-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
1/82
Open Data: Public and Private sectorapproaches
Judith Carr
Birmingham City University
MSc
2014
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
2/82ii
Open Data: Public and Private Sector approaches.How far are both sectors considering Shakespeare
Reviews Recommendation 9 and what are the barriers asregards technology, culture and change?
JUDITH CARR
In partial fulfilment for the degree of
Master of Science
May 2014
Birmingham City UniversityFaculty of Technology Engineering and the Environment
1stSupervisor: Dr J Bhogal2ndSupervisor: Dr C Evans
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
3/82iii
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation was to explore the relationship between open datapolices and public sector procurement in the UK, using Recommendation 9 of the
Shakespeare Review as reference. The literature review identified key issues and
barriers involved in the implementation of an open data policy and highlighted the added
complexity the relationship between the public and private sectors brings to the concept
of 'open by default' and the open data value chain.
Primary research was carried out, in the form of an e-mail survey to assess local
authority engagement with the inclusion of an open data policy in the procurement
process, together with a series of unstructured interviews to identify operational
issues/barriers. The results were analysed and compared with the literature review and
specific case studies.
Analysis showed that as yet there is little consideration of this added dimension to open
data initiatives outside central government policy documents. That the implementation
of this additional complexity as well as an open data strategy as a whole depended
more on culture and control within and between organisations and the context, rather
than technology. Initial questions were formulated for organisations to consider when
contemplating the adoption of an open data policy and opportunities for further research
identified.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
4/82iv
Acknowledgments
Thank you to all the people who took time to answer my questions and talk to me,
sometimes at length, about open data, without whom this paper would not have taken
shape.
Thank you to my family and friends for listening and supporting me through the research
and writing up and throughout my postgraduate studies.
Thanks also to my supervisors, Jagdev and Cain for encouraging my enthusiasm for the
subject.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
5/82v
Table of contents
Page
List of figures 1
List of tables 1
Chapter 1 2
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Shakespeare Review 5
Chapter 28
2.1 Open DataWhat and How 8
2.2 Open DataWhy 10
2.3 Open Dataopening up process 14
2.4 OpenHow far 19
2.5 OpenThats all context and provenance 20
2.6 OpenCultural dimension 21
2.7 OpenResources, feedback and risk 24
2.8 OpenAnonymisation and misuse 25
Chapter 3 28
3.1 Methodology 27
3.2 Method 30
3.3 Data collection 30
Chapter 4 35
4.1 Analysis of e-mail responses 35
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
6/82vi
4.2 Analysis of interviewskey themes 37
Chapter 5 44
5.1 Local Government analysis 45
5.2 Interview analysis, literature review, casestudies
44
5.3 Guidelinesopening questions 48
Chapter 6 Conclusion 50
References 53
Bibliography 58
Appendices
1 Summary of Recommendations 1 to 8 59
2 5 Star Data 60
3 i Definition of OpenOpen Source 61
3 ii Details of Licences 62
4 Table of Barriers 63
5 Definitions 64
6 Adapted value chain 66
7 Questions e-mail survey 67
8 Project Proposal 68
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
7/821
List of figures
Page
1 Recommendation 9 5
2 Definition of good data 8
3 Value ChainPSI 16
4 Ecosystem 18
List of tables
1 Features of Qualitative Research 29
2 Method and Description of unstructured interviews. 38
3 Questions when considering open data strategy 49
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
8/822
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction
The Open Knowledge Foundation (founded in 2004) defines open data as
data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone subject only, at
most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike (Okfn.org, 2014).
According to the World Bank, data is open if it satisfies the following conditions:
Techn ical ly o pen:available in a machine-readable standard format, which means it
can be retrieved and meaningfully processed by a computer application
Legal ly open:explicitly licensed in a way that permits commercial and non-commercial
use and re-use without restrictions
(Data.worldbank.org, 2014)
Clearly there are two main elements to the concept of 'open data,'open' and 'data'. The
concept of open referencedby the World Bank would mean at its most elemental form,
information that can be used without repercussions (copyright or patents). In this sense,
it is not bound by technology but more by social, economic, cultural and legal
parameters. 'Data' on the other hand, is almost universally used as a technological
term, as in information kept and reproduced in digital form, liberated by being accessible
via the Internet/World Wide Web. However, data is not information; in disciplines such
as Information Science, it is defined as unprocessed information (Hey 2004).
This concept of data as a resource that can be used to create information, which in turn
can help society, governments, the public, companies, in some way, is at the very centre
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
9/823
of the push to make such data available. This data can be used as part of the DIKW
(data, information, knowledge, wisdom) chain to create value (Hey 2004).
Chignard (2013) in his 'Brief History of Open Data' states that the concept of opening up
information has its origins in the sociology of science and the theories of R K Merton.
The Royal Society in its Science as an Open Enterprise report of 2012 (Boulton et al.,
2012), suggests that it goes even further back in history to the printing press, when
scientists took to printing their theories and research, making 'data' more widely
available and open. For example, Henry Oldenburg, who pioneered printing scientific
treaties, peer reviewing and sharing information, inviting people, even laymen, to write
to him and refusing to publish in Latin, (Boulton et al., 2012).
Whatever the origins of the concept of openness, it cannot be denied that until the rise
in the use of digital technology it remained relatively costly to gather, analyse, interpret
and communicate large amounts of data or information. The Internet, has contributed to
the increase in data and provides the ability to share and store greater amounts through
cloud services (appendix 5). Social media networks allow greater access to information,
and facilitate richer dialogues with customers. In the future the internet of things(appendix 5) and the internet of services (appendix 5) will be part of our everyday
interactions and create even more data. The Internet is seen as both a communicator
and a generator.
If some see the first wave of 'openness' as the creation of the printing press (Tapscott
and Williams, 2010) many now cite the rise of 'the digital age' with the increasing growth
of data accessible via the Internet, the ability to connect data and people, coupled with
new abilities to store, manipulate (mine) large quantities of data and access connections
and patterns, as the second wave.
This openness has potential to contribute to the political agenda of many countries, that
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
10/824
of more open and transparent government. The potential lies in creating new and
innovative markets in the re-use and application of data or highlighting efficiencies that
can be made integrating new processes, contributing to the much sought after
economic growth needed to move out of recession. Open data is part of the process to
make governments more transparent and accountable, to engage and involve citizens
and counter corruption, (Open Government Partnership, 2014).
The UK, along with the USA, is at the forefront of the Open Data Movement with the
creation of the flagship Data.Gov.UK website, launched in 2010 that to date holds
17,854 datasets. Since the launch of Data.Gov.UK, the UK Government has not been
slow in pushing its agenda. After publishing the Open Data White PaperUnleashing
the Potential in 2012,(Great Britain. Cabinet Office and Paymaster General,2012) the
Government commissioned an independent review of Public Sector Information (PSI,
government data that could potentially be open). This was called the Shakespeare
Review,(Great Britain. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, (Shakespeare)
2013), published in May 2013.
Shakespeare made 9 recommendations, all of which were accepted by theGovernment,(Great Britain. Cabinet Office, 2013).
Public Sector Information is seen as being generated by public bodies, central or local
government. However, Recommendation 9 (Shakespeare, 2013), recognises that the
public sector does not work in isolation from the private sector. It is this
recommendation and its implications which frame the basis of this dissertation.
1.2 The Shakespeare Review
The Shakespeare Review (Shakespeare, 2013), was accompanied by an additional
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
11/825
report MarketAssessment of Public Sector information compiled by Deloitte for the
Department of Business Innovation and Skills, (Department for Business Innovation and
Skills, (BIS) 2013).
Recommendations 1 to 8 are summarised in appendix 1. This paper looks at
Recommendation 9 (figure 1 below), as the basis of a review of the concept of open
data in relation to public and private sector organisations.
Although in the UK, the Government is the major force in pushing the 'open data' and
'transparency' agendas forward; the private sector also uses and produces data.
Recommendation 9 clearly lays out the complex relationship between both sectors
when considering open data. Previous reports such as the Open Data White Paper
(Great Britain. Cabinet Office and Paymaster General,2012), focused only on the
potential of the information, the uses that it could be put to and the hopefully resultant
economic growth and benefits.
The Shakespeare review (Shakespeare, 2013), highlighted another development in
respect of the opening up of PSI - where the private sector uses open data, or is
actually creating such data because of a public/private partnership, then surely there is
an assumption that there should be re-sharing and/or opening up of their data.
Figure 1: Recommendation 9
'We should develop a model of a 'mixed economy' of public data so that everyone can
benefit from some forms of two-way sharing between the public and the commercial
sectors.
Where there is a clear public interest in wide access to privately generated data, then
there is a strong argument for transparency (for example in publishing all trials ofnew medicines). As the Royal Societys Science as an Open Enterprise report sets outthis warrants careful consideration in each case so that legitimate boundaries of
openness are respected. For example, data could be made public after intellectual
property has been secured or after a particular product has been launched. Wherethe data relates to a particularly and immediate public safety issue, it should be
published openly as soon as possible
A company working with government should be willing to share information about
activity in public-private partnerships, as information about activity in public-private partnerships held by private companies is not currently subject to theFreedom of Information Act. This could be greatly enhanced without the need for
legislation by creating a field in procurement forms asking for the companys open
data olic re ardin the sou ht contract'
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
12/826
Recommendation 9 (Shakespeare, 2013), brings into focus that there is no clear
delineation between what private and public sector organisations do as regards
generating PSI, even if their strategic aims and objectives may differ. As a recent report
for Institute of Government Making public service markets work states:
Government is now rarely the sole provider of publicly-funded services. Today, roughly
1 in every 3 that government spends on public services goes to independent
providers.(Institute for Government, 2013, p. 4).
The UK Governments acceptance of the Shakespeare Review (Shakespeare, 2013),
brings into question how such a concept is to be introduced. The aim, of this
dissertation is to undertake an initial exploration of the implications of this on future
policies and processes of both sectors, rather than consider them in isolation. It will
show how this adds complexity to the concept/innovation/philosophy of open data. The
question is how far are both sectors considering this recommendation, and what are the
barriers as regards technology, culture and change?
The objectives are:
To undertake a literature review on 'open data'
To discuss the relationship between technology, the information
economy and open data.
To identify where the open data movement sits in relation to the information
economy and other 'data initiatives'.
To analyse the rationale behind the recommendation
To analyse and review the responses to interviews, discussions and Freedom of
Information requests and evaluate the initial impact of Recommendation 9.
To evaluate the term 'open' in relation to Recommendation 9
To produce guidelines for organisations to consider when implementing a open
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
13/827
data strategy
The remaining chapters will be structured as follows:-
Chapter 2- an overview of the basic principles of open data, a review of
literature regarding open data initiatives to date and issues surrounding
implementation of such initiatives
Chapter 3details the methodology behind the study and the research
Chapter 4- analysis of data
Chapter 5comparison and analysis of issues raised from research and two
cases studies, development of guidelines in form of questions to ask when
considering an open data strategy
Chapter 6conclusion and identification of further research.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
14/82
Chapter Two
2.1 OPEN DATAWhat and How
Open data is not data solely published/ released by government organisations. Any
data from any organisation - commercial, charitable, civic or semi-public, can also be
open data. Most importantly, open data is non personal data.
The Open Data Institute (ODI), a UK non-profit organisation set up to, 'catalyse the
evolution of open data culture to create economic, environmental, andsocial value'
(Theodi.org,2014b), states that the data should be available at no cost, with the
appropriate licence and goes further by describing what good open data is. Good
data...
Figure:2 Definition Good Data (Theodi.org.uk,2014a)
To be most useful, the data should be in a format such as XML, JSON or RDF.
However, many local authorities in the UK also publish data as CSV files.
The more accessible the data the better, as regards being open. There is a 5 star
scheme for Open Data, details of which can be found in appendix 2.
This scheme is used by the UK Government; the expectation is that all departmental
data will achieve at least 3 stars (Great Britain. Cabinet Office and Paymaster
General,2012).
By linking data (appendix 5), more data becomes accessible; it is easier to update
and combine data if links are already made. Unlinked data would require its own
specific search query, which could prove difficult and would certainly be time
consuming. Linking data increases the chance of a query or search success,
(Data.gov.uk, 2014 and Moore, 2010).
1. Can be linked to, so that it can be easily shared and talked about
2. Is available in a standard, structure format, so that is can be easily processed
3. Has guaranteed availability and consistency over time, so that others can rely on it
4. Is traceable, through any processing, right back to where it originates
(Theodi.org, 2014a)
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
15/82
Data is published or released under licence; data is not considered open unless it
has the appropriate license, (Theodi.org, 2014a). Such licenses recognise the user's
right to access and use the data freely, (Halonen, 2012). Appendix 3i and 3ii give
further details of the open definition/ philosophy behind the licencing of data and
details of the various creative commons licences. In the UK, the ODI has created a
certificate process for data, a process of self certification, with four kinds of
certificate, raw, pilot, standard and expert, (Certificates.theodi.org, 2014).
Open data is made available via an organisations website or via a platform such as
data.gov.uk or more local platforms such as DataGM (Greater Manchester). Data
can be published in a variety of forms, but as a data user, 3 stars plus is the bestoption - all the data should be machine readable with no particular propriety
software needed. Raw machine readable data does not limit the number of use
cases, but instead supports reusability (Braunschweig et al., 2012) .
There are three classes of open data platform as detailed by Braunschweig et al.,
(2012).
Link Collection - the most common type hosting a collection of links, data is
held by different data providers, less standardisation of metadata.
Download Catalogue - host the files as well, higher reusability enabled.
Integrated Databases- offer integrated datasets, 100% machine readable
but offers the least datasets available to look at in any way.
A platform is a digital repository of datasets, digital files of data, accessed via the
Internet and a web address. Platforms can be organised as either non-curated
platforms, run by communities and curated platforms, which are moderated and
usually run by a public or semi-public organisation, (Braunschweig et al., 2012).
The technology used to create open data is the same whatever type of organisation
wishes to open up.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
16/82
2.2 OPEN DATAWhy
Government/Public Sector
Open data enhances transparency and accountability. Yu and Robinson (2012) go so
far as to call it a:
powerfulforce. Raw data can now be analysed, processed and combined using
new technologies, which in turn allows for a new level of public scrutiny.'
In a recession, efficient government operations can save money. It is the idea oftransparency and accountability, coupled with potential economic growth that has
brought open data to the forefront of the UK and many other countries' digital
policies.
The origins of openness stem from philosophical ideals but Rufus Pollock's paper
'The Economics of Public Sector Information', (Pollock, 2008), is the much cited
influence on the economic push. The downstream value of opening up data that in
replication has a nil or marginal cost, is measured in billions,(Vickery, 2011, Newbery
and Bently et al., 2008, Pollock, 2008). Indeed, the 2013 report Market Assessment
of Public Sector Information(BIS, 2013), that accompanied the Shakespeare
Review, (Shakespeare, 2013), and informs the economic push in the UK, states that
including an aggregate figure for social value (appendix 5), it is estimated this figure
could be 6.2 billion a year, (BIS, 2013). A hard figure to ignore, as Huijboom and
Van Den Broek, (2011, pp. 1--13), state,most countries(European) legitimise their
policy on such studies.
The UK government sees itself at the forefront of the movement. As the host for the
2013 G8 conference, it oversaw the publication of a G8 Open Data Charter (Cabinet
Office, 2013), published 18th June 2013, stating open data is at the heart of a global
movement to, 'create more accountable, efficient, responsive, and effective
governments and businesses, and to spur economicgrowth'. The first principle of
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
17/82
the charter is 'open by default',(Cabinet Office, 2013).
The Shakespeare Review calls the concept of open data: radical new and
challenging policy approach,(Shakespeare, 2013). Gurstein calls the open data
movement, relatively new but very significant and potentially powerfulemerging
force,(Gurstein, 2011).
This fundamental shift in the relationship organisations (public) have with their data,
its ownership and its beneficiaries, has implications for many. Initial economic
studies have centred on the re-use value of PSI, outside the organisations that
produced the data (although there is increasing recognition that internal use of open
data creates value, see appendix 1 recommendation 8). This is, undoubtedly, as a
result of the economic climate where savings and efficiencies within the public sector
are of paramount importance and a government objective is to stimulate growth.
Opening up data, then, is an attractive proposition, as it has the potential to do both.
Notwithstanding that, there is a certain naivety in the assumption that everyone will
embrace the open data initiative because of this potential value as Jetzel and Avital
et al. (2013) state:
value generation happens through a complicated network of mechanisms where
public sector, private companies, civil society and citizens all contribute to the
transformation of OGD to value (Open Government Data).
This complexity makes such value judgments difficult. Halonen (2012) says there
are varying views as to whether the economic impacts have been clear yet,
especially as there is not only economic but social value to calculate. As Huijboon
and Van den Brook (2011) conclude:
many policy makers also recognise that the precise economic impact of open data
for their country, and specific sectors or organisations, remains largely unclear.
There was, and is now to an extent, a lack of further study in relation to valuing the
use of open data. The recent paper Generatingvalue from open government data
(Jetzel and Avital et al. 2013) asserts that:
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
18/82
the complexity of the open data landscape is blurring the boundaries between
economic markets and social networks, and the concept of economic and social
values will have to be re-thought, Jetzek et al ( 2013).
Additional complexity manifests itself through Recommendation 9 (Shakespeare
,2013). As citizens pay for the generation and upkeep of this data, they should be
able to benefit from its value (either directly as a first line data user or indirectly
through improved efficiencies, economic growth and social value). As the
Shakespeare review says:
Data that is derived from the activity of citizens must be seen as being at least co-
owned by them and returning value to them and thusA company working with
government should be willing to share information about activity in public-private
partnerships,(Shakespeare, 2013).
This has been given further credence with the publication of Statistics and Open
Data report by the PublicAdministration Select Committee (PASC, 2014). Tom
Steinberg, author of the influential The Power of Information in 2007, (Great Britain
Cabinet office, 2007), a major contributor to the debate regarding the influence of
technology on information and civic engagement, is quoted as saying:
Open data will only become widespread if its provision is tied to the procurement of
information systems. (PASC, 2014).
The ODI goes further, stating that the provision should be in every government
contract whether IT or not (PASC, 2014), a logical step, in parallel with the concept
of freedom of information. This could be implied through the use of licences, but it
has not until recently been considered when looking at data publication. This lack of
consideration for opening up private sector data originating from PSI re-use
businesses is further illustrated in the paper Eight Business ModelArchetypesfor
PSI Re-Use, (Ferro and Osella, 2013). The business models concentrate on data
elaboration and value proposition, but do not seem to consider there should be a
payback in terms of opening up the resultant data. For businesses based on open
source philosophy, this could be taken as a given, but this seems unlikely as it is a
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
19/82
new concept for some of the more traditional sectors that will be affected by such
requirements.
Commercial/Private sector
The value of openness and sharing is not confined to the concept of re-using PSI.
As a result of worldwide economic conditions there is a push to innovate and create
competitive advantage. The two underlying (as well as underused) assets that can
be harnessed for companies are data and intellectual property (IP). Collaborations
and the sharing of IP are increasingly seen as ways to create value; this does not
mean losing control, more a question of balancing the IP portfolio, (Tapscott and
Williams, 2010 p30). Data, the production of data via digital interactions, the trackingof devices and objects via sensors, and use of information systems has grown
exponentially over the last 5 -10 years and is set to increase further with the
development of the internet of thingsand the internet of services. Commercially,
data is part of the information assets of a company, although there is still some
debate over how to value information. This has lead to a new field called
infonomics, the economics of information. Leading technology consultancies now
offer advice on valuing the data an organisation holds (Searchcio.techtarget.com,
2013).
The private sector experiences the same constraints over budgets and need for
efficiencies as the public sector. Worldwide recession has meant companies have
had to search for new strategies to fertilise growth. This, coupled with a change in
the relationships organisations have with their customers through the rise in social
media and participation, has meant there is far more focus on sharing and openinnovation. According to Gartner's research:
'seeking competitive advantage through direct interactions with customers, partners
and suppliers, open data is the solution', (Gartner.com ref).
Rigby and Zook (2002, p88-93), argue to improve speed, cost and quality of
innovation, companies should open up their innovation borders to vendors,
customers and even competitors. This will increase, theimport and export of novel
ideas.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
20/82
However, they also say, 'The propensity foropen-market innovation varies across
industries', (Rigby and Zook, 2002, p88-93) and so it would with open data strategies
and public/private partnerships.
2.3 OPEN DATA - opening up process
When considering how and what is to be opened, Zuiderwijk et al., (2012) refer to
the open data process, open data being less a product, rather an on-going process
that encounters many socio-technical impediments, both human and technological.
Already, there can be seen a move away from the technology, the methods of how to
be open, to the more complex world of openness and sharing. Recent studies have
shown this by considering drivers, barriers, enablers and myths around opening up
data, Janssen et al. (2012), Van Veenstra and Van Den Broek, (2013) and Zuiderwijk
et al. (2012).
Jetzek and Avital et al. (2013) review of literature on re-use, found current literature
focuses mostly on the economic value of open data. They go on to say that opening
up government data has a disruptive aspect, emphasising the transformation from a
closed to an open interconnected world. Previously private companies and public
existed within their own administrative boundaries, and relations between them
are/were based on traditional market behaviour, rules and regulations, (Jetzek and
Avital et al. 2013).
When this relationship is changed, due to governments becoming open:
connections between the public and the private as well as economic and social
dimensions begin to emerge,(Jetzek and Avital et al, 2013).
They consider that to value open data, it must be viewed as multidimensional. Citing
Sarker et al (2012), Exploring value co-creation in relationships between an ERP
vendor and its partners: a revelatory case study. Such references to the
implementation of information systems is further validated by the statement
referenced earlier from Tom Steinberg, that, Open data will only become widespread
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
21/82
if its provision is tied to the procurement of information systems, (PASC, 2014).
The ubiquitous use of information systems within organisations is studied not only
from a technical view point but also from a people perspective. Open data initiatives
are a new phenomena, as Jetzek et al (2013) state, though the value generated by
opening up data (government data in particular), has been widely discussed by
public bodies and other stakeholders, little attention has been paid to this
phenomenon in academic literature.
The open data movement is complex, involving many participants from different
organisations; there may be insight to be gained from studying literature and case
studies on information systems implementation in microcosm. As Lassinantti (2013),
states, to acquire knowledge about people involved in process of developing an
information system (regardless of role) is seen as essential. A deeper understanding
of groups involved in the open data initiative will increase our knowledge.
Lassinantti (2013) compares the open data initiative with the implementation of an
information system; the construction of an information system in itself is a social act
and so, therefore, is the opening up process.
The participants, stakeholders and beneficiaries involved in open data are many,
making the landscape far larger than that of an organisation, even a global company.
The most recent literature from Janssen et al (2012), Zuiderwijk et al (2012) and
Martin (2013) look at the barriers and impediments in the opening up process. Allthree studies reviewed the current and as Zuiderwijk et al (2012) state, limited
literature, to compile their questionnaires. Zuiderwijk identifies 118 impediments,
Janssen 57 and Martin narrows down his from 70 to 33, many of the barriers are
similar depending on the perspective of a data publisher or data user point of view.
Huijboom and Van den Broek (2011), when comparing international strategies
identify ten high level barriers and although as Zuiderwijk et al (2012), comment that
barriers and impediments can change as, policies and infrastructures are created all
of these studies show that even though the barriers listed can be numerous,
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
22/82
examined from the different perspectives of data user and data publisher , all lie
within the three themes of people, processes and technology. Appendix 4 illustrates
this point further.
Reports and studies to date have concentrated on the process of opening up
government data and have considered the data user to a limited extent. This has its
drawbacks, Martin (2013), concludes that one of the limitations of his study was the
academic bias of his sample and that the open data community, itself, is hard to
identify. This situation is further facilitated when there is no feedback mechanism. If
you do not know who is using your data, you cannot fully identify the stakeholders
involved, how big the community is or who it is made up of?
This lack of feedback was considered to be a reason why user needs and
findability issues had not yet been considered by data publishers (Janssen et al.,
2012 ) and was highlighted by Halonen (2012), who quotes Worthy et al (2011) that,
data publishers simply do notknow who uses their data at the moment. True, this
relates to freedom of information requests, but is nevertheless apt.
Vickery (2011) in his review of the market for PSI in the European Union illustrates
the value chain for open data as show below in figure 2.
Figure 3: Value Chain PSI re-use (Vickery, 2001, OECD, 2006)
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
23/82
This in reality is a far too linear process and does not recognise the value of
feedback from various stakeholders involved, although it does show the pervading
role of technology.
Accepting the potential value of the final product this simplification does not
acknowledge the fact that no one organisation or cohesive partnership is in control of
the whole process. This is before the impact of having the private sector involved in
public/private partnerships. Appendix 6 adapts the value chain to show where
private and public sector organisations interact with the process. This in itself is still
simplified, as it does not show the nuanced relationships that have and would evolve
nor does it indicate where feedback would benefit the process. It does show the
emerging complexity, there are a lot of data flow arrows. AsDavies (2011), in his
paper Open Data. Infrastructure and Ecosystems states, open data initiatives
involve diverse stakeholders such as bureaucrats seeking policy innovation,
transparency activists, technologists with interest in the computerization of
government and companies seeking economic gain and involves people from across
the political spectrum.
Davies goes on to analyse the success and effectiveness of the International Aid
Transparency Initiative (a multilateral open data initiative), where there are incentives
to encourage data publishing to common standards and efforts have been made to
ensure tools are available to interpret and visualise the data published. This has led
to more political support and demand for further data and metadata, countering the
premise put forward by Robinson et al. (2008), that governments should focus solely
on the provision of datasets (Davies, 2011). Leading from this study, is the assertion
that inert publishing of data, without any peripheral activities will not yield the full
benefits so often promoted by the open data movement. This is substantiated by the
Jertzek et al study (2013), they state that the build it and they will come approach
will only succeed to a marginal extent unless other enabling factors are present.
These are openness, resource governance, capabilities and technical connectivity.
This was recognised by the Open Knowledge Foundation (anon profit organization
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
24/82
promoting open knowledge, including open content and open data) through one of
the founders, Rufus Pollocks blog in 2011,( Pollock, 2011) where he laid out the
disadvantages of a linear data processing model, showing why the ecosystem
approach is more beneficial. See figure 6 below.
Figure: 4 Ecosystem (Pollock, 2011
This ecosystem is somewhat simplistic as it does not consider the task of making the
source data available. However, the issues relating to the process are the same for
both data publishers and data users (an organisation can be both). The problems
and issues concerning openness and open government data apply to both public
and private sector organisations alike and the most important of these will be
considered in the final sections in this chapter.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
25/82
2.4 Openhow far?
The openness part of open data may, in the longer term, be deemed far more
important and difficult to adjust to; justifying a study of the socio technical issues
involved. The concept of being open in the context of the open data movement is
closely linked with the open source movement, (Chignard, 2013, Halonen 2012).
The open source way has risen out of the success of the open source movement,
which is unquestionably tied to the change in social structures around software
development and communities. As Neus and Scherf ( 2005, pp. 215--225,), state:
Asopen-source software becomes accepted worldwide, open-source collaboration
and development methods arealso gaining greater momentum.
There are five elements of the open source way; open exchange, participation,
rapid prototyping, meritocracy and community (opensource.com, 2014b). Neus and
Scherf (2005), further describe such collaboration as:
a meritocratic philosophy that invites feedback from everyone. Encourages testing,
feedback, and quick evolution of solutions.
But open exchange is not the same as open data. There are many instances where
sharing, joint ventures and collaborations result in benefits for those involved.
According to Henkel et al (2013) there is a growing field of literature that addresses
the, potential advantages of open innovation over closed innovation. Their study
shows the reasons for being open are for competitive advantage, the successful
strategy is selective openness,diametrically different from the open by default
policy adopted by the G8 charter and understandably so. This raises the question of
the goals and strategies of those involved. Evgeny Morozov in his book, To Save
Everything Click Here quotes Chris Kelty, (a UCLA anthropologist) that:
thereis still debate and confusion about the merits and meanings of openness
even among those who have done most to promote open. If openness is a means
to achieve something rather than an end, then what are the goals and who sets
them?.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
26/82
If an organisations goals can be served by selective openness or making
information or data available in a form that is not fully open but serves its purpose,
should that not be acceptable? Information derived from data can help governments
achieve accountability and transparency without it being in machine readable form.
Commercial organisations can be selective, and whilst at present studies have
shown the public sector has been too (Peled, 2011), this is not what is implied by the
open by default policy. In the UK, public procurement of private sector services
results in relationships where those involved have differing goals and agendas,
making an open by default policy far from straight forward.
2.5 Openthats all?context and provenance
Current literature is dominated by the analysis of the process of opening up data and
how this can be achieved. Yet there is a growing request for metadata (appendix 5)
and contextualization to accompany datasets.
As Dawes (2012), points out, data that is now being considered valuable was in all
probability created for purposes other than external or unplanned use. Dawes goes
on to contend that such administrative data would not be managed in a way that
external potential stakeholders might expect. Such data could lead to
misunderstandings, when not accompanied by contextual information about the
social economic setting it was gathered in, technically, without any metadata. The
principle of open data is that it is available without restriction for re-use, and this re-
use is therefore, unplanned.
The call from the open data community is, it doesnt matter if the information is
imperfect, with gaps, this can be sorted if need be. However, if the use of such data
grows then potential inaccuracies may breed further inaccuracies; interpretations
could be used irresponsibly, which the data provider may not be comfortable with.
The potential for this increases with the more datasets made available and the ability
to combine and analyse. In complex ecosystems of open data flows, there is also
the question of who is that data provider?
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
27/82
Furthermore Dawes (2012), says raw open data creates problems as well as
benefits, stating that out of context, data loses meaning, relevance and reliability.
