Provision and Usage of Open Data
Provision and Usage of Open Data
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
(a) (b)
1 1
BRA AUT
0.9 0.9
OPEN DATA PROVISION 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.
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
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
(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
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).
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).
(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
(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
0.80 0.80
0.20
0.40
0.20
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.
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.
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]