Improving Open Government Data Performance of Local Governments: A Configurational Analysis Based on TOE Framework

Abstract

Open Government Data (OGD) is leading the way towards digitization, intelligence, and transparency of public services and government decision-making. Aiming at elucidating the configurational path of OGD performance of local governments, this paper employs the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework and the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore the key factors and configuration paths of OGD performance from the cases of 31 provincial OGD practice in China. Results indicate that OGD performance depends on the combination of technical, organizational, and external environment conditions, and that there exist substitution relationships among the various preconditions for the improvement of OGD performance, including information infrastructure, technology application capability, data resources, economic strength, policy regulations, and inter-government competition, as discussed in previous TOE based research. Specifically, seven configuration paths are identified to achieve high-level OGD performance, namely, Technology-Organization-Environment combined driven, Economy-Talent-Demand driven, Institution-Data-Policies driven, Institution-Economy-Demand driven, Organization-Policies-Competition driven, Data-Economy-Demand driven, and Data-Policies-Competition driven. This research is of particular significance to achieve high-level OGD performance for local governments with different resources and environments.

Keywords

Open government data OGD performance TOE framework fsQCA configurational paths

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

Beynon

M.J

McDermott

A.M.

(2016) Organizational capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2) 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv005

Attard

Orlandi

Auer

(2016). Value Creation on Open Government Data. Paper presented at the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , Koloa, HI. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.326.

Attard

Orlandi

Scerri

Auer

(2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4) 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006.

Aversa

Furnari

Haefliger

(2019). Business model configurations and performance: A qualitative comparative analysis in formula one racing, 2005–2013. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3) 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtv012.

Baker

(2012). The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework. In: Dwivedi, Y., Wade, M., Schneberger, S. (eds) Information Systems Theory. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 28. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-61082_12.

Barry

Bannister

(2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Information Polity, 19(1/2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-140327.

Bearfield

D.A

Bowman

A.O.M.

(2017). Can you find it on the web? An assessment of municipal e-government transparency. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2) 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015627694

Berry

F.S

Berry

W.D.

(1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. P.A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process, Westview, Boulder, CO.

Bertot

J.C

Jaeger

R.T

Grimes

R.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(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001.

10.

Brown

M.M.

(2001). The benefits and costs of information technology innovations: An empirical assessment of a local government agency. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(4) 351–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381224.

11.

Carrasco

Sobrepere

(2015). Open government data: An assessment of the Spanish municipal situation. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5) 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560678

12.

Chau

P.Y

Tam

K.Y.

(2019). Key determinants of online fiscal transparency: A technology-organization-environment framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(3) 606–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1486213.

13.

Chen

Kang

Luna-Reyes

L.F.

(2019). Key determinants of online fiscal transparency: A technology-organization-environment framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(3), 606–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1486213.

14.

Chen

Y.C

Chang

T.W.

(2020). Explaining government’s online transparency on collaborative policy platforms: Risk management and configurational conditions. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 560–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1574591

15.

China Center for Information Industry Development (CCID). (2021). White Paper on the Evaluation of Regional Development Levels of Big Data in China. Retrieved from https://docs.qq.com/pdf/DVWVIYXhZeWxrR3JC.

16.

China National Big Data Key Strategy Laboratory (CNBDKS Lab). (2020). Big Data Blue Paper: China Big Data Development Report No.5. Retrieved from https://www.doc88.com/p-57347146319410.html?r=1

17.

Christensen

E.W

Hughes

J.E.

(2000). Putting your agency on the Web. G. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems, Marcel Dekker, New York.

18.

Congress

U.S.

(2018). Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018. In 115th Congress HR (Vol. 4174) . Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf.

19.

Conradie

Choenni

(2014). On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S10–S17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.003.

20.

Dawes

S.S

Pardo

T.A

Dicaterino

(1999). Crossing the threshold: Practical foundations for government services on the world wide web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(4), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:4<346::AID-ASI12>3.0.CO;2-I.

21.

