A Framework for Data-Driven Public Service Co-production

  • Maarja TootsEmail author
  • Keegan McBride
  • Tarmo Kalvet
  • Robert Krimmer
  • Efthimios Tambouris
  • Eleni Panopoulou
  • Evangelos Kalampokis
  • Konstantinos Tarabanis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10428)


Governments are creating and maintaining increasing amounts of data, and, recently, releasing data as open government data. As the amount of data available increases, so too should the exploitation of this data. However, this potential currently seems to be unexploited. Since exploiting open government data has the potential to create new public value, the absence of this exploitation is something that should be explored. It is therefore timely to investigate how the potential of existing datasets could be unleashed to provide services that create public value. For this purpose, we conducted a literature study and an empirical survey of the relevant drivers, barriers and gaps. Based on the results, we propose a framework that addresses some of the key challenges and puts forward an agile co-production process to support effective data-driven service creation. The proposed framework incorporates elements from agile development, lean startups, co-creation, and open government data literature and aims to increase our understanding on how open government data may be able to drive public service co-creation.


Open data Public services Co-production Co-creation Agile development 



This work was supported by the European Commission (OpenGovIntelligence H2020 grant 693849), Estonian Research Council (PUT773, PUT1361) and Tallinn University of Technology Project B42.


  1. 1.
    Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., Zuiderwijk, A.: Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf. Syst. Manag. (ISM) 29(4), 258–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin, S., Foulonneau, M., Turki, S., Ihadjadene, M.: Open data: barriers, risks and opportunities. In: 13th European Conference on eGovernment (ECEG 2013), Como, Italy, pp. 301–309 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., Alibaks, R.S.: Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electron. J. Electron. Gov. 10(2), 156–172 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foulonneau, M., Turki, S., Vidou, G., Martin, S.: Open data in service design. Electron. J. e-Gov. 12(2), 99–107 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janssen, K.: The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: an overview of recent developments. Gov. Inf. Q. 28(4), 446–456 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rebooting Public Service Delivery—How Can Open Government Data Help Drive Innovation? OECD (2016).
  7. 7.
    OMB, Memorandum M-13-13: Open Data Policy—Managing Information as an Asset (2013).
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Chan, C.M.L.: From open data to open innovation strategies: creating e-services using open government data. In: Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-46), Wailea, HI, USA, pp. 1890–1899. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Juell-Skielse, G., Hjalmarsson, A., Johannesson, P., Rudmark, D.: Is the public motivated to engage in open data innovation? In: Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Dublin, Ireland, vol. 8653, pp. 277–288 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez-Zapata, F., Heeks, R.: The multiple meanings of open government data: understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 441–452 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charalabidis, Y., Alexopoulos, C., Diamantopoulou, V., Androutsopoulou, A.: An open data and open services repository for supporting citizen-driven application development for governance. In: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016), Kauai, HI, USA, pp. 2596–2604. IEEE, Kauai, HI, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Misuraca, G., Viscusi, G.: Is open data enough? E-governance challenges for open government. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 10(1), 18–34 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ostrom, E.: Crossing the great divide: synergy, and development. World Dev. 24(6), 1073–1087 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Strokosch, K.: Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment? Public Manag. Rev. 18(5), 639–653 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osborne, S.P., Strokosch, K.: It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. Br. J. Manag. 24, S31–S47 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bracci, E., Fugini, M., Sicilia, M.: Co-production of public services: meaning and motivations. In: Fugini, M., Bracci, E., Sicilia, M. (eds.) Co-production in the Public Sector. SAST, pp. 1–11. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30558-5_1 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pestoff, V.: Co-production and third sector social services in Europe. In: Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., Pestoff, V. (eds.) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production. Routledge, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pestoff, V.: Co-production as social and governance innovation in public services. Polittyka Spoleczna 11(1), 2–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G., Loeffler, E.: Making quality sustainable: co-design, co-decide, co-produce, co-evaluate. In: Presented at the 4QC Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Radnor, Z., Osborne, S.P., Kinder, T., Mutton, J.: Operationalizing co-production in public services delivery: the contribution of service blueprinting. Public Manag. Rev. 16(3), 402–423 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J.: Collaborative innovation: a viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Adm. Rev. 73(6), 821–830 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dwivedi, Y.K., et al.: Research on information systems failures and successes: status update and future directions. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(1), 143–157 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peristeras, V., Tarabanis, K.: The governance architecture framework and models. In: Saha, P. (ed.) Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture. IGI Global Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Commission: EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020: Accelerating the Digital Transformation of Government (2016).
  26. 26.
    Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E.: From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Org. 23(4), 1119–1138 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Galasso, G., Farina, G., Osimo, D., Mureddu, F., Kalvet, T., Waller, P.: Analysis of the value of new generation of eGovernment services and how can the public sector become an agent of innovation through ICT (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A vision for public services. In: European Commission. Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Denhardt, R.B., Denhardt, J.V.: The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Adm. Rev. 60(6), 549–559 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Together for better public services: partnering with citizens and civil society. In: OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nambisan, S., Nambisan, P.: Engaging citizens in co-creation in public services: lessons learned and best practices. In: Collaboration. IBM Center for The Business of Government (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M., Strykowski, S.: Social government: a concept supporting communities in co-creation and co-production of public services. In: dg.o 2015, New York, USA, pp. 204–209. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001).
  34. 34.
    Highsmith, J., Cockburn, A.: Agile software development: the business of innovation. Computer 34(9), 120–127 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kalvet, T.: Innovation: a factor explaining e-government success in Estonia. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 9(2), 142–157 (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Toots, M., McBride, K., Kalvet, T., Krimmer, R.: Open data as enabler of public service co-creation: exploring the drivers and barriers. In: Parycek, P., Edelma, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, pp. 102–112. Danube University Krems, Krems an der Donau (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarja Toots
    • 1
    Email author
  • Keegan McBride
    • 1
  • Tarmo Kalvet
    • 1
  • Robert Krimmer
    • 1
  • Efthimios Tambouris
    • 2
  • Eleni Panopoulou
    • 2
  • Evangelos Kalampokis
    • 2
  • Konstantinos Tarabanis
    • 2
  1. 1.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.University of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations