Open Government Vorgehensmodell

open.wien.gv.at • www.kdz.or.at

Open Government Implementation Model

Implementation of Open Government Version 3.0

written by Bernhard Krabina, KDZ Brigitte Lutz, City of Vienna with feedback from consultations with Ivan Acimovic, Christian Ansorge, Andreas Berthold, Katharina Große, Gerhard Hartmann, Johann Höchtl, Mathias Huter, Wolfgang Ksoll, Rudolf Legat, Hannes Leo, Juan Pablo Lovato, Jörn von Lucke, Günter Pfaff, and Thomas Prorok.

translated by

rainstorm

KDZ Centre for Public Administration Research Guglgasse 13, A-1110 Vienna T: +43 1 892 34 92-0 institut@kdz.or.at · www.kdz.or.at

*translation *interpretation *language school www.brainstorm.at

Chief Executive Office of the City of Vienna Group Process Management and ICT Strategy Rathausstraße 8, A-1010 Vienna T: +43 1 4000-75023 open@post.wien.gv.at · www.wien.gv.at · open.wien.gv.at

CONTENTS

Table of Contents - Overview I

Open Government ................................................................................................................ 4

II

Open Government Implementation Model ......................................................................... 8

III

0

Stage 0 – Initial State.................................................................................................... 10

1

Stage 1 – Data Transparency....................................................................................... 17

2

Stage 2 – Open Participation........................................................................................ 39

3

Stage 3 – Open Collaboration ...................................................................................... 51

4

Stage 4 – Ubiquitous engagement ............................................................................... 57

Outlook ................................................................................................................................ 62

Annex ............................................................................................................................................. 68 1

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 68

2

List of Illustrations ......................................................................................................... 69

3

List of Tables................................................................................................................. 70

4

References.................................................................................................................... 71

Version

Editor

Comment

1.0

BK/TP

Published in July 2011

1.1

BK

Incorporation of the feedback from the Environment Agency Austria, Department for Data Management & Reporting: Christian Ansorge, Andreas Berthold, Günter Pfaff, Rudolf Legat, in particular the new criterion "Corporate Reference" Excel table Open Government Data Monitoring also in Open Document Format

2.0

BK/TP/BL

Published at the D-A-CH-LI OGD conference on 4 October 2012

2.5

BK/BL

Revision of Version 2.0 for comment from 18 March – 30 June 2016

3.0

BK/BL

Published 22 July 2016 (English Version: 14 September 2016)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Austria License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/at/ This document is available at www.kdz.or.at/de/open-government-vorgehensmodell.

3 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT

I

Open Government

1.1

Management Summary

Open Government is the comprehensive redesign of politics and administrative activities according to the principles of modern Public Management and Public Governance. In terms of the above, Open Government focuses on transparency, participation, and collaboration. The KDZ Implementation Model is based on and significantly elaborates the "Open Government Implementation Model" by Lee/Kwak1. The practical experiences of the city of Vienna and other institutions in German-speaking countries have been incorporated into the model.

Illustration 1: Open Government Implementation Model

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

The Implementation Model is made up of the following stages:  Stage 0 – Initial State: Open government still limited or non-existent and no initiatives planned. But the frame conditions can already be shaped.  Stage 1 – Data Transparency: Opens access to administrative data, in particular in terms of Open Government Data (OGD).  Stage 2 – Open Participation: Opens politics and administration to the ideas and knowledge of external stakeholders2.  Stage 3 – Open Collaboration: Improves cooperation between politics and administration with external stakeholders. Enables the use of collaboration tools for the achievement of specific outputs. In this context, "co-production" can differ in intensity, with the joint performance of tasks down to task delegation and voluntary activities also being included.  Stage 4 – Ubiquitous engagement: The continuous participation of external stakeholders is continually taken into account in the stages of the political cycle. "Codesigning", "co-commissioning", "co-delivering", and "co-assessing" generate public value.

1 2

Lee/Kwak: Open Government Implementation Model, 2011 or Lee/Kwak: An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement, 2012.

For more reading on the understanding of the term "stakeholder" see Stage 1: "Stakeholder screening: What do the stakeholders want?"

4 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT

1.2

Goal and development of the Implementation Model

The KDZ - Centre for Public Administration Research was contracted by the Chief Executive Office of Vienna to contribute to the Open Government strategy of the City of Vienna. In order to bring the insights and propositions gained to the attention of a wider public, the internal strategy document was further developed and published as the Open Government Implementation Model under www.kdz.or.at/de/open-government-vorgehensmodell.

The Implementation Model was reused by authorities in the country and abroad as foundation for their open-government initiatives and has already been downloaded over 10,000 times. The Version 2.0 was published for public consultation in a revised Version 2.53 and was published in a Version 3.0 in mid-2016.

Purpose Since there are now countless publications on the topic of Open Government in German and English, the question of "How should public administration agencies proceed in the implementation of Open Government?" illustrates the focus of the Open Government Implementation Model. Therefore, the aim is to develop practical recommendations with regard to the approach for the government and administration.

History Version

Year Comment

1.0/1.1

2011 First publication. At the time, it still made sense to discuss general subjects, like terminology, motivation and goals, stakeholder analyses, etc.

2.0

2012 General parts were removed and, particularly, Stage 1 (data transparency) was described in more detail and the subsequent three stages roughly drafted.

2.5

2016 Version 2.5 contains in particular the following revisions:  Adjustment to the newer Open Government Maturity Model by Lee/Kwak  Development of Stage 0.  Update of Stage 1, in particular additions to the issues of PSI and data visualisations/dashboards and data governance  Update of Stage 2, in particular social media in public relations and citizens' service, social media in the professional discourse, internal use of social media. Shifting the "Improving Media Competence" measure to Stage 0  Update of Stage 3, in particular monitoring collaboration tools, finding cooperation partners and implementing collaboration projects – according to intensity of the coproduction.  Update of Stage 4, in particular connecting stages, evaluating and learning, simplifying access to participation, ensuring sustainability and public value  Updating the forecast, in particular with regard to Open Business Data, Linked (Open) Data, Big Data, Smart City/Smart Government, Data Analytics, and OpenX

3.0

2016 Version 3.0 is based on a temporary Version 2.5 that was revised in a participatory process from 18 March – 30 June 2016.

3

See www.digitaleagenda.wien/en/consultation/8603

5 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT

1.3

Master Table of Contents

I

Open Government ................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Management Summary .................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Goal and development of the Implementation Model .................................................... 5 1.3 Master Table of Contents ............................................................................................... 6

II

Open Government Implementation Model ......................................................................... 8 0

Stage 0 – Initial State.................................................................................................... 10

0.1 Measure: Preparing change management ................................................................... 10 0.2 Measure: Strengthening skills ...................................................................................... 10 0.3 Measure: Creating social media guidelines ................................................................. 11 0.4 Measure: Removing barriers ........................................................................................ 12 0.5 Measure: Creating a legal framework .......................................................................... 13 0.6 Measure: Institution of an Open Government Competence Centre............................. 13 0.7 Examples and further information ................................................................................ 15 1

Stage 1 – Data Transparency....................................................................................... 17

1.1 Measure: Creating a data catalogue ............................................................................ 18 1.2 Measure: Performing internal data monitoring ............................................................. 23 1.3 Measure: Improving data quality .................................................................................. 26 1.4 Measure: Creating a stage plan ................................................................................... 29 1.5 Measure: Collecting metadata ...................................................................................... 30 1.6 Measure: Creating an Data Portal ................................................................................ 31 1.7 Measure: Establishing Data Governance ..................................................................... 32 1.8 Examples and further information ................................................................................ 37 2

Stage 2 – Open Participation........................................................................................ 39

2.1 Measure: Creating and implementing social media strategy ....................................... 39 2.2 Measure: Using social media in public relations and citizen service ........................... 41 2.3 Measure: Using social media in the professional discourse ........................................ 41 2.4 Measure: Internal use of social media.......................................................................... 42 2.5 Measure: Implementing participation projects.............................................................. 44 2.6 Evaluating and learning ................................................................................................ 49 2.7 Examples and further information ................................................................................ 50 3

Stage 3 – Open Collaboration ...................................................................................... 51

3.1 Measure: Monitoring collaboration tools....................................................................... 51 3.2 Measure: Finding collaboration partners ...................................................................... 54 3.3 Measure: Implementing collaboration projects ............................................................. 54 3.4 Examples and further information ................................................................................ 56

6 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT

4

Stage 4 – Ubiquitous engagement ............................................................................... 57

4.1 Measure: Connecting stages, evaluate and learn ........................................................ 57 4.2 Measure: Simplify access to participation .................................................................... 58 4.3 Measure: Ensuring sustainability and public value ...................................................... 58 4.4 Further information ....................................................................................................... 60 4.5 Open Government Implementation Model – overall view of measures ....................... 61 III

Outlook ................................................................................................................................ 62 1.1 Open Business Data ..................................................................................................... 62 1.2 Linked (Open) Data ...................................................................................................... 63 1.3 Big Data ........................................................................................................................ 64 1.4 Smart City and Smart Government .............................................................................. 65 1.5 Data Analytics and Predictive Analytics ....................................................................... 66 1.6 OpenX ........................................................................................................................... 66 1.7 Further information ....................................................................................................... 67

Annex ............................................................................................................................................. 68 1

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 68

2

List of Illustrations ......................................................................................................... 69

3

List of Tables................................................................................................................. 70

4

References.................................................................................................................... 71

7 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

II

Open Government Implementation Model

The "Open Government Implementation Model" is a generic implementation model for the implementation of Open Government initiatives and was further refined as Open Government Maturity Model (see Illustration 2).4 It contains proposals for a step-by-step implementation of Open Government and includes indicators for measuring the success of the individual steps. The following section will introduce the model, adapt it to circumstances and requirements in Germanspeaking countries and expand it in terms of content.

Illustration 2: Open Government Implementation Model

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration according to Lee; Kwak 2012.

   



4 5

Stage 0 – Initial State: Open government still limited or non-existent and no initiatives planned. But the frame conditions can already be shaped.

Stage 1 – Data Transparency: Opens access to administrative data, in particular in terms of Open Government Data (OGD).

Stage 2 – Open Participation: Opens politics and administration for the ideas and knowledge of external stakeholders5.

Stage 3 – Open Collaboration: Improves cooperation between politics and administration with external stakeholders. Enables the use of collaboration tools for the achievement of specific outputs. In this context, "co-production" can differ in intensity, with the joint performance of tasks down to task delegation and voluntary activities also being included.

Stage 4 – Ubiquitous engagement: The continuous participation of external stakeholders is continually taken into account in the stages of the political cycle. "Codesigning", "co-commissioning", "co-delivering", and "co-assessing" generate public value.

Lee/Kwak: Open Government Implementation Model, 2011 or Lee; Kwak: An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement, 2012.

For an understanding of the term "stakeholder" see Stage 1: "Stakeholder screening: What do the stakeholders want?"

8 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

The stages follow a logical order. This order does not mean that it is not possible to begin with other stages, as indicated by the arrows at the left.6 It should be noted, however, that the individual stages constitute the base for the respectively next stage and that all the other stages are considered a prerequisite for reaching Stage 4, which is considered the target level. Limited resources are another reason why an incremental approach is advisable.

Digression: On the terms participation and collaboration In the Open Government context, the very general term collaboration that is often used in various contexts, signifies particularly the achievement of results and effects in cooperation with groups of persons outside the responsible authority. Other terms often used in this context are "open innovation" and "citizen sourcing" ("crowdsourcing" in the public sector).7 Noveck explains that this is not (only) about a deliberative democracy, allowing a general discourse on all political themes (public participation), but rather a "collaborative democracy" that allows work on (partial) problem solutions with civil society experts using collaborative processes in order to thereby achieve better results and decisions.8 There have been several attempts at a delimitation of the terms participation and collaboration that are often not clearly defined: Lucke (2015) argues in line with the six-stage policy cycle (see Illustration 3): According to this, participation reaches from problem definition to decision finding; collaboration occurs during implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.9 Illustration 3: Delimitation of Participation 2.0 in the Six-Stage Policy Cycle

Source: Lucke: Open Government Collaboration, 2015.

Lee/Kwak (2012) argue technologically: While in participation "expressive social media" are employed that predominantly serve to relate people to each other and to express their ideas, in cooperation "collaborative social media" are employed that allow people to collaborate in interactive and social processes in order to achieve common goals and a common output.

Treverton (2016) even criticises that the term social media is used for collaboration tools at all: "not all collaboration tools are social media and not all social media are collaboration tools".10 6 7 8 9 10

For example, some German cities have a longer tradition of citizen participation and are not as far advanced in terms of Open Government, while the situation in Austria tends to be the opposite. www.citizensourcing.de [Download: 15 July 2016].

Noveck: Wiki Government, 2009.

Lucke: Open Government Collaboration, 2012.

Treverton: New Tools for Collaboration, 2016.

9 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

0

Stage 0 – Initial State Whether initiatives have already been taken by politics and administration that are explicitly designated as Open Government or whether modern Public Management is simply understood to be the opening up of government and administrative action, first measures can already be prepared in the current initial state and frame conditions created to prepare for open government.

Illustration 4: Measures in Stage 0

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

0.1

Measure: Preparing change management

At the outset, the organisation can already deal with change management because the introduction of Open Government involves extensive changes to politics and administrative action. In particular, the goal is to bring about the necessary cultural change towards more openness. For example, the building of a "team of the willing" can begin that can seek first internal approvals and obtain political or administrative decisions. It is also important to realise that constant change is the normal process and not a one-time event.

During this stage, it is also helpful to become clear about the positive effects as well as possible barriers and objections.11

0.2

Measure: Strengthening skills

The fast-paced development of our society creates the need for improving the currently required skills among all social players.12 In particular public administrators and politicians must learn how to deal with released data, understand its re-use and interpretations, and learn to benefit from participation and collaboration. Appropriate training measures and continued training programmes can be devised.

11 12

See e.g. "Einwände gegen die Veröffentlichung von Open Data und bewährte Antworten darauf" www.open3.at/projekte/einwaende-gegen-dieveroeffentlichung-von-open-data-und-bewaehrte-antworten-darauf [Download: 15 July 2016] or Janssen/Charalabidis/Zuiderwijk, 2012.

For more in-depth reading see: OECD: Skills Outlook, 2013.