Metadata is, therefore, essential but platforms such as data.gov.uk promote the
assumption large, structured raw data sets are intrinsically better than processed
data, (Dawes, 2012). In the US where the open data movement has gained
perhaps greater momentum, this has lead to further consideration and study of
context within the open data landscape. In The dynamics of using open government
data ,(Helbig et al., 2012) recognise:
thesignificance of context, particularly in terms of the actors and their interests in
the governance of government data and access.
Thus there should be consideration of the dynamics of following an open data
initiative and making the data fit for reuse. The study goes on to highlight the
complexity of data creation, ideas of primary and secondary use, introducing the
concept of an information polity in order to understand how stakeholders (existing,
new and future) interests are shaping and are shaped by new information flows and
technologies. Whilst contending additional context makes the data more fit for
reuse, contributing to value creation and increasing value, it recognises this requires
additional effort and capability, (Helbig et al., 2012).
Dawes (2012), concludes open data presents problems, despite its promised
benefits. Apart from technical and managerial challenges there still remain policy
concerns, just as when considering information, of confidentially, security and
authenticity. The goals and needs of the data creator have to be balanced with those
of secondary users.
2.6 Open cultural dimension
Lakomaa and Kallberg (2013), state, the voluntary dissemination of data isa political
decision.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
28/82
The open way in regard to data may have grown within the discipline of software
development, but this is a far cry from the systems and processes that have been
developed to govern a city, local authority or country. Systems and processes,
indeed, that some see as being developed to be closed, precisely to avoid openness
and transparency, (Jetzek et al., 2013).
Whilst the many diverse commercial organisations in the UK may not want to be
described in similar terms, they are just the same, organisations with cultural identity.
Culture is a complex system of shared beliefs, values, language, customs,
behaviour, and artefacts that the members of a group use to cope with their
environment and with one another, (Neus and Scherf, 2005).
Neus and Scherf (2005), single out openness and transparency as the core of the
open source model. Transparency is also a major theme of open government and
open data is an enabler, but not the only one.
As Peled (2011), emphasizes by quoting Mahoney (2000), the Open Data Program
(in the US), promotes an imaginary world in which organisations and people happilyand altruistically share data and applications.
Returning to the question of goals, control and social economic settings of the very
organisations and departments that are the data providers, for whose benefits are
they are opening up and whose goals are being achieved?
Peled (2011), goes on to describe the situation in the US in respect of the data.gov
platform and federal agencies involved usage of datasets. His comments though are
apt for any government and set of public sector organisations. Each of them has
their own agenda, some more powerful than others and some of this power will be
seen to rest in the information held in datasets homed by years of internal
development ,(Peled,2011).
Those running these bodies, know when and how to release data, stories andforecasts as part of their efforts to increase their autonomyand reputation.(Peled,
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
29/82
2011).
In Halonens (2012), study of opening up spend and salary data in local authorities in
the UK, the message is clear; this was done purely to meet a legislative obligation for
transparency.
Peled (2011), further reports that analysis of the datasets and usage on data.gov
show most (US) agencies did the minimum required. Since its inception, 5 of the
169 participating agencies accounted for 99.37% of all datasets.
The open data process, (Zuiderwijk et al., 2012), is thus far more than a technical
process of making machine readable data available via a platform or website. There
are cultural and political considerations as well as operational. Peled (2011), also
states that a majority of datasets were geographical in nature. One of the UK
government agencies using data.gov.uk is the Land Registry. In their recent
lunchtime lecture at the Open Data Institute How tobuild an open data centric
organisation(2013), they confirm one of the major problems in becoming such an
organisation is culture. Their data strategy ambition includes:
Maximisingbenefit and providing assurance through data, for the public, private
sector and our ownefficiency and capability.
To accomplish this they recognise that open data is a culture; internally they need
positive engagement, (How to build an open data centric organisation, 2013).
It is difficult to separate the cultural and political aspects from opening up data;
operationally there has to be investment in people as well as process. Therefore,
there has to be value placed on those within the organisation who are involved in
opening up and maintaining data and the relationships necessary to get the most
value from it. Whilst there is a fund of academic literature on change management
and cultural change, especially within commercial organisations, as yet there is
significantly less about managing the change to an open data culture. In the Royal
Societysreport Science as open enterprise, (Boulton et al., 2012), there are
recommendations about the valuing of opening up data and how communicating
such data is very important. Amongst the recommendations is one for such values
to be embedded within research organisations, accompanied by financial
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
30/82
recognition, (Boulton et al., 2012).
2.7 Openresources, feedback and risk
It is increasingly recognised, that to gain value, data creation requires more than just
the uploading some datasets. As Davies (2011), says, thesimplistic freeing of
datasets for open data is likely to be ineffective in driving the economic growth and
political accountability hope for.
Operationally, resources and commitment are required from people within an
organisation. In order to devote resources in times of austerity,value has to be
gained from the outcome. Such value has to be measurable, true for both the public
and private sectors.
Proponents of open data cite the large economic and social value that is placed on
the re-use of data. However, both Deloitte who compiled by the BIS (2013), report
and Jetzek et al. (2013), consider that social value is difficult to calculate andforecast. The BIS (2013), report contends it is difficult to measure or predict values
because of the unpredictable nature of innovation; wider societal value is even more
challenging as it is not typically measured in monetary terms (BIS,2013). Jetzek et
al.( 2013), introduces four enabling factors for valuing outcomes, efficiency,
innovation,participation and transparency,but then go onto state, though they will
all generate economic and social value, they will do so differently, (Jetzek et
al.,2013).
If it is acknowledged on a macro level that valuing this resource is difficult then how
much more so will it be operationally, if the only values considered are empirical and
expressed in terms of currency. As Janssen et al., (2012), state there is, no way to
predict and calculate the returnof investment and that the main challenge is that
open data has no value initself; it only becomes valuable when used.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
31/82
In order to maximise the re-use value, data has to be contextualised and arguably
even marketed. There is a perceived risk involved in allocating resources to such
an initiative and bureaucratic organisations are risk-averse,(Janssen et al., 2012).
In private sector organisations, more entrepreneurial in approach, such risk could
possibly be mitigated by the winning of contracts.
The perception of risk, however, can be mitigated by feedback as well as
governance; the perception of value can be enhanced by feedback, operationally
and strategically. As reflected in current literature, by the studying of open data in
terms of organizational theories and the development of ecosystems (Zuiderwijk and
Janssen, 2013, Janssen et al., 2012, Davies, 2011,Helbiget al., 2012 , and Ubaldi,2013). Ubaldis (2013), study for the OECD Open Government Data: Towards
Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives, goes some way to
addressing the overall complexity by including organisational and cultural changes.
2.8 Openanonymisation and misuse
No less important are the issues of privacy and security. Throughout all studiesthere is the assumption that the data being used is non personal, which is critical for
the acceptance of the opening up of government data by the ultimate data providers,
the public.
A significant amount of data that could have potential value will have personal
identifiers, if only because as Dawes (2012), states the majority of the information
held in databases considered valuable was not intended to be opened.Aside from
the cost of making this information anonymous, there is the more difficult question of
how anonymous. For as Ohm (2010), states, research and the study of re-
identification, a subsection of computer science, has revealed a tension, one that
undermines the publics acceptance of digital technology, data can be useful or
perfectly anonymous but never both, (Ohm, 2010).
While the Shakespeare review (Shakespeare, 2103) recognised the need to
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
32/82
anonymise data, it calls for a pragmatic view, claiming that in the UK there is
currently:
an unrealistic degree of expectation of any data controller to perfectly protect all our
data - an attitude that inhibits innovation no method, including traditional non-
digital information storage, is proof against determined wrong-doers,(Shakespeare,
2013).
