Insufficient support services are one of the barriers for citizen’s open government data (OGD) utilisation. Considering the strengths and effectiveness of virtual assistants (VAs) in providing instant and user-friendly support services, this study focuses primarily on its implementation for OGD portals. A conversational VA prototype is specifically developed. A between-subjects experiment with one factor (VA/text-based support services) was carried out. Results show citizens’ positive attitudes towards VAs providing support services on OGD portals. No significant difference was found for citizens’ acceptance, trustworthiness and rapport for OGD portals with and without a VA. Accuracy rate of completing tasks with VAs is slightly higher. A correlation lies between trustworthiness and rapport with OGD portals. This study benefits the improvement of OGD portals’ online services to enhance citizens’ experiences and provides a research model both for investigating VAs’ effects and for comparing different designs of a same kind of service for an interface.
AttardJOrlandiFScerriSet al. A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Gov Inf Q2015; 32: 399–418.
2.
ChoiJYoonJChungJet al. Social media analytics and business intelligence research: a systematic review. Inf Process Manag2020; 57: 102279.
3.
UbaldiB.Open government data: towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives. OECD working papers on public governance no. 22, 27May2013. Paris: OECD Publishing.
4.
TaiK-T.Open government research over a decade: a systematic review. Gov Inf Q2021; 38: 101566.
5.
LnenickaMKomarkovaJ.Big and open linked data analytics ecosystem: theoretical background and essential elements. Gov Inf Q2019; 36: 129–144.
6.
CantadorICortés-CedielMEFernándezM.Exploiting open data to analyze discussion and controversy in online citizen participation. Inf Process Manag2020; 57: 102301.
7.
BaigMIShuibLYadegaridehkordiE.Big data adoption: state of the art and research challenges. Inf Process Manag2019; 56: 102095.
8.
PlantinJ-CLagozeCEdwardsPN.Re-integrating scholarly infrastructure: the ambiguous role of data sharing platforms. Big Data Soc. Epub ahead of print 9 February 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2053951718756683.
9.
SushaIGrönlund JanssenÅM.Driving factors of service innovation using open government data: an exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries. Inf Polity2015; 20: 19–34.
10.
Gonzalez-ZapataFHeeksR.The multiple meanings of open government data: understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Gov Inf Q2015; 32: 441–452.
11.
VeeckmanCvan der GraafS.The city as living laboratory: empowering citizens with the citadel toolkit. Technol Innov Manag Rev2015; 5: 6–17.
12.
HeiseANaumannF.Integrating open government data with stratosphere for more transparency. J Web Semant2012; 14: 45–56.
13.
WangDRichardsDChenC. Connecting users, data and utilization: a demand-side analysis of open government data. In: International conference on information, Washington, DC, 31 March–3 April 2019, pp. 488–500. New York: Springer.
14.
MeijerAJCurtinDHillebrandtM.Open government: connecting vision and voice. Int Rev Adm Sci2012; 78: 10–29.
WeerakkodyVIraniZKapoorKet al. Open data and its usability: an empirical view from the citizen’s perspective. Inf Syst Front2017; 19: 285–300.
17.
LeontievaLSKhalilovaTVGaynullinaLFet al. Social-communicative innovations in anti-corruption activities (regional aspect). Asian Soc Sci2015; 11: 387.
18.
SafarovIMeijerAGrimmelikhuijsenS.Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Inf Polity2017; 22: 1–24.
19.
RuijerEGrimmelikhuijsenSMeijerA.Open data for democracy: developing a theoretical framework for open data use. Gov Inf Q2017; 34: 45–52.
20.
RuijerEMeijerA.Open government data as an innovation process: lessons from a living lab experiment. Public Perform Manag Rev2020; 43: 613–635.
21.
WangDRichardsDChenC. An analysis of interaction between users and open government data portals in data acquisition process. In: Pacific Rim knowledge acquisition workshop, Nanjing, China, 28–29 August 2018, pp. 184–200. New York: Springer.
22.
RatnerHRuppertE.Producing and projecting data: aesthetic practices of government data portals. Big Data Soc. Epub ahead of 8 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2053951719853316.
23.
ThorsbyJStowersGNLWolslegelKet al. Understanding the content and features of open data portals in American cities. Gov Inf Q2017; 34: 53–61.
24.
Bogdanović-DinićSVeljkovićNStoimenovL. How open are public government data? An assessment of seven open data portals. In: MRodríguez-Bolívar (ed.) Measuring E-government efficiency. New York: Springer, 2014, pp. 25–44.
25.
JiangHWangSYaoJ.Structuration analysis of e-government studies: a bibliometric analysis based on knowledge maps. J Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 14 May 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0165551520978346.
26.
Villa-NicholasMSweeneyME.Designing the ‘good citizen’ through Latina identity in USCIS’s virtual assistant ‘Emma’. Fem Media Stud2020; 20: 909–925.
27.
VillegasWGarcía-OrtizJMullo-CaKet al. Implementation of a virtual assistant for the academic management of a university with the use of artificial intelligence. Future Internet2021; 13: 97.
28.
HolzwarthMJaniszewskiCNeumannMM.The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. J Mark2006; 70: 19–36.
29.
LaeeqKMemonZA.Scavenge: an intelligent multi-agent based voice-enabled virtual assistant for LMS. Interact Learn Environ2019; 29: 954–972.
30.
BahorskyRGraberJMasonS. Official internet dictionary: a comprehensive reference for professionals. Government Institutes, 1998, Rockville, Md.
31.
DehnDMVan MulkenS.The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. Int J Hum Comput Stud2000; 52: 1–22.
32.
DibitontoMLeszczynskaKTazziFet al. Chatbot in a campus environment: design of LiSA, a virtual assistant to help students in their university life. In: MKurosu (ed.) Human-computer interaction. Interaction technologies, Las Vegas, NV, 15–20 July 2018, pp. 103–116. New York: Springer.
33.
OlafssonSWallaceBBickmoreT. Towards a computational framework for automating substance use counseling with virtual agents. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Auckland, 9–13 May 2020, pp. 966–974. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
34.
JohnsonWLesterJ.Pedagogical agents: back to the future. AI Mag2018; 39: 33.
35.
KuramotoIBabaJOgawaKet al. Conversational agents to suppress customer anger in text-based customer-support conversations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-agent interaction, Southampton, 15–18 December 2018, pp. 114–121. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
36.
JanssenAPasslickJRodríguez CardonaDet al. Virtual assistance in any context. Bus Inf Syst Eng2020; 62: 211–225.
37.
OssowskaKSzewcLWeichbrothPet al. Exploring an ontological approach for user requirements elicitation in the design of online virtual agents. In: EuroSymposium on systems analysis and design, Gdansk, 29 September 2016, pp. 40–55. New York: Springer.
38.
ChattaramanVKwonW-SGilbertJEet al. Virtual agents in e-commerce: representational characteristics for seniors. J Res Interact Mark2011; 5: 276–297.
39.
DragoneMHolzTO’HareGM. Using mixed reality agents as social interfaces for robots. In: RO-MAN 2007-the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Jeju, South Korea, 26–29 August 2007, pp. 1161–1166. New York: IEEE.
40.
LiJKizilcecRBailensonJet al. Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Comput Hum Behavr2016; 55: 1222–1230.
41.
MeiselW.Specialized digital assistants and bots: vendor guide and market study. Los Angeles, CA: TMA Associates, 2016.
42.
SklarERichardsD.Agent-based systems for human learners. Knowl Eng Rev2010; 25: 111–135.
43.
QiuLBenbasatI.Online consumer trust and live help interfaces: the effects of text-to-speech voice and three-dimensional avatars. Int J Hum Comput Int2005; 19: 75–94.
44.
TaherdoostH.A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf2018; 22: 960–967.
45.
ZuiderwijkAJanssenMDwivediYK.Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Gov Inf Q2015; 32: 429–440.
46.
BurgoonJKBonitoJABengtssonBet al. Interactivity in human–computer interaction: a study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Comput Hum Behav2000; 16: 553–574.
47.
RogersEM.Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.
48.
CarterLBélangerF.The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf Syst J2005; 15: 5–25.
49.
GraylingT.If we build it, will they come? A usability test of two browser-based embedded help systems. Tech Commun2002; 49: 193–209.
BelangerFHillerJSSmithWJ.Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. J Strateg Inf Syst2002; 11: 245–270.
52.
VenkateshVThongJYChanFKet al. Managing citizens’ uncertainty in e-government services: the mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust. Inf Syst Res2016; 27: 87–111.
53.
TeoTSSrivastavaSCJiangL.Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. J Manag Inf Syst2008; 25: 99–132.
54.
Lawson-GuidigbeCLouvetonNAmokrane-FerkaKet al. Impact of visual embodiment on trust for a self-driving car virtual agent: a survey study and design recommendations. In: CStephanidisMAntona (eds) HCI international 2020 – posters. New York: Springer, 2020, pp. 382–389.
55.
WeitzKSchillerDSchlagowskiRet al. ‘Let me explain!’: exploring the potential of virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. J Multimodal User Interfaces2021; 15: 87–98.
56.
ParmarDOlafssonSUtamiDet al. Designing empathic virtual agents: manipulating animation, voice, rendering, and empathy to create persuasive agents. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst2022; 36: 17.
57.
McKnightDHChoudhuryVKacmarC.Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res2002; 13: 334–359.
58.
CassellJ.Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 2000.
DiederichSBrendelABSaschaLKolbeL. Design for fast request fulfillment or natural interaction? Insights from an experiment with a conversational agent. In: Proceedings of the 27th European conference on information systems (ECIS), Stockholm and Uppsala, 8–14 June 2019, https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/20/
67.
MaedaHSaikiSNakamuraMet al. Memory aid service using mind sensing and daily retrospective by virtual agent. In: DuffyV (ed.) Digital human modeling and applications in health, safety, ergonomics and risk management. Healthcare applications. New York: Springer, 2019, pp. 353–364.
68.
AndriellaATorrasCAbdelnourCet al. Introducing CARESSER: a framework for in situ learning robot social assistance from expert knowledge and demonstrations. User Model User Adapt Interact. Epub ahead of print 12 March 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-021-09316-5.
69.
HarveyPHCurrieEDaryananiPet al. Enhancing student support with a virtual assistant. In: Second international conference on E-learning, E-education, and online training, Novedrate, 16–18 September 2015, pp. 101–109. New York: Springer.
70.
Perez GarciaMSaffon LopezS. Building trust between users and telecommunications data driven virtual assistants. In: 14th IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations (AIAI), Rhodes, 25–27 May 2018, pp. 628–637. New York: Springer.
71.
GratchJMarsellaS.Social emotions in nature and artifact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
72.
TrinhHShamekhiAKimaniEet al. Predicting user engagement in longitudinal interventions with virtual agents. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 5–8 November 2018, pp. 9–16. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
73.
PurwantoAZuiderwijkAJanssenM. Citizens’ trust in open government data: a quantitative study about the effects of data quality, system quality and service quality. In: The 21st annual international conference on digital government research, Seoul, South Korea, 15–19 June 2020, pp. 310–318. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
74.
OstrowskiAKZygourasVParkHWet al. Small group interactions with voice-user interfaces: exploring social embodiment, rapport, and engagement. In: HRI ‘21: ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Boulder, CO, 8–11 March 2021, pp. 322–331. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