10 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

As a preparatory measure, the core skills that are becoming increasingly important can be strengthened. These include:  Resilience13 as an organisation's ability to take action in a vibrant, self-determined, and powerful manner even during phases of transition marked by a lack of clarity, uncertainty, and confusion.  Information and communication competence14 in the sense of information competence (text), media competence (data medium), and ICT competence (tools) as employee skills related to dealing with the new technologies. In this context, "data literacy" also plays a role, in other words the ability to obtain meaningful information from data. As a result of the growing availability of open data, skills required for dealing with this data are gaining new significance. But these skills involve not only competencies from the fields of math, statistics, and IT, but also "the desire and ability to constructively engage in society through and about data".15  Cooperation competence, required to successfully plan and implement participation and collaboration. According to Rathje (2009), the three fundamental requirements of successful cooperation include coping with differences (= acceptance of the partner's otherness), relationship management, and process design.16  Empowerment as a collective category for all the psychosocial work approaches that encourage people to discover their strengths and that provide them with assistance for the appropriation of self-determination and autonomy in life. In the context of Open Government, crucial importance is attached to promoting the self-competence of citizens that is particularly relevant for new forms of citizen engagement (volunteering).17

0.3

Measure: Creating social media guidelines

Employees in administration and politicians encounter social media every day. As a result, it is essential to develop social media guidelines that establish the frame conditions needed for using social media and to offer support to the employees. Previously published guidelines (see below) can serve as an example for own guidelines: Schulz (2012) describes measures for creating social media guidelines18. Mergel, et al. (2013) suggest the following elements of a social media guideline (see Table 1).19

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Välikangas. The Resilient Organization, 2010.

Stöcklin: Informations- und Kommunikationskompetenz, 2012.

Data-Pop Alliance: Beyond Data Literacy, 2015.

Rathje: Kooperationskompetenz, 2008.

Herringer: Stichwort Empowerment, 2011.

Schulz: Social Media Guidelines, 2012.

Mergel, et al.: Praxishandbuch Soziale Medien in der öffentlichen Verwaltung, 2013.

11 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Table 1: Elements of a social media guideline No.

Principle

Explanation

1

You are responsible.

You are personally responsible for contents that you publish online, no matter whether you publish them on a weblog, social network or any other form of user-generated media.

2

On the internet, you are not just a private individual, you are also perceived as an employee of public administration.

Create your contributions as you see fit. Where necessary, make sure you emphasise that you are only expressing your personal views and thoughts and that you are not writing as a representative of your agency. You need to consider this particularly when using business networks (XING, LinkedIn, etc.).

A general reference in the profile may also be appropriate.

3

Protect your personal – and your employer's reputation.

Workplace disputes should not be aired on public media.

4

Demonstrate tact when it comes to political and economic "friendships".

Private blogs, wikis, virtual worlds, social networks and the like must not be used to discuss company-related content. Nor should social networks be used for communication between work colleagues. Use the authorities' internal communication channels instead.

5

Do not write or show anything that you don't want spread around about you.

Be aware of who has access to your social media and networks (online forums, mailing lists, weblogs, podcasting, wikis, social communities, etc.) and consider that electronic contents can be passed on to other platforms easily. Keep this in mind when deciding what personal information you wish to share and what language to use.

6

The internet never forgets.

Be aware that everything you publish will be accessible publicly for a long time and that it is not possible to guarantee complete deletion.

7

Protect your privacy, and the privacy of your family, friends, and colleagues.

Ask for permission before publishing other people's photographs or conversations. Never publish confidential information. Please also consider how easily and quickly confidential information can be shared.

8

Property is property – even on the web.

Respect copyrights. Where possible, provide a link to your source when citing a reference or try to use content offered under a Creative Commons Licence.

9

Please observe your obligation to maintain confidentiality and to observe professional secrecy.

It is generally recommended not to deal with purely work-related matters using your private profile – that way you will be on the safe side. And if you do decide to do so, make sure to observe your obligation of secrecy and professional confidentiality.

10

The IT terms of use that your authorities apply also apply to social media applications.

Observe the applicable rules on IT infrastructure use which take into account both private and professional internet use.

Source: Mergel, et al, 2013.

0.4

Measure: Removing barriers

Even in 2016, access to the internet is still blocked at standard workplaces, particularly in major public authority departments. Therefore, it is primarily essential to remove blocks to social media access. There can be no genuine Open Government strategy if an agency's own employees are

12 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

barred from the reception of measures in social media. Beyond this, there are many more reasons not to block employees from using social media:  Blocking social media expresses a lack of confidence in one's own employees.  Blocking measures are technically ineffective. There are technical possibilities to circumvent blocks. (e.g. http://proxy.org).  Blocking workstations does not block access via (private) smartphones.  Blocking access at the workplace does not prevent usage for business purposes using private equipment outside the premises/working hours.  Bandwidth or security problems are technically unjustifiable.  If employees use social media at work out because they are bored, there is an organisational problem. Despite blocking access, employees can still fritter away the time in different ways, e.g. with (online) newspapers, online shopping, online games, etc.  Social media can be employed in a productive manner (see Stage 3 or Knowledge Management 2.0); blocks make productive use more difficult.

0.5

Measure: Creating a legal framework

Unlike in the USA and Great Britain, some European countries do not have comprehensive freedom of information laws in place yet and a policy of official secrecy applies instead, e.g. in Austria. But in recent years, there have been a growing number of initiatives to pass freedom of information laws, e.g. in Austria, Hamburg, Bremen, and in Rhineland-Palatinate.

Even if first initiatives such as implementation of an OGD portal are possible without the existence of freedom of information laws, it is nonetheless vital to establish freedom of information as a principle in order to realise the full potentials of Open Government.

A distinction must be made between the federal acts on the re-use of public sector information (Informationsweiterverwendungsgesetze) and the issues around "official secrecy versus freedom of information". These regulate the national implementations of the European PSI Directive which aims to reduce barriers to accessing public sector information (see Stage 1).

0.6

Measure: Institution of an Open Government Competence Centre

In order to implement Open Government, it is first necessary to determine responsibilities. Given limited public sector resources, it is not recommended to create new departments. There is also a need for an interdisciplinary approach. Therefore it is recommended to establish a "virtual organisational unit": the Open Government Competence Centre.

In very small administrative agencies, the Competence Centre can also be run by a small number of people. In large organisations, it is essential to ensure a balanced mix. Members of e.g. the following organisational units should be considered in particular:20  Administrative management, top management  Administrative innovation, administrative modernisation 20

In larger administrative bodies, the range of issues may be too wide for one group to be able to process them; in this case it can be expedient to establish an Open Data Competence Centre and to define other responsibilities for the subjects of participation/cooperation.

13 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

   

ICT, e-government, EDP Public relations, social media Legal, data protection Perhaps also data-intensive specialist departments, such as GIS, eEnvironment, statistics, etc.

Team play between politics and administration If the open government initiative is not already the result of a political decision or mandate, it is essential to provide the political bodies with timely information on planned events.

The regular exchange of information between politically accountable players (Municipal Councillor, City Councillor, and Mayor) and the Open Government Competence Centre throughout the term of the initiative is likewise of the essence.

Features Both employees of public administration and the public are engaged in the process as quickly and early as possible using a democratic bottom-up approach. The OG Competence Centre has two essential functions:  The Competence Centre functions as an internal governing body for Open Government. This steering group coordinates OG activities, such as internal data monitoring and offers employees special services, such as training on how to deal with social media or issues relating to data formats, etc.  The Competence Centre is an external point of contact for Open Government and is available for questions relating to already published datasets, ongoing participation or collaborations projects, and for proposals regarding data to be published or projects to be implemented in the future. The proposals submitted are evaluated and discussed in the Competence Centre, feedback is provided to the stakeholders according to the principles of equality, fairness, and responsibility.

Mechanisms The OG Competence Centre carries out e.g. the following operative measures:  Pilot projects extending beyond the pure release of data are initiated in the context of the Competence Centre. Various stakeholders are included in this process.  Competitions are carried out to promote use of the data.  Interviews with stakeholders are conducted.  OGD platform meetings with administration or barcamps are conducted. In these, stake holder groups are invited to discuss with administration on data to be released and its potential applications.  Governance structures for data release are developed: Internal processes must be defined on how to handle the release of data, which criteria to apply for internal data monitoring and how to apply the Implementation Model during the release of data.  The Competence Centre provides support for cultural change: The required cultural change in administration cannot be imposed; the process requires slow and careful planning and support. Successful measures can be made known as examples of best practice and the management level must work on making administration opener, more transparent and collaborative. Awards can be granted for new ideas contributed by employees in internal idea contests (suggestion schemes).

14 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

  





Training measures: Offers of educational and further training options (see below) The Competence Centre channels social media use and the monitoring of collaboration tools.

The Competence Centre establishes key figures for the measurement of success and monitors their achievement: While, at the beginning, key figures will measure mainly process output, by and by, there should be a shift toward outcome-oriented key figures.

Key figures may include: - Public awareness of Open Government initiatives and services - Public awareness of the openness of public administration - Public satisfaction with interaction with public administration - Cultural changes in organisational units of public administration toward more openness - Number of published datasets - Number of data downloads - Number of data portal visitors - Percentage of returning visitors - Number of communication channels - Time visitors spend on the data portal - Data accuracy and data consistency - Timeliness of the data - Frequency of data updates - Drop in number of inquiries following release of data The Competence Centre develops a Community of Practice: Handling open data is new not only for public administration, but also for politics and the public. Therefore it makes sense to organise the exchange of experiences. In Austria, for instance, the "Cooperation OGD Austria" was founded in this vein.

The Competence Centre monitors compliance with OGD principles.

Training measures To achieve a wide impact with Open Government, appropriate offers of education and training are required. Currently, open government projects are carried out on the basis of best practices and knowledge networks. Today, knowledge of open government is limited to a small number of places in administration, economy, and science. Relevant educational opportunities should be put in place in order to allow a professional and goal-oriented approach to the topic in the various administrative agencies.

Suggested topics for training measures are Open Government basics, legal, technical and organisational aspects, such as the new roles in the organisation (see chapter 1.7 "Measure: Establishing Data Governance"), data journalism, statistics, and data visualisation as well as general issues related to modern administrative management with Open Government.

0.7 

Examples and further information Change Management - application guide to change processes in public administration: www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2013/praxisleitfaden_projekt management.html

15 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

 

        

16 13.09.2016

Social Media Guidelines of Platform Digital Austria: http://reference.egovernment.gv.at/Veroeffentlichte-Informationen.983.0.html Guideline "Social Media in der Hamburgischen Verwaltung": www.hamburg.de/contentblob/3320624/data/social-media-in-der-hamburgischenverwaltung.pdf Tips for dealing with social media produced by the city of Hamburg: www.hamburg.de/contentblob/3580670/data/guideline-social-media.pdf Bitkom Social Media Guideline: www.bitkom.org/Bitkom/Publikationen/Leitfaden-SocialMedia.html Draft law on freedom of information in Austria: www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AUA/AUA_00001/index.shtml Freedom of Information Forum Austria: www.informationsfreiheit.at Hamburg Transparency Act: www.hamburg.de/transparenzgesetz Bremen Freedom of Information Act: www.informationsfreiheit.bremen.de Rhineland-Palatinate Transparency Act ePSI Platform: www.epsiplatform.eu Share-PSI Best Practices: www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

1

Stage 1 – Data Transparency The transparency of public sector data and information is an essential prerequisite for participation and collaboration. In this stage, aspects of Open Government Data (OGD), Public Sector Information (PSI), data editing and visualisations come together.

The following aspects of data transparency should be taken into consideration: Open Government Data (OGD) The term OGD denotes public sector databases that governments and public administration departments make accessible in the interest of the general public for free use, dissemination and free re-use.21 OGD is usually based on a proactive, voluntary initiative. The databases are published on a data portal. Aside from data, documents can also be included: "Open Government Documents“22.

Public Sector Information (PSI): Until 17 July 2015, the EU Member States were under the obligation to transpose the Directive on the re-use of public sector information into national law23, which was mostly accomplished with laws on the re-use of public sector information. In principle, public offices are not obligated to permit re-use of their documents. The directive only regulates the framework conditions that govern re-use. But the directive also requires "asset lists of main documents with relevant metadata, accessible where possible and appropriate online and in machine-readable format, and portal sites that are linked to the asset lists". As a result, the data and documents in OGD portals are already accessible as prescribed in the PSI Directive, but at least the meta data of other documents must also be published (not necessarily the documents themselves) In this context, mention must also be made of the obligation to provide information, so the reactive disclosure of information as opposed to the active publication of information. A pilot has been ongoing in the USA since mid last year testing the concept of "release to one, release to all". When a person receives information and data as the result of a freedom of information request, this information is made accessible to the public.24 Requests are also a good indicator for interest in certain information. Often such requests also refer to information that can be published as part of a larger database (e.g. information on the use of public funds). Reference to such a database in the OGD portal also makes it easier to respond to requests under laws on the obligation to provide information or may lead to a drop in such requests.

Data editing and visualisations Regardless of the manner of accessibility of the underlying data, dashboards or visualisations can be used for data preparation. It is not always expedient for the public sector to withdraw completely to the role of data provider. Thus, in order to fulfil its interpretation role, public offices can also implement dashboards or visualisations. Often data portals are also furnished with additional functions in order to be able to visualise published datasets right away.

21 22 23 24

Lucke/Geiger: Open Government Data. 2010.

Cooperation OGD Austria: Rahmenbedingungen für Open Government Documents, 2014.

See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0037 [Download: 15 July 2016].

See https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/07/13/pilot-program-will-publicize-all-foia-responses-at-select-federal-agencies/ or www.justice.gov/opa/blog/proactive-disclosure-pilot-launches [download: 15 July 2016].

17 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

The two main tasks in Stage 1 are: ď ą Identifying potentially high-value or high-impact databases. ď ą Improving and ensuring data quality: accuracy, consistency and timeliness Both tasks are best tackled with the help of internal data monitoring as a central measure.

Illustration 5: Measures in Stage 1

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

1.1

Measure: Creating a data catalogue25

In a first internal process, databases should be identified that are suitable for publication on a data portal.

In this stage, it is not advisable to publish as many databases as possible, but only the most critical ones. The Pareto principle should be applied in the process and aspire to identify the top 20% of databases that would most benefit the public.26 However, in a later step, it would be important to establish a data catalogue of all the data available and not only of data to be published.27 In order to get results as quickly as possible, it is recommended to address the following issues:

25 26 27

Cf. www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/odpp/ [15 July 2016] According to the Pareto principle, 20% of the effort produces 80% of the results. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paretoprinzip [Download: 15 July 2016].

See e.g. www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/pomd/ or http://ogdcockpit.bonn.de [15 July 2016]

18 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 6: Creating a data catalogue

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

Self-screening: What have we ourselves published so far?

The simplest approach of all is to establish what data the agency itself has published so far.28 Often documents that do not fulfil the requirements of an Open Data Portal yet will have been published already. The criteria for internal data monitoring (see chapter 1.2) provide information on issues remaining to be addressed. For instance, minutes of municipal council meetings published in PDF format must be converted into text documents or financial statements into the CSV format.

B - External screening: What have others published so far?

Since there are already numerous national and international examples of published data, it is worth looking at the OGD portals of other agencies in order to get an impression of the type and volume of data already published there.

The data portals already implemented provide a starting point for this (see chapter 1.8): The categories established in different standards to which datasets should be assigned, provide a first starting point (see Illustration 7). Die G8 Open Data Charter also contains a table with example datasets of the respective categories.29

28

29

See e.g. www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/iwyap/ and short report on dataset collection / data monitoring of the city of Freiburg: https://freiburg.morerubin1.de/show_anlagen.php?_typ_432=vorl&_doc_n1=20150610102016.pdf&_vorl_nr=3153110100009&_nid_nr=&_nk_nr=315&x=4&y=12 [Download: 15 July 2016] See www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8-open-data-charter-and-technical-annex [Download: 15 July 2016].

