Advertisement

Open Government Data Driven Co-creation: Moving Towards Citizen-Government Collaboration

  • Keegan McBrideEmail author
  • Maarja Toots
  • Tarmo Kalvet
  • Robert Krimmer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11020)

Abstract

It is believed that co-creation may lead to public service quality improvements, the provision and creation of new and innovative services, and bring public service providers closer to their service users. There has been an increased interest and focus on how new technological innovations are enabling and facilitating co-creation; one such digital innovation is open government data (OGD). This paper examines a relatively new concept, that of co-created OGD-driven public services and aims to understand how the availability and exploitation of OGD to co-create new public services allows service users to become collaborators rather than customers of public service providers. An exploratory case study is conducted on a pilot project within Estonia where a new public service has been co-created through the exploitation of OGD. The initial results show that in order for an OGD-driven public service to be effectively co-created, a new understanding of the role of stakeholders is needed.

Keywords

Open government data Co-creation Public service innovation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission (OpenGovIntelligence H2020 grant 693849), Estonian Research Council (PUT773, PUT1361) and TTU Digital Governance Competency Center (SS483).

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission: A vision for public services (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OECD: Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society. OECD Publishing (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J.: New public management is dead - Long live digital-era governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 16, 467–494 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linders, D.: From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 446–454 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Nasi, G.: A new theory for public service management? toward a (public) service-dominant approach. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 43, 135–158 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toots, M., et al.: A framework for data-driven public service co-production. In: Janssen M., et al. (eds.) Electronic Government, EGOV-EPART 2017, St.Petersburg, pp. 1–13 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lember, V.: The increasing role of new technologies in co-production. In: Brandsen, T., Steen, T., Verschuere, B. (eds.) Co-production and Co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Service Delivery. Routledge, Abingdon (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., Zuiderwijk, A.: Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf. Syst. Manag. 29, 258–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McBride, K.D., Aavik, G., Kalvet, T., Krimmer, R.: Co-creating an open government data driven public service: the case of Chicago’s food inspection forecasting model. In: 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 2453–2462. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khayyat, M., Bannister, F.: Towards a model for facilitating and enabling co-creation using open government data. Inf. Polity 22, 211–231 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krimmer, R., Kalvet, T., Toots, M., McBride, K.: Deliverable 2.1 OpenGovIntelligence framework–first release (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ostrom, E.: Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions. Soc. Sci. Q. 53, 474–493 (1972)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ostrom, E., Parks, R.B., Whitaker, G.P., Percy, S.L.: Formation of police and law enforcement policy. Policy Stud. J. 7, 381–389 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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, 639–653 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharp, E.B.: Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: the coproduction concept. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 14, 105–118 (1980)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitaker, G.P.: Coproduction: delivery in service participation citizen. Public Adm. Rev. 40, 240–246 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ostrom, E.: Crossing the great divide: synergy, and development. World Dev. 24, 1073–1087 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pestoff, V.: Co-production as a social and governance innovation in public services. Polityka Spoleczna 11, 2–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., Pestoff, V.: Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas 23, 1083–1101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez-Zapata, F., Heeks, R.: The multiple meanings of open government data: understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 441–452 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Open Knowledge Foundation: What is Open Data?. http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/
  22. 22.
    Toots, M., McBride, K., Kalvet, T., Krimmer, R.: Open data as enabler of public service co-creation : exploring the drivers and barriers. In: International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Krems, Austria, pp. 102–112. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janssen, M., Charalabadis, Y., Krcmar, H.: Open data, information processing and datification of government. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2668–2670 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dawes, S.S., et al.: Planning and designing open government data programs: an ecosystem approach. Gov. Inf. Q. 33, 15–27 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hartog, M., Mulder, B., Spée, B., Visser, E., Gribnau, A.: Open data within governmental organisations: effects, benefits and challenges of the implementation process. JeDEM - eJournal eDemocracy Open Gov. 6, 49–61 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foulonneau, M., Martin, S., Turki, S.: How open data are turned into services? In: Snene, M., Leonard, M. (eds.) IESS 2014. LNBIP, vol. 169, pp. 31–39. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04810-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foulonneau, M., Turki, S., Vidou, G., Martin, S.: Open data in service design. Electron. J. e-Government. 12, 99–107 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M.: Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a framework for comparison. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 17–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., Alibaks, R.S.: Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electron. J. Electron. Gov. 10, 156–172 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conradie, P., Choenni, S.: On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, S10–S17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Young, M., Yan, A.: Civic hackers’ user experiences and expectations of seattle’s open municipal data program. In: Proceedings of 50th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, pp. 2681–2690 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications, Newbury Park (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kalvet, T.: Innovation: a factor explaining e-government success in Estonia. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 9, 142–157 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riigikogu: Public Information Act. Estonia (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chamberlain, S., Sharp, H., Maiden, N.: Towards a framework for integrating agile development and user-centred design. In: Abrahamsson, P., Marchesi, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4044, pp. 143–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11774129_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications: Green Paper on the Organisation of Public Services (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Delbecq, A.L., de Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D.H.: Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott Foresman, Glenview (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keegan McBride
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maarja Toots
    • 1
  • Tarmo Kalvet
    • 1
  • Robert Krimmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and GovernanceTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations