Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing and building municipal open data capability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past decade, cities around the world have published their open data as a new service. Some have used this service innovatively, as a vehicle to improve service quality, efficiency, accountability, and transparency. While some studies highlight open data success stories, others show a lack of supporting evidence. In either case, cities currently face such challenges as: How can cities and organizations measure their open data capability? How does assessment allow enhancement of open data capability? The purpose of our study is to demonstrate applied open government data evaluation using the theoretical lens of dynamic capability. An assessment based on a framework called Open Data Roadmap (ODR) is performed on Denton, TX, a mid-sized U.S. city. Data is then integrated through a mixed-method analysis involving two publicly available OD models (CODC and Thorsby, respectively) and a crowdsourced resident evaluation, and the results are presented of the effects of this assessment in relation to dynamic capabilities involving a third model (Chong et al. 2018). We conclude that ODR has the potential to assist governments and other organizations in boosting community engagement, introducing innovative services, and presenting OD as one component of their organization’s competitiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altayar MS (2018) Motivations for open data adoption: an institutional theory perspective. Gov Inf Q 35(4):633–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L, Moorman D, Uhlir P, Wouters P (2004) Promoting access to public research data for scientific, economic, and social development. Data Sci J 3:135–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong M, Habib A, Evangelopoulos N, Park HW (2018) Dynamic capabilities of a smart city: an innovative approach to discovering urban problems and solutions. Gov Inf Q 35(4):682–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour F, Gopalakrishnan S (2001) The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. J Manag Stud 38(1):45–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dameri RP, Ricciardi F (2015) Smart city intellectual capital: an emerging view of territorial systems innovation management. J Intellect Cap 16(4):860–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies T, Perini F (2016) Researching the emerging impacts of open data: revisiting the ODDC conceptual framework. J Commun Inform 12(2):3246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes SS, Helbig N (2010) Information strategies for open government: challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. In: International conference on electronic government. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 50–60

  • Dekkers M, Polman F, te Velde R, de Vries M (2006) Measuring European public sector information resources. Final Report of Study on Exploitation of public sector information–benchmarking of EU framework conditions.

  • DeWalt KM, DeWalt B (2011) Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers, 2nd edn. Altamira Press, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy P, Margetts H (2015) Design principles for essentially digital governance

  • Dwivedi YK, Janssen M, Slade EL, Rana NP, Weerakkody V, Millard J, Hidders J, Snijders D (2017) Driving innovation through big open linked data (BOLD): exploring antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Inf Syst Front 19(2):197–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler J, Fagerberg J (2017) Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 33(1):2–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist C, Hommen L, McKelvey MD (2001) Innovation and employment: process versus product innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fitriani WR, Hidayanto AN, Sandhyaduhita PI, Purwandari B (2017) Determinants of intention to use open data website: an insight from Indonesia. In: PACIS, p 234

  • Fung A (2013) Infotopia: unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Polit Soc 41(2):183–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs J, Kraemer KL, Dedrick J (2003) Environment and policy factors shaping global e-commerce diffusion: a cross-country comparison. Inf Soc 19(1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith S, Crawford S (2014) The responsive city: engaging communities through data-smart governance. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurin J (2014) Open data now: the secret to hot startups, smart investing, savvy marketing, and fast innovation. McGraw Hill Professional, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurstein MB (2011) Open data: empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?. First Monday

  • Harrison T, Pardo T, Cresswell A, Cook M (2011) Delivering public value through open government. Center for Technology in Government

  • Hoffmann L (2012) Data mining meets city hall. Commun ACM 55(6):19–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijboom N, Van den Broek T (2011) Open Data: an international comparison of strategies. Eur J ePractice 12(1):4–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen K (2011) The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: an overview of recent developments. Gov Inf Q 28(4):446–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassen M (2013) A promising phenomenon of open data: a case study of the Chicago open data project. Gov Inf Q 30(4):508–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klievink B, Janssen M (2009) Realizing joined-up government—dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Gov Inf Q 26(2):275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. The National Academy of Science, USA

  • Lee M, Almirall E, Wareham J (2015) Open data and civic apps: first-generation failures, second-generation improvements. Commun ACM 59(1):82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lourenço RP (2015) An analysis of open government portals: a perspective of transparency for accountability. Gov Inf Q 32(3):323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magadley W, Birdi K (2009) Innovation labs: an examination into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creat Innov Manag 18(4):315–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes G, Roseira C, Manley L (2014) Business models for open government data. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACM, pp 365–370

