of such services in developing countries as
this chapter demonstrates.

 http://www.una.org.uk/content/global-development-goals-leaving-no-one-behind
1

 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
2
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 243

According to the Global Opportunities Network (2016), which surveys leaders in

business, civil society and politics on how to turn global risks into opportunities for
collaborative action specifically in relation to the SDGs, technology must play a
significant role. In fact, of the three dimensions surveyed – technology, economy
and political will power – technological capacity is consistently perceived to be the
lowest barrier to change. Hence, technology is a strong driver of all opportunities
identified including in relation to public service delivery. However, technology
tends to be a weaker driver in lower Human Development Index (HDI) regions,
pointing to a strong need for technology transfer to developing countries. The sur-
vey also shows that, of the three dimensions, political will power consistently scores
low across all nine geographical regions, except China. The government sector
shows the largest gap between the perception of being affected by the opportunities
and their expressed likelihood to pursue them. Hence, leaders in the public sector
tends to recognize the opportunities of technology, feel affected by them, but do not
think they have the capacity to act on them.
This is a serious challenge especially given that ICT has become today’s ‘general
purpose’ technology, just as steam power and electricity were in the past, i.e. it
underpins and enables most other technological advances, without which these
would not be possible. These include new technologies like:
• the Internet of Things (IoT) using sensors to link everything including physical
objects to the Internet for monitoring environmental pollution wearable technol-
ogy enabling sensors attached to the human body to monitor vital life signs
• robotics providing assistance for disabled people and older persons who are
housebound artificial intelligence used, for example, in education and health to
assist in decision making
• so-called ‘big data’ where public service data is combined with data from many
other sources and can be made open for greater transparency and accountability,
as in open government or science data smart electrical grids for improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of power supplies
• 3D printing and other additive manufacturing technologies which public admin-
istrations can use to produce one-off or specialized components for a wide range
of technical and maintenance tasks, including for example in war zones to rap-
idly fabricate prosthetic limbs for the injured the use of drones to deliver vital
medical or other supplies to remote areas or in emergencies
• the potential of new blockchain technologies for secure and distributed archives,
registers and records, participatory decision-making, etc.
All these new technologies, made possible by ICT, are currently used to design
and deliver innovative public services in a few countries, and this is certain to
increase significantly in future with lessons already being drawn. However, in many
parts of the world, and especially in developing countries, such public service deliv-
ery applications are still some years in the future. On the other hand, mainstream,
largely off-the-shelf, ICT has tremendous potential today and in the near future in
such countries, and there are already many valuable experiences both from devel-
oped and developing countries about how this can make huge differences to public
244 J. Millard

service delivery. This chapter focuses largely on this issue, together with the use of
such mainstream ICT alongside and in support of the more traditional delivery
channels mentioned above.
Whereas some countries have exploited the full potential, there remain large dis-
parities in whether and how ICT is used for innovative public service delivery
between global regions, between and within countries, between different target
populations and for different types of services. In particular, many developing coun-
tries have hardly begun to exploit ICT in this way, despite the huge potential bene-
fits in doing so. In developing countries in general, there is a lack of reach and
quality of public services, a lack of efficiency and effectiveness in service provision,
and infrequent linking to issues of good governance. ICT can do much to directly
remedy these disparities which this chapter addresses.

Structure of This Chapter

The rest of this chapter examines, in turn, four main focus areas in which technol-
ogy innovations can significantly enhance public service delivery in the context of
sustainable development.
• Section 2: “Improving Access to Basic Public Services Using Innovative ICT”
• Section 3: Strengthening the Governance of Basic Services Through Innovative
Technology Solutions
• Section 4: Meeting the Social Needs of Target Populations
• Section 5: Enhancing the Policy and Strategic Framework for Basic Services
In each of these areas, the analysis and examples will focus mainly on the so-­
called universal ‘basic’ public services of education, health and water, as well as on
infrastructure and utilities, as these are fundamental building blocks needed for sus-
tainable development to take place.
The analysis in each of the above sections consists of two main parts. First, an
examination of the challenges which need to be addressed. Despite the great poten-
tial of ICT for innovating public service delivery and the fact that many achieve-
ments have already been made, there remain many significant challenges to
overcome, especially inequity in digital infrastructures and services between and
within countries; insufficient use of technologies to improve governance; the highly
diverse social needs of target populations which need to be met; and inadequate
policy and strategic frameworks.
The second part in each chapter will examine how technology innovations can
significantly improve public service delivery for sustainable development.
Governments are by far the most important actor in public service delivery, although
this often takes place in collaboration with non-public actors, so their role is also
critical in meeting the SDGs by 2030. This means that, rather than relying only on
existing solutions which are clearly failing to make the progress needed, a signifi-
cant investment in ICT will be necessary. Research undertaken by Ericsson and the
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 245

Earth Institute (2016) characterizes the SDGs as highly ambitious “stretch” goals
that “will require a transformation of societies that is far deeper and faster than in
the past. If they are to be achieved, these goals must leverage existing and widely
deployed technologies, such as broadband, but also require new innovative services
and improved reach of technological solutions.” “ICT will play a special role in
today’s low-income countries, a point strongly and cogently emphasized by the
UN’s Broadband Commission (Broadband Commission 2014). In essence, ICT are
“leapfrog” and transformational technologies, enabling all countries to close many
technology gaps at record speed.” According to the United Nations (2015), public
service delivery comprises a number of strategies. First, both enhancing both the
quality and reach of public services, as well as improving the efficiency of public
service delivery. Second, providing strong public sector leadership and government
structures, and collaborating with non-state actors, especially civil society, and shar-
ing information and resources. Third, improving the overall effectiveness of the
public sector and promoting good governance. All of these strategies can be signifi-
cantly enhanced by the use of ICT and other new technology, as will be demon-
strated for each of the four focus areas mentioned above.
The scope of this chapter is global given that the SDGs have been agreed by
virtually all member states of the United Nations in September 2015 as part of the
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.3 Thus, the examples used to illustrate each
of the four areas are drawn from countries around the world. The final section
“Conclusions and Lessons Learnt” of the chapter provides overall conclusions and
lessons learnt.

I mproving Access to Basic Public Services

Using Innovative ICT

Challenges to Be Addressed

There are significant disparities in digital infrastructure and services between coun-
tries, within countries and between various groups within a country. These consti-
tute serious barriers to the successful use of new technologies for the delivery of
public services especially in the developing countries which need it most. The ineq-
uity directly contributes to socio-economic inequalities generally, reflecting the
multivariate causes of poverty and deprivation in many countries and which seri-
ously challenges the potential for sustainable development (Millard 2015a).
For instance, new technologies including ICT, can assist in education and learn-
ing but its innovative use is limited in many countries. Even where Internet access
is available, many people in developing countries do not possess the necessary
basics of computer literacy. Figure 1 illustrates wide inequities among regions with
Africa as a region lagging far behind others.

 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/
3
246 J. Millard

Fig. 1  Global functional digital literacy (International Telecommunications Union 2013)

Fig. 2  Public Education Institutions with Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in 2012 (UNESCO
Institute for Statistics (2014). ICT Infrastructure 1 – ISCED 1,2 and 3. Retrieved from: http://www.
uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/BrowseCommunication.aspx)

The challenge in many developing countries is both lack of opportunity for basic
education as well as limited programmes in schools for computer literacy. There are
also wide disparities in the access and use of ICT in education among developing
countries. For instance, as Fig. 2 shows, while 100% of the public institutions in
Malaysia provide computer-assisted instruction (CAI) at the secondary school level,
only 3% of public schools in Cambodia and Madagascar do so.
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 247

Fig. 3  Percentage of Public Education Institutions with Television-Assisted Instruction (TAI) in

2012 (op cit.)

If basic education levels are low in a country, television can be successfully

deployed for learning, both in and out of school. However, a similar picture appears
in the use of television-assisted instruction (TAI) in public schools in some coun-
tries. As Fig. 3 shows, high-income countries such as the Bahamas use TAI in 100%
of the public schools, while lower income countries such as Ethiopia, Mexico and
Costa Rica have relatively few public education institutions which deploy technol-
ogy for secondary education.
There is also a significant lack of Internet content in local languages in a large
number of countries that impairs the quantity and quality of digital public service
delivery. Over 50% of the content is in English as the dominant global Internet lan-
guage, though around 25% of Internet users are able to access it.4 Local language and
content is of particular importance for people who speak no other languages. Local
languages are intrinsic to the local cultural context, and thus can be essential for find-
ing and using appropriate public services, as well as understanding and participating
in local policy issues. However, developing countries often adopt ICT hardware and
software that are designed in the developed world (especially in English-speaking
countries) and introduced to them through technology transfer programs, and this
can become an important barrier to populations not skilled in such languages.
Given the potential trans-boundary and 24/7 reach of ICT, opportunities for
e-learning provided by the private sector are globally abundant. However, lack of

4
 Internet language data is from “The Usage of Content Language for Website Survey” from
W3Techs, http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language/all, retrieved February
2016; Internet user data is from “The Internet World User by Language Survey” from Internet
World Stats, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm, retrieved February 2016.
248 J. Millard

Fig. 4  Top 10 self-paced e-learning growth rates by country 2010–2015 (http://elearningindustry.

com/elearning-statistics-and-facts-for-2015, Retrieved April 2016)

functional literacy restricts access to these as well. The global e-learning market was
expected to reach $107 billion by 2015, with the global self-paced e-learning market
component of this reaching $49.9 billion in 2015.5 Although the largest global mar-
ket share remains concentrated in developed countries, some emerging economies
are now starting to grow much faster and to catch up (Docebo 2014). Figure 4 indi-
cates that the top ten growing countries consist largely of such emerging economies,
but again shows that Africa is largely missing from this development.
In terms of e-health, Fig. 5 shows the total global market size forecast for 2016
and, once again, underlines the dominance of developed countries and especially
the USA. However, the sheer size of China with the rapid growth in demand for
health and e-health services is also evident.
A large part of the lack of optimal use of new technologies for service delivery is
digital infrastructure disparities, including factors such as the cost and quality of
ICT connection and related services available to users. The comparison between
different ICT infrastructures across types of countries in Fig. 6, shows significant
gaps between developed countries on the one hand and developing and less devel-
oped countries on the other. However, this gap is least in relation to mobile cellular
access given that demand here is strongest because of the very large price, conve-
nience and ease-of-use advantages compared with the other infrastructures.

Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery

As noted above, the innovative use of ICT is needed to fully meet the SDGs by 2030
as this makes it possible for millions more people in developing countries who pre-
viously had no access to basic public services to be able to do so, for example in

 http://elearningindustry.com/elearning-statistics-and-facts-for-2015, Retrieved April 2016.

5
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 249

Fig. 5 E-health global revenue 2016 forecast $US million (https://www.statista.com/out-

look/312/109/ehealth/united-states#market-global, Retrieved April 2016)

Fig. 6  ICT access by development status, 2015 (International Telecommunications Union 2015)
250 J. Millard

under-served areas like shanty towns or rural and remote locations.6 “Leaving no
one behind”7 in this way has been a key feature of preparations for the SGDs and the
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, and it is clear that the use of ICT is an
important component of this objective.8 For instance, in Tanzania, an innovative
poverty mapping tool using GIS data has been developed to improve geographical
identification of the poorest villages, which are beneficiaries of the country’s social
protection scheme.9 ICT can also improve the speed and convenience of public ser-
vices access through 24/7 availability, considerably reduce the cost of access, and in
some cases provide completely new types of public services. As mentioned in sec-
tion “Introduction”, the use of ICT can also enhance and complement the continued
use more traditional channels, such as over the counter, the postal service, telephone
call centers, or TV and radio, where these remain more appropriate forms of com-
munication and interaction with public officials or other service providers.
ICT can dramatically widen access to and the scope of education for anyone with
a computing device and access to the Internet or mobile network. It can provide
anywhere-anytime education, facilitate personalized education and new learning
environments, as well as provide data for learning analytics which can be used to
plan and monitor educational provision as well as precisely target services to spe-
cific needs and groups. ICT can also support crowd learning and citizen inquiry, and
make education more attractive and appealing using gaming approaches. The Quest
to Learn (USA)10 is a collaboration between the Institute of Play, New Visions for
Public Schools and the New York City Department of Education. It combines learn-
ing and gaming to meet the needs and interests of children who are anyway increas-
ingly engaging in digital media platforms. The Professor-Why project in Poland11
combines computer generated images with real images and introduces online stu-
dents to the world of science to be explored both at school and at home, as well
as  supporting virtual experiments. The project has had significant impact due to
dissatisfaction with the current form of chemistry education, and the lack of
real  experiments in schools which greatly impoverishes the study of chemistry.

6
 Text of speech of Mahmoud Mohieldin. Corporate Secretary and President’s Special Envoy. The
Independent Commission on Multilateralism, New  York, United States at the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and Addressing Climate Change. The World Bank. November 12, 2015.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2015/11/12/as-prepared-for-delivery-the-2030-agenda-
for-sustainable-development-and-addressing-climate-change-the-independent-commission-on-
multilateralism
7
 http://www.una.org.uk/content/global-development-goals-leaving-no-one-behind
8
 https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9534.pdf
9
 Text of speech of Mahmoud Mohieldin. Corporate Secretary and President’s Special Envoy. The
Independent Commission on Multilateralism, New  York, United States at the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and Addressing Climate Change. The World Bank. November 12, 2015.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2015/11/12/as-prepared-for-delivery-the-2030-agenda-
for-sustainable-development-and-addressing-climate-change-the-independent-commission-on-
multilateralism
10
 www.q2l.org
11
 www.professor-why.pl
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 251

The School of One project (USA)12 deploys mass-customization techniques that use

detailed data of each student and of the teaching curriculum to automatically per-
sonalize the pedagogy and the content to meet individual needs. Daily instructions
are issued of how and what math skills to practice so as to meet each student’s spe-
cific needs and abilities, as well as preferred ways of learning.
Traditionally, educational needs have mainly been met by very high cost physical
buildings and top-down centralized institutions and, although these will remain
highly important for the many situations in which face-to-face learning still pro-
vides advantages, education is being changed drastically by many forms of online
education and e-learning. These developments are essential for being able to “leave
no one behind”, for example, there are huge potential advantages of so-called open
educational resources consisting of course content, curricula and other support
materials, made available by ICT.

MOOCs – Massive Open Online Courses: A Global Phenomenon13

MOOCs make available all types of educational courses and material for
unlimited participation with typically free and open access for everyone con-
nected to the internet anywhere in the world. They also directly address the
need for lifelong education and learning as well as the up-skilling of the
labour force. MOOCs offer a flexible, wide reaching and inexpensive way of
meeting societies’ need for education of all types through democratizing
access and providing, in principle, no limits on the numbers participating. An
example of a MOOC platform is Coursera (Coursera.Org), based at Stanford
University in California, which is currently the biggest MOOC platform with
over 600 free courses across multiple subjects and well over 7 million users.
Coursera is working with a variety of business models, such as charging a fee
for certificates, tuition fees for accredited courses, a ‘career service’ selling
student information to potential employers and advertisers, fee-based assign-
ment grading and making enterprises pay to run their own training courses.
ICT is of course critical to the success of MOOCs and is used by Coursera
in both the learning and assessment process. Although there have been cor-
respondence and open courses before, ICT provides the means for the massive
expansion of this type of education, often through ‘blended’ learning where
online channels are combined with offline and face-to-face channels. Like any
other use of ICT by end users to benefit from public services, there are poten-
tial barriers in the form of often limited access to high speed networks and of
digital literacy.
Source: United Nations (2015)

12
 http://izonenyc.org/ in New York.
13
 Yuan, L (2013). MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education. CETIS;
http://blog.coursera.org/post/29062736760/coursera-hits-1-million-students-across-196-coun-
tries; and http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/education/us-plans-global-network-of-free-online-
courses.html?hpw&_r=3&
252 J. Millard

Leaving no one behind in health care is also an area being revolutionised by ICT
both through greater outreach, for example, by mobile phones, as well as in innovat-
ing public service delivery through service personalization and thereby more tar-
geted high quality and convenient health services for individual patients, alongside
traditional ‘warm hands’ interaction with public service staff. More sophisticated
ICT is also becoming more mainstream in many countries, like body sensors to
monitor a patient’s condition, or the analysis of a patient’s data over time in the
context of large numbers of similar patients which can speed up diagnosis and make
treatment more appropriate. The role of process, operational and organisational
innovations supported by ICT is also very important, as well as the benefits of emu-
lating innovations from commercial companies.
For example Ghana, with the support of international development organiza-
tions, is setting up an Integrated eHealth System to focus on developing founda-
tional systems and outreach to underserved communities in the country Ghana
Health Service 2016). The Patient Briefcase initiative in Denmark is a remote ser-
vice connecting the patient in her/his own home with professional medical and care
personnel through live video and audio channels over a broadband Internet link
(European Commission 2013). It is the result of collaboration between the public
and private sectors, originally supported by public innovation funds (both European
and Danish), as well as private investment by the company involved itself, and today
functions as a fully commercial operation. The service places strong focus on user-­
friendliness and making it easy for patients to be ‘admitted to hospital’ in their own
homes. It is also an example of how the hospitals as service provider have been able
to significantly change they way they work to fully exploit the technology by caring
at a distance whilst routine aspects are automated. This frees up staff time to have
more personal contact with patients who need it, as well as dramatically decreases
transport costs and carbon emissions, whilst saving staff and patient waiting time.
The PatientsLikeMe service in the UK14is a free patient online network where
people can connect with each other to better understand their diseases, share condi-
tion and treatment information, and get support from peers to improve their health.
It is also a research platform for medical staff given that when patients report on
their disease experiences, they provide real-world insight into diseases and long-­
term conditions based on their anonymized data. Those insights are shared with
companies, government organizations and others who use them to continuously
develop more effective products, pharmaceuticals, services and care.
More standard and inexpensive ICT can also have a significant impact on health
issues. mPedigree is an African-based for profit company spun out of a non-profit
organization founded by a Ghanaian social entrepreneur. Launched in 2007, it
works with mobile operators and pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide a mobile
phone-based drug verification system for addressing the issue of counterfeit drugs
in pharmacies at the point-of-sale in Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria. The mPedigree
service is free to users and allows instant verification of whether a drug is real or
counterfeit by sending a unique code via simple SMS and getting an automated
response in appropriate language. The service relies on various partners across the

14
 www.patientslikeme.com
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 253

value chain, both private and public, while remaining simple to roll-out to new cus-
tomers and easy to access for the end-user.15
All these uses of ICT illustrate the many different ways ICT can be used to meet
the SDGs. There are also examples of how traditionally expensive and high cost
healthcare can deploy ICT to support advanced technology in meeting the SDG for
healthy lives and the promotion of well-being for all ages by providing cheap but very
effective services through innovations on the provider side and in the value chain.

Cost Effective and High Quality Advanced Health Care in India

Narayana health is a multi-specialty hospital chain in India that, by April
2015, had become among the largest telemedicine networks in the world with
6,498 beds spread across 32 hospitals in 20 locations. Although operating like
a commercial company, it reinvests its profits ethically and accountably in
order to scale impact, typically collaborating with local and state governments
as well as civil organizations. The objective is to make quality health care
accessible and affordable using both economies of scale and process innova-
tion, rather than product innovation, i.e. obtaining improvements that lower
the cost of medical attention and make it more widely available.

Source: http://www.narayanahealth.org
One of Narayana Health’s main specialities is cardiac care which only
about 8% of the world’s population can normally afford. In the US, cardiac
surgeries can cost up to $50,000 compared to about $6000 in India, whilst
Narayana health has reduced this down to less than $3000, irrespective of the
complexity of the procedure. In serving the poor, Narayana health reaches
out to patients through a network of rural clinics and via telemedicine facili-
ties. Patients come to the Bangalore facility from more than 50 countries.
The philosophy is that no one will be denied treatment due to a lack of funds.
This dramatic reduction of costs has not reduced quality as the group has a
mortality rate of about 2% and hospital-acquired infection rate of 2.8 per
1000. This favorably compares to the best hospitals across the world.
Source: United Nations (2015)

 http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/icts-for-development/icts-and-health&id=
15

61115&type=Document#.Vw7UqKT2aAw
254 J. Millard

The Narayana Health case is an example of commercially driven operation

with public and civil collaboration, but which specifically has a public value pur-
pose as its overall vision. ICT can, in examples like this, enable process, opera-
tional and organizational innovations underpinning public service innovations in
which the best and most suitable experience might be emulated from commercial
companies. When focusing on delivering high quality but low cost public services
specifically aimed at the poor, this is an example of ‘frugal innovation’ showing
how much more can be done at much lower cost and with greater outreach, but
without compromising quality. The prime purpose is to serve the poor and to do
so ethically and accountably whilst drastically reducing costs through innovative
business models.
Water and sanitation are vital for basic human health and quality of life and,
although these are physical services, ICT can play a vital role in improving access,
service delivery and governance. Water in particular is becoming an increasingly
scarce resource as demand rises and pollution and climate change take their toll.
ICT can, however, significantly enhance the identification, extraction and recovery
of water supplies by providers, its efficient and effective access and use, as well as
improve distribution and payment systems for users and especially the poor through,
for example, mobile payment services (World Bank Group 2015).
There are a number of cases in developing countries where access to good
quality water is often a serious challenge which can be addressed using ICT,
including rural piped water schemes monitoring in Senegal, Mali, Benin and
Niger. One example is Mwater is a mobile and web platform for the monitoring
and regulation of 252 water schemes in small towns which typically rely on hand-
pumps from piped systems operated by private companies. However, these pro-
viders traditionally have poor operational performance with a lack of knowledge
about maintenance of the pipes or level of assets, and this can lead to high water
tariffs and poor coverage without the use ICT. Data is now collected using mobile
phones enabling providers to improve their operations and the regulators to moni-
tor the performance of water schemes.16 Finding and exploiting suitable water
resources can also be significantly improved using ICT to show the reality of the
situation on the ground using mobile devices. The data collected is used for deci-
sion making in order to establish and ensure the sustainability and quality of
WASH17 services. For example, so-called Water Point Mapping (WPM) in Rwanda
has been very successful using mobile data collection in this way, and another
example is in Ethiopia.

16
 ICT to improve water governance: World Water Week in Stockholm (2013): http://programme.
worldwaterweek.org/event/changing-relationships-ict-2882.
17
 WASH is Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services.
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 255

Government-led Water Point Mapping in Rural Ethiopia

Government-led monitoring in Ethiopia aims to meet the country’s universal
access plan 2015 to provide safe and sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene
for all utilizing a WASH inventory monitoring tool. There is some district
government access of water point data, but there is very limited capacity for
analysis, interpretation, use and updating. Water point mapping (WPM) is
undertaken using mobile phones and GPS, entering the data collected on a
spreadsheet, linking this data to Google earth and then preparing maps of
viable water resources. This enables decisions to be made about where invest-
ments are required, identifying the areas of greatest need or the main reasons
for water point failure. It also allows districts to plan effectively, for example
in both the north Achefer Woreda District in northern Ethiopia and in the
Bonke Woreda District in southern Ethiopia, new water points are being con-
structed based on accurate and regularly updated data.
Source: ICT to improve water governance: World Water Week in Stockholm
(2013): http://programme.worldwaterweek.org/event/changing-relationships-
ict-2882

Using a combination of smart phone mapping and data analysis using ICT, pro-
vides valuable means to pinpoint precise water source locations, as well as the
amounts and quality available. ICT also enables understanding of how these link
together and can best be exploited and monitored in a sustainable manner to provide
basic services. Both Water Point Mapping and monitoring of water delivery and
quality typically take place through public-private partnerships between govern-
ments and local authorities, on the one hand, and commercial and/or donor agencies
on the other providing both technology and expertise. Partnerships with civil society
organizations are often also important through local volunteers undertaking the
mapping and providing local knowledge and support on behalf of the community.
Infrastructures and utilities provide the basic physical and organizational facilities
needed for the operation of society and for the services necessary for an economy to
function, such as roads, water supply, sewers, power grids, and telecommunications.
The goal needs to be to provide a universal service of such basic infrastructure, as in
the Ethiopia example. ICT is itself an important basic infrastructure, but can also be
used both to provide access and to deliver better quality utilities in order to leave no
one behind, for example, smart power and water grids, road and congestion monitor-
ing and coordinating public transport. For example, a study on the use of mobile
devices in Kenya found that 25% of users could get more work and earn more money
because they were more ‘reachable’ (Crandall et al. 2012). According to the eTrans-
form Africa report (World Bank 2012), easier access via mobile and broadband “is
quickly changing lives, driving entrepreneurship fuelled in part by collaborative tech-
nology hubs, and delivering innovation and home-grown solutions for Africa.” The
report focuses on eight key areas: agriculture, climate change, education, financial
services, government, health, ICT competitiveness, and trade facilitation and regional
integration. It emphasizes the need to build a competitive ICT industry to promote
256 J. Millard

innovation, job creation, and boost the export potential of African companies. Part of
this is the flowering of technology hubs across Africa – such as iHub and NaiLab in
Kenya, Hive CoLab and AppLab in Uganda, Activspaces in Cameroon, BantaLabs in
Senegal, Kinu in Tanzania or infoDev’s mLabs in Kenya and South Africa. These
hubs are creating new spaces for collaboration, innovation, training, applications and
content development, and for pre-incubation of African firms (GSMA 2014).
Given the explosive growth of towns, and especially cities in developing countries,
there is also an increasing importance of so-called smart cities using ICT to provide,
interconnect and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of basic infrastructures.

Santiago, Chile: Ingredients for a Smart City

The smart city “Santiago of tomorrow” pilot development program starting in
2013 seeks to improve quality of life for its inhabitants by increasing access
to energy, creating environmentally friendly smart homes, and emphasizing
the use of sustainable energy. Santiago has a population of 5.12 million repre-
senting 40% of Chile’s population, 85% of which lives in urban areas reflect-
ing urbanization trends globally. The city was named the number one smart
city in Latin America in 2013, based on a variety of projects. For example,
business and innovation strategies in order to diversify the economy away
from primary industries by attracting massive ICT infrastructure investments
and inaugurating the “start-up Chile” program in 2010 to establish Chile as
“the definitive innovation and entrepreneurial hub of Latin America.” there is
also a strong focus on energy and buildings supported by ICT infrastructures,
with Chile ranked in the global top ten for the most sustainable buildings with
investments in green infrastructure, including renewal energy. In terms of
mobility, the metro network is based on ICT-based congestion pricing in a
3-tier system throughout the day, providing choices to local commuters, all
supported by a central card payment platform. The ubiquitous network of bus
routes provides 2 free daily bus arrival updates via text messaging. There is
also a strong cycling community with separated bikeways, large public bike
racks, and bike sharing programs based on smart phone apps. Similarly, a
pilot electric vehicle car-sharing program, the first of its kind in Latin America,
uses smart apps for real time information, booking and location updates.
Source: http://cityminded.org/santiago-chile-ingredients-smart-city-10307

In most developed countries, and increasingly in the emerging economies and

developing countries, the smart city concept of urban development that integrates
ICT solutions to govern, support and manage a city’s assets, buildings, institutions,
utilities, organizations and people is one of the world’s most important development
trends. For example, it aims to coordinate and thus optimize transportation systems,
hospitals, power plants, water supply networks, waste management, law enforce-
ment, and other community services. The overall goal is to improve quality of life
by using technology to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of services.
ICT enables city officials to interact directly with each other as well as with citizens
and businesses, and link these to city infrastructures to monitor what is happening
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 257

in order to improve the management of urban flows and enable real time responses
to problems arising. Through the use of sensors integrated with real-time monitor-
ing systems, data is collected from both people and things, through the so-called
Internet-of-Things. The data is then processed and analyzed for the purpose of
enhancing the quality, performance and interactivity of urban services, and thereby
reduce both costs and resource consumption.

 trengthening the Governance of Basic Services

S
Through Innovative Technology Solutions

Challenges to Be Addressed

There is a significant lack of technology enabled governance in public service deliv-

ery. Good governance is essential to create the conditions for achieving better sus-
tainable development outcomes when the public sector is accountable, effective,
efficient, equitable, inclusive, participatory, responsive and transparent. ICT has
indeed transformed governance in many developed countries over the past 15 years
in many of these areas, inducing fundamental changes which are thought likely to
increase in pace even more significantly in the future. ICT-enabled good governance
is a key factor in a country’s national development and underpins its efforts towards
the successful achievement of the SDGs in the context of the 2030 Sustainable
Development Agenda. It is the role of technology as an enabler, rather than as a
stand-alone sector, that impacts development outcomes by increasing the added value
in the provision of public services, efficient functioning of institutions, and participa-
tory governance. ICT is also seen as a cross-sectoral enabler by joining up institu-
tions and systems and making them function more efficiently (United Nations 2013).
Public service outcomes are determined by the interplay between decision mak-
ers in the public sector, often cooperating with civil society and private companies,
as well as closely listening to, and co-creating with, citizens. All these stakeholders
are interlinked through institutions, processes, resources, regulations and capacity
endowments, each of which are impacted by ICT. However, despite good progress
to date, there are wide disparities among and between regions and countries in the
use of ICT in institutions, processes, and capacity building. Lack of transparency
and accountability in particular continues to hamper public service delivery, imped-
ing full access to services by people, and reflects inadequate governance environ-
ments and often weak public administration capacities. A survey of government
efforts to control corruption indicates wide disparities. Figure 7 shows differences
between selected countries in their perceptions of corruption which strongly reflect
the levels of economic and social development in a given country.
A similar global mapping looks at good governance, as shown in Fig. 8, surveyed
by the World Justice Project (WJP) through its open government index organized
around the four dimensions of: publicized laws and government data; the right to
information; civic participation; and complaint mechanisms.
Figure 8 maps the latest national benchmarks and clearly shows that the developed
countries consistently score highest on these open government measures. However,
258 J. Millard

Fig. 7  Corruption perceptions index, 2015 (http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_

perceptions_index_2016)

Fig. 8  The World Justice Project’s Open Government Index, 2015 (http://worldjusticeproject.org/
open-government-index)
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 259

as the World Justice Project report shows that, while in general, high-­income coun-
tries attain higher Open Government Index 2015 scores, in developing countries there
is no relationship between GDP per capita and open government. “This suggests that
the level of government openness is not necessarily driven by economic resources”,
and thus there is real opportunity for developing countries in particular to improve
their open government performance without linking this directly to economic growth.
And, as the WJP report points out, open government can itself be an important enabler
of economic growth as it engenders trust in the ability to invest and do business. Both
Figs. 7 and 8 show clear correspondence between measures of open government and
the control of corruption, on the one hand, with disparities in digital infrastructures
and services across countries and between global regions on the other.

Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery

The innovative use of technology can directly support good governance through
greater outreach, openness and effectiveness in the delivery of services. Such inno-
vations can arise from enhancements in the capacity of governments to enable new
technologies for a framework of good governance and public institutions that are
efficient, effective, transparent, accountable, inclusive and participatory. ICT also
provides a medium for building partnerships amongst all stakeholders for better
service delivery. In recent years, so-called ‘open government’ has become an impor-
tant feature of good governance and one of the main pillars of ICT-enabled public
sector innovation and public service deliver in many countries through the opening
up of government data, processes and services using ICT as an indispensable tool.
The US administration launched the Open Government Partnership in 2011 based
on the principles of transparency, participation and collaboration, and by early 2016
reached a total of 69 member countries from around the world.18
ICT can be used to increase social awareness, advocacy and feedback concerning
the lack or poor quality of basic utilities and services, for example using social
media and mobile devices. It can thereby help change the behaviour and attitudes of
both citizens and service providers alike. If citizens can provide feedback to govern-
ment about service delivery using the increasingly ubiquitous mobile channel, even
in places with little or poor infrastructure, and rate the quality of specific programs,
then government will have more information to prioritize services and should be
more accountable to citizens. A project in urban India uses mobile technology to
track how citizens experience water service delivery.19 Citizen feedback is collect-
ing and analyzed using innovative mobile applications, thereby providing a ‘reality
check‘ on service levels from the citizens’ standpoint. It gives city managers more
granular data at the sub-city level (ward/zone) which can facilitate improved moni-
toring and problem solving, and provides inputs into project planning processes for
service providers. Most importantly, the project provides a suitable platform to

 http://www.opengovpartnership.org
18

 http://www.wsp.org/FeaturesEvents/Features/using-technology-track-how-citizens-experience-
19

water-service-delivery-india
260 J. Millard

engage citizens in performance monitoring processes and encourages them to

demand better services. The project was implemented in two cities of India during
2013 and is now being replicated in 20 more. Another project in Kenya is giving
citizens a voice and active participation in their water supply services.

