Barriers and Development Directions for the Publication and Usage of Open Data: A Socio-Technical View

Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 4)

Abstract

Open data have considerable potential to provide citizens, researchers, companies and other stakeholders with many advantages, such as a growing economy by stimulating innovation and increased transparency. Nevertheless, the process in which data are created, published, found, analysed, processed and discussed, which is here referred to as the open data process, consists of many complexities and complex relationships among social and technical aspects. Often the complexity, dynamics and heterogeneity of the open data process are neglected, and extensive overviews of barriers for the open data process are lacking. Hence, in this chapter, the questions asked are (1) which socio-technical barriers exist in the open data process and (2) which development directions could be derived from this overview of barriers. Our overview shows that many barriers can be identified with regard to data creation, publication, finding, analysing, processing, discussion and providing feedback. Activities early in the open data process could result in or increase barriers later in the process. Furthermore, the analysis of barriers for the open data process showed the importance of combining a social and technical view to overcome the barriers. A number of development directions for open data are identified. The findings suggest that, to be able to realize the benefits of open data, both social and technical barriers should be considered and an integrated approach to successfully counteract these barriers should be taken. In this integral approach, the social and technical barriers should be dealt with simultaneously rather than separately to successfully realize the benefits of open data.

Keywords

Open data e-Government Open government Barriers Challenges - development directions Socio-technical Infrastructure 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This chapter is related to the ENGAGE FP7 Infrastructure Project. More information can be found at www.engage-project.eu and www.engagedata.eu. The authors would like to thank their colleagues of the ENGAGE project for their input for this chapter although the views expressed are the views of the authors and not necessarily of the project.

