The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how Estonia used action research and systems theory to improve the performance their Open Government Data (OGD) ecosystem. This paper understands performance of OGD ecosystems of as consisting of three parts: 1) OGD supply, 2) OGD usage, 3) communication, interaction, and linkages between OGD suppliers and users. It was believed that by taking a holistic approach, encouraging transparency and co-creation, and manipulating feedback loops it was possible to improve the performance of the ecosystem. The research uses and validates previous research on open government data ecosystems and by doing so also achieved increased levels of performance in Estonia’s OGD ecosystem. The paper’s main contributions are the creation of a framework based on systems theory, systems thinking, and action research for enacting strategic change in OGD ecosystems, conceptualizing feedback loops as a core part of OGD ecosystems, and the conceptualization of performance in OGD ecosystems. The paper concludes by offering nine core insights related to OGD ecosystems and their performance.
AlexopoulosC.ZuiderwijkA.CharapabidisY.LoukisE., & JanssenM. (2014). Designing a Second Generation of Open Data Platforms: Integrating Open Data and Social Media. In JanssenM.SchollH.J.WimmerM.A., & BannisterF., (Eds.), Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Vol. 8653, pp. 230–241. Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-44426-9_19.
2.
BarryE., & BannisterF. (2014). Barriers to open data release: a view from the top. Information Polity, 19(1/2), 129–152. doi: 10.3233/IP-140327.
3.
BaskervilleR.L. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2. doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.00219.
4.
BaskervilleR., & MyersM.D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: making is research relevant to practice: foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 329. doi: 10.2307/25148642.
5.
BlankM. (2019). Open Data Maturity Report 2019. European Data Portal. doi: 10.2830/073835.
6.
BrudanA. (2010). Rediscovering performance management: systems, learning and integration. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(1), 109–123. doi: 10.1108/13683041011027490.
7.
ConradieP., & ChoenniS. (2014). On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), S10–S17. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.003.
8.
CorrêaA.S.de PaulaE.C.CorrêaP.L.P., & da SilvaF.S.C. (2017). Transparency and open government data: a wide national assessment of data openness in Brazilian local governments. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 58–78. doi: 10.1108/TG-12-2015-0052.
9.
CrawleyE.CameronB., & SelvaD. (2015). System Architecture: Strategy and Product Development for Complex Systems. Prentice Hall Press.
10.
DavisonR.MartinsonsM.G., & KockN. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x.
11.
DawesS.S.VidiasovabL., & ParkhimovichcO. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: an ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.003.
12.
DonkerF.W., & van LoenenB. (2017). How to assess the success of the open data ecosystem? International Journal of Digital Earth, 10(3), 284–306. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2016.1224938.
13.
European Data Portal. (2018a). Benefits of Open Data. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/using-data/benefits-of-open-data.
14.
European Data Portal. (2018b). Open Data in Europe. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard#tab-country-overview.
15.
European Data Portal. (2019). Open Data Maturity 2019 – Estonia. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/country-factsheet_estonia_2019.pdf.
16.
ForresterJ.W. (1991). System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years. In De Greene KenyonB., (Eds.), The Systemic Basis of Policy Making in the 1990s.
17.
ForresterJ.W. (2013). Industrial dynamics. Martino Fine Books.
18.
FoulonneauM.MartinS., & TurkiS. (2014). How open data are turned into services? Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 169 LNBIP(June), 31–39. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04810-9.
19.
Freedom House. (2017). FREEDOM OF THE PRESS – Press Freedom’s Dark Horizon. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28.pdf.
20.
FriedmanV.J., & RogersT. (2009). There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research, 7(1), 31–47. doi: 10.1177/1476750308099596.
21.
GoldkuhlG. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135–146. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2011.54.
22.
Gonzalez-ZapataF., & HeeksR. (2015). The multiple meanings of open government data: understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 441–452. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.001.
23.
HamJ.LeeJ.-N.KimD., & ChoiB. (2015). Open Innovation Maturity Model for the Government: An Open System Perspective. In 36th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2015). Fort Worth, TX, USA.
24.
HarrisonT.M.GuerreroS.BurkeG.B.CookM.CresswellA.HelbigN.HrdinovaJ., & PardoT. (2012). Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 17(2), 83–97.
25.
HarrisonT.M.PardoT.A., & CookM. (2012). Creating open government ecosystems: a research and development agenda. Future Internet, 4(4), 900–928. doi: 10.3390/fi4040900.
26.
HeimstädtM.SaundersonF., & HeathT. (2014a). Conceptualizing Open Data ecosystems: A timeline analysis of Open Data development in the UK. In Conference for E-Democracy and Open Governement, p. 245.
27.
HeimstädtM.SaundersonF., & HeathT. (2014b). From toddler to teen: growth of an open data ecosystem. JeDEM – EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 6(2), 123–135. doi: 10.29379/jedem.v6i2.330.
28.
HuberS. (2012). Indicators For The Fitness Of Municipal Open Government Data (ogd) To Be Processed Into E-participation Innovations With Intended Societal Impacts. In SchollH.J.FlakL.S.JanssenM.MacintoshA.MoeC.E.SæbøØWimmerM.A., (Eds.), Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV and ePart 2012, Vol. 39, pp. 249–258. Kristiansand, Norway.
29.
ImmonenA.PalviainenM., & OvaskaE. (2014a). Requirements of an open data based business ecosystem. IEEE Access, 2, 88–103. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2302872.
30.
ImmonenA.PalviainenM., & OvaskaE. (2014b). Towards open data based business: survey on usage of open data in digital services. International Journal of Research in Business and Technology, 4(1). doi: 10.17722/ijrbt.v4i1.197.
31.
JanssenM.CharalabidisY., & ZuiderwijkA. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716740.
32.
Juell-SkielseG.HjalmarssonA.JohannessonP., & RudmarkD. (2014). Is the Public Motivated to Engage in Open Data Innovation? In JanssenM.SchollH.J.WimmerM.A., & BannisterF., (Eds.), Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Vol. 8653, pp. 277–288. Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-44426-9_23.
33.
KalvetT. (2012). Innovation: a factor explaining e-government success in estonia. Electronic Government, 9(2), 142–157. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
34.
KassenM. (2013). A promising phenomenon of open data: a case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 508–513. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.012.
35.
KhayyatM., & BannisterF. (2017). Towards a model for facilitating and enabling co-creation using open government data. Information Polity, 22(4), 211–231. doi: 10.3233/IP-170406.
36.
KitsingM. (2011). Success without strategy: e-government development in estonia. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 86–106. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1095.
37.
KitsiosF., & KamariotouM. (2017). From Apps to Start-ups: Success Factors for New Entries in Open Data Ecosystem. In Global Opportunities for Entrepreneurial Growth: Coopetition and Knowledge Dynamics within and across Firms, pp. 337–354. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/978-1-78714-501-620171020.
38.
KitsiosF.PapachristosN., & KamariotouM. (2017). Business models for open data ecosystem: Challenges and motivations for entrepreneurship and innovation. In Proceedings – 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics, CBI 2017, Vol. 1, pp. 398–407. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. doi: 10.1109/CBI.2017.51.
39.
KuulM. (2015). Eesti avaandmete kasutamist piirab kohalik turuolukord. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from https://www.err.ee/531904/eesti-avaandmete-kasutamist-piirab-kohalik-turuolukord.
40.
LeeD. (2014). Building an Open Data Ecosystem: An Irish Experience. In 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2014), pp. 351–360. ACM. doi: 10.1145/2691195.2691258.
41.
LõugasH. (2019a). E-riigi andmejuht: me ootame konkreetseid ettepanekuid, milliseid avaandmeid tahetakse. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from https://digi.geenius.ee/rubriik/uudis/e-riigi-andmejuht-me-ootame-konkreetseid-ettepanekuid-milliseid-avaandmeid-tahetakse/.
42.
LõugasH. (2019b). Palju Sepp ja Ratas parteikassasse viisid? E-riik Eesti on avaandmete osas teistest maadest palju kehvem. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from https://digi.geenius.ee/rubriik/uudis/palju-sepp-ja-ratas-parteikassasse-viisid-e-riik-eesti-on-avaandmete-osas-teistest-maadest-palju-kehvem/.
43.
NajafabadiM., & Luna-ReyesL. (2017). Open Government Data Ecosystems: A Closed-Loop Perspective. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-50). Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA. https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41483.
44.
McBrideK.AavikG.TootsM.KalvetT., & KrimmerR. (2018). How does open government data driven co-creation occur? Six factors and a ‘perfect storm’; insights from Chicago’s food inspection forecasting model. Government Information Quarterly. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.006.
45.
McBrideK.TootsM.KalvetT., & KrimmerR. (2018a). Leader in e-government, laggard in open data: exploring the case of estonia. Revue Francaise d’Administration Publique, 167(3). doi: 10.3917/rfap.167.0613.
46.
McBrideK.TootsM.KalvetT., & KrimmerR. (2018b). Open government data driven co-creation: Moving towards citizen-government collaboration. In: ParycekP., et al., (Eds.), Electronic Government. EGOV 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11020. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98690-6_16.
47.
McBrideK. (2020). Open Government Data Co-Created Public Services. Tallinn University of Technology. Retrieved 29 May, 2020, from https://digikogu.taltech.ee/et/Item/e75082ae-9115-48c0-9526-09466e8a6698.
48.
MeadowsD.H. (2008). Thinking in systems: a primer. Diana Wright, Ed. Chelsea Green Publishing.
49.
MeriTalk. (2016). Estonia CIO Calls U.S. Open Data ‘So Last Century.’ Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.eritalk.com/articles/estonia-cio-calls-u-s-open-data-so-last-century/.
50.
NardiB., & O’DayV. (1999). Information ecologies: using technology with heart: chapter four: information ecologies. First Monday, 4(5). Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/672/582.
51.
OECD. (2018). Open Government Data. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/open-government-data.htm.
52.
Open Knowledge International. (2018). Why Open Data? Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://okfn.org/opendata/why-open-data/.
53.
PeekA. (2018). Eesti TOP 10 populaarsemat ettevõtete aadressi. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://opendata.riik.ee/et/blogi/Eesti-TOP-10-populaarsemat-ettevotete-aadressi/.
54.
ReggiL., & DawesS. (2016). Open Government Data Ecosystems: Linking Transparency for Innovation with Transparency for Participation and Accountability. In: Hans Jochen SchollGlasseyO.JanssenM.KlievinkB.LindgrenI.ParycekP.Sa Soare.D., (Eds.), Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2016. Guimarães, Portugal: Springer International Publishing.
55.
SarapuuK. (2010). Comparative analysis of state administrations: the size of state as an independent. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture, 11(1), 30–43. Retrieved from http://halduskultuur.eu/journal/index.php/HKAC/article/view/12.
56.
SchrockA., & ShafferG. (2017). Data ideologies of an interested public: a study of grassroots open government data intermediaries. Big Data & Society, 4(1), 205395171769075. doi: 10.1177/2053951717690750.
57.
StyrinE.Luna-ReyesL.F., & HarrisonT.M. (2017). Open data ecosystems: an international comparison. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 132–156. doi: 10.1108/TG-01-2017-0006.
58.
SusmanG.I., & EveredR.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582. doi: 10.2307/2392581.
59.
TammistR. (2018). riigi andmed peavad olema avalikud. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from https://arileht.delfi.ee/news/uudised/rene-tammist-riigi-andmed-peavad-olema-avalikud?id=83873579.
60.
TootsM.McBrideK.KalvetT., & KrimmerR. (2017). Open data as enabler of public service co-creation: Exploring the drivers and barriers. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, CeDEM 2017. doi: 10.1109/CeDEM.2017.12.
61.
Vabariigi Valitsus. (2014). Eesti avaliku teabe masinloetav avalikustamise roheline raamat. Retrieved 29 May, 2020, from https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2014-04/EstonianOpenDataGreenbook.pdf.
62.
WangH.J., & LoJ. (2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.004.
63.
WholeyJ.S. (1996). Formative and summative evaluation: related issues in performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 17(2), 145–149. doi: 10.1177/109821409601700206.
64.
YoungM., & YanA. (2017). Civic Hackers’ User Experiences and Expectations of Seattle’s Open Municipal Data Program. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-50), pp. 2681–2690. https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41480.
65.
ZuiderwijkA., & JanssenM. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003.
66.
ZuiderwijkA.JanssenM.ChoenniS.MeijerR., & AlibaksR.S. (2012). Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electronic Journal of Electronic Government, 10(2), 156–172.
67.
ZuiderwijkA.JanssenM., & DavisC. (2014). Innovation with open data: essential elements of open data ecosystems. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 17–33. doi: 10.3233/IP-140329.