MajiVoice for Better Water in Nairobi, Kenya

Nairobi water is the biggest supplier of water in Kenya, supplying a city of 4
million inhabitants across 700  km2. MajiVoice is software that aims to use
technology to improve water services in Nairobi by making it easier for cus-
tomers to report complaints. The case prioritizes five key attributes of good
governance: Transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation and
responsiveness to the people’s needs.

Nairobi water had poor response times when dealing with customer com-
plaints and it did not have strong, direct links with customers. Given there are
at least 30 million users of mobiles in Kenya, the company now enables cus-
tomers to report service exploitation and receive news updates on water sup-
ply using their mobile phone. Customers can be sent updates by text, including
photos from engineers when they repair a leak. As a result, the number of
reported leakages has doubled since the introduction of MajiVoice, so there
has been a much improved service performance through greater accountabil-
ity, which directly helps customers voice critical service issues more easily
without needing to visit an office. This also enables staff to process and
resolve complaints faster, and strengthens management and regulation through
better data based on the collection of customer service data.
Source: ICT to improve water governance: World Water Week in Stockholm
(2013): http://programme.worldwaterweek.org/event/changing-relationships-
ict-2882

ICT is an excellent tool for collecting, analyzing and updating so-called big data in
order to improve service efficiency and effectiveness, although it does rely on the data
being representative and of good quality. Open data implies that big data is open to oth-
ers to scrutinize and validate the data collected, for example, by governments or other
service providers, as well as themselves to contribute to the data and use it for their own
purposes. A health project in Cambodia combatting malaria is a good example of this.
Cambodia Malaria Information System (MIS)
Established in 2003, the malaria consortium is composed of national malaria
control programs, research institutions plus commercial and civil society
organizations, with the aim to share learning and discuss key issues. In
Cambodia prior to 2009, malaria case data came from a national system which
provided aggregate data at operational district level, but not down to village
level. In 2009 the malaria information system (MIS) was developed by the
malaria consortium, together with national program staff, to help process
malaria data from village malaria workers and village health facilities using
open source software for SMS reporting via mobile phones. This also provides
a tool for district staff to manage their activities, such as mosquito net distribu-
tion and stratification at village level. The MIS also draws on other data, such
as individual case data for all patients, mosquito net distribution data, demo-
graphic data on villages and data on the type and location of private sector
outlets such as clinics and pharmacies. The MIS incorporates a ‘drug stock
out’ system tracking drug stock levels in health centers and clinics around the
country reported every 2 weeks or when levels drop below a set threshold.
A feature of the MIS is comprehensive data reporting and graphing. It
allows exporting raw data and mapping of data using Google earth. The sys-
tem is now decentralized to all 44 targeted operational districts in Cambodia,
and also available for researchers and policy makers to improve malaria sur-
veillance and cooperation with other countries.

Source: Malaria Consortium (2013) Moving towards Malaria elimination:

Developing innovative tools for malaria surveillance in Cambodia: http://www.
malariaconsortium.org/media-downloads/257/moving-towards-malaria-
elimination-developing-innovative-tools-for-malaria-surveillance-in-cambodia
262 J. Millard

ICT technology is also becoming a powerful tool in fighting corruption related to

service provision, both in the public and private sectors. For example, in Montenegro
the Citizen Involvement in the Fight against Grey Economy initiative has been
launched to enable citizens to participate in reporting corruption (UNDP Montenegro
2014) The initiative focuses on business wrongdoing as well as the collection of funds
for socially beneficial projects, such as buying equipment for healthcare or educa-
tional centers, and the reconstruction of health-care centers for children. Citizens can
fight against the grey economy by reporting incidents, and the government invests
half of each fine issued on socially beneficial projects. Through a web page, a mobile
application, and a phone channel, citizens are able to report the issue of non-fiscal
receipts, violation of labor regulations, breach of consumer protection legislation, and
irregularities regarding recreational beaches and resorts. The initiative facilitates two
types of citizen participation, first, crowdsourcing instances of violation to economic
rules, and second voting on the use of funds raised through their participation.

Stopthebribes, Nigeria
Stopthebribes is a crowdsourcing platform for accessing public feedbacks on
the conduct of Nigeria police force personnel. The platform receives com-
plaints through multiple channels, including mobile, SMS, twitter, Facebook,
email and direct reporting onto the website. Stopthebribes therefore promotes
inclusive policing by involve members of the public in oversight of the police,
thereby engendering public accountability and transparency.

Reports on the platform are closely monitored and acted upon by the
Nigeria police force responsible for ensuring internal accountability. The plat-
form is operated by the Nigeria police force and thus eliminates bureaucracies
and limitations that hitherto characterized making complaints or observations
on police conduct.
Source: http://www.stopthebribes.net/page/index/7
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 263

Another case, started by an NGO in India as a bottom-up citizen-driven initia-

tive, has now also spread to many other countries.

I Paid a Bribe, India

Ipaidabribe.Com is a website, set up by non-profit organisation Janaagraha in
2010, to harness the collective energy of citizens to tackle corruption in public
services across India. The site collects citizens’ reports about the “nature,
number, pattern, types, location, frequency and values of actual corrupt acts”
in specific locations. Citizens can contribute in a number of ways. They can
provide reports about bribes they paid, bribes they resisted and instances
where they received a public service without paying a bribe, that is, when they
encountered ‘honest officers’. There is also a ‘bribe hotline’ for people to ask
advice about rules and regulations, how to avoid paying bribes, how to deal
with corrupt officers, and so on. Together, these reports provide ongoing snap-
shots of bribery and corruption in a particular locality.
The information collected through the site is then used to advocate changes
in governance and accountability processes, as well as to tackle particular
incidences of corruption. For example there are numerous instances where
government rules and procedures have been changed as a result, including in
Department of Transport in the government of Karnataka in Bangalore. About
twenty senior officials were issued with warnings. Similarly, changes were
made to registrations of land transactions at the Department of Stamps and
Registration in Bangalore.
The success of the I paid A bribe concept and the ICT tools that enabled it,
has led to it being emulated in many other countries, including Ghana, Greece,
Kenya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, South Africa, Ukraine, and Tunisia.
It has also inspired similar initiatives elsewhere, for example in Romania
through an online service that allows citizens to share their experiences of
bribery when interacting with public services, including sharing information
on the amount of money they paid.
Source: http://www.ipaidabribe.com

The above examples demonstrate the clear benefits of close cooperation between
civil society and the public sector in improving public service delivery using
ICT. However, ICT can be a double-edged sword as it can also be used by corrupt
government officials who have access to databases and applications in government
back offices. Without adequate supervision and a robust code of conduct, they can
manipulate ICT systems for their own benefit. In order to increase awareness of this
challenge, a report and checklist has been prepared by the EU-supported Regional
School of Public Administration in the Western Balkans (ReSPA 2013).
ICT provides the communication tools for service users to directly participate in
the design and delivery of services, as many of the above examples have also demon-
strated. Another prominent example is participatory decision-making and budgeting,
264 J. Millard

an approach that allows citizens to discuss and vote on how some parts of a govern-
ment’s budget should be used. The archetypal example at Porto Alegre in Brazil is
recognized internationally as a ground-breaking initiative at the local level where the
state government has engaged over one million residents in its multi-­channel (online
and offline) participatory decision-making in the provision of a whole range of public
services and utilities.20 There are also examples of participatory decision-making
using mobile technology for public services in Cameroon21 and in South Kivu in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.22 In the latter example, communities were given
the chance to voice their basic service needs which the government responded to. As
a result, tax collection rates increased as people have come to believe that their gov-
ernment can actually deliver valuable services, and this may demonstrate one way to
increase tax collection in developing countries, where such rates are notably low.
Another case from the Basque Country in northern Spain shows how the government
is using ICT to take the initiative in involving citizens in decision making.

The Irekia Open-Government Portal

The Irekia open-government portal provides citizens with an open window to
learn, comment and express opinion on the initiatives of the Basque
Government, through two collaboration spaces. First, for citizen petitions
where they can take the initiative in formulating a petition to the government
as well as to other citizens to argue and vote in favor or against each petition.
Second, for the government and government agencies to initiate proposals
and draft laws by providing supporting information, and for citizens to express
their comments and debate the issues. The portal provides a direct channel for
two-way communication between citizens and government. This enables citi-
zens to request services they think government should deliver, as well as to
express their opinion on government decision-making processes, so the gov-
ernment can respond directly to citizens’ needs.
Source: http://www.irekia.euskadi.eus/

Both in the Porto Alegre and the Irekia examples, the government has itself taken
the initiative to use digital technology to make it possible for citizens and users of
public services to become involved in policy and decision making. Like the other
cases presented above, the use of the technology in this way, directly supports many
of the aspects of good governance as defined in chapter “European Strategies for
e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond” of this report, including accountability and con-
trol of corruption, openness and transparency, efficiency and effectiveness, as well
as participation and collaboration.

20
 http://odta.net/post/technology-drives-citizen-participation-and-feedback-in-rio-grande-do-sul-brazil-0
21
 http://odta.net/post/participatory-budgeting-cameroon
22
 http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/mobile-enhanced-participatory-budgeting-in-the-drc
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 265

Meeting the Social Needs of Target Populations

Challenges to Be Addressed

The social needs of target populations are directly reflected in the SDGs, ranging from
education, health, basic infrastructures, water and sanitation, as well as challenges
such as poverty, food, housing and employment. All of these need innovative public
service delivery if targets are to be achieved by 2030. However, the provision of public
service is increasingly challenged by the diversity of social needs across different loca-
tions and segments related to, such as ageing societies, digitally-savvy populations,
economic pressure, and unequal conditions for public service delivery existing within
and across countries. For example, the failure of public service delivery in many devel-
oping countries is not just due to the scarcity of resources but also to the problems of
incentives, accountability and governance that vary from one context to another.23
For example, there are important gender disparities between male and female
Internet usage which are much greater in developing and less developed countries
than in developed countries, as shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9  Gap in Internet usage between males and females and by development status, 2013 and
2015 (ITU 2015)

 Global Development Network (2009). Varieties of Governance  : Effective Public Service

23

Delivery Concept Note.

266 J. Millard

Fig. 10  Percent of individuals using the Internet by income group, 1997–2013 (World Economic
Forum 2015)

Figure 9 also shows that, although this gap generally fell between 2013 and
2015, it tended to reduce more slowly in the developing and less developed coun-
tries, indicating that progress is slower here. Such gender differences are important
for the use of ICT-enabled public services given that women, as prime users of basic
services in their role as mothers and caregivers, are often more severely affected
than men by poverty, lack of employment, lack of water, inadequate maternal child
health care and lack of education opportunities.
Household surveys by Research ICT Africa, conducted in 12 African countries in
2011, also reported a close relationship between Internet access differences by gen-
der, level of income, level of education, extent of disability and other variables
(Dean-Swarray et al. 2013). That income differences mark a sharp diversification in
usage of the Internet, is depicted in Fig. 10, which also shows that the lowest income
groups generally increase their take-up of the Internet more slowly than higher
income groups.
Furthermore, as depicted in Fig. 11, there are stark differences between urban and
rural dwellers in most countries as exemplified by mobile 3G coverage, generally
necessary for the operation of smart as opposed to dumb phones and thus access to
more sophisticated services and data. Even though global urban inhabitants surpassed
50% of the total population for the first time in 2009, the size of the rural population
will remain large for many years, and indeed there are important sustainable develop-
ment reasons for keeping as many people in these areas as possible. Appropriate
infrastructures and services outside of towns and cities are necessary to achieve this
goal, and indeed ICT provides relatively efficient and effective means of doing so.
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 267

Fig. 11  Population coverage by 3G networks, urban and rural areas, 2015 (ITU 2015)

Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery

Overcoming the challenges discussed above requires in public service delivery that:
• creates and maintains an eco-system of government agencies, businesses, non-­
profit organizations, universities, citizens and other actors that participate in the
provision, consumption and intermediation in public service delivery brings ser-
vices closer to the consumers through, e.g. the provision of multi-service centers
and the use of diverse delivery channels
• learns about public service provision locally and from around the world and
adapts the knowledge to the local contexts digitizes public services, tailors them
to individual needs, and delivers them through various digital channels using
new social and organizational innovation models.24
When meeting these challenges and to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, especially in relation to poor and marginalized individuals and com-
munities, new types of innovation are beginning to be deployed that are beyond but
build on conventional technology and top-down driven innovation. These prioritize
collaboration, diversity and a range of voices, skills, competencies and resources,
across all types of public sector activity, and especially for public service delivery.

 OECD (2015b). The OECD Innovation Strategy 2015. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
24

https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/sti/oecd-innovation-strategy-2015
268 J. Millard

Many of the new innovation forms are typified as ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough
2003) in which all can be involved, where there are no supposed monopolies of
innovation talent and potential, and where the solutions become owned by as many
people as possible, which results in greater acceptance, trust and impact, such as
through co-creation. A specific variant of open innovation has being shown to be
highly relevant to public service design and delivery, i.e. ‘social innovation’, which
is becoming well embedded and recognized in many developed countries. This is
meeting a social need (for example for an education or health service) in a new way
that also involves collaboration with, and the empowerment of, the service user or
beneficiary. It works with them rather than just doing something to them as passive
recipients, thereby also developing their own capabilities around, and ownership of,
the service and thereby transforming their social relations and improving their
access to power and resources. In other words, social innovations are social both in
their means and in their ends (Millard et al. 2016). Many social innovations explic-
itly target the otherwise excluded, for example by adapting or developing a public
service which ensures they are not left out. It directly targets the needs of the low-­
income or the base-of-the-pyramid (BoP) population (Prahalad 2004).
Social needs are highly diverse, so the public services designed to meet them
must respond accordingly. Different social groups require different types of public
services and these should be addressed in different ways depending on their unique
social needs. One size fits all public services, not tailored to specific needs, can miss
their mark and thus both waste public resources as well as prove ineffective. ICT is
a powerful tool enabling this to happen, both when used and initiated by the govern-
ment and other service providers, as well as when utilized directly by the users
themselves. For example, a highly successful initiative in Bangladesh supports peo-
ple with low incomes and low educational levels learn English.

BBC Janala: Free Interactive English Lessons for Low Income People in
Bangladesh
BBC Jamala provides interactive English language lessons to Bangladeshis in
accessible format over multiple platforms  – Mobile, web, television and
newspapers  – At affordable rates and completely free when necessary. The
service is delivered by the BBC world service trust to provide comprehensive
English language learning opportunities to Bangladeshis across multiple eco-
nomic and social strata. Starting in November 2009, the service has received
over 10 million calls from 3.8 million people with over 170,000 mobile inter-
net lesson downloads since launch, in addition to 20 million television and
newspaper users. The use of multiple ICT and other media platforms for
stand-alone lessons designed with hundreds of hours of testing (input and
feedback regarding Bengali language, accents, dialect, and currently specific
references), innovatively removes barriers to entry for low-income and low-­
education users. Leveraging and coordinating the different platforms has led
to widespread use and high market saturation in a short period of time.

(continued)
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 269

BBC Janala has proved that the so-called bottom-of-the-pyramid (BoP)

population25is willing to pay for English classes via mobile phones, reaching
millions of clients at a cost of less than $4 per person. Yet it does not currently
collect any revenues of its own, all revenues accruing to mobile operators. The
project will continue to be funded by the UK’s Department for International
Development until 2017 during which time the BBC will explore whether
parts of the project – Including mobile – Can become independently commer-
cially viable.
Sources: http://www.bbcjanala.com; Leveraging Information and
Communication Technology for the Base of the Pyramid ICT for develop-
ment in education, health, finance and agriculture
http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/icts-for-development/icts-
and-health&id=61115&type=Document#.Vw7UqKT2aAw

The BBC Janala case show shows a multi-channel approach, largely based on
relatively cheap ICT in the form of mobile phones as well as more traditional media
like TV, radio and newspapers. It can be hugely successful, also on a semi-­commercial
basis if the business model is right, but in this case also relies on support from a
developed country aid budget. In some contrast, the Mondey project in Germany26
aims to improve early fostering and diagnosis of very young children with retarded
development by supporting parents, pedagogical staff and scientists with monitoring
and documentation of everyday situations. It provides advanced training for peda-
gogical personnel and parents in diagnostic skills using a blended educational
approach consisting of the Internet, tablets and face-to-face contact by professionals
and experts. It is an open and free educational service which uses standard tools, so
that parents, pedagogical personnel and experts can monitor and diagnose the devel-
opment of the children in their care. They can choose to document the development
of a child for themselves offline or use the interactive online database.
Developed by a social entrepreneur, the Buddy app case in the UK27 aims to
improve patients’ mental health so they feel less dependent on the therapist in the
clinic by using text messaging between therapy sessions. The dotHIV initiative in
Germany28 generates money to support HIV patients, raise awareness of the global
threat of HIV/AIDS and de-stigmatise HIV-positive people. It is an innovative
approach for raising awareness for a social problem, whilst also generating income
from sales of .hiv domain products and services that are forwarded to support projects

25
 The Bottom-of-the Pyramid (BoP) population is the largest, but poorest socio-economic group
globally, at about 3 billion people who live on less than roughly $2.50 per day. (See 2004).
26
 www.mondey.de
27
 www.buddyapp.co.uk
28
 https://click4life.hiv/de
270 J. Millard

and organizations addressing the condition. ICT is used both to raise awareness and
collect and allocate funds. A ground-breaking project in the USA has had a large
impact on expectant and young mothers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

‘Text4Baby’: SMS Support Service for New and Expectant Mothers

Aimed Largely at Those from a Disadvantaged Background (USA)
Text4Baby provides information to expectant and new mothers about how to
take care of themselves and the baby while pregnant and during the first year
of the baby’s life. Given that the women most at risk usually came from a
disadvantaged background and thus have limited access to the internet, but are
likely to have access to a mobile phone, the program sends relevant informa-
tion in either English or Spanish once a week to women who signed up by
texting Text4Baby on their mobile phone. Marketing and outreach aims at all
mothers but it is mainly women who are low-income and African-American
or Hispanic who are signed up.

A 2011 study showed “very high satisfaction with the service, increase in
users’ health knowledge, improved interaction with healthcare providers,
improved adherence to appointments and immunizations, and increased
access to health resources.” (National Latino Research Center 2011) partici-
pants rated text4baby as an 8.5 out of 10 overall, and indicated that 81% have
an annual household income under $40,000, 65% are either uninsured or
enrolled in California’s Medicaid program, and 75% said they learned and
followed up on a medical warning sign they didn’t know previously.
Source: https://www.text4baby.org
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 271

The Text4Baby initiative is a highly successful partnership between the US gov-

ernment Center for Disease Control and a number of non-profit and other govern-
ment organizations, including National Healthy Mothers and the Healthy Babies
Coalition consisting of over 700 partners supporting text4baby. It is thus a very
good example of collaboration between the public and civil sectors deploying sim-
ple but highly effective technology used by the target group.
The Drishtee education supply chain project uses ICT to provide key web-based
services and distribute so-called fast moving consumer goods to remote locations in
rural India. It is a for profit organization which has developed a rural network of
franchises and partnerships capable of providing access to basic services and goods
to the rural population. It provides access to web-based services through a network
of 2000 village kiosks and on this basis also distributes Fast Moving Consumer
Goods (FMCGs) to 13,000 rural shops which supply 10–15 million villagers in
Assam, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Drishtee’s uniqueness lies in its original use of
ICT to foster development in remote communities by combining access to ICT-­
based services and the physical availability of essential goods.29
An example from the Bahamas illustrates how the challenge of an island state
and disadvantaged groups can be addressed.

E-Government Serving Remote Islands, Poor People and Unemployed

Youth in the Bahamas30
Embedding public service delivery into ambitious national development plans
is important for their long-term impact on sustainable development and par-
ticularly to ensure that the poor are specifically targeted. After 42  years of
independence, despite great development strides, the Bahamas still has basic
challenges due to its more than 630 inhabited islands, each one requiring the
replication of public services, and an over-populated capital city. Many public
policies and systems have not changed for more than 50 years, and much still
takes place on paper in the context of strong cultural resistance to change, so
the transformation of public services is urgent. Another top priority is the
need to find new sources of employment, particularly for the youth. Efforts to
support such change since 2015 are focused on promoting dignity and empow-
erment in order to break the cycle of poverty. A ‘safety net’ system for poor
people has been established with money placed in bank accounts accessible
by a smart card for those in need.

29
 Leveraging Information and Communication Technology for the Base Of the Pyramid ICT for
development in education, health, finance and agriculture: http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/
resource-guides/icts-for-development/icts-and-health&id=61115&type=Document#.
Vw7UqKT2aAw
30
 E-Government as a driving force for institutional integration and effective service delivery in the
Bahamas. Presentation by Rowena Bethel, Director and CEO, The national Insurance Board/The
Bahamas Government; and D. Shane Gibson, Minister of the Public Service, Labour and National
Insurance, The Bahamas, at the Expert Group Meeting “Innovating Public Service Delivery for
Sustainable Development”, Medellin, Colombia, 23–26 June 2015.
272 J. Millard

To deliver these and other goals, institutional integration enabled by ICT is

taking place. For example, focus is on training the middle cadre of civil servants
in modern government using ICT in close cooperation with the political opposi-
tion to ensure cross-party support and the long-term continuity of transforma-
tion policies. ICT has already increased the efficiency of public services through
process reengineering and increased access by citizens. Effective service deliv-
ery is being promoted through multi-channel delivery options (face-to-face, tra-
ditional, mail services, online, mobile access, television, telephone and SMS),
ensuring access is anytime, anywhere and anyhow. Kiosks, internet cafes and
‘satellite’ service centers offering one-stop access are being established on
many of the islands where internet penetration and/or mobile penetration is
insufficient to support the widespread use of online interaction.
Source: United Nations (2015)

 nhancing the Policy and Strategic Framework for Basic

E
Services

Challenges to Be Addressed

Access to, and the quality of, public services can be vastly improved by appropriate
policies and strategic frameworks enabling the use of new technologies, both within
the public sector and between the government and citizens or businesses, and thereby
enable innovations in the delivery of public services. One of the biggest challenges
in this context is legacy policies, strategies and legal and regulatory systems, which
often reflect a pre-ICT period when all government business took place on paper or
in-person. Without changes making the use of new technologies possible, and which
can promote responsible innovation, the use of ICT will be severely curtailed.
In turn, the lack of formal legal and regulatory structures can retard necessary
changes in informal working and administrative cultures within the public sector,
and reinforce the often already embedded resistance to change. The entrenchment
of a ‘risk adverse culture’ and ‘business as usual procedures’ remains strong within
many government at all levels, creating an inherent obstacle to the introduction of
new processes, products, services and good governance that ICT enables.
Although issues like political will, leadership and resources are important in
effecting needed changes, the lack of relevant regulation frequently hampers the
adoption and use of new technologies in basic services like education health, water
and other infrastructure initiatives. Figure 12 shows that the global top 25 nations in
terms of laws related to the use of ICT, such as delivering online services, electronic
commerce, digital signatures and consumer protection, are almost only developed
countries. The only exceptions are two Gulf countries, the United Arab Emirates
and Qatar, plus Malaysia, each of which has invested heavily in ICT in government
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 273

Fig. 12  Laws relating to ICT: top 25 countries (World Economic Forum 2015, p. 269)

and has enacted appropriate laws and regulations in support of both public and pri-
vate use of new technology. In contrast, the bottom 25 countries all comprise devel-
oping countries, with the exceptions of Argentina and Venezuela as emerging
economies (World Economic Forum 2015, p. 269).

Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery

In order to meet the challenge of an effective enabling environment for technology

in public service delivery, strong focus is needed on a clear and long-term policy and
strategic framework. Such a framework for public service delivery provides the
overall setting, direction and importance given to public services in support of sus-
tainable development within a specific legal and regulatory jurisdiction, whether this
is local, municipal, regional or national. The national level tends to be dominant, but
274 J. Millard

there are also strong trends towards the decentralization of public service responsi-
bility and design to lower tier entities and especially cities. Trans-national jurisdic-
tions can also be important, as in the European Union where there is a long history
of cooperation and agreement on public services, especially related to e-government.
Many countries today have also entered into formal and informal learning and peer
exchange relationships with neighbouring, similar or lead nations, given that many
of the challenges are the same although contexts vary widely.
In order to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the SDGs,
Ericsson and the Earth Institute (2016) conclude that governments need to ensure
that the entire public sector, including service delivery in health, education, and
infrastructure, is fully supported by high-quality ICT infrastructure. This includes:
broadband connectivity of all public facilities; ICT training of all relevant public
officials and service providers; ICT-based delivery systems for healthcare, educa-
tion, and infrastructure; deployment of the Internet of Things (remote sensing and
control of connected devices) for the public infrastructure and environmental man-
agement; encouraging universities to scale up education and incubation of ICT solu-
tions, including through partnerships with the business sector; Public-Private
Partnerships (PPPs) for ICT-enabled systems; and deployment of an ICT-based
SDG information system that connects public services, public facilities, the business
sector, and the public. The accelerated uptake of ICT-based services is the key to
achieving the SDGs, not only because ICT empowers other technologies and ser-
vices, but because it itself is also one of the technologies that can accelerate uptake.
Public services delivery is one of the most expensive aspects of any govern-
ment’s budget, so it is extremely important to have the right policies and legal
frameworks for the specific context a jurisdiction finds itself in.

Innovation and Modernisation of Public Service Policies and Strategy in

Portugal
The modernization of public services in Portugal since the late 1990s has had
a policy focused both on efficiency and cost reduction, on the one hand, and
high quality services and their multi-channel delivery on the other. Portuguese
policies and strategies for public service modernization emphasize three
issues: How to reach every citizen; focusing on the core public sector func-
tions; and rationalizing costs and the use of resources, including civil ser-
vants, given that technology cannot replace the need for people to deal with
people in complex or highly personal situations. One-stop-shops are one of
the flagships of this policy as an innovative concept of public service delivery
bringing together in the same space several public and private entities. This
involves the local public administration collaborating with local partners and
citizens who best know the needs of the population and the area. There are
now more than 100 such physical multi-service centers as part of a national

(continued)
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 275

network utilizing ICT to set up citizen spaces for the provision of digitally
delivered services, with in-person assistance if required. This addresses the
fact that digital literacy is not at the same level everywhere in the country.
Portugal is also moving towards shared services as a means to improve
public service delivery through better use of resources. Pilots are in progress
in five action areas: Financial shared services integrating budget, property and
logistics; human resources management and the integrated system of manage-
ment and performance appraisal in the public administration; public procure-
ment; management of the state’s car fleet; and sharing the means and resources
for developing information systems and the rationalization of ICT infrastruc-
tures. Shared services provide a win-win: For citizens who can access public
entities more simply and solve minor problems faster and in a more personal-
ized way; and for the public administration that will be able to dedicate its
own resources to its core functions whilst benefitting from the common shared
resources which all entities need.
Source: United Nations (2015)

The Portuguese case demonstrates that fully embracing the digital revolution can
enable a new vision and provide better tools for service delivery, but should also go
hand-in-hand with understanding that the human element remains essential. In
order both to save money and resources as well as provide better quality services,
sharing across the public sector is needed, both of good practices and ideas but also
in terms of human, organizational and physical assets. Multiple service delivery
channels supported by the local authority as well as by local organizations and citi-
zens provide both better tailored and contextual services as well as improve the
inclusion of everybody. Blending physical, digital and voice channels addresses the
need for convenience and time saving, but also provides physical outreach to people
where they live. Human and organizational capacity building is essential for both
routine service delivery but also for promoting creativity, experimentation and inno-
vation in a continuous search for improvement.

Malaysian National Telecommunications and E-Government Policy

In Malaysia, electronic government and general ICT policies are undertaken
by the Malaysian government as part of a 25-year ambitious plan from 1994
to 2020 incorporated into the country’s National Telecommunications Policy
(NTP). In mid 1996, this was supplemented by the multimedia super corridor
(MSC) strategy running south from the capital Kuala Lumpur to the border
with Singapore, and aimed at attracting large scale international investment
by ICT and related companies, creating jobs and growth, becoming a regional
hub, helping to reduce the digital divide, and boosting e-government

(continued)
276 J. Millard

initiatives. Legal and regulatory frameworks were put in place to support

these strategies over the long term. These included a number of so-called
cyber laws enacted in 1997, such as the digital signature act, the computer
crimes act, the copyright amendment act and the telemedicine act, followed
up by the communications and multimedia act of 1998, and the personal data
protection act of 2004.
This legislation and the strategies it supports also laid the basis for ICT-­
supported public services for both citizens and businesses as part of the
broader goal to reinvent how the government works. Given this early start in
the mid-1990s laying the foundations for an ambitious long-term and consis-
tent strategy, Malaysia is recognized as a developing nation role model that
accomplished a major challenge: Connecting its e-government implementa-
tions with clear development targets. The country has thereby evolved into an
exemplary case featuring project developers “who by effort of visionary pol-
icy and nurturing of critical conditions have realized tremendous growth
which can be demonstrably attributed to proactive ICT-related initiatives”
(John et al. 2005).
Source: Mohsin Bin Hj Ahmed (2007)

The Malaysian national policy and strategy for ICT and e-government is an
example showing the importance of the long-term development of the legal basis for
using ICT in e-government generally and public service delivery in particular
(Malaysia Government, undated). This is one of the reasons the country scores so
high in laws relating to ICT, as shown in Fig. 12. The case shows how policy, strat-
egy and a sound legal basis are a means for institutional capacity reinforcement for
transforming public services. It also illustrates how political will and resources,
sanctioned from the top are important, and how this also depends on long-term and
consistent commitment transcending changing political conditions.

Conclusions and Lessons Learnt

Basic services like education, health, water and sanitation, as well as infrastructures
and other utilities, are essential for sustainable development strategies and for
improving people’s quality of life and prosperity. They need to be delivered univer-
sally in order not to leave anyone behind, as this is the only way that the SDGs can
be achieved by 2030. New technologies and ICT are essential to ensure this can
happen, both through enabling the significant widening of access as well as by pro-
viding large beneficial impacts for service users, at the same time as provider costs
can be reduced.
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 277

The transformational and facilitating power of ICT is enabling a paradigm shift

in the public sector and its role in society as a whole. This is driven by three trends:
first, the need to address ever increasing and complex societal challenges; second,
the acceptance that, although the public sector is normally the biggest and most
powerful actor it does not have a monopoly on resources or on the ability to inno-
vate; and third, the increased capacities, tools and willingness possessed by other
state actors as well as civil society and the commercial sector, to participate along-
side the public sector in addressing societal challenges ranging from the local to the
global. This conjuncture is further enabled by the emergence of open and collabora-
tive governance systems, underpinned by ICT and promoting transparency, partici-
pation and collaboration. Although such systems are typically led or sanctioned by
the public sector and its governments, they consist of dynamically adapting constel-
lations of a range of actors with changing roles and relationships addressing specific
challenges in specific contexts at a variety of scales (Millard 2015b).

Improving Access to Basic Public Services Using Innovative ICT

New technology has the potential to assist in moving towards universality in the
access, reach, intensity and quality of basic public service delivery. The innovative
use of ICT can enable people to find and use basic public services in cases when
access was previously denied to them, for example in under-served areas like shanty
towns or rural and remote locations. It can also improve the speed and convenience
of public services access through 24/7 availability, considerably reduce the cost of
access, and in some cases provide completely new types of public services.
ICT can also enhance and complement the continued use of more traditional
channels, such as over the counter, the postal service, telephone call centers, or TV
and radio, where these remain appropriate forms of communication and interaction
with public officials or other service providers. The technology can lead to new
types of services based, for example, on the personalization of service offerings
through interaction with the service interface or direct with the service provider.
In many cases, close cooperation is beneficial with the private sector providing
investment and technical expertise as well as civil society organizations which are
close to service users both geographically in in terms of understanding their real
situation. Public, private and civil partnerships often provide good opportunities for
dramatically extending basic services to large numbers of people, as long as the
oversight and regulation are appropriate.’
The main lessons in summary are:
1. ICT enabled service delivery on a large scale can significantly reduces costs,
widen access and result in increased sustainable development impacts. ICT and
other technology innovations are necessary enablers and can be game changers,
but organizational, human resource and process innovations are also necessary,
the best and most suitable of which might be emulated from commercial compa-
nies or civil organizations.
278 J. Millard

2. Simple and relatively cheap technology such as mobile phones is a very flexible
tool that maximizes reach, is generally personalizable to the individual user and
enables two or multi-way interaction with the service provider as well as between
users themselves.
3. On a larger scale, more sophisticated and powerful ICT systems can knit together
other infrastructures and utilities, for example by deploying high capacity Internet,
sensors and databases to dramatically reduce costs and increase service integra-
tion and impact in real time, for example in smart city or smart neighborhood
initiatives. This can enhance the quality, performance and interactivity of services
as well as strengthen coordination through innovative technology solutions.

 trengthening Governance Through Innovative Technology

S
Solutions

New technology has the clear potential to directly support good governance through
greater outreach, openness and innovations in the speed and delivery of services.
Such innovations can arise from enhancements in the capacity of governments to
enable new technologies for a framework of good governance and public institu-
tions that are efficient, effective, transparent, accountable, inclusive and participa-
tory. ICT also provides a medium for building partnerships amongst all stakeholders
for better service delivery.
ICT can increase accountability and strengthen the fight against corruption in
public service delivery. Citizens can report and compare their experiences on a web-
site, via mobile phones or social media, bypassing official channels when these are
not responsive. Bottom-up pressure can be applied and collated through responsible
intermediaries like civil society organizations or local government agencies if these
are open, cooperative and prepared to listen and be responsive.
One of the main ambitions of ICT-enabled good governance is to ensure that
public policy and public services focus on becoming more open and innovative as
well as efficient and effective, and indeed it is clear that these attributes are
­complementary. It is becoming clear that the public sector cannot successfully
tackle service delivery challenges entirely on its own, but also needs to collaborate
with other actors, and especially the private and civil sectors, and a powerful tool in
this context is ICT.
The main lessons in summary are:
1. Data from service providers, users as well as other legitimate sources can be
used and made available as big and/or open data (as long as individual privacy is
protected) to increase the efficiency of public service delivery through the use of
ICT by highlighting where costs are incurred and whether processes can be ratio-
nalized or eliminated.
2. Data can also be used together with ICT tools to improve the effectiveness of
public service delivery by enabling the service provider to specifically target a
service to precise user requirements, and so that users themselves can personal-
ize a service to her/his own situation.
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 279

3. New technologies like social media, mobile phones and other interactive ICT
can enable service provides to obtain feedback from users and the wider society
concerning corruption and mis-management, about specific services as well as
public policy issues more generally. These tools can also be used unilaterally by
users to address service providers and governments concerning a wide range of
legitimate public policy issues. It is important that the public sector listens,
learns and responds to these new forms of communication.

Meeting the Social Needs of Target Populations

The social needs of people, communities and locations are highly diverse, so the
public services designed to meet them must be inclusive and respond according.
Different social groups require different types of public services and need to be
addressed in different ways depending on their unique social needs. One size fits all
public services, not tailored to specific needs, can miss their mark and thus both
waste public resources as well as prove ineffective. ICT is a powerful tool enabling
personalization to happen, both when used and initiated by the government and
other service providers, as well as when utilized directly by the users themselves.
Often different needs can be precisely tailored by using a multi-channel approach
consisting of different combinations of both ICT and traditional means. Especially
when targeting mainly poor people or those suffering from a range of disadvan-
tages, relatively cheap ICT in the form of mobile phones as well as more traditional
media like TV, radio and newspapers are highly effective. Such approaches can be
hugely successful, also on a commercial basis, if the business model is right.
The main lessons in summary are:
1. Collaboration both between the public and civil sectors and the public and pri-
vate sectors, or all three, is often highly productive as each can bring specific
competencies and assets to the table. However, the public interest, and especially
the specific needs of the users and their social needs must be constantly priori-
tized in an open and transparent manner.
2. Mobile technology is typically the most powerful tool to reach poor and disad-
vantaged people and provide them with high impact basic services. For example,
through the two-way collection of information and data from service users which
service providers can then analyze and actively use as a management tool to
organize and deploy their own resources, and to react rapidly to changing cir-
cumstances or emergencies.
3. ICT infrastructural policies should be directly embedded in broader national or
regional sustainable development policies and plans to meet the public service
needs of different societal groups. Often this will mean adopting a multi-channel
approach consisting of both ICT and more traditional channels to deliver basic
services and provide a safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable.
280 J. Millard

Enhancing the Policy and Strategic Framework for Basic Services

A strong focus is needed on a clear and long-term policy and strategic framework in
order to meet the challenge of an effective enabling environment for technology in
public service delivery. This will need to provide the overall setting, direction and
importance given to public services in support of sustainable development within a
specific legal and regulatory jurisdiction, whether this is local, municipal, regional
or national. Public service delivery is one of the most expensive aspects of any gov-
ernment’s budget, so it is extremely important to have the right policies for the
specific context a jurisdiction finds itself in. In particular, lack of relevant legal
provision and regulation hampers the adoption and use of new technologies in basic
public services. Developing a long-term strategy for ICT enhanced public service
design and delivery, underpinned by a sound legal basis, together with consistent
political will and resources, is critical.
The main lessons in summary are:
1. It is important to fully embrace the digital revolution and develop a new vision
around it which can provide better tools for service delivery, but also to recog-
nize the challenges and potential dangers this might reveal, for example in rela-
tion to security and privacy issues, as well as the uneven digital access and skills
people posses.
2. An ICT strategy should also go hand-in-hand with understanding that the human
element remains essential. Human and organizational capacity building is impor-
tant for both routine service delivery but also for promoting creativity, experi-
mentation and innovation in a continuous search for improvement.
3. In order both to save money and resources as well as provide better quality ser-
vices, ICT-enabled sharing across the public sector is needed, both of good prac-
tices and ideas but also in terms of human, organizational and physical assets.
Multiple service delivery channels supported by the local authority as well as by
local organizations and citizens provide both better tailored and contextual ser-
vices as well as improve the inclusion of everybody.

References

Broadband Commission (2014) Means of transformation: harnessing broadband for the post-2015
development agenda, a collaboration between UNESCO, ITU and Ericsson. http://www.broad-
bandcommission.org/documents/reports/tf-post2015-advocacy-2014.pdf
Chesbrough HW (2003) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 44(3):35–41
Crandall A, Otieno A, Mutuku L, Colaço J (2012) Mobile phone usage at the Kenyan base of the
pyramid. iHub Research, November 2012. https://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/files/ic4d/mobile_
phone_usage_kenyan_base_pyramid.pdf
Dean-Swarray M, Gillwald A, Morrell A (2013) Lifting the veil on ICT gender indicators in Africa.
Research ICT Africa. https://www.researchictafrica.net/publications/Evidence_for_ICT_
Policy_Action/Policy_Paper_13_-_Lifting_the_veil_on_gender_ICT_indicators_in_Africa.pdf
Technology Innovations in Public Service Delivery for Sustainable Development 281

Docebo (2014) E-Learning market trends & forecast 2014–2016 Report, March 2014. https://www.
docebo.com/landing/contactform/elearning-market-trends-and-forecast-2014-2016-docebo-
report.pdf. Retrieved April 2016
Ericsson and the Earth Institute (2016) How information and communications technology
can accelerate action on the sustainable development goals. http://www.ericsson.com/res/
docs/2016/ict-sdg.pdf
European Commission (2013) Study on business and financing models related to ICT for ageing
well. DG CONNECT, Danish Technological Institute, Ernst & Young. https://ec.europa.eu/
digital-single-market/en/news/study-business-and-financing-models-related-ict-ageing-well
Ghana Health Service (2016) Integrated national ICT for health and development forum,
Millennium Promise. http://1millionhealthworkers.org/files/2016/09/ICT_REPORT.pdf
Global Opportunity Network (2016) Global opportunity report 2016. Published by DNV GL AS,
the United Nations Global Compact, and Monday Morning Global Institute. http://www.globa-
lopportunitynetwork.org/report-2016/#.V0LvqTY-KqA
GSMA (Mobile Enabled Community Services) (2014) The synergies between mobile, energy
and water access: Africa. http://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/
2014/04/MECS_Synergies-between-Mobile-Energy-and-Water-Access_Africa.pdf. Retrieved
April 2016
International Telecommunication Union (2013) Measuring the information society. Geneva.
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2013.aspx; and The ITU World
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/
stat/default.aspx. Retrieved April 2016
International Telecommunication Union (2015) Measuring the information society report 2015.
Geneva. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2015.aspx; and The
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/
Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx. Retrieved April 2016
John JK, Nair MS, Selvanthan PJ, Kuppusamy M (2005) Using ICT as a catalyst for sustain-
able development: the role of national policy. In: Rahim RA, Waldburger D, Muinde GS
(ed) Access, empowerment and governance: creating a world of equal opportunities with
ICT. Global Knowledge Partnership, Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia Government (undated) The national telecommunication policy of Malaysia (1994–2020)
Millard J  (2015a) The digital divide and the post-2015 development debate. In: Andreasson K
(ed) Digital divides: the new challenges and opportunities of e-inclusion. Taylor and Francis
Publishing Group, Abingdon
Millard J (2015b) Open governance systems: doing more with more. Gov Inf Q, 12 Sept 2015.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.08.003
Millard J, Weerakkody V, Missi F, Kapoor K, Fernando G (2016) Social innovation for pov-
erty reduction and sustainable development: some governance and policy perspectives. In:
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on the theory and practice of electronic gover-
nance (ICEGOV2015–16), The ACM Press, Montevideo, 1–3 March 2016
Mohsin Bin Hj Ahmed (2007) Implementation of electronic government in Malaysia: the status
and potential for better service to the public. Public Sect ICT Manage Rev 1(1)
National Latino Research Center (2011) Text4baby preliminary study. California State University
and the University of California, San Diego
Prahalad CK (2004) The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: eradicating poverty through profits.
Pearson Prentice Hall, New York
Regional School of Public Administration (2013) Abuse of Information Technology (IT) for cor-
ruption. ReSPA, Danilovgrad
UNDP Montenegro (2014) Increasing citizens’ engagement by using social innovation and social
media to enhance government’s transparency and accountability. Retrieved from https://info.
undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/MNE/Pro Doc Citizen Engagement signed.pdf
United Nations (2013) Governance, public administration and information technology for post-­
2015 development. United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs New  York.
http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/Governance_PA_Report.pdf. Retrieved
April 2016
282 J. Millard

United Nations (2015) Innovative public service delivery: learning from best practice. United
Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs New York. http://workspace.unpan.org/
sites/Internet/Documents/EGM%20Report%20on%20Innovative%20Public%20Service%20
Delivery%20Learning%20from%20Best%20Practices.docx.pdf. Retrieved April 2016
World Bank (2012) eTransform Africa – the transformational use of information and communica-
tions technologies in Africa. The World Bank and the African Development Bank with the sup-
port of the African Union, Washington, DC. www.eTransformAfrica.org. Retrieved April 2016
World Bank Group (2015) Unlocking the potential of information communications technology to
improve water and sanitation services. Water and Sanitation Program, Washington, DC
World Economic Forum (2015) The global information technology report 2015: ICTs for inclu-
sive growth. World Economic Forum and INSEAD, Geneva. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf. Retrieved April 2016

Jeremy Millard is Director of the consultancy Third Millennium Governance, as well as having
 

senior research positions at the Danish Technological Institute in Denmark and Bradford University
in the UK. He has over 40 years’ global experience on issues ranging from governance, ICT, open
and social innovation, participation, sustainable and socio-economic development, tackling pov-
erty and exclusion, the new economy, urbanization and nature-based solutions for growth, and has
published extensive in these and related fields. His many clients include governments, the European
Commission, United Nations, OECD and World Bank, as well as many non-profits and companies
around the world. Recent assignments in the area of e-government include on-going support to
both the United Nations regarding their biennial eGovernment Survey, and the European
Commission regarding e-government research and innovation, as well as a survey on back-office
developments in support of user-centred e-government strategies for the OECD.  He has also
worked with the UN on ICT and governance issues for the 2030 sustainable development agenda,
and with ESCWA on integrated service delivery across the Arab Region.
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government
Information Infrastructure: A Review
of Initiatives in D5 Countries

Adegboyega Ojo and Samuel Adebayo

Abstract  Blockchain or distributed ledger technology; a distributed and open data

infrastructure enabling secure transactions without centralised trust party on the
Internet, is considered to have disruptive potentials comparable to that of the
Internet. This technology innovation is driving major strategic and policy actions in
several economies around the world and particularly in the Digital 5 (D5) countries
which include United Kingdom, United States, Estonia, New Zealand and Israel.
This chapter provides some background to the new technology and reviews flagship
blockchain related initiatives in the D5 countries. It concludes with recommenda-
tions for policymakers on emerging governance topics that require investigation in
order to realise the full potentials of blockchain innovation in public administration
and the government domain.

Introduction

Blockchain could be described as a distributed information infrastructure or an

open, distributed database on the internet (Ølnes 2008). Blockchain technology
maintains continuous update of all transactions occurring across large fully distrib-
uted or peer-to-peer network, that are either private or public (Srisukvattananan
2016). The technology enables secure and private transactions among involved par-
ties without the need for any intermediary to guarantee trust (Kosba et al. 2016).
The technology has triggered interest from all industry sectors due to its capabil-
ity to store the history of every transaction sent and confirmed over the network,
including information included as a part of those transactions (Kaye 2016). One of

A. Ojo (*)
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway,
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: adegboyega.ojo@insight-centre.org
S. Adebayo
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG),
IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: Samuel.Adebayo@insight-centre.org

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 283

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_11
284 A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

the motives for adopting this technology is that it affords transparent real-time trans-
action settlement and auto-executing so-called smart contracts with business logic
encoded into the ledger (Wyman 2016). Another significant motive for the adoption
of this innovation is its extended capabilities to provide significant impacts to differ-
ent economics and social activities in the society (Taylor, 2016)
Blockchain according to findings can be used to address inefficiencies in current
systems and increase the effectiveness of public service activities (Drucker 2016). It
can also create a data network platform where citizens, private companies, and gov-
ernments can access for the verification of information (Oscar 2016). The adoption
of Blockchain in the public sector is expected to reduce the cost of operations par-
ticularly by eliminating fraud, error in payments, providing greater transparency of
transactions between government, other agencies and citizens. It strengthens citi-
zens data protection and encourages data sharing among entities (Taylor, 2016). In
general, government entities can perform the following activities on the Blockchain1:
(1) verification of documents such as licenses, proofs of records, transactions, pro-
cesses or events such as birth of a child, (2) movement of assets such as transferring
money from one entity to another after some work conditions are met, (3) asset
ownership registers such as land registries, property titles and other types of owner-
ship of physical assets and (4) management of identities like e-identities for citizens
and city residents.
Interestingly, while there is growing literature on Blockchain applications in the
private sector, the literature on possible applications of this new generation informa-
tion infrastructure in the government domain are few (Ølnes 2008). This chapter
addresses this knowledge gap by examining some of the flagship Blockchain initia-
tives in leading five digital champion (so-called D5) countries including United
Kingdom, United States, Estonia, New Zealand and Israel.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: section “Background” provides a
brief background on Blockchain and Distributed Ledger technology. The approach
for the study is presented in section “The Digital 5 Countries as Innovators” while
the case studies selected from the D5 countries are laid out in section “Cases”. We
provide some analysis of these initiatives in section “Discussion” and conclude in
section “Conclusion”.

Background

The blockchain is a digital ledger and a “database that can be shared across a net-
work of multiple sites, geographies or institutions” (Taylor 2016). It could also be
described as a database of secure transaction ledgers only accessible to all parties
involved in a distributed network. It has the capacity to record and save every trans-
action which occurs in the network and also create an irrevocable and auditable
transaction history (Finextra 2016). Other authors consider the Blockchain as

 http://observer.com/2016/09/why-the-Blockchain-is-perfect-for-government-services/
1
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure… 285

consensus-­based, tamper-proof data structure that delivers a shared public ledger

open to all connected parties (Capgemini 2016).
The goal of the Blockchain innovation is to create trust, enhance transparency
and eliminate unnecessary intermediate parties among involved parties in digital
transactions (Wyman 2016). The technology supports basic payments (including
micropayments), decentralised exchange, token earning, digital asset transfer, as
well as smart contract issuance and execution (Froystad and Holm, 2016). Smart
contracts are specific programs used by users of blockchains in order to decide
whether a specific operation, say a given payment or transfer of digital asset should
be permitted or not (Pilkington 2016).
According to (Froystad and Holm, 2016), there are different types of blockchains
implementations available today since the first Blockchain developed based on the
Bitcoin protocol. The Bitcoin protocol is what really enables secure transactions to
be carried out on the Internet without the need for a trusted third-party or intermedi-
ary (Ølnes 2008). Other blockchain and distributed ledger implementations include
Ethereum,2 Gridcoin,3 and Ripple4 (Pilkington 2016).
According to (Wyman 2016), The blockchain innovation is built on the three
complementary solutions namely encryption, mutual consensus verification, and
smart contracts. The encryption component protects the sensitive data exchanged on
the bitcoin network. The mutual consensus verification element is the network pro-
tocol which ensures the integrity of the bitcoin ledger or database by approval or
denying changes made to the database after verifying that the overall state of distrib-
uted ledger remains accurate at all times without any interference from external or
central governing authority. This element is central to preventing malicious manipu-
lation and failures. The third component called the smart contracts provide the
mechanism for automating governance of transactions among bitcoin users. Smart
contracts are implemented as codes written in a special language and stored on the
bitcoin ledger the same way data are stored (Wyman 2016).
From the perspective of authors of (Crawford et al. 2016), blockchain provides
the users a more secure, decentralized transactions through common access to a
ledger that has a secure audit trail. This enhances support for non-repudiation, gov-
ernance, fraud prevention and reporting. From a technical standpoint, it allows users
to recognize the opportunity to integrate an ecosystem of trusted third parties for the
purpose of reducing the costs of their global platforms, advance customer and mar-
ket reach and develop new propositions (Crawford et al. 2016).
Network security provided by Blockchain is also a benefit because of the use of
cryptographic and decentralized protocols. This reduces the risk of a brute force hack
or an accidental instance of two users generating the same private key (Kaye 2016).
While the blockchain innovation comes with many attractive benefits, there are
however some drawbacks associated with it. These drawbacks have been high-
lighted by (Shrier et al. 2016) as follows: the platform is relatively complex and not

2
 https://www.ethereum.org/
3
 http://www.gridcoin.us/
4
 https://ripple.com/
286 A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

user-friendly and transactions made on the blockchain are not reversible, so genuine
errors cannot be corrected by any administrator.
The popularity of the blockchain technology is driven by a number of factors
(ODI 2016) including: (1) The capabilities of the platform to store data that is very
robust in nature and that cannot be tampered with; the highly distributed nature of
Blockchain platform comprising of nodes managed by different parties making col-
lusion to compromise the infrastructure difficult. Another driving factor of the
Blockchain technology is the optimization of cost and time efficiency in both public
and private sectors. For instance, it is now faster through this innovation to move
funds between two different institutions and geographical zones without any inter-
ference of intermediaries (Probst et al. 2016).
Finally, the Blockchain technology has potential to impact any industry or prod-
uct line that relies on the storage and verification of information or value. Blockchain
technology’s programmable aspects can also facilitate the development of indepen-
dent governance systems, contracts and legal constructs (e.g., “smart contract”) or
the ability of interrelated devices to interact with and even pay each other in the
“Internet of Things” (Kaye 2016).

The Digital 5 Countries as Innovators

We have chosen to review some past and ongoing Blockchain innovation in Digital
countries due to the strong commitment that these countries have for undertaking
digital transformations and serving as innovators and early adopters with respect to
emerging technologies. The Digital 5 or D5 is a networking group of leading digital
government countries with the objective of strengthening the digital economy.
There is a promise among the members to be open while they aim at how to trans-
form government’s relationship with technology through the espousal of open stan-
dards and open source software and also increasing the effectiveness of  digital
government. Furthermore, these countries are also working towards encouraging
digital skills in-house and also short-term contracts with small and medium busi-
ness suppliers (Wikipedia 2016).
This network group was founded on the 9 December 2014. The founding mem-
bers of the group are Estonia, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea and the United
Kingdom. These countries possess mutual agreement to create this network group
and develop a platform where best practice will be shared and also collaborate on
common projects that will provide support in growing digital economies. Some of
the goals of the D5 countries according to (Palo et al. 2015) are:
• User needs  – provide citizen-centric public services taking into consideration
specific needs of different segments of the citizenry.
• Open standards – employ technologies that are interoperability and show a clear
commitment to a credible royalty free open standards policy.
• Open source – ensure that future government systems, tradecraft, manuals, and
standards are created as open resources and shareable among members.
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure… 287

• Open markets – ensure true competition for companies regardless of size in gov-
ernment procurements, promote and support start-up culture as well as economic
growth through open markets.
• Open government (transparency)  – be a member of the Open Government
Partnership and use open licences to produce and consume open data.
• Connectivity – develop an online population through comprehensive and high-­
quality digital infrastructure.
• Teach children to code – show commitment to offer children the opportunity to
learn to code and acquire next generation skills.
• Assisted digital  services– show commitment to supporting all its citizens to
access digital services.
• Commitment to share and learn – commit to work together to help solve each
other’s issues wherever they can.
Our study examined public sector innovation activities of these countries related
to the use of blockchains through exploratory desktop research. Information was
consolidated from scholarly and online articles and news on Blockchain technolo-
gies. We outline the identified initiatives in section “Discussion” and discuss them
in section “Conclusion”.

Cases

In this section, we describe some of the major innovations in D5 countries in which

the blockchain technology has exploited for improving the delivery of public ser-
vices. In all 13 initiatives are described across the five countries with a summary of
the initiatives presented in Table 1. Information on these cases were collected and
analysed largely between May and December 2016.
Estonia  Estonia is one of the countries with very high E-Government Development
Index. Specifically, it ranks in the 13th position globally based on the 2016 UN
Global E-Government Index (United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs 2016). It also ranks as one of the most innovative countries in the world;
ranking at 24th position out of the 128 countries surveyed in the 2017 edition of the
Global Innovation Index report (Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO 2016).
Since 2014, the topic of Blockchain innovation has gained significant popularity
among private and public institutions in Estonia. Several prototypes and concepts
involving Blockchain technology have been announced by the government of
Estonia. Three notable cases of these innovations involving management of access
to health records, provision of notary services to e-residents and authentication of
shareholders for e-voting in meetings are briefly described below.
• Migration of government data to Blockchain (Oscar 2016): The initiative aimed
at securing access to over 1 million public health records to eliminate unauthor-
ised access to the records without the need of a centralised trust party in or out-
side government. The initiative relies on the technology developed by Guardtime;
Table 1  Summary of blockchain related initiatives across D5 countries
288

No. Initiative Participants Goal Strategy Other stakeholders Sector

1 Migration of Estonian e-Health Solution for Integration of Citizens, third-party Health sector
government data to Authority, Information securing access and guardtime’s keyless private companies
Blockchain – Estonia System Authority & integrity of public signature that require access to
Guardtime (SME) health records using infrastructure into health records
Blockchain Oracle database
technology engine of the health
sector
2 Public notary to e-Residency Giving citizen the Leveraging Bitnation Government Economy
e-residents (Estonia) Programme, Bitnation right to exercise digital nation agencies and private
notary act regardless platform and sector organizations
of their geographical providing public key (e.g. banks)
location and set up infrastructure card interested in making
businesses in (PKI) to both services available to
Estonia residents and e-residents
non-residents to
access services
3 e-Voting Scheme Tallinn Stock Exchange, Giving the Estonia Using the Estonia US stock market, Economy
(Estonia) Nasdaq, e-Residency citizens that are e-residency platform shareholders,
Programme shareholders in firms to authenticate Estonia e-residents
listed on Tallinn e-resident and Estonia citizens
Stock Exchange the shareholders in
opportunity to vote shareholders
securely online in meetings
shareholders
meetings
4 Joint research with Israel ministry of Exporting Provision of research Other global firms Finance
Commonwealth Bank economy, blockchain expertise grants to attract like Microsoft,
of Australia (Israel) Commonwealth Bank to other countries researchers in the General Electric,
of Australia (Australia) and areas of disruptive Procter and Gamble.
establish the country technology including
as the knowledge Blockchain
A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

hub for blockchain.

5 The Israeli Blockchain Blockchain start-ups, Develop a critical Foster collaboration Start-up firms, Economy
Ecosystem (Israel) Deloitte mass of the among global potential investors
Blockchain start-up consulting firms,
and attract investors other private sector
to create a strong organizations and
and viable Blockchain start-ups
blockchain
ecosystem
6 Improving the Food Agility, Ministry To acquire Funding long-term Farmers and citizens Agriculture
agriculture sector of Agriculture and knowledge on how research initiatives to
through Blockchain Forestry Blockchain can be identify how
(New Zealand) used to improve Blockchain
Agricultural sector technology can be
used to provide
high-value products
with solid
provenance
7 Energy and the P2 power Providing a platform Using Blockchain Citizens, Energy Energy
Blockchain in New for the sale, technology to deliver Providers
Zealand purchase and a peer-to-peer grid of
distribution of green energy.
energy via
Blockchain platform
8 Blockchain for Local Gyeonggi-do, Blocko Enable direct Leveraging Blocko’s Community Governance
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure…

Community Voting participation of blockchain based residents

(South Korea) community voting system to
residents in supporting both
determining online and offline
community voting.
initiatives to fund
(continued)
289
Table 1 (continued)
290

No. Initiative Participants Goal Strategy Other stakeholders Sector

9 Blockchain-based Investment banks Enable innovation in Government Blockchain start-ups, Finance
financial innovation the financial facilitating the use of Citizens, Businesses
(South Korea) technology arena blockchain for
through blockchain managing asset
technology. ownership and
settlement in the
financial technology
sector
10 Distributed ledger gross Bank of England Replacement of its Use of Blockchain to Bank of England, Finance
settlement system (UK) aging real-time revamp the RTGS Financial Institutions
gross settlement
(RTGS)
11 Blockchain for benefit Department of Work Improve welfare Creation of a mobile Claimants, Citizen Welfare and Social
payment (UK) and Pensions, Barclays, payment system and app and a Security
Npower, University track payments Blockchain that
College London, made to claimants records payments
GovCoin sent and received by
claimants
12 Monitoring research Paymaster general Solving the Use of Blockchain to Researchers Education
grants (UK) office, government, monitoring manage the
complexity of distribution of grants
research grants given to researchers
13 Blockchain-as-a-Service Credits Making Blockchain Allowing credits Government Public service
for the Public Sector services available to Blockchain-as-a-­ agencies
(UK) public agencies service platform to
be accessible
through the Digital
Marketplace to
reduce the barrier to
A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

access.
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure… 291

a Blockchain start-up. The solution is based on Guardtime’s Keyless signatures

technology which can establish the integrity of any data without the use and
exchange of the traditional private and public keys. The keyless signature infra-
structure (KSI) Blockchain will be integrated with the e-Health Authority health
(Oracle) database for “real-time visibility” into the state of patient records. This
initiative is expected to significantly improve the process used in recording and
updating health records in terms of efficiency (including cost) and effectiveness.
The use of Blockchain technology will provide the creation of a secured and
trusted care records into electronic chains of events while preserving the prove-
nance and integrity of those health records. The solution will also enable strong
identity proofing by preserving immutable records of the declared identities of
both patients and healthcare professionals. Equally important, the initiative will
empower patients through the recording of consent decisions and patient direc-
tives within the secured healthcare record.
• Public notary to e-residents (Ian 2015): In late 2014, Estonia made history by
becoming the first country to offer electronic residency to people located both
in and outside the country. This was regarded by the Estonian government as
a step towards “the idea of a country without borders. It is essentially a trans-
national digital identity, available to anyone in the world interested in operat-
ing a location-­independent business online. The project was developed in
partnership with Bitnation; a distributed governance and blockchain-based
virtual nation project. The platform has been used for providing emergency
identity and registry services. The platform enables Estonia to provide its resi-
dents a public key infrastructure (PKI) card, which grants access to over 1000
electronic government services. Non-residents are also able to apply for a PKI
card, which is issued by the state. The card comes with a four digit pin num-
ber, which authorises digital signatures for online documents, which is consid-
ered legally binding throughout the EU.  This initiative provides some
validation for Bitnation is an open source protocol and sovereign entity. With
applications over 9,200 from over 127 countries, about 291 companies have
been opened through the e-residency programme as at February 2016 (Kalev
2016). This initiative involves several government agencies and private orga-
nizations willing to make their services available to e-residents through the
Bitnation’s platform.
• E-voting for E-Resident Shareholders (Kalev 2016): the US stock-market firm
Nasdaq in collaboration with the Estonian e-residency programme aims to pro-
vide e-Residents and Estonian citizens who are shareholders in firms listed on
the Tallinn Stock Exchange an opportunity to vote securely online in shareholder
meetings. The Estonia’s e-residency platform will be used to authenticate
e-­resident shareholders while the Nasdaq’s Blockchain technology will be
employed to record votes securely. The agility and size of Estonia coupled with
its robust Information Society created the favourable environment for the
Nasdaq-­ Estonian Government collaboration in piloting the e-voting
programme.
292 A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

Israel  Israel currently ranks in the 20th position in the UN E-Government

Development Index (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
2016) and 21st in the global innovation index (Cornell University, INSEAD, and
WIPO 2016). It is a country that is driven by a strong defence industry, technologi-
cal military units, and world-class academic institutions. Israel is also developing
a reputation as a hub for innovation and technology. The country’s unique experi-
ence in Fintech, cybersecurity and cryptography makes it a hotspot for Blockchain
innovation. Notable examples of Blockchain-based initiatives in public sector in
Israel include:
• Israel joint research with Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Marine and Chloé
Gueguen 2016): Israel is currently working jointly with Australia to achieve a
goal of making Australia as a leading hub in Asia pioneering global initiatives in
Blockchain, cybersecurity, international settlement and big data. To make this
goal a reality, Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has signed an agreement
with the Israel government to access Blockchain related technology and innova-
tion developed by Israel’s flourishing start-up ecosystem. The initiative will also
benefit from the support of global firms such as Microsoft, General Electric, and
Procter & Gamble are the sources in the area of funding. However, the bank,
other firms and the Ministry will provide research grants in the areas disruptive
technologies in Blockchain and related areas of Internet of Things and Big Data
Analytics.
• The Israel Blockchain Ecosystem (Amit 2016): In addition to enabling
Blockchain-­based innovation in other countries, Israel has successfully built an
ecosystem of Blockchain. At least eleven Blockchain start-up firms are already
in operations in the country. The thrust here is to employ Blockchain as an infor-
mation infrastructure for digital, chronologically updated, distributed and cryp-
tographically record of data. By digital, we understand that almost all types of
information can be expressed in digital format and referenced later through a
ledger entry. The chronological order enables verification and authentication
through permanent time stamping. These start-ups are employing blockchain
technology to secure online purchases, protect digital rights to songs, enable the
conversion of cryptocurrencies to bills at ATM, send cryptocurrencies as mes-
sages, operate decentralised organizations, buying bitcoin over credit card trans-
actions. These technology companies are collaborating with global technology
consulting firms like Deloitte and banks in and outside Isreal to realise these
innovations.
New Zealand  The country ranks 8th in the E-Government Development Index and
17th in the Global Innovation Index. Over 40 top financial institutions and a grow-
ing number of businesses are experimenting with Blockchains in the country as a
way of doing business. A few of the Blockchain-based government initiatives that
are also under development include:
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure… 293

• Improving the agricultural sector through Blockchain (Corner 2016): The

Government of New Zealand aims to attract leading entrepreneurial researchers
to the country to increase knowledge in the key areas that can contribute to the
economic and environmental needs of the country. One of the strategies of the
government is to build capabilities which will enable the country to stay at the
forefront as the digital revolutions by leveraging emerging technology such as
the Blockchain. This technology is specifically targeted at the agriculture sector
to provide food products with solid provenance. This will enable consumers to
determine where a food item is produced, its freshness, safety and quality.
• Energy and the Blockchain technology in New Zealand (Phillippa 2016): A
private energy firm (P2 power) is working with the government to provide a
platform for the sales, purchase, and distribution of energy via Blockchain
innovation. In April 2016, the firm launched a platform which enables the
production of up to green energy delivered from a peer-to-peer grid. It is esti-
mated that consumers will save about 4c per kWh buying from the peer-to-
peer network. Currently, it takes 30 min to scan the networks for excess power
generated by those who are part of it and when that is unavailable, energy will
be provided by local power stations. The planned migration to the ‘Ethereum’
blockchain is expected to deliver a better experience in terms of speed for the
peer-to-peer matching.
South Korea  The country is well known for its global leadership in the area of
technological innovation. It currently ranks 3rd in the E-Government Development
Index and 11th on the Global Innovation Index. South Korea has in the past few
years been actively involved in the development of Blockchain technologies. On 28
February 2015, the government opened its doors becoming a common ground for
Korean Blockchain enthusiasts. Among the government initiatives in this space is
the organization of weekly bitcoin trading programming classes. The government is
also supporting the hosting of the bitcoin start-up competition where five companies
participated. Two notable blockchain initiatives in the country are:
• Using Blockchain for Local Community Voting (Keirns 2017): In collaboration
with Blocko, the provincial government of Gyeonggi-do employed a voting solu-
tion for community funding. Specifically, the blockchain- and smart contract-­
based voting platform enables members of the community and local residents to
propose and vote on community aid initiatives. Over 9,000 votes were submitted
by residents through online and offline channels resulting in the selection of 527
projects by the provincial government. The blockchain-based solution according
to provincial government allowed the possibility of complementing traditional
representative democracy with direct democracy. The collaborator in this initia-
tive; Blocko, is a blockchain research and services start-up in Korea and the
developer of the CoinStack platform.
• Blockchain-based financial innovation (Buntinx 2016): the South Korean
Government is looking to provide venture capital opportunities to SMEs involved
in blockchain related innovation. The strategy employed by the government is to
294 A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

invest in financial technology and an ICT-based start-up that can develop creative
ideas on innovation and change project based on the Blockchain technology. The
government and its partners have identified Blockchain innovation as a tool that
can be used for asset ownership and settlement management. The government
also believes that Blockchain will pave the way for new technologies and solu-
tions in the Fintech industry.
United Kingdom  The country ranks in 1st position in the 2016 E-Government
Development Index and the 3rd place in the 2016 Global Innovation Index. UK
Government through its Office of Science published a report on Distributed Ledger
Technology: Beyond blockchain (Taylor 2016). The report expressed the transfor-
mational potential of distributed ledger and also advanced a number of technology,
governance, security and privacy, and trust and interoperability related recommen-
dations. Furthermore, the UK government believes that it stands in a good position
to leverage the benefits and address the challenges related to the use of distributed
ledgers in the public service and economy because of the digital capability, innova-
tive financial services, the effective research community and growing private ser-
vice. Some of the ongoing blockchain based initiatives in the UK include:
• Distributed ledger based Gross Settlement System (Peter 2016): the Bank of
England is currently working on replacing its current real-time gross settlement
(RTGS) system to be ready for future demands. Specifically, the future system
must address the following strategic RTGS requirements: (1) capability of
responding to the changing structure of the financial system; (2) recognising that
payment system users want simpler and more resilient pathways for their pay-
ments; (3) capability of interfacing with a range of new technologies being used
in the private sector, including distributed ledgers, if/when they achieve critical
mass; (4) to remain highly resilient to the increasingly diverse range of threats to
continuity of service, and (5) develop capacity to support the future evolution of
regulatory and monetary policy tools. From the bank point of view, the new sys-
tem will change a lot of features between the existing system which was built in
1996 and its successor. Some of these changes will include and enhanced secu-
rity, which could be provided through the use of distributed ledger/blockchain
solutions.
• Blockchain for benefit payment (Lynsey 2016): the government is currently
test-­running a blockchain based social welfare payment mobile app. Claimants
in receipt of this payment are advised to download the app on their phones
which will enable them to receive and spend their benefit payments. With their
consent, their transactions are being recorded on a distributed ledger to sup-
port their financial management. This initiative focuses on adding an addi-
tional layer of richer data and identity onto payments so that a deeper and
more effective relationship can be established between the government and
claimants. The aim of this project is to identify the possibility for welfare pay-
ment to citizens to be sent through a secure app and also to see if people reli-
ant on welfare payments would benefit from this approach. This new system
consists of a mobile app and a Blockchain system that records payments sent
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure… 295

and received by beneficiaries. This initiative is a joint effort of the Department

of Work and Pensions, Barclays, Npower, University of London and UK-based
blockchain start-up GovCoin.
• Paying research grant through Blockchain (Hopping, 2016): Monitoring and
controlling the use of grants is incredibly complex. The government considers
that a blockchain accessible to all the parties involved might be a better way of
solving that problem. The government presently is looking into any sort of
Blockchain technique, Bitcoin is one of those. Furthermore, it is open to all ideas
because of the fact that there are a number of areas Blockchains can be used,
including government grants which can be used to track the money and it gets
taxpayers a better deal, potentially. The government is currently exploring future
technologies so that new ways of doing old things can be identified to reshape the
state through the best use of modern technology.
• Blockchain-as-a-Service for Public Sector (Hopping, 2016): The government in
collaboration with Credits; a distributed ledger or blockchain service provider
are working to provide Blockchain-as-a-service on the Government Digital
Services’ Digital Marketplace – UK Government’s official platform for public
agencies to access cloud and digital services. The initiative will enable central
and local government, devolved administrations, health, education, emergency
services, defence, and not-for-profits will all be able to take advantage of Credits’
platform to build applications and services on a Blockchain. Delivering block-
chain service on the Digital Marketplace provides public agencies some flexibil-
ity in accessing the service. Based on the framework agreements signed with
suppliers of services on the Digital Market, public sector organizations can buy
services without needing to run a full tender or competition procurement pro-
cess. Access to Credit’s Blockchain platforms–as-a-service will allow the public
agencies to build robust Blockchain-based systems that address the challenges in
establishing provenance, authentication service participants, reconciliation of
transactions service in addition to seamless and secure interoperability with leg-
acy and other Blockchain systems.

Discussion

We have reviewed 13 blockchain-related initiatives across five leading innovation

and e-government countries; D5 countries. These initiatives span the Finance,
Economy, Welfare & Social Security, Energy, Governance and Public Services sec-
tors (summary in Table  1). In these cases, blockchain technologies have been
deployed as secure information management and provenance infrastructure, authen-
tication and validation infrastructure, financial settlement infrastructure, and trans-
action governance infrastructure. In all these cases, blockchain start-ups in the
different countries have played pivotal roles in realizing the different initiatives.
These cases have also revealed some emerging patterns on the role of govern-
ments in developing blockchain applications. In most cases, government agencies
296 A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

have simply leveraged the infrastructure and services provided by local blockchain
start-ups to realise pilot initiatives. In other cases, the governments have sought to
focus on developing the blockchain ecosystems (e.g. Israel) by facilitating the inter-
action of local start-ups and investors.
In addition to the various type of goals that emerged from the cases and described
in Table 1, blockchain and distributed ledger technology could help in the specific
area of governance including (Hopping 2016): traceability of government spending,
protecting critical infrastructure, registering assets such as intellectual property,
wills, and health data as well as reducing waste resulting from benefit fraud.
To further develop and mature blockchain initiatives, the UK Government Chief
Scientific Office provided some recommendations in advancing blockchain innova-
tions in government and society, which include (Taylor 2016): (1) establishing a
ministerial level leadership to ensure that government provides the vision, leader-
ship and the platform for distributed ledger technology within government; (2) that
the research community invest in the research required to ensure that distributed
ledgers are scalable, secure and provide proof of correctness of their contents; (3)
that government supports the creation of distributed ledger demonstrators for local
government that consolidates all the elements necessary to test the technology and
its applications; (4) government should put in place the necessary regulatory frame-
work for distributed ledger; (5) that government works with academia and industry
to ensure that standards are set for the integrity, security and privacy of distributed
ledgers and their contents which should be reflected in both regulations and soft-
ware code; (6) that government works with academia and industry to ensure the
most effective and usable identification and authentication protocols are imple-
mented for organizations and individuals.
Similar recommendations have been advanced in other sources1. For instance, it
was recommended that Government leaders need to familiarise themselves with the
potentials and benefits of the blockchain as a digital transformation technology
before committing to exploring its potentials; and 3) commence experimentation
with blockchain technology via proofs of concepts and small projects.
As indicated in many of the recommendations above, government’s close col-
laboration with academia is critical to advancing research in blockchain and distrib-
uted ledger technology. From the different cases reviewed, we observe that a number
of interesting concepts are emerging from the interaction of blockchain technology
and governance. Some of the concepts that could redefine governance and definitely
worth examining further include (James et al. 2016): “Do-it-Yourself” Governance,
Decentralised Autonomous Organization, Decentralised Citizen Engagement,5
Provably Secure Governance, Provable Transparency, and Collaborative manage-
ment of jointly owned digital assets.

 http://netfutures2016.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/1-Project-presentation-net-futures-.pdf
5
Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure… 297

Conclusion

This chapter has directly contributed to addressing the paucity of scholarly litera-
ture on the application of blockchain and distributed ledger technology in the gov-
ernment domain as highlighted in (Ølnes 2008). We have reviewed several initiatives
across the Digital 5 countries in which government has played various roles in
blockchain initiatives. While some of the reviewed initiatives show great promise,
most of these initiatives are far from operating at scale. At the same time, there are
a number of legal, regulatory, ethical as well as technical barriers that must be
addressed to fully harness the potentials of the blockchain and distributed ledger
technology in government.

References

Amit H (2016) Israel: a hotspot for blockchain innovation

Buntinx J (2016) Korea to boost investments in fintech, blockchain startups. Korea Herald
Capgemini (2016) Blockchain: a fundamental shift for financial services institutions, p 16
Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO (2016) The global innovation index 2016
Corner S (2016) How blockchain can help Kiwi farmers. Computerworld
Crawford S, Meadows I, Piesse D (2016) Blockchain technology as a platform for digitization.
EY, p 16
Drucker P (2016) Blockchain applications in the public sector
Froystad P, Holm J (2016) Blockchain: powering the internet of value, p. 50
Finextra (2016) Banking on blockchain: charting the progress of distributed ledger technology in
financial service, p 28
Ian A (2015) Bitnation and Estonian government start spreading sovereign jurisdiction on the
blockchain. IB Times
James S, Tennison J, Wells P, Fawcett J, Harrison S (2016) Applying blockchain technology in
global data infrastructure
Kalev A (2016) Why ripples from this Estonian blockchain experiment may be felt around the
world
Kaye S (2016) An introduction to bitcoin and blockchain technology, p 13
Keirns G (2017) Local Government in South Korea Taps Blockchain for Community Vote.
Coindesk. [Online]. Available: http://www.coindesk.com/south-korea-blockchain-community-
vote/. Accessed 14 Apr 2017
Kosba A, Miller A, Shi E, Wen Z, Papamanthou C (2016) Hawk: the blockchain model of cryptog-
raphy and privacy-preserving smart contracts. IEEE S&P, p 31
Lynsey B (2016) The government has quietly been testing blockchain technology for benefits
payments
Marine and Chloé Gueguen (2016) Landscaping the Australian fintech ecosystem
Palo U, Katribas U, Dunne, P, Jong-Sup C, Maude F (2015) D5 Charter, pp. 5–6 
Hopping C (2016) Credit becomes first G-Cloud blockchain PaaS
ODI (2016) Applying blockchain technology in global data infrastructure, p. 26
Ølnes S (2008) Beyond bitcoin enabling smart government using blockchain technology. In:
Scholl HJ, et al. (eds) EGOV 2016, LNCS 9820, 5184(2006):253–264
Oscar W-G (2016) Estonia is using the technology behind bitcoin to secure 1 million health records
Peter S (2016) Bank of England wants next payment system to be blockchain-ready
Phillippa W (2016) Peer to peer energy trading to be trialled in NZ
298 A. Ojo and S. Adebayo

Pilkington M (2016) Blockchain technology: principles and applications. In: Elgar F, Olleros
X, Zhegu M, Elgar E (eds) Research handbook on digital transformations. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, p 39
Probst L, Frideres L, Cambier B, Martinez-Diaz C (2016) Business innovation observatory: block-
chain applications & services. European Union, p 16
Shrier D, Iarossi J, Sharma D, Pentland A (2016) Markets and marketplaces, pp 1–19
Srisukvattananan Y (2016) Overview of blockchain and possible use cases in the Thai payment
system. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp 1–172
Taylor S (2016) Distributed ledger technology: beyond block chain
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2016) UN E-government survey
2016. E-government in support of sustainable development. New York
Wikipedia (2016) Digital 5
Wyman O (2016) Blockchain in capital markets: the prize and the journey. Euro Clear

Dr. Adegboyega Ojo  is Senior Research Fellow at the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National
University of Ireland Galway (NUIG). He leads the E-Government Group at Insight Centre and
serves as Adjunct Lecturer at the College of Engineering and Informatics. His current research
interests include data driven innovations in government, Open data policies and Infrastructures,
data analytics and governance of smart cities. He is a member of the Editorial Boards of the
Government Information Quarterly and International Journal of Public Administration in the
Digital Age.

Samuel Adebayo  a research assistant at Insight Centre for Data Analytics, NUI Galway. Samuel’s
research interests include Open Data, Social media and emerging technologies in government. He
joined the e-Government unit at Insight Centre in April 2015. Samuel holds a bachelor degree in
Business Management from University of Wales and a master’s degree in Information System
Management from National University Ireland Galway. His area of expertise includes project man-
agement, requirement life cycle management, analysis and design, solution evaluation, testing and
quality engineering.
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, and Delfina Malandrino

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.

M. Hogan (*) • O. Harney

National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: michael.hogan@nuigalway.ie; o.harney2@nuigalway.ie;
http://www.linkedin.com/in/owenharney
A. Ojo
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway,
Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: adegboyega.ojo@insight-centre.org
L. Porwol
Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: lukasz.porwol@insight-centre.org
E. Ruijer • A. Meijer
Utrecht University, School of Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: H.J.M.Ruijer@uu.nl; A.J.Meijer@uu.nl
J. Andriessen • M. Pardijs
Wise & Murno Learning Research, Den Haag, The Netherlands
e-mail: jerry@wisenmunro.eu; mirjam@wisemunro.eu
P. Boscolo • E. Palmisano
Comune di Prato, Prato, Italy
e-mail: p.boscolo@comune.prato.it; elena.palmisano@pin.unifi.it
M. Satta
Issy-Média and Ville d’Issy-les-Moulineaux, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
e-mail: Matteo.Satta@ville-issy.fr

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 299

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_12
300 M. Hogan et al.

In order to address these design challenges it is essential to adopt an interdisciplin-

ary and stakeholder-engaged approach to research and innovation. In the current
study, we describe a contextualist approach to the design of an open data collabora-
tion 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 require-
ments 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 understandabil-
ity, usability, and decision-making needs. Similarities and differences across sites
are highlighted along with implications for open data platform design.

Developments in political philosophy, science, technology, and open data informa-

tion systems have prompted a range of proposals and innovations in the domain of
governance and public administration. Within the democratic tradition transparency
is seen as central to democratic governance (Ghaus-Pasha 2007) and has been a
central focus of research and innovation in recent years (Meijer 2015a, 2015b).
Advocates of open government and transparency have long argued that citizens
should have the right to access the data, documents and proceedings of the govern-
ment to allow for effective public scrutiny and oversight and to support increased
public participation and collaboration (Habermas 1962; Bertot et al. 2008). Whether
citizens are focused on monitoring government policy and the consequences of
policy, deliberating and discussing policies and shaping the policy decision making
process, or participating directly in policy development and public value creation,
the use of open data which are available through platforms has the potential to
enhance transparency and trust in government. The internet revolution and wide
adoption of e-government across different parts of the world has made computer-­
mediated transparency a popular strategy for transforming transparency relation-
ships between government and citizens towards greater co-creation and trust (Meijer
2009; Bannister and Connolly 2011). There are well over 8,000 datasets available
on the European Union Open Data Portal (Ojo et al. 2016). This is in addition to

J. Groff • M. Baker • F. Détienne

CNRS – Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France
e-mail: jonathan.groff@telecom-paristech.fr; michael.baker@telecom-paristech.fr;
francoise.detienne@telecom-paristech.fr
V. Scarano • D. Malandrino
University of Salerno, Fisciano (Salerno), Italy
e-mail: vitsca@unisa.it; dmalandrino@unisa.it
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 301

hundreds of open data portals provided at different levels of government to enhance

transparency and spur data-driven innovation.
While the availability of reliable open data on an open data platform can inform
policies and practices in democratic societies, realising any ideal of transparent
democratic governance implies a range of sociotechnical design challenges. These
design challenges may vary depending on the political and social context and spe-
cific scenario of usage where open data is being used by stakeholders to address
specific questions or problems. However, research on challenges and barriers to
open data adoption has not focused much attention on specific scenarios or contexts
of usage (Janssen et al. 2012; Attard et al. 2015; Meijer 2015a). The current study
advances research in the area by adopting a collective intelligence scenario-based
design approach to investigating the barriers to accessing, understanding, and using
open data and the specific information, social-collaborative, and decision-making
needs of stakeholders across a range of different open data usage scenarios. As part
of an ongoing EU innovation project focused on the design of an open data collabo-
ration platform, the current study presents the results of a series of collective intel-
ligence scenario-based design workshops that have shaped the development of
system requirements and ongoing system engineering and evaluation work. The
results highlight a range of barriers to accessing, understanding, and using open
data and a range of user needs that platform designers must consider based on spe-
cific scenarios across five pilot cases involving Local Authorities across four EU
countries. Based on our results and experiences using the collective intelligence
scenario-based design process, we argue that it is feasible to design open data plat-
forms through a collaborative design process that engages key stakeholders. We
further argue that open data platforms engineered this way will better meet stake-
holders’ needs in the context of real-world political and social scenarios.

 pproaching Design for Transparency: The Case

A
for Contextualism

Transparency is generally seen as a fundamental element of democratic governance

(Ghaus-Pasha 2007). It is commonly associated with an entity’s revelation or dis-
closure of information about its own decision processes, procedures, functioning
and performance to external actors (Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch 2012). When
transparency is conceived as a means to an end, transparency initiatives can have
different goals ranging from limiting abuses of power, to tackling corruption,
encouraging improved institutional performance and stimulating open innovation
(Hilgers and Ihl 2010; Fox 2007).
Over the years, perspectives on, as well as treatment of transparency as a concept
have evolved. Historically, two distinct eras of transparency have been identified –
transparency in an era of representative democracy and transparency in an era of
participatory democracy (Meijer 2015b). While representative democracy is founded
on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, with the potential
302 M. Hogan et al.

for people to monitor and discuss policies and policy outcomes, participatory democ-
racy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of citizens and public adminis-
trators in the direction and operation of political systems and the co-creation of
public value. The era of participatory democracy is associated with widespread
availability of government documents and data on websites and open data portals
(Meijer 2015b), which opens the potential not only to monitor government activity,
but also deliberate and discuss policies in an informed manner, and participate and
collaborate in the formulation of policy and the co-creation of public value.
Research and innovation in the area of transparency enhancing technologies
emerges in parallel with different perspectives and conceptualisations of transpar-
ency. Different approaches to conceptualising transparency may influence open data
platform and software design. Consistent with the collective intelligence design
methods developed by Warfield (2006), which emphasise a stakeholder-driven
approach to design, and consistent with the principles of scenario-based design
(Caroll 2000), which emphasises the importance of understanding specific scenarios
of usage in the technology design process, our view is that understanding the context
of technology usage and the specific problems stakeholders are trying to resolve in
context is important for the design of transparency-enhancing technologies. As such,
we advocate contextualism as an orienting philosophy for conceptualising transpar-
ency and for understanding the technology-mediated activities that support transpar-
ency in context. In general, we believe that conceptualisations of transparency can be
understood by reference to different worldviews, or ways of understanding reality,
and different worldviews can influence the development of different frameworks
shaping research, design, and innovation (Hayes et al. 1988). Drawing upon Pepper’s
(1942) distinction between formism, mechanism, organicism and contextualism,
below we will briefly describe these worldviews in turn, and the rationale for adopt-
ing contextualism as an approach to technology design in the current project.
Formism, as defined by Pepper, involves the identification of forms, or aspects of
reality, that share common or similar characteristics. Heald (2006) highlights a vari-
ety of different forms of transparency. For example, Heald (2006) draws a distinc-
tion between nominal versus effective transparency. While a nominal form of
transparency might imply the availability of data on an open data platform, an effec-
tive form of transparency might involve data that is effectively used to shape valued
outcomes (Heald 2006). Similarly, Heald (2006) distinguishes between forms of
transparency that are based on an analysis of historical data (i.e., transparency in
retrospect) and forms of transparency that are based on an analysis of data that
reflects the current state of a system (i.e., transparency in real-time). As noted by
Pepper (1942) identifying different forms, or aspects of reality, can be an important
precursor to the development of more complex models, for example, mechanistic
models that describe causal relationships between different aspects of reality.
Similarly, formism may shape design thinking. For example, in the context of the
design and innovation of an open data platform, formist conceptualisations of trans-
parency may support design thinking in relation to specific aspects of technology
design, related to specific forms of transparency. For instance, drawing upon a dis-
tinction between transparency in retrospect and transparency in real-time, a technol-
ogy design team might include platform features that allow for a distinction to be
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 303

made between current data and historical data, and possibly add prompts that help
users to make these distinctions. At the same time, formist conceptualisations of
transparency may limit design thinking in certain respects. While it might support
design thinking in relation to specific forms of transparency, a formist approach to
analysis does not generally emphasise a dedicated focus on activity in context. As
such, a formist approach to understanding transparency may neglect key aspects of
the context of transparency-related activities, or specific problem situations that
involve interactions between stakeholders who analyse, discuss, and make use of
open data in an effort to support transparency-related activities. In the absence of
this more contextual focus distinctions between different forms of transparency may
have limited value for the overall design of transparency-enhancing technologies.
In Pepper’s (1942) scheme, a mechanistic worldview may build upon formist
accounts by specifying how components parts of a system (or machine) work
together. From this view, different forms of transparency may be viewed as different
components of a system of interdependencies. For example, a mechanistic model
may be developed to explain how components of transparency work together to
produce trust in societies (Meijer 2009; Mei and Dewan 2014). Specific compo-
nents of transparency such as visibility (the degree to which information is complete
and easily located) and inferability (the degree to which information can be used to
draw verifiable inferences) may in turn be influenced by other components of a
system, and a mechanistic model of transparency may become increasingly com-
plex as more components of reality are identified and modelled. For example, stud-
ies report that increased demand drives up visibility; and demand is strongest for
issues that represent acute concerns of citizens, such as finance, health and security
(Piotrowski et  al. 2011). Although complex mechanistic models of transparency
describing many component interdependencies can be developed to shed light on
specific issues relevant for transparency-enhancing technology design, by virtue of
their mechanistic structure, and the defined set of variables and components in the
model, mechanistic models may constrain the ability of a design team to consider
the varied actions and needs of users across different scenarios and contexts.
According to Pepper (1942), distinct from mechanism as a worldview is organi-
cism. From the perspective of organicism transparency would be viewed as part of a
living system that actively develops through various stages of maturity or functional
complexity. For instance, the Transparency Maturity Model (Cappelli et al. 2013)
characterises five levels of transparency  – opaque, disclosed, comprehended, reli-
able, and participative. At the lowest level of maturity, the opaque level, the organiza-
tion provides information access to the external environment in a non-­systematic
fashion. In the disclosed level, the organization provides information access to the
external environment, but not necessarily in a way that is easily comprehended or
responsive to feedback from external stakeholders. The comprehended level enables
access to understandable information and thus facilitates a higher level of transpar-
ency and engagement. At the reliable level, the organization allows for auditability of
the information provided. Finally, at the participative level the organisation allows
for ongoing dialogue with the external environment about the information provided.
As a worldview orientation, Pepper (1942) notes that organicism is linked to ideal-
ism, in the sense that there is an assumption that a system has the potential to develop
304 M. Hogan et al.

toward a more ideal state of functioning. However, these ­idealist assumptions may
not be aligned with the activity in context and thus by adopting organicism as a
worldview, designers of transparency-enhancing technologies may neglect the prob-
lems and activities of technology users in context and thus fail to develop technolo-
gies that are well suited to the problems users are working to resolve.
As an approach to analysis and design, Pepper (1942) notes that contextualism
emphasises a focus on activity in context. Contextualism allows for different strands
of enquiry in relation to different activities in context, each of which may be impor-
tant for successful workings, or the resolution of a specific problem in context. For
example, a contextualist might consider the activities of key stakeholders seeking to
access, understand, and use open data – the key barriers they face and the specific
information, social-collaborative, and decision-making needs they have across dif-
ferent problem solving scenarios. In a participatory democracy scenario, where
there is a focus on collaboration over open data in response to a specific political
and social problem, one strand of contextualist enquiry might focus on the qualities
of data, such as accessibility, usability, understandability, informativeness and
auditability of the data (Cappelli et  al. 2013). A related strand of analysis might
focus on the social and organisational context within which data is sourced, includ-
ing who the information holders are, the relevance of different types of public sector
information, the availability of the information, and the distribution channels of
information (Deloitte 2013). An analysis of these and related issues may be essen-
tial to the success of the participatory democracy group working together in the
local problem situation. Notably, according to Pepper (1942), adopting the contex-
tualist approach to research and innovation implies a focus on the specific purpose
or goal(s) of actors in the problematic situation, and success is determined by the
extent to which their purpose or goal(s) are achieved.
Given our focus on the design of a new open data platform, and our focus on
developing system requirements that were matched to the context or scenario of
usage identified across our pilot sites, we adopted a contextual and collective intel-
ligence scenario-based approach to transparency research and innovation.
Specifically, in the current study, we draw upon the collective intelligence scenario-­
based design thinking of stakeholders to define the scope of our analysis of open
data transparency and our approach to the design of a new open data platform that
may help to overcome barriers to accessing, understanding, and using open data and
fulfil the key needs of stakeholders working across a variety of scenarios.

Transparency Design and the Route-to-PA Project

The research findings reported in this paper emerge as part of an ongoing EU inno-
vation project, the “Route-to-PA” project (http://routetopa.eu/). Route-to-PA is
focused on the design and evaluation of an open data collaboration platform that can
be used by citizens and public administrators across a wide variety of usage sce-
narios. As the goal of the project is to design user-friendly transparency-enabling
technologies for public administrations across a range of EU countries categorised
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 305

by the Open Data Barometer (2015)1 as high capacity (UK, France, and the
Netherlands) and emerging and advancing (Italy and Ireland), it was important to
understand the varied political and social contextswhere our design and innovation
is to be realised. This involved an analysis of the open data readiness of each coun-
try, and a mapping of the local open data context for specific usage scenarios that
reflect ongoing priorities of citizens and public administrations in each country (see
http://routetopa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/D7.1_Market_analysis.pdf/). To
maximize the socio-technical capabilities and vision of the design team, it was
essential to engage with key stakeholders and users in each pilot site to understand
the barrriers to accessing, understanding, andusing open data, options to overcome
these barriers, and the key needs and requirements of users across a range of moni-
torial, deliberative, and participatory democracy scenarios. Furthermore, as the goal
of the Route-to-PA project is the design of a flexible open data collaboration plat-
form that allows for a range of democratic activities, up to and including collabora-
tion and co-creation of public value, it was essential that the range of needs
stakeholders specified in response to scenarios include not only information needs,
but also social-collaborative and decision-making needs. In order words, the open
data platform needed to allow for collaboration, shared learning, and decision mak-
ing in the context of accessible, usable, understandable open data. As such, we
approached our contextual analysis and system design work using an integrative
collective intelligence scenario-based design approach. Below we describe our
approach to system design in more detail and present the results of our study, high-
lighting in particular the range of barriers, options, and needs our stakeholders iden-
tified and how we have grounded our open data platform design in this collective
intelligence work.

 dvancing Our Knowledge and Innovation Potential Using

A
Collective Intelligence Scenario-Based Design

While it is widely recognised that open data platforms can foster democratic pro-
cesses by promoting transparency (Lourenço 2013; Dawes and Helbig 2010;
Janssen 2011), researchers have identified a range barriers that hamper effective
service design and the full potential of open data innovations. Barriers to effective
service design in the area of open data include limited organizational resources and
budget, legislative challenges, poor information quality, lack of usability and techni-
cal issues (Janssen et al. 2012; Attard et al. 2015; Meijer 2015a ). In working to
overcome these barriers researchers have proposed a range of generic user require-
ments (Lourenço 2013; Jaeger et al. 2012; Van Velzen et al. 2009) and assessment
frameworks for open data portals and policies (Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia
2012; Zuiderwijk and Janssen 2014; Lee and Kwak 2012). These approaches either

 Open Data Barometer (January 2015) – http://barometer.opendataresearch.org/

1
306 M. Hogan et al.

take users (both citizens and government) or open data portals as point of departure
for analysis. However, the unique context and scenarios of usage and the unique
perspectives of stakeholders in relation to information, social-collaborative, and
decision-making needs are less often considered in the literature and open data plat-
form design process (Dahlander et  al. 2009). Focusing on specific scenarios of
usage and the specific needs of users may be important for adoption, uptake and use
of open data and open data platforms.
At a basic level, effective computer-mediated transparency implies that external
or receiving parties are capable of processing information that has been made avail-
able (Heald 2006). However, platforms for open-data enabled transparency are
often limited in this regard. Literature on open data portal software shows that social
media features are limited on existing or first generation open data portal software
or platforms (Alexopoulos et al. 2014). Specifically, these platforms do not provide
beyond features for sharing information about datasets on major social media plat-
forms, thus limiting the potential use of open data in participatory democracy sce-
narios. In addition, features for checking compliance with metadata standards and
good practices (Greiner et al. 2015) are very limited, thus limiting feedback from
users to data providers that may enhance the quality of data published online.
Understanding the unique perspectives of stakeholders and their unique scenarios of
usage is critical for the design of platforms and platform software features that are
responsive to user needs.
Central to our design work in the Route-to-PA project is the combination of col-
lective intelligence (Warfield 2006) with scenario-based design (Caroll 2000) and
agile user story (Cohn 2004) methods. Collective intelligence methods ensure input
from a diverse range of representative stakeholders in the design process and the use
of scenario-based design methods ensures that identified needs and requirements of
users are grounded in an understanding of specific political and social scenarios that
are relevant to stakeholders. Finally, the use of agile user stories allows for the
specification of user needs, and reasons for those needs, at a level of detail that
allows for agile software development of specific functionalities. Working across
four EU countries and five pilot sites, we used these methods in a series of carefully
designed workshops, one in each pilot site, for the purpose of developing a compre-
hensive set of user needs, as proposed by key stakeholders.
Each workshop brought together experts, academics, industry specialists, open
data practitioners, representatives of governments, open data researchers, and
potential users (including citizens, representatives of citizens and social service
institutes, various stakeholder groups, and journalists) to reflect on (a) barriers to
accessing, understanding and using open data, (b) options to overcome specific cat-
egories of barriers, and (c) specific user needs and requirements necessary for con-
sideration in the design of the Route-To-PA platform. More specifically, based on
John Warfield’s (1994) science of design, in the first phase of each workshop, we
used collective intelligence methodologies to understand barriers to accessing and
using open data, and options to overcome these barriers. Participants then worked to
develop scenario-based user needs (Rosson and Carroll 2002), which involved
­profiling user needs in light of the barriers and options and high level scenarios of
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 307

open data usage. This included a separate focus on (1) information needs – what
kinds of data do stakeholders want?; (2) social and collaborative interaction needs –
how do stakeholders want to use and interact with the data?; and (3) understand-
abilty, usability and decision-making needs – what kinds of decisions do stakeholders
want to make with the data and how would they like to use the data? High level
scenarios including multiple users were used to prompt idea writing and discussion
in relation to user needs. The scenarios addressed various contextual issues, relevant
to each workshop site, and aligned with the primary case focus and societal issue in
each pilot site. For example, the Dublin workshop focused on community network-
ing and opportunity creation; the Groningen workshop focused on the challenge of
population decline; the Den Haag workshop focused on employment and opportu-
nity creation; the Prato workshop focused on local policy and budget issues; and the
workshop in Issy-les-Moulineaux focused on the facilitation of start-up companies
and the digital economy. The research team conducted a meta-analysis of barriers,
options, and needs across all sites and used this analysis to inform the specific use-­
case models and system requirements for the Route-to-PA platform. Below we
describe these methods and our results in more detail.

Method and Results

Scenarios and Pilot Sample Details

A total of 83 workshop participants across the five sites participated in the study.
Participants represented a broad variety of stakeholders with stakeholder represen-
tation distributed evenly across sites. Participants included representatives of stake-
holder groups, business representatives, NGO representatives, public administrators
and other government representatives, data experts, developers, and researchers.
See Fig. 1 for a breakdown of stakeholders across sites.

Workshops

Each pilot site ran a workshop following a common method. The workshop began
with a collective intelligence (CI) analysis of barriers to accessing, understanding
and using open data, followed by an analysis of options that may overcome these
barriers. Based on Warfield’s (1994) science of generic design, the CI process is a
facilitated problem solving methodology that helps groups to develop outcomes that
integrate contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and per-
spectives. Established as a formal system of facilitation in 1980 after a developmen-
tal phase that started in 1974, CI was designed to assist groups in dealing with
complex issues. The CI approach carefully delineates content and process roles,
assigning to participants responsibility for contributing ideas and to the facilitator
308 M. Hogan et al.

Stakeholder Profile Across Sites

60

50

40
Business

Stakeholder
30 groups/NGO/Journalists
Data Experts and
Technologists
20 Government

Researchers
10

0
Den Haag Dublin Groningen Issy Les Prato
(M=15; F=2) (M=11; F=7) (M=11; F=6) Molineaux (M=9; F=6)
(M=11; F=6)

Fig. 1  Stakeholder profile across sites

responsibility for choosing and implementing selected methodologies for generat-

ing, clarifying, structuring, interpreting, and amending ideas. Emphasis is given to
balancing behavioural and technical demands of group work (Broome and Chen
1992) while honouring design laws concerning variety, parsimony, and saliency
(Ashby 1958). CI has been applied in a variety of situations to accomplish many dif-
ferent goals, including assisting city councils in making budget cuts (Coke and
Moore 1981), developing instructional units (Sato 1979), designing a national
agenda for paediatric nursing (Feeg 1988), creating computer-based information
systems for organizations (Keever 1989), improving the U.S.  Department of
Defense’s acquisition process (Alberts 1992), promoting world peace (Christakis
1987), improving Tribal governance process in Native American communities
(Broome and Cromer 1991), and training facilitators (Broome and Fulbright 1995).
CI has also been recently used in a variety of basic science applications, for example,
to design a national well-being measurement system (Hogan et al. 2015), to under-
stand the adaptive functions of music listening (Groarke and Hogan 2016), and to
design a student-centred conceptualisation of critical thinking (Dwyer et al. 2014).
CI utilizes a carefully selected set of methodologies, which may include the nomi-
nal group technique, ideawriting, interpretive structural modelling, and field and pro-
file representations. The methodologies are matched to the phase of group interaction
and the requirements of the situation. For the purposes of idea generation in our work-
shops, the ideawriting technique was used, along with categorisation or field represen-
tation of ideas. Ideawriting is a method that utilizes relatively small groups of 4–6
persons each, formed by dividing a larger group into several working teams, for the
purpose of developing ideas and exploring the meaning of those ideas through open
discussion (Warfield 1994). Ideawriting involves five steps: (a) presentation of a stim-
ulus question to participants; (b) silent generation of ideas in writing by each partici-
pant working alone; (c) exchange of written sheets of ideas among all group members,
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 309

with opportunity for individuals to add ideas as they read others’ papers; (e) discus-
sion and clarification of unique ideas; and (f) an oral report of the ideas generated by
each working group in a plenary session. In this plenary session, duplicate ideas across
the working groups are eliminated from the set and new ideas are added; the resulting
set of ideas is then ready for use in the next stage of the group’s work.
In the current application of CI, workshop participants first engaged in ideawrit-
ing in response to the question:
“What are barriers to accessing, understanding and using Open Data?”

Each workshop generated a set of barriers, which were thematically arranged

into categories using a paired comparison method to create a field representation of
clusters of related ideas (for more details, see RezaeiZadeh et  al. 2017; Warfield
2006). Next, workshop participants engaged with these categories to generate
options for overcoming barriers. This was done by means of another round of
­ideawriting and discussion. In the third phase of the workshop, participants docu-
mented scenario-based user needs, by means of agile user stories. This involved
profiling user needs in light of the barriers and options and high level scenarios of
open data usage (see Table 1 for an overview of scenarios; see appendix 1 for sam-
ple scenarios). This included a separate focus on (1) information needs, (2) social/
collaborative interaction needs, and (3) understandabilty, usability and decision-­
making needs. Idea writing was used for each cluster of needs. High level scenarios
including multiple users were used to prompt thinking in relation to user needs. All
the agile user stories generated by participants were generated in the form:
As User Type _______, I want ______, so that I can ______
Participants were asked to consider the roles and needs of the different actors in
each scenario, and generate a list of needs for each actor. Ideas were subsequently
discussed by sub-groups and all ideas and handouts were then gathered and collated
by the workshop facilitation team. Each pilot site facilitation team conducted an anal-
ysis of needs by categorising related needs within each of the three domains (i.e.,
information, social/collaborative interaction needs, and understandabilty, usability
and decision-making) and documenting the frequency of needs in each category.
These analyses are reported in detail in an EU report published online here: http://
routetopa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/D2.3_-User_stories_on_Open_Data_and_
Transparency-v1.0.pdf. The research team engaged in a further meta-analysis of bar-
riers, options, and needs across all sites. The results of this analysis are reported below.

 arriers to Accessing, Understanding, and Using Open Data,

B
and Options for Overcoming These Barriers

Figure 2 below presents the results of a relative frequency analysis of barriers to

accessing, understanding, and using open data across sites, with the total number of
barrier statements in each category noted in the legend. A set of 12 categories were
310 M. Hogan et al.

Table 1 Scenarios
Pilot Context Actors involved Use of open data in scenarios
Dublin Deliberative • Public • Societal Issues
Democracy; Administrator • Improved Govemment
Participatory • Entrepreneur financial efficiency
Democracy • Citizen • Business development
• Local Activist • Community building
• Local Group • Citizen–Government
Coordinator communication
• Civic Hacker
Groningen Deliberative • Principal •  overnment actions
G
Democracy; • Public monitoring and
Participatory Administrator collaboration
Democracy • Community • Business community
Activist collaboration
• Entrepreneur
• Local Business
Community
• Local Community
Members
Den Haag Deliberative • Public •  ocial problem solving –
S
Democracy; Administrator unemployment of disabled
Participator • Business Owner
Democracy • Citizen
• Unemployed
• Entrepreneur
• Disabled Job
Seeker
Prato Monitorial • Public •  itizen–Government
C
Democracy, Administrator communication
Deliberative • Student • Inclusive policy making
Democracy; • Citizen • Citizen collaboration and
• Community co-creation
Activist • Service improvement
• Journalist • Government actions
• Accountant monitoring
Issy-les-­ Deliberative • Entrepreneur • Social problem solving-­
Moulineaux Democracy, • Local Community ecology, technology, and
Participatory Members mobility services
Democracy • Businesses
• Public
Administrator
• Domain Expert

identified by two interdependent coders using the paired comparison method

(Warfield 2006). These included a number of categories of barriers related to gov-
ernment and organisational issues, such as: Conflict and Cooperation; Government
and Organisational: Resistance to Open Data Initiatives; Government and
Organisational: Fear of Losing Control of Data; and Privacy and Security. Another
set of barrier categories were linked to technical, data, and resource issues, specifi-
cally: Data Applications; Data Management/Policies; Data Quality, Accessibility,
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 311

Relative Frequencies of Barriers Across Sites

Citizen Engagement (N=8)
40
Conflict and Cooperation (N=19)

Cost (N=9)

30
Data Applications (N=14)

Data Managem ent/Policies (N=25)

Data quality, Accessibility, and Usability

20 (N=43)

Government and Organisational: Resistance

to Open Data Initiatives (N=13)

Government and Organisational: Fear of

Losing Control of Data (n=11)
10 Motivation (N=11)

Privacy and Security(N=15)

Skills and Training (N=20)

0
Den Haag Dublin Groningen Issy Less Prato Technical, Infrastructure and Resources
Molineaux (N=25)

Fig. 2  – Relative frequencies of barriers across sites

and Usability; Technical, Infrastructure and Resources; and Cost. Finally, a set of
barrier categories related to training and engagement issues, including: Citizen
Engagement; Skills and Training; and Motivation. Table 2 presents a sample of bar-
riers from each category.
The frequency analysis – that is, an analysis of the number of barrier statements
generated by each site across the 12 categories, controlling for the total number of
ideas generated in each site – allows for comparison of the relative weight stake-
holders in each pilot site placed on the various barrier categories. Looking at Fig. 2,
it can be seen, for example, that 35% of all barriers generated in Prato related to
Data Quality, Accessibility, and Usability. As such, this category accounted for the
highest percentage of total barriers generated by stakeholders in Prato. Looking
across the pilot sites, it is also evident that the category Data Quality, Accessibility,
and Usability accounted for the highest or joint-highest percentage of total barriers
in Groningen, Issy-les-Moulineaux, and Den Haag.

Options to Overcome Categories of Barriers

Table 2 also presents a sample of options generated by participants, linked to specific

barriers. Notably, a large proportion of options across sites related to efforts to respond
proactively and positively to government and organisational resistance, which may be
seen as central to enhancing overall open data infrastructures and practices.
Furthermore, a large portion of options across sites focused on the need for skills and
training, citizen engagement, and efforts to enhance data quality and usability.
312 M. Hogan et al.

Table 2  – Categories of barriers and options across sites, including samples

Categories of barriers Sample barriers Sample options
Citizen Engagement Failure by government Open a channel for the public
departments to advertise that to communicate with
datais available to the public governments
Minimal publicity about data Put good examples in the
available leading to lack of limelight (competent
awareness of its existence citizens)
Conflict and Cooperation Conflict between wanting to Establish an open data
share data and the data being training officer or advisor
used as criticism within an organisation
Conflict between privacy and Encourage a code of conduct
openness that allows fair discussion
and not vindictive trolling
Cost Inadequate finances to fund Data creation should be
the sustained collection and driven by user demand
sharing of open data
The cost of accessing data Centralize streamline formats
may be prohibitive license metadata for all
datasets from all sources
Data Applications Lack of examples available Make a connection with
for smart use of open data education
Scarce effectiveness of More complete platform for
research tools: queries are better search ability of data
not tailored on real users
needs
Data Management/Policies Lack of information about Set up good information
the circumstances of data management practices across
production all public bodies – data
co-ordinates
Lack of data maintenance Regulate Transparency from
all sides (policy making,
showcase it. budgets): reward
it
Data Quality, Accessibility, and Data is published but cannot Involve users in the
Usability be found and does not have a development of the platform
user-friendly format
Insufficient data description Be clear about what is what:
when collected, by whom.
how. and so on
Government and Fear of how transparency via Explain what open data is
Organisational: Fear of Losing open data might affect the Facilitate a culture change: it
Control of Data organisation is ok to make mistakes,
Fear of misuse of data political backup for
management
(continued)
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 313

Table 2 (continued)
Categories of barriers Sample barriers Sample options
Government and Failure to understand the Demonstrate the business
Organisational: Resistance to organisational benefits of case to local governments
open data initiatives releasing open data through case studies,
It will take a lot of effort to feedback and further
convince people to use open innovation outcomes
data Support and drive
organisational change
programs; Organisational
change management is
essential.
Motivation Failure to understand the Identify and publish data that
benefits that Open Data can is relevant and engaging
offer
Data publishing is not Promote the benefits of an
perceived as a “mission” in open data portal and give
administration’s point of good examples
view’
Privacy and Security Personal information Very clear data protocol and
accessed by public canlead guidance
to data protection
infringement
Some data is commercially Profiling of platform
sensitive members could support their
research without violating
personal information or
property rights
Skills and Training Inadequate technical Provide information, training
expertise to produce data in a and education, for all
usable format government agencies on the
benefits of an open data
portal
Users lack the skills to Provide open data FAQs for
process data and translate basic users
into information
Technical, Infrastructure, and Data is spread over different Pooling of public sector
Resources organizations and resources
departments Better curation and
Inadequate institutional maintenance of data quality
capacity to provide open data
services, to develop
standards and to provide
expertise

As was the case with regard to barriers, there were also differences in the relative
frequencies of options across sites. For example, while the Technical, Infrastructure
and Resources category accounted for a high percentage of total options generated
in Den Haag and Issy-les-Moulineaux, fewer options were generated in response to
this category in the other sites. Similarly, while Citizen Engagement received a high
314 M. Hogan et al.

Fig. 3  Relative frequencies of options across sites

percentage of generated options in Groningen and Issy-les-Moulineaux, it received

less attention in the other sites. Also, whereas options in Dublin were spread across
all categories, options were more focused on a smaller set of specific categories in
Den Haag and Prato. This suggests that, from the perspective of stakeholders, these
pilot sites, at least in their initial evaluation of the problem situation, have identified
a particularly strong need for options to overcome barriers for a select number of
categories (Fig. 3).

User Needs

1. Information Needs
Stakeholders also highlighted specific needs of users in light of specific scenarios
of usage. Table 3 presents sample information needs for each category.
Given the range of scenarios, the user information needs generated across sites
were numerous and diverse, allowing for interesting comparisons (see Fig. 4). For
example, while the focus of the Den Haag workshop was on employment and
opportunity creation, resulting in a high proportion of information needs being
developed under the category Jobseekers Information, the Dublin workshop, which
focused on community engagement and planning generated information needs
across a much wider range, including: Community Information; Planning
Information; Services, Amenities and Event Information; Business and Financial
Information; and Child and Education-related. Also of note, for example, is the
high percentage of needs devoted to Business and Financial Data, in two pilot
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 315

Table 3  Sample information needs across sites

Categories of information needs Sample needs
Broadband Data It is important to know where broadband internet is available
if you want to start up your own business
Fast internet to know whether I can work from home
Business and Financial Data Access to economic data
To find out about local business rates in the area
Child and Education-related Projection of the amount of students for the coming 10 years
Knowing what the future of the school will be so that I can
make plans for the future of the children
Community Information Needs A list of community groups and different types of
communities in the city
Data to provide me with new insights on mv community
Contact Information Where and with whom can I talk about e.g. education policy
Contact with government
Demographic Information Birth rates and migration rates
Population statistics
Government Role/Transparency To know what the government and city are doing about
population decline in education
To get information about Open Data set traceability
Health Data Available data about health services in my village
Information regarding health services and support facilities
Jobseeker Information Overview of regulations
Standardised CV templates
Legal and Policy Data Information about laws and regulations, like zoning
Data on European community legislation
Market Developments: Housing Information of the last 20 years to examine whether there is
Data indeed a housing dip
Housing value data
Planning Data Information relating to developmental programmes
Local news, planning applications: Events in neighbourhood,
Road works, Environmental projects
Services, Amenities, and Issues Information about opening times for parks, libraries, etc.
Information about cultural heritage sites
Social Issues and Information To see and ‘up to date’ list of volunteers in my community
with skillset and reputation information
Datasets on citizen demographics
Transport and Parking Data Journey planning information for people with
disabilities
Location of electric charging station for electric cars

sites – Issy-les-Moulineaux, and Prato – two sites that have a focus on business and
local budgeting scenarios, respectively. It is likely that the information needs across
sites will develop further as each pilot site works to realise their scenarios by refer-
ence to the key open data that allows for effective collaboration between citizens
and public administrators.
316 M. Hogan et al.

Relative Frequencies of Information Needs Across Sites

120 Broadband Data (N=4)

Business and Financial Data (N=29)

Child and Education-related Data (N=12)

100
Community Information Needs (N=13)

Contact Information (N=8)

80
Demographic Information (N=8)

Government Role/Transparency (N=7)

60
Health Data (N=3)

Jobseeker Information (N=21)

40
Legal and Policy Data (N=13)

Market Developments: Housing Data (N=3)

20
Planning Data (N=15)

Services, Amenities, and Issues (N=25)

0 Social Issues and Information (N=9)
Den Haag Dublin Groningen Issy Les Prato
Molineaux Transport and Parking Data (N=17)

Fig. 4  Relative frequencies of information needs across sites

2. Social-collaborative needs
Table 4 presents the category analysis for social-collaborative needs across sites.
Participants identified a range of social and collaborative needs, highlighting a num-
ber of forms of interaction for use over Open Data, as well as various considerations
and capabilities which would enhance the impact and appeal of the platform.
Participants highlighted the need for coaching and support, dialogue and discussion
spaces; feedback, moderation and maintenance of these spaces; platform tool capa-
bilities for interaction; varied forms of interaction over the data; and sharing and
requesting data.
Analysis of the relative frequencies of social and collaborative needs (see Fig. 5)
revealed that the Forms of interaction category accounted for a high percentage of
the total social and collaborative needs in three pilot sites: Den Haag, Dublin, and
Groningen. Coaching and support received the highest weighting in Issy-les-­
Moulineaux, and it also received a high weighting in Den Haag (along with Forms
of interaction). Platform Tools and Capabilities for Interaction, which had the high-
est weighting in Prato, also received high relative weighting in Issy-les-Moulineaux
and Dublin. Examples from the three categories highlighted above emphasise, for
example, the need for flexibility of interaction: “there must be multiple modes”
(Forms of interaction); the need for support tools to be in place to “help users to
select the relevant data” (Coaching and support); and the ability to easily share data
analyses with others: “To be able to easily share graphs and reports obtained by TET
on social networks” (Platform Tool and Capabilities for Interaction).
3. Understandabilty, usability, and decision-making needs
Participants also used their scenarios to generate a set of understandabilty, usabil-
ity, and decision-making needs (see Table  5). Categories of needs here include:
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 317

Table 4  Sample social and collaborative needs across sites

Categories of social and
collaborative needs Sample needs
Coaching and Support Learn to use functionalities
Expert facilitation
Contact Information Identify players in the field, personal contact
Personal contact regarding quality improvement
Dialogue and Discussion Space Somewhere both PA and locals can see a shared
conversation
To rank suggestions from participants to the discussion
Feedback A forum rich with feedback from politicians
Share feedback received from Public administrators
Forms of Interaction To share graphics and visual reports obtained via SPOD/
TET on Social Network
App on mobile phone
Moderation and Maintenance To have a moderator associated to a discussion
To ensure group-specific communication
Personalisation The ability to share my profile
To be able to moderate my portal
Platform tool and capabilities for Notifications on the evolution of specific societal issues
interaction (e.g. distribution of public subsidies)
Make data searchable
Sharing and requesting data The ability to share data on social media To request new
datasets
Standardised Protocols A set of standardised forms and feedback response e.g.
forms and Disqus
Requests to follow a set format (e.g. when reporting a
flood – send a photo)

certification tools; decision-making support tools; guidance and support tools; abil-
ity to visualise and personalising data, and data analysis and reporting tools.
A relative frequency analysis of Understandability, Usability, and Decision-­
making Needs (see Fig.  6) shows that, in four out of five pilot sites (Den Haag,
Dublin, Groningen, and Prato), the category The Ability to Visualise and Personalise
Data, generated the highest percentage of needs. This category included affordances
which would help users to understand and use open data, by allowing a degree of
flexibility and personal control over the way data is presented. Ideas in this category
referred to the need, for example, to “Filter data to my neighbourhood/interests”, to
“Return all data about my local area and visualize”, and “To be able to aggregate
geographic data belonging to different data sets on a new map”. Similarly, the cat-
egory Data Analysis and Reporting Tools included a high percentage of overall
needs across four pilot sites (Dublin, Groningen, Issy-les-Moulineaux, and Prato).
This category includes a number of needs which are important for deeper analysis
of open data, including: “Modelling tools that I can use with open data and citi-
zens”, “Data mining tools”, and the need “To build in real time graphics and visual
reports using Open Data”.
318 M. Hogan et al.

Relative Frequencies of Social and Collaborative Needs Across Sites

70 Coaching and support (N=11)
Contact Information (N=9)
Dialogue and Discussion Space
(N=20)
60 Feedback (N=12)
Forms of Interaction (N=29)
Moderation and Maintenance (N=5)
50 Personalisation (N=2)
Platform Tool and Capabilities for
Interaction (N=26)
Sharing and Requesting Data (N=12)
40 Standarised Protocols (N=2)

30

20

10

0
Den Haag Dublin Groningen Issy Les Prato
Molineaux

Fig. 5  Relative frequencies of social and collaborative needs across sites

Table 5  Sample understandability, usability, and decision-making needs across sites

Categories of understandability,
usability, and decision-making
needs Sample needs
Certification Tools To certify a published data set or report
To be able to demonstrate that a Data set or a report in my
possession has been produced by the platform
Data Analysis and Reporting Better labelling and contextual information on data
Tools Data merge and wrangling tools
Decision-Making Support Tools Mapping platform that gathers public opinion on local area
plans
A tool to discuss an issue and add data elements to
complement discussion
Guidance and Support Tools Example of successful use app
Knowing which people use app
Partner Websites Complementary information on other websites
A support to optimize functionalities
Profiling Find similar entrepreneur profile on other open data
websites
Find comments which match with my own issues
The Ability to Visualise and Filter data to my neighbourhood/interests Modifiable maps
Personalise Data and customisable dashboards
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 319

Relative Frequencies of Understandability, Usability, and Decision-

making Needs Across Sites
100

Certification Tools (N=2)

80
Data Analysis and Reporting Tools
(N=35)

Decision-making Support Tools (N=15)

60
Guidance and Support Tools (N=17)

40 Partner Websites (N=4)

Profiling (N=4)

20
The Ability to Visualise and Personalise
Data (N=49)

0
Den Haag Dublin Groningen Issy Les Prato
Molineaux

Fig. 6  Relative frequencies of understandability, usability, and decision-making needs across

sites

Discussion

Research and innovation focused on the design of open data platforms has the
potential to foster democratic processes by promoting transparency (Lourenço
2013; Dawes and Helbig 2010; Janssen 2011). A range of barriers have been identi-
fied that hamper effective service design and the full potential of open data plat-
forms, including poor information quality, lack of usability and technical issues,
limited organizational resources, and legislative challenges (Janssen et  al. 2012;
Attard et al. 2015; Meijer 2015a). A range of generic user requirements have been
proposed to overcome barriers to effective open data platform design and service
delivery (Lourenço 2013; Jaeger et al. 2012; Van Velzen et al. 2009), but the unique
scenarios of usage and the unique needs of stakeholders are less often considered in
the open data platform design process (Dahlander et al. 2009).
The current study reflects a contextualist approach to conceptualising transpar-
ency and open data platform design, drawing in particular on the collective intelli-
gence scenario-based design ideas of stakeholders across five pilot sites in an effort
to analyse barriers to accessing, understanding, and using open data, options to
overcome these barriers, and the specific needs of open data platform users working
across a variety of scenarios. This research was conducted as part of an EU innova-
tion project, the Route-to-PA project. A primary goal of the project is the design of
an open data collaboration platform that can be flexibly used by citizens and public
administrators across a wide variety of usage scenarios that reflect a range of moni-
torial, deliberative, and participatory democracy activities. It was important for the
platform design team to understand the varied political and social contexts where
the open data platform is to be used, and the key needs of stakeholders. By using a
320 M. Hogan et al.

combination of collective intelligence (Warfield 2006), scenario-based design

(Caroll 2000) and agile user story (Cohn 2004) methods, we were able to achieve a
number of goals in the current study. First, we received design input from a diverse
range of representative stakeholders. Second, we identified needs and requirements
of users that were grounded in an understanding of specific, relevant political and
societal challenges they face. Third, we generated a set of user needs specified at a
level of detail that allow for ongoing agile software development of specific
functionalities.
Using these methods, we identified 12 categories of barriers to accessing, under-
standing, and using open data. These include two categories which relate to govern-
ment and organisational barriers: Resistance to Open Data Initiatives, and Fear of
Losing Control of Data. In relation to Resistance to Open Data Initiatives, stake-
holders noted barriers such as, failure to understand the organisational benefits of
releasing open data; resistance due to the fact that “It will take a lot of effort to
convince people to use open data”, and a refusal by politicians to transfer knowl-
edge or power. Similarly, in relation to the category Fear of Losing Control of Data,
stakeholders highlighted barriers such as: fear of loss of data ownership once data is
released in an open format, and fear that the government will lose its reputation if it
pursues the path of openness and transparency. Consistent with these findings, it has
been argued that government departments will likely resist releasing precious infor-
mation assets that define their political status and bargaining power vis-à-vis other
government departments and stakeholders (Peled 2011). Increased cooperation
across government departments may be essential in efforts to promote transparency
into the future.
Notably, all EU countries represented in the current study are largely defined by
systems of representative democracy, which means that passing over control to citi-
zens to access and analyse open data relevant to political and societal issues may
continue to be a challenge as governments seek to negotiate participatory demo-
cratic or networked governance arrangements. At the same time, a range of options
were proposed in response to these two categories barriers, including: increased
effort in providing enjoyable and intuitive interfaces for local government staff to
publish data as open data; celebrating open data innovation leaders in organisations
to highlight the importance and value of their work; and providing information,
training and education for all government agencies on the benefits of an open data
portal.
Stakeholders identified two additional categories of barriers that are closely
related to the government and organisational barriers described above, specifically,
Privacy and Security and Conflict and Cooperation. In the Privacy and Security
category, which Janssen and colleagues call the legislation barriers (Janssen et al.
2012), stakeholder’s barrier statements highlighted issues such as: personal infor-
mation accessed by the public can lead to data protection infringement; some data
are commercially sensitive; and privacy and security may be compromised by con-
flicting roles and interests between politicians, management, and the public. Options
for overcoming barriers in this category included: efforts to organise multi-level
training on how to use data safely; initiatives showcasing good practice; and research
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 321

examining how potentially sensitive data is used in an open environment in other

countries.
In relation to the Conflict and Cooperation category, stakeholders generated bar-
riers such as: conflict and lack of progress in the development of open data initia-
tives due to contrary interests; and lack of cooperation between government and
public. Stakeholders suggested a range of options in response to this category of
barriers, including efforts to introduce procedures to standardise/simplify data
release; establish the practice of asking and having to justify “why not” around data
release; and establish a data review board for an organisation to help individual
public administrators with data release decisions.
The four categories of barriers discussed above all relate to government and
organisational issues. Moving beyond these types of barriers, stakeholders also
identified a number of categories of barriers which were more closely related to
technical or resource issues. This is in line with the findings of Attard et al. (2015),
and Janssen et al. (2012), who identified technical barriers as impediments to open
data platform service delivery. In the current study, five categories of barriers
emerged that were related to technical, data, and resource issues, specifically: Data
Applications; Data Management/Policies; Data Quality, Accessibility, and
Usability; Technical, Infrastructure and Resources; and Cost.
With regard to Data Applications, stakeholders highlighted barriers such as: lack
of examples available for smart use of open data; and issues with the effectiveness
of research tools, whereby queries are not tailored to real user’s needs. Options
generated in response to barriers in this category included: making a connection
with education, to provide examples; and providing a more complete platform for
better searchability of data.
Stakeholders also generated a significant number of barriers focused on data
management and policies. Barriers in this category included: lack of information
about the circumstances of data production; and lack of data maintenance. As a
means to overcoming such barriers, stakeholders suggested the implementation of
“good information practices” within public bodies. It was also suggested that the
regulation of transparency activities, incentivised with rewards, would address bar-
riers in this category.
Stakeholders also generated a related category of barriers: Data Quality,
Accessibility, and Usability. This category represented the largest set of ideas across
sites and includes barriers such as: data may be published but not easily found; data
does not have a user-friendly format; and insufficient data descriptions. In response
to these barriers, stakeholders suggested the involvement of users in the develop-
ment of data platforms, and that clear descriptions should provide information about
when the data was collected, how it was collected, and by whom.
These barriers resonate with data challenges identified by other scholars, includ-
ing challenges associated with exploration, extraction, and formatting, cleaning,
and ungrounding (or rawification) of data (Denis and Goeta 2014). Similarly, Bertot
et al. (2008) note that e-government services are often limited by challenges associ-
ated with organisation, structure, search, metadata, and other factors.
322 M. Hogan et al.

