📢📢📢New Article “Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review” is recommended by The Living Library!

Our new article titled “Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review” (Nikiforova A., Rizun N., Ciesielska M., Alexopoulos C., Miletič A.) is now available at arXiv with supplementary data published at Zenodo and waiting for your read! Moreover, this is not only my recommendation – The Living Library has included it in their collection, which as you can remember from my posts on another paper that was also recommended by them for the reading, seeks to provide actionable knowledge on governance innovation, informing and inspiring policymakers, practitioners, technologists, and researchers working at the intersection of governance, innovation, and technology in a timely, digestible and comprehensive manner, identifying the signal in the noiseby curating research, best practices, points of view, new tools, and developments.

The OGD is seen as a political and socio-economic phenomenon that promises to promote civic engagement and stimulate public sector innovations in various areas of public life. However, to bring the expected benefits, data must be reused and transformed into value-added products or services. This, in turn, sets another precondition for data that are expected to not only be available and comply with open data principles, but also be of value, i.e., of interest for reuse by the end-user. This refers to the notion of ‘high-value dataset’ (HVD). HVD are defined as datasets whose re-use is expected to create the most value for society, the economy, and the environment, contributing to the creation of “value-added services, applications and new, high-quality and decent jobs, and of the number of potential beneficiaries of the value-added services and applications based on those datasets (Directive, 2019). HVD was recognized by the European Data Portal as a key trend in the OGD area in 2022, which is not included in the annual Open Data Maturity Report.

There has been some progress in this area over the last years, which refers to a list of initiatives and studies carried out by several organizations and communities, where at the European level, probably most notable progress has been made by the European Commission in the Open Data Directive (originally Public Sector Information Directive (PSI Directive), i.e. Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information, according to which there are six thematic data categories of HVD – (1) geospatial, (2) earth observation and environment, (3) meteorological, (4) statistics, (5) companies and company ownership, (6) mobility data are considered as of high value. Further, a list of specific HVDs and the arrangements for their publication was developed and made available as “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138 of 21 December 2022 laying down a list of specific high-value datasets and the arrangements for their publication and re-use” (Commission, 2023) that can be seen as seeking for greater harmonization and interoperability of public sector data and data sharing across EU countries with reference to specific datasets, their granularity, key attributes, geographic coverage, requirements for their re-use, including licence (Creative Commons BY 4.0, any equivalent, or less restrictive open licence), specific format where appropriate, frequency of updates and timeliness, availability in machine-readable format, accessibility via API and bulk download, supported with metadata describing the data within the scope of the INSPIRE data themes that shall contain specific minimum set of the required metadata elements, description of the data structure and semantics, the use of controlled vocabularies and taxonomies (if relevant) etc. In addition, the Semantic Interoperability Community (SEMIC) is constantly hosting webinars on DCAT-AP (Data Catalogue Vocabulary Application Profile) for HVD to discuss with OGD portal owners, OGD publishers and enthusiasts the best approaches to use DCAT-AP to describe HVD and ensure their further findability, accessibility, and reusability.

In other words while it can be seen that progress has been made in this area, an examination of the above documents reveals that these datasets rather form a list of “mandatory” or “open by default”, sometimes also referred to as “base” or “core” datasets, aiming at open data interoperability with a high level of priority and a relatively equal level of value for most countries, which contributed to the development and promotion of a more mature open data ecosystem and OGD initiative. Depending on the specifics of a region and country – geographical location, social, current environment, social, economic issues, culture, ethnicity, likelihood of crises and / or catastrophes, (under)developed industries/ sectors and market specificities, and development trajectories, i.e., priorities. Depending on the above, more datasets can be recognized as having high value within a particular country or region (Utamachant & Anutariya, 2018; Huyer & Blank, 2020; Nikiforova, 2021). For example, meteorological data describing sea level rise can be of great value in the Netherlands as it has a strong impact on citizens and businesses as more than 1/3 of the country is below sea level, however, the same data will be less valuable for less affected to countries, such as Italy and France (Huyer & Blank, 2020). We believe that additional factors such as ongoing smart cities initiatives, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals, the current state of countries and cities in relation to their implementation and established priorities affect this list as well.

We find it is important to support the identification of country specific HVD that, in turn, could increase user interest ]by transforming data into innovative solution and services. Although this fact is recognized by countries and some local and regional efforts, mostly undertaken by governments with little support from the scientific and academia community, they are mainly faced with problems in the form of delays in their development or complete failure, or ending up with some set of HVD, but little information about how this was actually done. These ad-hoc attempts remain closed and not reusable, which is contrary to both the general OGD philosophy and the HVD-centric philosophy that is expected to be standardized. Most of them are ex-post or a combination of the ex-ante and ex-post, making the process of identifying them more resource-intensive, with an effect only visible after potentially valuable datasets have been discovered, published, and kept maintained, with the need for further evaluation of their impact, which is a resource-consuming task. All in all, it is considered that there is no standardized approach to assisting chief data officers in identifying HVDs, resulting in a failure in consistent identification and maintenance of HVDs.

Thus, we refer to this topic. As you can now from my blog it is not the first attempt we take. The very first activity related to this topic was taken by me back in 2019, where I studied this topic in Latvian settings, i.e. a stakeholder-centered determination of High-Value Data sets for Latvia was done as a response for the call made by the national OGD initiative, whose results were submitted to the holders of Latvia’s open data portal (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development) and used to prepare external reports submitted to Publications Office of the European Union). Later, several countries joined my study, namely, Poland, Greece, Croatia and Peru, and together with the colleagues we conducted several workshops that took place as part of international conferences, on which I posted before here and here.

This time, we conducted more theoretical study seeking for establishing a rich knowledge base for determining HVD, while the validation of identified indicators (as part of this study and derived from government reports) is expected to take place during the workshops with open (government) data and / or e-government experts. All in all, we focused on identifying all efforts taken with the reference to this topic. In other words, the objective was to examine how HVD determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, incl. the indicators used in them, involved stakeholders, data-related aspects, and frameworks, which was done by conducting a Systematic Literature Review with the following research questions (RQ) defined to achieve the set objective:

  • (RQ1) how is the value of the open government data perceived / defined? In which contexts has the topic of HVD been investigated by previous research (e.g., research disciplines, countries)? Are local efforts being made at the country levels to identify the datasets that provide the most value to stakeholders of the local open data ecosystem?
  • (RQ1.1) How the high-value data are defined, if this definition differs from the definition introduced in the PSI /OD Directive,
  • (RQ1.2) What datasets are considered to be of higher value in terms of data nature, data type, data format, data dynamism?
  • (RQ2) What indicators are used to determine high-value datasets? How can these indicators be classified? Can they be measured? And whether this can be done (semi-)automatically?
  • (RQ3) Whether there is a framework for determining country specific HVD? In other words, is it possible to determine what datasets are of particular value and interest for their further reuse and value creation, taking into account the specificities of the country under consideration, e.g., culture, geography, ethnicity, likelihood of crises and/or catastrophes.

Although neither OGD, nor the importance of the value of data are new topics, scholarly publications dedicated to the topic of HVD are still very limited. This points out the limited body of knowledge on this topic, thereby making this study unique and constituting a call for action. Nevertheless, during this study, we have established some knowledge based on HVD determination-related aspects, including several definitions of HVD, data-related aspects, stakeholders, some indicators and approaches that can now be used as a basis for establishing a discussion of what a framework for determining HVD should look like, which, along with the input we received from a series of international workshops with open (government) data experts, covering more indicators and approaches found to be used in practice, could enrich the common understanding of the goal, thereby contributing to the next open data wave (van Loenen & Šalamon, 2022).

Sounds interesting? Want to know more? Read the article -> here! Please cite the paper as: Nikiforova, A., Rizun, N., Ciesielska, M., Alexopoulos, C., Miletič, A. (2023). Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review. In: Lindgren, I., Csáki, C., Kalampokis, E., Janssen, M.,, Viale Pereira, G., Virkar, S., Tambouris, E., Zuiderwijk, A. Electronic Government. EGOV 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham


  • Nikiforova, A. (2021, October). Towards enrichment of the open government data: a stakeholder-centered determination of High-Value Data sets for Latvia. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 367-372).
  • Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (recast)
  • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138 of 21 December 2022 laying down a list of specific high-value datasets and the arrangements for their publication and re-use
  • Huyer, E., Blank, M. (2020). Analytical Report 15: High-value datasets: understanding the perspective of data providers. Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 doi:10.2830/363773
  • Utamachant, P., & Anutariya, C. (2018, July). An analysis of high-value datasets: a case study of Thailand’s open government data. In 2018 15th international joint conference on computer science and software engineering (JCSSE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE
  • van Loenen, B., & Šalamon, D. (2022). Trends and Prospects of Opening Data in Problem Driven Societies. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 20(2), II-IV

Guest Lecture for the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR) on Open Data Ecosystems in and for sustainable development of data-driven smart cities and Society 5.0

Today (May 16, 2023), I had a pleasure to deliver one more guest lecture for master and doctoral students of the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR)) as part of Smart Cities course delivered by prof. Regina Negri Pagani. This time the topic of my lecture was “Open Data Ecosystems in and for sustainable development of data-driven smart cities and Society 5.0”.

As part of this lecture we talked about open data and open government data (OGD) phenomena and how they evolved over years, what the open data ecosystem is and what constitutes it. I then tried to put it in the context of Brazil reflecting on the current state-of-the-art of open government and OGD in Brazil and its cities referring to both Open Government Partnership (Brazil was one of the the founding countries of OGP), existing OGD, transparency and central bank portals, studies that explored effects of predictors of citizens’ attitudes and intention to use OGD (*by de Souza, Ariel Antônio Conceição, Marcia Juliana d’Angelo, and Raimundo Nonato Lima Filho), factors influencing civil servant’s intention to disclose data (**by Fernando Kleiman, Sylvia J.T. Jansen, Sebastiaan Meijer, Marijn Janssen), as well as the relationship between transparency and open data initiatives in five Brazilian cities (identifying that they are not related for these five cities) (***by Araújo, Ana Carolina, Lucas Reis, and Rafael Cardoso Sampaio)

Then, presenting the concepts of Smart Cities and their “generations”, Sustainable Cities and Sustainable Smart Cities, as well as Society 5.0 (aka Super Smart Society and Society of imagination), I highlighted the overlaps and interweavings of the above and how the development of one contributes to the other, i.e. how interrelated they are and how complex this large ecosystem is.

And then, the remaining part of the lecture was focused around the topic of open data ecosystems starting with the current state of the art around the topic, i.e. different and similar definitions, components, characteristics etc., and finally the study we conducted some time ago with my colleagues from Czech Republic, Poland, Finland, Germany and Latvia, namely “Transparency of open data ecosystems in smart cities: Definition and assessment of the maturity of transparency in 22 smart cities“**** published in . Sustainable Cities and Society (Elsevier), in which we:

  • developed a benchmarking framework to assess the level of transparency of open data ecosystems in smart cities consisting of 36 features by adapting transparency-by-design framework for open data portals (*****by Lněnička and Nikiforova, 2021);
  • investigated smart city data portals’ compliance with the transparency requirements, where the developed framework has been applied to 34 portals representing 22 smart cities, allowing determination of the level of transparency maturity at general, individual, and group levels;
  • developed four-level transparency maturity model to allow the classification of the portal as developing, defined, managed, and integrated, thereby allowing to identify key issues to be transformed into corrective actions to be included into agenda and navigate to the set of more competitive portals;
  • ranked the portals concerned based on their transparency maturity, thereby allowing more successful portals to be identified in order to be used as an example for improving overall or feature-wised performance by providing recommendations for the identification and improvement of current maturity level and specific features;
  • conceptualized an open data ecosystem in the context of a smart city (!!!) and determined its key components considering the data-centric and data-driven infrastructure and other components and relationships, using the system theory approach;
  • on the basis of the dominant components of data infrastructure, defined five types of current open data ecosystems (see below) thereby opening up a new horizon for research in the area of sustainable and socially resilient smart cities by means of open data and citizen-centered open smart city governance.