References

  1. Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., & Maurino, A. (2009). Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(3), 1–52. doi:10.1145/1541880.1541883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked data. Accessed Oct 11 2012, from http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.
  3. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (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(3), 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blakemore, M., & Craglia, M. (2006). Access to public-sector information in Europe: Policy, rights and obligations. The Information Society, 22(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhm, C., Freitag, M., Heise, A., Lehmann, C., Mascher, A., Naumann, F., Schmidt, M., et al. (2012). GovWILD: Integrating open government data for transparency. WWW, (Companion Volume), 321–324.Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulton, G., Rawlins, M., Vallance, P., & Walport, M. (2011). Science as a public enterprise: The case for open data. The Lancet, 377(9778), 1633–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovens, M. A. P. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynne, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Braunschweig, K., Eberius, J., Thiele, M., & Lehner, W. (2012). The state of open data. Limits of current open data platforms. Paper presented at the International World Wide Web Conference, Lyon, France. http://www2012.wwwconference.org/proceedings/nocompanion/wwwwebsci2012_braunschweig.pdf.
  10. Bunakov, V., & Jeffery, K. (2013). Licence management for public sector information. Paper presented at the Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM13), Krems an der Donau, Krems, Austria.Google Scholar
  11. Charalabidis, Y., Ntanos, E., & Lampathaki, F. (2011). An architectural framework for open governmental data for researchers and citizens. In M. Janssen, A. Macintosh, J. Scholl, E. Tambouris, M. Wimmer, H. d. Bruijn, & Y. H. Tan (Eds.), Electronic government and electronic participation joint proceedings of ongoing research and projects of IFIP EGOV and ePart 2011 (pp. 77–85). Delft.Google Scholar
  12. Dawes, S. (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawes, S., & Helbig, N. (2010). Information strategies for open government: Challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on e-government (EGOV), Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  14. Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Sutton, S., & Weibel, S. L. (2002). Metadata principles and practicalities. D-lib magazine, 8(4).Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2003). Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information. Accessed Dec 12 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/rules/eu/index_en.htm.
  16. European Commission. (2011). Digital agenda: Turning government data into gold. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, G., & Herrmann, T. (2011). Socio-technical systems: A meta-design perspective. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 3(1), 1–33. doi:10.4018/jskd.2011010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foulonneau, M., & Cole, T. W. (2005). Strategies for reprocessing aggregated metadata. Accessed Dec 12 2012, from http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/docs/metadatareprocessing.pdf.
  19. Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geels, F. W., & Kemp, R. (2007). Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society, 29, 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geiger, C. P., & Lucke, J. Von (2012). Open Government and (Linked) (Open) (Government) (Data). Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 265–278.Google Scholar
  22. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (Second edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Hüner, K., Otto, B., & Österle, H. (2011). Collaborative management of business metadata. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janssen, M., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Open data and transformational government. Paper presented at the Transforming Government Workshop, Brunel University, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  25. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeffery, K. G. (2000). Metadata: The future of information systems. In J. Brinkkemper, E. Lindencrona, & A. Sølvberg (Eds.), Information Systems Engineering: State of the art and research themes. London: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Jetzek, T., Avital, M., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2012). The value of open government data: A strategic analysis framework. 2012 Pre-ICIS Workshop. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), Orlando, Florida, United States. http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/8621/Jetzek.pdf?sequence=1.
  28. Kaasenbrood, M. (2013). An exploration of the use of open government data by private organisations. Contributing to the improvement of governmental policies by examining the current use of open government data by private organisations in The Netherlands. Master thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Delft.Google Scholar
  29. Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). Open government data: A stage model. Paper presented at the The 10th Conference on Electronic Government (EGOV 2011), Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Kalidien, S., Choenni, R., & Meijer, R. F. (2010). Crime statistics online: potentials and challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities, Puebla, Mexico.Google Scholar
  31. King, R. D., Liakata, M., Lu, C., Oliver, S. G., & Soldatova, L. N. (2011). On the formalization and reuse of scientific research. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 8, 1440–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kulk, S., & Van Loenen, B. (2012). Brave new open data world? International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 7, 196–206.Google Scholar
  33. Lapi, E., Tcholtchev, N., Bassbouss, L., Marienfeld, F., & Schieferdecker, I. (2012, 16–20 July 2012). Identification and Utilization of Components for a Linked Open Data Platform. Paper presented at the Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW), 2012 IEEE 36th Annual.Google Scholar
  34. Lord, P., Macdonald, A., Lyon, L., & Giaretta, D. (2004). From data deluge to data curation. Accessed Dec 14 2012, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/e.j.lyon/150.pdf.
  35. McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2009). Public information strategies: Making government information available to citizens. Information Polity, 14, 31–45.Google Scholar
  37. Meijer, R., Choenni, S., Sheikh Alibaks, R., & Conradie, P. (2013). Bridging the Contradictions of Open Data. Paper presented at the 13th European Conference on eGovernment, University of Insubria, Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  38. National Information Standards Organization. (2004). Understanding metadata. Bethesda: National Information Standards Organization Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nugroho, R. P. (2013). A comparison of open data policies in different countries. Lessons learned for an open data policy in Indonesia. Master thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Delft.Google Scholar
  40. Olsen, W. K. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In M. Holborn & M. Haralambos (Eds.), Developments in Sociology. Ormskirk: Causeway Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schuurman, N., Deshpande, A., & Allen, D. (2008). Data integration across borders: A case study of the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer (British Columbia/Washington State). JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(4), 921–934. doi:10.1111/j.1752–1688.2008.00192.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, C. (2003). An introduction to metadata. Accessed Dec 8 2011, from http://www.library.uq.edu.au/papers/ctmeta4.html.
  44. United Nations Statistical Commission and Economic Commission for Europe. (2000). Guidelines for statistical metadata on the internet. Accessed Dec 8 2011, from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/metadata.pdf.
  45. Vardaki, M., Papageorgiou, H., & Pentaris, F. (2009). A statistical metadata model for clinical trials’ data management. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 9(5), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vogel, L. (2011). The secret’s in: Open data is a foreign concept in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(7), E375–E376.Google Scholar
  47. Vonk, G., & Ligtenberg, A. (2010). Socio-technical PSS development to improve functionality and usability—Sketch planning using a Maptable. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3–4), 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Wide Web Consortium. (2006). W3C Architecture Domain. Naming and Addressing: URIs, URLs. Accessed Jan 11 2013, from http://www.w3.org/Addressing/.
  49. Xiong, J., Hu, Y., Li, G., Tang, R., & Fan, Z. (2011). Metadata Distribution and Consistency Techniques for Large-Scale Cluster File Systems. IEEE Transaction on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22(5), 803–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yaeli, A., Ship, H., Alexopoulos, C., Pterneas, V., & Gaberlo, N. (2012). Deliverable D7.7.3. Data and knowledge annotation and linking methods. Accessed Jan 3 2014, from http://www.engage-project.eu/wp/?p=1228.
  51. Zhang, J., Dawes, S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2013b). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison Government Information Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003
  53. Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012a, May 3–4). The necessity of metadata for open linked data and its contribution to policy analyses. Paper presented at the Conference on E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM12), Krems, Austria.Google Scholar
  54. Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012b). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222–244.Google Scholar
  55. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., & Sheikh Alibaks, R. (2012c). Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electronic Journal of eGovernment, 10(2), 156–172.Google Scholar
  56. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2013a). A coordination theory perspective to improve the use of open data in policy-making. Paper presented at the 12th conference on Electronic Government (EGOV), Koblenz, Germany.Google Scholar
  57. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Jeffery, K. (2013b). Towards an e-infrastructure to support the provision and use of open data. Paper presented at the Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM13), Krems an der Donau, Austria.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations