In this study, a method was developed to allow a civil society organization to seek public budget information using open government data (OGD) available on platforms. Accordingly, an empirical study was conducted based on Design Science Research (DSR) to address how to monitor the future outcome of national education policy through e-transparency tools. The method designed, represented in a flowchart tool, revealed some aspects regarding the implications of e-transparency for the monitoring and projection of public policy accomplishment, identifying and addressing five constraints for the use of OGD platforms: granularity, traceability, correlation, accessibility, and usability. When monitoring is possible, civil society is interested in using the information to project the future outcomes of public policy rather than monitor the past, which creates a feature in envisioning the future public policy accomplishment.
AkutsuL. & PinhoJ. A. G. (2002) Sociedade da informação, accountability e democracia delegativa: investigação em portais de governo no Brasil. Revista de Administração Pública, 36, 723-45.
2.
AllisonB. (2010). My data can’t tell you that. In LathropD. & RumaL. (Eds.), Open government – Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice, pp. 257-265.
3.
BertotJ. C. (2009) Public access technologies in public libraries: Impacts and implications. Information Technology & Libraries,28, 84-95.
4.
BertotJ. C.JaegerP. T. & GrimesJ. M. (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264-271.
5.
BezerraH. D. (2008). Atores políticos, informação e democracia. Opinião Pública, 14(2), 414-431.
6.
BimberB. (2001) Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 53-67.
7.
CunhaM. A. & MirandaP. R. de M. (2013) A pesquisa no uso e implicações sociais das tecnologias da informação e comunicação pelos governos no Brasil: uma proposta de Agenda a partir de reflexões da prática e da produção acadêmica nacional. Organizações & Sociedade, 20(66), 543-566.
8.
da Silva CraveiroG. & AlbanoC. (2017). Open data intermediaries: coproduction in budget transparency. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 119-131.
9.
DawesS. S.VidiasovaL. & ParkhimovichO. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15-27.
10.
De JagerE., & van RensburgJ. J. (2019). Understanding Design Science Research through Project-based Learning: a Mobile App for e-Government. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 770-777). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
11.
DreyfusH. L. (2008) On the internet. Routledge.
12.
FedorowiczJ. & DiasM. A. (2010). A decade of design in digital government research. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 1-8.
13.
FieldM. (2019). How European Union policy actors use and assess the effectiveness of e-transparency. Public Policy and Administration, 34(1), 42-61.
14.
GiacomoniJ. (2012). Orçamento público. Atlas, São Paulo, 16 ed.
15.
HealdD. (2006) Varieties of Transparency. In: Hood, C.HealdD. Transparency: the key to better governance? Oxford University Press, Nova York.
16.
HeeksR. (2005) e-Government as a Carrier of Context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51-74.
17.
HevnerA. R. et al. (2004) Design Science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75-105.
18.
JaegerP. T.ThompsonK. M. (2003) E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and new directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389-394.
19.
JaegerP. T. & BertotJ. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371-376.
20.
JaakolaA.KekkonenH.LahtiT. & ManninenA. (2015). Open data, open cities: Experiences from the Helsinki metropolitan area. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 31(1), 117-122.
21.
LopesC. A. (2009) O uso das Tecnologias da Informação e Comunicações nas políticas de acesso à informação pública na América Latina. In: Congresso da associação brasileira de pesquisadores em comunicação e política.
22.
MarchS. T. & SmithG. F. (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266.
23.
MeijerA. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255-269.
24.
MeijerA. J.CurtinD. & HillebrandtM. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
25.
MerryM. K. (2011). Interest Group Activism on the Web: The Case of Environmental Organizations. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 110-128.
26.
OliveiraM. H. N. de. (2013). Financiamento da educação, plano nacional de educação (2011-2020) e agenda governamental: desafios e perspectivas. Revista Científica CENSUPEG, 1, 135-152.
27.
PappG.El-GayarO. & LovaasP. (2019). Designing Law sourcing for E-Democracy in the United States. In: Proceedings of AMCIS 2019 Conference, Cancún.
28.
PeffersK. et al. (2007) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77.
29.
PrzeybiloviczE.CunhaM. A.PóvoaA. (2017) Budget Transparency for Monitoring Public Policies: Limits of Technology and Context. In: MaedcheA.vom BrockeJ.HevnerA. (eds) Designing the Digital Transformation. DESRIST 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10243. Springer, Cham.