As well as data-specific barriers, stakeholders generated a category of barriers

relating to Technical, Infrastructural, and Resource Issues. Barriers in this category
include: data is spread over different organisations and departments; and inadequate
institutional capacity can often limit the provision of data services, the development
of standards, and the provision of necessary expertise. Stakeholders suggested that
pooling of public sector resources, and better curation and maintenance of data
quality, could help to alleviate barriers in this category.
The final technical or resource based category developed by stakeholders related
to Cost. Stakeholders noted that a lack of adequate finances often negatively impacts
the sustained collection, and sharing of open data. Similarly, stakeholders noted that
the cost of accessing open data can often be prohibitive. In order to address these,
and other cost-related barriers, stakeholders suggested that data creation should be
driven by user demand. Stakeholders also suggested that the creation of funds to
commercialise open data projects could alleviate some of the cost-related barriers.
Finally, three categories relating to training and engagement issues were devel-
oped by stakeholders. These categories are as follows: Citizen Engagement; Skills
and Training; and Motivation. These categories are in line with what Janssen et al.
(2012) call use and participation.
Specifically in relation to Citizen Engagement, stakeholders referred to barriers
such as: minimal publicity of open data leading to lack of awareness of its existence;
and failure by government departments to advertise that data is available to the pub-
lic. Stakeholders proposed a range of options to overcome these barriers including,
for example, promotion programmes aimed at the public to create not just aware-
ness of data availability but also uses and benefits of open data; and the opening of
channels for the public to communicate with governments. In relation to Skills and
Training, stakeholders noted a number of barriers relating to lack of open data skills
on the part of data providers and users, including both public administrators and
citizens. For example, stakeholders noted that inadequate technical expertise to pro-
duce data in a usable format is a significant barrier to usage, as well as users’ lack
of skills to process data and translate open data into information. In response to
these and similar barriers, participants suggested that government agencies should
be provided with training on the benefits of an open data portal, and that platforms
provide detailed frequently asked questions sections to assist users.
Finally, in relation to Motivation, stakeholders referred barriers such as: open
data publishing is often not perceived as a priority by administrators, and the lack of
understanding of the benefits that Open Data can offer. In order to overcome these
barriers, stakeholders suggested options including: promotion of the benefits of an
open data portal, the provision of good examples, and publishing data that is identi-
fied by users as relevant and engaging.
As noted, overall, barriers associated with Data quality, Accessibility, and
Usability represented the largest portion of the total set of barriers generated across
sites. Similarly, barriers associated with both Data Management and Policies and
Technical, Infrastructure and Resources represented a large portion of the total
number of barriers generated. This is consistent with previous research which has
highlighted poor information quality, lack of usability and technical issues, limited
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 323

organizational resources and budget as major barriers to achieveing the full poten-
tial of open data platforms (Janssen et al. 2012; Attard et al. 2015; Meijer 2015a) .
Analysis of the relative frequencies of barriers across sites provided insight into
the relative weight stakeholders in each pilot site placed on the various barrier cat-
egories. For example, the high frequency of barriers in the Data Quality, Accessibility,
and Usability category overall reflected the fact that this category accounted for a
high percentage of total barriers generated by stakeholders in Prato, Groningen,
Issy-les-Moulineaux, Den Haag, and Dublin. Barrier statements in this category
were also phrased similarly across sites. For example, “Information is not presented
in a user friendly manner” (Den Haag); “Lack of user-friendly file-formats”
(Dublin); and “Data is published but cannot be found and does not have a user-­
friendly format” (Groningen).
However, a number of differences were also observed across sites. For example,
the relatively stronger focus on data application barriers in Prato and Den Haag
could reflect the fact that both of these pilot sites and stakeholder groups are rela-
tively new to working with open data platforms. By contrast, Dublin, which has an
active open data platform, emphasised less data application barriers but highlighted
more barriers linked to skills and training. It may be that certain barriers and needs
(e.g., associated with the skilled used of platforms) will only arise after stakeholders
have had experience working with an evaluating existing platforms and services. A
key goal of the Route-to-PA project is to build upon existing platforms and provide
coaching and training in the use of key functionalities, working directly with stake-
holders in each pilot site. Work is ongoing to evaluate user experience of key func-
tionalities and the specific training needs that will be required as new platform users
are introduced to the platform. It is noteworthy that all pilot sites in the current study
emphasised technical, infrastructure, and resource barriers. Overcoming these bar-
riers may be essential to ensuring sustainable inputs in terms of quality data, itera-
tive design of platforms to enhance functionalities, and ongoing skills training to
increase the data competencies and collaboration skills of stakeholders and open
data platform users engaged in governance networks.
The different focus across sites is also evident in the absence of categories of
barriers in certain pilot sites. For example, Skills and Training is represented in all
pilot sites except Prato. Similarly, neither Resistance to Open Data Initiatives nor
Fear of Losing Control of Data are represented in the barrier categories in Den Haag
or Prato. The lower representation of barriers across categories in Prato is not sur-
prising, given that 79% of their total barriers fell into the three data-related catego-
ries: Data Quality, Accessibility, and Usability; Data Management/Policies; and
Data Applications. This suggests that stakeholders in Prato are primarily focused on
data-related barriers at this stage of their work together, and may not yet have
encountered organisational or training related barriers to the extent that other pilot
sites have.
There were also differences across pilot sites in the number and types of options
generated in response to barriers. For example, while Citizen Engagement received
a high percentage of generated options in Groningen (e.g. ask citizens which infor-
mation they find useful) and Issy-les-Moulineaux (e.g. allow citizens to make rec-
324 M. Hogan et al.

ommendations on the mode of data collection, the quantity of data and the
presentation format), it received relatively less attention in the other sites. Also,
whereas options in Dublin were spread across all categories, options were more
focused on a smaller set of specific categories in Den Haag and Prato. This suggests
that stakeholders in Den Haag and Prato, at least in their initial evaluation of the
problem situation, have identified a strong need for options in response to a select
number of barrier categories. Similarities and differences across sites provide useful
insights for the design team in terms of the possible focus of attention across pilot
sites when open data platform innovations are fully operational. They also highlight
key areas where flexible design of platform features needs to be combined with
broader strategies of political and social engagement with stakeholders and user
groups to ensure uptake and continued use of open data platform innovations.
Each pilot site in the current study focused on unique scenarios that reflect local
political and social priorities and thus stakeholders in each site had unique needs.
This was clearly reflected, in the first instance, in the range of open data information
needs across sites. For example, while the scenario in Den Haag focused on employ-
ment and opportunity creation, resulting in a high proportion of jobseekers informa-
tion needs, the Dublin scenario, which focused on community engagement and
planning, generated information needs across a much wider range, including com-
munity, planning, services, amenities, business, and education information. It is
likely that the information needs across sites will develop further as each pilot site
works to realise their scenarios and promote effective collaboration between citi-
zens and public administrators.
More generally, essential for the future success of open data portals is that more
varied high-quality open data is made available to stakeholders in an increasingly
accessible, understandable and usable manner. Societal challenges or problems,
including those that stakeholder focused on in the current study, are invariably com-
plex. A key goal of networked governance is to enhance our overall capacity to col-
laboratively resolve societal problems. However, as noted by Warfield (2006),
understanding societal problems always involves an effort to identify how problems in
the problem situation interact. Failure to recognise potential interactions between
problems in the problem situation can result in unexpected and often undesirable out-
comes. To the extent that networked governance arrangements involve collaboration
over open data in efforts to resolve societal problems, having access to sufficiently
varied, usable and understandable open data matched to the complexity of the prob-
lematic situation will be a core requirement of effective governance into the future.
Ongoing work by the Route-to-PA team has involved profiling the extent to which
open data is available, matched to, and useful for, the scenarios of interest to stake-
holders in each pilot site. This profiling of data is being used to feedback to public
administrators and key data providers to highlight some of the key gaps in the data.
Stakeholders across pilot sites in the current study also highlighted a range of
social and collaborative needs, in particular, the need for different forms of interac-
tion over open data, including dialogue and discussion spaces, moderation and main-
tenance of these spaces, feedback, sharing and requesting data, and also coaching
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 325

and support in the use of social-collaborative affordances. To date, the Route-­to-­PA

team has designed a number of key social-collaborative affordances, including a dia-
logue and collaboration platform that allows for sharing and discussion of data visu-
alisations, awareness of network connections and levels of engagement between
users collaborating on shared projects, and the capacity to create dedicated collabo-
ration spaces focused on specific issues.
Furthermore, the current study identified a variety of understandability, usability,
and decision-making needs of users, including the need for certification tools, guid-
ance and support tools, data visualisation and personalisation tools, and data ­analysis
and reporting tools. The ability to search, filter, aggregate, visualise, modify, custom-
ise, and analyse data were identified as central needs across pilot sites. More advanced
data analysis and reporting tools were also seen as central for decision-­making,
including data mining tools, modelling tools, metadata tools, data merging tools, data
wrangling and labelling tools, among others. A key challenge for the Route-to-PA
design team moving forward is to design affordances that support understandability,
usability, and decision-making needs in a way that both citizens and public adminis-
trators can readily learn to use without advanced training in statistical data analysis
techniques. This presents a major challenge as a reasonably high level of data com-
petency may be needed to match the complexity of the societal issues collaborative
groups are working on. One potential solution to this challenge is to design collab-
orative groups that include stakeholders with a range of skills, including a sub-group
who specialise in more advance data analysis and visualisation work that supports
the deliberation and decision-making of the larger team.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are a number of limitations to the current study. First, while reflecting the
different scenarios and contexts of usage identified as the starting point for the
Route-to-PA project, there was considerable variation in the stakeholders who par-
ticipated in the collective intelligence sessions across the different sites in the cur-
rent study. For example, Issy-les-Moulineaux was focused on a local enterprise
development scenario and thus the major citizen group in this context was stake-
holders in the business sector. The study results, and the range of information
needs identified across sites in particular, also vary as a function of the scenario
and the participants in the scenarios that stakeholders in each pilot site were using
to support idea generation at their respective workshops. At the same time, these
scenarios reflected the types of problems that stakeholders in each pilot site were
seeking to address, and thus the variation across sites is consistent with our contex-
tual approach to open data platform design. Future research should seek to exam-
ine the barriers, options and needs of different user groups across a range of
different scenarios, to further our understanding of the range of barriers, options,
and needs that will need to be considered in the future, in efforts to design
326 M. Hogan et al.

increasingly flexible and adaptable open data platforms that support the goals of
stakeholders across a range of different scenarios of usage. We speculate that per-
ceived barriers to accessing, understanding, and using open data, and options to
overcome these barriers, may show greater similarities across different contexts,
when compared with the range of information, social-collaborative, and decision-
making needs of users, as these barriers may reflect underlying political and social-
organisational challenges that are fundamental to the broader societal challenge of
supporting transparency and collaboration over open data. Furthermore, our con-
clusions regarding the specific needs of users are a function of the specific methods
we used, and future research should seek to combine our collective intelligence
scenario-based design methods with other user-centered methodologies to provide
more insight into the specific barriers, options, and needs of open data platform
users. For example, the use of remote user testing may be particularly useful in the
iterative design of open data platforms as they evolve and develop further.

Conclusions

In line with the approach adopted in the current study, Ojo and Mellouli (2016) note
that governments are increasingly engaging private sector organizations, civil soci-
ety and citizens to tackle complex policy challenges across a variety of networked
governance arrangements. Although evidence suggests that networks of non-state
actors are equally as important as networks of state actors in terms of their contribu-
tion to governance outcomes (Bodin and Crona 2009), networked governance
implies the need to develop a shared understanding of problems and solutions to
problems (Huppé et  al. 2012). This implies the need for a collective intelligence
approach to the design of platforms that facilitate the deliberation of diverse gover-
nance networks over open data, and the co-creation of policies and projects that help
to resolve societal problems, increase trust in government, and empower increas-
ingly effective networked governance arrangements into the future.
As noted by Ojo and Mellouli (2016), the efficacy of governance networks is
contingent on the inclusion of citizen in the networks, and mobile social-media
platforms could constitute a key infrastructure for enabling citizen participation in
this regard. However, based on their case study analyses, they also note that these
networks are still largely steered by government and it remains important that gov-
ernments initiate and demonstrate deep commitments to partnerships with citizens
for collaborative governance networks to be effective. Ojo and Mellouli (2016)
note that government is ultimately responsible for building trust with partners and
are accountable for the overall outcome of the networked governance arrangement.
This implies ongoing investment and iterative design, innovation and experimenta-
tion with key infrastructures that may support networked governance. Considering
the specificity of the key understandability, usability, and decision-making needs
identified in the current study, it is clear that governments and citizens need to
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 327

work with social scientists and technology experts to design open data platforms
that include a range of data analysis and decision-making affordances that support
collaborative societal problem solving and policy development. This needs to be
coupled with appropriate training in the use of these affordances. Based on their
case study analyses, Ojo and Mellouli (2016) highlight the need to effectively
motivate citizen participation in governance networks and align the divergent
views of the different actors collaborating in the network. From a contextualist
perspective, the collective intelligence scenario-based design thinking of stake-
holders in the current study highlights that motivating citizens may be contingent
on meeting their needs. This implies designing a socio-technical infrastructure that
supports their ­social-­collaborative and decision-making needs, which will be criti-
cal to sustain motivation in the use of the platform.
Consequently, based on the outcomes from our study and related literature, we
conclude that: (1) the nature of barriers and needs of stakeholders can vary signifi-
cantly from one context to another and this needs to be considered in the develop-
ment of open data platforms that are designed explicitly for use across several local
authorities or contexts; (2) the iterative use of collective intelligence scenario-based
design methods employed in eliciting barriers, options and needs from different
stakeholders could be an effective approach for engaging stakeholders in the design
of open data platforms into the future, particularly if it can be effectively combined
with other user-centered methods; (3) continued engagement of stakeholders in the
design and development of open data platforms is contingent on the support pro-
vided by local authorities working with the stakeholders.

Appendix 1

Sample scenarios
Entrepreneur Annie is interested in starting a locally based café/food business and would like to
connect with public administrators and potential customers to find out if there is a demand for
this new business, what kind of premises or permissions she might need, what supports are
available and to connect with other people who might partner/work with her in starting this
business. She would like to use technology to build local social networks to connect with her
business peer network and build a local customer base.
Civic Joe is part of the civic hacker community and a member of an active citizen group.  He is
a keen advocate for social equality and feels that citizens need a more participatory
democracy to create a better society for all.  He is interested in open data as a means of opening
access to public information and promoting transparency.  He wants to be able to interact with
public data to understand how public decisions are made, to give his views in an easy and
transparent way and receive feedback on them from public administrators who area leading
local projects, so that he feels he has been part of the decision and policy making process. Joe
also wants to be able to share ideas and data with other citizen groups, with a view to
collaborating on projects and common goals.
(continued)
328 M. Hogan et al.

Sample scenarios
Jane is a public administrator in a Dublin Local Authority. Jane is helping to prepare a new plan
to promote local community and economic development in Dublin and wants to explore how
technology might be used to engage a wider demographic and to facilitate bottom up
community building.  Jane is particularly interested in consulting with young people and
people with a disability or other citizens who may not engage in more formal consultations.
Jane wants an easy to use platform to gather and give feedback to citizens on issues that matter
to them to inform policy and to build public trust.  Jane also wants to be able to negotiate and
plan activities with other public administrators in her community development group in her
local authority public administration offices. She wants both citizens and her colleagues in the
local community development group to have some flexibility in the way they draw upon data
and information when working together to develop community projects. Jane is very passionate
about promoting local community and economic development in Dublin and she wants a
platform and set of services that will help her do good work.
Citizen Kay is interested in putting down more roots and getting involved in her local
community. She initially got involved in community issues when a group of her neighbours got
together to object to a big new development that would have caused a lot of disturbance in her
quiet street.  As a concerned citizen she wants an easy way to put her issues on a public
platform, to share and find out about local news, to discuss with other local residents and have
an input into what is happening in her community. She would like a meaningful exchange with
public administrators and to build local social networks to highlight the good things that are
happening in her community and perhaps to start up a skillshare/ local volunteering exchange.
Kay wants to be able to access information on other similar local groups, so that she can get
advice on starting her own.

References

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 230–241
Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL
Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems.
Cybernetica 1(2):1–17
Attard J, Orlandi F, Scerri S, Auer S (2015) A systematic review of open government data initia-
tives. Gov Inf Q (in press)
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
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 137–142
Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what rela-
tional patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Chang 19(3):366–374
Broome BJ, Cromer IL (1991) Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A cultur-
ally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management
2:217–234
Broome BJ, Fulbright L (1995) A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solv-
ing. Small Group Res 26:25–55
Broome BJ, Chen M (1992) Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the
challenges of complex issues. Small Group Res 23:216–236
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 329

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 1–17
Caroll J (2000) Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers 13:43–60
Christakis AN (1987) Correspondence: Systems profiles. Systems Research 4(1):53–58
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 leader-
ship skills: A casebook of models and methods. National League of Cities, Washington, DC,
pp 72–85
Cohn M (2004) User stories applied for Agile software development. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Dahlander L, Fredriksen L, Rullani F (2009) Online Communities and Open Innovation. Ind Innov
15(2):115–123
Dawes S, Helbig N (2010) Information strategies for open government: challenges and prospects
for deriving public value from government transparency. Electron Gov 6228:50–60
Deloitte (2013) Market assessment for public sector information. Written for UK, Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills
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 1–8
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):687–709
Fox J (2007) The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Dev Pract 17(4–
5):663–671. doi:10.1080/09614520701469955
Feeg R (1988) Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st century. Pediatric
Nursing 14:393–396
Ghaus-Pasha A (2007) Governance for the millenium development: core issues and good practices.
Building
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/
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
Groarke JM, Hogan MJ (2016) Enhancing wellbeing: An emerging model of the adaptive func-
tions of music listening. Psychology of Music 44(4):769–791
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):97–111
Habermas J  (1962) The structural transformation of the public sphere (1962, trans: Cambridge
Massachusetts, 1989, MIT Press)
Heald D (2006) Varieties of transparency. Proceedings-British Academy 25–43. doi:10.5871/
bacad/9780197263839.003.0002
Hilgers D, Ihl C (2010) Citizensourcing: applying the concept of open innovation to the public
sector. Int J Public Participation 4(1):67–88
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):857–877
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 11–25
Janssen K (2011) The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: an overview of. Gov
Inf Q 28:446–456
330 M. Hogan et al.

Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open
data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268
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 Netherlands
Lee G, Kwak Y (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engage-
ment. Gov Inf Q 29(4):492–503
Lourenço RP (2013) Open government portals assessment: a transparency for ­accountability per-
spective. 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
Mei CS, Dewan SM (2014) Towards conceptualizing information transparency and its role in inter-
net consumers’ concerns: a literature review
Meijer A (2009) Understanding modern transparency. Int Rev Adm Sci 75(2):255–269.
doi:10.1177/0020852309104175
Meijer A (2015a) E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Gov Inf Q 32:198/206
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
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, Springer
Ojo A, Mellouli S (2016) Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Gov Inf Q.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.001
Peled A (2011) When transparency and collaboration collide: the USA open data program. J Am
Soc Inf Sci Technol 62(11):2085–2094
Pepper SC (1942) World hypotheses: a study in evidence. University of California Press
Piotrowski S, Conference G, Sasaki D (2011) Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency Paper
prepared for the 1, 0–27
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 entrepre-
neurs, university students and academics. Int Entrep Manag J 13(1):35–73
Rosson MB, Carroll J  (2002) Scenario-based design. In: Jacko J, Sears A (eds) The human-­
computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applica-
tions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 1032–1050
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 29:72–81
Sato T (1979) Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method.
Educational Technology Research 3:67–75
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 26:477–486
Warfield JN (1994) Science of generic design: managing complexity through systems design. Iowa
State Press, Ames
Warfield JN (2006) An introduction to systems science. World Scientific, Singapore
Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a frame-
work for comparison. Gov Inf Q 31:17–29

Michael Hogan  is a senior lecturer and researcher at NUI, Galway, Ireland. His research foci
include individual, social and technology factors contributing to adult learning, motivation, and
collaborative performance. He is a co-director of the Structured PhD in Perception, Cognition and
Action, co-director of the Structured PhD in Learning Sciences, and a co-leader of the Health and
Wellbeing theme at the Whitaker Institute for Innovation and Social Change, NUI, Galway.
Governance, Transparency and the Collaborative Design of Open Data Collaboration… 331

Dr. Adegboyega Ojo  is Senior Research Fellow at the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National
University of Ireland Galway (NUIG). He leads the E-Government Group at Insight Centre, serves
as Adjunct Lecturer at the College of Engineering and Informatics. His current research interests
include data driven innovations in government, Open data policies and Infrastructures, data analyt-
ics and governance of smart cities. He is member of the Editorial Boards of the Government
Information Quarterly and International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age.

Owen Harney  is a PhD candidate (Learning Sciences) at the School of Psychology, NUI Galway.
His PhD research focuses on the integration of systems science methodologies into educational con-
texts. Outside of his PhD research, Owen has applied his knowledge of systems science and collec-
tive intelligence methodologies in a wide variety of research and organisational contexts, including:
collaborative learning, e-governance, chronic pain, personalised nutrition, and citizen engagement.

Erna Ruijer  is a postdoctoral researcher at the Utrecht School of Governance in the Netherlands.
Her research focuses on open data, government transparency, open government and government
communication.

Albert Meijer  is a Professor of Public Innovation at the Utrecht School of Governance in the
Netherlands. His research focusses on e-government, government transparency, co-production in
the public sector and public innovation.

Jerry Andriessen  is a senior scientist and research director of Wise & Munro learning Research,
The Hague, Netherlands. Wise & Munro participates in many innovative European projects, on
technology, open data, collaboration, primary education, and cybersecurity. These projects add
societal relevance to their scientific implications. Jerry has more than 25 years of experience in
uses of technology for support of learning and collaboration in various settings. His current interest
is in the qualitative interpretation of discourse and action, including the roles of emotions.

Mirjam Pardijs  is an independent educational scientist. She is co-director of Wise & Munro
Learning Research, the Hague, Netherlands. She specialises in the design, coaching, and interpre-
tation of collaborative learning in educational and professional contexts. Her main interests are
narratives as a tool for learning, appropriation of technology, and the role of pedagogical support
for innovation in learning settings.

Paolo Boscolo  gained a Masters degree in Electronics Engineering in 1986. In 1992 he joined the
Comune di Prato as head of the Telecommunications group. Is new responsible for the general
coordination of the ICT service and for co-funded project in ICT field. During last 10 years has
been charged for the management of advanced eGovernment projects for the Prato City Council.
He is currently responsible for the definition of the Prato Smart City Plan. He’s the responsible for
Route-­to-­PA project operations at Comune di Prato.

Elena Palmisano  received a degree in Civil Engineering in 1988 and a Ph. D. in Methods and
Technologies for Environmental Monitoring in 1994 at the University of Florence (Italy). She
works as a consultant with PIN Scrl (a public/private Consortium managing the University of
Florence site in Prato) and with the Municipality of Prato. She has taken part in many regional,
national and EU projects in the field of innovation technology, ICT applications in different con-
texts, such as infomobility, e-government, cultural heritage and education. She is currently col-
laborating with the Municipality of Prato in two H2020 projects: Route-­to-­PA (GA N. 645860),
where she acts as community manager in the pilot activity, and City.Risks (GA N. 653747) where
she contributes to the managemnt of dissemination activities. With PIN S.c.r.l. she is also involved
in the definition of the guideline for the development of the Smart City plan in Prato.

Matteo Satta  is an international Political Sciences graduate in Turin (Italy), he is a senior project
manager that has always been involved, between France and Italy, in the field of R&D and
332 M. Hogan et al.

Innovation (EU and International level) with a particular focus on its valorisation and exploitation.
Since 2005, he has contributed to the management and the development of various European proj-
ects, such as e-Photon/ONe, the Researchers’ Night in Turin (Italy), RADICAL, OTN, ECIM,
Citadel… on the Move and ROUTE-TO-PA, and IPR Licensing programs, such as MPEG Audio
(MP3) and DVB-T. He is today EU Project Manager in Issy Média, a semi-­public company of the
City of Issy-les-Moulineaux, specializing on Smart City subjects and projects with a particular
interest in citizens’ participation, Living Lab, Open Data and Smart Mobility.

Jonathan Groff  is a researcher in cognitive psychology. He is currently working at the National

Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Paris. He is interested in human computer interactions and
multimedia information processing (in the field of education and in the transport sector). He car-
ried out work designed to evaluate the effect of attentional cueing and interactive animation on
comprehension, using an eye tracking approach. He developed a pictographic system that aims to
promote the quick understanding of emergency announcements in multimodal hubs. Currently, he
is studying cognitive processes in collaborative design situations.

Michael Baker  is a Research Director (tenured Research Professor) in psychology and language
sciences, of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). He currently works in the
Social and Economics Science Departement of Telecom ParisTech, the French National
Telecommunications Engineering School. His research aims to analyse and model the processes of
knowledge elaboration in dialogues produced in learning and work situations, focussing on argu-
mentation and the role of technological mediation. Michael Baker recently published the following
book, with Baruch Schwarz: “Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and
Practice” (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2017).

Françoise Détienne  is research director at CNRS, Paris. Her research in cognitive ergonomics
focusses on collaboration, design, creativity and online communities as well as on the role of
socio-technical systems. She is associate editor of International Journal of Human Computer
Studies, and member of the editorial board of Interacting With Computers and CoDesign.

Dr. Lukasz Porwol  is a Postdoctoral Researcher and deputy unit leader at Insight Centre for Data
Analytics (formerly known as DERI), National University of Ireland, Galway. At Insight Centre
for Data Analytics, his research work focuses on leveraging social media, games and mobile tech-
nologies to support effective dialogue between citizens and decision-makers. His background
combines solid engineering and scientific knowledge (MSc in Computer Science and Engineering
in Information Technologies) with good management and PR skills.

Vittorio Scarano  is Computer Science Associated Professor at the Dipartimento di Informatica

of Università di Salerno. He is coauthor of more than 150 papers in journals and international
conferences (with reviews) at IEEE, ACM etc. and was advisor (or co-advisor) of 12 PhD thesis in
Computer Science at the University of Salerno. His research is mainly focussed on open data,
distributed, parallel and cooperative systems, and to their applications in the fields of collaborative
learning and virtual interactive environments (Cultural Heritage).

Delfina Malandrino  is an Assistant Professor at the Dipartimento di Informatica of the University

of Salerno. Her research activities mainly focus on: privacy, distributed systems, collaborative
systems, social networking, privacy, social network analysis, green computing.
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open
Government

Teresa Scassa and Amy Conroy

Abstract  This paper explores strategies for balancing privacy with transparency in
the release of government data and information as part of the growing global open
government movement and within an evolving technological context. Government
data or information may contain many different types of personal information. In
some cases, transparency will require the release of this personal information; in
other cases, the release of personal information will not advance the goals of gov-
ernment transparency. The situation is complicated by the availability of technolo-
gies that facilitate widespread dissemination of information and that allow for the
mixing and mining of information in ways that may permit the reidentification of
individuals within anonymized data sets. This paper identifies a number of strate-
gies designed to assist in identifying whether data or information contains personal
information, whether it should be released notwithstanding the presence of personal
information, and what techniques might be used to minimize any possible adverse
privacy impacts.

Introduction

This paper explores strategies for balancing privacy with transparency in the release
of government information. It does so within the context of the global movement
towards more open and transparent government – a movement which encourages
the release of government data and information through open data and proactive
disclosure. It also does so within a rapidly evolving technological context and one
in which big data analytics plays an ever-increasing role. In this paper we identify
strategies for balancing privacy with transparency, although we do not set out to
establish what the outcome of that balance should be. The appropriate balance may

T. Scassa (*)
University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Ottawa, ON, Canada
e-mail: tscassa@uottawa.ca
A. Conroy
Carleton University, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Ottawa, ON, Canada
e-mail: Amy.Conroy@carleton.ca

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 333

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_13
334 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

vary from one jurisdiction to another. In some countries, transparency may be

favoured over privacy because of particular social, political or historical circum-
stances; in others, privacy may be more strongly protected for similar reasons.
These differences in circumstances highlight the fact that balancing privacy with
transparency is not a purely mechanical task. The strategies identified in this paper
do not prejudge particular choices regarding the balance to be struck in any given
case. Nevertheless, in most cases they offer ways to reduce adverse privacy impacts.
The decision as to whether those impacts are sufficiently reduced to enable release
of data or information rests with the data custodian.
There are a number of reasons to balance privacy with transparency values in
open government. Some of these are practical ones. For example, in some cases,
governments, their departments or agencies will be under legal obligations to pro-
tect personal information in their custody or control. As technology advances, the
scope or extent of the protection required may change (Scassa 2014). Other reasons
for balancing are more normative. Where no specific legal obligations exist to limit
disclosure, there may still be important values served by protecting privacy. These
can include protecting individuals against harms resulting from the disclosure of
their personal information (Solove 2004) or enhancing public trust in government
(Bennett and Raab 2006).
The first part of this paper explores the meaning of open government, while the
second part examines the technological context in which it takes place. Parts 3 and
4 explore the key concepts of ‘transparency’, ‘privacy’ and ‘personal information’.
Part 5 discusses strategies for protecting privacy in the release of government infor-
mation. The paper concludes with an overall assessment of approaches to achieving
a balance between privacy and transparency in open government.

Open Government Data and Information

A key component of open government is the release of government-held informa-

tion to the public. This can take place in a number of different ways, including in
response to access to information requests, through open data, proactive-disclosure,
public registries, and open courts. As the meaning of ‘open government’ expands,
the volume, type and format of the released information can change (Davies 2014).
Government information is available in many countries through ‘freedom of
information’ or ‘access to information’ requests (Janssen 2012). This information is
typically released to the specific individuals who request the information, and there
are not necessarily any guarantees that it will be provided in reusable formats or
under an open license. Some governments are beginning to make the information or
data sought under access to information requests available to a broader public by
making the same (sometimes redacted) information available through an online por-
tal. An example of this is the British Columbia Open Information website which
makes publicly available the digital results of past access to information requests
(British Columbia 2016).
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 335

Open data involves the release of government data in reusable digital formats and
under an open license (Kitchin 2014). While transparency is one of the goals of the
open data movement, other objectives include stimulating innovation and encourag-
ing citizen engagement (Janssen 2012). Vejkovic et al. (2014, 281–282) identify the
data sets most frequently released as falling within the categories of “Finance and
Economy, Environment, Health, Energy, Education, Transportation, Infrastructure,
Employment and Population.”
Proactive disclosure can be of data or other types of government information. The
goal of proactive disclosure is to anticipate and release the kinds of information most
frequently sought from governments and to ensure that this information is freely and
easily accessible. Rather than having to file individual freedom of information
requests in order to access government information, proactive disclosure can push
more information towards the public, minimizing cost and delays (Queensland 2013).
In many countries the principle that court proceedings should be open to the
public underlines the point that transparency is essential to a properly functioning
judicial system (McLachlin 2003). This principle of openness is generally extended
to the publication of court decisions by default, with exceptions made only in very
particular circumstances where the public interest requires it (Winn 2004). Many
courts now make their decisions freely available to the public online either through
their own websites or through ‘legal information institutes’ – online portals designed
to facilitate public access to court decisions (Greenleaf 2011). Some courts are also
extending public access to other documents (such as legal briefs, for example)
through online portals. Some administrative tribunals are following suit and making
their decisions publicly available online. While on the one hand, digital openness of
this kind can enhance transparency, it is not without its impacts on privacy. Online
and fully searchable dissemination of this information may cause harm to individu-
als that was not considered significant enough to warrant suppression of the infor-
mation when distribution of these materials was paper-based (Scassa 2014). The
disclosure of the personal information of litigants in digital format and on a global
scale may have certain positive impacts (for example increasing transparency in
cases of serial bankruptcy or fraud). The increased exposure of personal details
about litigants may also, however, have adverse impacts on the administration of
justice and on public confidence in judicial or administrative processes if details of
highly sensitive cases (for instance family law disputes) become searchable online.
Finally, some government information is made available to the public through
registries. Such registries frequently contain personal information. The public dis-
closure of this information may be mandated by law (as, for example, in the case of
public land titles registries, political campaign donor lists, or other information
deemed disclosable in the interests of transparency). As these registries move from
paper-based to online platforms, digital dissemination may change the nature of the
privacy impacts (for example making it easier and more convenient to access per-
sonal information out of curiosity, for malicious purposes, or for data mining or
profiling, rather than for the purpose for which the paper registry was created). As a
result, the change towards making this information more readily available online
may require some mitigation of potential privacy harms.
336 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

Within the vast stores of government information is found a significant quantity

of personal information. This information is collected by governments in the course
of providing programs and services. Much of this information may be quite sensi-
tive in nature, and can include criminal histories, financial information, health infor-
mation, and information about citizen encounters with government administrative
and assistance programs of all kinds. While access to information regimes have
created policies and infrastructure for protecting privacy in the release of informa-
tion in response to specific, targeted requests for information, both proactive disclo-
sure and open data pose significant new challenges when it comes to ensuring that
a proper balance is struck between privacy and transparency. The shifting of public
paper-based access to digital forms of access to government information found in
registries and court records also creates new privacy challenges. This is not simply
because of the potential presence of personal information or personally identifiable
information in the material being released. It is because this release takes place
within a technological context in which vast stores of information, extensive pro-
cessing power, and expanding big data analytic capacity increase opportunities for
reuse of government information that may pose new threats to privacy.

