Open Collaboration in Policy Development: Concept and Architecture to Integrate Scenario Development and Formal Policy Modelling

  • Maria A. Wimmer
  • Karol Furdik
  • Melanie Bicking
  • Marian Mach
  • Tomas Sabol
  • Peter Butka


Along the demands for good governance and open government, policymakers need concise, reliable and up-to-date information to respond to society’s problems and affairs in an efficient and effective way. Likewise, stakeholders affected by a particular policy call for transparency, accountability and trustworthiness in political decision-making. Along the evolution of information society that leads to increasing digitisation of information and knowledge artefacts and public services, citizens more and more request direct involvement in policymaking. In this chapter, we introduce a comprehensive and innovative approach to collaborative policy development. The approach integrates collaborative scenario building and formal policy modelling via an integrated ICT toolbox. Stakeholders are collaboratively involved in the scenario development as well as in the evaluation of simulation outcomes. To bridge the gap between narrative texts of stakeholder-generated scenarios (evidenced through background documents of the policy to be discussed) and formal policy models (generating model-based scenarios), the approach introduces conceptual modelling, which enables the different stakeholders to better understand the policy context and to support semi-automatic transformation of text statements into formal statements and agent descriptions. A consequence of the agent-based modelling approach used is that the justifications for expectations of the stakeholders are made precise, explicit and linked to evidence, and this process provides for the monitoring of ongoing policy implementation.


Policy Development Domain Expert Policy Modelling Policy Analyst Open Collaboration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



OCOPOMO is co-funded by the EC within FP 7, contract no. 248128. The authors express their gratitude and acknowledge the contributions of the OCOPOMO project partners, especially Scott Moss and Paul Ormerod. The work presented in the chapter was also partially supported by the Slovak Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education and Academy of Science of the Slovak Republic within the 1/0042/10 project ‘Methods for identification, annotation, search, access and composition of services using semantic metadata in support of selected process types’. The content of this chapter represents the view of the authors, respectively. The European Commission cannot be made liable for any content.


  1. Bicking M, Wimmer MA (2011a) Concept to integrate open collaboration in technology roadmapping: stakeholder involvement in strategic e-government planning. In: Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS)Google Scholar
  2. Bicking M, Wimmer MA (2011b) A scenario-based approach towards open collaboration for policy modelling. In: Janssen J, Scholl HJ, Wimmer MA et al (eds) Electronic government (EGOV 2011), LNCS 6847, Springer, Berlin, pp 223–234Google Scholar
  3. Bicking M, Wimmer MA, Triantafillou A, Koussouris S, Charalabidis Y (2010) Project and programme evaluation. Monitoring and evaluating EC-funded eParticipation projects. In: Chappelet JL, Glassey O, Janssen M et al (eds) Electronic government and electronic participation. Joint proceedings of ongoing research and projects of IFIP EGOV and ePart 2010. Schriftenreihe Informatik # 33, Trauner Verlag, Linz, pp 259–266Google Scholar
  4. Carroll JM (1995) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Codagnone C, Wimmer MA (eds) (2007) Roadmapping eGovernment research: visions and measures towards innovative governments in 2020. MY Print snc di Guerinoni Marco & C, ClusoneGoogle Scholar
  6. Decker S, Hauswirth M (2008) Enabling networked knowledge. In: Klusch M, Pechoucek M, Polleres A (eds) Cooperative information agents XII. LNAI 5180, Springer, Berlin, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  7. Eckerson WW (1995) Three tier client/server architecture: achieving scalability, performance, and efficiency in client server applications. Open Inf Syst 10(1):3–20Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (2001) European governance. A white paper, COM(2001) 428 final, European Commission, Brussels. Accessed 3 May 2011
  9. Frigg R, Hartmann S (2009) Models in science. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 19 Sep 2011
  10. Furdik K, Sabol T, Dulinova V (2010) Policy modelling supported by e-participation ICT tools. In: Hinkelmann K, Thoenssen T (eds) MeTTeG’10. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on methodologies, technologies and tools enabling e-government. University of Applied Sciences, Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, pp 135–146Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (2005) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  12. IFC (2007) Stakeholder engagement: a good practice handbook for companies doing business in emerging markets. International Finance Corporation – World Bank GroupGoogle Scholar
  13. Janssen M, van der Duin P, Wagenaar RW, Bicking M, Wimmer MA, Daws S, Petrauskas R (2007) Scenario building for e-government in 2020: consolidating the results from regional workshops. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-40), Waikoloa, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Kersten GE (2003) e-Democracy and participatory decision processes: lessons from e-negotiation experiments. J Multi Crit Decis Anal 12(2–3):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lampathaki F, Charalabidis Y, Passas S, Osimo D, Bicking M, Wimmer MA, Askounis D (2010) Defining a taxonomy for research areas on ICT for governance and policy modelling. In: Wimmer MA, Chappelet JL, Janssen M et al (eds) Electronic government. IFIP international conference, EGOV 2010, LNCS # 6228, Springer, pp 60–71Google Scholar
  16. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Lotzmann U, Meyer R (2011) DRAMS – a declarative rule-based agent modelling system. In: Proceedings of ECMS 2011 – 25th European conference on modelling and simulation, Krakow, 7–10 Jun 2011Google Scholar
  18. Macintosh A (2004) Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-37), Track 5, vol 5, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Menda YP, Lee D, Peristeras V (2010) The WAVE platform: utilising argument visualisation, social networking and Web 2.0 technologies for eParticipation. In: Hinkelmann K, Thoenssen T (eds) MeTTeG’10. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on methodologies, technologies and tools enabling e-government, University of Applied Sciences, Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  20. Moss S (2002) Policy analysis from first principles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(3):7267–7274MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moss S (2005) Sociology and simulation: statistical and qualitative cross-validation. Am J Sociol 110(4):1095–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD (2006) Applying strategic environmental assessment: good practice guidance for development co-operation. DAC guidelines and reference series. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (2009) Focus on citizens: public engagement for better policy and services, OECD studies on public engagement. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Rebedea T, Trausan-Matu S, Chiru CG (2008) Extraction of Socio-semantic data from chat conversations in collaborative learning communities. In: Dillenbourg P, Specht M (eds) EC-TEL 2008, LNCS 5192, Springer, Berlin, pp 366–377Google Scholar
  25. Rozanski N, Woods E (2005) Software systems architecture: working with stakeholders using viewpoints and perspectives. Addison Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Saebo O, Rose J, Flak LS (2008) The shape of eParticipation: characterizing an emerging research area. Gov Inf Q 25:400–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. UNESCAP (2011) What is good governance? United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Accessed 3 May 2011
  28. Wimmer MA, Bicking M (2009) Qualitative data analysis of issue interrelations and interdependencies for e-government research planning. In: Wimmer MA, Scholl HJ, Janssen M et al (eds) Electronic government. 8th international conference, EGOV 2009, LNCS 5693, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 25–39Google Scholar
  29. World Bank (2011) What is our approach to governance? Accessed 3 May 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria A. Wimmer
    • 1
  • Karol Furdik
    • 2
  • Melanie Bicking
    • 1
  • Marian Mach
    • 3
  • Tomas Sabol
    • 3
  • Peter Butka
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Group eGovernmentUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  2. 2.InterSoftKosiceSlovakia
  3. 3.Technical University of KosiceKosiceSlovakia

Personalised recommendations