Our definition of open data ecosystem in the smart city context , established based on the knowledge and experience of the experts involved and observations made during the study is:

systematic efforts to integrate ICT and technologies into city life to deliver citizen-centric, better-quality services, solutions to city problems with open data published through the data-centric and data-driven infrastructure.”

However, the concepts that affect/shape the ecosystem are:

  • stakeholders and their roles,
  • phases of the data lifecycle, in which a stakeholder participates in the ecosystem,
  • technical and technological infrastructure,
  • generic services and platforms,
  • human capacities and skills of both providers and consumers,
  • smart city domains (thematic categories) as the targeted areas for data reuse,
  • externalities affecting goals, policy, and resources,
  • level of (de)centralization of data sources – development, restrictions,
  • perception of importance and support from public officials,
  • user interface, user experience, and usability.

As for the types of current open data ecosystems, we identified 5 types that are as follows:

  • type#1: the city’s OGD portal is the center of the data infrastructure, and all OGD, including those labeled as smart, are published and centralized through it. For this type of open data ecosystem, other websites that had previously provided open data or other services to access public sector information have been replaced by the OGD portal. The focus is on datasets, providing features to work with them, reuse them, and make all data requests transparent in one place;
  • type#2: this ecosystem also usually has the OGD portal as the central point, but other portals and platforms publish open data. The smart data portal and online city dashboards focusing on different dimensions such as transport, health, air quality, etc., are important components of this ecosystem;
  • type#3: a decentralized type of ecosystem that includes many components such as OGD portal, smart data portal, geodata portal, etc. However, it increases the ecosystem’s complexity, which is more difficult to manage and less usable for stakeholders
  • type#4: the smart city portal focused on projects and services is usually the center of this ecosystem, but it is not the priority to provide data and appropriate features to reuse them. Most services are developed by public sector organizations, research institutions, or businesses and provided to citizens;
  • type#5: apart from the city’s OGD portal, there are additional transparency-, participation-, collaboration-, and cooperation-oriented websites and portals to support the formation and improvement of relations between stakeholders. This type of ecosystem is focused on processes to improve open data reuse.

Sounds interesting? Read the article here and see other recommended articles below! 🙂

This was then wrapped up by emphasizing key overseen topics that are paid to little attention to, although being crucial for a sustainable public data ecosystem.

And I can only hope that this lecture was just a little bit as interesting as my dear colleague prof. Regina Negri Pagani characterized it! It is always pleasure to hear her feedback, as her comments are so gentle and inspiring! And there is nothing better than hear such wonderful and positive feedback and an immediate invitation for the next editions of this course, which will be my pleasure – this was the 2nd edition of the course, when I served as a guest lecture and will be definitely glad to make this yet another good tradition!


*de Souza, Ariel Antônio Conceição, Marcia Juliana d’Angelo, and Raimundo Nonato Lima Filho. “Effects of Predictors of Citizens’ Attitudes and Intention to Use Open Government Data and Government 2.0.” Government Information Quarterly 39.2 (2022): 101663.

**Kleiman, F., Jansen, S. J., Meijer, S., & Janssen, M. (2023). Understanding civil servants’ intentions to open data: factors influencing behavior to disclose data. Information Technology & People.

***Araújo, Ana Carolina, Lucas Reis, and Rafael Cardoso Sampaio. “Do transparency and open data walk together? An analysis of initiatives in five Brazilian capitals.” Media Studies 7.14 (2016).

****Lnenicka, M., Nikiforova, A., Luterek, M., Azeroual, O., Ukpabi, D., Valtenbergs, V., & Machova, R. (2022). Transparency of open data ecosystems in smart cities: Definition and assessment of the maturity of transparency in 22 smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 82, 103906.

*****Lnenicka, M., & Nikiforova, A. (2021). Transparency-by-design: What is the role of open data portals?. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101605.

