The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

Provision and
Provision and usage of open usage of open
government data: strategic government
data
transformation paths
Juyeon Ham 1841
College of Hotel and Tourism Management,
Received 5 April 2019
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Revised 23 July 2019
Yunmo Koo Accepted 5 August 2019

Barun ICT Research Center,

Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and
Jae-Nam Lee
Korea University Business School, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Abstract
Purpose – To create the expected value and benefits through open data, appropriate provision and usage of
data are required simultaneously. However, the level of provision and usage of open data differs from country
to country. Moreover, previous research on open data has only focused on either open data provision or usage.
To fill the research gap, the purpose of this paper is threefold: first, to understand the current status of the
provision and usage of open data; second, to identify patterns in the provision and usage of open data; and
third, to provide appropriate future directions and guidelines for the transformation paths of each pattern.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors analyzed the data collected from open data portals of 13
countries that provide information on the provision and usage of open data together.
Findings – The authors identified four patterns of the provision and usage of open data, namely,
availability-driven, government-driven, market-driven and interaction-driven patterns. Furthermore, three
strategic paths of transformation reach a high level of open data provision and usage, namely, data provision-
focused, data usage-focused and balanced transformation paths.
Originality/value – This study provides a foundation that enables researchers to build a holistic theory that
can integrate fragmented and incomplete knowledge of open data and usage, particularly in the context of
government.
Keywords Open data, Open government, Open data provision, Open data usage,
Patterns of provision and usage of open data, Strategic transformation path
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The importance of data is gaining recognition around the world. Companies are looking for
new business insights and opportunities by analyzing the data accumulated through business
activities across firm boundaries. This trend indicates the increasing value of interoperable
data that are easily accessible and usable by anyone or any system ( Jetzek, 2016). Governments
in many countries are also exerting similar efforts to meet this trend by actively disclosing
government data to the public as “open data” that can be used by the public and private sectors
(Conradie and Choenni, 2014). The benefits of open data range from political and social benefits
(e.g. Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks, 2015), to economic benefits (e.g. Zeleti et al., 2016) and
operational and technical benefits (e.g. Janssen et al., 2012). Given these benefits, an increasing
number of countries have invested massive funds and various resources to establish open data
portals for their government’s data release (Zhao and Fan, 2018). According to a global report, Industrial Management & Data
Systems
Vol. 119 No. 8, 2019
pp. 1841-1858
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean © Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-5577
Government (NRF-2014S1A5A2A03064953). This paper is based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation. DOI 10.1108/IMDS-04-2019-0218
IMDS the number of countries operating open data portals increased from 77 in 2013 to 115 in 2016
119,8 (Davies, 2013; Iglesias and Robinson, 2016).
Although previous research has shown the enormous potential for data-driven value
creation, creating and sustaining sufficient value remain difficult in the context of
governments ( Janssen et al., 2012). The reasons primarily come from the aspects of
provision and usage of open data. First, in terms of open data provision, sufficient data are
1842 not provided or data are not provided in various formats (e.g. xls or pdf ) and continuous
updating is not guaranteed (Martin et al., 2013). These factors cause compatibility issues
between open data and other existing data in private and public organizations. Second, in
terms of open data usage, users of open data often have no necessary knowledge regarding
the use of data, resulting in a lack of successful best practices. Having these best practices is
crucial for benchmarking other organizations or users and developing an appropriate open
data strategy in the government level.
To create sufficient value from open data, the appropriate provision and usage of data
are essential. Nevertheless, previous research on open data focused only on few areas. In
particular, there is a considerable difference between the interest in providing and utilizing
open data (Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks, 2015). Global reports revealed different degrees of
open data readiness, implementation and impact among countries (Iglesias and Robinson,
2016). Furthermore, these reports focused on the provision of open data (Van Schalkwyk
and Verhulst, 2017) but did not explore the role of open data usage in achieving the goals
and benefits of open data. However, the genuine value of open data can be achieved by
providing necessary and sufficient data and, more importantly, utilizing the open data
suitable for the purpose of diverse stakeholders. Therefore, understanding both the
provision and usage of open data is crucial to reaping the benefits of open data and
developing appropriate open data policies in the context of governments (Attard et al., 2015),
which result in enhancing national competitiveness. Nevertheless, existing reports and
studies seem to focus more on providing rather than using open data.
To address this gap, this study considers the provision and usage of open data
simultaneously. In particular, understanding what data are mainly opened and utilized and
how they are widely and specifically opened and utilized can provide important directions for
establishing open data policies and strategies in the future. In addition, as open data should
allow users to create value through sufficient utilization, providing a sufficient scope (i.e.
breadth) and scale/level (i.e. depth) of data is crucial (Boh et al., 2014). Nonetheless, previous
studies have inconsiderably focused on the breadth and depth of open data provision and
utilization. Thus, from the perspective of the breadth and depth of open data, this study aims
to understand the status of the provision and usage of open data, identify patterns in the
provision and usage of open data, and provide appropriate future directions and guidelines for
each pattern. More specifically, this study investigates the following research questions:
RQ1. How are the breadth and depth of open data provision and usage different for
each country?
RQ2. How are the patterns of provision and usage of open data different for each
data category?
Accordingly, we analyzed the data collected from open data portals of 13 countries that
provide information on the provision and usage of open data. Then, we identified four
patterns resulting from the analysis on the provision and usage of open data, which include
availability-driven, government-driven, market-driven and interaction-driven patterns.
Three strategic transformation paths were also developed and suggested to reach a high
level of open data provision and usage, namely, data provision-focused, data usage-focused
and balanced transformation paths. The result of this study can suitably assist
governments in leveraging the promises and benefits of open data provision and usage.
2. Literature review Provision and
2.1 Definition of open data usage of open
The concept of “open data” originates from a paradigm to make and share open knowledge, government
but the working definitions are used slightly differently according to the literature ( Jetzek,
2016). The Open Knowledge Foundation defines open data (http://opendatahandbook.org/ data
guide/en/what-is-open-data/) as “data that can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by
anyone – subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and sharealike.” This definition 1843
understands open data from a comprehensive perspective. Specifically, if defining open data
entails focusing on the meaning of data held by the government, it may be called “open
government data,” which are defined as “data produced or commissioned by government or
government controlled entities (http://opengovernmentdata.org/index.html).” Meanwhile, open
data are sometimes called “linked open data” when it comes to the five levels (i.e. five stars) of
disclosure of open data with extra focus on the technical side. These five stars (www.w3.org/
DesignIssues/LinkedData.html) describe the required transformation of data into linked data,
which are ultimately interlinked through semantic queries. In a similar vein, Davies (2013)
defined open data as machine-readable formatted data that allow users to easily access and
use government data under open licenses.
Overall, the majority of open data-related studies interpret open data as open
government data in terms of releasing government-held data, although prior definitions of
open data have been comprehensively generated from the political (or bureaucratic),
economic, social and technical perspectives (Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks, 2015). From a
practical view, this phenomenon is attributed to the focus of open data in most countries on
disclosing government data to the public and private sectors. The current study uses open
data with a meaning similar to that of open government data defined in prior studies.
However, as this study aims to investigate the current status of open data provided and
utilized by each country, it extends the prior definitions of open data and refines the latter as
“governmental data of public interest that are available without any restrictions and that
can be easily found, accessed and utilized” (Veljković et al., 2014, p. 442).
Stakeholders of open data are divided into primary stakeholders (i.e. those who
essentially influence the open data planning and implementation) and secondary
stakeholders (i.e. those who affect or are affected by open data but less formally and
directly influence on it) (Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks, 2015). Primary stakeholders include
politicians, public officials, public sector practitioners and international organizations.
These people are responsible for decision making (i.e. politicians) on open data legislation or
the implementation and operation of open data (i.e. public officials and sector practitioners).
International organizations play an important role in developing the open data agenda.
Secondary stakeholders include civil society activities, funding donors, information and
communication technology (ICT) providers, and academics. These people are interested in
participating in open data promotions, including workshops, discussions and innovations
related to open data (i.e. civil society activities), or supporting open data initiatives (i.e.
funding donors). They may provide an open data platform (i.e. ICT providers) or conduct
research related to open data (i.e. academics).

