📢✍️🗞️New paper alert! “Sustainable open data ecosystems in smart cities: A platform theory-based analysis of 19 European cities”, Cities (Elsevier)

With this post I would like to introduce our new paper entitled “Sustainable open data ecosystems in smart cities: A platform theory-based analysis of 19 European cities” (authors: M. Lnenicka, A. Nikiforova, A. Clarinval, M. Luterek, D. Rudmark, S. Neumaier, K. Kević, M. P. R. Bolívar) that has been just published in Cities journal (Elsevier, Q1).

Smart cities aim to enhance citizens’ lives, urban services, and sustainability, with open data playing a crucial role in this development. Cities generate vast data that, if properly utilized within an open data ecosystem, can improve citizens’ lives and foster sustainability. Central to this ecosystem is the platform, which enables data collection, storage, processing, and sharing. Understanding modern Open Data Ecosystems is pivotal for sustainable urban development and governance, promoting collaboration and civic engagement. In this study, we aimed to identify key components shaping these efforts by conducting a platform theory-based multi-country comparative study of 19 🇪🇺 European cities across 8 countries – Austria 🇦🇹, Belgium 🇧🇪, Croatia 🇭🇷, Czech Republic 🇨🇿, Latvia 🇱🇻, Poland 🇵🇱, Sweden 🇸🇪. Considering both managerial and organizational, political and institutional, as well as information and technological contexts, drawing on both primary and secondary data, we:

  • 🔎🧐🔍identify 50 patterns that influence and shape sustainable Open Data Ecosystems and their platforms, i.e., Open Data Platform Ecosystems. We applied a cluster analysis to identify similarities between groups of patterns that influence and shape open (government) data efforts in smart cities.
  • 🔎🧐🔍explore the relationships between platforms and other Open Data Platform Ecosystems’ components by developing a respective model, and identifying internal platforms and other components that we classified into four categories, (a) data and information disclosure platforms such as open data portals, transparency portals, and official city websites, (b) thematic city development platforms focused on the subject of information such as smart city and smart projects platforms, participation platforms, citizen reporting or accountability platforms, crowdfunding platforms for local projects, startup platforms, etc., (c) specific data format disclosure platforms, and (d) content of information focused platforms, i.e., domain-specific platforms focused on data visualizations and storytelling, which include but are not limited to smart data portals, IoT and big data portals etc. In addition, we identify four OGD strategies used in the strategic planning of the city;
  • 🔎🧐🔍 empirically validate the conceptual findings of five types of Open Data Platform Ecosystems presented in the literature, redefining them from the conceptual to real-life implementation of the respective components in 19 cities with further description of how they contribute to the maturity concept of a sustainable ODE and respective platforms;
  • 🔎🧐🔍 considering the experience gained during the study and external pressures and environments that shape or influence Open Data Platform Ecosystems, based predominantly on best practices or pain points for Open Data Ecosystems in the sampled smart cities, we define 12 recommendations for policy planning and urban governance of more sustainable Open Data Ecosystems.

And this is just a short overview of our contributions. Sounds interesting? Read the article here!

In case of interest, cite this paper as:

📢✍️🗞️New paper alert! “Identifying patterns and recommendations of and for sustainable open data initiatives: A benchmarking-driven analysis of open government data initiatives among European countries”, GIQ

With this post I would like to introduce our new paper entitled “Identifying patterns and recommendations of and for sustainable open data initiatives: A benchmarking-driven analysis of open government data initiatives among European countries” (authors: Martin Lnenicka, Anastasija Nikiforova, Mariusz Luterek, Petar Milic, Daniel Rudmark, Sebastian Neumaier, Caterina Santoro, Cesar Casiano Flores, Marijn Janssen, and Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar) that has been just published in Government Information Quarterly journal (Elsevier) – the leading journal in the world for articles on e-governemnt, public administration, and, in fact, many other topics.

This paper focuses on benchmarking of open data initiatives over the years and attempts to identify patterns observed among European countries that could lead to disparities in the development, growth, and sustainability of open data ecosystems, considering different potentially relevant contexts such as e-government, open government data, open data indices and rankings, and others relevant for the country under consideration. Specifically, this study conducts a comparative analysis of different patterns of open (government) data initiatives and their effects in the eight European countries – Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Serbia, Sweden, using six open data benchmarks Global Open Data Index (GODI), Open Data Maturity Report (ODMR), Open Data Inventory (ODIN), Open Data Barometer (ODB), Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index, Open Government Development Index (OGDI), two e-government reports (57 editions in total), and other relevant resources, covering the period of 2013–2022. In other words, to attain the objective of the study, we developed the composite benchmarks-driven analytical protocol.

Using the developed composite benchmarks-driven analytical protocol and a Delphi method, we reached a consensus within a panel of experts and validated a final list of 94 patterns, including their frequency of occurrence among studied countries and their effects on the respective countries. Finally, we took a closer look at the developments in identified contexts over the years and defined 21 recommendations for more resilient and sustainable open government data initiatives and ecosystems and future steps in this area.

We then performed the cluster analysis to find similarities between patterns based on their occurrence and effects (impacts). Both these analyses suggest a close link between approaches to benchmarking of open data initiatives and the development of e-government over the years. We found that e-government services, their interoperability, availability, transparency, efficiency, etc., have a positive influence here, i.e., to what extent OGD and related concepts will merge with e-government and can use its infrastructure and related services for their growth. Finally, we were also able to extract from the 25 patterns six high-level recommendations that are considered the key to success, i.e., for a sustainable and resilient OGD initiative. The discussion, in turn, allowed us to formulate 15 more recommendations for public administration, those who use/interpret indices, benchmarks, and reports, and academia, indicating some research agenda.

These are expected to lead to improved performance in applied indices and rankings and, more importantly, will facilitate the achievement of the benefits with which open (government) data are associated. While this is expected to be primarily important in instructing ODEs’ stakeholders (mainly policymakers), the findings identified the current research gaps to be further explored by researchers. As future research, we will expand the study to other countries, focusing our attention in specific areas of the OGD ecosystems to get valuable insights concerning OGD strategies used and in identifying development stages in OGD.

Sounds interesting? Read the article here!

In case of interest, cite this paper as:

  • Lnenicka, M., Nikiforova, A., Luterek, M., Milic, P., Rudmark, D., Neumaier, S., Santoro, C., Casiano Flores, C., Janssen, M., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2024). Identifying patterns and recommendations of and for sustainable open data initiatives: A benchmarking-driven analysis of open government data initiatives among European countries. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1): 101898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101898