19 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 7: Data categories in OGD portals

Source: OGD-Cockpit: http://ogdcockpit.eu/index.php?title=Attribut:Kategorie [Download 15 July 2016].

Stakeholder screening: What do the stakeholders want?

The following target groups can be distinguished30:  Citizens as players in the private and family spheres  Business as players on the market  Policy and administration as players in public government authorities  Civil society as players in the public sphere The following players rank as cross-sectional groups:  The media as guarantor of the public sphere, both as controllers of the governmental and economic spheres.  Science as the mainspring of social progress through knowledge production and tertiary education  Players in the educational system as suppliers of education to the members of a society For the third step it is necessary to have the results of the internal and external screenings already available. Surveys and events are opportune methods for becoming familiar with stakeholder interests. Meeting and speaking to policy makers and the relevant specialist departments is recommended to kick off discussions with political and administrative representatives. Possibly, some stakeholders may first need an introduction to the subject of Open Government complete with a discussion of goals, measures and examples. The discourse with politics seeks in particular to identify main points of focus for datasets to be published (defining a focus from a political point of view). From a specialist point of view, the discourse with the specialist departments, aside from defining a focus, has the function of identifying possible specific datasets as well.

30

Klessmann et al: Open Government Data Deutschland, 2012

20 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

It also helps to refer to already achieved results in the stakeholder screening, e.g.  Open3.at: "Kategorien von Daten, um die es geht."31  Survey results, e.g.

- ADEQUATe (Analytics & Data Enrichment to improve the QUAliTy of Open Data): www.adequate.at - Open Data Action Plan: www.open-data-aktionsplan.de  Identification of suitable available databases32  Index criteria that target the measurement of existing OGD sources (see chapter 1.8).

Disclosure provisions from the transparency laws of Hamburg and Bremen can also serve as models.  Publication of procurement and contract award data (data and documents)  Details on the finances of the municipality and the companies, associations, foundations, etc. controlled by the municipality.  Allocation of subsidies and grants  Privatisation or sale of municipal property  Decisions adopted in public meetings including the associated minutes and enclosures  Budget, staffing, management, organisation plans, schedule of responsibilities, and filing plans  Guidelines, directives and administrative rules  Service regulations  Official statistics and activity reports  Expert opinions and studies, provided they were commissioned by authorities, are relevant for the authority's decision or its preparation.  Public plans, in particular land-use and landscape plans.

PSI Inquiry Inquiries under the PSI/federal act on the re-use of public sector information can contain requests related to datasets. By including data related to requests already made or data provided in the data catalogue, future inquiries can be responded to in the same manner.

The PSI Directive establishes the following five thematic dataset categories as those that should be given priority in terms of being made available.  Geospatial data  Environment data  Transport data  Statistical data  Corporate data In this context, it would also be important to take into account inquiries under the Duty to Grant Information Act (Auskunftspflichtgesetz, also via FragDenStaat33) or informal inquiries by journalists and citizens. Such inquiries can communicate a better picture of what information and data is inquired about and the active publication of which would create great added value.

31 32 33

www.open3.at/grundlagen/um-welche-daten-geht-es [Download: 15 July 2016].

Lucke; Geiger: Open Government Data, 2010. www.fragdenstaat.de or www.fragdenstaat.at [Download: 15 July 2016].

21 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Pointers for creating a data catalogue Measures A-D indicate a potential data catalogue. These indications can be very specific down to the dataset level (e.g. in Measure B) or still rather abstract as a form of setting priorities (e.g. in Measure C - "Data from the environmental field").

In order not to unnecessarily delay the first release of data, the first measures can already deliver enough information to allow the release of first data. A step-by-step approach is recommended for the releases: launching an OGD portal first and fill it initially with at least five to ten datasets.

The next data releases can be scheduled internally, discussed with the stakeholders and also communicated externally. By end of June 2016, the City of Vienna will have reached data release round 23.

At the latest by the end of the first stages that require less effort to implement, the following procedure is recommended for the creation of a more comprehensive data catalogue:  Collection by the specialised departments: The know-how on the data required or generated for the provision of services, is available in the specialised departments. If a product or services catalogue is available to the administrative agency, it can be used as a reference point. If not, activities would need to follow along the lines of the administrative agency's organisational structure.  Perusal of forms: In addition, it can be useful to peruse the application forms required in a procedure. The data queried there yields very specific pointers on the datasets available.  Perusal of IT systems: Ultimately, the specific design of datasets is supplied by the data-processing IT systems (databases, applications, business applications, registers) in which data is entered for processing.

In the quest for appropriate data to use in the data catalogue, the following distinguishing features may help to obtain a comprehensive view of the possible data sources: "Perspectives" on data34 Results and effects (e.g. number of children in kindergartens) Structures and processes (e.g. number of kindergarten spaces, enrolments) Finances and economic viability (e.g. kindergarten costs) Staff/education, innovation (e.g. satisfaction of kindergarten teachers) Citizen/customer orientation (e.g. citizen satisfaction with child care)

    

Types of data Structural data/geo data (e.g. locations including more information such as opening hours) Financial/budget data: estimates/annual financial statements, support funding Form data/input data, e.g. data from registrations Performance data/output data: number of registrations, number of administrative decisions Measurement and survey data, e.g. from customer or employee surveys

    

34

Modelled on relevant measurement and control dimensions in public administration, see Biwald: Ganzheitliche Steuerung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung, 2005.

22 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Content data/statistical data: age, gender, place of residence, citizenship, native language



Effortless publication will be possible for only a small part of the data. Instead, the actual task will be to evaluate data destined for publication using a set of criteria. Measures A-D for creating a data catalogue primarily support the process of ideation; they cannot guarantee that the release of this data makes sense. Therefore, it is necessary to perform internal data monitoring in order to obtain internal control-relevant information.

Forms and contracts can also be adjusted accordingly in order to, where necessary, receive the rights of publication for documents and data that have not been granted so far. To this end, applicants in the city of Salzburg, explicitly agree to publication in the guidelines for grant awards if their funding is granted. A similar approach is conceivable in public procurement as well: in some countries contracts, with public authorities are effective only once they have been published in the internet.

1.2

Measure: Performing internal data monitoring

Internal data monitoring is implemented to increase data transparency, which identifies (additional) internal databases. In a first step, the following internal structural data is useful for the compilation of the data catalogue:      

Dataset designation Product number and product designation (provided a product and service catalogue is available) Provider of the data (organisational unit) Primary source of data: yes/no Data-controlling person: name/contact Desired date of publication

The administrative offices/departments evaluate internal data using the following criteria and report datasets to be published as Open Government Data to the Competence Centre. The total score awarded helps determine an order in which to process/publish datasets:35

35

Regarding data quality, see www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/eqa/ [download15 July 2016].

23 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Table 2: Criteria for Internal Data Monitoring Criterion

Explanation

Score (0-5 points)

Non-disclosure/ legal restrictions

Is the data subject to nondisclosure obligations or other legal restrictions or does it include data critical for infrastructure?

0: non-disclosure obligation 1: restrictions exist, are hardly alterable (e.g. EU restrictions) 2: restrictions exist, alterable (e.g. regional or district council with 2/3 majority) 3: restrictions exist, easily alterable (e.g. regional or district council with simple majority) 4: restrictions exist, very easily alterable (e.g. internal rules and practices, administrative culture) 5: no restrictions

Personal or corporate references

Does the data include personal references or can individuals or companies be identified?

0: personal data 1: data cannot be made anonymous, missing approval hardly obtainable 2: data cannot be made anonymous, missing approval obtainable 3: approval obtained (e.g. subsidy data) 4: data can be made anonymous 5: no identification of individuals or companies possible, or no infringement of interests in secrecy deserving protection (sec. 8 Data Protection Act)

Copyright

Is the administrative agency sole proprietor of data copyright?

0: no copyright: disclosure not possible 1: subject to license fees and approval 2: subject to license fees, approval obtained 3: no license fees, subject to approval 4: no license fees, no approval needed 5: sole possession of copyright ensured

Value

How high is the estimated value of disclosure for all target groups?

0: no value 1: very low value 3: medium value 4: high value 5: very high value

Effort

How high is the effort of disclosure?

0: unjustifiable cost 1: very high cost 2: high cost 3: medium cost 4: low cost 5: very low

Content-related How high is the estimated data quality? (timeliness, data quality completeness, accurateness, faultiness)

0: data quality unjustifiable 1: data quality very low 2: data quality low 3: data quality medium 4: data quality high 5: data quality very high

Technical availability

Available data formats and data sources, open standards: OGD formats, extended Five-Star System (see chapter OGD formats“ and Table 4)

1: data available electronically 2: data available in machine-readable format 3: data available in OGD formats 4: data available with URI / as RDF 5: data available as Linked Data

Synergy

Are agencies already making the data/services available for other purposes?

1: already voluntarily published 2: soon to be published voluntarily 3: to be published under alterable regional/national laws 4: already published (e.g. INSPIRE, Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC…) under an obligation (e.g. statutory, EU or contractual requirements) 5: to be published (e.g. INSPIRE, Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EG…) under an obligation that is hard to change (e.g. statutory, EU or contractual requirements)

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

Evaluation of individual criteria with 0 (marked red) indicates that their disclosure is currently not feasible. Criteria for which 0 was not awarded may score low points too, but this is not considered

24 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

a reason for excluding disclosure. If, in a first step, the decision is made not to disclose data due to a low score, action must be taken to improve the quality of the data. The data can be reevaluated once this is accomplished.

A lack of any weighting of the criteria implies that each criterion is of equal importance. This is a simplifying assumption, which is however, sufficient for internal data monitoring. A dataset is assessed and the results of this assessment are to help to identify further datasets suitable for (priority) disclosure. However, it would be just as easily possible to assign individual weights to the criteria according to preference.

Assessment of the criterion "person- or company-related) is also aided by the data protection check protocol (see Illustration 8):36 Illustration 8: Data protection check protocol

Source: Klassifikation von Informationen fĂźr PSI-Umsetzung, p. 937 36

See http://reference.e-government.gv.at/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/psi-klassifikation_1-0-0_20150622.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

25 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

1.3

Measure: Improving data quality

In the context of low-rated criteria, public administration agencies often have the option of working toward publication, at least in the medium term, by changing framework conditions. This could (and should), wherever possible, serve the purpose of securing a right to re-use and publish information and documents in the context of awarding contracts to external parties. If the quality of data is poor, improved methods of data collection and data processing can be introduced in order to improve quality. The publication of data can, to all intents and purposes, also help to further improve data quality. In this context it is always important to establish feedback channels so that users can easily contact the person responsible for a dataset. In addition, a sub working group of Cooperation OGD Austria deals with data quality issues and elaborations on this are available in the context of the ADEQUATe project38.

Ten principles of Open Government Data By late 2007, Open Government advocates had already formulated eight principles of Open Government Data in the USA, which were subsequently expanded to ten by the Sunlight Foundation.39 The KDZ Centre for Public Administration Research and the City of Vienna adapted these principles to reflect Austrian conditions.

When open data is disclosed, the following OGD principles should be complied with. If compliance with individual principles is not possible, justification should be provided and submitted to the Open Government Competence Centre to authorise the derogation.

Table 3: Ten principles of Open Government Data Principle

Explanation

Compliance? (yes or justification)

1. Completeness and Data Protection

Datasets released by the government should be as complete as possible, reflecting the entirety of what is recorded about a particular subject. Metadata that defines and explains the raw data should be included as well, along with formulas and explanations for how derived data was calculated. Doing so will permit users to understand the scope of information available and examine each data item at the greatest possible level of detail.

Personal data is generally exempt from disclosure. If there is a risk of individuals being identifiable through the information disclosed, this should be reported to the OGD Steering Committee whose task it will be to make a decision on disclosure.

2. Primacy

Datasets collected and released by the government should be primary source data. This should be done at the highest possible level of detail, not in aggregate or otherwise modified formats.

3. Timeliness

Datasets released by the government should be available to the public in a timely fashion. Whenever feasible, information collected by the government should be released as quickly as it is gathered and collected. Real-time information is published using an application programming interface (API).

38 39

Elaboration on data quality of the ADEQUATe project: www.adequate.at/publications-open-material/ [Download: 15 July 2016].

OpenGovData.org, 2007. 8 Principles of Open Government Data: https://opengovdata.org. Sunlight Foundation: Ten Principles for Opening Up Government Information: http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles [Download: 15 July 2016].

26 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Principle

Explanation

Compliance? (yes or justification)

4. Ease of Access Datasets released by the government should be as accessible as

possible and barrier-free. Barriers to physical access (e.g. requirements to visit a particular office in person or to requirements to comply with particular procedures) and technical barriers (e.g. access to data only via submitted forms or systems that require browseroriented technologies (e.g., Flash, JavaScript, cookies or Java applets) should be avoided.

5. Machine Readability

Data should be stored in widely used file formats that easily lend themselves to machine processing in order to allow automatic structured processing. The use of several different file formats is recommended. When other factors necessitate the use of difficult-toparse formats, data should also be available in machine-friendly formats. These files should be accompanied by documentation related to the format and how to use it in relation to the data.

6. NonDiscrimination

Any person can access the data at any time without having to identify him/herself or provide any justification for doing so.

Note: This does not subsume "barrier-free accessibility".

7. Use of Commonly Owned Standards

The format of data released by the government should be open standards over which no entity has exclusive control (see "OGD formats"). Governments are guided in their choices by standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) or by the practices of Platform Digital Austria or the recommendations of SAGA 40 in Germany .

8. Licensing

Governments release public administrative data under the licence: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Austria (CC BY 3.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/at/deed.de.

9. Permanence

Information released by the government online should be documented comprehensively with metadata and should be available online for a long period of time. Information made available online should remain online, with appropriate version-tracking and archiving over time

10. Usage Costs

As a result of the established use of the licence "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Austria" (CC BY 3.0), the imposition of access fees is not planned.

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

OGD formats In principle, OGD formats should be open formats. This means published specifications should exist and the formats should be available for use without legal restrictions. Usually, the development of open formats is under the control of a non-proprietary body. Version 2 of the Open Government Implementation Model or the Austrian OGD metadata standard offers an overview of typical open formats that are appropriate for OGD 41. Simple machine-readable formats such as CSV files that interested parties can process directly without additional programing effort should always be offered as well.

40 41

Standards and architectures for e-government applications see: www.cio.bund.de/Web/DE/Architekturen-und-Standards/SAGA/saga_node.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

Implementation Model, V2: www.kdz.eu/de/file/11397/download, OGD metadata: http://reference.e-government.gv.at/OGD-Metadaten-23.3269.0.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

27 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Extended Five-Star System The founder of the WWW and director of the W3C Consortium, Tim Berners Lee, developed a model for Open Government Data known as the Five-Star System, which aims to provide a Linked Government Data Infrastructure on the basis of open W3C standards called Linked Open Data.42 In amendment of the model, a sixth star is sometimes mentioned for the description of data with metadata43; however, this can also be done before the fourth star is reached. Therefore we follow the Data Market Blog recommendation to extend the model by a 3.5 stars rating: 44 Table 4: Extended Five-Star System Extended Five-Star System 1 star: data on the web, open licence (no matter the format) 2 stars: data in structured format (e.g. Excel) 3 stars: data in structured, open format (e.g. CSV instead of Excel) 3.5 stars: consistent formats, documented metadata, machine-readable indexes 4 stars: use of unique URLs to link datasets 5 stars: linked own data with other data Source: KDZ, 2016, modelled on Gislason. Own illustration.

Data standards Ultimately, high-quality statistics can only be based on adequate methodology. This requires the use of suitable instruments and procedures as well as an appropriate stringent definition of logics.

It is necessary to use appropriate norms and standards in the datasets as early as when the raw data is released. This is a matter of Data Governance (see chapter 1.7).

Table 5: Data Standards Guideline

Description

1. Naming the datasets

For best orientation, it is recommended to take the cue from the latest scientific evidence, international norms and standards, guidelines and bestpractice solutions. When naming the datasets, attention should be paid to ensuring territorial (local) uniqueness (according to IATA: VIE, SZG) and linking it to thematic priorities (no more than three subject areas). See www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/IATA_Codes/airport_code_v.htm

2. Columns in CSV tables

The columns of the CSV table should be standardised to the effect that where possible - a three-digit letter combination is derived from the relevant English technical terms (age group => age_grp; population men => pop_men etc.). See: www.demopaedia.org Citizenship, country of birth or migration background should comply with the "ISO 3166-1 alpha-3-code" standard (e.g. POP_DEU).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3

42 43 44

Kaltenböck; Thurner: Open Government Data White Paper, 2011: https://issuu.com/semwebcomp/docs/ogd_weissbuch_2011_web [Download: 15 July 2016].

See e.g. Voss; Schönert: Open Government Data für Kommunen, 2012.

Berners-Lee http://5stardata.info/de/ [Download: 15 July 2016] An extension by a 3.5 star rating was proposed in the Data Market Blog (Gislason, 2012) see http://blog.datamarket.com/2012/05/25/tim-berners-lees-missing-star-2 [Download: 15 July 2016].

28 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

3. Territorial allocation

Here too, a standardised, internationally coordinated procedure applies (e.g.

45 NUTS2, NUTS3, LAU1, LAU2) . Territorial ID labelling is based on the official arrangements made internationally that can be used directly for geographic information systems or for import into databases. Some categories still lack agreed arrangements and are subject to an active evaluation process and indirect quality assurance with external developers.

Ultimately, subject categories should be coordinated according to content (age groups in 5-year increments, wide age groups).

The levels of structuring territorial allocation and attributes should be established and taken into account for all datasets, e.g.: Package 1: Country – Age – Gender Package 2: District – Gender Package 3: Registration district – Gender Package 4: Forecast area – Gender

Source: City of Vienna, 2016.

1.4

Measure: Creating a stage plan

It is recommended to plan quarterly stages for data publication and to announce the dates for the latest possible notification and delivery of new datasets. Notification of the OGD Competence Centre with regard to a new dataset should be provided by the closing date. Recommendation: approx. one month prior to publication. All relevant data incl. the metadata and a description as prose information for marketing on a website should be provided to the web editorial team by the editorial deadline; recommendation: approx. two weeks prior to publication.

Table 6: Model of a stage plan

Closing date for submissions Editorial deadline Public release

Stage 1 1 March 2016

Stage 2 31 May 2016

Stage 3 2 September 2016

Stage 4 15 November 2016

15 March 2016

14 June 2016

13 September 2016

29 November 2016

29 March 2016

28 June 2016

27 September 2016

13 December 2016

Source: City of Vienna, 2016.

45

See www.statistik.at/web_de/klassifikationen/regionale_gliederungen/nuts_einheiten/index.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

29 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 9: Example of a data catalogue incl. evaluation and stage planning

Source: City of Vienna, 2012.

1.5

Measure: Collecting metadata

It is essential to take specialist metadata and the Metadata Convention for Open Government Data Portals into account at as early a time as possible.

Metadata standards Cooperation OGD Austria provides an overview of metadata standards by comparing OGD metadata in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.46 The Austrian metadata standard was implemented in machine-readable form at http://ogdcockpit.eu/index.php?title=Kategorie:Metadaten the German standard was partially implemented at http://krzn.ogdcockpit.eu/Metadaten. More information on the German metadata standard can be found here: www.govdata.de/standardisierung Meanwhile, DCAT-AP has been established as a European standard for metadata in data portals: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile. In addition, the Open Metadata Handbook and the W3C Working Draft are of interest as well:47 46 47

Cooperation OGD Austria: GegenĂźberstellung der OGD Metadaten Ă–sterreich, Deutschland und Schweiz, 2015. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Metadata_Handbook [Download: 15 July 2016], W3C: Publishing Open Government Data, 2009.

30 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

In analogy to the maturity model in the extended Five-Star System, the ISA proposes a Maturity Model for metadata management48: Table 7: Maturity Model for Metadata Management Level of Maturity

Description

Stage 1 – ignored metadata

There is no metadata available.

Stage 2 – scattered/locked metadata

Some metadata has been described, but it cannot be accessed in a structured place or freely used.

Stage 3 – open metadata for people

Metadata is documented and usable, but not in reusable formats, e.g.

PDF files

Stage 4 – open, reusable metadata

Metadata is administered centrally and made available as open metadata in machine-readable formats and/or via an API.

Stage 5 – linked open metadata

Linked metadata is used (see https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/page/practice_aids/linked-metadata) and administered with a metadata management system.

Source: ISA, 2012. Own illustration KDZ, 2012.

The highest possible level of maturity should be aspired to in metadata management (see Table 7).

1.6

Measure: Creating an Data Portal

The Open Government Data Portal is the central point of contact for open data. The metadata on the published datasets can be made available in other data portals as well; and, depending on the agency's size, the actual data can be managed in the agency's own data portal.49 There are the following possibilities for creating data portals (depending on the organisation's size and capabilities):  Complete separate data portal. In this case, the recommendation is to deploy the internationally used open source solution CKAN50 recommended by Cooperation OGD Austria on a separate designated server. CKAN can be used both to create an own metadata catalogue and for data management  Shared data portal. There are various operator models for data portal solutions from private businesses to providers in the public sphere, such as community-based computer centres or administrative cooperation initiatives. In Austria, the Austrian Federal Computing Centre operates data.gv.at, the data portal for Austrian administrative agencies, granting them use and providing them their own data presence via a cloud solution.  Data portal on own website, separate metadata catalogue. Smaller organisations, in particular, can provide data for download on their own websites (e.g. CSV files). The data can be fed into the Austrian data portal, which, in order to enable access to the data, 48 49 50

ISA: Towards Open Government Metadata, 2012.

Cf. www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/portal/ [Download: 15 July 2016]. http://ckan.org or as alternatives DCAN www.drupal.org/project/dkan, Apache Marmotta http://marmotta.apache.org, Semantic MediaWiki www.semantic-mediawiki.org or also commercial systems like www.socrata.com, www.opendatasoft.com https://datapress.com/ [Download: 15 July 2016].

31 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

refers to URLs of the individual datasets on the organisation's own website. Alternately, the data can also be saved on data.gv.at and made accessible on the organisation's own data presence (= customisable subpages by data.gv.at). The absence of a suitable data portal solution should be considered a temporary solution. In most cases, the organisations' own websites will not comply with requirements of modern data portals (see below "Features of a data portal").

In some administrative agencies, portal solutions are also already in place that can be extended to include the functions of an open data portal.51 Features of a data portal A CSC study lists the following criteria for user orientation on data portals: FAQs, help pages, metadata, user feedback for the website, user feedback for the data, integration of social media offers, RSS, forum, apps (users can upload their own apps to the platform)52. Features of an Open Government Data Portal include the following: retrievability, standard interfaces, crosssource standard formats, linkability and widgets.53

1.7

Measure: Establishing Data Governance

A focused look at public sector data management has been missing so far in Public Management.54 A control gap has become evident due to the trend toward the release of data in Open Government Data Portals. The Implementation Model is a contribution toward closing this gap.

Producing data catalogues, implementing evaluations in the context of internal data monitoring and the planning and implementation of approval cycles in the first stage of Open Government, constitute a contribution to Data Management and Data Governance as new disciplines of Public Management, which only in recent years have become established in the private sector.

The key distinguishing factor from private sector activities is the Open Data aspect – i.e. the open and (mostly) free release of this data. This aspect plays a subordinate role (as yet) in private sector economy, because in this environment, data generally constitutes one of the most carefully guarded resources. The public sector can provide leadership in this area, because the release of data as a source of generating added value by companies also constitutes a new discipline.55 A first data portal for non-government data has existed since 2014: www.opendataportal.at (cf. chapter 1.1 "Open Business Data").

Data governance forms the basis for data management that is coordinated throughout the company and makes the efficient use of reliable data possible in the first place.

Rules, organisation, processes, data architecture and technology form the foundation for the achievement of "data governance" goals. The main features for this are data and information management, metadata management, content management and also privacy policies. Data 51 52 53 54 55

See e.g. www.duva.de or www.statcube.at [Download: 15 July 2016].

CSC: Unbekannte Gewässer, 2011, p. 24 Blumauer: Open Government Data publizieren, 2011. The design of OGD portals is discussed in more detail by Klessmann et al: Open Government Data Deutschland, 2012 On the relationship between Open Government and Public Management, cf. Krabina, 2010 and 2011.

For more on this see Tapscott: Wikinomics, 2007 and Government 2.0, 2009.

32 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Governance facilitates the better coordination of data and processes within the organisation and helps increase the scalability of the IT landscape through clear rules. The central goal of Data Governance is optimising data administration costs and increasing efficiency by making use of synergy effects.56 Illustration 10: Data Governance role model

Source: Lebhart, et al.: Data Governance, 2013.

Evaluation and further development In order to ensure the sustainability of the Open Government Data Initiative, it is necessary to develop indicators for measuring the initiative's success and to continuously monitor them.57 By the time the first data is published, arrangements should be made for the update of the data catalogue, the assessment of the datasets, and the publication process in the administration's standard processes. ď ą

IT Systems: IT systems (e.g.: business applications) can be expanded so as to allow the automatic or semi-automatic publication of data in order to reduce the manual effort of publication. An example for an open standard that should be supported by the council information systems is OParl.58

56

See Lebhart, et al.: Data Governance, 2013.

The Open Government Implementation Model by Lee; Kwak, 2011 supplies proposals for indicators in the respective stages. Cf. HĂśchtl, et al.: Evaluation der Umsetzung der OGD-Strategie der Stadt Wien.

58 https://oparl.org/https://oparl.org/ [Download: 15 July 2016].

57

33 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Projects: New projects should take data management considerations into due account right from the start. (What data does the project involve?)

Processes: Aside from processes for the publication of data, processes for feedback on datasets should also be implemented (complaint or concern management).

 

A Fraunhofer study makes the following recommendations for action regarding the provision of open data that can be helpful for the further development of a separate open data offer:59  Establishing a quality culture for open data  Improving the quality of descriptive metadata  Supporting public administration with open data publishing tools  Reducing media disruptions in public administration  Establishing Open Data officers in public administration  Expanding the publication of real-time data and sensor data as Open Data  Inclusion of private and open data beyond Open Government Data The OGD Stage Model offers a good reference point for further development:60  Aggregation of administrative data: This level is achieved as soon as first data of a public authority has been made available  Integration of administrative data: This concerns the issue of what agency publishes data where and in what quality. While a central data portal like data.gv.at offers a central point of publication, coordination of what data is published by which administrative level should be established in the next step. An important aspect in this context is also the use of data from other public authorities.  Integration of administrative data with non-administrative data: in this context, reference can be made to Linked (Open) Data and Open Business Data.  Integration of administrative data with non-administrative data and data from social media / smart data: In this step, the authors plan the integration of administrative data with social media data (e.g. Facebook or Twitter), but reference can also be made to brand-new data sources related to smart cities/smart governance (see chapter III "Outlook").

59 60

Eckert/Flügge/Gauch: Open Data Analytics as a Service, 2014 or for further reading also www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/hm/ [Download: 15 July 2016] Kalampokis/Tambouris/Tarabanis: Open Government Data Stage Model, 2011.

34 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 11: Open Government Data Stage Model

Source: Kalampokis/Tambouris/Tarabanis: Open Government Data Stage Model, 2011.

Additional information: IT support in Stage 1 Despite, as previously mentioned, software solutions being available for the operation of OGD portals in Stage 1, there are currently no customised support tools available for the stage prior to the publication of data (preparatory stage). The current projects were carried out deploying the following components for internal use:  Table calculation programmes, (e.g. Microsoft Excel or LibreOffice Calc) that can be used to assemble the data catalogue as well as to perform internal data monitoring.

Related examples can be downloaded at www.kdz.or.at/de/open-governmentvorgehensmodell.  Content Management Systems, (e.g. Drupal or WordPress) that are often used by administrative agencies to design their administrative homepages.  Databases that facilitate the distributed maintenance of a data catalogue and must be configured for the specific application.  Collaboration tools (e.g. Semantic MediaWiki), that offer database functions, but focus on the simple and collaborative recording and maintenance of the internal data catalogue independent of location. An example of this is the OGD Cockpit: www.ogdcockpit.eu A data cockpit can facilitate the recording, assessment and maintenance of databases. The OGD Cockpit was developed in a cooperation project involving the cities of Bonn, Cologne, and Linz which has already begun regular operation at http://ogdcockpit.bonn.de.

35 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 12: OGD Cockpit

Source: www.ogdcockpit.eu [Download: 15 July 2016]

The German Federal State of Brandenburg is developing this idea as a prototype for all the municipalities in the country.

Illustration 13: OGD Cockpit of the Federal State of Brandenburg

Source: KDZ, 2016.

36 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

1.8

Examples and further information

Examples 





Examples of existing data portals - Austria: https://data.gv.at - Germany: www.govdata.de - Switzerland: https://opendata.swiss - EU Open Data Portal: https://open-data.europa.eu - European data portal: www.europeandataportal.eu (harvests European data portals) - International: www.datacatalogs.org and http://thedatahub.org - USA: http://data.gov, UK: http://data.gov.uk Examples for indexes - Open Data Monitor: http://opendatamonitor.eu - Open Data Barometer: http://opendatabarometer.org - Global Open Data Index: http://index.okfn.org/ or http://index.okfn.org/place/ - Digital Openness Index: www.do-index.org - Open Data Index: http://webfoundation.org/2012/09/introducing-the-open-data-index/ - OECD OUR Data Index: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-70-en Examples for data editing and visualisation by public authorities - Offenerhaushalt.at: www.offenerhaushalt.at - Federal budget of Germany: www.bundeshaushalt-info.de - Basemap.at: www.basemap.at - Stadtregionen.at: www.stadtregionen.at - Destatis.de "Interaktiv und anschaulich": www.destatis.de/DE/Service/InteraktivAnschaulich/InteraktivAnschaulich.html

Further information    

     

Open Data Goldbook for Data Managers and Data Holders: www.europeandataportal.eu/en/providing-data/goldbook Open Government Data White Book (Austria): https://issuu.com/semwebcomp/docs/ogd_weissbuch_2011_web Cooperation OGD Austria documents at http://reference.e-government.gv.at/OpenGovernment-Data.2771.0.html Study "Open Government Data Deutschland": www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2012/mitMarginalspalte/07/openg overnment.html Berlin's Open Data strategy: www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/ikt-wirtschaft/egovernment/berlins-open-data-strategie/ Study Open Data Cologne: www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/download/Open_Data_Koeln Open Government Data study in Germany: www.open-data-studie.de Open Data. The Benefits. Das volkswirtschaftliche Potential für Deutschland: www.kas.de/wf/de/33.44906/ Open Government Data study in Switzerland: http://opendata.ch/2012/07/05/ogd-studieschweiz-verfugbar-download/ Open Data in Kommunen: Positionspapier von DStGB, KGSt und Vitako 5/2014: www.vitako.de/Publikationen/Documents/Positionspapier%20Open%20Data%20Vitako_ KGSt_DStGB.pdf

37 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

          

38 13.09.2016

Open Data. Die wichtigsten Fakten zu offenen Daten www.kas.de/wf/de/33.44530/ und Open Data aus internationaler Perspektive: www.kas.de/wf/de/33.45742/ Federal Agency for Civic Education: www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/medien/opendata/ G8 Open Data Charter: www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8open-data-charter-and-technical-annex Vision eines Daten-Ökosystems im Raum D-A-CH-LI: www.data.gv.at/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/OGD-D-A-CH-LI-Daten-Oekosystem-VISION-1.pdf Open Data Research Network: www.opendataresearch.org Open Government Data Maturity Model: https://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/ogdmatmodel.html Open Data Impact: http://odimpact.org/static/files/open-data-impact-key-findings.pdf OECD: www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/open-government-data.htm European Public Sector Information Platform: http://epsiplatform.eu PSI Directive in Austria: http://reference.e-government.gv.at/Projektabschluss-UPSIRUmset.3334.0.html Data Governance: DAMA-DMBOK2 Framework: www.dama.org or https://technicspub.com/dmbok/

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

2

Stage 2 – Open Participation

Open participation is the use of social media in various fields of application, in particular also in connection with classic citizen participation projects. Social media refers to blogs and microblogs (e.g. Twitter), collective projects (e.g.

Wikipedia), social networks (e.g. Facebook), Content Communities (e.g.

YouTube), virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life), and virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft).61 Illustration 14: Measures in Stage 2

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

2.1

Measure: Creating and implementing social media strategy

Mergel, et al. (2013) distinguish the following dimensions of a social media strategy62:  guidelines (also see chapter 0.3)  organisation models (see Table 8)  applications (see the following measures)  tactics (for the practical use of social media)

61 62

Krabina: Soziale Medien, 2012.

Mergel, et al: Praxishandbuch soziale Medien in der öffentlichen Verwaltung, 2013.

39 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Table 8: Organisation models for social media

Description

Organic

Centralised

Cooperative

Individual efforts develop

A person or group drives

A group establishes best

independently of each other. implementation and

Advantages

practices and implements the

determines the direction.

new practices everywhere.

The needs of all

Implementation can be

Best practices spread faster

departments are satisfied.

advanced quickly; few

and evenly.

employees needed.

Disadvantages Inconsistent and probably

Spreads in the organisation

Competes for limited budgets

lacking the official allocation slowly without an authentic

and attention, top

of resources

management support

community backing the ideas.

necessary.

Staffing level

Primarily by individual

A pioneer who also holds the

pioneers who are

team together.

Department-like coordination.

considered experts.

Appropriate for New users with few

Heavily centralised

employees and limited

Disparately operating organisations

resources

Examples63

City of Vienna, City of

City of Salzburg, Zurich City

Austrian Federal Ministry for

Hamburg

Police

Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, Federal Criminal Police Office

Source: KDZ, 2016, expanded according to Mergel, et al., 2013.

The Implementation Model used by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg can serve as a guideline for the creation of a social media strategy.

63

Documentation on the examples see Prorok/Krabina: Offene Stadt, 2012.

40 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 15: Implementation Model for the social media strategy

Source: Hamburg, 2012.

2.2

Measure: Using social media in public relations and citizen service

Social media is already used intensely in political and administrative communication. Hence, PR departments and the departments specialising on citizen service and information are a logical starting point for the use of social media. On the road to open participation, first experiences in the use of social media can either be gained in public relations or by building on past experiences. In this context, account should be taken of the fact that the distinction between public relations in politics and administration, on the hand, and general political communication in social media, on the other, is blurred.

2.3

Measure: Using social media in the professional discourse

As opposed to general organisation communication for which PR departments and organisation management are responsible and citizen information that is often pooled in citizen service facilities, Schulz (2012) defines professional discourse as the communication with an interested expert community on issues that fall within the scope of the tasks and responsibilities assigned to the individual public administration employees.64 In the expert discourse, individual motivated employees can be encouraged to use social media in their areas of responsibility. Likewise, it is advisable to support individual specialised projects through social media. This will allow the specialised departments to collect valuable experience.

This also includes participation in the development of an Open Data Ecosystem.65

64 65

Schulz: Social Media Guidelines, 2012.

See discussion of the tasks of the Open Government Competence Center in chapter 0.6 and for further reading www.w3.org/2013/sharepsi/bp/eode/, www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/su/ and www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/odbm/ [Download: 15 July 2016].

41 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

2.4

Measure: Internal use of social media

Internal communication and new forms of knowledge management benefit from mechanisms offered by social media. With "wien.team"66, since March 2011, the city of Vienna has been operating a type of internal Facebook on which roughly 16,000 participants can network and discuss in 66 groups (17 thereof are public and 14 semi-public).

Illustration 16: wien.team: internal social network of the city of Vienna

Source: Kostner/Rederer/Rumpl, 2012.

Illustration 17: Examples of groups in wien.team

Source: City of Vienna, 2016.

66

Kostner/Rederer/Rumpl: Soziale Medien in der Stadt Wien, 2012.

42 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

The transfer to a "collaborative intranet" was effected in April 2016 as part of the Intranet 2.0 design process, which offers, among other things, the following functionalities:  profile  groups and networks (interconnections)  chat  activity stream  group calendar / personal calendar  people finder and full-text search  comments/contribution rating  integrated wikis, blogs, responsive design Illustration 18: The collaborative intranet of the city of Vienna

Source: City of Vienna, 2016.

Stieglitz/Meske (2012) developed a lifecycle model in a survey of the social media officers of the DAX 30 companies related to the internal use of social media.67

67

Stieglitz/Meske, 2012.

43 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 19: Social Media Lifecycle

Source: Stieglitz/Meske, 2012.

For successful implementation, they recommend:  Decision and design phase: Social media projects need a clear objective. The management is responsible for clearly defining the desired added value from the internal use of social media. The projects should always take into account the specific corporate culture and the existing process workflows and be long term in nature.  Introduction and operation phase: The targeted use of the management's role model function increases the project's chances of success. Incentive systems can be critical, in particular in the initial phase.  Analysis and assessment phase: It is difficult to assign a monetary value to the success of social media and it can rarely be compared to similar projects of other companies. The lack of clear goal statements makes retroactive assessment difficult.

2.5

Measure: Implementing participation projects

Participation is nothing new; but the technical possibilities and the dynamism of social networks require radically new approaches. Subdivision into informative, consultative, and cooperative public participation derives from the Standards of Public Participation in Austria: 68

68

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management: Standards der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, 2011.

44 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 20: Informative, consultative, cooperative participation projects

Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, 2011

The guideline for online consultation published by the Bertelsmann Foundation contains a stage model and illustrates the individual steps for preparation, implementation, and evaluation, and points out some of the central questions that arise during a participation process69 Illustration 21: Online consultation guideline

Source: Koop, 2010 69

Koop: Leitfaden Online-Konsultation, 2010.

45 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

According to the guideline "Praxisbuch Partizipation - Gemeinsam die Stadt entwickeln"70, two factors are crucial when it comes to the success of participation: attitude towards participation and participation technology:  dialogue on an equal footing  change of perspective  respect and take seriously  "The Big Five": honest, reliable, transparent, reproducible ... and with a dash of ease The guideline's process planner helps design a participation process. The participation concept merges all the points established during the design of the process:  the room to manoeuvre and the fixed points,  the goals,  the frame and influencing factors,  the target groups,  the potential influence,  the process design with the selected participation methods,  the roles and division of responsibility,  and the benefits of the participation process for the public, for administration and politics.

Ways to effective participation The e-participation ladder offers the option of developing the necessary questions during conception of new participation opportunities from a strategic point of view (from top to bottom) or to climb the "stairs" from an operative point of view, e.g. during the course of a current participation project or the evaluation of a project.71 Illustration 22: The E-Participation Ladder

Source: Krabina, 2016.

70 71

Arbter: Praxisbuch Partizipation, 2013.

Krabina: The E-Participation Ladder, 2016.

46 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Table 9: Questions on each step to effective participation Step

Description

Point of intervention

Questions

unawareness

Participant is not familiar with the opportunity to participate

+information

 How can the missing information be made accessible to the various target groups? `  What target groups should be involved?  Where do these target groups usually get their information?

indifference

Participant is indifferent to the topic

+caring +opinion/content

 How can we reach those to whom this topic is important?  How can we ensure that people attach importance to this topic?  What additional information is necessary to be able to form an opinion?  What type of contents could they contribute that are important for our goals?

passive participation

Participant would have something to contribute, but does not take action

+action

 How can people be motivated to take action?  Is our offer easy enough to use?

implicit participation

Participant takes action, but perhaps unconsciously

+awareness/ connection

 How can we convince people that participation pays off?  How can we combine their options for action with a participation goal?  How can we design/use the system to facilitate implicit participation?

active participation

Participant takes +dedicated conscious action interface via an interface of his/her choice

 How can we ensure that PTs use our dedicated interface or know the interface used?  How can we make the system simple enough?

intended participation

Participant takes an action in the dedicated interface

 How do we best communicate the goals of participation?  For what period of time will the PT be willing to follow the process?  What period of time do we need to ensure sufficient participation?  What stages do we need; what happens when?

effective participation

Goal/Agenda of +Implementation the process exists and is familiar to Participant

impact participation

Results of participation will be implemented and lead to better public performances, improved programmes or projects or a successful and sustainable initiative.

+goal/agenda

 How can we ensure that the results are utilised and applied?  How we can communicate right at the start what the possible results of the process may be?  How can we communicate what needs to be done and what has changed since implementation of the participation initiative?

Source: Krabina, 2016.

47 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Aside from the e-participation ladder, the different types of internet users should also be distinguished. Li/Bernoff (2009) distinguish between different, more or less sharply differentiated user types:72  Creators, who proactively create and publish contents;  Critics, who create and publish contents in a reactive and participatory way;  Collectors, who subscribe to, evaluate and structure contents;  Joiners, who are members of online social networks;  Spectators, who merely consume the contents of Web 2.0, without actively contributing and  Inactives, i.e. internet users who do not participate in the social web or Web 2.0.

Based on this, it is clearly necessary to provide different offers for these distinct user types also in social media or participation projects. Ullrich (2011) contains a list of additional user typologies.73 Illustration 23: Social media user types

Source: Ullrich, 2010.

72 73

Li/Bernoff: Groundswell, 2009.

Ullrich: Internet Nutzertypologien im Überblick, 2011. Also see America’s Interested Bystander: https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/americasinterested-bystander-new-research-from-google-on-civic-duty [Download: 15 July 2016].

48 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Participation and Open Government Data Stakeholders should be provided comprehensive information and consultation as early as when an OGD portal is implemented. Related examples of this are:  Carrying out or participating in community meetings for feedback on desired or previously released datasets,  Carrying out surveys and competitions,  Publishing the resulting apps and applications on the OGD portal,  Discussing data (and the information gleaned from it) and the resulting applications in social networks.

This was mentioned as early as in Stage 1 - during preparation of the first data releases - and should be continued after publication in order to collect feedback on the data released and its significance. Furthermore, topics that can be discussed on the basis of released data should become the subject of participation as well. So far, the best known example of this are participatory budgets: Beyond the release of budget data in OGD portals, the logical next step would be to allow the public to participate in determining and deciding on how to use parts of the freely usable budgetary means. In practice, this link between Stages 1 and 2 is often missing.

Even from the perspective of Stage 2, considerations related to participation projects can provide indications of what data would have to be published first in order to provide the target groups of participation with the necessary information. The establishment of an Open Data Ecosystem that includes participation and also pursues close cooperation between administration, citizens and business with the objective of the sustainable establishment of Open Data and the generation of economic growth can be promising.

2.6

Evaluating and learning

All these measures can provide valuable insights that result in the further development of the social media strategy and a larger number of more successful participation projects. But these insights serve not only to learn for upcoming projects, but they also lead to profound changes in the organisations. The character and speed of the new communication channels change numerous processes, such as complaint management, citizen service, and citizen participation.

For the measurement of participation success, May/Leo/Taudes (2015) recommend the ENI index (Effective Number of Issues), which measures the efficiency of e-participation projects in just one number.74 In order to calculate it, the number of contributions generated during a participation process is needed and the number of times these contributions were mentioned (frequency). For related guidance, see May's work (2013).75 Lee/Kwak also mention possible performance indicators.76

74 75 76

May/Leo/Taudes: Evaluation of E-Participation Efficiency, 2015.

May: Practitioner’s Guide, 2013.

Lee/Kwak: Open Government Implementation Model, 2011 or Lee/Kwak: An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement, 2012.

