Evaluating Open Government Initiatives

  • Jan Huntgeburth
  • Daniel Veit
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 5)


The advent of social media opens up unexpected new opportunities of engaging the public in government work. While research on Open Government has produced conceptually interesting models that describe how the initiative will or should evolve based on anecdotal evidence from best practice cases, our systematic analysis reveals that previous work on Open Government evaluation has a strong bias in favour of implementing Open Government, while the negative consequences or limitations are not fully incorporated. Seeing this as a major limitation, we highlight why future research should produce more rigorous and relevant knowledge for overcoming practitioners’ concerns of implementation. Moreover, we present the first study examining the consequences of implementing an Open Government initiative at a German university. The results suggest that Open Government initiatives may very well backfire on governments. Thus, as a research community, we should not simply propose new artefacts or solutions how to open up government but should be very explicit about the consequences for the authorizing environment (in particular minorities), government organizations, politicians and the political system as a whole. By the end, the paper presents a research agenda for future research on the evaluation of Open Government initiatives.


  1. 1.
    West, D.M.: Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. Princeton University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K.: The Effects of E-Government on Trust and Confidence in Government. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 354–369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White House: Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government.
  4. 4.
    Heller, N.: A Working Definition of “Open Government”.
  5. 5.
    Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: Open government data: a stage model. In: Janssen, M., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of EGOV 2011, pp. 235–246. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dawes, S.S., Helbig, N.: Information strategies for open government: challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. In: Proceedings of the 9th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Government, EGOV’10, pp. 50–60. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nam, T.: Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via government 2.0. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 12–20 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, G., Kwak, Y.H.: An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 492–503 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coursey, D., Norris, D.F.: Models of E-government: are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Adm. Rev. 68, 523–536 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kant, I.: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd edn. Hackett, Indianapolis (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bennington, G.: Kant’s open secret. Theory Cult. Soc. 7–8, 26–40 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Machiavelli, N.: The Prince. Dover, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore, M.H.: Managing for value: organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 29, 183–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller, P.S.: strategie für unsere offene welt. Scoventa, Bad Vilbel (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scholl, J.: Profiling the EG research community and its core. In: Wimmer, M.A., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of EGOV 2009, pp. 1–12. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bertot, J.C., McDermott, P., Smith, T.: Measurement of open government: metrics and process. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), pp. 2491-2499. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alanazi, J., Chatfield, A.: Sharing government-owned data with the public: a cross-country analysis of open data practice in the Middle East. In: AMCIS 2012 Proceedings, pp. 1–10. AIS eLibrary, Seattle (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H., Xue, Y.: Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective. MIS Q. 31, 105–136 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herian, M.N., Hamm, J.A., Tomkins, A.J., Pytlik Zillig, L.M.: Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: the moderating role of uncertainty. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 22, 815–840 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Podsakoff, N.P.: Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 35, 293–334 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W.: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Agarwal, R., Lucas, H.C.: The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Q. 29, 381–398 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Helbig, N.C., Ramón Gil-García, J., Ferro, E.: Understanding the complexity of electronic government: implications from the digital divide literature. Gov. Inf. Q. 26, 89–97 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Dijk, J.A.G.M.: Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34, 221–235 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Selwyn, N.: Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media Soc. 6, 341–362 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations