exploring the emerging impacts of open data in developing ... berlin 201… · phase i final...

Phase I Final Workshop Report July 2014

Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries network meeting & Open Knowledge Festival sessions

report

July 2014 Draft

Dates July 14th 18th

Location Wikimedia Center, Berlin

This project is funded by the Canadian International Development Research Center (grant 107075) and is managed by the World Wide Web Foundation.

| Version 1.0 | July 2014 | [email protected] | www.opendataresearch.org | of 30 |

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opendataresearch.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEKXjBNi10w_0eoTC4EPn4wbGcfAQ


Contents

Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries network meeting & Open Knowledge Festival sessions report

Contents Introduction Research process & progress Monday 15th AM

Attitude finder Poster session Monday 15th Midday Findings and the framework Monday 15th Afternoon

Context Supply of open data > Supply and openness of data Technical platforms and standards Specific governance settings > Locality, sector or issue Intermediaries Data use and impacts Updating the framework

Plans for ODDC Phase II Tuesday 16th AM Incentivising openness Use and capacity building Intermediaries Bringing RTI and Open Data Together Theory building Budget data Taking plans forward

Public Event Tuesday 16th PM Panel 1 – Research as Capacity Building Mechanism Panel 2 Localising open data Panel 3 Sectoral approaches to open data

OKFestival Workshops: Transparent Cities OKFestival Workshops: Ground Up Open Data Intermediaries Looking ahead Participants Thanks





Introduction Since early 2013, researchers from the Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries research network have been carrying out case study research into the supply, use and outcomes of open data in various countries and contexts across the world. This first phase of the ODDC project has primarily been based around exploratory research. A second phase is now starting which looks to consolidate learning, and synthesise findings from the 17 projects carried out in Phase I. Network members met for a workshop in Berlin on 14th and 15th July to bring together their research findings so far, and to plan future activities. This was followed by a public research sharing event, and a series of workshops held as part of the 2014 Open Knowledge Festival. This report summarises content and discussions from these events. It is not a full synthesis of research findings or messages from the events. For initial insights from across the research cases please see the Open Data in Developing Countries Emerging Insights from Phase I. A full research synthesis is forthcoming in Q4 2014. The meeting was conducted under the Chatham House rule, so points are not attributed to particular speakers.


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fopendataresearch.org%2Fcontent%2F2014%2F704%2Fopen-data-developing-countries-emerging-insights-phase-i&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHn2wkxyz2UTxZ7hDOFYehXz8WNYw

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chathamhouse.org%2Fabout%2Fchatham-house-rule&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFIexhZDJuek8VOqNtVyV1uHMIatQ




Research process & progress - Monday 15th AM The ODDC project has a dual role, generating evidence on the dynamics of open data in different contexts around the world, and building open data research capacity amongst academics, practitioners and civil society actors in developing countries. We started our workshop by reviewing the research process so far, and looking ahead to the implications of our research for future discussions. Workshop participants were asked to indicate how far they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements by moving to different sides of the room, and then were asked to discuss their choice of response. Attitude finder How far do you agree with the following statement:

“Our research went exactly to plan” most participants felt their research had been adapted as it was carried out, although the more focussed the initial research design had been, the less this had been required. Sometimes research was adapted in response to early discoveries (e.g. limited availability of datasets; applications to be studied no longer being available), or in order to take advantage of particular opportunities to access the field. The flexibility of an exploratory research design was valuable in a number of cases, including for the University of Ilorin, where the addition of a ‘hackathon’ to the research process (as a result of discussions with the case study mentor) provided an important opportunity for handsonlearning, and building interest in open data within the University.

“We were able to explore the [supply/use/outcomes/impacts] of open data”. The question of how to define ‘impacts’ has been a common one over the last year of the ODDC project. We looked at four statements, relating to open data supply, use, outcomes and impacts. In general, it had been easier to explore open data supply and use, than outcomes and impacts. The challenges of exploring outcomes and impacts often related to the current limited supply and use of open data in many of the contexts studies given the very early stage of development of open data. In some cases research also needed to look at the use of ‘data’ more generally, and not specifically ‘open data’ in order to understand how ecosystems around data were developing.

“The methods I used in my case study generate strong evidence to support my conclusions”. ODDC research cases have used a wide range of methods, from interviews, focus groups and surveys, to mediamonitoring, analysing web statistics and userexperience tests. Using a mix of methods and approaches to trinagulate findings from different sources were important for many studies to support their conclusions. The exploratory nature of many research projects suggests that further work may be needed to strengthen and validate conclusions over the longerterm.

“I am more optimistic about the potential of open data than I was at the start of this study”. A number of researchers in the ODDC network play a dual role as





advocates for open data, and as researchers looking critically at how it is being used and what impacts it may have. Combining these two roles requires careful attention to how personal attitudes and research findings interact. In general, workshop participants felt optimistic about the potential of open data, but were much more aware of the challenges to securing impacts from it.

“Open data should be included as an explicit commitment in the post2015 Sustainable Development Goals”. This question was designed to stimulate discussion about the policy implications of our research. A majority in the group were in favour of making open data an explicit part of the post2015 sustainable development agenda: and the need for the group to explore advocacy on policy issues was discussed.

Poster session - Monday 15th - Midday Every ODDC partner had been encouraged to create a research poster sharing their key findings. These were displayed around the room, and there was a chance to discuss them and pose questions to projects about their findings through postit notes or small group discussions.

You can find all the posters to view on the Open Data Research Network website, and on Slideshare at http://www.slideshare.net/odrnetwork/tag/okfest14


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fodrnetwork%2Ftag%2Fokfest14&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGObJfGAkzOWVyC2IEZGudijJG7uQ




Findings and the framework - Monday 15th - Afternoon All of the case studies in the ODDC project have developed with reference to a shared research framework. This was designed around six key elements:

Context; Supply of open data; Technical platforms & standards; Specific governance settings; Intermediaries; Data use and impacts.

On the afternoon of the first day of the workshop we discussed how findings from across the different cases related to this framework. Key findings and points discussed under each heading are detailed below. This is not a comprehensive listing of findings across studies and includes only those that were raised and noted down during discussions. Context

Case studies found that context is key: although often it is local sectoral contexts in terms of specific laws and regulations that are most important in shaping the opportunities and challenges for the supply and use of open data. Our current methods for assessing context tend to focus on the ‘supply side’, and more research is needed to understand the ‘demand side’ of open data contexts.

The historical context of a country, and the political dynamics around the introduction of open data policies, are important to understand, as are levels of institutional developing in different countries. For example, in the UK or USA open data was introduced in a context of strong institutions, and in response to political discourses about improving the transparency and accountability of reasonably trusted government institutions. In Sierra Leone or Nepal open data ideas are being introduced in a postconflict context, at a time of institution building rather than with well established institutions. ODDC cases may have an important role in contributing to historical accounts of open data in different countries.

The framework has generally been read clockwise, suggesting research should start from ‘big picture’ contexts and then explore data, technology and then local or sectoral issues. However, in practice, many of the ODDC studies start from specific local or sectoral issues and this approach is important to encourage in future studies. Therefore we discussed that in future we should flip the framework to place the ‘Sector or locality’ at the top, and place context as a foundation at the bottom of the framework diagram.





Supply of open data > Supply and openness of data Open data is generally defined as machinereadable, proactive published and under terms permitting reuse. However, cases have found that it is importance to critically break down this definition of open data into it’s component parts to assess which are most relevant to bringing impacts in different cases, and to ensure that assessments of the data landscape take into account not only fully open data, but also private data sources, and data which may be restricted in some way. In our discussions we agreed that we should move from a framework component on ‘supply of open data’, to a component that looks at ‘supply and openness of data’ in order to capture both different aspects of openness, and the fact that relevant data might not always be open data at present. Particular findings across cases relating to data supply are detailed below. Mismatch of supply and demand:

There is a gap between open data efforts and the information practices and needs of groups on the ground.

There is a need for capacity building and networking to encourage demand for and use of

data.

Factors affecting supply: Most current OGD policies and initiatives are supplydriven and topdown. There is a gap

between supply and demand. Often data supply is driven by a local policy requirements or by international donors (etc.) rather than being driven by the demand for data from potential users. For example, in the Philippines there is a perception that officials may be more interested in pleasing external funders and stakeholders than domestic constituencies. There is a need for engagement processes that can understand demand for OGD.

Both governments and NGOs who are in a position to share datasets often have limited

understandings of, or have misunderstood and negative imaginations of, potential reusers of the data. This can inhibit their desire to share data, or can affect the way in which they share it.

Governments can be wary of how the supplyside is framed. For example, if it is framed as about government efficiency as opposed to accountability. The former may be more of an incentive to government, while accountability may deter government from being motivated to release data. Sometimes when transparency is the driver it is because of external agents’ push, e.g. donors.





It is often easy to focus on ‘technical’ aspects of supply, which takes away from practical and ethical dilemmas and issues.

Government’s excuse that they cannot assure the accuracy of data nor information, comes from the egovernment days; one can find it in Terms of Service of many government agencies’ portals, and this was ignored by many who built services on top of these portals. Governments always try to protect themselves in the first place, but we’re talking official website here. How is the data world different that we are worried so much about data accuracy and longterm availability?

Governments are apprehensive about sharing data for ‘good’ reasons e.g. fear of getting penalised when wrong data is released to the public. For their own internal data use, they do not have a problem however sharing data out to the public makes them more apprehensive. However we should be aware that this should not be used as an excuse for not releasing/sharing data.

Releasing data can be a risky step for a public servant: based on potential, rather than proven impact, and the possibility that if it does not go well it might affect a public servants career. In different contexts the risks that public servants take may vary. For example, are internal intermediaries (public servants) more risk averse if there is not a vibrant tech industry in the local area where they might find alternative employment? This point notes that many officials involved in open data in UK or USA have moved between public and private sector employment.

The kind of data supplied:

Public officials disclose the data the law requires, but this does not always fit the needs of the public. How data can me made more relevant for citizen use? For example, in budget data, data is shaped around accounting standards but citizen demand is for geolocated data that connects to their local areas and issues.

Sustainability of supply

Unsustainable supply has been an issue in a number of countries with open data projects. For example, in the Kenya Open Data Initiative a data portal exists but intermediaries are not using it because data is not updated regularly. The role of licenses in providing assurance about supply was discussed.

Intermediary organisations may have a key role in ensuring data sustainability as they demonstrate to government that data is used, and create a pressure for ongoing supply. Sustainability is linked to the relevance of the datasets to the (potential) users.

It may be necessary to develop specific strategies to guarantee supply of data with different policies for a specific kinds of datasets.





Do we need governments mechanisms for open data? This relates to regulation of public servants, procurement regulations, collaborations with other actors in the different sectors e.g. civil societies, technology communities.

Evaluating supply

Supply side assessments may need to be domain specific. General open data criteria do not help us to assess how useful data is in practice, whether the data disclosed really is primary data, or whether it complies with national legal requirements for disclosure in that specific domain (e.g. budget).

Licencing:

The role and importance of licensing is unclear in open data provision in many developing countries. Some participants suggested that an overstrict emphasis on license could discourage uptake of data on both supply and demand side. The license paradigm may be seen as one externally imposed from the North. However, licenses can becoming more important the more data becomes available (and as issues of legal as well as technical data interoperability arise). There can also be misunderstandings that lead to bad licensing: for example, an anecdotal case from work with the Ghana Statistics Office found staff thought that “all rights reserved” was not preventing people from using it, and that it was similar to CCBY, which was exactly what they really wanted. The legal culture in a country of is of great importance in shaping decisions about how data is supplied.

Technical platforms and standards Putting open data into practice involves may involve many different layers of technology: from data portals for discovering data, to data standards for representing it, to tools for data aggregation, integration and analysis. We discussed different aspects of open data technology platforms and standards, including: Open Data Portals

Portals play a number of roles: they provide a guidance and management tool for governments to be able to see what the open data landscape looks like; they provide good metadata standards; and they can help some users discover datasets. However, in practice data will need to be linked to and made available in multiple places, and no portal can hope to contain the latest updates on all datasets, without imposing strong centralised management. National data portals risk centralising open data skills and responsibilities, rather than distributing them across government.

Good metadata is vital alongside datasets. We can’t just assume it’s not needed and rely on Google or other natural language search engines for data discovery. However, for small organisations, local government etc., with less than a couple of hundred datasets, providing good metadata might come down to having structured listings on an existing





web page of available datasets.

Data portals may have more importance as sectoralaggregations of data (onestop shop for data). For example, in India there is the water portal, aggregating govt and nongovt data, and other platforms gathering data on biodiversity in India. These platforms are use and userfocussed, rather than based around a supplier. Standardisation of data in these portals works best for some kind of datasets, such as geographic data.

Central data portals may risk limiting data reuse, because they target particular kinds of

users only. Whilst the Kenya Open Data Intiatives says it has different users in mind, general users may not have an easy time using the platform which is much more oriented towards developers and the more technical savvy community. This raises the question of who the portals are built for? This may be used as an excuse for not releasing data: for example ’we do not have the capacity to make platforms ‘friendly’ for our diverse users’.

Standardisation

Where there are no government wide standards in use, central platforms that bring together similar datasets can help to standardise data, especially in contexts where there are no clear existing standards on how open data should be published. Platforms work like some form of ‘blueprint’, supporting defacto standardisation.

Should standardisation be limited to formats? A lot of different agencies are providing overlapping datasets where, although the subject matter is the same, the formats and figures may be different because the mode and process of collecting data differs. The Open Data portal in India does not currently do much in reducing these overlaps and improving quality of data; it just ensures access to data. Understanding organisational context (from the government side) plays a key role here in understanding and ensuring the quality of data collected.

Can open data standards be integrated in existing disclosure agendas, such as disclosure of budgets? The process of developing a standard could be a strategy to gather different interest groups (eg. hackers and CSOs related to a specific field) and maybe catalyse a process of building an ecosystem.

Data evolution: if data generators are made aware of the value of open data formats (for example, accountants when preparing budget documents), this may lead to better standards in open data formats. We need to think about changing standards ‘upstream’, not just how existing datasets coming out of some government process are then converted into some standard format.

Tensions between local and global data needs

It is important to find a balance between global standards and local relevance when planning how data should be supplied





Technical challenges to putting open data into practice

Excuses for not setting up open data projects include the cost and lack of technical capacity in organisations important for collating the data.

Measurement

Platforms could do more to support analysis of data use. In Nigeria it is not even known yet if people are using the data. There is only some info from Google Analytics about hits on the website.

Specific governance settings > Locality, sector or issue A core emphasis across ODDC cases has been the importance of looking at ecosystems of data supply and use around a particular issue, locality or sector. Rather than the abstract term ‘specific governance setting’ we discussed renaming this element of the framework to reflect the need for research that can map out data practices and needs around specific sectors, localities and issues. Discussions on this section of the framework looked at: Understanding the context of specific sectors

We need to explore specific laws for specific sectors of government and the potential for open data progress in these areas. For example in Brazil’s case there is a legislation on budget data disclosure on the web.

Some sectors may find data that is two years old relevant and more useful whilst in some other sectors, this data may not be as useful.

Sustainability strategies may vary between sectors.

Political sensitivities may be stronger in some sectors than others. Projects like Findmymoney in Brazil have faced challenges of privacy in disclosing recipients of public funding.

Intermediaries are often organised by sector:

Intermediaries operate in their areas of influence e.g. health intermediaries may not have a lot of influence in decisions in education sector. This is important especially where they interface with the users.

Data quality varies across sectors:

It is often assumed that government data is good quality. But what is missing are basic processes within governments for data collection, analysis and so on e.g. budget clerks





who simply follow procedures for adding and analysing data. Therefore as a public servant, one is not confident of the data they themselves are releasing because they are aware of the faults in data processes (collection, analysis etc). Releasing data also opens them up for criticism.

Localisation:

What is the significance of decentralized governance for the open data movement? Does this also translate to decentralised data? Does this make data more relevant/useful when it is ‘closer’ to the users?

Intermediaries The importance of intermediaries was underscored by a large number of case studies. They noted that intermediaries are not just involved in transferring and translating data into information, but also play a wider range of roles in securing supply and use of data. A number of critical issues were raised in our discussion of intermediaries:

Intermediaries can find they are put in an uncomfortable positions created by a role balancing, on the one hand working with governments to support support of open data, whilst at the same time working as an activist or advocate confronting government on other issues. This affects how government officials perceive intermediaries.

How do we ensure that this intermediary space is not compromised and monopolised by a few e.g. private entities? Intermediaries can pursue OD for their own interests? Importantly what is the openness of intermediaries?

In Nepal, intermediaries have a type of ownership of the data and create demand. They scrape through pdf data from government

Understanding the added value process of intermediaries may help in defining who intermediaries are, and how open the intermediaries are being. Studies show that key intermediaries are media, and offline intermediaries such as chiefs in Kenya.

Intermediaries have become crucial in translating data to different formats. One can ensure intermediaries do not gatekeep data by checking that data products are not the only thing they are sharing: users should also demand that intermediaries link to or reshare the government data on which their products are based.

Further discussions of intermediaries can be found below in the report from the OKFest Intermediaries workshop.

Data use and impacts The ultimate goal of the ODDC project has been to understand the use and impacts of open data. We have recognised the need to look at outputs, outcomes and impacts separately, and





that the early stage of open data, and limited supply in many countries, has made identifying use challenging. However, cases did point to a number of key issues on use and impacts:

A focus on specific services such as transport data points us to places where reusers are develop apps that change how people use transport data, and potentially also how they use transport. However, although there are lots of outputs in this sector, inclusive practices are still lacking when we ask who is using the data.

There is a lot of data available in some areas related to public services, however transparency and accountability data use is still lacking, and only some kinds of datasets are relevant for a focus on service provision (apps, tools etc.)

Some uses can feedback into restrictions on future supply. For example, in the extractive industry in India, questioning from the public based on on data that had been released on coal resulted in government retreating from releasing the data further and stopping publication of disaggregated data on the same.

Another more positive example of data use in India (Chennai) relates to the procurement and installing of public toilets. When the data revealed a lack of specific location information in tender documents, the Transparent Chennai project tried to develop a mechanism to see where the actual need for the toilets would be (e.g. in schools etc. using GIS). This was integrated into the tender documents and this set the standard for government contracts and this was publicly released for all to see.

Sometimes data use projects encounter wider demands from users that go beyond data. In Brazil, GPOPAI developed an app from open budget data, working bottomup with specific lowresource community. However people are demanding concrete action not data nor information. This was surprising to the project and is a challenge. It depicts the importance of intermediaries to reach the lastmile and the relevance of data especially to this group of people.

Updating the framework Based on our discussions, an updated framework is displayed below, updating the ‘supply of open data’ and ‘specific governance context’ components, and reordering the elements to emphasise the importance of starting from specific issues:





Plans for ODDC Phase II - Tuesday 16th AM The ODDC project is taking place in two phases. The first phase, which is now mostly completed, consisted of case study research. The second phase, which will run from August 2014 June 2015 consists of synthesis work. We discussed a range of potential synthesis projects, looking at:

Incentivising openness Use and capacity building Intermediaries Connecting RTI and Open Data communities Theory building Budget data

This is not an exhaustive list of places the second phase of the ODDC project may focus on, but the note below indicate possible starting points for developing nextstep plans.





Incentivising openness Goals: “Searching for models to encourage & foster open (subnational) governments” Group participants: Michael Canares (Philippines); Satyarupa Shekhar (India); Ilham C Srimarga (Indonesia). Notes: Working on a hybrid combining synthesis and strategy development.

Oct Dec 2014: Building the literature on incentives (global and local)

Jan Mar 2015: Synthesise learning from case studies (ODDC network cases)

Apr Sep 2015: Theorising of ecosystems for open governance

Apr Sep 2015: Building replicable, adaptable models and frameworks

Use and capacity building Goals: Building on ODDC learning and developing capacity building resources as a result Group participants: Ricardo Matheus (Brazil), Sherwin Ona (Philippines), Zacharia Chiliswa (Kenya), Omenogo Mejabi (Nigeria). Notes: Ideas include:

Design training module for the ODDC network (collaboration between Universities on this process)

Capacity building for ODDC (intensive training on the open data research tools) Training modules on open data and policy engagement by ODDC network members.

Focussing on data use Capacity building by ODDC for other groups (journalists, CSOs, NGOs etc.) University student hackathons

Six month plan:

Synthesise data use and capacity building recommendations from the ODDC cases Initial design of the program





Peer review of the program Pretest of the program Review/evaluation of the program Package training modules

Drawing on ODDC case studies, ODR network and IDRC library. Twelve month plan:

Implement the program in each region (Asia, Africa, Latin America) Evaluate the program with participant input Meeting to evaluate and review the program Synthesis of the project outcomes Publish outcomes target ICEGov conference.

Consider hackathons as handson learning methods.

Intermediaries Goal: Developing synthesis work on the concept of intermediaries Group participants: Estefanie Ulit (Philippines), Francois Van Schalkwyk (South Africa), Leonida Mutuku, (Kenya), Maurice McNaughton (Jamaica), Salome Aminata Jarai Bah (Sierra Leone), Sumandro Chattapadhyay (India), Andres Martano (Brazil) Notes Primary question: What are the different types of Intermediary Organisations that have emerged (and are emerging) across the developing countries to facilitate collection, curation, management, usage and sharing of open data (coming from both government and nongovernment sources)? Secondary questions: What factors are determining the emergence of open data intermediary organisations? Can these factors be created through external interventions, or can the emergence of open data intermediary organisations be induced/accelerated, and how? Are some The group wants to undertake a study to document roles, functions, motivations, backgrounds (technological, legal, sectoral, etc.) and experiences of Intermediary Organisations working with open data in developing countries so as to develop a set of criteria and a framework to conceptualise a typology of open data intermediaries.





To undertake this study, the groups needs to prepare a draft methodological note on how such documentation is to be carried out. One suggestion is to carry out videorecorded interviews with the intermediary organisations working with open data in developing countries. Three critical points that need further discussion/evidence: 1. Does the existence of intermediary organisations indicate at an imperfection within the present condition of data production, distribution and consumption? If so, should we work towards resolving such imperfections towards a condition where no intermediary organisations are needed to support such tasks (that is the capacities of data production, distribution and consumption will be incorporated within the general functioning of all organisations and individuals)? Should intermediary organisations be strengthened over time, or should their requirement be reduced? 2. When talking about open data and the various actors associated in its production, distribution and consumption, is 'ecosystem' the right metaphor? Should all actors in an 'open data ecosystem' necessarily adopt 'open' practices? Is 'open data ecosystem' more of an aspiration, and less of a description of the present condition of linkages among the open data actors? What metaphor can better describe this present condition of linkages among open data actors? 3. What roles can intermediary organisations play in documenting, articulating and responding to data demands coming for final user and consumers of open data? What are the existing evidences of such works being done by intermediary organisations? What can be core principles for intermediary organisations while doing such works? Plan for a Collaborative Paper: The Working Group will produce a collaborative synthesis paper on 'Open Data Intermediaries' for the special issue of the Journal of Community Informatics. Materials and Discussions of the Working Group:

Sharing of materials will take place through the 'Open Data Intermediaries' subfolder of the 'Open Data Research' group on Zotero.

Discussions of the Working Group will take place at the 'Open Data Intermediaries' subgroup of the 'Open Data Research Network' group on LinkedIn.

Bringing RTI and Open Data Together Goal: Exploring research and projects to better connect open data and RTI communities Group participants: Emmanuel Abdulai (Sierra Leone), Silvana Fumega (Argentina), Krishna Sapkota (Nepal)


https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zotero.org%2Fgroups%2Fopen_data_research%2Fitems%2FcollectionKey%2FC7GV7EHX&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFi4X4JR1AmRvnv4G5I3dQhj0dWXQ

https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zotero.org%2Fgroups%2Fopen_data_research%2Fitems%2FcollectionKey%2FC7GV7EHX&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFi4X4JR1AmRvnv4G5I3dQhj0dWXQ




Notes: 6month plans:

Bring together a regional meeting or workshop Look to leverage RTI and OD synergies through collaborations Work on policy papers on relationship and benefits of building synergies (practitioner,

academic, policy etc.) 12month plans:

Mapping channels for accessing information / data in different contexts (across four regions), looking at:

Actors / stakeholders Citizen interface Difference and commonalities

A study design to test reactive and proactive transparency measures (from RTI requests to government’s Open Data Portals) as means to obtain usable data was also discussed.

Theory building Goals: develop theory building on ODDC findings, the conceptual framework and wider open data theory Group participants: Carmela Zigoni (Brazil), Sandra Elena (Argentina), Gisele Craviero (Brazil), Raed Sharif (Canada), Fabrizio Scrollini (Uruguay) Notes: Sixmonth plans:

Carry out a literature review to look at available theories Carry out assessment of methods in this project, and an assessment of the Common

Assessment Methods for open data framework Carry out a synthesis of methodological approaches

Correct me if i got something working Budget data Goals: Identify possible future budget projects Group participants: Ilham C Srimarga (Indonesia); Jorge Machado (Brazil)





Notes: Challenges of current budget open data:

Respect for the principles of open data Quality of data is questionable Legal issues of budget (process, authorisation, stakeholders) Budget data often not in time and understandable

Current initiatives and future agendas:

Geolocalising the budget (Brazil) > replicate geolocation of budgets Workshops with civil society to promote participation in the budget > sharing successful

cases, and adapting to other contexts Some budget analysis produced by NGOs > spread and compare between countries Ranking of budget transparency Budget documents put on the web > make sure open data principles are implemented

Taking plans forward Over August 2014, plans in each of these areas will be developed further, with a view to Phase II work starting in September 2014.





Public Event - Tuesday 16th PM We were joined by over 60 invited guests on Tuesday 16th July for a research sharing event, designed to share insights emerging from the ODDC project. The session was split into four main parts:

Panel 1: Research as capacity building mechanism moderated by Jose Alonso, Web Foundation

Panel 2: Localising open data moderated by Maurice McNaughton, University of the West Indies

Poster session with input from invited guests Panel 3: A sectoral approach to open data moderated by Fabrizio Scrolini, ILDA

A storify from the workshop can be found here. Panel 1 – Research as Capacity Building Mechanism The ODDC project has not just been about research outputs, but has also been about building capacity through research. It has contributed to research capacity, and to capacity to understand and engage with open data debates. The importance of research as a capacity building mechanism was explored in this panel. Mentoring: Most ODDC projects have been provided with mentors, who were available to help them develop full project plans from initial concept notes, and who have been on hand throughout the project to offer input and support. Many mentors also made visits to work with projects. In Sierra Leone context a groundbreaking Freedom of Information Act passed in 2013. The government has been establishing an information commission, and ODDC partner, the Society for Democratic Initiatives Sierra Leone, worked with their mentor, added an open data element to training on the new FOI law. This has led to incorporation of an open data element in the information commission framework. Flexibility and networks: The University of Ilorin in Nigeria worked with their mentor to design a hackathon, not originally in their project plan, which gave students and staff a handson experience of open data, and which built up support for an open data research group within the University. Being part of the ODDC research network also provided connection to other projects, including those of multilateral organizations such as the World Bank.

Building local capacity: The Jesuit Hakimani Center are a grassroots community development organisation and engaging with the ODDC project was their first engagement with open data. They have looked at issues of service delivery and citizen engagement examining how communities on the margins of society engage with the government. Their findings, including that open data is often seen as synonymous with the online portals; however, open data portals


https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fstorify.com%2FODRnetwork%2Foddc-at-okfest&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFDX6BOFf3-jlebvy3J6NVunC6eCA




is just one of many sources, gave rise to a larger conversation on open data, esp. with regard to lower income citizens who rely on traditional infrastructure.

Exploring new approaches and perspectives: Through the ODDC project researchers had opportunities to engage with different disciplines. Computer science researchers were able to look at the social impacts of pilot tools, and to explore in more depth how to make information and data accessible to end users. In the discussions for this panel issues raised included:

The current definition of open data is quite restrictive. Most people do not retrieve information from machinereadable formats or portals, but rather within local communities. What about machinereadable for those without machines?