49 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

2.7

Examples and further information

Examples:       

Wien Gestalten – database for participation projects in Vienna: www.wiengestalten.at Information on participatory budgets including examples: www.buergerhaushalt.de Digital Agenda Vienna: www.digitaleagenda.wien The Austrian government's Open Innovation Strategy and Digital Roadmap Austria: www.openinnovation.at and www.digitalroadmap.gv.at Participedia: http://participedia.net ParticipateDB: www.participatedb.com Open Government group on Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/open4gov

Further information:    



         

50 13.09.2016

Standards of public participation: www.partizipation.at "Praxisbuch Partizipation - Gemeinsam die Stadt entwickeln" by the City of Vienna: www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/partizipation/praxisbuch.html Guideline for Online Consultation by the Bertelsmann Foundation: www.bertelsmannstiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/leitfaden-online-konsultation Federal Agency for Civic Education: "Handbuch Bürgerbeteiligung - Verfahren und Akteure, Chancen und Grenzen": www.bpb.de/shop/buecher/schriftenreihe/76038/handbuch-buergerbeteiligung Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure: "Handbuch für eine gute Bürgerbeteiligung". Planung von Großvorhaben im Verkehrssektor. www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/G/handbuch-buergerbeteiligung.html Compendium Online Citizen Participation: www.bayinnovationsstiftung.de/fileadmin/docs/OBB/Online_Buergerbeteiligung.pdf Web 2.0 in Bavarian municipalities: www.bay-innovationsstiftung.de/index.php?id=64 Web 2.0 in the city of Ulm: www.ulm.de/sixcms/media.php/29/TICC-131230-ulm20Begleitforschung-V2.pdf German Federal Working Group of Political Education (BAG) www.politischebildung.de/buergerbeteiligung_demokratie.html "Digitales Bürgerschaftliches Engagement": www.oeffentlicheit.de/publikationen?doc=14464 "Digitale Teilhabe": www.oeffentliche-it.de/publikationen?doc=14566 "Kommunale Jugendbeteiligung in der digitalen Gesellschaft": www.dkjs.de/fileadmin/ Redaktion/Dokumente/programme/Leitfaden_Jugendbeteiligung.pdf "Wegweiser Bürgergesellschaft": www.buergergesellschaft.de OECD information on "Public Engagement" at www.oecd.org/gov/publicengagement International Budget Partnership: www.internationalbudget.org

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

3

Stage 3 – Open Collaboration Open collaboration consists of the implementation of collaboration tools for cooperation across organisational borders and in particular the co-production of administrative services with third parties.77 In this context, it is becoming increasingly important to draw on the knowledge of the right cooperation partners in collaboration projects.

Illustration 24: Measures in Stage 3

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

3.1

Measure: Monitoring collaboration tools

The new forms of cooperation are made possible in particular by special tools in the first place.

Therefore, the establishment of regular tool monitoring in public administrations is essential. Like the questions posed in Stage 2: "What data do we have?, What data can we publish?", the questions "What tools are there?, Which ones can we use?" now become relevant in this stage.

77

For further reading on the distinction between the terms participation and collaboration see page 8: "Digression: On the terms participation and collaboration"

51 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 25: Collaboration tools

Source: Treverton, 2016.78

Given the vast abundance of available tools and the speed with which new tools crop up, it is not possible, in particular for smaller administrative authorities to run this monitoring on their own.

Internet portals, such as "TosiT – Toolbox for Open Societal Innovation", can be useful here. In TosiT, tools, formats, methods, and services are collected and assessed in a structured manner that can facilitate open innovation.

Illustration 26: TosiT - Toolbox for Open Societal Innovation

Source: www.tosit.org 78

Treverton: New Tools for Collaboration, 2016.

52 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

In addition to an overview of what tools are available and what purposes they have already been used for, additional questions must be addressed in order to answer the question of whether a tool can be used or not.

Illustration 27: Decision tree for the use of collaboration tools

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

If an internal rule for the use of collaboration tools or cloud services does not already exist, the key questions from the decision tree can also serve as model questions for the development of an internal policy.

Additional questions arise in particular through use of third-party tools. In the Cloud Computing position paper, the risks listed include in particular:79  Privacy: Internal data is used or passed on by a third-party service provider.  Confidentiality: Unauthorised people access internal information.  Integrity: Unnoticed manipulation of data  Accessibility: The service/tool is no longer available.  Authenticity: The authenticity of the data cannot be guaranteed.  Attacks: Denial-of-service attacks, sabotage or extortion attempts  Dependence: On a specific provider or supplier 79

See http://reference.e-government.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/TOP-03.10_20120228_Cloud_Computing_Positionspapier_1.0.1_FINAL.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

53 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

3.2

Measure: Finding collaboration partners

As Noveck describes in detail (2015), collaboration is less about interacting with citizens in general (participation) and more about finding the right partners or the right knowhow for collaboration projects.

Hence, aside from finding potential collaboration tools, it is also important to find possible cooperation partners. Sources may include: internal social media (wien.team) or internal Yellow Pages operated by public administration80 business networks (e.g. LinkedIn and XING…); specialised social networks (SlideShare, Academia, GitHub...) networks specialising in the public sector (www.govloop.com, www.networkofinnovators.org) participants - in events such as conferences or community events and competitions (e.g. OGD platform meetings, app awards) - in participation projects - in collaboration projects networks - of volunteers (www.stadtmenschen.wien, www.wien.gv.at/gesellschaft/ehrenamt/freiwillig/, www.freiwilligenweb.at, Team Österreich: http://oe3.orf.at/teamoesterreich) - other communities of practice multipliers like educational facilities (universities), NGOs (e.g. Open Knowledge)

    





3.3

Measure: Implementing collaboration projects

Collaboration projects can be implemented with varying degrees of co-production intensity, that is to say, with varying degrees of how much the authority still controls the process. Aside from this "how" of collaboration, there is also the question of the "what" of collaboration, i.e. what result to expect from the project.

Depending on the intensity of third-party involvement, the following types of projects can be distinguished (the "how" of collaboration):81

80 81

In knowledge management, a measure often suggested is the creation of competence databases with which to search for available employee skills.

Linders: With a view to citizen co-production A-D and in the interest of completeness, We-Government, 2011 proposes the addition of open administrative cooperation (E).

54 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Table 10: Types of collaboration projects Type

Government to Government, G2G

Citizen to Government, C2G

Description

Examples

Administrative cooperation 82 that is open to  Cooperation OGD Austria: the participation of citizens or the www.data.gv.at/infos/cooperationrepresentatives of civil society organisations. ogd-oesterreich The public administration agencies actively  Open Government Partnership: shape the process, for example citizens are www.opengovpartnership.org involved in advisory councils.  Joinup.eu: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/ Citizens help to fulfil public duties as coproducers. Public administration is mainly responsible for the activity, but the citizens influence the direction and the results and may actually assist in day-to-day implementation.

 Geo-based complaint management: http://schau.auf.linz.at or https://maerker.brandenburg.de  Vienna History Wiki: www.wien.gv.at/wiki

Public administration and citizens share the  Open Data Portal: responsibility equally. Both sides contribute www.opendataportal.at their specific skills in order to solve problems together and to generate public value.

Government with Citizen, G+C

Government to Citizen, G2C

Public administration helps citizens organise  GovCamp: themselves. The public administration is not www.barcamp.at/Gov_camp_Vienna_ responsible for the activities, but can work its 2015 possibilities and influence to generate higher  School of Data: www.schoolofdata.at public value.  Freiwillig für Wien: www.wien.gv.at/gesellschaft/ehrenamt /freiwillig Citizens help themselves and each other.

Public administration plays no active role in daily activities, but can provide supporting framework conditions.

Citizen to Citizen, C2C

Coworking Spaces/Hackerspaces.

Free internet: www.funkfeuer.at Frag den Staat: https://fragdenstaat.at Open Street Map: www.openstreetmap.org  Ushahidi: www.ushahidi.com  Train of Hope: www.trainofhope.at    

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration according to Linders, 2011.

Noveck (2015) lists five types of crowdsourcing: (the "what" of collaboration)83  Ideas: "crowdsourcing ideas"  Opinions: "crowdsourcing of opinions"  Financing: "crowdsourcing of funds (crowdfunding)"  Tasks: "crowdsourcing tasks (microtasking)"  Data collection: "crowdsourced data gathering" Similarly, Lucke/ Große (2014) distinguish between84  Data (e.g. open data)  Information (e.g. open educational resources) 82 83 84

See e.g. www.verwaltungskooperation.at [Download: 15 July 2016].

Noveck: Smart Citizens, Smarter State, 2015, S. 168ff.

Lucke/Große: Open Government Collaboration, 2014.

55 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

  

Knowledge (knowledge combination, knowledge application with a joint or a similar final product) Capital (crowdfunding) Goods (shareconomy)

Treverton (2016) makes the following recommendations:85  Make access to collaboration tools easier  Restructure IT investments in favour of shared platforms  Take pragmatic steps to increase the utilisation of tools  Signalise the importance of collaboration from top management

3.4

Examples and further information

Examples    

Examples see Table 10 Citizensourcing: www.citizensourcing.de TosiT - Toolbox for Open Societal Innovation: www.tosit.org Smarter State: www.thegovlab.org/smarterstate.html

Further information 

  

85

Open Government Collaboration - Offene Formen der Zusammenarbeit beim Regieren und Verwalten www.zu.de/deutsch/lehrstuehle/ticc/JvL-121025OpenGovernmentCollaboration-V1.pdf New Tools for Collaboration: http://csis.org/publication/new-tools-collaboration Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services: www.businessofgovernment.org/report/engaging-citizens-co-creation-public-services Federal Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Toolkit: https://crowdsourcingtoolkit.sites.usa.gov/howto/

Treverton: New Tools for Collaboration, 2016. For further reading see www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/ec/ [Download: 15 July 2016].

56 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

4

Stage 4 – Ubiquitous engagement In the final stage, open government is implemented in a lasting way. Public value is generated by creating transparency, facilitating participation and utilising collaboration in all stages of the political cycle.

Illustration 28: Measures in Stage 4

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

4.1

Measure: Connecting stages, evaluate and learn

Since in practice, the stages of the Implementation Model are often begun at the same time, it is all the more important to create networks between the aspects of the individual stages. Open Data (Stage 1) can provide a basis for political processes in participation processes (Stage 2). In collaboration projects (Stage 3), data may result that are published in the data portal, on the one hand (Stage 1), but may also be the basis for further participation processes on the other (Stage 2).

Metrics for measuring success are already contained in the model by Lee/Kwak (2012). These can be customised to the individual specific requirements. It is particularly important to learn from earlier stages and to introduce the insights back into the organisation in order to allow feedback loops. Intensified knowledge management is necessary to achieve this. The insights from data monitoring (Stage 1) can, for instance, result in the adjustment of funding guidelines or tender documents with respect to future data use. With the flexible use of collaboration tools, IT procurement guidelines can be revised and evidence from participation projects can deliver suggestions for the further increase of transparency and openness.86

86

For more details see Version 2 of the Implementation Model or Transparency: Opening Government, 2011.

57 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

By Stage 4 at the latest, it is necessary to take further steps toward increasing openness that may not have been taken so far. Here it is worthwhile to study international examples - also owing to historically developed cultural differences.

The aim of the measure is to increase measure quality in the previous stages and to gain an integrative and networked perspective of the many aspects of all the stages.

4.2

Measure: Simplify access to participation

The solutions that have often been developed in individual projects so far need to be improved with regard to their usability, in particular on mobile devices. Access should be as low-threshold and easy as possible. The first practical experience gained by the City of Vienna can serve to define the following elements or requirements of participation and collaboration platforms: Single Sign-On: Registration and authentication of users at the portal in various ways (user name and password, Facebook, OpenID, mobile phone signature or European standards such as STORK eID, ...)

Availability through mobile devices and accessibility Involvement of social media Collaborative generation of contents



  

4.3

Measure: Ensuring sustainability and public value

Open Government aims to achieve the ubiquitous engagement of stakeholders (Stage 4) to strengthen legitimacy and confidence and generate public value. This is achieved through transparency (Stage 1), participation (Stage 2), and collaboration (Stage 3). The governance debate of recent years has also emphasised this aspect87. The reference to the Policy Cycle (see Stage 4) illustrates that the different approaches come together in the final stage of Open Government: In particular, the Policy Cycle illustrates, where (i.e. in which phases of the policy process) participation can be effectively considered and implemented, while the Open Government Implementation Model shows how (by means of what measures) participation can be achieved. The multi-stage approach also demonstrates how transparency, participation and collaboration build upon and are contingent on each other.

87

For details see Bauer; Dearing: Public Management und Governance, 2011.

58 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Illustration 29: Open State

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration according to Banner (1998), Hilgers (2012), Prorok/Krabina (2012).

The goal is to allow the various stakeholders (in particular citizens) to play a part in the process of policy making and to engage their participation therein. The four-stage model of effective citizen participation by Governance International describes the stages "co-designing", "cocommissioning", "co-delivering", and "co-assessing".88 Müller's "offene Staatskunst" (open statecraft) likewise seeks to strategically restructure administrative processes in terms of Open Government and also draws on the concept of the four stages of the "Policy Cycle" as an organising framework (agenda setting, policy formation, implementation and evaluation).89 Openness and transparency can be used as strategic tools in all stages of the Policy Cycle. 90 Public Value Public Value generally refers to "social added value" or "value for the public". As a result of the high level of prosperity in this part of the world, the material foundations are often taken for granted and considered a matter of course, on account of which the contribution of institutions, organisations, and business to public value is usually underestimated or not perceived at all.

However, against the background of the progressively dwindling confidence in the economy and the public sector, it is becoming increasingly difficult to illustrate public value. Institutions and organisations always also generate a social benefit. But as a rule, this benefit is not appropriately recognised in the strategy of the respective organisation or in public perception.91 Hence, public value management refers to the process of identifying mutual preferences and needs in a dialogue about forms of public policy making and to create a new dynamic based upon this for the development of accepted values of the common good.92 88 89 90 91 92

Bovaird; Löffler; Downe: Public Services, 2009.

Müller: Staatskunst, 2010 und 2012. For more information on the Policy Cycle see Jann/Wegrich, 2003.

More related details in Klessmann et. al, 2012.

See Biwald, et al.: Der Public Value des Wiener Gemeindebaus, 2014.

See Meynhardt: Public Value, 2008.

59 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Consequently, the term public value essentially raises the question of the influence of organisations for society and their contribution to social cohesion. It is more important now than ever for organisations to socially legitimise their existence and their actions. The reasons for this are not only global competition and increased transparency, but also the so-called generation Y with its changed demands and new business models of cooperation between the sectors.

Ultimately, Open Government initiatives also need to permit investigation of whether they have generated public value. At least three dimensions are distinguished when it comes to the assessment of public value: political benefit (superordinate goals) benefit for the stakeholder – stakeholder value (direct effects) environmental and social benefit (indirect effects) or public value in the social, economic, ecological, spatial, and societal impact dimensions.

  

The integration of Open Government with the public value approach is a more recent field of research, to which the "Open Government Portfolio Public Value Assessment Tool" provides a contribution.93

4.4

A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation: www.businessofgovernment.org/report/manager%E2%80%99s-guide-evaluating-citizenparticipation Evaluating Digital Citizen Engagement. A Practical Guide: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23752 Government Information Sharing: A Planning Toolkit: www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/guides/infosharing_toolkit Open Government Partnership: www.opengovpartnership.org Open Government Research Exchange: www.ogrx.org



   

93

Further information

See www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/online/pvat [Download: 15 July 2016].

60 13.09.2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

4.5

Open Government Implementation Model – overall view of measures

Illustration 30: OGD Implementation Model: Overall View

Source: KDZ, 2016, own illustration.

61 13.09.2016

OUTLOOK

III Outlook Several significant developments should be emphasized when taking a comprehensive view of Open Government: Open Business Data, Linked (Open) Data, Big Data, Smart City/Smart Government, Data Analytics/Predictive Analytics, and OpenX.

1.1

Open Business Data

Business, in addition to administration, is another significant source of data. To date, this aspect has not been given sufficient attention in Open Data. But companies often have data that is interesting for life in a specific area. Examples for this are:  mailboxes, post offices (locations, opening and pick-up times)  bank branches (accessible to people with disabilities), ATM including opening hours  pharmacies (locations, opening hours, night pharmacies)  neighbourhood stores (locations, opening hours)  touristic offers (locations, opening hours, information)  events  and many more.

While it is possible for government data portals to also incorporate data from business and civil society, the Open Data Portal www.opendataportal.at, a first separate portal dedicated to data from business and civil society, has been available since 2014.

Illustration 31: Open Data Portal

Source: www.opendataportal.at [Download: 15 July 2016]

62 13.09.2016

OUTLOOK

A further aspect is that the government can also have a regulating effect on companies. It is thus conceivable to put in place provisions or incentives requiring companies to publish a part of the databases they collect as Open Data. For instance, the collection of data from customer cards (supermarkets, retail), is often criticised by data privacy specialists. Rules and regulations applying to the authorisation of the data applications could, e.g., require the publication of certain non-business relevant basic data without personal references. Mobile phone providers or car repair workshops continuously collect data that could be of interest to society (movement flows of cell phone owners, information from car computers that so far can only be read by repair workshops). Hence, regulations could be incorporated, in particular in approval procedures or funding applications, establishing that data generated in the course of approved/funded projects must be published in an open data portal.

1.2

Linked (Open) Data

Linked Data refers to well-structured, highly connective and syntactically interoperable datasets that are distributed across several repositories within an organisation or across organisations.

The Linked Open Data (LOD) pilot project Austria emulates examples in the USA, the EU, Great Britain or the Netherlands and realises a freely accessible Linked Open Data infrastructure for Austria based on available regional and national Open Government Data provided by data.gv.at or data.wien.gv.at, but also open non-government data provided by the Austrian Open Data Portal www.opendataportal.at. For this purpose, persistent URLs are specified that are based on the domains: linked.data.gv.at or linked.opendataportal.at. As a technical data format, Linked Data is already contained in the 5-Star System (see "Extended Five-Star System"). With the LOD pilot project, a re-usable infrastructure for Linked Open Data has now become available as well.

Illustration 32: Linked Open Data (LOD) Pilot Project Austria

Source: http://lodpilot.at [Download: 15 July 2016]

63 13.09.2016

OUTLOOK

1.3

Big Data

Big Data includes many different aspects, from the growing volume of heterogeneous data, the processing and analysis thereof in real time to the generation of knowledge and added value from data. The qualities are summarised in the four Vs to which Veracity (confidence in the data) and Visualization (visualization of data) are often added94.  Volume. Refers to the enormous increase of the existing volume of data in past years.

Often, up to petabytes of data are produced. The challenges are in the administration of this data and the efficient implementation of analyses using this database.  Variety. Various data sources are available in various formats and are often complex and unstructured. Data is often returned in different formats. This includes arbitrary data formats, structured data (such as relational data) to completely unstructured text. The challenge for applications is the flexible integration of data in a wide variety of different formats.  Velocity. Often data needs to be processed directly and results need to be available promptly. More and more sensory data is queried and generated that also needs to be analysed in real time for many different application purposes. This is a great challenge for applications.  Value. Value contains the goal of enabling the profitable use of data. Ultimately, data should also provide a certain added value to the company or organisation.

In chapter 1.7 "Measure: Establishing Data Governance" the importance of comprehensive data management is pointed out which provides a good foundation for the subject of Big Data.

Köhler/Meir-Huber (2014) have developed an implementation model for Big Data projects.

Illustration 33: Implementation Model for big data

Source: Köhler/Meir-Huber, 2014.

94

See Köhler/Meir-Huber: Big Data, 2014.

64 13.09.2016

OUTLOOK

1.4

Smart City and Smart Government

Smart City is a term that has been in use by various players in world of politics, business, administration, and city planning since the 2000s to summarise technology-based changes and innovation in urban areas. The Smart City idea goes hand in hand with the exploitation of digital technologies and also represents a reaction to the economic, social, and political challenges that post-industrial societies faced at the turn of the millennium. The focus in this context is how to deal with environmental pollution, demographic change, population growth, the financial crisis or resource scarcity. More broadly, the term also includes non-technical innovations that contribute to a better and more sustainable life in the city. This includes concepts like sharing (sharing economy) or of citizen participation in major construction projects.95 Smart City Wien refers to the development of a city that makes a priority of and drives the subjects of energy, mobility, buildings, and infrastructure in an interlinked fashion. The following premises apply96:  radical conservation of resources  high, socially balanced quality of life  development and productive use of innovations/new technologies As a result it becomes clear that the term Smart City originates from the areas of city planning and environment/resource conservation, while the concept of Open Government developed from a modern understanding of Public Management and Governance (see chapter 4.3 "Measure: Ensuring sustainability and public value"). Hence, these concepts are highly compatible and complement each other. From the Public Management perspective, the Smart City agenda tends to answer the question of what should be managed (quality of life, resources, innovation), while Open Government delivers less of an agenda of concepts, but is more generally focused on how to govern/administrate (transparent, participatory, collaborative).

Illustration 34: Relationship between Open Government and Smart City

97

Source: Krabina, 2015. Lecture "Kompetenzen einer offenen Stadt" .

95 96 97

See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_City [Download: 15 July 2016].

See Smart City Wien – Rahmenstrategie: https://smartcity.wien.gv.at/site/initiative/rahmenstrategie [Download: 15 July 2016].

See http://de.slideshare.net/krabina/kompetenzen-in-der-offenen-stadt-digital-business-trends-2015 [Download: 15 July 2016].

65 13.09.2016

OUTLOOK

Smart Government Not only does the evolution of the term to "Smart Government" steer the gaze away from cities to other administrative levels, it also places the focus squarely on the new technological possibilities of networked systems: "The starting point is the increasing intelligent networking of real and virtual objects, with which the phenomenon behind the term "smart" is best described. Objects equipped with sensors, actuators and microchips can communicate with each other and with people, utilised via apps and services and embedded into more complex systems, also known as cyberphysical systems. Hence, systems with intelligently networked real and virtual objects become self-controlling ecosystems that not only provide support with regard to information and analysis, but can also take on automation and control autonomously.“98

1.5

Data Analytics and Predictive Analytics

The constantly growing available volume of data opens up entirely new areas of application.

Business Intelligence or Business Analytics as superordinate concept for all forms of data analysis in companies is also increasingly finding entrance into the public sector. New York City counts on "data-driven analytics" to rise to the urban challenges.99 As a result, the effectiveness of official building inspections was increased significantly, because the city was able to "predict" the probability of the outbreak of fires by compiling different data and the inspectors began with the inspection of the buildings that presented the highest risk first.100

1.6

OpenX

The keyword "OpenX" is often used to categorize additional thematic fields that have also changed significantly in recent years and that will continue to change as the result of a new form of openness. The developments summarised here under Open Government are those that concern politics and administration. Likewise, however, many other thematic fields are also directly influenceable by government action and should therefore be considered in detail in the course of Open Government initiatives. The public sector can exert considerable influence in these thematic fields in multiple ways:  Open Source: generation, distribution, and utilization of free and open source software  Open Science: opening the scientific process from the initial research to the final publication and making it freely available to all, e.g. free access to scientific literature (Open Access), free study and educational materials with an open licence (Open Educational Resources)  Open Design/Open Hardware: hardware or other physical products made according to free construction plans  OpenGLAM: "Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums"  Open Innovation/Open Business Models: open innovation and business models.

Here, the public sector can act as a promoter of open innovation approaches in business.

In a somewhat shortened form, it can be represented that the application of Open Innovation for the public sector itself is comparable to Open Government.

98

See Lucke: Smart Government, 2015.

See www.mikebloomberg.com/news/expanding-the-use-of-data-analytics-in-city-governments [Download: 15 July 2016].

100 See www.governing.com/blogs/bfc/preemptive-government-cross-agency-data-prevent-problems.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

99

66 13.09.2016

OUTLOOK

1.7

Further information

Open Business Data 

Open Data Portal: www.opendataportal.at

Linked (Open) Data  

Linked Open Data (LOD) Pilot project Austria: http://lodpilot.at Linked Open Data: The Essentials. A Quick Start Guide for Decision Makers: www.semantic-web.at/de/news/swc-publishes-linked-open-data-essentials-book

Big Data    

Projektgruppe Big Data Österreich: http://reference.e-government.gv.at/BigData.3364.0.html Study: "#Big Data in #Austria Österreichische Potenziale und Best Practice für Big Data": www.bmvit.gv.at/service/publikationen/innovation/downloads/big_data_in_austria.pdf Big Data: www.smart-data-programm.de Big Data: www.oeffentlicheit.de/publikationen?doc=14702&title=Big+Data+ungehobene+Sch%C3%A4tze+oder+digit aler+Albtraum

Smart City and Smart Government     

Smart City Wien: https://smartcity.wien.gv.at Smart Cities Initiative: www.smartcities.at Digital City Wien: https://digitalcity.wien White paper on Smart Government: www.zu.de/institute/togi/assets/pdf/ZU-150914SmartGovernment-V1.pdf Trend report on Smart Government: www.daten.effizienterstaat.eu/trendreport_2016.pdf

Data Analytics and Predictive Analytics  

Examples of data analytics: http://datalook.io/#projects OECD: Rebooting Public Service Delivery: www.oecd.org/gov/digitalgovernment/rebooting-public-service-delivery.htm

OpenX        

Open Source Observatory: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor Open Source Directory: www.ossdirectory.com Why Open Source Software Matters for Government and Civic Tech: http://rufuspollock.org/open-source-software-and-government/ Open Science: http://okfn.at/themen/open-science/ and www.openscience.or.at Open GLAM: http://openglam.org Open Innovation: http://openinnovation.net Open innovation initiative of the Austrian federal government: http://openinnovation.gv.at Co-Creation Lab Vienna as an initiative of the Vienna Business Agency to promote cocreation and open innovation in companies based in Vienna: https://wirtschaftsagentur.at

67 13.09.2016

ANNEX

Annex 1

Abbreviations

API Application Programming Interface.

CC BY 3.0 AT Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Austria (CC BY 3.0 AT), see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/at/deed.de.

CKAN Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network, see http://ckan.org.

CSV Comma-separated values, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180.

EU/EG European Union/European Community.

GML Geography Markup Language, see www.opengeospatial.org/standards/gml.

GPX GPS Exchange Format, see www.topografix.com/gpx.asp.

ICT Information and Communications Technology.

ISO International Organization for Standardization, see www.iso.org.

JPEG Joint Photographic Experts Group, see www.jpeg.org.

KML Keyhole Markup Language, see http://code.google.com/apis/kml/documentation/kmlreference.html.

LAU Local Administrative Units, see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/local_admi nistrative_units.

LOD Linked Open Data, see www.lodpilot.at.

NUTS Nomenclature des unitĂŠs territoriales statistiques (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics), see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction..

OG Open Government.

OGD Open Government Data.

PNG Portable Network Graphics, see www.libpng.org/pub/png/.

PSI Public Sector Information.

RDF Resource Description Framework, see www.w3.org/RDF/.

RSS Really Simple Syndication, see www.rssboard.org/rss-specification.

SAGA Standards and Architectures for e-Government Applications see www.cio.bund.de/DE/Standards/SAGA/saga_node.html.

SVG Scalable Vector Graphics, see www.w3.org/TR/SVG/.

URI Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is an identifier composed of a sequence of characters that serve to identify an abstract or physical resource.

W3C World Wide Web Consortium, see www.w3.org.

WCAS Web Catalogue Service, see www.opengeospatial.org/standards/specifications/catalog.

WFS Web Feature Service, seewww.opengeospatial.org/standards/wfs.

WMS Web Map Service, see www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wms.

WMTS Web Map Tile Service, see www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wmts.

68 13.09.2016

ANNEX

2

List of Illustrations

Illustration 1: Open Government Implementation Model ................................................................. 4 Illustration 2: Open Government Implementation Model ................................................................. 8 Illustration 3: Delimitation of Participation 2.0 in the Six-Stage Policy Cycle .................................. 9 Illustration 4: Measures in Stage 0 ................................................................................................. 10 Illustration 5: Measures in Stage 1 ................................................................................................. 18 Illustration 6: Creating a data catalogue ........................................................................................ 19 Illustration 7: Data categories in OGD portals................................................................................ 20 Illustration 8: Data protection check protocol ................................................................................. 25 Illustration 9: Example of a data catalogue incl. evaluation and stage planning ........................... 30 Illustration 10: Data Governance role model.................................................................................. 33 Illustration 11: Open Government Data Stage Model .................................................................... 35 Illustration 12: OGD Cockpit ........................................................................................................... 36 Illustration 13: OGD Cockpit of the Federal State of Brandenburg................................................ 36 Illustration 14: Measures in Stage 2 ............................................................................................... 39 Illustration 15: Implementation Model for the social media strategy .............................................. 41 Illustration 16: wien.team: internal social network of the city of Vienna ........................................ 42 Illustration 17: Examples of groups in wien.team .......................................................................... 42 Illustration 18: The collaborative intranet of the city of Vienna ...................................................... 43 Illustration 19: Social Media Lifecycle ............................................................................................ 44 Illustration 20: Informative, consultative, cooperative participation projects.................................. 45 Illustration 21: Online consultation guideline.................................................................................. 45 Illustration 22: The E-Participation Ladder ..................................................................................... 46 Illustration 23: Social media user types ......................................................................................... 48 Illustration 24: Measures in Stage 3 ............................................................................................... 51 Illustration 25: Collaboration tools .................................................................................................. 52 Illustration 26: TosiT - Toolbox for Open Societal Innovation ........................................................ 52 Illustration 27: Decision tree for the use of collaboration tools ...................................................... 53 Illustration 28: Measures in Stage 4 ............................................................................................... 57 Illustration 29: Open State .............................................................................................................. 59 Illustration 30: OGD Implementation Model: Overall View ............................................................ 61 Illustration 31: Open Data Portal .................................................................................................... 62 Illustration 32: Linked Open Data (LOD) Pilot Project Austria ....................................................... 63 Illustration 33: Implementation Model for big data ......................................................................... 64 Illustration 34: Relationship between Open Government and Smart City ..................................... 65

69 13.09.2016

ANNEX

3

List of Tables

Table 1: Elements of a social media guideline............................................................................... 12 Table 2: Criteria for Internal Data Monitoring ................................................................................. 24 Table 3: Ten principles of Open Government Data ....................................................................... 26 Table 4: Extended Five-Star System ............................................................................................. 28 Table 5: Data Standards ................................................................................................................ 28 Table 6: Model of a stage plan ....................................................................................................... 29 Table 7: Maturity Model for Metadata Management ...................................................................... 31 Table 8: Organisation models for social media .............................................................................. 40 Table 9: Questions on each step to effective participation ............................................................ 47 Table 10: Types of collaboration projects ...................................................................................... 55

70 13.09.2016

ANNEX

4

References

Arbter, Kerstin: Praxisbuch Partizipation - Gemeinsam die Stadt entwickeln. MA 18 – Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung, Wien 2012. Online in: www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/partizipation/praxisbuch.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

Banner, Gerhard 1998: Kommunale Verwaltungsmodernisierung zwischen Bürgerschaft, Markt und Staat, in: Landeszentrale für politische Bildung 4/98, p. 179-186 Bauer, Helfried; Dearing, Elisabeth: Public Management und Governance: Globale Konzepte im nationalen Kontext. In: Bauer, Helfried; Biwald, Peter; Dearing, Elisabeth (publisher) Gutes Regieren. Konzepte – Realisierungen – Perspektiven, Vienna, Graz 2011, p. 27-87.

Biwald, Peter: Ganzheitliche Steuerung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. In: Bauer, Helfried; Biwald, Peter; Dearing, Elisabeth (publisher) Public Governance – Öffentliche Aufgaben gemeinsam erfüllen und effektiv steuern, Vienna, Graz 2005, p. 153-173.

Biwald, Peter; Hochholdinger, Nikola; Schantl, Alexandra; Fian, Tabea: Der Public Value des Wiener Gemeindebaus. Der Beitrag des Wiener Gemeindebaus zum gesellschaftlichen und sozialen Zusammenhalt in Wien. Eine Studie im Auftrag von Wiener Wohnen June 2014, Blumauer, Andreas: Open Government Data publizieren - ein Leitfaden. Online in: www.semantic-web.at/de/news/open-government-data-publizieren-ein-leitfaden [Download: 15 July 2016].

Bovaird, Tony; Löffler, Elke; Downe, James: Co-Production of Public Services and Policies: The Role of Emerging Technologies. In: Gøtze, Pedersen, John Bering: State of the eUnion – Government 2.0 and Onwards. 2009.

CSC: Unbekannte Gewässer – Zum Stand von Open Data in Europa. 2011. Online in: http://assets1.csc.com/de/downloads/CSC_policy_paper_series_01_2011_unbekannte_gewaess er_stand_open_data_europa_Deutsch.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Cooperation OGD Austria: Rahmenbedingungen für Open Government Documents. White Paper 2014. http://reference.egovernment.gv.at/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Open_Government_Documents_1_0__3 _.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Cooperation OGD Austria: Gegenüberstellung der OGD Metadaten Österreich, Deutschland und Schweiz, 2015. www.data.gv.at/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/Gegenueberstellung_MDS_DACH.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Data-Pop Alliance: Beyond Data Literacy - Reinventing Community Engagement and Empowerment in the Age of Data. September 2015. Online in: https://datatherapy.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/beyond-data-literacy-2015.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Eckert, Klaus-Peter; Flügge, Matthias; Gauch, Stephan: Open Data Analytics as a Service.

Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems FOKUS, 2014. Online in: http://opendata.fokus.fraunhofer.de/projects/od-analytics-as-a-service [Download: 15 July 2016].

Gislason, Hjalmar: Tim Berners-Lee’s missing star. In: DataMarket Blog, 2012. Online in: http://blog.datamarket.com/2012/05/25/tim-berners-lees-missing-star-2 [Download: 15 July 2016].

71 13.09.2016

ANNEX

Hamburg: Social Media in der Hamburgischen Verwaltung. Hinweise, Rahmenbedingungen und Beispiele. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Finanzbehörde. Abteilung für E-Government und ITSteuerung, Referat E-Government- und IT-Strategie. Hamburg 2012. Online in: www.hamburg.de/contentblob/2882174/data/social-media-in-der-hamburgischen-verwaltung.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Herringer, Norbert: Stichwort Empowerment. In: Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge (pub.): Fachlexikon der sozialen Arbeit. 6th edition, Berlin 2006; abridged version in 7th edition, Berlin 2011, p. 232-233. Online in: www.empowerment.de/materialien.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

Hilgers, Dennis: Open Government. Theoretische Bezüge und konzeptionelle Grundlagen einer neuen Entwicklung in Staat und öffentlichen Verwaltungen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, volume 82, issue 6, p. 631-660 Gabler 2012. DOI=10.1007/s11573-012-0571-2 Höchtl, Johann; Landler, Clara; Parycek, Peter; Schossböck, Judith: Evaluation der Umsetzung der OGD Strategie der Stadt Wien. Centre for E-Governance, Danube University Krems, Krems, 2012. Online in: https://open.wien.gv.at/site/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2013/06/ogdevaluierung.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

ISA – Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations: Towards Open Government Metadata. 2011, Online in: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/24/4c/14/ towards_open_government_metadata_0.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Jann, Werner; Wegrich, Kai: Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse. Der Policy Cycle. In: Schubert, Klaus; Bandelow, Nils (publisher): Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse. Munich: Oldenburg. (Lehrund Handbücher der Politikwissenschaft), p. 71-104.

Janssen, Marijn; Charalabidis, Yannis; Zuiderwijk, Anneke: Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management (ISM), vol. 29, no. 4, pp.

258-268. Online in: http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:952c8b0e-c55e-4443-9b41-14c38806a840 [Download: 15 July 2016].

Kalampokis, Evangelos; Tambouris, Efthimios; Tarabanis, Konstantinos: Open Government Data: A Stage Model. In: M. Janssen et al.: EGOV 2011, p. 235–246, 2011. Online in: www.researchgate.net/publication/225146176_Open_Government_Data_A_Stage_Model [Download: 15 July 2016].

Kaltenböck, Martin; Thurner, Thomas (publisher): Open Government Data Weißbuch. Online in: https://issuu.com/semwebcomp/docs/ogd_weissbuch_2011_web [Download: 15 July 2016].

Klessmann, Jens; Denker, Philipp; Schieferdecker, Ina; Schulz, Sönke E.: Open Government Data Deutschland. Eine Studie zu Open Government in Deutschland im Auftrag des Bundesministerium des Innern. German Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2012. Online in: www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/OED_Verwaltung/ModerneVerwaltung/op engovernment.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Koop, Alexander: Leitfaden Online-Konsultation. Praxisempfehlungen für die Einbeziehung der Bürgerinnen und Bürger über das Internet, Bertelsmann Stiftung 2010. Online in: www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/leitfaden-online-konsultation/ [Download: 15 July 2016].

Kostner, Andrea; Rederer, Michael; Rumpl, Waltraud: Soziale Medien in der Stadt Wien. In: Prorok, Thomas; Krabina, Bernhard: Offene Stadt. Wie BürgerInnenbeteiligung, 72 13.09.2016

ANNEX

BürgerInnenservice und soziale Medien Politik und Verwaltung Verändern. Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Vienna 2012.

Köhler, Martin; Mario Meir-Huber: #Big Data in #Austria. Österreichische Potenziale und Best Practice für Big Data. Online in: www.bmvit.gv.at/service/publikationen/innovation/downloads/big_data_in_austria.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Krabina, Bernhard: Open Government und Public Governance 2.0, In: Helfried Bauer, Peter Biwald, Elisabeth Dearing (publisher): Gutes Regieren. Konzepte, Realisierungen, Perspektiven, NWV 2011.

Krabina, Bernhard: Open Government als Beitrag zur Verwaltungsmodernisierung. Forum Public Management 04/2010. Online in: www.kdz.eu/de/open-government-verwaltungsmodernisierung [Download: 15 July 2016].

Krabina, Bernhard: Soziale Medien: Ein Überblick aus Sicht des öffentlichen Sektors. Forum Public Management 04/2012. Online in: www.kdz.eu/de/soziale-medien-ein-%C3%BCberblickaus-sicht-des-%C3%B6ffentlichen-sektors [Download: 15 July 2016].

Krabina, Bernhard: The E-Participation Ladder – Advancing from Unawareness to Impact Participation. CeDEM16: International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2016.

Online in: www.researchgate.net/publication/303371027_The_E-Participation_Ladder__Advancing_from_Unawareness_to_Impact_Participation [Download: 15 July 2016].

Ministry of Life (Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and the Austrian Federal Chancellery): Standards of Public Participation – practical guide. Vienna, 2011 Online in: www.partizipation.at/standards_oeb.html [Download: 15 July 2016].

Lebhart, Gustav; Jörg, Wolfgang; Hartmann, Gerhard; Rederer, Michael; Wimberger, Sindre: Data Governance im Magistrat der Stadt Wien. November 2013.

Lee, Gwanhoo; Kwak, Young Hoon; An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement. IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2011. Online in: www.businessofgovernment.org/report/open-government-implementation-model-movingincreased-public-engagement [Download: 15 July 2016].

Lee, Gwanhoo; Kwak, Young Hoon: An Open Government Maturity Model for Social MediaBased Public Engagement. Government Information Quarterly, October 2012. Online in: www.researchgate.net/publication/257244350_An_Open_Government_Maturity_Model_for_Soci al_Media-Based_Public_Engagement [Download: 15 July 2016].

Li, Charlene; Bernoff, Josh: Groundswell. Winning in a world transformed by social technologies.

Boston/Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing. 2008 Linders, Dennis: We-Government - An Anatomy of Citizen Coproduction in the Information Age. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, p. 167-176. ACM New York, 2011. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2037556.2037581 [Download: 15 July 2016].

Lucke, Jörn von; Geiger, Christian P.: Open Government Data - Frei verfügbare Daten des öffentlichen Sektors, Deutsche Telekom AG, 3 December 2010. Online in: www.zu.de/deutsch/lehrstuehle/ticc/TICC-101203-OpenGovernmentData-V1.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

73 13.09.2016

ANNEX

Lucke, Jörn von: Smart Government. Wie uns die intelligente Vernetzung zum Leitbild "Verwaltung 4.0" und einem smarten Regierungs- und Verwaltungshandeln führt. Whitepaper September 2015. Online in: www.zu.de/institute/togi/assets/pdf/ZU-150914-SmartGovernmentV1.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Lucke, Jörn von: Open Government Collaboration. Offene Formen der Zusammenarbeit beim Regieren und Verwalten. Online in: www.zu.de/deutsch/lehrstuehle/ticc/JvL-121025OpenGovernmentCollaboration-V1.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Lucke, Jörn von; Große, Katharina: Harnessing the Potential of IT-enabled Collaboration - A Classification for Open Government Collaboration, in: Parycek, P. and Edelmann, N. (publisher): CeDEM14 - Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Edition Danube University Krems, Krems (Austria) 2014, p. 219 - 229. ISBN: 978-3-902505-35-4.

May, John; Leo, Hannes; Taudes, Alfred: Evaluation of E-Participation Efficiency with Biodiversity Measures - the Case of the Digital Agenda Vienna. Cedem2015. Online in: http://epub.wu.ac.at/4479/1/Final_version.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

May, John: Practitioner’s Guide to calculating the efficiency of a consultation or engagement process. Online in: www.dropbox.com/s/sztcm4xz70l902u/Calculating%20Effective%20Number%20of%20Issues.ppt x [Download: 15 July 2016].

Mergel, Ines; Müller, Philipp S.; Parycek, Peter; Schulz, Sönke E.: Praxishandbuch Soziale Medien in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Wie Bürger und ihre Verwaltungen über Soziale Medien kommunizieren können. Springer VS 2013. DOI=10.1007/978-3-658-00746-1 Meynhardt, Timo: Public Value - oder: was heißt Wertschöpfung zum Gemeinwohl? dms - der moderne staat, 2, 457-468, 2009.

Müller, Philipp: machiavelli.net: Strategie für unsere offene Welt. Scoventa, 2012.

Müller, Philipp: Offene Staatskunst - Bessere Politik durch »Open Government«?, Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory, 2010. Online in: www.open3.at/wpcontent/uploads/IGCollaboratoryAbschlussbericht2OffeneStaatskunstOkt2010.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Noveck, Beth Simone: Smart Citizens, Smarter State. The Technologies of Expertise and the Future of Governing. 2015 Noveck, Beth Simone: Wiki Government. How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Maryland, 2009.

OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing.

Online in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en [Download: 15 July 2016].

Prorok, Thomas; Krabina, Bernhard: Offene Stadt. Wie BürgerInnenbeteiligung, BürgerInnenservice und soziale Medien Politik und Verwaltung Verändern. Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Vienna 2012.

Rathje, Stefanie: Kooperationskompetenz – Cooperation Competence - Toolbox zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit in internationalen Kooperationen, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh, 2008, ISBN 978-3-86793-007-9

74 13.09.2016

ANNEX

Schulz, Sönke E.: Social Media Guidelines. Web 2.0 in der deutschen Verwaltung. ISPRAT 2012.

Online in: www.isprat.net/fileadmin/user_upload/ISPRATBuch_SMG_alle_Seiten_zur_Ansicht.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Stieglitz, Stefan; Meske, Christian: Maßnahmen für die Einführung unternehmensinterner Social Media. In: HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, October 2012, issue 287, p. 36-43.

DOI=10.1007/BF03340735 Tapscott, Don: Government 2.0: Rethinking Government and Democracy for the Digital Age. In Gøtze, John; Pedersen, Christian Bering: State of the eUnion – Government 2.0 and Onwards.

2009.

Tapscott, Don; Williams, Anthony D.: Wikinomics – die Revolution im Netz. Munich, 2007.

Transparency and Accountability Initiative: Opening Government. A guide to best practice in transparency, accountability and civic engagement across the public sector. 2011. Online in: www.transparency-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Opening-Government.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Treverton, Gregory F.: New Tools for Collaboration. The Experience of the U.S. Intelligence Community. In: CSIS Strategic Technologies Program, 2016. Online in: http://csis.org/files/publication/160111_Treverton_NewTools_Web.pdf [Download: 15 July 2016].

Ullrich, Thomas W.: Wer bloggt ist nicht unbedingt in online Social Networks aktiv. 2010. Online in: www.webosoph.de/2010/09/10/wer-bloggt-ist-nicht-unbedingt-in-online-social-networks-aktivserie-soziologie-und-typologien-der-web-2-0-nutzer-teil-3-von-7 [Download: 15 July 2016].

Ullrich, Thomas W.: Internet Nutzertypologien im Überblick. 2011. Online in: www.webosoph.de/2011/07/14/uberblick-internet-nutzertypologien-web-2-0-nutzertypologienserie-soziologie-und-typologien-der-web-2-0-nutzer-teil-4-von-7 [Download: 15 July 2016].

Välikangas, Liisa: The Resilient Organization – How Adaptive Cultures Thrive Even When Strategy Fails. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2010 Voss, Angi; Schönert, Maurice: Studie: Open Government Data für Kommunen im Kontext von INSPIRE und Linked Open Data. Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems, 2012.

W3C, (World Wide Web Consortium): Publishing Open Government Data. Online in: www.w3.org/TR/gov-data [Download: 15 July 2016].

75 13.09.2016

KDZ Centre for Public Administration Research Guglgasse 13, A-1110 Vienna T: +43 1 892 34 92-0 institut@kdz.or.at · www.kdz.or.at

Chief Executive Office of the City of Vienna Group Process Management and ICT Strategy Rathausstraße 8, A-1010 Vienna T: +43 1 4000-75023 open@post.wien.gv.at · www.wien.gv.at · open.wien.gv.at