Group Development Stages in Open Government Data Engagement Initiatives: A Comparative Case Studies Analysis

  • Arie Purwanto
  • Anneke Zuiderwijk
  • Marijn JanssenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11020)


Citizens are increasingly using Open Government Data (OGD) and engaging with OGD by designing and developing applications. They often do so by collaborating in groups, for example through self-organized groups or government-induced open data engagement initiatives, such as hackathons. The successful use and engagement of OGD by groups of citizens can greatly contribute to the uptake and adoption of OGD in general. However, little is known regarding how groups of citizens develop in OGD engagement. This study aims at exploring and understanding the development stages of citizen groups in OGD engagement. To attain this objective, we conducted a comparative case study of group development stages in two different types of OGD engagement. Our cases show that leadership and diversity of capabilities significantly contribute to the success of citizen groups in OGD engagement. These findings suggest that connecting citizens having a diversity of expertise prior to the OGD engagement event helps to improve its effectiveness. This research is among the first to apply group development stages model in open data engagement studies and thus opening up new research opportunities concerning group developments in the open data literature.


Open Government Data Citizen engagement Comparative case study Group development Self-organized Government-induced Hackathon 


  1. 1.
    Safarov, I., Meijer, A., Grimmelikhuijsen, S.: Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Inf. Polity 22, 1–24 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietrich, D.: The role of civic tech communities in PSI reuse and open data policies (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cornford, J., Wilson, R., Baines, S., Richardson, R.: Local governance in the new information ecology: the challenge of building interpretative communities. Public Money Manag. 33, 201–207 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Susha, I., Janssen, M., Verhulst, S.: Data collaboratives as “bazaars”? A review of coordination problems and mechanisms to match demand for data with supply. Transform. Gov.: People Process Policy 11, 157–172 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edelenbos, J., van Meerkerk, I., Schenk, T.: The evolution of community self-organization in interaction with government institutions: cross-case insights from three countries. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 48, 52–66 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartog, M., Mulder, B.: Accountable and responsible disclosure of financial open government data: open spending initiatives enhancing civic engagement. In: Kommers, P., Peng, G.C. (eds.) International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings 2017, pp. 127–133. IADIS, Lisbon (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brajawidagda, U., Chatfield, A.T.: Roles of social media in open data environments: a case study of the 2014 Indonesian presidential election voting results. In: 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, ACIS, Auckland, New Zealand (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sieber, R.E., Johnson, P.A.: Civic open data at a crossroads: dominant models and current challenges. Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 308–315 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Juell-Skielse, G., Hjalmarsson, A., Johannesson, P., Rudmark, D.: Is the public motivated to engage in open data innovation? In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Bannister, F. (eds.) EGOV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8653, pp. 277–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Susha, I., Grönlund, Å., Janssen, M.: Organizational measures to stimulate user engagement with open data. Transform. Gov.: People Process Policy 9, 181–206 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies, T.: Open data, democracy and public sector reform: a look at open government data use from Open Data Impacts - Research blog of Tim Davies (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Brady, H.E., Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L.: Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89, 271–294 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Purwanto, A., Janssen, M., Zuiderwijk, A.: Towards an open government data success model: a case study from Indonesia. In: 17th European Conference on Digital Government, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 154–162 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, P., Robinson, P.: Civic hackathons: innovation, procurement, or civic engagement? Rev. Policy Res. 31, 349–357 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Concilio, G., Molinari, F., Morelli, N.: Empowering citizens with open data by urban hackathons. In: 7th International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM), Krems, Austria, pp. 125–134. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartmann, S., Mainka, A., Stock, W.G.: Opportunities and challenges for civic engagement: a global investigation of innovation competitions. Int. J. Knowl. Soc. Res. 7, 1–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lara, M., Lockwood, K.: Hackathons as community-based learning: a case study. TechTrends 60, 486–495 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soltani, P.M., Pessi, K., Ahlin, K., Wernered, I.: Hackathon – a method for digital innovative success: a comparative descriptive study. In: Devos, J., Haes, S.D. (eds.) 8th European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (ECIME). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, Ghent (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Briscoe, G., Mulligan, C.: Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon. Queen Mary University of London (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richterich, A.: Hacking events: project development practices and technology use at hackathons. Converg.: Int. J. Res. New Media Technol. (2017).
  22. 22.
    Trainer, E.H., Kalyanasundaram, A., Chaihirunkarn, C., Herbsleb, J.D.: How to hackathon: socio-technical tradeoffs in brief, intensive collocation. In: 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, California, USA, pp. 1118–1130. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, D.L.: The stages of group development: a retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 20, 121–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuckman, B.W.: developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol. Bull. 63, 384–399 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bonebright, D.A.: 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 13, 111–120 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications Inc., California (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lo, S.-K.: The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychol. Behav. 11, 595–597 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gersick, C.J.G.: Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Acad. Manag. J. 31, 9–41 (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arie Purwanto
    • 1
  • Anneke Zuiderwijk
    • 1
  • Marijn Janssen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations