Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Conradie, P. & Choenni, S., 2012. Exploring Process Barriers to Release Public Sector Information in Local Government. In 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Albany. NY. Albany, New York, pp. 5–13.
Citation preview
Exploring Process Barriers to Release Public Sector Information in Local Government
Sunil Choenni Research & Documentation Centre, Ministry of Security and Justice P.O. Box 20301 2500 EH The Hague The Netherlands 0031648100301 [email protected]
Peter Conradie Creating 010, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 3001 HA Rotterdam The Netherlands 003110 794 4801 [email protected]
Background Approach Observations Indicators Lessons Learned
Increased calls for data release President Barack Obama1
European Commission2
Euro Commissioner Neelie Kroes3
Former Dutch Home Affairs Minister4
1. Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and Open Government | The White House. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government
2. European Commission (2003) “Communication of the Re-use of Public Sector Information – Review of Directive 2003/98/EC” 3. Public data for all – opening up Europe’s public sector: 2011. http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/public-data-for-all-–- opening-
up-europes-public-sector/. Accessed: 2012-04-10. 4. Donner, 2011. Betreft Hergebruik en Open Data: naar betere vindbaarheid en herbruikbaarheid van overheidsinformatie. , pp.1-9.
Several thresholds to release Judicial, Internal, Financial, Social Cultural, Technical1
1. Huijboom, N. and Broek, T.V.D. 2011. Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice. 12, April (2011), 1–13.
Several thresholds to release Fragmentation, findability of data1,2
1. Boulton, G., Rawlins, M., Vallance, P. and Walport, M. 2011. Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data. The Lancet. 2. McLaren, R. and Waters, R. 2011. Governing Location Information in the UK. Cartographic Journal, The. 48, 3 (2011), 7.
Several thresholds to release Financial losses due to (European) cost recovery model1
1. Weiss, P. 2002. Borders in Cyberspace : Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts. Federal Register. February 2002 (2002).
Several thresholds to release Privacy of citizens1, combining sets revealing identity2,3
1. Warner, J. and Chun, S.A. 2008. A Citizen Privacy Protection Model for E-Government Mashup Services. Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research (2008), 188–196.
2. Kalidien, S., Choenni, S. and Meijer, R. 2010. Crime statistics online: potentials and challenges. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (2010), 131–137.
3. Ohm, P. 2009. Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization. Social Science Research Network. 57, 6 (2009), 1–64.
Looking at processbarriers Which processes influence data release? How does the way in which data is store impact release? Biggest thresholds based how data is used internally?
Approach Consortium with 4 public service departments Library City Works City Development Archive
Approach Consortium with 4 public service departments Library (data central to task) City Works (maintain public objects) City Development (execute development policy) Archive (catalogue, service delivery)
Approach Initial workshop (n=6) Desk research Questionnaire (n=61) In-depth structured interviews (n=11) Additional workshop (n=8) Follow up workshop (n=6)
Approach Initial workshop (n=6) Desk research Questionnaire (n=61) In-depth structured interviews (n=11) Additional workshop (n=8) Follow up workshop (n=6) + continual release of data for re-use in education
Observations
Observations Fear of false conclusions • Unfinished policy documents • Non-domain experts interpreting data wrongly
Observations Financial Effects of PSI release • Infrastructure needs investment – lack of clear
ROI • Cost recovery model
Observations Opaque ownership • Where is the data located? • Who owns it?
Indicators for data release?
Indicators for data release 4 indicators: • Way the data is used internally • Source of the data • Data storage • Data types
Themes City Development
City Works Library City Archive
Use of data Execute development policy.
Source of data Externally gathered
Data storage Decentralized
Suitability of data for release
Medium: combination of personally identifiable information, live sensor data and object data.
Data released None
Biggest threshold Decentralized data storage and internal data management processes.
Themes City Development
City Works Library City Archive
Use of data Execute development policy.
Maintain public objects, producing geographical products.
Support core services, internally and externally
Enhance services, catalogue objects
Source of data Externally gathered
Internally produced
Internally produced through services processes and externally bought
Metadata internally created, artefacts externally supplied
Data storage Decentralized Central Central Central (meta data only)
Suitability of data for release
Medium: combination of personally identifiable information, live sensor data and object data.
High: many sets related to public objects, non-personal.
Low: data personally identifiable or subject to copyright
High: data not personally identifiable and owned by the Archive
Data released None Object data of public artefacts
Book metadata Search API of archive metadata
Biggest threshold Decentralized data storage and internal data management processes.
No legal framework for the supply of data, commercial interests.
Personally identifiable data, uncertain organizational status, copyright.
Costs associated with digitalization of archive artefacts.
Themes City Development
City Works Library City Archive
Use of data Execute development policy.
Maintain public objects, producing geographical products.
Support core services, internally and externally
Enhance services, catalogue objects
Source of data Externally gathered
Internally produced
Internally produced through services processes and externally bought
Metadata internally created, artefacts externally supplied
Data storage Decentralized Central Central Central (meta data only)
Suitability of data for release
Medium: combination of personally identifiable information, live sensor data and object data.
High: many sets related to public objects, non-personal.
Low: data personally identifiable or subject to copyright
High: data not personally identifiable and owned by the Archive
Data released None Object data of public artefacts
Book metadata Search API of archive metadata
Biggest threshold Decentralized data storage and internal data management processes.
No legal framework for the supply of data, commercial interests.
Personally identifiable data, uncertain organizational status, copyright.
Costs associated with digitalization of archive artefacts.
Lessons Learned?
Lessons Learned Nuanced approach
Lessons Learned Data release for its own sake?
Lessons Learned Scale important
rotterdamopendata.nl
Sunil Choenni Research & Documentation Centre, Ministry of Security and Justice P.O. Box 20301 2500 EH The Hague The Netherlands 0031648100301 [email protected]
Peter Conradie Creating 010, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 3001 HA Rotterdam The Netherlands 003110 794 4801 [email protected]
Dit project is mede ge!nancierd met steun van het Europees Fonds voor Regionale Ontwikkeling van de Europese Commissie