Acceptance that there can be misuse of open data brings into question just who is
accountable? Janssen et al (2012) commented: Although the use of open data
looks like collective accountability, it is likely that if something happens society will
expect intervention from government and will hold it responsible. This quote relates
to processing accuracy but it also holds true for privacy.
The ultimate data provider is the public and there are costs involved in losing its trust
and confidence. Ross Anderson ( Professor of Security Engineering at Cambridge
University), gave a recent lecture at the ODI Why anonymity fails(2014), in which
he cited research that showed if the public lose confidence in medical confidentiality,
they will not seek early treatment, indeed sometimes no treatment at all. This would
surely happen with other public sector organisations. If the public start to disengage
and lose trust, open government loses its effectiveness. Could this be the price of
transparency?
Whilst it is repeatedly emphasised that open data is non-personal data, there may be
too much faith in computer sciences ability to anonymise data; as Ross says
succinctly, pseudonymisation does not protect privacy, (Why anonymity fails,2014).
Studies have shown there is a lack of awareness of the difference between open
data and data sharing amongst the public and of the attitudes of the public to the
potential benefit of open data, (Sciencewise, 2013). Research about the publics
relationship with data has shown that concern over the lack of control over their (the
publics) personalinformation and how it is used,(Sciencewise, 2013 p 8),is
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
33/82
compounded by two problems. The fact that due to advances in data analysis and
tracking the question of what is or is not personal information is becoming blurred
and the increased number of large datasets available, effectively anonymised and
then published, making re-identification easier, (Ohm, 2010).
Whilst Rosss lecture (Whyanonymity fails, 2014),was primarily concerned with the
health data of the UK, the same problems relate to private sector databases and
datasets. As the private sector becomes more involved in open data, there is a
question over who is accountable for privacy issues - the organisation helping to
create the data with its interaction with the public data providers or the public
organisation, which contracted the work. Furthermore, the private sector also usessocial networking as a strategic tool. Zhou and Pei et al., (2008) conclude,
Social network data is much more complicated than relational data, privacy
preserving in social networks is much more challenging.
The public in general is more willing to trust organisations that are open about how
their data is used (including being sold) and the risks involved, than those
organisations which are not open about what they are doing, (Sciencwise, 2013).
Recent surveys have revealed a marked reluctance for data to be sold for
commercial reasons; the preference being for such data to be used for the benefit of
all, (BIS, 2013). In the UK, this issue is at the forefront of the debate over
care.data, and the proposed extraction of general practitioners records (why
anonymity fails, 2014). It is possible that the next six months will produce a change
in policy and push for more training and education, for data publishers and the
public.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
34/82
Chapter 3
3.1 Methodology
The review of the literature and the landscape of the open data movement to date in
the previous chapter show this is a relatively new field of study, particularly when
considering the additional complexity introduced by Recommendation 9,
(Shakespeare, 2013). Thus, this study can be seen as exploratory in nature, the
focus being on gaining insight and familiarity in the subject area, highlighting areas
that would merit further investigation at a later stage, (Collis and Hussey, 2009).
In the proposal, when looking at information systems research for reference and
considering the cultural and social aspect of the open data initiative, the proposed
research was considered to be interpretive in nature. That being said, due to the
limitations of resources, the new area, the size of the study and the researchers
recognised influence on the approach to the question, it should, in fact, be
considered to take pragmatism as its philosophical approach. The approach is
focused on getting the best from the tools that are available, recognizing that no
single approach is perfect, (Denscombe, 2010).
The subject does not sit within one discipline and thus cannot fall under a positivist
philosophical definition that,itrests on the assumption that social reality is singular
and objective, (Collis and Hussey, 2010).
This is an approach, which is being used in other studies regarding open data, where
it is being treated as emerging phenomena (Janssen et al., 2012, pp. 258--268,
Davies 2010). This paper is an exploration/enquiry that is, aprocess that helps to
clarify, inform, stimulate and provoke, (Davies, 2010, quoting Skolnick, 1995 p, iv).
Furthermore, in this new area of study there is not, a wealth of literature from which
to define a theoretical framework and a hypothesis which lends itself to deductive
research,(Saunders et al., 2009). In consequence, therefore, it lends itself to be
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
35/82
more inductive in nature, where, general inferences are induced from particular
instances, (Collins and Hussey, 2010).
As the purpose of the study is to, primarily describe a situation, phenomenon,
problem or eventit is thus qualitative research, (Kumar, 2005). This can be clearly
shown in table 1 below adapted from Kumar (2005).
Approach to enquiry Unstructured, flexible and open
Purpose of investigation Not to quantify a variable or situation
but to describe the issue, barriers, etc
Measurement of variables Description of variables rather than
measurement or classification
Sample size Few cases or samplessamples size
not used to highlight issues/situation
and areas of further investigation.
Focus of inquiry Multiple issues derived from looking
at particular topic, not related to size
of sample.
Research value Authenticity required but not value
freeresearchers perspective leads
to paths chosen
Dominant research topic Aim to explore experience, meanings
and perceptions
Analysis of data Narratives and observation data to
indentify themes and issues and
describe these
Communication of findings Descriptive and narrative in nature
Table 1 : Features of qualitative research methodologies adapted from Kumar ( 2005 p17,18)
Quantitative research is not suitable for this study because it relies on developing
metrics that can be used to describe objects or relationships under study, (Cornford
and Smithson, 2006).
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
36/82
3.2 Method
The previous chapter illustrated where Recommendation 9, (Shakespeare, 2013) sits
in relation to the open data movement in the UK and shows how complex the issues
are surrounding open data.
Several objectives have been met in chapter 2. The review was carried out by
searching on BCU library databases, notably the ABI/INFORMS Global database
and Google Scholar. The search queries that proved more successful were those
that mentioned open data in relation to transparency and government; there was
less success in trying to extend research to non-governmental issues or data, using
the general term open data, in part due to the generic use of the word open. This in
turn highlighted that those studies most appropriate could still only be found when
linking the term technology to the term open and government when carrying out
searches. Due to the nature of the open data community and its associations with
other agendas, such as smart cities, it should be noted some sources were blogs by
those involved in either or both agendas.
3.3 Data collection
E-Mail
In addition to conducting a literature review to gain an understanding of open data, it
was also proposed to ascertain how far local government had considered this
proposal; a reasonable way to do this was to ask a set of specific questions via e-
mail.
There are 99 local authorities of varying sizes that are deemed fully open by the
website OpenlyLocal, a website devoted to opening up information and data on all
local governments to aid transparency, (Openlylocal.com, 2014). This provided
access to a specific set of authorities, some of whom were (randomly) chosen to
contact. E-mail was considered the most effective method of communication in thisinstance, because it is less time consuming than either telephone calls or interviews.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
37/82
Initially, as the proposal stated, it was the intention to carry out Freedom of
Information (FOI) requests, asking a few concise and specific questions regarding
the recommendation (appendix 7). However, on looking at the guidelines for such
requests, this approach was deemed too formal; the e-mail might not reach the
people who are at present engaged with open data and thus restrict the replies that
might be forthcoming. In order to e-mail as effectively as possible, therefore, each
authorityswebsite had to be reviewed, the appropriate pages found and the correct
e-mailaddresses obtained (although this was no guarantee of response). Initially, e-
mails were sent to randomly selected authorities within the 99. Among this group is
a mixture of large and small authorities. Where it was indicated that an FOI requestwas required, where only feedback regarding datasets was requested or no details
were given at all, no e-mail was sent. 36 authority websites were analysed regarding
open data, plus 3 websites of authorities that had won funding through the ' Open
Breakthrough Fund '(appendix 5) who were paradoxically not on the fully open list. A
total of 15 e-mails were sent.
After reviewing this initial e-mail trial, a second tranche of e-mails was sent to a
further 25 authorities at the beginning of April. This time, the FOI route was used
where there was no specific e-mail address or feedback request on the open data
webpage. Of this new selection, the smaller authorities were omitted, due to their
limited scale of activity. There remained, therefore, in this second tranche several
routes for e-mail correspondence.
All replies were analysed to determine any themes or issues raised in response to
the questions. The results are detailed in the next chapter.
The approach was fairly rough and ready in relation to gauging responses. There
was a time issue. Direct responses, if given, came fairly swiftly, whereas FOI
requests had an inherent delay; there is a 20 working day time limit for first
responses to FOI requests. The decision not to do FOI requests was justified in the
early stages of research, especially where authorities had open data departments
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
38/82
and specific contacts. However, as already indicated, having a direct e-mail contact
or dedicated web address was no guarantee of response.
The use of specific questions has its advantages; as indicated it is not expensive and
a greater number of authorities can be reached. However, there are disadvantages
too. Due to lack of time and resources, only one section of the open data community
was contacted in this way, local government, thus possibly limiting the type of
response. The respondents are tied to answering the specific questions and
response rates can be low, (Kumar, 2005).
The time frame of the FOI requests meant that e-mails were sent out during
continuing research. The questions asked were, to some extent, a leap forward, a
far more generic question about the open data movement itself could have been sent
to all local authorities using this route. However, the author feels that this would
have led to the research lacking depth, been a major exercise in terms of time and
resources and would not have fitted well with the question posed.
Interviews
In addition to the above e-mail research, a number of unstructured interviews took
place,14 in all, in the period from January 2014 to beginning of May 2014.
The unstructured interview was chosen as an additional method of data collection as
it opened up possibilities of talking to a wider range of individuals either involved inthe open data community or who worked in an area dealing with data analysis,
communication and manipulation. That being said, the characteristics of this group
are varied and the research has had to rely on the serendipitous nature of contacts
to obtain the opportunity to carry out these interviews.
There are a number of advantages of an in depth interview; it is useful when
discussing complex issues (which this is), the subject can be discussed in depth,
questions are less likely to be misunderstood and a wider section of a community
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
39/82
can be asked. However, such interviews are time consuming, can be lead by the
bias of either the interviewee or interviewer, or both, and much depends on the
quality of the interaction, (Kumar, 2005).
The purpose of the interviews was to obtain unique information and interpretation of
the open data process held by those persons interviewed and to find out from those
who worked on open data projects or with data what their experience was, which the
author was unable to observe herself, (Stake, 2010).
The sample of interviewees was varied. Some could have been considered to beexpert. Others were connected through working with data and technology and had
an interest in the possibilities of open data and how it might affect their working life
and, by nature of their experience, had valuable insights. This lead to problems in
analysing the interview data as the nature of the interviews differed. Problems arise
in mediating between the input of the interviewer (in this case the author), the aims
of the research and style of the interaction that took place, (Flick, 2002).
The questions in unstructured interviews evolve during the course of the interview. It
is a process of open discovery; one interview can influence the questions and
outcome of the next and so much could depend on the order in which the
participants are interviewed and the effect on the interviewer, (Collis and Hussey,
2009).
As this paper is exploratory in nature, the unstructured interview was considered an
appropriate method to use to identify themes and issues, which could be compared
to those found in current literature. This could then highlight avenues of further
research or add weight to the further discussion in relation to the question posed.
Alternative
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
40/82
An alternative approach would have been to organise focus groups to discuss open
data. However, time and resources were not sufficient. Further opinions could also
have been gained using social media, such as LinkedIn, and posting a
questionnaire. The research question posed is a restrictive factor, however, as a
general questionnaire would have to be aimed at people who do not know about the
concept of open data and additional information required to facilitate a specific
question. It was felt this would make a questionnaire too wordy, and the
disadvantages of such a method would be magnified; that the response rate would
be low and there would be a self-selecting bias, as in any community there are those
who answer questionnaires and those who dont, a systematic bias, (Wright, 2005).
There is an on-line community on the data.gov.uk platform, but on reviewing this, it is
mostly populated with questions about specific datasets and technical problems and
none of the posts get many replies.
It would perhaps, have been more beneficial to develop links to one specific authority
and develop a case study considering the opening up process. However, this would
have taken time and was not within the scope of this project.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
41/82
Chapter 4
4.1 Analysis of e-mail responses
Of the 40 e-mails sent, 21 responses have been received, a 52.5% response rate.
This is a good response rate for such a small sample but it should be noted that 17
requests went via FOI route, where a response is required. In addition, the number
of replies bears no correlation to the breath of the answers to the questions asked.
As exploratory research into a new phenomenon, the results do present a (limited)
snapshot of the current situation. When the question asked requires an opinion,
there is no requirement under the Freedom of Information Act to respond; it was
refreshing to note, therefore, that some did.
The responses were varied; much depended on the route the e-mail took. Many of
the replies from FOI departments were short and curt. Those that were sent to, or
reached, someone involved in open data in some way, elicited fuller responses.
Most of the responses were concerned with obligations of the specific authority
under the theme of transparency; of the 20 replies, 4 specifically referred to the Local
Government Transparency Code (appendix 5). Two of the larger authorities referred
to the forthcoming directive regarding, EU procurement (appendix 5) feeling this
would cover open data.
If this small sample reflects the overall view of all local authorities, then the stance
taken by the Shakespeare review, (Shakespeare, 2013) and indeed the subsequent
PASC review, (PASC, 2013) that legislation is not required regarding procurement
may well prove ineffectual. Two respondents indicated this policy/ recommendation
was really only for central government. In times of austerity, conceptual ideas
regarding potential efficiencies and possible economic benefit for a locality/region willnot be embraced unless there is a specific requirement to do so.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
42/82
All of the fuller replies concurred this recommendation was very complex, where
there were diverse stakeholders both outside and within the organisation. What can
be seen from the variety of responses is knowledge of the open data initiative is far
from universal; some councils are looking forward proactively to the implications of
such a major policy whilst others are reactive. It cannot be assumed that just
because central government is pushing for such an agenda, it will be uniformly
adopted. Councils are not heterogeneous; the complex layers of local government
will have an impact on approaches. The approaches are in relation to transparency
issues in the main, with accountability and economic growth playing far from equal
roles.
However, the number of replies and full responses may be considered a far from
sufficient sample; in order to gain more insight, more quantifiable questions should
be asked, and the statistics should be further manipulated to consider the size of the
authority replying.
In relation to the question about the procurement process, only one authority had
added an open data policy requirement. Some replies indicated that the new
transparency code would help with this; only one reply stated they had been looking
at procurement before it became the topic of the review. One authority replied there
would be quite naturally objections from the private sector regarding commercially
sensitive information, whilst another, stated until they (the local authority) had
understood their role with regards open data, engaged with the community and
developed a process, it would not be logical to move onto procurement.
It also seems that there may be some confusion as regards how far reaching this
recommendation is. There is already under the transparency code a requirement for
tender contract details to be openly available, which is to be expanded in the new
code. Contract details are only part of what is covered by Recommendation 9,
(Shakespeare, 2013), as further evidenced by the draft procurement document
recently put on-line for consideration by The ODI, (The ODI, 2014, GitHub, 2014).
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
43/82
Those who recognise there may be issues of commercial sensitivity presumably
realise an open data policy goes further than publishing the tender agreement;
others clearly think that publishing tender contracts is all that is required.
The subject of standards was only addressed in some of the fuller answers received.
Two replies mentioned the work done by LeGSB, the Local e-Government
Standards Body, that has been set up to promote e-standards and sees such
standards as underpinning, 'efficiency, transformation, and transparency of Local
Public Services in the UK', (Legsb.i-network.org.uk, 2014). Part of the larger
iNetwork, (iNetwork, 2014) a community of public sector organisations, their 2014/14
programmes includes connected procurement, which could well include theimplications of open data and Recommendation 9, (Shakespeare, 2013).
At present, therefore, compliance with format is seen to be the main criteria to meet.
Emphasising, what can be gleaned from this small sample, that consideration of
standards has not yet become an issue for debate, as data sharing and open data
itself is still relatively new. How it is going to work effectively is not a matter of major
concern at present. This is a generalization of something quite complex, bringing
together the processes and standards of varying departments with different goals
and cultures within an authority. In only one reply, however, was the innovative
nature of open data and the change management required referred to.
4.2 Analysis of interviewskey themes
A total of 14 interviews and two e-mail responses were analysed, further details
shown in table 2, on the next page.
Apart from the relatively small sample, there is clear bias as the majority of those
questioned were already engaged in working with open data.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
44/82
Unstructured interviews - method8 Face to face
2 Skype
4 Telephone
2 Additional e-mail responses
Unstructured interviews - interviewee description7 Public sector
9 Private sector10 Involved with open data in some capacity
2 Working with data/ data analysis2 Not directly involved but interested in open data initiatives
2 No connection with open data at all.
Table 2: Method and description of unstructured interviews.
Some strong themes emerged from the interviews, compiled under the following
headings, notjust the technology, riskstandards and qualityand finally culture .
In reality the themes overlap, as has been recognised in other studies, such as Carla
Boninasrecent report on business models, challenges and opportunities and the
value of open data, (Bonina, 2013).
Not justabout the technology
In some ways this could be seen as a rallying cry for those who wish to increase
engagement with opendata across organisations. Those interviewed who worked
with opening up data felt the technological factors relating to the actual release of
data, through a platform or website, were not such a problem. Rather, the issue is
context and findability, with the question of control and ownership preventing furtherforays into the opening up process.Recognised in both sectors and emphasised
effectively in a presentation by Anders Quiztau of IBM, (Quitzau, 2013). An
indication, that mainstream global IT companies have recognised the increased
interest in opening up and have developed products to facilitate the process.
Both private and public sector interviewees concluded that sharing information will
mean the breaking down of silos within organisations, which would lead to more
efficiency, but this is difficult to assess or put a value on.
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
45/82
Those involved in open data considered who controlled the data and in what form,
together with knowledge of what data is available, was just as, if not more important,
than the technology involved. Isolating the concept of open data within the confines
of technology, effectively the IT department and information management was seen
to be a disadvantage. The technology should be seen as a tool, used to make
information more available. The cultural and operational problems were more of a
complication.
Considering the inclusion of the private sector when in partnership or service to local
government, a question raised by two of the interviewees concerned the local
authoritysduty towards the local economy. An open data policy to a large national
or international company may just result in the adoption of a new process; to a small
local firm it would mean an additional complexity or capability they do not have. The
complication being, how far does a local authority facilitate the opening of data held
and generated by a private company? Should there be levels of openness
dependent on the type of tender and size?
In the private sector, being open is an organisational strategy, (van Veenstra and
van den Broek, 2013) and concerns either collaboration or transparency; these are
two very different drivers, as one interviewee commented. More and more
operational data is predicted to become real time with the advent of the internetof
things, (some transport data is already real time). In industries, such as health, the
availability of such data changes how services could be delivered, but they do not
necessarily have to be fully open.
All the interviewees were concerned with how an open data policy would be
measured and what would be the criteria for success. This is unknown territory, for
where there is social good and efficiencies but not necessarily economic growth,
how can this be measured? How would such differing consequences be measured
through key performance indicators? As one interviewee commented, how can this
be integrated into a tender for a service?
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
46/82
Risk
Those in the private sector not engaged in opening up data, cited risk as the major
factor why companies would not actively pursue an open data policy. Risk includes
losing competitive advantage, especially when considering operational data. An
example cited was environmental data being opened and analysed by competitors to
obtain details about productivity. This is an interesting point to consider, but may be
more a perception or fear than fact. Such perceptions can be a strong influence; the
loss of competitive advantage would be considered a failure. As one interviewee
commented, in a culture where you cannot afford to fail, there will be no culture of
seeking potential. Another interviewee felt that if a firm thought their competitiveadvantage would be compromised with the requirement to open up certain data, they
might not even tender at all. This would be a risk to local government in distorting
the market and compromising competition.
Financial risk is also a factor. Losing competitive advantage would obviously affect a
companys financial situation, and might increase the cost of projects. Much has
been made of the potential of open data, but potential does not lead to a measurable
rate of return. Interviewees in both sectors felt in the current economic climate there
would be a lack of funding. The lack of business models was seen to contribute to
this lack of willingness to invest. Yet economic value is only one of the beneficial
factors associated with opening up data.
Security risks were also a major feature in discussions, in terms of privacy and data
protection. This is a topic that was strongly associated with health care data in
particular. Those engaged in open data projects cited security or data protection as
the main reason departments did not engage in opening. The redacting of data was
considered a cost that may not be justified or was operationally difficult. Two
interviewees who work with the public sector, however, commented that this risk was
somewhat misunderstood; that data protection and privacy were not the same.
Protecting privacy does not necessarily mean that certain elements of data cannot
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
47/82
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
48/82
well as externally, leading to increased efficiency; as one interviewee stated, there is
information asymmetry within organisations as well as outside. Limited opening up
within an organisation would have benefits. This could lead to the curious effect of
one department opening data, only to find that those who most use the data are from
the same organisation. What could be described as goingoutside to come in,as
was observed by an interviewee engaged in open data projects. Indeed, in some
respects this can be evidenced in the user feedback the Surreyi platform has
received. All of the users quoted came from the public sector, where finding the data
would not have been impossible, the use of the platform made it far easier, quicker
and efficient, (Surreyi.gov.uk, 2014)
Standardisation was considered a problem by the private sector interviewees
engaged in analysing and visualising data and also those engaged in trying to open
up databases within local government. Legacy systems that were contracted to
before the advent of the concept, meant data tied to the system in some cases, not
the provider. Datasets that could be of use with other departments could not be
accessed and merged, there was no interoperability. In fact, this was considered a
problem across the board, by everyone who either analysed data, provided systems
and software to manipulate the data and those who wanted to contextualise and
create metadata.
Culture
The issue of culture is very much tied up with that of the first theme itis not just
about technology. Whilst all those talked to who were involved in opening up data
recognised the aims involved were transparency, accountability and economic
growth, every interviewee also recognised the value of information sharing, whether
open or not.
The premise that information is power is very much embedded within all
organisations. Two interviewees alluded to this problem, not only in relation to
-
8/10/2019 J Carr - Open Data - Public and Private Sector approaches
49/82
management but also in terms of how departments are financed. Budgets are
allocated within boundaries; savings lead to a loss of funds to another department, a
lost budget, leading to a negative feeling towards opening up and sharing to create
efficiencies.
Cultural attitudes to valuing the opening up of data also play a part. For several
interviewees, unless there was some benefit to those that facilitated opening up,
either economically or as part of their performance reviews, there would be no
motivation to do so, particularly, where the control or holding onto information had
previously been a way of manipulating power or used in negotiation. This is referred
to in detail by Peled (2011).
Finally, in terms of culture, the matter of trust was discussed by several participants,
trust within an organisation, between departments and trust in regard to the reuse of
data, outside, beyond the organisations sphere of influence. This could only be
gained or strengthened through experience and support (validation). Feedback was
seen as essential for those involved operationally.