Technological Context

The technological context in which governments now release data (meaning raw
facts) and information (contextualized or interpreted knowledge) (Kitchin 2014)
has changed dramatically and these changes are ongoing. Indeed, the demand for
increased openness of governments is driven in part by this technological change.
The value of government data for research, analysis and innovation has greatly
increased as the technologies that enable reuse of this information have evolved and
shifted into the hands of individuals, civil society organizations and large and small
corporate entities. Not only are governments pressured to release more information,
they are asked to do so in formats that are machine-readable and easily reusable.
While the Internet has greatly facilitated the dissemination of information of all
kinds, including government data, available and evolving technologies also permit
rapid and low-cost storage, reuse, dissemination, copying, mining and analysis of
the data (Kitchin 2014). Big data analytics have become mainstream, with the anal-
ysis of vast stores of information being used across all sectors of decision-making
from weather prediction to consumer profiling, and from professional sports to
medical research. Governments are also taking advantage of big data analytics for
planning and resource management purposes, among many others (Mayer-­
Schönberger and Cukier 2014).
It is into this evolving technological landscape that governments release infor-
mation and data under open government programs and under existing laws. While
much of this material may have no privacy implications and may contain no ­personal
information of any kind, other data sets or information do contain personally iden-
tifiable information. It is within this context that the balance between privacy and
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 337

transparency must be assessed. While excessive concerns for privacy should not be
allowed to trump transparency (and while privacy should not be used as an excuse
to avoid transparency such as, for example, with respect to political campaign
financing or public contracting), it must also be taken into account that much of the
data may be sought not for its transparency value but for its potential for commer-
cial reuse (for instance to support consumer profiling or marketing). In this context
a lack of attention to privacy might undermine citizen confidence in government and
might lead to privacy harms, including for instance a chilling effect on people com-
municating with government for fear that their personal information will not be
properly protected (Borgesius et al. 2015).

Transparency and Privacy

According to Yu and Robinson (2012 at 186), “open government” has been used “pri-
marily as a synonym for public access to previously undisclosed government informa-
tion.” In this sense, open government is about transparency. The transparency
objectives of open government are often focused on making more information avail-
able at a lower cost. The reduced cost is not due only to the fact that information is
made available to the public without fees – lower costs can include reducing the time
or effort needed to access – or to reuse – the data or information (Candeub 2013). Both
open data and proactive disclosure reduce the time, cost and effort of access to data
and information, and in this sense, they increase government transparency. Whether
there are actual outcomes – such as increased accountability of government – will
depend on whether the information is used by anyone to serve these goals.
The concept of transparency in government is often linked to ‘openness’ (Schauer
2011). However, ‘transparency’ itself has little normative content. There is no single
standard for the degree or terms of openness required of governments. Further, as
Schauer notes, the concept of transparency does not dictate any particular outcomes;
a more transparent government does not necessarily mean one that is held more
strictly to account. Transparency merely requires that government information,
data, and processes should be publicly available or accessible – as appropriate in the
circumstances.
Used in this sense, the concept of transparency focuses on providing access, not
on specific results. By contrast, the open government movement is more results-­
oriented. For example, the Open Government Declaration (Open Government
Partnership 2011) identifies a range of objectives for open government. Signatories
commit to “greater civic participation in public affairs, and seeking ways to make
their governments more transparent, responsive, accountable, and effective.” Open
data is also released in order to stimulate innovation by encouraging its reuse in the
private sector. Open government, therefore, is not only about transparency; it serves
a diversity of goals. Not only is it important to consider what may drive the demand
for certain types of data, it is also difficult to predict how data sets may be used in
order to achieve transparency.
338 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

These dynamics are important when balancing transparency with privacy. The
disclosure of information that is either personally identifying or capable of being
used to identify individuals may make governments more transparent (at the expense
of personal privacy) but it does not necessarily make them more accountable. The
disclosed information may be used for accountability purposes, but it may also be
used to serve purely private or commercial interests.
The disclosure of personally identifiable information in the hands of govern-
ment has an impact on individual privacy, although the nature or degree of impact
may not always be evident, and may depend upon the nature of the information
that is disclosed. Personally identifiable information may be used to attack or
stigmatize individuals (as, for example, when personal health information is
revealed in a tribunal decision posted online). If very specific identifiers are
revealed, they might be used in targeted attacks such as identity theft or imperson-
ation. In many cases, though, what will be disclosed is deidentified or anonymized
information; privacy impacts might therefore depend upon the existence of both a
desire to reidentify and the resources to do so. In some instances, various data sets
will be combined and used to contribute to profiles of individuals that may have
direct or indirect effects on them that are difficult to identify or quantify, as where
data is used in big data analytics to profile or target particular consumers.
How the balance is struck between transparency and privacy may depend upon
cultural norms within any given jurisdiction. These may include different views
on what constitutes sensitive personal information and, as a result, what type of
information should be released or withheld in an effort to ensure transparency in
government (Zuiderwijk and Janssen 2014; Article 29 Working Party 2013 at 18).
Social and political factors such as the level of secrecy in government or the level
of citizen engagement will also influence the understanding of transparency and
privacy as well as expectations about what information the government should be
permitted to release (Roy 2014).

Personal Information

Two categories of personal information are relevant in considering the protection of

privacy in open government. Both are found under the broad umbrella of “person-
ally identifiable information”. The first category of information is that which directly
or fairly quickly leads to the identification of specific individuals. Most commonly,
this consists of persons’ names, but it can also include unique identifiers (such as
drivers’ licence numbers), or civic addresses in combination with other details.
While this kind of information may be redacted or anonymized in order to protect
privacy, it may also be left intact in a number of different types of documents or
datasets made public by governments or their institutions. For example, public reg-
istries, court or tribunal decisions, and some information mandated for public dis-
closure such as campaign donation records, will all contain this type of personal
information.
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 339

The second category of information is that which does not on its own identify a
specific individual, but can be used to identify an individual when it is combined
with other available information. Increasingly advanced anonymization techniques
are needed to forestall reidentification as more and more information becomes
available for cross-referencing (El Emam and Fineberg 2009). In some cases, while
information may appear to have been anonymized, it may be relatively easy to iden-
tify the other pieces of information that could be used to identify an individual from
an anonymized dataset. However, in the big data environment it is becoming increas-
ingly difficult to know just what other data is available. This is not simply because
governments at all levels are releasing large volumes of data, but also because huge
stores of personally identifiable information are also in the hands of private sector
actors (Ohm 2010). Assessing reidentification risk can therefore be challenging. It
can also be a moving target as both the stores of available data (both personal infor-
mation and de-identified data) and analytic capacity increase (Ohm 2010; Schneier
2015). This means that the cost in terms of time and effort required to properly
anonymize information before it is released proactively or as open data can be
expected to rise. A relevant question to ask is how to fund these activities as part of
the overall effort to release more and more government data/information (particu-
larly given the potential for commercial gain as it is used in new and innovative
ways by private sector actors).

Strategies for Managing Privacy in Open Government

The privacy problems discussed here have been identified and addressed by data
commissioners in different contexts and at different times. Many responses have
evolved in the access to information/right to know context. There is therefore a
growing body of information on ways to protect privacy in the release of govern-
ment information. In this part of the paper, we distill some of these into a set of
strategies that offer ways in which government institutions can protect privacy in the
release of government information, whether it be through open data, open courts,
proactive disclosure or access to information requests. The strategies are adapted to
the Web 3.0 environment. They take into account the need to protect privacy while
meeting transparency goals. As a result, they require consideration to be given to the
balance to be struck between privacy and transparency. This balance may be differ-
ent in different contexts, and may depend upon factors such as: the degree of sensi-
tivity of the information, the circumstances under which the information was
provided to government, the risk of harm from reuse/misuse of the information, the
risk of reidentification (in the case of anonymized data) and the transparency value
of the information.
The first two strategies outlined below (data minimization and inter- and intra-­
governmental consultation) address overall institutional practices. The third s­ trategy
is aimed at assessing the extent to which personally identifiable information is pres-
ent within any given dataset or document. The fourth, fifth and sixth strategies offer
340 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

ways of managing privacy impacts in datasets or documents where personally iden-

tifiable information may be present.

Data Minimization

One way in which citizen privacy can be protected in the context of open govern-
ment is through the minimization of the amount of personal information that is col-
lected in the first place. Data minimization principles are already present in public
and private sector data protection laws. For example, the UK Data Protection Act
1998 provides in Schedule 1, Part I, art. 3 that: “Personal data shall be adequate,
relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are
processed.” Canada’s Privacy Act (s. 4) restricts the government to collecting only
information that “relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institu-
tion.” Other countries have started implementing an “entry once” principle to
require reuse of data that has already been collected as opposed to collecting the
same information directly from the individual a second time (Meyerhoff-Nielsen
and Krimmer 2015 at 279). The idea behind data minimization is simple: only per-
sonal information genuinely required to meet the needs of a particular program
should be collected. In endorsing data minimization, Ontario’s former Information
and Privacy Commissioner (Cavoukian 2009 at 10) recommended that interactions
between government agencies and the public should “begin with non-identifiable
interactions and transactions as the default”. The minimization of personal informa-
tion collection will mean that there is less personal information to protect in con-
texts where disclosure is sought or where the decision is made to release information
through proactive disclosure or as open data. Efforts to ensure citizens are informed
of the information that the government holds about them and the purpose for which
it was collected and is used (see discussion of MyPage initiatives in Norway and
Denmark in Meyerhoff-Nielsen and Krimmer 2015) may potentially promote
increased attention to the need for data minimization in the government.
Although data minimization principles can shape what information is collected
by government agencies, they can also apply to the disclosure of information for
secondary purposes. Such purposes might include health or other types of research.
For example, El Emam and Fineberg (2009) argue that government agencies that
disclose health data to researchers should make use of anonymization techniques in
order to limit the amount of personally identifiable information that is released. In
the context of courts (and by extension administrative tribunals) data minimization
principles could apply at the release stage to ensure that only that personal informa-
tion necessary to serve the purposes of providing transparency in legal proceedings
should be disclosed in decisions in order to avoid privacy consequences for indi-
viduals when decisions are published online (Sherman 2013; Berzins 2008).
Data retention policies that require the purging of personal information that is no
longer required to meet the purposes for which it was collected are also a means by
which government agencies can limit the amount of personal information in their
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 341

hands, and therefore the privacy risks to individuals (Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada 2014; UK ICO 2016). Data minimization through limits
on retention presents somewhat of a challenge in the Web 3.0 environment as the
destruction or disposal of data goes against the ethos that more is better and that it
is impossible to know what data will be relevant or useful in analytics (Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada 2014; Kitchin 2014). Nevertheless, as an element
of privacy protection and government accountability, limiting the retention of per-
sonal information and properly disposing of personal data when it is no longer
required protects privacy and limits the risk of improper disclosure of personal
information.
Data minimization is not, on its own, a solution to the privacy challenges identi-
fied in this paper. It is a strategy that can help reduce the amount of personal infor-
mation in the hands of government, thereby diminishing the possibility of
inappropriate or harmful release of personal information. The reality is, however,
that governments will always need to collect personal information in order to oper-
ate their many programs and services. Because of this, it should be used in combina-
tion with other strategies (including ensuring citizens are able to become informed
of the information that the government holds about them) as part of an overall infor-
mation management plan.

Inter- and Intra-Governmental Communication

Although it may seem obvious to identify inter and intra-government communica-

tion as a strategy for protecting privacy, this type of communication is frequently
lacking. What is recommended is not simply intra-governmental communication,
but also communication between different levels of government including federal,
regional and municipal levels. The proliferation of open government agendas in a
big data environment makes this type of communication all the more necessary.
This is because data sets that appear either innocuous or sufficiently anonymized
when considered individually may pose more significant privacy risks if other
departments or levels of government are also releasing data that, in combination,
might lead to the reidentification of individuals. The UK Information Commissioners
Office (2012 at 40) notes that
Organisations should seek to share information about planned disclosures with other organ-
isations, to assess risks of jigsaw identification. For example it would be helpful for public
authority A to know that public authority B is also planning an anonymised disclosure at the
same time, one on health and one on welfare, both using similar geographical units. They
can then assess the risks collectively and agree [on] mitigation for both datasets.

Inter- and intra-governmental communication can also facilitate knowledge shar-

ing about decision-making processes relevant to the release of government informa-
tion as well as strategies and techniques used to deidentify data or otherwise prepare
material for release. Zuiderwijk and Janssen (2014) argue for “systemic collabora-
tion” within governments to achieve the goals of open data, observing that political
342 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

messaging to the public about open data may not match the realities experienced by
public servants who are charged with making data available as open data. Writing in
the Canadian context, Roy (2014) argues for a national strategy involving all levels
of government in order to co-ordinate the different open data initiatives. While nei-
ther Roy nor Zuiderwijk & Janssen specifically address balancing privacy and trans-
parency in open government, their arguments in favour of greater communication
and collaboration both within and between governments are relevant to the manage-
ment of privacy issues.
As with data minimization, communication and cooperation both within and
between governments is not a panacea for addressing the challenges of balancing
privacy with transparency. They are both broad strategies that can contribute to an
environment that improves the management of personal information and decision-­
making around the coordinated release of government information and data.
However, within this environment, case-by-case decisions must still be made
regarding the public release of particular data sets and other types of government
information (including court decisions or information released as part of proactive
disclosure). The next four strategies are ones which are aimed at this case-by-case
decision-making process.

Assessing Privacy Risks

Prior to the release of open government data or government information through

proactive disclosure, steps must be taken to determine whether the dataset or infor-
mation contains personally identifiable information, and to assess the impact that its
release might have. The privacy impact assessment is a tool used by government
(UK ICO 2014; Government of Canada 2002) (and increasingly by the private sec-
tor (Wright and DeHert 2012; UK ICO 2014)) to identify and minimize privacy
risks. Wright and DeHert (2012 at 5) define a privacy impact assessment as
a methodology for assessing the impacts on privacy of a project, policy, programme, ser-
vice, product or other initiative which involves the processing of personal information and,
in consultation with stakeholders, for taking remedial actions as necessary in order to avoid
or minimize negative impacts.

Privacy impact assessments (PIAs) can be used in open government initiatives

in two ways. They can be used to assess the overall privacy implications for an
open data programme, identifying privacy issues that may arise and articulating
strategies for dealing with them (such as, for example, the use of deidentification
techniques). They can also be used in more a more targeted way in relation to
decision-making around the disclosure of particular data sets, databases (e.g.,
digital registries such as land titles registries), or collections (e.g., making avail-
able online the decisions of a particular administrative tribunal). In all of these
instances, a PIA can assist in identify potential privacy risks and in finding ways
to minimize privacy impacts.
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 343

The PIA can be specifically adapted to the open government context. This context
is one in which the protection of privacy may have to be balanced against transparency
values. The Australian Information Commissioner’s Guide to Undertaking Privacy
Impact Assessments (2014) offers an example of an assessment process that is designed
to take into account competing and counterbalancing considerations. It provides that
a PIA is much more than a simple compliance check. It should ‘tell the full story’ of a
project from a privacy perspective, going beyond compliance to also consider the broader
privacy implications and risks, including whether the planned uses of personal information
in the project will be acceptable to the community. (Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner 2014 at 2)

This suggests that a PIA adapted to the open government context should take into
account not just the privacy impacts but also the transparency value of the data or
information that is to be released. If there is a high transparency value this may
favour release in spite of privacy implications; data or information with a low trans-
parency value might require stronger measures to protect personal information from
release or reidentification.
The PIA process for open data and proactive disclosure can incorporate a series
of specifically designed questions that explore both privacy risks and transparency
values. The list of questions below is adapted from Scassa and Conroy (2016).
1. What is the purpose of disclosure of the information or release of the dataset?
(Possible purposes might include furthering government transparency,
encouraging open engagement, or supporting innovation, or research)
2. Does the document or dataset contain any personal information?
(Personal information includes any specific identifiers such as the name of a
person, their address, or a unique identifying number)
3. If the answer to Question 2 is ‘yes’, is the personal information relevant to the
purpose(s) for disclosure?
4. Does the data set contain any personally identifiable information?
(This can be information which does not, on its own, identify specific indi-
viduals, but which, when linked to other information might lead to their identifi-
cation. Examples can include postal codes, gender, profession or other
demographic information. For example, if the information is in the form of court
decisions, the names of the parties may be relevant to the principle of open courts
that motivates the publication of the decisions.)
5. If the document or data set contains personally identifiable information, are any
individuals identifiable by reference to those variables?
(It is possible, for example, with small sample sizes that information such as
gender might lead to the identification of a specific individual)
6. If the answer to question #5 is ‘yes’, is the personally identifiable information
relevant to the purpose(s) for the disclosure?
(For example, a dataset disclosed that provides demographic information
about government employees by department might need to include information
about gender in order to be useful in assessing the extent of efforts to increase the
representation of women in these positions).
344 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

7. Is any information that can be linked to specific individuals sensitive in nature?

(Sensitive information may vary according to the context, but it may include
information such as personal health information, criminal history, religious
beliefs, and so on.)
8. Are any of the variables in the data easy to identify in specific persons?
(If so, this could lead to reidentification. Examples might include a medical
condition that is observable).
9. Could reidentification be expected to have serious consequences for an
individual?
(Such consequences might include physical, emotional, or financial harm).
The first question engages the balance between privacy and the benefits of
disclosure. There may be some circumstances in which, for example, the transpar-
ency value of the information outweighs the privacy risks. Questions 2 and 3
address the issue of personal information. In most cases, if such information is
present in the document or data set, it should be removed to protect privacy.
However, this information may be relevant to the purposes for disclosure. This is
immediately obvious in the case of personal information (such as the name and
position of an individual) in government reports being considered for proactive
disclosure. While this is identifying information, it may not be “private” in the
sense that it is information about an individual carrying out their public duties.
Depending on the legal and cultural contexts of particular jurisdictions, other
types of information may be considered personal but not private, and thus subject
to disclosure. Questions 4 through 6 address the presence of information which,
while it does not on its face identify an individual, can, in combination with other
information, lead to identification. This is often a difficult assessment to make, as
the information might be linked with other information contained in sources
external to the dataset under consideration for release. As more and more informa-
tion becomes available  – much of it closely held in the hands of private sector
corporations – it will be increasingly difficult to make such assessments. Questions
7, 8 and 9 are designed to help assess how easy reidentification might be, how
sensitive the information at issue is, and what impact it might have on the indi-
vidual if reidentification takes place. This can assist in balancing the privacy inter-
ests with the transparency value of the information or data at issue.
There may be circumstances where, in spite of the presence of information
that might lead to the identification of specific individuals, the release of the
document or data set is still considered to be desirable. In such cases, the use
of an anonymization technique (considered below) may help maintain the
appropriate balance between privacy and transparency. In cases where the
risk of reidentification is d­ ifficult to assess – particularly in the big data envi-
ronment  – other strategies might be of some use. These are also discussed
below.
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 345

Anonymization of Data

Data sets that contain personal information can be anonymized by removing all
personal information (El Emam 2013; Fraser and Willison 2009). Further, data sets
that contain personally identifiable information can also be manipulated to elimi-
nate or reduce the risk of reidentification (UK ICO 2012). There are a number of
available techniques. Aggregation, a technique typically used with statistical data,
displays data as totals, averages or in ranges. The presentation of data in this way
may be suitable for some purposes, although it may not be sufficiently fine-grained
for other purposes. Randomization involves the scrambling of direct and indirect
identifiers in the database (UK ICO 2012). The coding or pseudonymization of data
involves the replacing of unique identifiers with codes or pseudonyms. This is a
technique commonly used in the context of research involving personal health
information (Emam and Fineberg 2009; UK ICO 2012). Where the information at
issue is qualitative, personal and personally identifying information can be removed
through redaction (UK ICO 2012).
In cases where the datasets contains personally identifiable information  – in
other words information that is not itself identifying of individuals, but could be
used in combination with other information to identify specific individuals – tech-
niques such as heuristics or analytics may be used (Emam and Fineberg 2009).
Heuristics makes use of threshold rules to assess the risk that an individual might be
uniquely identifiable through any combination of quasi-identifiers in the data set; or
that outside sources of information might be combined with the data to identify
specific individuals within the dataset. Some data may be suppressed if it is deter-
mined that the reidentification risk will be too high if it remains.
Although anonymization and deidentification techniques can be useful to protect
privacy in the release of government information, the risk of reidentification is
increased by the vast amount of other data that is already available as open govern-
ment data or that is in the hands of the private sector. In the big data environment,
reidentification risk is real (Ohm 2010; Daries 2014). The EU Article 29 Data
Protection Working Party (2013) observes that there are a number of reasons why
an individual or an organization might attempt to reidentify individuals whose dei-
dentified information is released within the open government context. These might
include reidentification for commercial or law enforcement purposes, or to reveal
personal information that may be newsworthy or relevant in an adversarial political
setting, or simply to satisfy individual curiosity. The UK Information Commissioner
(2014) warns that organizations should periodically review their anonymization
practices in order to ensure that they are keeping up with reidentification risk within
the big data environment.
Techniques used to anonymize data or to protect against reidentification typically
have an impact on the quality of the data and its fitness for some purposes (Cavoukian,
et al. 2014; Daries 2014). The decision regarding what technique or techniques to
employ and in what circumstances may depend upon an assessment of the risk of
reidentification, the degree of sensitivity of the information, the purposes to which
346 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

the data may be put, and the transparency value of the data. Where the transparency
value is high, disclosure of anonymized information may be warranted even if there
is a risk of reidentification. The argument for disclosure may be less compelling if
the reidentification risk is high and the transparency value of the information is rela-
tively low. Of course, it is not always obvious what the transparency value of data
may be, as it might be used in unprecedented combination with other data to pro-
duce unanticipated results. Some data sets have a more obvious value for use in
holding the government to account. For other data sets, it may be that a case for their
value will need to be made.

License Restrictions

In those jurisdictions in which governments hold some form of copyright or data-

base right over collections of data, open data is typically released under an open
licence. It is therefore possible for governments to impose certain restrictions on
uses of the data that may violate privacy rights in the open government licences.
Some open government licences currently in use contain general terms that address
personal information. For example, the UK Open Government Licence for Public
Sector Information provides that the license does not extend to any personal data
that is part of the licensed information. Canada’s Open Government Licence stipu-
lates that it does not confer on the licensee any rights to use personal information.
Neither license therefore grants rights to use personal information, including per-
sonally identifiable information.
It is questionable how useful such terms are. Because personal information is
expressly excluded from the licence terms, a person who uses the licensed data in
combination with other data to identify specific individuals may not be in breach of
the license – they may instead be making an unlicensed use of government informa-
tion. The licences do not specifically prohibit the use of the licensed data to reiden-
tify individuals.
It is unlikely that someone who uses anonymized geodemographic data provided
as open data under such a licence would be in breach of the licence if they used that
data to create profiles of individuals based upon assumptions derived from the data
(rather than actual reidentification). The profile may become, by virtue of the way
in which it is used, ‘personal information’ about the individual. However, this per-
sonal information is manufactured, rather than extracted from the government data
and there may thus be no breach of the licence terms. These are interesting ques-
tions that have yet to be resolved by courts and they highlight some of the limita-
tions of using general open government licences to address privacy issues.
More specific terms could be included in data licenses to address privacy consid-
erations. For example, additional license provisions for data that may contain per-
sonal information or be capable of reidentification could: (i) make it clear that the
data has already been anonymized; (ii) prohibit licensees from using the data to
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 347

reidentify individuals; and (iii) require that licensees notify the licensor of any
reidentification that occurs (UK ICO 2014).
In cases where the release of government information that raises significant pri-
vacy concerns is being contemplated, customized licences that contain additional
terms and conditions could be used to provide an additional layer of privacy protec-
tion. For example, Australia has a Restrictive Licence Template (AusGoal 2011) for
circumstances where it is necessary to protect personal or confidential information
in a government data set. This is not really an open licence since the terms and con-
ditions that may be imposed go beyond what would be considered acceptable in an
open licence. Nevertheless, as part of a suite of possible licence templates it gives
some flexibility to government and allows for the release of data that might not
otherwise be released, albeit under more restrictive terms.
The EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013) notes that in order to
comply with data protection laws and the EU Directive on the re-use of public sec-
tor information, public sector bodies may attach specific conditions and safeguards
to personal information when making it available online for reuse. The opinion
notes, however, that such terms should not place unnecessary restrictions on reuse;
the key concern is viewed as the need to ensure that personal information is not used
for a purpose inconsistent with that for which the information was collected (Article
29 Working Party 2013 at 3 and 26).
One area where licence terms that restrict the use of personal information con-
tained in government data may be particularly useful is where the information
released by a government institution contains directly identifying personal informa-
tion. This is typically the case, for example, in court or administrative tribunal deci-
sions that are published online. Principles regarding the transparency of judicial
proceedings often require that the names of the parties to proceedings and of the
witnesses be made public (unless there is a compelling reason to provide anonym-
ity). Court and tribunal decisions may also contain a variety of other personal infor-
mation. Where these decisions are published online, any licence permitting
reproduction and reuse of these materials could place specific restrictions on uses of
the personal information contained in the decisions.
The use of licences to protect personal information is far from a perfect solution.
The investigation and enforcement of breaches of licence terms may simply not be
practicable (Daries 2014; Article 29 Working Party 2013; UK ICO 2012). Since the
licensor is the government, it would have to be sufficiently motivated to take legal
action against a licensee who uses personal information in a manner contrary to the
terms of the licence. In addition, in some cases, it may simply not be possible to
establish the source of certain personal information that is being misused. In other
words, it may be impossible to trace it back to the government data set, as opposed
to some other source. It may even be difficult to tell whether or how government
data sets were used in reidentification processes. Licence restrictions, particularly in
otherwise open licences may also make productive reuse of the licenced data more
complicated, since the use of this data in combination with other datasets made
available under different license terms can create headaches for downstream licens-
ing of end-products or services (Mewhort 2012).
348 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

Technological Barriers to Re-Use

Technological barriers to reuse are generally not consistent with open data, since one
of the goals of open data is to encourage reuse of the data provided and not to create
obstacles to reuse (Borgesius et al. 2015). However, technological barriers may be
useful in some circumstances where the goal is to provide access to government infor-
mation for transparency purposes but there is a need to limit reuse in the interests of
privacy. An example of such circumstances is in the online publication of court and
tribunal decisions. While transparency values may require publication of these materi-
als without redaction, and might be best served by broad and open dissemination, such
decisions may contain a considerable amount of often sensitive personal information
(Austin and Pelletier 2005). In addition, the availability of this sensitive personal
information online may increase reidentification risks elsewhere as it may be used to
identify individuals within other anonymized government data sets.
Technological barriers can be as simple as using restricted proprietary formats
such as PDF for the release of information. Such formats can make information
more difficult and time-intensive to reuse. Nevertheless, those determined to reuse
the data will find ways to circumvent technological barriers (Thompson 2014).
Online applications already exist that make it possible for the average user to defeat
many such technological barriers and to manipulate data into machine-readable for-
mats. Thus, where there is a high degree of interest in reuse of the data, technologi-
cal barriers will provide only a very limited protection for the privacy interests at
issue. At the same time, they may impose an undesirable transparency cost.
Another form of technological barrier is the use of software to prevent the index-
ing of web pages in search engines (Austin and Pelletier 2005). For example, the
Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII), a website which provides free
online access to Canadian court and tribunal decisions, states in its privacy policy:
CanLII adheres to the principle of openness and transparency of legislative and judicial
processes, and recognizes their fundamental importance in democratic societies. In order to
minimize the negative impact of such transparency on the privacy of those involved in cases
leading to judicial decisions, CanLII does not permit its case law collections to be indexed
by external search engines. (CanLII 2016)

The policy also states that external search engines are prohibited from indexing the
text and style of cause of court decisions published by CanLII. A similar approach
is adopted by the Australian Legal Information Institute (AUSTLII) and by the
British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII), which provides in its privacy
policy:
BAILII does not consent to the contents of these databases being indexed by other web
sites. BAILII attempts to prevent such indexing occurring by placing these database outside
the permitted scope of web ‘crawlers’, ‘robots’ or ‘spiders’ that adhere to the voluntary
Robot Exclusion Standard (BAILII Privacy Policy 2016)

The usefulness of this type of technological barrier is limited by the fact that the
Robot Exclusion Standard is voluntary and depends upon the willingness of search
engines to comply with it. Major search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo
currently do so, but others may not.
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 349

CanLII also places limits on bulk downloads of court decisions. This limitation
is both technological and contained in the site’s licence terms. Although there may
also be other reasons to prevent bulk downloads, doing so reinforces the other tech-
nological privacy protections since it prevents others from downloading court deci-
sions in bulk and publishing them elsewhere online in fully indexable and searchable
formats. The importance of this issue was highlighted when a complaint was made
to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPCC) after an individual
found that detailed personal information from her past appeared that had been
reported in a Canadian court decision appeared in a Google search for her name.
The court decision had been one of a very large number of decisions that a Romanian-­
based company named Globe24 had downloaded in bulk from different sources
including official court websites in Canada (Dobby 2015; PIPEDA 2015).
While the Globe24 case reveals the importance of the technological measures
adopted by CanLII and others to protect privacy of personal information originating
from government sources, it also reveals their shortcomings. These restrictions did
not prevent the information in question from becoming repurposed by another site
in a way that adversely impacted personal privacy. This strongly indicates that gov-
ernment institutions would be unwise to rely solely upon either license restrictions
or technological measures to protect the privacy of personal information.
In addition, the use of technological barriers to access government information
has been criticized. Some argue that anyone should be able to build a fully search-
able database of court decisions (Cameron-Huff 2014). Such a perspective denies
the obligation of governments to protect citizen privacy and favours free enterprise
over a balancing of interests.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have outlined strategies that can be used by those responsible for
the release of information through proactive disclosure or as open data. These strat-
egies are intended to assist in balancing transparency goals with personal privacy in
the release of government information. Achieving this balance is made more chal-
lenging by the fact that the presence of personally identifiable information may be
difficult to gauge, particularly where individuals may be reidentified in anonymized
data sets by combining that data with other available data from indeterminate
sources. The rapidly evolving big data environment is one in which massive quanti-
ties of data are already available and more is constantly being generated or released.
This makes it difficult to anticipate what data might be used in order to achieve
reidentification (Conroy and Scassa 2015).
We identify several strategies that can be adopted in order to balance privacy
with transparency in open government. The first two strategies are addressed to
general practices. Data minimization can reduce the amount of personal informa-
tion both by limiting collection only to that which is specifically necessary, and by
limiting retention only for as long as is necessary. Data minimization principles can
350 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

also be applied in terms of the disclosure of any personally identifiable information.

Inter- and intra-governmental communication around data release is also recom-
mended as a means to develop a greater understanding of the types of information
being released by different institutions at all levels of government.
In addition to these broad strategies we have identified specific practices which
can be helpful in minimizing or obscuring personally identifiable information or in
limiting its reuse. These strategies are not mutually exclusive. A first strategy is that
of assessing privacy risks in order to determine the nature and extent of the personal
information at issue. Once this determination is made, the information can be
removed or minimized by various anonymization techniques. Because such tech-
niques are susceptible to reidentification strategies, there must still be some assess-
ment of the transparency value and the privacy risks. Anonymization techniques
may affect the quality of the data released. The more significant the manipulation to
anonymized data sets, the less fit for some purposes the data becomes. This is a fac-
tor to weigh in the transparency/privacy balance.
Other options to protect personal information or personally identifiable informa-
tion include license restrictions and technological barriers to reuse of the informa-
tion. Technological barriers and licence restrictions can limit the ease with which
government data or information can be reused, processed or digitally analyzed.
These limitations should also be considered in balancing transparency and privacy,
although they are not entirely effective and may have some disadvantages.
These different strategies for balancing privacy and transparency have their basis
in the view that individuals should be protected to an appropriate extent from the
privacy harms that might flow from the release by governments of their personal
information or of personally identifiable information through proactive disclosure
or open data. At the same time, transparency values are important, and may in some
circumstances outweigh the privacy risks. Given that some of the strategies identi-
fied may adversely impact data quality or the usefulness of the data for some pur-
poses, and given the fact that other strategies may create barriers to reuse, these
impacts must also be taken into account in striking the necessary balance. Ultimately,
those charged with the release of government datasets or other information should
evaluate the proportionality of any restrictions on access to or the quality of released
government data in order to ensure that the focus remains on balancing the goals of
open government and open data with any risks to personal privacy.

