Open Government in Policy Development: From Collaborative Scenario Texts to Formal Policy Models

  • Maria A. Wimmer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6536)


The technical capacities of service offers for e-government and e-participation have considerably progressed over the last years. Yet, the principles of good governance are still not well implemented, especially when it comes to policy development. Governments struggle to effectively apply innovative technologies in regards to providing open collaboration in policy formulation or to monitor and evaluate policy implementation. Through a recent initiative of the European Commission (EC), several research projects have been launched to address these challenges. This paper first investigates existing deficiencies in open government towards transparent policy development. Subsequently, an approach of a project funded by the EC is introduced to develop better ICT support for open collaboration in policy modeling. The approach combines existing e-participation tools, collaborative scenario generation and formal policy modeling to evaluate and explore policies via agent-based modeling (OCOPOMO -


E-Government E-Governance Open Collaboration Scenario Generation Policy Modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, P.W., Arrow, K., Pines, D. (eds.): The Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Addison-Wesley Longman, Redwood (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apostolou, D., Babic, F., Bafoutsou, G., Butka, P., Dioudis, S., Mach, M., Macintosh, A., Gordon, T., Halaris, C., Kafentzis, K., Mentzas, G., Paralic, M., Paralic, J., Renton, A., Rosendahl, A., Sabol, T., Schneider, C., Thorleifsdottir, A., Wimmer, M.: D5.2 - eParticipation: The potential of new and emerging technologies (2007) DEMO-net consortium,
  3. 3.
    Arthur, W.B.: Complexity and the Economy. In: Colander, D. (ed.) The Complexity Vision and the Teaching of Economics. Edward Elgar (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barzilai-Nahon, K., Scholl, H.J.: Siblings of a Different Kind: E-Government and E-Commerce. In: Wimmer, M., Scholl, H.J., Janssen, M., Chappelet, J.-L. (eds.) EGOV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6228, pp. 25–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botterman, M., Millard, J., Horlings, E., van Oranje, C., van Deelen, M., Pedersen, K.: Value for citizens - A vision of public governance in 2020. European Commission (2008), (accessed 17/10/2010)
  6. 6.
    Camazine, S.: Self-organizing systems. In: Nadel, L. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, pp. 1059–1062. Elsevier, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carroll, J.M.: Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. Wiley, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Codagnone, C., Wimmer, M.A. (eds.): Roadmapping eGovernment Research: Visions and Measures towards Innovative Governments in 2020. MY Print snc di Guerinoni Marco & C, Clusone (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cortelezzi, F., Villani, G.: Valuation of R&D Sequential Exchange Options Using Monte Carlo Approach. Journal of Computational Economics 33(3), 209–236 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epstein, J.M.: Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press, New York (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    eTen, eTen Program: support for trans-European telecommunications networks. Trans-European Telecommunications Networks (2007), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  12. 12.
    European Commission. Lisbon European Council 23 And 24 March 2000 (2000), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  13. 13.
    European Commission, European Governance, A white paper, COM (2001) 428 final, Brussels (25.7.2001), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  14. 14.
    European Commission. eEurope 2005. An information society for all: An Action Plan to be presented in view of the Sevilla European Council, COM (2002) 263 final. Brussel (2002), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  15. 15.
    European Commission. Establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013), COM (2005) 121 final. Brussels (2005), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  16. 16.
    European Commission. i2010 - A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM (2005) 229 final. Brussels (2005), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  17. 17.
    European Commission: A Digital Agenda for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2010) 245 final/2, Brussels (26.8.2010), (accessed 18/10/2010)
  18. 18.
    Fletcher, M., Vrba, P.: A Brace of Agent Simulation Scenarios. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Distributed Intelligent Systems: Collective Intelligence and Its Applications (DIS 2006), pp. 169–176 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraser, C., Liotas, N., Lippa, B., Mach, M., Macintosh, A., Marzano, F., Mentzas, G., Rosendahl, A., Sabol, T., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K., Thorleifsdottir, A., Westholm, H., Wimmer, M.: D5.1 - Report on current ICTs to enable Participation. DEMO-net consortium (2006), -> Results (accessed 17/10/2010)
  20. 20.
    Gausemeier, J., Fink, A., Schlake, O.: Szenario-Management: Planen und Führen mit Szenarien. München, Hanser (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gell-Mann, M.: The quark and the jaguar: Adventure in the simple and the complex. Freeman, New York (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gkarafli, M., Papadopoulos, A., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: D14.3c: The role of Web 2.0 technologies in eParticipation, DEMO-net consortium (2007),
  23. 23.
