Entre democracia y violencia

In order to determine whether non-technical barriers exist to open data use, we reviewed the pertinent literature in the field. We found that there is a lack of articles that examine

30^THBLED ECONFERENCE:DIGITAL TRANSORMATION –FROM CONNECTING THINGS TO

TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES (JUNE 18–21,2017,BLED,SLOVENIA) C. Callinan, M. Scott & E. Whelan & A. Ojo: A Co-Creation Based Model For

Engaging Citizen Open Data Use 51

barriers in a non-technical sense. The relevant articles that address the subject directly are examined below.

Ohemeng and Ofosu-Adarkwa (2015) examined the Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI) from a demand side perspective which was initiated in 2012 with the primary aims of administrative efficiency and economic development. They described the level of civil society involvement as ‘abysmal’ and one the main non-technical challenges has been the involvement of citizens in the process. This is explained as a consequence of a skills deficit and a lack of awareness (Ohemeng and Ofosu-Adarkwa, 2015). They further point out the necessity of balancing high and low technology approaches such as adopting a mobile government (M-government) path (Ohemeng and Ofosu-Adarkwa, 2015).

Shadbolt et al. (2012) analysed the socio-technical aspects of linked open government data from data.gov.uk. They make clear that the makeup of the user interface is a crucial issue by explaining ‘the ease with which ordinary citizens can access and query the data is a crucial factor for open government data’s value’ (Shadbolt et al., 2012). Huijboom and Van den Broek (2011) examined the open data strategies in five countries (Australia, Denmark, Spain, UK, and USA). They found that one of the top barriers of open data policy was the issue of limited user friendliness. They point out that ‘technical experts of several countries stated that the existing databases should be converted into more user-friendly datasets to be of use for citizens and businesses’ (Huijboom and Van den Broek, 2011). This sample of case studies which address the user perspective endorse the idea that there is a dearth of studies investigating usage of open data from the citizen perspective. They further point towards the existence of non-technical and socio-technical barriers.

The Research Model

Currently, there is a dearth of literature examining theory contribution and development in the open data field (Magalhaes et al., 2014). Furthermore, as Zuiderwijk et al. (2015) point out, ‘little is known about what predictors affect the acceptance and use of open data’. To address this shortcoming this research paper will attempt to contribute to the advancement of theory by developing a research model that will explain intentionality to use open data. To do so, the authors adapted and extended previous research conducted by Voorberg et al. (2015) in the area of co-creation. Through a review of the pertinent literature, we were able to validate the first three constructs identified by Voorberg et al.

(2015). We further validated the risk aversion construct and added trust as a supplementary factor owing to a symbiotic relationship which exists between the two constructs. Finally, we developed the construct of simplicity of task as the academic literature pointed towards its importance and necessity.

Table 2: Prominent Factors in Citizen Co-Creation

Construct Definition Reference

Citizen Characteristics Skills, intrinsic values and levels of education.

Voorberg et al., 2015, Bharti et al., 2014, Füller, 2010, Etgar, 2008, Oreg & Nov, 2008, Payne et al., 2008, Alford, 2002.

Citizen

Awareness/Ownership

Taking part and being part of something.

Voorberg et al., 2015, Füller, 2010, Zwass, 2010, Etgar, 2008, Alford, 2002

Presence of Social Capital

Networks together with shared

norms, values and

understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among groups.

Bharti et al., 2014, Voorberg et al., 2015, Zwass, 2010, Wasko &

Faraj, 2005.

Risk Aversion/Trust Risk averse attitude/trust in process.

Voorberg et al., 2015, Füller et al., 2009, Etgar, 2008, Jaworski & Kohli, 2006, Alford, 2002.

Simplicity of Task The ease in which the objective is completed.

Elina Jaakkola et al., 2015, Zuiderwijk et al., 2015, Kohler et al., 2011, Haichao et al., 2011, Alford, 2002.

30^THBLED ECONFERENCE:DIGITAL TRANSORMATION –FROM CONNECTING THINGS TO

TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES (JUNE 18–21,2017,BLED,SLOVENIA) C. Callinan, M. Scott & E. Whelan & A. Ojo: A Co-Creation Based Model For

Engaging Citizen Open Data Use 53

It is our belief that these prominent factors in citizen co-creation represent moderating variables that have the potential to alter the relationship between the citizen and the outcome of open data usage. This is visually represented below in figure 1.

Figure 1: Research Model Conclusion and Future Work

The next step of this ongoing research will be to design and conduct an exploratory cross-sectional pilot survey with current open data users, focusing on the individual as the unit of analysis. To establish the strengths of our survey constructs this will be followed by a series of semi-structured interviews with selected users. It is hoped this will lead to validation of the constructs mentioned previously. Special attention will be paid to theory building and theoretical contribution. Following Doty and Glick (1994, p.233) theory must contain at least three principles to be defined as theory; ‘(a) constructs must be identified, (b) relationships among these constructs must be specified, and (c) these relationships must be falsifiable’.

Opening up governmental data is riven with potential and pitfalls. How this is managed by the state will determine the accrual of potential benefits for the private sector and society as a whole. For understandable reasons, previous and current research has focused on technical and operationalisation issues. However, if tangible benefits are to be realised greater attention needs to be paid to the end user. The authors propose a research model from the perspective of the user by employing the theory of co-creation that will help in developing increased understanding of intentionality to use open data. The contributions of this study are twofold. Firstly, adapting and extending prominent factors in co-creation with a view to applying them to intentionality to use open data. Secondly, the attempt to build theory in the area of open data which has been under investigated thus far.

Acknowledgement

This publication has emanated from research supported in part by a research grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289

References

Alford, J. 2002. Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce? Toward A Contingency Theory.

Administration & Society, 34, 32-56.

Bates, J. 2013. The Domestication of Open Government Data Advocacy in The United Kingdom:

A Neo-Gramscian Analysis. Policy & Internet, 5, 118-137.

Bertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C. & Choi, H. 2014. Big Data, Open Government And E-Government: Issues, Policies and Recommendations. Information Polity, 19, 5-16.

Bharti, K., Agrawal, R. & Sharma, V. 2014. What Drives the Customer of World's Largest Market to Participate in Value Co-Creation? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32, 413-435.

Brudney, J. L. & England, R. E. 1983. Toward A Definition of The Coproduction Concept. Public Administration Review, 59-65.

Doty, D. H. & Glick, W. H. 1994. Typologies as A Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19, 230-251.

Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford University Press on Demand.

Elina Jaakkola, A. H., Dr Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, D. & Verleye, K. 2015. The Co-Creation Experience from The Customer Perspective: Its Measurement and Determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26, 321-342.

Etgar, M. 2008. A Descriptive Model of The Consumer Co-Production Process. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97-108.

Füller, J. 2010. Refining Virtual Co-Creation from A Consumer Perspective. California Management Review, 52, 98-122.

Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K. & Jawecki, G. 2009. Consumer Empowerment Through Internet-Based Co-Creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 71-102.

Galvagno, M. & Dalli, D. 2014. Theory of Value Co-Creation: A Systematic Literature Review.

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24, 643-683.

Grönroos, C. & Voima, P. 2013. Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation And Co-Creation. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 133-150.

Haichao, Z., Dahui, L. & Wenhua, H. 2011. Task Design, Motivation, And Participation In Crowdsourcing Contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15, 57-88.

Hossain, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Rana, N. P. 2016. State-Of-The-Art in Open Data Research:

Insights from Existing Literature and A Research Agenda. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26, 14-40.

Huijboom, N. & Van Den Broek, T. 2011. Open Data: An International Comparison of Strategies.

European Journal of Epractice, 12, 4-16.

Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. & Zuiderwijk, A. 2012. Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management, 29, 258-268.

Jaworski, B. & Kohli, A. K. 2006. Co-Creating the Voice of The Customer. The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, 109-117.

Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K. & Stieger, D. 2011. Co-Creation in Virtual Worlds: The Design of The User Experience. Mis Quarterly, 35, 773-788.

Leroy, J., Cova, B. & Salle, R. 2013. Zooming in Vs Zooming Out on Value Co-Creation:

Consequences for BtoB Research. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 1102-1111.

30^THBLED ECONFERENCE:DIGITAL TRANSORMATION –FROM CONNECTING THINGS TO

TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES (JUNE 18–21,2017,BLED,SLOVENIA) C. Callinan, M. Scott & E. Whelan & A. Ojo: A Co-Creation Based Model For

Engaging Citizen Open Data Use 55

Lourenco, R. P. 2015. An Analysis of Open Government Portals: A Perspective of Transparency for Accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 323-332.

Magalhaes, G., Roseira, C. & Manley, L. Business Models for Open Government Data.

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 2014. Acm, 365-370.

McLaverty, P. 2011. Participation. The Sage Handbook of Governance, 402-418.

Ohemeng, F. L. K. & Ofosu-Adarkwa, K. 2015. One Way Traffic: The Open Data Initiative Project and The Need for An Effective Demand Side Initiative in Ghana. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 419-428.

Oreg, S. & Nov, O. 2008. Exploring Motivations for Contributing to Open Source Initiatives: The Roles of Contribution Context and Personal Values. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2055-2073.

Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P. & Wilson, R. 1981. Consumers as Co-producers of Public Services:

Some Economic and Institutional Considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9, 1001-1011.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. 2008. Managing the Co-Creation of Value. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83-96.

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. 2000. Co-Opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79-87.

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. 2003. The New Frontier of Experience Innovation. Mit Sloan Management Review, 44, 12-18.

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co‐Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 5-14.

Shadbolt, N., O’Hara, K., Berners-Lee, T., Gibbins, N., Glaser, H., Hall, W. & Schraefel, M. C.

2012. Linked Open Government Data: Lessons from Data.Gov.Uk. Ieee Intelligent Systems, 27, 16-24.

Sharp, E. B. 1980. Toward A New Understanding of Urban Services and Citizen Participation: The Coproduction Concept. The American Review of Public Administration, 14, 105-118.

Sieber, R. E. & Johnson, P. A. 2015. Civic Open Data at a Crossroads: Dominant Models and Current Challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 308-315.

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M. & Tummers, L. G. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on The Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review, 17, 1333-1357.

Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. 2005. Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. Mis Quarterly, 35-57.

Whitaker, G. P. 1980. Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Review, 240-246.

Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M. & 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, 32, 429-440.

Zwass, V. 2010. Co-Creation: Toward A Taxonomy and An Integrated Research Perspective.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15, 11-48.

30^TH BLED ECONFERENCE: DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – FROM

CONNECTING THINGS TO TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES (JUNE 18–21, 2017,BLED,SLOVENIA)

A. Pucihar, M. Kljajić Borštnar, C. Kittl, P. Ravesteijn, R. Clarke & R.

Bons

Digital Coaching to Build Sustainable Wellness