2.2 Open data portal

An open data portal serves as a digital platform or infrastructure for the effective provision
and use of open data in public and private sectors (Lourenço, 2015). Governments provide
data to end users through portals. End users can then download open data or request a new
data set for different purposes. An open data portal is the foundation for creating an open
data ecosystem[1]. Figure 1 shows the structure of open data in an open data portal, which
commonly consists of categories, data sets and resources. A category refers to a theme that
covers specific areas. Among the most commonly found top-level categories are
IMDS environment, government, economy, finance, geography, transportation, health, education,
119,8 society, law, science, technology, culture and tourism. Data sets refer to the sets of data files
related to certain categories. Resources indicate data files from the data sets in various
formats, such as html, csv, xls, xml, pdf, doc and txt.

2.3 Open data provision

1844 Open data provision is sometimes referred to as open data release (e.g. Barry and Bannister,
2014; Conradie and Choenni, 2014), disclosure (e.g. Zuiderwijk, Janssen and Dwivedi, 2015;
Zuiderwijk, Susha, Charalabidis, Parycek and Janssen, 2015) or publication (e.g. Zuiderwijk
et al., 2014) in previous studies. In this study, we define open data provision as activities
related to providing government data to the public. Previous research on open data
provision can be divided into three areas: open data initiatives, implementation and
evaluation (Zhao and Fan, 2018). The first area is open data initiatives with focus on
influential factors on open data provision. Yang et al. (2015) examined influential factors and
their impacts on open data initiatives from technology, organization, legislation and policy,
and environment perspectives. The second area is open data implementation, which is
focused on open data platforms and data-providing processes (e.g. Chatfield and Reddick,
2017; Thorsby et al., 2017). Research in this area explores the structures, features, roles and
capabilities of open data portals as platforms for providing open data (Lourenço, 2015).
Chatfield and Reddick (2017) investigated the service capabilities of the government’s open
data portal as a supply side. The third area is open data evaluation, which is based on
different standards and perspectives (e.g. Ham et al., 2015; Kassen, 2013; Vetrò et al., 2016).
Research in this area has focused on assessing the maturity and capability of governments
to provide open data or conduct studies that suggest an evaluation framework. Kassen
(2013) suggested a framework for evaluating open data projects and evaluated Chicago’s
open data project case. Ham et al. (2015) suggested capability paths and maturity models of
the government for open innovation, with a focus on open data provision and use.
In summary, how to build and evaluate an open data platform were the major concerns in
previous research. However, previous studies failed to provide specific explanations and
guidelines on which areas (i.e. categories) of data are more important than others and which
data require disclosure as top priority. Although the characteristics of disclosing data or the
policy direction may be different depending on the situation or environment of the country,
existing research does not consider such difference. Therefore, this study attempts to fill the
existing knowledge gaps of previous studies by exploring these differences.

2.4 Open data usage

In this study, open data usage is defined as activities related to the use of open data by
stakeholders. Research areas of open data usage can be divided into three main categories:
open data users; open data adoption and usage; and values of open data. The first research
area, open data users, focuses on understanding open data ecosystems and stakeholders
(Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks, 2015; Van Schalkwyk et al., 2016). Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks
(2015) classified open data stakeholders as primary and secondary stakeholders.

Categories Environment Economy

Data sets Climate Average Flood Records Company Data Tariff Codes
Figure 1.
Common structure of
an open data portal
Resources HTML CSV XML XLS CSV PDF ZIP DOC TXT
Moreover, depending on the stakeholder groups, open data concepts and benefits are classified Provision and
into four categories, namely, bureaucratic, political, technological and economic perspectives. usage of open
The second research area, open data adoption and usage, focuses on identifying influencing government
factors to encourage open data adoption and usage (e.g. Gascó-Hernández et al., 2018;
Zuiderwijk, Janssen and Dwivedi, 2015; Zuiderwijk, Susha, Charalabidis, Parycek and Janssen, data
2015). Wang and Lo (2016) identified perceived benefits, organizational readiness and external
pressures as influencing factors that facilitate the adoption of open data in government 1845
agencies. Gascó-Hernández et al. (2018) argued that considering unique characteristics,
expectations and interests according to different user types is important for successful open
data usage. The third research area, values of open data, is primarily focused on understanding
open data impacts and value-generating mechanisms ( Jetzek et al., 2014; Magalhaes and
Roseira, 2017). Jetzek et al. (2014) conducted a systematic literature review and proposed four
types of value-generating mechanisms focused on economic and social influences.
In summary, previous studies of open data usage explore the types of open data users,
determine factors motivating them to use open data and identify the value of using open
data. However, despite the possible variations in the type or category of data used among
countries or regions, previous studies have not considered such differences. Therefore, this
study seeks to determine the utilized areas of open data and suggests guidelines for the
government to focus on the management and support of open data usage.

2.5 Breadth and depth of open data provision and usage

Prior research on the breadth and depth has been concerned with knowledge breadth and
depth and their influence on the innovation performance of an enterprise (e.g. Bahemia and
Squire, 2010; Boh et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016). Teece et al. (1997) argued that the depth and
width (i.e. breadth) of technological opportunities within the prior research activities of a
firm are likely to affect its options in terms of rational research and development activities.
Likewise, the strategic options of activities to enhance national competitiveness can be
influenced by the understanding of the breadth and depth of open data provision and usage.
However, prior studies have not considered the concept of the breadth and depth in the
context of open government data. Therefore, the provision and usage of open data should be
examined deeply not only to understand their role in achieving the benefits of open data but
also to provide open data stakeholders with deep insights into establishing effective open
data policies and strategies. To realize the objectives of this study, we attempt to examine
the breadth and depth of open data provision and usage through an exploratory study.

3. Research methodology
As aforementioned, this study attempts to analyze the cases by collecting data from the
open data portals of 13 countries that provide all information on the provision and usage of
open data together. Through this exploratory case study approach, we attempt to
understand the status and patterns of provision and usage of open data. The following are
the reasons for choosing a case study: case studies provide a variety of insights into
understanding and interpreting phenomena by looking at representative examples from
diverse perspectives (Cooper and Schindler, 2008); and this study is an early attempt to
understand the status of open data provision and usage and grasp patterns inductively.
Therefore, based on this study, further specific and empirical open data provision and usage
research and theoretical development can be possible areas for future research.

3.1 Measurement development

The concepts of breadth and depth were applied to evaluate the degree of provision and
usage of open data. Operational definitions and measurements for the breadth and depth of
IMDS open data provision and usage were developed on the basis of existing breadth and depth
119,8 studies (Appendix 1). First, from the open data provision perspective, the breadth of open
data provision refers to the scope/degree of open data provided in a country (i.e. how diverse
categories of data are provided). The depth of open data provision indicates the scale/level of
the open data provided in a country (i.e. how deep the data are provided). Specifically, the
breadth of open data provision was measured as the proportion of provided data sets
1846 relative to a country’s population (Equation (1)), whereas the depth of open data provision
was measured as the average number of resources in each data set (Equation (2)) (Moorthy
and Polley, 2010; Wang and Von Tunzelmann, 2000). A resource refers to the number of
data files contained in a single data set. The formulas can be expressed as follows:
Total number of provided data sets
Provision breadth ¼ ; (1)
Population of a country

Total number of provided resources

Provision depth ¼ : (2)
Total number of provided data sets
Second, from the open data usage perspective, the breadth of open data usage refers to the
scope of the open data used (i.e. how diverse categories of data are used). The depth of open
data usage refers to the scale/level of open data used (i.e. how deeply the data are used).
Thus, the open data usage was evaluated based on the use cases (e.g. mobile applications
developed by using open data sets and resources) provided on the open data portals.
Specifically, the breadth of open data usage was measured as the proportion of used data
sets relative to the provided data sets (Equation (3)), whereas the depth of open data usage
was measured by the average number of data set usage per used data set in an application
(Equation (4)) (Moorthy and Polley, 2010; Wang and Von Tunzelmann, 2000). The formulas
are summarized as follows:
Total number of used data sets
Usage breadth ¼ ; (3)
Total number of provided data sets

Total number of usage frequency of used data sets

Usage depth ¼ : (4)
Total number of used data sets
The scores of provision (Equation (5)) and usage (Equation (6)) of open data were calculated
based on the values of breadth and depth (Wang and Von Tunzelmann, 2000). The formulas
are as follows:
Provision score ¼ ðProvision breadthÞ  ðProvision depthÞ; (5)

Usage score ¼ ðUsage breadthÞ  ðUsage depthÞ: (6)

3.2 Data collection

To understand the status of the provision and usage of open data, we collected data from
open data portals of 13 countries. The open data portal of the US Government identified a
list of 52 countries maintaining their open data portals (www.data.gov/open-gov). However,
only 13 countries provide simultaneous information on the provision and usage of open
data. Data collected were as of 2016. Table I shows the detailed profile of these 13 countries.
Data were collected through the following procedure on the open data portal of each
country. First, we listed the data set categories on each open data portal. Second, we collected
 Country Open data portal
Provision and
ODB usage of open
No. Name Abbreviation Region URL Launched year rankinga government
1 Australia AUS Oceania data.gov.au 2013 10 data
2 Austria AUT Europe data.gv.at 2011 13
3 Brazil BRA South America dados.gov.br 2011 17
4 France FRA Europe data.gouv.fr 2013 2 1847
5 Germany DEU Europe www.govdata.de 2012 11
6 India IND Asia data.gov.in 2012 38
7 Republic of Korea KOR Asia www.data.go.kr 2011 8
8 Republic of Moldova MDA Europe data.gov.md 2011 33
9 Norway NOR Europe data.norge.no 2011 17
10 Portugal PRT Europe www.dados.gov.pt 2011 31
11 Spain ESP Europe datos.gob.es 2010 13
12 UK GBR Europe data.gov.uk 2009 1 Table I.
13 USA USA North America www.data.gov 2009 2 Profiles of 13
Note: aODB ranking: Open Data Barometer Ranking (Iglesias and Robinson, 2016) countries

information on the total number of provided data sets and resources for each category. Third,
we collected information on use cases, such as mobile applications or websites that were
created using open data. Information on names of use cases, data set categories used for each
use case and used data sets were also gathered. Finally, by applying the information collected
in the previous steps, we calculated the total number of data sets used by each category and
the total number of times (i.e. frequency) that each data set was used.
During the data collection process, if the open data portal was developed in a language
other than English, data collection and verification were conducted with the help of
professionals who could understand the language. After the data collection for all
13 countries was completed, the two evaluators independently cross-checked the data to
minimize errors through secondary verification.

4. Data analysis
Formulas (1)–(6) were rescaled to values between 0 and 1 through normalization because the
ranges of values across countries were different, as summarized in Table II. Figure 2 shows the
visualization of the values in Table II to derive meaningful patterns from the data analysis results.

4.1 Breadth and depth of open data provision

Figure 2(a) shows the status of provision of open data for the 13 countries, which can be
divided into four quadrants. The bottom left quadrant shows countries with low- and
mid-level breadth and depth of open data provision. This quadrant includes Norway,
Portugal, Germany, Spain and Austria. The bottom right quadrant displays countries with
high levels of breadth in open data provision but low levels of depth in open data provision.
This quadrant includes Australia, Korea, the UK and the USA, which has the highest
breadth of open data provision in this quadrant. This finding indicates that the USA
provides the highest number of data sets.
The top left quadrant shows countries with low- and mid-level breadth in open data
provision but with high levels of depth in open data provision. Countries in this quadrant
include Brazil, India, Moldova and France. Brazil shows the highest depth in open data
provision, indicating that it provides the highest average number of resources for each
data set. The top right quadrant shows countries with high levels of breadth and depth in
open data provision. No country is part of this quadrant.
IMDS Open data Open data Open data provision and
119,8 Country provision usage usage
No. Name Abbreviation Breadth Depth Breadth Depth Provision score Usage score

1 Australia AUS 0.52 0.46 0.00 0.33 0.93 0.00

2 Austria AUT 0.39 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00
3 Brazil BRA 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.01
1848 4 France FRA 0.46 0.60 0.22 0.36 1.00 0.12
5 Germany DEU 0.36 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.00
6 India IND 0.00 0.77 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.22
7 Republic of Korea KOR 0.57 0.01 0.12 0.57 0.25 0.08
8 Republic of Moldova MDA 0.41 0.61 0.10 0.00 0.93 0.03
9 Norway NOR 0.19 0.05 0.47 0.33 0.10 0.24
10 Portugal PRT 0.10 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.01
11 Spain ESP 0.37 0.24 0.04 0.11 0.42 0.01
12 UK GBR 0.75 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.32 0.02
Table II. 13 USA USA 1.00 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.76 0.00
Scores in open data Average 0.39 0.36 0.22 0.24 0.44 0.13
provision and usagea Note: aScores range from 0 to 1

4.2 Breadth and depth of open data usage

Figure 2(b) shows the four quadrants from the perspectives of open data usage. Countries with
low- and mid-level breadth and depth in open data usage are in the bottom left quadrant. This
quadrant represents most countries. Countries in the bottom right quadrant have high levels of
breadth but low levels of depth in open data usage. India is the only country in this quadrant.

(a) (b)
1 1
BRA AUT
0.9 0.9
OPEN DATA PROVISION DEPTH

OPEN DATA USAGE DEPTH

0.8 0.8
IND
0.7 0.7
MDA
0.6 0.6
FRA KOR
0.5 0.5
AUS
0.4 0.4
PRT DEU FRA
0.3 0.3 AUS NOR
ESP
0.2 AUT 0.2 BRA
USA ESP
0.1 KOR 0.1 GBR
NOR GBR PRT MDA IND
0 0 DEU
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0USA0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
OPEN DATA PROVISION BREADTH OPEN DATA USAGE BREADTH

(c)
1
AUT
0.9
OPEN DATA USAGE SCORE

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 NOR
IND
0.2
KOR FRA
0.1 GBR ESP DEU MDA
BRA PRT USA
0 AUS
Figure 2. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Breadth and depth OPEN DATA PROVISION SCORE
of open data
provision and usage Notes: (a) Breadth and depth of open data provision; (b) Breadth and depth of open data usage;
(c) Open data provision and usage
The top left quadrant includes countries with low- and mid-level of breadth but with a high Provision and
level of depth in open data usage. Korea is part of this quadrant. The top right quadrant shows usage of open
Austria, which is the only country with the highest breadth and depth in open data usage. government
data
4.3 Status of open data provision and usage
Figure 2(c) shows the integrated results of the analysis of open data provision and usage.
The bottom left quadrant shows countries with low- and mid-level scores in open data 1849
provision and usage. These countries include India, Brazil, Portugal, Norway, Korea, UK,
Spain and Germany. Countries in the bottom right quadrant are those with high levels of
open data provision but low levels of open data usage. This quadrant includes the USA,
Moldova, Australia and France. Countries in the top left quadrant have low- and mid-level
provision of open data but have high levels of usage. Austria is the only country in this
quadrant. Countries with high levels of provision and usage of open data are shown in the
top right quadrant. No country is included in this quadrant.
Most countries have opened their government data to the public, but the level of data
provision differs from country to country. The level of open data usage in most countries is
low, except for Austria. This result means that the status of open data for the governments of
these 13 countries is focused on the provisioning side rather than the usage side of open data.

5. Patterns of provision and usage of open data

Figure 3 was derived to gain a better understanding on the status of provision and usage of
open data in Figure 2(c). First, to derive meaningful patterns from the analysis results, data
set categories were reclassified into ten common categories (Figure 3). The reclassification
was conducted for each of the 13 countries. Second, the provision and usage scores for each
of the ten categories were recalculated. Third, we calculated the average value of the open
data provision and usage for countries that belong to each quadrant in Figure 2(c). For
example, the bottom left quadrant of Figure 2(c) includes eight countries. The average value
of open data provision and usage scores for each of these eight countries was calculated
accordingly. Finally, to examine the patterns of open data provision and usage levels in 13
countries, we rescaled the values derived from the previous step through normalization.
Figure 3 displays the patterns of provision and usage of open data in each quadrant, and
Table III summarizes their main characteristics.
The characteristics of the derived patterns in Table III were compared in four areas,
namely, influencing actors, levels of open data provision and usage, main data sets provided
and used, and goals for open data provision and usage (Lee et al., 2012; Zuiderwijk, Janssen
and Dwivedi, 2015; Zuiderwijk, Susha, Charalabidis, Parycek and Janssen, 2015). The first
area covers the influencing actors. These actors represent either/both the government or/
and the user (i.e. the market) who play(s) a leading role in providing and using open data.
The second area includes the levels of open data provision and usage. This area shows the
high and low levels of open data provision and usage (Figure 3). The third area refers to the
main data sets provided and used. This area explains the data categories where the graphs
show high values in each pattern in Figure 3. The last area comprises the goals for open
data provision and usage. This area includes enhancing public accountability and
delivering services (Yu and Robinson, 2012).

5.1 Pattern 1: availability-driven pattern

Figure 3(a) shows the pattern of provision and usage of open data by each category
representing the bottom left quadrant of Figure 2(c). The pattern shows that provision and
usage of open data in most data categories are low. Countries belonging to this pattern
should strengthen their provision and usage of open data because the volume of open data is
IMDS (a) (b)
119,8 Pattern 1: Availability-driven Pattern 2: Government-driven
BRA, DEU, ESP, GBR, IND, KOR, NOR, PRT AUS, FRA, MDA, USA
1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60

1850 0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Provision Usage Provision Usage

Provision = Low, Usage = Low Provision = High, Usage = Low

(c) (d)
Pattern 3: Market-driven Pattern 4
AUT
1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Provision Usage

Provision = Low, Usage = High Provision = High, Usage = High

C1: Environment and Climate C6: Education
Figure 3. C2: Government and Public Administration C7: Society
Patterns of open data C3: Economy and Finance C8: Law and Public Safety
provision and usage C4: Geography and Transport C9: Science and Technology
C5: Health C10: Culture and Tourism

insufficient and most data sets are unused. The data categories used in this pattern are
generally available data sets held by governments. Thus, Pattern 1 is denoted as
“availability-driven pattern.”
Pattern 1 focuses on opening data sets, such as geography and transport, government
and public administration, economy and finance, and society categories. Governments
simply open basic public administration and economy and finance data sets to enhance
transparency. Society data set enables governments to share societal issues with research
institutions, citizens and businesses. Given the increasing number of smartphone
subscriptions, governments are encouraged to provide basic geography and transport
data set, such as subway and map data, which are used to develop smartphone applications
and services. Culture and tourism category is the focus of open data usage in Pattern 1. The
increased number of smartphone subscriptions requiring geospatial data provides people an
opportunity to enjoy cultural life and travel. Thus, mobile applications for tourism are some
of the most popular applications developed from geography and transport data sets.
Overall, the provision and usage of open data in Pattern 1 are tightly related to “service
delivery” rather than “public accountability” (Yu and Robinson, 2012).

5.2 Pattern 2: government-driven pattern

Countries in Figure 3(b), representing the bottom right quadrant of Figure 2(c), have high
scores for open data provision in most data categories but low data usage. This finding
 Pattern 2 (government-
Provision and
Pattern 1 (availability-driven) driven) Pattern 3 (market-driven) usage of open
Influencing Government (weak intention), Government (strong Market (users of open data), government
actors supply-driven intention), supply-driven demand-driven
data
Level of data Low High Low
provision
Level of data Low Low High 1851
usage
Main data set Geography and transport (C4), Economy and finance (C3), Environment and climate
provided government and public government and public (C1), geography and transport
administration (C2), economy administration (C2), culture (C4), government and public
and finance (C3), society (C7) and tourism (C10) administration (C2), society
(C7), culture and tourism (C10)
Main data set Culture and tourism (C10) Culture and tourism (C10) Health (C5), culture and
used tourism (C10), science and
technology (C9), education
(C6), government and public
administration (C2)
Goals for data Service delivery Service delivery (more Service delivery
provision focused), public
accountability Table III.
Goals for data Service delivery Service delivery Service delivery (more Main characteristics of
usage focused), public accountability each pattern

indicates that governments in these countries strongly push for open data provision. Thus,
the pattern in Figure 3(b) is denoted as “government-driven pattern” (Pattern 2).
The focus of open data provision in Pattern 2 is the economy and finance, government
and public administration, and culture and tourism categories. Overall, the data provision of
all categories is high in this pattern. Apart from basic government data, countries in Pattern
2 strive to increase the range of data to meet the requirements of external entities, such as
research institutions, citizens and businesses. Opening data in Pattern 2 ultimately aims to
improve economic growth by increasing government transparency and responsibility (e.g.
government and public administration and economy and finance) and using data sets
related to profit-oriented industries (e.g. culture and tourism). Countries in this pattern
pursue the provision of service delivery and public accountability. However, data provision
for service delivery (i.e. economy and finance, and culture and tourism) is considered a
higher priority than that for public accountability (i.e. public administration).

5.3 Pattern 3: market-driven pattern

Corresponding to the upper left quadrant of Figure 2(c), Figure 3(c) shows that the degree of
open data usage in most data categories is higher than that of open data provision. The
provision and usage of open data are likewise driven by market and business needs rather
than by governments. Thus, this pattern is denoted as “market-driven pattern” (Pattern 3).
Countries in Pattern 3 strive to provide available government data, including environment
and climate, geography and transport, government and public administration, society, and
culture and tourism. Similar to Pattern 1, countries in Pattern 3 concentrate on providing
service delivery data sets that can be used to develop public service applications and products.
End users in this pattern strongly push governments to increase the provision of advanced
and sophisticated data sets for business and social purposes (e.g. health, culture and tourism,
science and technology, education, and government and public administration). However,
IMDS governments are unprepared to open these data sets owing to a lack of understanding about
119,8 market needs. Thus, a large gap exists between data provision and usage in Pattern 3. In other
words, governments pay attention to the provision of available government data to improve
the level of service delivery but without considering the needs of end users.

6. Discussion and implications: next steps for sustainable growth

1852 The ultimate goal of all countries should be to reach the top right quadrant shown in
Figure 3(d). Countries in this quadrant should have the following characteristics: a pattern
simultaneously driven by the government (i.e. supply side) and the market (i.e. demand
side); a pattern with high levels of open data provision and usage; a pattern wherein all
data categories are equally important in terms of data provision and usage; and open data
provision and usage as the main concerns of service delivery and public accountability.
To meet these characteristics, a reciprocal relationship should be developed between the
government and the market (Sieber and Johnson, 2015). For example, before releasing
open data, the government needs to understand user requirements, such as types of data
sets to be opened and prioritization of certain data sets. Users can contribute toward
improving data set openness and updates by providing feedback on issues that may occur
in utilizing the data sets. Consequently, this pattern is denoted as “interaction-driven
pattern” (Pattern 4).
Based on the four patterns of open data provision and usage, we proposed three possible
strategic transformation paths to reach Pattern 4 (Figure 4), which can provide valuable
guidelines to governments in developing their effective open data strategy. However,
selecting an appropriate transformation path is highly dependent on the availability of
influencing factors and resources of governments.

(a) (b)
Pattern 3: Market-driven Pattern 4: Interaction-driven Pattern 3: Market-driven Pattern 4: Interaction-driven
AUT AUT
1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80

0.60

0.40 3 4 0.60

0.40 3 4
0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

Provision Usage Provision Usage

Pattern 1: Availability-driven Pattern 2: Government-driven Pattern 1: Availability-driven Pattern 2: Government-driven

BRA, DEU, ESP, GBR, IND, KOR, NOR, PRT AUS, FRA, MDA, USA BRA, DEU, ESP, GBR, IND, KOR, NOR, PRT AUS, FRA, MDA, USA

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

0.40 1 0.40 2 0.40 1 0.40 2

0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

Provision Usage Provision Usage Provision Usage Provision Usage

(c)
Pattern 3: Market-driven Pattern 4: Interaction-driven
AUT

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40 3 4
0.20

0.00
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

Provision Usage

Pattern 1: Availability-driven Pattern 2: Government-driven

BRA, DEU, ESP, GBR, IND, KOR, NOR, PRT AUS, FRA, MDA, USA
1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80

Figure 4. 0.60 0.60

1 2
Strategic 0.40

0.20
0.40

0.20

transformation paths 0.00

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
0.00
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

of open data provision Provision Usage Provision Usage

and usage
Notes: (a) Transformation Path 1; (b) Transformation Path 2; (c) Transformation Path 3
6.1 Transformation Path 1: data provision-focused transformation path Provision and
Pattern 1 is the starting position of open data provision and usage. The first possible usage of open
transformation path can then follow the route 1–2–4 as shown in Figure 4(a). This government
transformation comprises two paths, 1–2 and 2–4. To transition from 1 to 2, governments
should increase data provision efforts across data categories, particularly government and data
public administration, economy and finance, and culture and tourism data sets. To shift
from 2 to 4, governments should increase overall data usage in most data categories, but 1853
culture and tourism data set should be given high priority. For countries in Pattern 1, the
focus should be on the data provision in the category where the offer level is poor (Figure 3).
As data of the culture and tourism category are in high demand, they should be provided
first before those of the other categories. In this case, the efficiency of data provision and
usage should be maximized by improving the quality of the disclosed data and minimizing
the additional effort and cost of data users. For countries belonging to Pattern 2, the basic
policy and infrastructure for providing open data at the national level seems to have been
established. Therefore, the data set of the category that is presently somewhat lacking
should be disclosed. At the same time, as the overall level of data use is low, governments
should encourage the use of data sets in the culture and tourism category, which has a high
level of use. In this case, the data utilization of this category can be increased by supporting
the development of service using tourism data or the creation of business models. This
transformation path is appropriate for governments having several available data sets
accumulated through the frequent interactions of government agencies.

6.2 Transformation Path 2: data usage-focused transformation path

The second transformation path follows the route 1–3–4, which is opposite to the first
transformation path. Similar to Path 1, this transformation consists of two paths, 1–3 and
3–4. Governments should enhance the overall usage of open data in most data categories to
successfully transform their position from 1 to 3. Provision of open data across data
categories should also be increased to enable the move from 3 to 4. Data provision and usage
in this process should focus on all data categories. However, the target of data usage in the
first movement is associated with data sets such as health, education, science and
technology, and culture and tourism. The second movement should focus on data provision
in the category of environment and climate, government and public administration,
geography and transport, society, and culture and tourism. Specifically, for the countries in
Pattern 1, the data set provision levels of the geography and transport and culture and
tourism categories are high compared with those of the other categories. However, as the
data usage level of the culture and tourism category is higher than that of the geography
and transport category, the data of the former category should be increased in priority. For
countries in Pattern 3, data in the health and education category with the greatest gap
between data provision and demand should be provided first. This transformation is
suitable for governments having diverse communication channels with external entities and
a solid understanding of environmental changes and market needs.

6.3 Transformation Path 3: balanced transformation path

The third transformation path is a simultaneous dual move allowing a direct shift from 1 to
4, as shown in Figure 4(c). In this case, governments should increase both data provision and
usage in all data categories. This transformation requires increased effort and time but can
achieve increased benefits in a short period. Governments should initially concentrate on
data provision in geography and transport, education, and data usage in culture and
tourism as they are major drivers in their respective categories. In particular, the focus
should be on data provision in the culture and tourism category, where data demand is
higher than supply. For this result, building close relationships with the ministries in charge
IMDS of tourism is of utmost importance. Furthermore, governments should focus on providing
119,8 data for the education category where data demand is high compared with supply.
Accomplishing this strategy requires the preparation of relevant laws or policies such that
educational institutions can regularly disclose relevant data. However, the geography and
transport category has higher supply than data demand, unlike the previous two categories.
Therefore, open data should be promoted, and education must be provided for companies to
1854 actively utilize the data provided already in the business area. This transformation is a
suitable approach for governments having close connections with internal government
agencies and external social and economic entities.

6.4 Theoretical contribution and practical implications

This study makes significant theoretical contribution to the open data literature. First, this
study emphasizes the importance of having a balanced perspective in providing and
utilizing open government data. Most previous studies only focused on one aspect of either
the provision or usage of open data, resulting in a fragmented and limited understanding of
open data. In this sense, the results of this study will help researchers attain a balanced
understanding of open data by simultaneously considering the provision and usage aspects
of open government data.
Second, as an early attempt, this study objectively measured the concept of open data
usage. The concept of open data provision has been measured in prior studies (e.g. ODB).
However, little research has been conducted to measure open data usage. While some prior
studies have measured the level of open data usage by exploring user or stakeholder
identification and identifying factors that affect open data usage, they all adopted subjective
approaches which prevent the comparison of open data usage across countries. Therefore,
this study contributes to the development of open data research by objectively measuring
how much open data are utilized.
Third, this study contributes to the theoretical basis of open data research by identifying
four existing patterns of open data provision and usage and developing three strategic
transformation paths. Although over a decade has passed since the concept and paradigm
of open data emerged, studies in this area still focus on the conceptual and fragmentary case
analysis. Thus, our findings provide a foundation that enables researchers to build a holistic
theory that can integrate fragmented and incomplete knowledge of open data in the context
of government.
This study also yields several implications of practical importance. First, the three
transformation paths suggested in this study provide valuable guidelines for government
agencies in developing their open data policy. Specifically, government agencies will be
advised on the possibility of earning the value and benefit of open data by choosing data
provision-focused transformation, data usage-focused transformation or balanced
transformation. This finding implies that if a country wants to move from its current
pattern to another, it must develop an appropriate strategy regarding which categories of
data should be opened first and encouraged to use.
Second, this study found the existing different levels in the breadth and depth of open
data provision across countries. The breadth and depth of open data usage are low in most
countries owing to the lack of focus on the usage of open data. Therefore, the government
must increase the usage of open data by enhancing open data awareness and educating the
users or stakeholders. Periodically investigating the status of open data usage and
identifying which parts are difficult to use could be efficient approaches to activate open
data usage in the future.
Third, this study identifies the four patterns of open data provision and usage. Each
country has different levels of open data provision and usage with different data categories.
This finding may explain why the performance of open data must be evaluated and
understood in terms of data provision and usage. As each pattern can differ in the key Provision and
categories of open data provision and usage, open data policies should be developed by usage of open
considering the current pattern a country belongs to, and the future pattern the country government
wants to target.
data
6.5 Limitations and future research
This study has the following limitations. First, our sample includes only 13 countries. 1855
Although we attempted to generalize our findings to other countries, future studies should
test the generalizability of our finding. Replications of this study with data sets from
geographically diverse countries will help fine-tune the strategic transformation paths
identified in this study. Second, although we aimed to derive highly objective results by
gathering information on open data usage through use cases published on each country’s
open data portal, we admit that a large amount of meaningful and specific insights can be
obtained if we can collect additional information on the diversity of open data usage. This
approach requires the continuous collection and management of information on the use of
open data at the government level.

7. Conclusion
This study revealed the importance of developing both the supply (provisioning) and
demand (usage) sides of open data in the context of open government initiatives. The
proposed patterns and transformation paths represent clear elements to help governments
develop open data agenda. Following the guidelines suggested in this study, governments
may be able to reduce potential risks and increase expected benefits when they establish
and manage open data portals for their government data.

Note
1. An open data ecosystem is composed of various elements for open data activities. These activities
are performed by multiple interdependent socio-technical elements, such as tools and services,
open data providers and users (Zuiderwijk et al., 2014). Tools and services include open data
portals and programs supporting open data provision and usage. For instance, developer networks
or communities can facilitate and support information sharing by developing applications.
Providers of open data include suppliers (e.g. government agencies, businesses and citizens) with
various contexts related to open data (e.g. political, social, legal, cultural, technological, financial
and organizational). Users of open data include various types of end users who access and use
open data for individual, business and social purposes (e.g. government agencies, research
institutions, citizens and businesses). This ecosystem is developed and maintained by feedback
loops and dynamic interactions between providers and users through open data portals
(Dawes et al., 2016).