Dawes

S.S

Vidiasova

Parkhimovich

(2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.003.

22.

Dawes

S.S.

Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly 27(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.001.

23.

Lab for Digital & Mobile Governance of Fudan University (DGM Lab). (2021). China Local Government Open Data Report 2021. Retrieved from http://ifopendata.fudan.edu.cn/report.

24.

Dimaggio

P.J

Powell

W.W.

(2000), The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, Baum, J.A.C., & Dobbin, F. (Ed.) Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management (Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 17), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1.

25.

Dwivedi

Y.K

Wastell

Laumer

Henriksen

H.Z

Myers

M.D

., et al. (2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9500-y.

26.

Eckartz

S.M

Hofman

W.J

Van Veenstra

A.F.

(2014). A Decision Model for Data Sharing. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J.,Wimmer, M.A., & Bannister, F. (eds) Electronic Government. EGOV 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8653. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44426-9_21.

27.

E-Government Research Center, Chinese Academy of Governance. (2020). Provincial Government and Key Cities Online Government Service Capability Survey and Evaluation Report. Retrieved from http://zwpg.egovernment.gov.cn/xiazai/2021zwpg.pdf.

28.

El-Haddadeh

Osmani

Hindi

Fadlalla

(2021). Value creation for realising the sustainable development goals: Fostering organisational adoption of big data analytics. Journal of Business Research, 131, 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.066.

29.

European Commission. (2011). Open Data-an Engine for Innovation, Economic Growth and Transparent Governance. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0882:FIN:EN:PDF.

30.

Fan

(2013). Achieving horizontal integration of municipal e-government in China: Assessment of managerial mechanisms. Information Development, 29(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666912465873.

31.

Fan

Zhao

(2017). The moderating effect of external pressure on the relationship between internal organizational factors and the quality of open government data. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.006.

32.

Fiss

P.C.

(2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120.

33.

Gil-Garcia

J.R

Gasco-Hernandez

Pardo

T.A.

(2020). Beyond transparency, participation, and collaboration? A reflection on the dimensions of open government. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1734726.

34.

Granickas

(2013). Understanding the impact of releasing and re-using open government data. Retrieved from https://www.unsiap.or.jp/programmes/ms_materials/ms11/Open_Data_Impact.pdf.

35.

Greckhamer

Furnari

Fiss

P.C

Aguilera

R.V.

(2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 18(3), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487.

36.

Grimmelikhuijsen

S.G

Feeney

M.K.

Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments. Public Administration Review (2017). 77(4), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12689.

37.

Gupta

George

J.F.

(2016). Toward the development of a Big Data analytic capability. Information & Management, 53(8), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004.

38.

Harrison

T.M

Pardo

T.A

Meghan

(2012). Creating open government ecosystems: A research and development agenda. Future Internet, 4(4), 900–900. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi4040900.

39.

Heimstädt

Saunderson

Heath

(2014). Conceptualizing Open Data ecosystems: A timeline analysis of Open Data development in the UK. Paper Presented at the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2014 , Berlin. https://doi.org/10.17169/FUDOCS_document_000000020332.

40.

Helbig

Cresswell

A.M

Burke

G.B

Luna-Reyes

(2012). The Dynamics of Opening Government Data. Retrieved from http://dev5.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/opendata/opendata.pdf

41.

Hoffmann

(2012). Data mining meets city hall. Communications of the ACM, 55(6), 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/2184319.2184326.

42.

Hossain

M.A

Rahman

Quaddus

Hooi

Olanrewaju

A.S.

(2021). Factors affecting performance of open government data initiatives: A multi-method approach using SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 31(4), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2021.2018258.

43.

Huang

(2019). Leveraging big data and machine learning for digital transformation. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 23(3), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3233/JID190020

44.

Ingrams

(2017). The legal-normative conditions of police transparency: A configurational approach to open data adoption using qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 95(2), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12319.

45.

Janssen

Charalabidis

Zuiderwijk

(2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740.

46.

Jetzekt

(2013). The value generating mechanisms of open government data. Geoforum Perspektiv, 23(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.persk.v12i23.489.

47.

Kaasenbrood

(2013). An exploration of the use of open government data by private organizations. Contributing to the improvement of governmental policies by examining the current use of open government data by private organizations in The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:5442b888-ad89-4117-b2fc-423e6b2107dd.

48.

Kalidien

Choenni

Meijer

R.F.

(2010). Crime statistics online: Potentials and challenges. Paper Presented at the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities , Puebla, Mexico. https://doi.org/10.5555/1809874.1809900.

49.

Kassen

(2017). Open data in KazakhsMtan: Incentives, implementation and challenges. Information Technology & People, 30(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2015-0243.

50.

Kassen

(2018). Open data and its institutional ecosystems: A comparative cross-jurisdictional analysis of open data platforms. Canadian Public Administration, 61(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12251.

51.

Klievink

Romijn

B.J

Cunningham

de Bruijn

Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information Systems Frontiers 19(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9686-2.

52.

Köster

Suárez

(2016). Open data for development: Experience of Uruguay, Paper Presented at the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance , Montevideo, Uruguay. https://doi.org/10.1145/2910019.2910060.

53.

Kuan

K.K

Chau

P.Y.

(2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Information & Management, 38(8), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00073-8.

54.

Lee

(2014). Building an open data ecosystem: An Irish experience, Paper Presented at the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance , Guimaraes, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.1145/2691195.2691258.

55.

Lee

Kwak

(2012). An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001.

56.

Lee

S.Y

Whitford

A.B.

(2013). Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US Federal Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus050.

57.

Lian

J.W

Yen

D.C

Wang

Y.T.

(2014). An exploratory study to understand the critical factors affecting the decision to adopt cloud computing in Taiwan hospital. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00073-8.

58.

Linders

(2012). From e-govenrment to we-government: Defining a typology of citizen co-production in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003.

59.

Lnenicka

Komarkova

(2019). Big and open linked data analytics ecosystem: Theoretical background and essential elements. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.004.

60.

Lopez-Herrejon

R.E

Linsbauer

Egyed

(2015). A systematic mapping study of search-based software engineering for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 61, 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.01.008.

61.

(2014). Diffusion and assimilation of government microblogging: Evidence from Chinese cities. Fudan Public Administration Review, 16(2), 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725763.

62.

Maarten

P.V

Olaf

V.V.

(2009). Not quite crisp, not yet fuzzy? assessing the potentials and pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods, 21(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x09332633.

63.

Mark

Hansen Lee

Perry

et al. (2004). A Bayesian operationalization of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1279–1295. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1318194.

64.

McKinsey Global Institute. (2013). Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com//media/mckinsey/business functions/mckinsey digital/our insights/open data unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information/mgi_open_data_fullreport_oct2013.pdf.

65.

Meijer

Choenni

Alibaks

R.S

Conradie

(2013). Bridging the Contradictions of Open Data. Paper Presented at the 13th European Conference on eGovernment , Varese, Italy.

66.

Mercado-Lara

Gil-Garcia

J.R.

(2014). Open government and data intermediaries: The case of AidData. Paper Presented at the 15th Annual International Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/2612733.2612789.

67.

Mhlanga

F.S.

(2006). A developing country’s information and communication technology infrastructure in perspective: A vision for the st century. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 10(1), 71–78.

68.

Moon

M.J.

(2020). Shifting from old open government to new open government: Four critical dimensions and case illustrations. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1691024.

69.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). (2021). China Statistics Annual. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2021/indexch.htm.

70.

Nguyen

T.H

X.C

T.H.L.

(2022). An extended technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework for online retailing utilization in digital transformation: Empirical evidence from vietnam. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(4), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040200.

71.

OECD. (2010). Annex B. Reaping the Benefits of Cloud Computing, Web 2.0 and Open Data: OECD Country Experiences, in Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smarter Public Service Delivery, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087118-en.

72.

Ohemeng

F.L.K

Ofosu-Adarkwa

(2015). One way traffic: The open data initiative project and the need for an effective demand side initiative in Ghana. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.005.

73.

Open Data Monitor Consortium. (2023). Open Data Monitor Dashboard. Retrieved from https://opendatamonitor.eu/frontend/web/index.php?r=dashboard%2Findex.

74.

OpenGovernment Partnership Members. OpenGovernment Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/our-members/.

75.

Open Knowledge Foundation. (2017). Global Open Data Index. Retrieved from https://index.okfn.org/place.html.

76.

Papamitsiou

Economides

A.A

Pappas

I.O

Giannakos

M.N.

(2018). Explaining learning performance using response-time, selfregulation and satisfaction from content: An fsQCA approach. Paper Presented at the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge , Sydney, NSW. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170397.

77.

Pappas

I.O.

(2018). User experience in personalized online shopping: A fuzzy-set analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7/8), 1679–1703. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0707.

78.

Pappas

I.O

Woodside

A.G.

(2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58(3), 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310.

79.

Ragin

C.C.

(1987). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA.

80.

Ragin

C.C.

(2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Set and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

81.

Reggi

Dawes

S.S.

(2022). Creating Open Government Data ecosystems: Network relations among governments, user communities, NGOs and the media. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), Article 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101675.

82.

Ruijer

Meijer

(2020). Open government data as an innovation process: Lessons from a living lab experiment. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1568884.

83.

Rihoux

Ragin

C.C.

(2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

84.

Safarov

(2019). Institutional dimensions of open government data implementation: Evidence from the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Public Performance & Management Review, 4(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1438296.

85.

Safarov

(2020). Institutional dimensions of open government data implementation: Evidence from transition countries. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(6), 1359–1389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1805336.

86.

Safarov

Meijer

Grimmelikhuijsen

(2017). Utilization of open government data: A systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, 22(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-160012.

87.

Schneider

C.Q

Wagemann

(2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

88.

Schuurman

Deshpande

Allen

(2008). Data integration across borders: A case study of the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer (British Columbia/Washington State). Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(4), 921–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1752-1688.2008.00192.X.

89.

Scott

W.R.

(1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

90.

Shin

D.H

Choi

M.J.

(2015). Ecological views of Big Data: Perspectives and issues. Telematics & Informatics, 32(2), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.09.006.

91.

Sieber

R.E

Johnson

(2015). Civic open data at a crossroads: Dominant models and current challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.003.

92.

Sim

Kim

K.Y.

(2018). Roles of causality for understanding the behavior of system stakeholders. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 22(4), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3233/JID180016.

93.

Srivastava

S.C

Teo

T.S.

(2010). E-government, e-business, and national economic performance. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02614.

94.

Styrin

Luna-Reyes

L.F

Harrison

T.M.

(2017). Open data ecosystems: An international comparison. Transforming Government People Process and Policy, 11(1), 132–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2017-0006.

95.

Susha

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

Gronlund

(2015). Benchmarks for evaluating the progress of open data adoption: Usage, limitations, and lessons learned. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560852.

96.

Thi

L.S

Lim

H.E

Al-Zoubi

M.I.

(2014). Estimating influence of toe factors on e-government usage: Evidence from Jordanian companies. International Journal of Business & Society, 15(3), 413–436.

97.

Thiem

(2013). Clearly crisp, and not fuzzy: A reassessment of the (putative) pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods, 25(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x13478135.

98.

Tornatzky

L.G

Fleischer

(1990) The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington.

99.

Tsou

H.T

Hsu

S.H.Y.

(2015). Performance effects of technology–organization–environment openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: The case of the IT industry. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.09.001.

100.

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2020). E-Government Survey 2020. Retrieved from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2020-Survey/2020UNE-GovernmentSurvey(FullReport).pdf.

101.

Vatrapu

Mukkamala

R.R

Hussain

Flesch

(2016). Social set analysis: A set theoretical approach to Big Data analytics. IEEE Access, 4, 2542–2571. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2559584.

102.

Vink

M.P

Vliet

O.P.van.

(2013). Potentials and pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods, 25(2), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X13478134.

103.

Wang

H.J

(2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.004.

104.

Wang

Shepherd

(2020). Exploring the extent of openness of open government data –a critique of open government datasets in the UK. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101405.

105.

Wang

Zeng

(2017). Organizational capability model: Toward improving organizational performance. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 21(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.3233/jid-2017-0005.

106.

Warfield

J.N.

(2008). Multicausality. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 12(2), 27–29.

107.

Wijnhoven

Ehrenhard

Kuhn

(2015). Open government objectives and participation motivations. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.10.002.

108.

World Bank. (2013). Part B: Open data readiness assessment methodology. Retrieved from http://data.world.bank.org/sites/default/files/1/odra_v3_methodology-en.pdf.

109.

World Wide Web Foundation. (2018). Open Data Barometer Leaders Edition: From Promise to Progress. Retrieved from https://opendatabarometer.org/doc/leadersEdition/ODB-leadersEdition-Report.pdf.

110.

Xiong

Tang

Fan

(2011). Metadata distribution and consistency techniques for large-scale cluster file systems. IEEE Transaction on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22(5), 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2010.154.

111.

Yang

T.M

Shiang

(2015). To open or not to open? Determinants of open government data. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515586715.

112.

Yang

(2016). Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies’ open data publication: A study in Taiwan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.003.

113.

Yavuz

Welch

E.W.

(2014). Factors affecting openness of local government websites: Examining the differences across planning, finance and police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.004.

114.

Zeleti

F.A

Ojo

(2017). Open data value capability architecture. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9711-5.

115.

Zhang

J.C

Chen

Y.C.

(2015). Enhancing open government information performance: A study of institutional capacity and organizational arrangement in China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 8(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2014.993410.

116.

Zhang

Dawes

S.S

Sarkis

(2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390510624007.

117.

Zhang

Z.B

Guo

(2020). Together making a difference: A configurational study of nonprofit advocacy efectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), 942–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1724163.

118.

Zhao

Fan

(2018). Exploring open government data capacity of government agency: Based on the resource-based theory. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.002.

119.

Zhao

Fan

(2021). Understanding the key factors and configurational paths of the open government data performance: Based on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101580.

120.

Zhao

Liang

Yao

Han

(2022). Key factors and generation mechanisms of open government data performance: A mixed methods study in the case of China. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101717.

121.

Zhu

Kraemer

K.L

(2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management Science, 52(10), 1557–1576. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487.

122.

Zhu

Wang

Chen

(2010). What leads to post-implementation success of ERP? An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.09.007.

123.

Zuiderwijk

Jeffery

Janssen

(2012a). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 4(2) 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560678.

124.

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

Choenni

Meijer

Alibaks

R.S.

(2012b). Socio-technical impediments of open data. The Electronic Journal of eGovernment, 10(2), 56–172

125.

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

(2013a). A Coordination Theory Perspective to Improve the Use of Open Data in Policy-Making. In: Wimmer, M.A., Janssen, M., & Scholl, H.J. (eds) Electronic Government. EGOV 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8074. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40358-3_4.

126.

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

Jeffery

(2013b). Towards an e-infrastructure to support the provision and use of open data. Paper Presented at the Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM13) , Krems an der Donau, Austria.

127.

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

(2014a). Barriers and development directions for the publication and usage of open data: A socio-technical view. Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Mila Gasco-Hernandez (ed.), Open Government, edition 127,115-135. https://doi.org/115-135.10.1007/978-1-4614-9563-5_8.

128.

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

Davis

(2014b). Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems. Information Polity, 19(1), 17–33.

129.

Zuiderwijk

Janssen

(2014)c. Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003.

130.

Zuiderwijk

Susha

Charalabidis

Parycek

Janssen

(2015). Open data disclosure and use: Critical factors from a case study. Paper Presented at the CeDEM15: Conference for E-democracy and Open Government , Danube University Krems, Austria.