Some other studies you might be interested:

Rii Forum 2023 “Innovation 5.0: Navigating shocks and crises in uncertain times Technology-Business-Society” & a plenary debate “Advances in ICT & the Society”

The last week I had an unforgettable experience at the Research and Innovation Forum (Rii Forum) on which I posted previously in Krakow, Poland acting as plenary speaker and a chair for a session.

Last week, I had an unforgettable experience at the Research and Innovation Forum (RiiForum) in Krakow, Poland, serving as plenary speaker and session chair. It was another great experience to have an absolutely amazing plenary session titled “Advances in ICT & the Society: threading the thin line between progress, development and mental health”, where we – Prof. Dr. Yves Wautelet, Prof. Dr. Marek Krzystanek, Karolina Laurentowska & Prof. Marek Pawlicki – discussed disruptive technologies in our professional lives in the past years, how they affected us and our colleagues, how they affect(ed) society and its specific groups, including their mental health, and general perception of technology, i.e. an enemy of humanity, or rather a friend and support, and how to make sure the second take place. And from this we have developed a discussion around AI, chatGPT, Metaverse, blockchain, even slightly touching on quantum computing. Of course, all this was placed in the context of democracy and freedoms / liberties. All in all, we approached the topic of governance and policy-making, which is too often reactive rather than proactive, which, in turn, leads to many negative consequences, as well as elaborated on the engineering practices. 

To sum up – emerging and disruptive technologies, Blockchain, AI, Metaverse, digital competencies, education, liberty, democracy, openness, engagement, metaverse, inclusivity, Industry 5.0, Society 5.0 – and it is not a list of buzzwords, but a list of topics we have managed to cover both plenary speakers and the audience and continued to talk about them during the whole conference. Rich enough, isn’t it?

And then the day did not end, continuing with several super insightful sessions, where, of course, one I enjoyed most is the one that I chaired. Three qualitative talks with further rich discussion after each thanks to an excellent audience, despite the fact this was the last session of the day (before the dinner), namely:

  • Privacy in smart cities using VOSviewer: a bibliometric analysis by Xhimi Hysa, Gianluca Maria Guazzo, Vilma Cekani, Pierangelo Rosati
  • Public policy of innovation in China by Krzysztof Karwowski, Anna Visvizi
  • How Human-Centric solutions and Artificial Intelligence meet smart cities in Industry 5.0 by Tamai Ramirez, Sandra Amador, Antonio Macia-Lillo, Higinio Mora

And the last, but not the least, Krakow surprised me lot (in a positive sense, of course) – it was my first time in Poland, and I am absolutely glad that it was on such a beautiful city as Krakow – the place with the rich history and culture! Thank you dear RiiForum2023 organizers – Anna Visvizi, Vincenzo Corvello, ORLANDO TROISI, Mara Grimaldi, Giovanni Baldi and everyone who was involved – it is always a pleasure to be a part of this community!


Call for Papers: Emerging Data- and Policy-driven Approaches for African Cities Challenges, Data & Policy, Cambridge University Press

On behalf of Guest Editors I sincerely invite you to consider submitting your work to our Special Issue ”Emerging Data- and Policy-driven Approaches for African Cities Challenges” as part of the open-access journal Data & Policy at Cambridge University Press.

This Special Issue aims to expand the reach and scope of urban data research, innovation and entrepreneurship activities and policies to address urban challenges in Africa through the digitisation of cities. It will compile recent expert work on the topic to advance and promote scientific advance / excellence, promote the digital transition and its benefits for creating, collecting, storing and using urban data to achieve sustainable development goals (SDG) in African cities.

