Volume 8, Issue 4 (2-2022)
Human Information Interaction 2022, 8(4): 47-65 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Moradi M, Mazoochi M. A Comprehensive Method of Evaluating Open Government Data with the Aim of Improving Data Quality and Increasing Citizens' Willingness. Human Information Interaction 2022; 8 (4)
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3031-en.html
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3031-en.html
ICT Research Institute
Abstract: (3030 Views)
Purpose: The purpose is to present an open government data evaluation method by considering comprehensive and complete dimensions and criteria - calculating the weight and importance of each criterion, examining the country in this area, clustering organizations and presenting a classification model to predict the situation.
Methodology: Library studies was used to extract the dimensions and criteria of evaluation. Population includes articles related to open government data evaluation criteria. Ten articles were reviewed by simple random sampling method. Multiple attribute decision making techniques was used to calculate the weight and importance of each criterion. Data mining techniques was incorporated to cluster and create a classification model.
Findings: By reviewing the articles 15 criteria of open government data evaluation including: Data originality, license openness, up-to-datedness, data access rate, metadata completeness, number of data sets, format openness, non-discriminatory, comprehensible, number of data fields, free, no missing data, data request ability, visual and feedback, were extracted. Using AHP technique, the weights of the criteria were calculated, which after normalization, the total weight of the 15 extracted criteria was equal to one. "Data originality" with a weight of 0.165, " license openness " with a weight of 0.124 and " up-to-datedness" with a weight of 0.109 were ranked first to third among 15 evaluation criteria, respectively. Weight of evaluation criteria obtained and data extraction of 358 organizations in harmony with 15 evaluation criteria, the weight of organizations was calculated. The sum of the weights was equal to one. "East Azerbaijan Agricultural Jihad Organization" with a weight of 0.088, "Statistics Center of Iran" with a weight of 0.062 and "Geological Survey" with a weight of 0.058 were the first to third ranks among 358 organizations and government institutions, respectively, based on the combination of criteria and the weight of criteria.
Conclusion: Evaluation criteria obtained, calculating the weight and importance of each criterion, examining the current situation of government organizations and institutions in the country and the classification model created can help managers to understand the current situation and improve it and thus increase citizens' interaction with open government data as a kind of human information interaction.
Methodology: Library studies was used to extract the dimensions and criteria of evaluation. Population includes articles related to open government data evaluation criteria. Ten articles were reviewed by simple random sampling method. Multiple attribute decision making techniques was used to calculate the weight and importance of each criterion. Data mining techniques was incorporated to cluster and create a classification model.
Findings: By reviewing the articles 15 criteria of open government data evaluation including: Data originality, license openness, up-to-datedness, data access rate, metadata completeness, number of data sets, format openness, non-discriminatory, comprehensible, number of data fields, free, no missing data, data request ability, visual and feedback, were extracted. Using AHP technique, the weights of the criteria were calculated, which after normalization, the total weight of the 15 extracted criteria was equal to one. "Data originality" with a weight of 0.165, " license openness " with a weight of 0.124 and " up-to-datedness" with a weight of 0.109 were ranked first to third among 15 evaluation criteria, respectively. Weight of evaluation criteria obtained and data extraction of 358 organizations in harmony with 15 evaluation criteria, the weight of organizations was calculated. The sum of the weights was equal to one. "East Azerbaijan Agricultural Jihad Organization" with a weight of 0.088, "Statistics Center of Iran" with a weight of 0.062 and "Geological Survey" with a weight of 0.058 were the first to third ranks among 358 organizations and government institutions, respectively, based on the combination of criteria and the weight of criteria.
Conclusion: Evaluation criteria obtained, calculating the weight and importance of each criterion, examining the current situation of government organizations and institutions in the country and the classification model created can help managers to understand the current situation and improve it and thus increase citizens' interaction with open government data as a kind of human information interaction.
Type of Study: Applicable |
Subject:
General
References
1. Aboalmaali, F.S., Daneshfard, K., & Pourezzat, A.A. (2020). A Pattern to Recognition of
2. Triggering Element of Open Government Implementation in Iran's Public Organizations (Case Study:
3. Ministry of Interior). Journal of Public Administration, 12(1), 145-174. (in Persian)
4. Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government information quarterly, 32(4), 399-418. [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006]
5. Dahbi, K. Y., Lamharhar, H., & Chiadmi, D. (2018, October). Toward an evaluation model for open government data portals. In International Conference Europe Middle East & North Africa Information Systems and Technologies to Support Learning (pp. 502-511). Springer, Cham. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-03577-8_55]
6. Daniels, M. S. F., & Lopez, R. (2014, August). Automatic generation of roadmaps for open data. In Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research, Posters, Workshop and Projects of IFIP EGOV 2014 and EPart 2014 (Vol. 21, p. 95). IOS Press.
7. Danneels, L., Viaene, S., & Van den Bergh, J. (2017). Open data platforms: Discussing alternative knowledge epistemologies. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 365-378. [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.007]
8. Dawes, S. S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (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]
9. de Juana-Espinosa, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2020). Open government data portals in the European :union:: A dataset from 2015 to 2017. Data in brief, 29, 105156. [DOI:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105156] [PMID] []
10. Halonen, A. (2012). Being open about data. Analysis of the UK Open Data Policies and Applicability of Open Data. London: Finnish Institute in London.
11. Huang, R., Wang, C., Zhang, X., Wu, D., & Xie, Q. (2019). Design, develop and evaluate an open government data platform: a user-centred approach. The Electronic Library. [DOI:10.1108/EL-02-2019-0037]
12. Janssen, K. (2012). Open government data and the right to information: Opportunities and obstacles. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2). [DOI:10.15353/joci.v8i2.3042]
13. Misuraca, G., & Viscusi, G. (2014). Is open data enough?: E-governance challenges for open government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 10(1), 18-34. [DOI:10.4018/ijegr.2014010102]
14. Momen Kashani, N., Rahnavard, F., Mortazavi, M., Shirazi, M. (2020). A model for measuring the willingness of policy makers to open government in Iran. Public Administration Perspaective, 11(2), 35-64. (In Persian)
15. Nikiforova, A., & McBride, K. (2021). Open government data portal usability: A user-centred usability analysis of 41 open government data portals. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101539. [DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101539]
16. Saxena, S. (2018). Open government data (OGD) in six Middle East countries: An evaluation of the national open data portals. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance. [DOI:10.1108/DPRG-10-2017-0055]
17. Susha, I., Grönlund, Å., & Janssen, M. (2015). Driving factors of service innovation using open government data: An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries. Information polity, 20(1), 19-34. [DOI:10.3233/IP-150353]
18. Veljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278-290. [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.011]
19. Vetrò, A., Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C. O., Iemma, R., & Morando, F. (2016). Open data quality measurement framework: Definition and application to Open Government Data. Govern-ment Information Quarterly, 33(2), 325-337. [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.001]
20. Yu, H., & Robinson, D. G. (2011). The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA L. Rev. Discourse, 59, 178. [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2012489]
21. Zhang, H., & Xiao, J. (2020). Quality assessment framework for open government data: Meta-synthesis of qualitative research, 2009-2019. The Electronic Library. [DOI:10.1108/EL-06-2019-0145]
22. Zheng, L., Kwok, W. M., Aquaro, V., Qi, X., & Lyu, W. (2020, September). Evaluating global open government data: methods and status. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 381-391). [DOI:10.1145/3428502.3428553]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