    Grönlund, A.: Ten Years of eGovernment: The ‘End of History’ and New Beginning. In: Wimmer, M.A., Chappelet, J.-L., Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J. (eds.) EGOV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6228, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guastaroba, G., Mansini, R., Grazia Speranza, M.: Models and Simulations for Portfolio Rebalancing. Journal of Computational Economics 33(3), 237–262 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haken, H.: Synergetics. Springer, Berlin (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    He, L.T., Hu, C.: Impacts of Interval Computing on Stock Market Variability Forecasting. Journal of Computational Economics 33(3), 263–276 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holland, J.H.: Emergence: From chaos to order. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Janssen, M., van der Duin, P., Wimmer, M.A.: Framework and Methodology: Methodology for scenario building. In: 8, pp. 23–28 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Janssen, M., Wimmer, M.A., Bicking, M., Wagenaar, R.W.: Scenarios of governments in 2020. In: 8, pp. 55–84 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jennings, N.R., Bussman, S.: Agent-Based Control Systems: Why are They Suited to Engineering Complex Systems? IEEE Control Systems Magazine 23(3), 61–73 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson, S.: Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities and software. Scribner, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kelso, J.A.S.: Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klein, L.R.: The use of econometric models for policy purposes’. Econometrica 15 (1947)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Levy, M., Levy, H., Solomon, S.: Microscopic Simulation of Financial Markets: From Investor Behavior to Market phenomena. Academic Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Macintosh, A.: Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37), Track 5, vol. 5, p. 50117a. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2004), Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Macintosh, A. (ed.): The Initial DEMO-net Landscape. Deliverable D4.1, DEMO-net Consortium (2006),> Results
  37. 37.
    Miller, J.H., Page, S.E.: Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moss, S.: Competition in Internal Markets: Statistical Signatures and Critical Densities. CPM Report Number 01-79, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moss, S., Edmonds, B., Wallis, S.: The Power Law and Critical Density in Large Multi-Agent Systems. CPM Report Number 00-71, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nakicenovic, N., Swart, R.: Emissions Scenarios: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nowak, A.: Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(2), 183–192 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., Latane’, B.: From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review 97, 362–376 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    OECD: Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement. OECD Publishing (2009) doi: 10.1787/9789264048874-en Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prigogine, I., Stengers, I.: Order out of chaos. Bantam, Toronto (1984)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rose, J., Sæbø, O., Nyvang, T., Sanford, C.: D14.3a: The role of Social networking software in eParticipation. DEMO-net consortium (2007),
  46. 46.
    Rosser, J.B.: On the Complexities of Complex Economic Dynamics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 13, 169–192 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M.A., Schneider, C.: Investigating Information and Knowledge Management (IKM) in eDeliberation. In: Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.) Collaboration and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, pp. 270–277. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stephan, A.: Emergence. In: Nadel, L. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, pp. 1108–1115. Nature Publishing Group, London (2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Strid, I., Walentin, K.: Block Kalman: Filtering for Large-Scale DSGE Models. Journal of Computational Economics 33(3), 277–304 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tobias, R., Hofmann, C.: Evaluation of free Java-libraries for social-scientific agent based simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 7(1), 6 (2004), Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP): What is good governance?Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wellens, T., Kuś, M.: Separable approximation for mixed states of composite quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 64, 052302 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wimmer, M.A.: Integrated service modeling for online one-stop Government. EM - Electronic Markets, Special Issue on e-Government 12(3), 1–8 (2002)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wimmer, M.A.: The Role of Research in Successful E-Government Implementation. In: Zechner, A. (ed.) E-Government Guide Germany. Strategies, Solutions and Efficiency, Stuttgart, pp. 79–87. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag (2007)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wimmer, M.A.: Introduction. In: [8], pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wimmer, M.A., Codagnone, C.: Framework and Methodology: Definitions for eGovernment. In: [8], pp. 11–12Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wimmer, M.A., Traunmüller, R.: Integration - The Next Challenge in e-Government. In: Far, B.H., Shafazand, M.H., Takizawa, M., Wagner, R. (eds.) EurAsia-ICT 2002 - Advances in Information and Communication Technology, pp. 213–218, Book series # 161. Austrian Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wimmer, M.A., von Bredow, B.: A Holistic Approach for Providing Security Solutions in e-Government. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35) at Big Island of Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria A. Wimmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for IS ResearchUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations