Advertisement

Collaboration for Open Innovation Processes in Public Administrations

  • Noella Edelmann
  • Johann Höchtl
  • Michael Sachs
Chapter

Abstract

In Government 2.0, public value no longer needs to be provided by government alone but can be provided by any combination of public agencies, the private sector, civil society organizations or citizens. The ubiquitous presence of ICT, citizens’ digital literacy, and their potential willingness to participate online can efficiently enable collaborative production. Models for the inclusion of external stakeholders in public value production can increase the degree of public sector innovation and improve the outcomes of such processes. Governments can use the most valuable resource they have, the citizens, by establishing opportunities for civil society and businesses to engage in an open government.

Keywords

Civil Society Prosocial Behaviour Innovation Process Civil Servant Public Administration 
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.

References

  1. Adamic LA (2008) The social hyperlink. In: Turow J, Tsui L (eds) The hyperlinked society: questioning connections in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 227–249Google Scholar
  2. Amichai-Hamburger Y (2005) Personality and the internet. In: Amichai-Hamburger Y (ed) The social net: human behavior in cyberspace. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp 27–55Google Scholar
  3. Bozeman B (2007) Public values and public interest: counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman S, Blumler J (2009) The Internet and democratic citizenship: theory, practice and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferro E, Molinari F (2010) Framing Web 2.0 in the process of public sector innovation: going down the participation ladder. Eur J ePract 9(1):20–34Google Scholar
  6. Fountain J (2001) Building the virtual state: information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedman D (2005) Do we need a government? http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/mps_iceland_talk/Iceland%20MP%20talk.htm. Accessed 10 Sep 2011
  8. Halavais A (2008) The hyperlink as organizing principle. In: Turow J, Tsui L (eds) The hyperlinked society: questioning connections in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 39–55Google Scholar
  9. Hargittai E (2008) The role of expertise in navigating links of influence. In: Turow J, Ho S, McLeod D (eds) Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face­to-face and computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 35(2), pp 190–207Google Scholar
  10. Ho S, McLeod D (2008) Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 35(2):190–207Google Scholar
  11. Höchtl J, Reichstädter P (2011) Linked open data – a means for public sector information management. Electronic government and the information systems perspective. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 330–343Google Scholar
  12. Kollock P (1999) The economies of online cooperation. In: Kollock P, Smith M (eds) Communities in cyberspace. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Kreijns K, Kirschner PA, Jochems W (2003) Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Comput Hum Behav 19(3):335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakhani K, Hippel E (2003) How open source software works: “free” user-to-user assistance. Res Policy 32(6):923–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lathrop D, Ruma L (2010) Open government: collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayer-Schönberger V (2009) The demise of electronic government. Presentation for EDEM conference, Vienna, Austria. http://www.slideshare.net/dgpazegovzpi/the-demise-of-electronic-government. Accessed 10 Sep 2011
  17. Millard J et al (2009) European eParticipation summary report, European Commission, Brussels, p 17. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/docs/reports/eu_eparticipation_summary_nov_09.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2011
  18. Ministers responsible for eGovernment policy of the EU Member States (2009) Ministerial declaration on eGovernment. http://www.epractice.eu/files/Malmo%20Ministerial%20Declaration%202009.pdf. Accessed 05 Oct 2011
  19. Moore MH (1995) Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller P (2010) Offene staatskunst. In: Internet and Gesellschaft Collaboratory (ed) Offene staatskunst. Bessere bildung durch open government? 1st edn. Eurocaribe Druck, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Napoli PN (2008) Hyperlinking and the forces of “massification”. In: Turow J, Tsui L (eds) The hyperlinked society: questioning connections in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 56–70Google Scholar
  22. Nielsen J (2006) “90-9-1” rule for participation inequality: lurkers vs. contributors in Internet communities. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  23. Noelle-Neumann E (1984) The spiral of silence: public opinion, our social skin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  24. Nonnecke B, Preece J (2001) Why lurkers lurk. Seventh Americas conference on information systems 2001, pp 1521–1530Google Scholar
  25. Noveck BS (2009) Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Obama B (2009) Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Transparency and open government. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/. Accessed 18 Sep 2009
  27. Osimo D (2010) Editorial, Government 2.0 – hype, hope, or reality? Eur J ePract 9:2–4Google Scholar
  28. Parycek P, Sachs M (2010) Open government – information flow in Web 2.0. Eur J ePract 9:57–68Google Scholar
  29. Pisano GP, Verganti R (2008) Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harv Bus Rev 86:1–8Google Scholar
  30. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations: with a new introduction. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Preece J, Shneiderman B (2009) The reader-to-leader framework: motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Trans Hum Comput Interact 1(1):13–32Google Scholar
  32. Rheingold H (2002) Smart mobs: the next social revolution. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheufele D (2001) Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In: Hart RP, Yantek T (eds) Communication and U.S. elections: new agendas. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 19–32Google Scholar
  34. Takahashi M, Fujimoto M, Yamasaki N (2003) The active lurker: influence of an in­house online community on its outside environment. In: International ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work. GROUP’03. ACM, Sanibel Island, Florida, FL, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  35. Tapscott D, Williams A (2006) Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Portfolio, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Tapscott D, Williams AD, Herman D (2007) Government 2.0: transforming government and governance for the twenty-first century. New ParadigmGoogle Scholar
  37. Turow J, Tsui L (eds) (2008) The hyperlinked society: questioning connections in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  38. van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert C, Taal E, Seydel E, van de Laar M (2008) Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. J Med Internet Res 10(2):18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verdegem P, Verleye G (2009) User-centered E-Government in practice: a comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Gov Inf Q 26(3):487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber M (1980) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der Verstehenden Soziologie. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  41. Webster JG (2008) Structuring a marketplace of attention. The hyperlinked society: questioning connections in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 23–38Google Scholar
  42. Weinberger D (2008) The morality of links. In: Turow J, Tsui L (eds) The hyperlinked society: questioning connections in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 181–190Google Scholar
  43. Wood AF, Smith MJ (2004) Online communication: linking technology, identity, and culture technology, identity, and culture, 2nd edn. LEA, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  44. Yechiam E, Barron G (2003) Learning to ignore online help requests. Comput Math Organ Theor 9(4):327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noella Edelmann
    • 1
  • Johann Höchtl
    • 1
  • Michael Sachs
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for E-GovernanceDanube University KremsKremsAustria

Personalised recommendations