References
Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S. and Auer, S. (2015), “A systematic review of open government data
initiatives”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 399-418.
Bahemia, H. and Squire, B. (2010), “A contingent perspective of open innovation in new
product development projects”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 603-627.
Barry, E. and Bannister, F. (2014), “Barriers to open data release: a view from the top”, Information
Polity, Vol. 19, pp. 129-152.
Boh, W.F., Evaristo, R. and Ouderkirk, A. (2014), “Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for
innovation: a 3M story”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 349-366.
IMDS Chatfield, A.T. and Reddick, C.G. (2017), “A longitudinal cross-sector analysis of open data portal
119,8 service capability: the case of Australian local governments”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 231-243.
Conradie, P. and Choenni, S. (2014), “On the barriers for local government releasing open data”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. S1, pp. S10-S17.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2008), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
1856 Davies, T. (2013), “Open Data Barometer: 2013 Global Report”, World Wide Web Foundation and Open
Data Institute, available at: http://opendatabarometer.org/doc/1stEdition/Open-Data-
Barometer-2013-Global-Report.pdf
Dawes, S.S., Vidiasova, L. and Parkhimovich, O. (2016), “Planning and designing open government
data programs: an ecosystem approach”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 15-27.
Gascó-Hernández, M., Martin, E.G., Reggi, L., Pyo, S. and Luna-Reyes, L.F. (2018), “Promoting the use of
open government data: cases of training and engagement”, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 233-242.
Gonzalez-Zapata, F. and Heeks, R. (2015), “The multiple meanings of open government data:
understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 441-452.
Ham, J., Lee, J.-N., Kim, D. and Choi, B. (2015), “Open innovation maturity model for the government: an
open system perspective”, Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth International Conference on
Information Systems, Fort Worth, TX, pp. 1-11.
Iglesias, C. and Robinson, K. (2016), “Open Data Barometer Global Report: Third Edition”, World Wide
Web Foundation and Open Data Institute, available at: https://opendatabarometer.org/doc/
3rdEdition/ODB-3rdEdition-GlobalReport.pdf
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. and Zuiderwijk, A. (2012), “Benefits, adoption barriers and myths
of open data and open government”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 258-268.
Jetzek, T. (2016), “Managing complexity across multiple dimensions of liquid open data: the case of the
Danish basic data program”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 89-104.
Jetzek, T., Avital, M. and Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2014), “Data-driven innovation through open government
data”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 100-120.
Kassen, M. (2013), “A promising phenomenon of open data: a case study of the Chicago open data
project”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 508-513.
Lee, S.M., Hwang, T. and Choi, D. (2012), “Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 147-162.
Lourenço, R.P. (2015), “An analysis of open government portals: a perspective of transparency for
accountability”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 323-332.
Magalhaes, G. and Roseira, C. (2017), “Open government data and the private sector: an empirical view
on business models and value creation”, Government Information Quarterly, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.004
Martin, S., Foulonneau, M., Turki, S. and Ihadjadene, M. (2013), “Risk analysis to overcome barriers to
open data”, Electronic Journal of E-Government, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 348-359.
Moorthy, S. and Polley, D.E. (2010), “Technological knowledge breadth and depth: performance
impacts”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 359-377.
Sieber, R.E. and Johnson, P.A. (2015), “Civic open data at a crossroads: dominant models and current
challenges”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 308-315.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Thorsby, J., Stowers, G.N., Wolslegel, K. and Tumbuan, E. (2017), “Understanding the content and Provision and
features of open data portals in American cities”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 usage of open
No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Van Schalkwyk, F. and Verhulst, S.G. (2017), “The state of open data and open data research”,
government
in Van Schalkwyk, F., Verhulst, S.G., Magalhaes, G., Pane, J. and Walker, J. (Eds), The Social data
Dynamics of Open Data, African Minds, Cape Town, pp. 1-12.
Van Schalkwyk, F., Willmers, M. and Mcnaughton, M. (2016), “Viscous open data: the roles of 1857
intermediaries in an open data ecosystem”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 22
No. S1, pp. 68-83.
Veljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S. and Stoimenov, L. (2014), “Benchmarking open government: an
open data perspective”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 278-290.
Vetrò, A., Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C.O., Iemma, R. and Morando, F. (2016), “Open data
quality measurement framework: definition and application to open government data”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 325-337.
Wang, H.-J. and Lo, J. (2016), “Adoption of open government data among government agencies”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 80-88.
Wang, Q. and Von Tunzelmann, N. (2000), “Complexity and the functions of the firm: Breadth and
depth”, Research Policy, Vol. 29 Nos 7-8, pp. 805-818.
Yang, S. and Han, R. (2015), “Breadth and depth of citation distribution”, Information Processing and
Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 130-140.
Yang, T.-M., Lo, J. and Shiang, J. (2015), “To open or not to open? Determinants of open government
data”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 596-612.
Yu, H. and Robinson, D.G. (2012), “The new ambiguity of ‘open government’”, UCLA Law Review
Discourse, Vol. 59, pp. 178-208.
Zeleti, F.A., Ojo, A. and Curry, E. (2016), “Exploring the economic value of open government data”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 535-551.
Zhang, C., Xue, L. and Dhaliwal, J. (2016), “Alignments between the depth and breadth of inter-
organizational systems deployment and their impact on firm performance”, Information &
Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 79-90.
Zhang, L. and Peng, T.-Q. (2015), “Breadth, depth, and speed: diffusion of advertising messages on
microblogging sites”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 453-470.
Zhao, Y. and Fan, B. (2018), “Exploring open government data capacity of government agency: based
on the resource-based theory”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M. and Davis, C. (2014), “Innovation with open data: essential elements of open
data ecosystems”, Information Polity, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 17-33.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015), “Acceptance and use predictors of open data
technologies: drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 429-440.
Zuiderwijk, A., Susha, I., Charalabidis, Y., Parycek, P. and Janssen, M. (2015), “Open data disclosure
and use: critical factors from a case study”, in Parycek, P. and Edelmann, N. (Eds), CeDEM 2015:
Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2015,
Edition Donau-Universität Krems, Krems, pp. 197-208.

Further reading
Zuiderwijk, A and Janssen, M. (2014), “Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a
framework for comparison”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 17-29.

Appendix. Definition of breadth and depth

In previous studies, the concepts of breadth and depth were defined, as shown in Table AI. Breadth
refers to the scope of the subject and depth is defined as the scale/level of the subject.
IMDS Studies Context Definition of breadth Definition of depth
119,8
Boh et al. R&D inventor’s The diversity of knowledge, know-
The level of knowledge and skills
(2014) technical expertise how, and experiences that an (e.g. novice or expert) that an
for innovation individual has accumulated individual holds in a technical
(p. 350) domain (p. 350)
Wang and Von Complexity of The range of areas that have to be
The analytical sophistication of a
1858 Tunzelmann functions within investigated to develop a subject, which becomes complex
(2000) the firm particular subject because of the cognitive difficulty
Concerned with degree of involved in pushing the particular
heterogeneity (p. 806) matter to its logical extremes
Concerned with level of
sophistication (p. 806)
Yang and Han Citation The citation scope of a special The degree/level to which a
(2015) distribution knowledge unit in a certain knowledge unit cites another
scientific field knowledge unit (p. 132)
The number of various knowledge The maximum number of citations
units that cite special knowledge among several knowledge units
units (p. 132) that refer to specific knowledge
units (p. 133)
Zhang et al. Interorganizational The diversity and scope of The intensity and scale of
(2016) systems knowledge asset utilization (p. 80) knowledge asset utilization (p. 80)
deployment
Zhang and Diffusion of The number of people reached by The maximum length of the
Table AI. Peng (2015) advertising an advertising message at first diffusion chain of an advertising
Key definitions of messages on degree (i.e. the number of users message (i.e. the number of
breadth and depth in microblogging sites who repost each message at first- intermediaries or steps in the
extant studies degree child nodes) (p. 458) diffusion chain) (p. 459)

About the authors

Juyeon Ham is Research Professor of the College of Hotel and Tourism Management at Kyung Hee
University in Seoul, Korea. She received PhD Degree in MIS from the Korea University Business School
in Seoul, Korea. She held MS Degree in Information Systems from the Graduate School of Information
at Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea. Her research interests are open data, open innovation, knowledge
management, smart tourism and smart city. Her research articles have been published in Information
Processing & Management, Current Issues in Tourism, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Asia
Pacific Journal of Information Systems and others.
Yunmo Koo is Research Professor of the Barun ICT Research Center at Yonsei University. He
received MS and PhD Degrees in MIS from the Korea University Business School. He worked at
Hyundai Autoever Corp. as Project Manager for six years. His research interests include IT
outsourcing, IT deployment and effects on organizational performance, business model, and project
management. His research articles have been published in Information & Management, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management and others.
Jae-Nam Lee is Professor of MIS in the Business School of Korea University in Seoul, Korea. He
holds MS and PhD Degrees in MIS from the Graduate School of Management of the Korea Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). His research interests are IT outsourcing, knowledge
management, e-commerce, and IT deployment and impacts on organizational performance. His
published research articles appear in MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of MIS,
Journal of the AIS, Information & Management, Decision Support Systems, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, European Journal of Information Systems and others. Jae-Nam Lee is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]