Data provision preferences are different across stakeholders (for example, the media wanted to see open data as PDF files vs. certain civil society groups who wanted to see machine readable formats)

Motivation is important there are those that are motivated by service delivery and those motivated by varied desires

Donors can offer support to transform research findings into actionable plans: bringing

together all stakeholders including government, academia, private sector and civil society. Some feel there is too much discussion on disclosure, and more discussion is needed on maintaining innovations around open data – not only open data supply, but also sustainable models for ongoing initiatives.

On the subject of how open data policy transfer should take place, there are concerns about sustainability. Given the debates going on now, countries want to look nice – so they open portals. But this is not necessarily effective!

Panel 2 Localising open data The second panel looked at the importance of open data at the local level: in cities, local government and other local contexts. Issues covered in the discussion included: Connecting to citizen needs. Often citizens are unaware of open data, or the data that government might held. The number of datasets releases from the supply side is irrelevant to most citizens, but in a city or local government setting, intermediaries and proactive governments can make direct connections between social issues and data that could be mobilised as part of the solution. Transparent Chennai have focussed on the use of data in addressing very specific policy issues, such as the location of public toilets bringing together government data with data sourced from citizens in order to improve tenders for private firms to build new toilets. Around a particular local issue, many datasets can become relevant such as land ownership data, population data, and financial data.





In Rio de Janeiro, open data projects have been driven by policy priorities inside government, with open data has been treated as a public management tool to address key issues. However, also making the data open enables third parties can make innovative reuse of it, including NGOs, academics and the media. Building on existing policy: In the Philippines, researchers have explored how open data measures could build on the existing Full Disclosure Policy for local government, adding open data elements to this. Addressing data quality: Local governments may not always be equipped to produce high quality digital data. This affects both the data they release, and the data they are using for internal policy making. Intermediaries can work with government both to improve datasets once off, but also to embed better data collection and management capacity inside government. The role of intermediaries: Intermediaries don’t only act as ‘infomediaries’ providing a conduit that turns data into information, they can also convene and create opportunities for two way dialogue. There are many kinds of intermediaries: though many existing intermediary organisations are not engaged in data. In Rio de Janeiro, the media have played a particular role as intermediaries: for example, using realtime bus data to monitor provision of services, and even to highlight speeding by bus drivers. In areas with low Internet penetration it is also important to consider offline intermediaries, and how to bridge between online and offline data. The question and answer session for this panel touched upon:

The importance of media strategies to make people care about data. Responses highlighted that rather than starting from the idea that we need to build demand for data, we need to look at how to provide data that answers the questions people really care about, and how to give citizens enough power and evidence to advocate collectively for change.

The distinctions between scaling up and replicating projects. Many of the local models presented in the session are cost and time intensive. Open data often appears to promise ‘simple and scalable solutions’, but in practice many models might need to be replicated horizontally. Supporting replication requires evidence that a model works and that there is applying it in new contexts.

Panel 3 Sectoral approaches to open data Our final panel looked at the role that open data can play in particular sectors, such as the judicial system, university governance, energy industries and national budgets. The judicial system is often not considered in national open data projects, yet the Judicial branch of government affects many peoples lives. Open data is valuable both for transparency, and for better planning of justice policies. In a study of open data in judiciaries in three Latin





American countries (Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina), CIPPEC found mixed levels of transparency and open data readiness. Looking at the Governance of Public Universities in South Africa, the University of Cape Town research team focussed on whether the open data that an intermediary was providing was actually being used, and by looking at the sector in the round discovered there were several suppliers of data active, including government, NGOs and a private firm (that takes same data from government and sells it back to universities). This wider landscape affects the potential space for an open data project to fill, and impacts on the likely successful strategies for an open data intermediary looking to support improved University governance. This cases, as with the following energy industry case, pointed to the importance of assessing both open and nonopen data flows in a particular sector. A case study on the availability of Energy Resource Data in India by the Energy and Resources Institute found that the data landscape for coal data was very different from that for oil and gas, with each shaped by various regulations and aspects of the industries. The number of existing stakeholders and (nonopen data) intermediaries in these sectors was huge, and there were both cases of duplication, and substantial data gaps. A lot of data just did not exist, or was available, but not accessible to the public due to: data fragmentation; access barriers such as commercial confidentiality; government caution; and the desire of stakeholders to avoid scrutiny and accountability. When data is available it is often incomplete. Environmental data, such as aggregate information on deforestation was particularly tricky to obtain. Open data portals could play a role in supporting rationalisation of data across particular sectors, but are not currently playing this role.





OKFestival Workshops: Transparent Cities This session explored the efforts of five city governments: Amsterdam, Rio, Chennai, Jakarta and Sao Paulo, that are moving towards more datadriven governance and openness. Each city government has to navigate their legal and institutional framework, political willingness and the capacity to be open. However, they must also consider the state of their data and the implications on the demand for open data,the choice of technology and its influence on democratising data creation and use, and the role of citizens and intermediaries in opening up a city. The session was unique in allowing for joint conversations among government officials from the five cities, as well as groups that engage with them. The discussions were situated in the intersection of data, technology and citizen participation, and supported breakout group work looking at the building blocks of transparent cities in different contexts around the world.

A report of this workshop will be published at http://opendataresearch.org/project/2013/oddc


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fopendataresearch.org%2Fproject%2F2013%2Foddc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGh1EtPKkVw6Di6Ogb1bjGev5y9GA




OKFestival Workshops: Ground Up Open Data Intermediaries This was a participatory and interactive session, with categories, roles and other questions relating to intermediaries developed with the session participants, and feeding into a shared mapping exercise. After opening remarks by the moderator, an operative definition of an intermediary was put forward as a basis for discussion. This was elaborated on through three presentations from ODDC case study partners: The University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa, University of Ilorin (Nigeria) and Transparent Chennai (India). Each presentation explored the type of intermediaries found their respective research, and presented then initiated the process of categorising data providers, intermediaries and user into different groups my mapping those they mentioned in their research onto shared flipcharts. Session participants were then invited to think about, and map on the same flipcharts, intermediaries from the different contexts they work in, and to also map out data providers and users related to these. This was followed by the moderator summing up the different categories of suppliers and intermediaries that emerged out of the exercise and selecting a number of categories of intermediary to discuss in the next section of the session, focussing on incentives for engagement, the respective roles of intermediaries, and the challenges they face. The key intermediaries that were picked were:

Government; Community based Organisations(CBOs); Media;

and Entrepreneurs/Private business. ;

Workshop participants were then invited to group around one of the categories and to hold a a 15 minute discussion on this kind of intermediary. These discussions were then reported back to the plenary and summed up by the moderator. You can find a full report of this workshop at: http://opendataresearch.org/content/2014/716/groundopendataintermediariessessionreport


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fopendataresearch.org%2Fcontent%2F2014%2F716%2Fground-open-data-intermediaries-session-report&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGZqu97VmWVRZR-ly44JR2fFTCyeA




Looking ahead Over the coming months the ODDC project will be working to:

Agree Phase II activities to run until mid2015 Further disseminate data and findings from Phase I Plan the future of the Open Data Research Network

Updates on all these activities will be shared through the Open Data Research Network newsletter, and LinkedIn Group. www.opendataresearch.org/network/


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opendataresearch.org%2Fnetwork%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF6HZzUFqY1Io-MI26Xr6dqY4AETA




Participants The following people participated in the ODDC workshop: Aminata J Bah, Society for Democratic Initiatives, Sierra Leone Andres Martano, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Bernard Sabitti, Development Research and Training, Uganda Bhanupriya Rao, Web Foundation Carmela Zigoni, INESC, Brazil Emmanuel Abdullai, Society for Democratic Initiatives, Sierra Leone Emmy Chirchir, Web Foundation Estefanie Ulit, De La Salle University, Phillipines Fabrizio Scrollini Fernando Perini, IDRC, Canada Francois Van Schylke, University of Cape Town, South Africa Giselle Craviero, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Ilham Cendekia, Sinergantara, Indonesia Jorge Machado, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Jose M. Alonso, Web Foundation Krishna Sapokta, Freedom Forum, Nepal Leo Mutuku, iHUB, Kenya Loiusa Dennison, Development Initiatives, UK Maurice Mcnaughton (Mentor) Michael canares, Step Up Consultants, Philippines Michele Wilmers, University of Cape Town, South Africa Nidhi Srivastava, The Energy and Resources Institute, India Ome Mejabi, University of Ilorin, Nigeria Prabhu Raja, Transparent Chennai, India Raed Sharif (Mentor) Ricardo Matheus, Polis, Brazil Sandra Elena, CIPPEC, Argentina Satyarupa Shekhar, Transparent Chennai, India Sherwin Ona, De La Salle University, Philippines Silvana Fumega, University of Tasmania, Australia Sumandro Chattapadhyay, HasGeek, India Tim Davies, Web Foundation Victoria Room, Development Initiatives, UK Vinaya Padmanabhan, Transparent Chennai, India Zachariah Chiliswa, Jesuit Hakimani Center, Kenya,





Thanks Thank you to Wikimedia Germany for hosting our network workshop and research sharing event, and to the Open Knowledge Festival organising team for hosting the two networkorganised sessions within the main festival program. Thanks also to Sonia Khan and Jose M Alonso for notetaking that feeds into this report.




exploring the emerging impacts of open data in developing ... berlin 201… · phase i final...

Documents