Acknowledgments  The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada for the Geothink project of which this research forms a part.

References

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013) Opinion 06/2013 on Open Data and Public
Sector Information (‘PSI’) Reuse. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/
article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp207_en.pdf
AusGoal (2011) Restrictive Licence Template. Retrieved from: http://www.ausgoal.gov.au/
restrictive-licence-template
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 351

Austin LM, Pelletier F (2005) Synthesis of the comments on JTAC’s discussion paper on open
courts, electronic access to court records, and privacy (Prepared on Behalf of the Judges
Technology Advisory Committee for the Canadian Judicial Council, 2005). Retrieved from:
https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_techissues_Synthesis_2005_en.pdf
BAILII Privacy Policy (2016) Retrieved from: http://www.bailii.org/bailii/privacy.html
Bennett CJ, Raab C (2006) The governance of privacy: policy instruments in global perspective.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Berzins C (2008) Personal information in the adjudicative decisions of administrative tribunals: an
argument for limits. Advocates’ Q 34(3):261–284
Borgesius FZ, Gray J, van Eeechoud M (2015) Open data, privacy, and fair information principles:
towards a balancing framework. Berkeley Technol Law J 30(3):2073–2130
British Columbia (2016) Open information. Retrieved from: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/
governments/about-the-bc-government/open-government/open-information
Cameron-Huff A (2014) Why Google can’t build a case law search engine in Ontario. Retrieved
from: http://www.cameronhuff.com/blog/ontario-case-law-private/index.html
Candeub A (2013) Transparency in the administrative state. Houston Law Rev 51(2):385–416
CanLII Privacy Policy (2016) Retrieved from: https://www.canlii.org/en/info/privacy.html
Cavoukian A (2009) Privacy and government 2.0: the implications of an open world. Ontario,
Information and Privacy Commissioner. Retrieved from: https://www.ipc.on.ca/images/
Resources/priv-gov-2.0.pdf
Cavoukian A, Dix A, El Emam K (2014) The unintended consequences of privacy paternalism.
Information and Privacy Commissioner, Toronto. Retrieved from: https://www.ipc.on.ca/
images/Resources/pbd-privacy_paternalism.pdf
Conroy A, Scassa T (2015) Promoting transparency while protecting privacy in open government
in Canada. Alberta Law Rev 53(1):175–206
Daries JP (2014) Privacy, anonymity, and big data in the social sciences. ACM Queue 12(7):1–12.
Retrieved from: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2661641
Davies TG (2014) Open data policies and practice: an international comparison (September 5,
2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2492520 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2492520
Dobby C (2015) Canadians upset with Romanian Website that exposes court
case details. The Globe and Mail (4 January, 2015). Retrieved from: http://
w w w. t h eg l o b e a n d m a i l . c o m / r e p o r t - o n - bu s i n e s s / i n d u s t r y - n ew s / t h e - l aw - p a g e /
canadians-upset-over-romanian-website-that-exposes-court-case-details/article22284367/
El Emam K (2013) Guide to the de-identification of personal health information. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
El Emam K, Fineberg A (2009) An overview of techniques for de-identifying personal health
information. CHEO Research Institute, Ottawa
Fraser R, Willison D (2009) Tools for de-identification of personal health informa-
tion. Report Prepared for the Pan-Canadian Health Information Privacy (HIP)
Group. Retrieved from: https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/component/edocman/
supporting-documents/500-tools-for-de-identification-of-personal-health-information
Government of Canada (2002) Privacy impact assessment policy. Canada, Treasury Board
Secretariat, Ottawa. Retrieved from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12450
Greenleaf G (2011) Free access to legal information, LIIs, and the free access to law movement. In:
Danner R, Winterton J (eds) IALL international handbook of legal information management.
Ashgate, Aldershot/Burlington VT, pp 201–228
Janssen K (2012) Open government data and the right to information: opportunities and obstacles.
J Community Informatics 8:2. online: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/952/954
Kitchin R (2014) The data revolution: big data, open data, data infrastructures & their conse-
quences. SAGE Publications Ltd., London
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2014) Big data. Mariner Books, New York
McLachlin B (2003) Courts, transparency and public confidence – to the better administration of
justice. Deakin Law Rev 8:1–12
352 T. Scassa and A. Conroy

Mewhort K (2012) Creative commons licenses: options for Canadian open data providers. (2012)
Report for the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. Retrieved from: https://
cippic.ca/sites/default/files/Creative%20Commons%20Licenses%20-%20Options%20for%20
Canadian%20Open%20Data%20Providers.pdf
Meyerhoff-Nielsen M, Krimmer R (2015) Reuse of data for personal and proactive service:
an opportunity not yet utilised. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publica-
tion/278023437_Reuse_of_Data_for_Personal_and_Proactive_Service_An_Opportunity_
Not_Yet_Utilised
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (2014) Guide to undertaking privacy impact
assessments. Retrieved from: https://www.oaic.gov.au/resources/agencies-and-organisations/
guides/guide-to-undertaking-privacy-impact-assessments.pdf
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (2014) Personal information retention and dis-
posal: principles and best practices. Retrieved from: https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/
gd_rd_201406_e.asp
Ohm P (2010) Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization.
UCLA Law Rev 57:1701–1777
Open Government Partnership (2011) Open Government Declaration. Retrieved from: https://
www.opengovpartnership.org/open-governmentdeclaration
PIPEDA Report of Findings No. 2015–002, [2015] C.P.C.S.F No. 2, [2015] S.C.C.P.V.P.C. No 2
Queensland, Office of the Information Commissioner (2013) Proactive disclosure and publi-
cation schemes. Retrieved from: https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-government/
access-and-amendment/proactive-disclosure/proactive-disclosure-and-publication-schemes
Roy J (2014) Open data and open governance in Canada: a critical examination of new opportuni-
ties and old tensions. Future Internet 6(3):414–432. doi:10.3390/fi6030414
Scassa T (2014) Privacy and open government. Future Internet 6:397–413. doi:10.3390/fi6020397.
Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/6/2/397
Scassa T, Conroy A (2016) Strategies for protecting privacy in open data and proactive disclosure.
Canadian J Law Technol 14:215–262
Schauer F (2011) Transparency in three dimensions. Univ Ill Law Rev 4:1339–1358
Schneier B (2015) Data and goliath: the hidden battles to collect your data and control your world.
W.W. Norton & Co., New York
Sherman J (2013) Court information management: policy framework to accommodate the digital
environment. Canadian Judicial Council, Ottawa. Retrieved from: http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/
cmslib/general/AJC/Policy%20Framework%20to%20Accommodate%20the%20Digital%20
Environment%202013-03.pdf
Solove DJ (2004) The digital person: technology and privacy in the information age. New York
University Press, New York
Thompson SA (2014) Unlocking Ontario public sector salary data. Media Canadian Assoc
Journalists 16(2):27
United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (UK ICO) (2012) Anonymisation: manag-
ing data risk code of practice. ICO, Cheshire. Retrieved from: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-
organisations/documents/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf
United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (UK ICO) (2014) Privacy Impact Assessment
Code of Practice. Retrieved from: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1595/
pia-code-of-practice.pdf
United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (UK ICO) (2016) Retaining Personal Data
(Principle 5). Retrieved from: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/
principle-5-retention/
Veljkovic N, Bogdanovic-Dinic S, Stoimenov L (2014) Benchmarking open government: an open
data perspective. Gov Inf Q 31(2):278–290
Winn PA (2004) Online court records: balancing judicial accountability and privacy in an age of
electronic information. Symposium – Technology, Values, and the Justice System. Washington
Law Rev 79:307–330
The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government 353

Wright D, deHert P (eds) (2012) Privacy impact assessment. Springer, Dordrecht

Yu H, Robinson DG (2012) The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA L Rev Disc:178–208
Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a frame-
work for comparison. Gov Inf Q 31(1):17–29. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003

Dr. Teresa Scassa  is the Canada Research Chair in Information Law at the University of Ottawa,
where she is also a professor at the Faculty of Law. She is the author or co-author of several books
on intellectual property and technology law subjects. She is a past member of the External Advisory
Committee of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and of the Canadian Government
Advisory Committee on Open Government. She is a member of the GEOTHINK research partner-
ship, and has written widely in the areas of intellectual property law, law and technology, privacy,
and open government.

Dr. Amy Conroy  recently completed her doctorate in the Faculty of Law at the University of
Ottawa. She is a part-time professor at Carleton University. She has co-authored several papers in
the area of privacy law with Teresa Scassa. Her doctoral dissertation, entitled “E-racing the Genetic
Family Tree: A Critical Race Analysis of the Impact of Familial DNA Searching on Canada’s
Aboriginal Peoples,” argues against using familial searching in Canada’s national DNA data bank
based on the discriminatory impact this would have on Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Index

A B
Accenture five-stage model, 80 Bangladesh, 268
Administrative tribunals, 335 BBC Janala, 268, 269
Adoption of Blockchain, 284 BBC World Service Trust, 268
Advanced health care in India, 253 Benefit payment, blockchain, 294
Advanced process model repository Berrypicking, 70, 71
(APROMORE), 116, 117 Big data analytics, 336
Advantages of linked data, 176 Big data enabled policy cycle, 38, 51–53
African companies, ICT, 256 Big open linked data (BOLD), 19
Against method, 40 Bitcoin protocol, 285
Aggregation technique, 345 Blockchain applications, 284, 295
Agile Software Development process, 210 Blockchain-as-a-service, 295
Akomo Ntoso model, 30 Blockchain-based financial innovation, 293
Alhomod four-stage model, 88 Blockchain technology, 21, 22, 283,
Almazan & Gil-Garcia’s six-stage model, 85 285–287, 291
Alpha version of TET, 209 background, 284–286
Anonymization of data, 345 goal, 285
Anonymization techniques, 339 implementations, 285
Application programmable interfaces innovation, 285
(APIs), 179 network security, 285
Applications of waternomics project, 185–192 popularity, 286
goal-oriented accessing water, 191, 192 programmable aspects, 286
manager dashboard, 187, 188 cases, 287–295
observations control panel, 190 e-voting, e-resident shareholders, 291
public display, 186, 187 migration of government data, 287, 291
water retention time observer, 188–190 public notary to e-residents, 291
wearable info-centre, 190, 191 digital 5 countries as innovators, 286, 287
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki discussion, 295, 296
(AUTH), 181 government entities, 284
Artificial intelligence (AI), 19, 20, 56 in private sector, 284
Augmented reality (AR), 20 related initiatives across D5 countries,
Australian Legal Information Institute 288–290
(AUSTLII), 348 Bottom-up approach, 200
Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO), 72 British Columbia Open Information
Awareness of water, 185 website, 334

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 355

A. Ojo, J. Millard (eds.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government
Technology Infrastructure and Services, Public Administration
and Information Technology 32, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3
356 Index

British and Irish Legal Information Institute CKAN open data platform, 209
(BAILII), 348 CoinStack platform, 293
Building management system (BMS), 183 Coláiste na Coiribe (CnaC) School, 182
Business as usual procedures, 272 Collaboration, 197, 300, 304, 315, 323,
Business model, 220–223, 251 324, 326
components of, 222, 223 Collaborative economy, 18
existing, 223–225 Collaborative public management, 66
Hamel business model, 223 Collective intelligence (CI), 307, 309
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 221, 222 analysis, 201
Shafer, Smith and Linder, 222 scenario-based approach, 304
Business process modelling, 112, 113, scenario-based design approach, 305–307
120–129 workflow for, 202
configurable models, municipalities, Color-coded visualization, 193
125–129 Combinational theory, 48
compression rate and time evaluation, Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), 292
127–129 Communication tools, ICT, 263
tool support, 126, 127 Community model, 213
reference, 119–125 Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network
configurable models, 123–125 (CKAN) Platform, 208
hierarchical reference process models, Computer-assisted instruction (CAI), 246
121–123 Computer-mediated transparency, 306
placeholders refinement, 120, 121 Conceptualisations of transparency, 302
summary and discussion, 125 Conceptualising transparency, 319
repository Conceptualization, ODBMs, 224–228
APROMORE, 116–117 Consumption of water, 185
BP-suite, 115 Contextual water management, 175
process variant repository, 114 Contextualism, 301–304
semantic business process repositories, Contextualist approach, 319
115, 116 Controlled natural language (CNL)
summary and discussion, 117–119 approach, 32
reuse in public administration, 111 Coursera, MOOC platform, 251
methodology, 112, 113 Cross-governmental cooperation, 97
Crown Legislation Markup Language
(CLML), 30
C Cryptography, 292
Cambodia malaria information system Cyber laws, 276
(MIS), 261 Cybersecurity, 292
Canada’s Privacy Act (s. 4), 340
Canadian Legal Information Institute
(CanLII), 348 D
Capability maturity models (CMM), 67 Danish tax system, 5
Chandler & Emanuel four-stage model, 77 Data, 221
Cisco three-stage model, 84 integration, 178
Citizens, 199, 300, 305, 311, 317, 319, 320, minimization, 340, 341
322, 323, 340 retention policies, 340
engagement, 322, 323 sets, 345
feedback, 259 DatalEt-Ecosystem Provider (DEEP), 206, 208
improving engagement of, 199 Datalets, 207, 208
science, 42–45, 56 Dataspace support services, 178
Scientist, 53–56 Davison four-element model, 82
Citizen Weather Observer Program Decentralized transactions, 285
(CWOP), 55 Declarative Rule-based Agent Modelling
City budget management, 211 Software (DRAMS), 31
Civic crafting in urban planning, 53 Deidentification techniques, 342
Index 357

Democracy, 301 Gartner Group, 72

Democratic tradition transparency, 300 Heeks’ Manchester eGov-MM, 89
Den Haag workshop, 201 Hodgkingson five-stage model, 77
Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine Howard three-stage maturity model, 74
(DAFM), 161 Janowski’s four-stage digital
Digital channel, 242 government evaluation model, 88
Digital 5 countries (D5), 286, 287 Kim & Grant five-stage model, 86
blockchain related initiatives across, Koh & Prybutok three-element model, 80
288–290 Layne & Lee’s maturity model, 74
goals of, 286, 287 Lee & Kwak five-stage model, 88
Digital fabrication, 21 maturity levels, 93–96
Digital infrastructure disparities, 248 Moon’s five-stage model, 78
Digital Market, 295 NASCIO, 84
Digitization of information, 48–51 Netchaeva’s five-stage model, 79
Distributed ledger, 284, 285, 290, 294, 295 OGD, 86
DIY citizenship, 44 by origin and type, 89–93
dotHIV initiative, 269 Persson & Goldkuhl two-stage model, 83
3D printing, 243 Public Sector Process Rebuilding
Drinking water, 188 Model, 83
Drishtee education supply chain project, 271 Reddick’s two-stage model, 80
Drones, 20, 21 SAFAD, 73
DROOLS rule engine, 33 Shahkooh five-stage model, 85
Drug stock out system, 261 Siau & Long five-stage maturity
Dublin workshop, 201, 307, 314 models, 82
Dynamic Capability Theory (DCT), 136 UKNAO five-state maturity model, 79
Dynamic Resource-Based Theory, 137 UN eGovernment Readiness Index,
75, 76
Waseda model, 81
E Wescott’s model, 77
Ecosystems, water information, 176 West four-stages model, 81
Education of water, 185 Windley’s four-stages model, 81
Effective transparency, 302 World Bank three-stage model, 79
E-Government, 72–86, 88–96, 271, 300 E-Government adoption model (GAM), 86, 88
action plan, 6–8 E-Government Development Index, 287, 292
benchmark model, 77 E-Government Maturity Model (eGov-MM),
four waves of evolution, 6 85, 100
and global challenges, 3, 4 E-Health Authority health (Oracle)
literature, 65 database, 291
and market changes, 1–3 E-health global revenue 2016, 249
policy, 275 E-learning growth rates (2010-2015), 248
programs, 219 Electronic government. See E-Government
stage models Electronic identification (eID), 68, 74, 97
Accenture five-stage model, 80 Elements of 6-V framework, 224, 226
adoption model, 86, 88 Entity management service, 179
Alhomod four-stage model, 88 Entry once principle, 340
Almazan & Gil-Garcia’s six-stage ePolicy cycle, 37, 41, 52, 53
model, 85 Esotheric, 38
ANAO, 72 Estonia, 286, 287, 291
Chandler & Emanuel four-stage Ethiopia, WPM, 255
model, 77 EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party,
Cisco three-stage model, 84 345, 347
Davison four-element model, 82 European strategies for e-governance, 1–23
Deloitte research, 73 Event processing service, 179
five-stage maturity models, 74 Extreme citizen science, 43
358 Index

F I
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs), 271 Idea writing, 201
Fintech, 292 Ideawriting method, 308
Footprint, water, 176 India, advanced healthcare, 253
Forecasting systems, 185 Individual privacy, 338
Formism, 302 Inferability, 303
Formist approach, 303 Information and Communication Technology
Four waves of e-government evolution, 6 (ICT), 1–9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23,
Fourth industrial revolution, 18 63–69, 77, 82, 91, 93, 97, 101–103,
Free and open source software (FOSS), 207 241, 245–248, 257–276
Frequency analysis, 311 access by development status 2015, 249
for capacity building, 242
laws relating to, 273
G lessons learnt, 276–280
Gartner Group four state model, 72 meeting social needs of target populations
Genetically modified organisms challenges to be addressed, 265–267
(GMOs), 21 technology innovations in public
Global e-learning market, 248 service delivery, 267–272
Global functional digital literacy, 246 policy and strategic framework
Global innovation index, 293 challenges to be addressed, 272–273
Global open government partnership, 2 technology innovations in public
Global Opportunities Network (2016), 243 service delivery, 273–276
Goal-oriented accessing water, 191, 192 public services using innovative
Google Earth, 261 challenges to be addressed, 245–248
Governance, 300, 323, 324, 326 role in public service delivery, 242
Government information, 334, 336, 337 solutions, 242
Government-led WPM, Ethiopia, 255 strengthening governance
3G network, population coverage, 267 challenges to be addressed, 257–259
Graphical user interface (GUI), 206 challenges to be addressed, 257
Grey Economy initiative, 262 technology innovations in public
Groningen workshop, 201 service delivery, 259–264
Guide to undertaking privacy impact technologies, 243
assessments (2014), 343 technology innovations in public service
delivery, 248–257
Information holders, 304
H Information integration projects, 176, 177
Hamel business model, 223 Information needs, transparency, 314, 315
Hammurabi’s code, 27 Information systems (IS), 213
Heeks’ Manchester eGov-MM, 89 Information technologies, 203
Heuristics, 345 Innovations in public service delivery, 242, 244
Hiller & Bélanger’s five-stage maturity technology, 248–257, 259–264
models, 74 Innovators, digital 5 countries, 286, 287
Hodgkingson five-stage model, 77 Integrated eHealth System, 252
Holistic multidisciplinary approach, 215 Inter-governmental communication, 341, 342
Household surveys, ICT, 266 Internet, 198, 245, 250, 285
Howard three-stage maturity model, 74 usage between males and females, 265
Human computation service, 179 individuals using by income group, 266
Human-computer interaction Internet of Things (IoT), 19, 243
techniques, 192 Intra-governmental communication, 341, 342
Human Development Index (HDI), 243 Ipaidabribe.com, 263
Hydro-meteorological information, 192 Irekia open-government portal, 264
Hyper text transfer protocol IS management, 66, 67
(HTTP), 177 Israel, 286, 292
HyperLogLog-Algorithm, 50 Issue based information systems (IBIS), 31
Index 359

J National University of Ireland Galway

Janowski’s four-stage Digital Government (NUIG), 181, 182
Evaluation Model, 88 Natural language processing (NLP), 32
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON-LD), 177 Netchaeva’s five-stage model, 79
Joined-up Government (JUG), 66 Network security, 285
New public management (NPM), 1, 66
New Zealand, 286, 292, 293
K Next-generation water information
Kenya, 260 management systems, 174
Keyless signature infrastructure (KSI), 291 Nigeria Police Force, 262
Keyless signatures technology, 291 Nominal transparency, 302
Kim & Grant five-stage model, 86 Nudge’ approach, 11
Koh & Prybutok three-element model, 80 NUIG engineering building, 187

L O
Lambda architecture realization, 183 ODDC framework, 156, 157, 166, 167
Layne & Lee’s maturity model, 74 ODVC framework, 155
Lee & Kwak five-stage model, 88 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Lee’s framework, 97 (OPCC), 349
LegalRuleML, 30 OGD maturity model, 100
License restrictions, 346, 347 O-Government, 10–12
Linate Airport, 180 framework and setting, 9–13
Lingua scientia, 38 open data, 10
Linked data, 174, 176, 177 open process, 12
Linked Real-time Dataspace for Waternomics open service, 11
project, 177–179 and global challenges, 3, 4
and market changes, 1–3
societal level perspective and new
M framework, 4–7
MajiVoice software, 260 Ontorion Controlled Natural Language
Malaria consortium, 261 (OCNL), 32
Malaria information system (MIS), 261 Open data (OD), 10, 198, 199, 203, 219–221,
Malaysian National Telecommunications, 275 335, 337
Massive open online courses (MOOCs), 251 Open data Barometer, 305
Maturity models, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 80, 82 Open data business models (ODBMs),
Modernization of public services, Portugal, 220–225, 233–235
274, 275 conceptualization, 224–228
Mondey project in Germany, 269 literature review
Moon’s five-stage model, 78 business model, 221–225
mPedigree service, 252 OD, 220, 221
Multi-disciplinary approach, 215 model elaboration, 228, 229
Municipality of Thermi, 181 partners and value disciplines, 229–236
Mwater, 254 categories, 234
patterns, 233, 234
value disciplines, 234, 235
N and value proposition categories, 236
Nairobi Water, 260 Open data-driven organizations (ODDOs),
Narayana Health hospital, 253, 254 135, 136
National Association of State Chief dynamic capabilities, 147–154
Information Officers’ (NASCIO), theoretical background, 136–154
84, 91, 92, 97, 99, 100, 104 value capabilities, 141–145, 147
National Telecommunications Policy Open data dynamic capabilities (ODDCs),
(NTP), 275 136, 161–163, 165
360 Index

Open data industry, 235 anonymization of data, 345

Open data platform (ODP), 208, 300 assessing privacy risks, 342–344
OpenDataSoft, 205 data minimization, 340, 341
Open data value capabilities (ODVCs), 136 inter- and intra-governmental
Open government, 259, 333, 340–349 communication, 341, 342
data and information, 334–336 license restrictions, 346, 347
(see O-government) technological barriers, 348, 349
personal information, 338, 339 Privacy impact assessments (PIAs), 342, 343
strategies for managing privacy in, Privacy, open government, 337, 338
339–349 Proactive disclosure, 335
anonymization of data, 345 Professor-why project in Poland, 250
assessing privacy risks, 342–344 Pseudonymization, 345
data minimization, 340, 341 Public Administration for next generation,
inter- and intra-governmental 31–34
communication, 341, 342 development, 28, 29
license restrictions, 346, 347 exposition, 27, 28
technological barriers, 348, 349 formal modelling, 30, 32, 33
technological context, 336, 337 policy engineering, 29, 30
transparency and privacy, 337, 338 recapitulation, 34
Open government data (OGD), 10, 86 Public administrations, 111, 112
Open Government Data Value chain, 142 Public dashboard web application, 186, 187
Open Government Declaration, 337 Public key infrastructure (PKI) card, 291
Open Government Directive, 2 Public-private partnerships (PPPs), 274
OpenID protocol, 206 Public Room, 207
Open protocols, 174, 176 Public Sector Process Rebuilding Model
Open science, 40–42 (PPR), 83
Open-source licensing model, 203 Public service delivery, 64, 274
Organicism transparency, 303 Public service outcomes, 257
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Public value management, 2
Development, 174
Osterwalder and Pigneur business model,
221, 222 Q
Overarching characteristics and meta stages, Open collaboration for policy modelling
96, 97 (OCOPOMO) project, 30
Oxwall, SPOD on, 207 QR codes, 187, 191
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), 68
P Quest to Learn (USA), 250
Participatory democracy, 301, 304, 305
PatientsLikeMe service, 252
Paying research grant, blockchain, 295 R
Permissionless, 22 Randomization, 345
Personal information, 338, 339 Rayport and Sviokla’s value chain, 142
Personally identifiable information, 338 RDFization process, 177
Persson & Goldkuhl two-stage model, 83 Real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system,
Phases of trans-disciplinary effort, 200 294
Policy cycle, 53–56 Real-time Linked Dataspace, 174, 182
Policymakers, 219 Real-time transaction, 283
Porter’s value chain, 142 Redaction, 345
Prato workshop, 307 Reddick’s two-stage model, 80
Principle of openness, 335 Registries, 335
Privacy, 340–349 Reidentification risk, 339, 345, 346
strategies for managing in open Representative democracy, 301
government, 339–349 Resource-based View (RBV), 136
Index 361

Resource description framework (RDF), 177 Societal model, 213

Risk adverse culture, 272 South Korea, 286, 293, 294
Robot Exclusion Standard, 348 Stage models, 68, 69, 71–89, 91, 94, 97–103
Robotics, 20, 243 Accenture five-stage model, 80
ROUTE-TO-PA Authentication Server (RAS), Alhomod four-stage model, 88
205, 206 Almazan & Gil-Garcia’s six-stage model, 85
ROUTE-TO-PA platform, 200, 201, 203–210, ANAO, 72
215, 216 Chandler & Emanuel four-stage model, 77
architecture, 204 Cisco three-stage model, 84
design team, 203 Davison four-element model, 82
SPOD, 204–208 Deloitt research, 73
Datalets and DEEP, 208 eGovernment adoption model, 86, 88
example, 215 five-stage maturity models, 74
on Oxwall, 207 Gartner group, 72
TET, 208–210 Heeks’ Manchester eGov-MM, 89
example, 216 Hodgkingson five-stage model, 77
“plug-and-play” architecture, 210 Howard three-stage maturity model, 74
status and exploitation, 210 Janowski’s four-stage Digital Government
technical features, 209, 210 Evaluation Model, 88
ROUTE-TO-PA project, 200, 206, 304–306, Kim & Grant five-stage model, 86
319, 323, 325 Koh & Prybutok three-element model, 80
RuleML, 30 Layne & Lee’s maturity model, 74
Lee & Kwak five-stage model, 88
maturity levels, 93–96
S Moon’s five-stage model, 78
Safety net system, 271 NASCIO, 84
Saggiatore, 38 Netchaeva’s five-stage model, 79
Sanitation, 254 OGD, 86
Santiago, Chile, 256 by origin and type, 89–93
Scarcity of water, 174 with participative and democratic
Scenario-based design (SBD) approach, dimension, 102
200, 201 Persson & Goldkuhl two-stage model, 83
Scenario-based user needs, 201 Public Sector Process Rebuilding
The Sceptical Chymist, 39 Model, 83
School of One project (USA), 251 realigning, 102–103
Search & query service, 179 Reddick’s two-stage model, 80
Semantic web, 176 SAFAD, 73
Sensitive information, 344 Shahkooh five-stage model, 85
Shafer, Smith and Linder business model, 222 Siau & Long five-stage maturity models, 82
Shahkooh five-stage model, 85 UKNAO five-state maturity model, 79
Siau & Long five-stage maturity models, 82 UN eGovernment Readiness Index,
Smart city, 65, 67, 256 75, 76
Smart contracts, 283, 285 Waseda model, 81
Social-collaborative needs, transparency, Wescott’s model, 77
316–318 West four-stages model, 81
Social Platform for Open data (SPOD), 199, Windley’s four-stages model, 81
200, 204–208 World Bank three-stage model, 79
architecture, 205 Stakeholder-driven approach, 302
Datalets and DEEP, 208 Stakeholders, 257, 301, 306, 314, 320–324
example, 215 profile across sites, 308
on Oxwall, 207 training and engagement developed by, 322
Social pressure, 46 Standardized Precipitation Index, 192
Social representations model, 213 Sustainability, 175
Societal activity model, 203, 215 Sustainable Development Agenda, 257, 274
362 Index

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), understandability, usability and decision-­

242, 243 making needs, 316–319
Swedish Agency for Administrative user needs, information, 314, 315
Development/Statskontoret Transparency-enhancing toolset (TET), 199,
(SAFAD), 73 200, 208–210, 215
example, 216
“plug-and-play” architecture, 210
T status and exploitation, 210
Target populations, 265–272 technical features, 209, 210
Technical view of OD, 221 Transparency maturity model, 303
Technological barriers, 348, 349 Transparent government, 333
Technological context, open government,
336, 337
Technology acceptance model (TAM), U
212–214 UI Manager, 121, 122
Television-assisted instruction (TAI), 247 UK Data Protection Act 1998, 340
Temperature Condition Index, 192 UK Information Commissioner (2014), 345
Text4Baby, 270, 271 UKNAO five-state maturity model, 79
Thessaloniki Urban Agglomeration (TUA), 181 UltraClarity, 205
Top-down perspective, 200 UN eGovernment Readiness Index, 75, 76
Transactions, 283 UN eGovernment Survey, 68
Trans-disciplinary approach, 200 2016 UN Global E-Government Index, 287
Trans-disciplinary effort, phases of, 200 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), 176
Transparency, 197, 198, 200, 204–214, 300, Unique identifiers, 338
307–309, 314, 315 United Kingdom, 286, 294, 295
approaching design for, 301–304 Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 20
balancing privacy with, 333, 334 US Federal Enterprise Architecture, 67
collective intelligence scenario-based US National Performance Review, 65
design, 305–307
components, 303
design and route-to-PA project, 304, 305 V
discussion, 319–325 Valuable, rare, inimitable and non-­
evaluation plan and pilots description substitutable (VRIN), 136
of pilot sites, 211, 212 Value capabilities (VCs), 136
research approach, 212, 213 6V business model conceptual framework,
user level, 213, 214 220, 228, 229
future actions, 214–216 components, 228
limitations and directions for future elements of, 224, 226
research, 325, 326 ODBMs elaboration based on, 230–232
methods and results Virtual reality (VR), 20
scenarios and pilot sample Visibility, 303
details, 307
workshops, 307–309
open government, 337, 338 W
options to overcome barriers, 311–314 Waseda model, 81
overcoming barriers, 309–311 Water, 254
requirements and user involvement, Water analytics applications, 179
201–203 Water management, 174–176, 180–182
ROUTE-TO-PA platform, 203–210 information integration, 176, 177
architecture, 204 motivation, 175–176
SPOD, 204–208 contextual, 175
TET, 208–210 water footprint and information
social-collaborative needs, 316–318 ecosystems, 176
societal activity model, 203 in public spaces, 180–182
Index 363

CnaC School, 182 Web 2.0 mainstream technologies, 205

Linate Airport, 180 Web Service Modeling Ontology
Municipality of Thermi, 181 (WSMO), 116
NUIG engineering building, 181, 182 Wescott’s model, 77
related work, 192, 193 West four-stages model, 81
Water metering, 177, 182 Windley’s four-stages model, 81
Waternomics project, 177–180, 183–192 Work Economic Forum (WEF), 19
architecture, 177–179 Workshop, 201, 202, 307–309
pilots for, 180 World Bank three-stage model, 79
realization of, 182–192 World Justice Project (WJP),
applications, 185–192 257–259
data sources and open data, 183–185
Water Point Mapping (WPM), 254, 255
W3C standards, 174, 176 X
Web-Component (WC) standard, 208 Xpreso, 157–160, 163