African cities and their local actors and managers have been at the forefront of the digital transformation for several years now (Oke et al., 2020). Several urban projects across the continent, from north to south and east to west, are claiming to use the term “smart city” (Söderström et al., 2021). This apparently attractive name is often associated with an “isolationist” technical vision that is provided and marketed by operators with a very western and global vision. Digital and smart city projects are often implemented with citizens and the local ecosystem managed step by step by the municipalities, the digital transition can be primarily aimed at a “smart city of general interest”. In developing countries, and especially in Africa, where the young, female and urban population is becoming increasingly connected, the adoption of digital technologies is exponential and tends to occur without public intervention, including but not limited due to “datafication of cities” (Bibri & Krogstie, 2020; Plantinga, 2022; Oksman & Raunio, 2018). As a result, there is a risk that local authorities will “drop out” of the market, which may manifest itself in the development of alternative digital services by third parties that disrupt or compete with local public services. Another risk is that the local authority may have only limited or incomplete access to data produced by users and businesses within its territory, depriving it of the necessary material for its action. Local authorities in Africa, as in the North, are in a learning phase in their smart city or digital city policies and, in particular, policies regarding data collection / acquisition, storage and use to solve urban challenges (Plantinga, 2022; Oksman & Raunio, 2018).

Indeed, data is one of the essential pillars of an emerging smart or digital city that is best used to support decision making in urban planning and management to address the challenges of cities in Africa.  Therefore, it will be appropriate for this to cover all topics related to digital cities in Africa, including urban data and policy for urban planning applications, African smart city, Smart geoinformation systems (Smart GIS), smart governance, challenges of digital cities in Africa, urban sustainability, planning/management issues of emerging cities in Africa, urban socio-economic challenges (education, health, employment, youth, economy, food security, etc.), urban environment, information and communication technologies applied to the city. 

In addition to its thematic focus, it aims to advance interdisciplinary research by bridging the disciplinary divide between different academic cultures of the humanities, sciences, and application-oriented research, as well as the sectoral divide between urban development actors in Africa. Thus, this special issue will update and strengthen the existing literature on African cities through the results of scientific research based on qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques and methods on topics including, but not limited to data- and policy-driven approaches to address the challenges of African cities and mainly those related to:

💡Water and energy management;
💡Smart waste management and sanitation;
💡Digital management of education and health;
💡Digital mobility and transport management;
💡Quality of Life and social classes;
💡Strategies for digital and smart cities in Africa;
💡Digital and Smart African city stakeholders;
💡Digital and Smart city infrastructure;
💡Artificial intelligence and applications;
💡Digital governance for smart cities;
💡Citizen participation and engagement;
💡Datafication of smart cities;
💡Collective sensing & spatial big urban data;
💡Smart geo-addressing and participatory addressing;
💡Digital transformation and smart Governance;
💡Citizen and Collaborative Governance;
💡Climate and pollution. Environmental monitoring;
💡Disaster risks;
💡Urban Health

Papers to be submitted when ready, with final deadline: October 15, 2023.

Data & Policy publishes the following article types. Authors should consider which is the most appropriate category for their work before they submit:

  • Research articles: original work that uses rigorous methods to investigate how data science can inform or impact policy.
  • Commentaries: shorter articles that discuss and/or problematize an issue relevant to the special issue topic. (Approx 4,000 words in length).
  • Translational articles: focus on the policy setting or environment in which data science principles and approaches are being applied, with the aim of improving the transfer of knowledge from research to practice (and vice versa).
  • Data papers: provide structured descriptions of a data set relevant to the special issue. The data paper should describe the study design and methods that generated the data, but the focus should be to help others re-use the data rather than presenting new findings.

Guest Editors:

  • Jérôme Chenal, CEAT, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Stéphane C. K. Tekouabou, Center of Urban Systems (CUS), UM6P, Benguérir, Morocco
  • El Arbi Allaoui Abdellaoui, ENS, Mouley Ismail University, Meknès, Morocco
  • Anastasija Nikiforova, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia


  • Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2020). The emerging data–driven Smart City and its innovative applied solutions for sustainability: The cases of London and Barcelona. Energy Informatics, 3, 1-42.
  • Oke, A. E., Aghimien, D. O., Aigbavboa, C. O., & Akinradewo, O. I. (2020). Appraisal of the drivers of smart city development in South Africa. Construction Economics and Building, 20(2), 109-126.
  • Oksman, V., & Raunio, M. (2018, March). Citizen-centric smart city planning for africa: a qualitative case study of early stage co-creation of a Namibian smart community. In The twelfth international conference on digital society and egovernments (pp. 30-35).
  • Söderström, O., Blake, E., & Odendaal, N. (2021). More-than-local, more-than-mobile: The smart city effect in South Africa. Geoforum, 122, 103-117.
  • Plantinga, P. (2022). Digital discretion and public administration in Africa: Implications for the use of artificial intelligence. Information Development, 02666669221117526.

“Emerging issues and innovations” track as part of IFIP EGOV-CeDEM-EPART 2023 is open for submissions!

On behalf of the co-chair of “Emerging issues and innovations” track I sincerely invite everyone whose research focuses on new topics emerging in the field of ICT and public sector, including public-private ecosystems, to submit their work to this track, which is part of EGOV2023 – IFIP EGOV-CeDEM-EPART – one of the most recognized conference in e-Government, ICT and public administration and related topics!

The annual IFIP EGOV2023 will be hosted 5-7 September 2023 in Budapest by the Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary. The conference focuses on e-Government, Digital Government, Open Government, Smart Government, GovTech, eParticipation and e-Democracy, and related topics like social media, digital transformation, Digital society, artificial intelligence, policy information, policy informatics, smart cities, and social innovation. Several types of submissions are possible, including completed research, ongoing research, reflections & viewpoints, posters, and workshops. The conference consists of 10 tracks:

  • General E-Government and E-Governance Track
  • General e-Democracy & e-Participation track
  • ICT and Sustainable Development Goals Track
  • Digital Society Track
  • AI, Data Analytics & Automated Decision Making Track
  • Smart Cities (Government, Districts, Communities & Regions) Track
  • Open data: social and technical aspects Track
  • Emerging Issues and Innovations Track
  • Digital and Social Media Track
  • Legal Informatics

And while the conference consists of 10 tracks you will definitely find relevant, my personal recommendation is “Emerging issues and innovations” track (chairs: Marijn Janssen, Anastasija Nikiforova, Dr. Csaba Csaki, Francesco Mureddu).

🎯🎯🎯 “Emerging issues and innovations” track focuses on new topics emerging in the field of ICT and public sector, including public-private ecosystems. Topics of interest include but are not limited to:
💡Looking ahead into Social innovation
💡The future of government, policy making and democracy
💡Global challenges that go beyond nation states (such as migration, climate change etc.) and require international collaboration of individual governments
💡Digital transformation in public sector context
💡The future of digital governance
💡Public values in transforming the government
💡The role of government in eCities and sustainable living
💡The role of the public sector in Human Centered Society
💡Self Service Structures for Inclusion
💡Public-private sector collaboration and integration;
💡Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAO), smart contracts and blockchain
💡Preparing for the policy challenges of future technologies;
💡Regulating misinformation
💡New technologies for automated decision-making
💡The future public sector use and regulation of latest AI solutions;
💡Public use as well as regulations of industry 4.0 and the internet of things
💡The relationships of governments and Fintech
💡Upcoming issues of eVoting including application of digital signatures in the public sector
💡Online public community building
💡Utilization of digital billboards
💡Latest trends in co-creation and service delivery
💡Forward looking insights from case studies – let it be successful or failed experiments.

Deadline for submissions: 31 March 2023
PhD Colloquium deadline for submissions: 1 May 2023
Poster submission deadline: 20 May 2023
PhD Colloquium: 4 September 2023
Conference: 5-7 September 2023

Do not miss 3 days of discussions around e-Government, Digital Government, Open Government, Smart Government, GovTech, eParticipation and e-Democracy, and related topics like social media, digital transformation, Digital society, artificial intelligence, policy information, policy informatics, smart cities, and social innovation. Mark your calendar – 31 March 2023 for submitting your paper, and 5-7 September 2023 for attending the conference!

The conference is organized by the IFIP 8.5 Working group (WG8.5) and the Digital Government Society (DGS). The aim of WG 8.5 is to improve the quality of e-government information systems at international, national, regional and local levels. The WG8.5 emphasis is on interdisciplinary approaches for information systems in public administration. DGS is a global, multi-disciplinary organization of scholars and practitioners interested in the development and impacts of digital government. Read more here.