  • Meijer A (2009) Understanding modern transparency. Int Rev Adm Sci 75(2):255–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer A, Bolívar MPR (2016) Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int Rev Adm Sci 82(2):392–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer A, de Hoog J, van Twist M, van der Steen M, Scherpenisse J (2014) Understanding the dynamics of open data: From sweeping statements to complex contextual interactions. In: Open government. Springer, New York, pp 101–114

  • Mergel I, Kleibrink A, Sörvik J (2018) Open data outcomes: US cities between product and process innovation. Gov Inf Q 35(4):622–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam T, Pardo TA (2011) Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times. ACM, pp 282–291

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B (2000) Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual 2018: guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en

  • Omar A, Bass JM, Lowit P (2014) A grounded theory of open government data: a case study in the UK. In: UKAIS, p 17

  • Open Knowledge Foundation (2015) U.S. city open data census. Retrieved Jan 15, 2019, from http://us-city.census.okfn.org

  • Osorio-Sanabria M, Brito-Carvajal J, Astudillo H, Amaya-Fernàndez F, Gonzàlez-Zabala M (2020) Evaluating open government data programs: a systematic mapping study. In: 2020 Seventh International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG). IEEE, pp 157–164

  • Pereira GV, Macadar MA, Luciano EM, Testa MG (2017) Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context. Inf Syst Front 19(2):213–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM, Medina UE, Rivera MA, Wiley CJ (2005) Complex adaptive systems and the diffusion of innovations. Innov J Public Sector Innov J 10(3):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Shareef MA, Kumar V, Dwivedi YK, Kumar U (2016) Service delivery through mobile-government (mGov): driving factors and cultural impacts. Inf Syst Front 18(2):315–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber RE, Johnson PA (2015) Civic open data at a crossroads: dominant models and current challenges. Gov Inf Q 32(3):308–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam DL, Coryn CL (2014) Evaluation theory, models, and applications, vol 50. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Styrin E, Luna-Reyes LF, Harrison TM (2017) Open data ecosystems: an international comparison. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

  • Surowiecki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business. Economies, Societies and Nations, 296

  • Susha I, Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Grönlund Å (2015) Benchmarks for evaluating the progress of open data adoption: usage, limitations, and lessons learned. Soc Sci Comput Rev 33(5):613–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorsby J, Stowers GN, Wolslegel K, Tumbuan E (2017) Understanding the content and features of open data portals in American cities. Gov Inf Q 34:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K (2005) Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonurist P, Kattel R, Lember V (2017) Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do? Public Manag Rev 19(10):1455–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend AM (2013) Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new Utopia New York. W.W. Norton and Company, U.S. General Services Administration. Data.gov

  • Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q 37:21–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker RM (2014) Internal and external antecedents of process innovation: a review and extension. Public Manag Rev 16(1):21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weerakkody V, Irani Z, Kapoor K, Sivarajah U, Dwivedi YK (2017) Open data and its usability: an empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective. Inf Syst Front 19(2):285–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthy B (2015) The impact of open data in the UK: complex, unpredictable, and political. Public Admin 93(3):788–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yardley L (2009) Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In: Smith JA (ed) Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research method. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 235–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications

  • Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2016) Critical factors for dynamic capabilities in open government data enabled organizations. In: Proceedings of the 17th international digital government research conference on digital government research, pp 86–96

  • Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2020) Open data capability architecture—an interpretive structural modeling approach. In: HICSS, pp 1–10

  • Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Poulis K, van de Kaa G (2015) Open data for competitive advantage: insights from open data use by companies. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual international conference on digital government research, pp 79–88

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the City of Denton grant, to University of North Texas number GP40005.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for Artificial Intelligence (NCAI), Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Abdulrahman Habib

  2. Toulouse Graduate School, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, 305459, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

    Victor R. Prybutok

  3. Advanced Data Analytics Program, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, 305459, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

    Denise Philpot

Authors
  1. Abdulrahman Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victor R. Prybutok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denise Philpot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdulrahman Habib.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Habib, A., Prybutok, V.R. & Philpot, D. Assessing and building municipal open data capability. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 20, 1–25 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-021-00539-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-021-00539-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation