No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The open government directive: A preliminary assessment
Abstract
President Obama has committed his administration to a presumption of openness in government. In this paper, the authors examine the 2009 Open Government Directive (OGD) and federal agencies' Open Government Plans to identify the drivers, trends, and challenges in establishing this posture. To provide perspective, the paper assesses the Directive within the context of the existing legislative framework and the plans themselves. The authors consider the impact of the OGD's dominant emphasis on technology. The paper concludes with suggested areas for future research with an eye towards advancing an understanding of open government through the lenses of society, policy, and technology.
... These data can be observed in Table 1. [69], [68], [15], [80], [28], [29], [54], [1], [76], [82], [5], [4], [43], [75], [34], [39], [6], [18], [21], [65], [81], [46], [57], [53], [13] , [59], [32] Culture Benefits of opening data are not recognized; People are not willing to associate open data publication with their work routine [67], [80], [28], [76], [43], [39], [21], [65], [81], [13], [31], [32], [16], [27], [40], Economic Relatively High Costs [15], [28], [54], [43], [46], [53], [13], [77], [49], [60], [61], [7], [50] Political Privacy Laws; Lack of interest in transparency; Security issues; [49], [36], [80], [84], [65], [37], [1], [76], [63], [77], [82], [8], [85], [10], [13], [31], [35], [42], [71], [60], [32], [6], [24], [26], [67], [27], [66], [74], [5], [4], [43] Technical Difficulty in finding data; Low value formats; System heterogeneity [55], [49], [15], [36], [17], [81], [46], [34], [18], [30], [58], [37], [29], [51], [54], [76], [83], [63], [77], [82], [48], [25], [11], [19], [10], [13], [2], [70], [44], [7], [24], [27], [40], [68], [66], [4], [43], [75] Data Quality Incomplete Data; Data Duplicity; Irrelevant Information; Few Data Description [49], [15], [36], [17], [46], [34], [84], [30], [21], [58], [65], [29], [51], [54], [37], [76], [83], [63], [77], [82], [48], [53], [19], [12], [6], [69], [52], [40], [68], [66], [4], [50], [43], [75] 3.2 RQ2 -Which factors contribute to a satisfactory OGD implementation? 28 [71], [72], [43], [80], [46], [13], [16], [35], [2], [12], [66], [15], [28], [1], [40], [39], [45], [45], [21], [59], [47], [85], [48], [82], [56], [84], [29]. ...
... These data can be observed in Table 1. [69], [68], [15], [80], [28], [29], [54], [1], [76], [82], [5], [4], [43], [75], [34], [39], [6], [18], [21], [65], [81], [46], [57], [53], [13] , [59], [32] Culture Benefits of opening data are not recognized; People are not willing to associate open data publication with their work routine [67], [80], [28], [76], [43], [39], [21], [65], [81], [13], [31], [32], [16], [27], [40], Economic Relatively High Costs [15], [28], [54], [43], [46], [53], [13], [77], [49], [60], [61], [7], [50] Political Privacy Laws; Lack of interest in transparency; Security issues; [49], [36], [80], [84], [65], [37], [1], [76], [63], [77], [82], [8], [85], [10], [13], [31], [35], [42], [71], [60], [32], [6], [24], [26], [67], [27], [66], [74], [5], [4], [43] Technical Difficulty in finding data; Low value formats; System heterogeneity [55], [49], [15], [36], [17], [81], [46], [34], [18], [30], [58], [37], [29], [51], [54], [76], [83], [63], [77], [82], [48], [25], [11], [19], [10], [13], [2], [70], [44], [7], [24], [27], [40], [68], [66], [4], [43], [75] Data Quality Incomplete Data; Data Duplicity; Irrelevant Information; Few Data Description [49], [15], [36], [17], [46], [34], [84], [30], [21], [58], [65], [29], [51], [54], [37], [76], [83], [63], [77], [82], [48], [53], [19], [12], [6], [69], [52], [40], [68], [66], [4], [50], [43], [75] 3.2 RQ2 -Which factors contribute to a satisfactory OGD implementation? 28 [71], [72], [43], [80], [46], [13], [16], [35], [2], [12], [66], [15], [28], [1], [40], [39], [45], [45], [21], [59], [47], [85], [48], [82], [56], [84], [29]. ...
... These data can be observed in Table 1. [69], [68], [15], [80], [28], [29], [54], [1], [76], [82], [5], [4], [43], [75], [34], [39], [6], [18], [21], [65], [81], [46], [57], [53], [13] , [59], [32] Culture Benefits of opening data are not recognized; People are not willing to associate open data publication with their work routine [67], [80], [28], [76], [43], [39], [21], [65], [81], [13], [31], [32], [16], [27], [40], Economic Relatively High Costs [15], [28], [54], [43], [46], [53], [13], [77], [49], [60], [61], [7], [50] Political Privacy Laws; Lack of interest in transparency; Security issues; [49], [36], [80], [84], [65], [37], [1], [76], [63], [77], [82], [8], [85], [10], [13], [31], [35], [42], [71], [60], [32], [6], [24], [26], [67], [27], [66], [74], [5], [4], [43] Technical Difficulty in finding data; Low value formats; System heterogeneity [55], [49], [15], [36], [17], [81], [46], [34], [18], [30], [58], [37], [29], [51], [54], [76], [83], [63], [77], [82], [48], [25], [11], [19], [10], [13], [2], [70], [44], [7], [24], [27], [40], [68], [66], [4], [43], [75] Data Quality Incomplete Data; Data Duplicity; Irrelevant Information; Few Data Description [49], [15], [36], [17], [46], [34], [84], [30], [21], [58], [65], [29], [51], [54], [37], [76], [83], [63], [77], [82], [48], [53], [19], [12], [6], [69], [52], [40], [68], [66], [4], [50], [43], [75] 3.2 RQ2 -Which factors contribute to a satisfactory OGD implementation? 28 [71], [72], [43], [80], [46], [13], [16], [35], [2], [12], [66], [15], [28], [1], [40], [39], [45], [45], [21], [59], [47], [85], [48], [82], [56], [84], [29]. ...
Open Government Data (OGD) is a practice that has become widespread and has brought countless benefits to both government and citizens. The Open Government Partnership is a group formed by over 60 countries, all countries sharing the same purpose: A plan to define open data by following a list of requirements. However, the number of open datasets is still low and does not have the minimum level of quality and technique. The Open Data initiative still faces a large number of challenges to become reality. The goal of this study is to map and characterize the main barriers prevent OGD, exposing the mitigation forms found in literature papers, as well as identifying which sectors of public administration have a higher incidence of publication on OGD. In order this, it was realized a Systematic Literature Mapping (SLM), resulting in 85 relevant papers able to response 3 Research Questions. The SLM identified 6 main barriers: Public Engagement; Culture; Economic; Political and Technical, where it is highlighted Education, Health and Finances as public sector areas with Open Data major publication incidence. The Open Government Directive, a guidelines series, published in 2009 by Ex-President of United States of America, Barack Obama is the factor most quoted in literature as barrier mitigation way in OGD implementation.
... Certainly, there is no clear consensus on how "open" open government should be-and thus on when it is achieved. More fundamentally, there really is no specific consensus definition of open government [13]. In an attempt to provide some clarity, we will look at open government through two different but interwoven constructs: the prevailing lenses through which open government is viewed by its diverse stakeholders (Section 3) and its decomposition into the range of distinct objectives that guide implementation (Section 4). ...
... Open government efforts are assessed for attainment and impact by the degree to which they meet regulated mandates, thresholds, and standards. The OGD is another federal mandate for compliance [13]; it may be viewed as a structured, high-level checklist that agencies can follow to meet its requirements. While it includes very little precision in its guidance, it can serve as a starting point for agencies to develop an OG focus that suits their culture and mission. ...
... Yet, properly leveraged, Open Government can provide a strategic opportunity to improve government processes and sought outcomes, while fostering improved public trust in agency operations [13]. In this spirit, UMD's on-going research activities aim to assist agencies in shifting the focus of their open government efforts from a compliance challenge and public relations effort to a catalyst for mission success. ...
In response to President Obama's Open Government Directive, federal agencies developed plans to instill the principles of transparency, collaboration, and participation into their engagement with the public. Against the question, "what is open government?," the authors reviewed the prevailing literature and the agency plans to identify a set of discrete lenses and objectives that align with the Directive's principles. The lenses and objectives are then assessed for their policy implications, intended outcomes, and implementation challenges. This analysis is synthesized into a framework that will support future fieldwork to identify and construct best-practice tools and guidance that help agencies go beyond baseline compliance and apply the Directive as a tool for mission success. We conclude with a discussion on the factors and conditions for the sustainment of the Open Government movement.
... The assumed benefits of open data have resulted in several governments' initiatives facilitating the release of PSI. These governments, among others, include Colombia, (Prieto & Rodríguez, 2012), Brazil (Matheus & Vaz, 2012) and the USA (Wilson & Linders, 2011). An overview of these initiatives is provided by Yang and Kankanhall (2013) and Janssen (2011). ...
... Dawes (2010aDawes ( , 2010b also examines the goal of greater openness through accessibility of information, while Robinson, Yu, Zeller, & Felten (2009) plea for an extended government technical infrastructure for information provision to improve transparency. Wilson and Linders (2011) reflect on the Open Government Directive of the USA, developing a framework for future work, which relates to a measurement framework for US federal transparency introduced by Bertot, McDermott and Smith (2012). Geiger and von Lucke (2012) also look at the publication of open data, and the general challenges of data publication. ...
Due to expected benefits such as citizen participation and innovation, the release of Public Sector Information as open data is getting increased attention on various levels of government. However, currently data release by governments is still novel and there is little experience and knowledge thus far about its benefits, costs and barriers. This is compounded by a lack of understanding about how internal processes influence data release. Our aim in this paper is to get a better understanding of these processes and how they influence data release, i.e., to find determinants for the release of public sector information. For this purpose, we conducted workshops, interviews, questionnaires, desk research and practice based cases in the education program of our university, involving six local public sector organizations. We find that the way data is stored, the way data is obtained and the way data is used by a department are crucial indicators for open data release. We conclude with the lessons learned based on our research findings. These findings are: we should take a nuanced approach towards data release, avoid releasing data for its own sake, and take small incremental steps to explore data release.
... This is explicitly outlined in the research of Janssen, Charalabidis & Zuiderwijk (2012), which concludes that opening data does not necessarily lead to transparency, due to a significant number of barriers starting from a "no uniform policy for publicizing data" to "lack of ability to discover the appropriate data", barriers related to use and participation, as well as barriers related to legislation. These problems are also acknowledged by Wilson & Linders (2011) examining the US 2009 Open Government Directive and stressing, among others, that "the guiding principles of collaboration, participation, and transparency are simply too broad, vague, lacking in scope, and insufficiently quantifiable to provide actionable guidance" without exempting the human factor from a policy formulation process. This discussion, extending beyond the scope of the present paper, gives rise to two points worth keeping in mind: perspectives on top of the information visualized which politicians had not planned for, and this may be seen as a political danger. ...
... The most important one is that of citizens' difficulty to familiarize themselves with the legislative process Most of nowadays parliaments already operate with a significant degree of transparency regarding information provision according to their Constitution and Rules of Procedure. Still, this is not enough; information provision seems to be dependent on the political will and priorities of the administration that holds power every time (Wilson et al., 2011, Scholl & Luna-Reyes, 2011. Moreover, legislative transparency must be examined as part of a system that includes other stakeholders such as the press, citizens, and lobbyists, as well as in accordance with the norms of the executive and judicial branches of power. ...
The objective of this article is to highlight the contribution and importance of parliamentary information visualization (PIV) with a view to legislative transparency and citizen empowerment. The constant appeal for parliamentary openness regarding information on laws and bills and accountability of elected representatives calls for transparency in parliamentary procedures and at several areas of parliamentary informatics, in order to enhance democratic control and re-establish constituents’ trust. On the other hand, the provision of easy to understand and analyze information plays a central role to the achievement of transparency. In this respect, this paper provides an overview of the characteristics and capabilities of information visualization that can contribute to delineating the institutional, but also technical possibilities and constraints of achieving legislative transparency. On the basis of this overview, it is attempted to highlight some causal relationships between parliamentary openness, legislative transparency and parliamentary information visualization, and discuss the potential and limitations of PIV not only in terms of technical solutions but also with respect to human factors and political aspects that need to be considered as further determining the success or failure of PIV efforts. In this line of thought, the concluding section of the article provides a discussion on the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats that can be identified for parliamentary information visualization, as well as on dimensions and specific checkpoints that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of PIV efforts, as regards the end objective of citizen empowerment.
... Gilman (2017) aptly states, "Civic tech used for governance is less focused on finding the next "killer app" than on employing technology in order to achieve more responsive and inclusive governance." In this way, data, design, and technology are a means to an end, tools rather than strategies or endstates (Wilson, & Linders, 2011). At its core, it is a social intervention movement aimed at using data, design, and technology to reinvent government and community relations and rebuild trust (McNutt, et al., 2016). ...
For nearly a decade, civic tech stakeholders have been creating technology-supported solutions to civic challenges. Globally, the civic tech movement is rapidly professionalizing but has a limited history of documenting evidence of successes and challenges. Robust monitoring and evaluation in the civic tech ecosystem are necessary to create a foundation of knowledge for future initiatives. Monitoring plays a key role in improving services, pivoting approaches and guiding more efficient resource allocation. Evaluation highlights what is working, what is not working, and critically, why? In a sector that merges data, design and technology with user-centred principles, monitoring and evaluation in the civic tech ecosystem have several inherent challenges. This paper suggests that a theory-based evaluation approach called Contribution Analysis has the necessary sophistication and agility to support comprehensive monitoring and evaluation to support the growth and sustainability of the movement. This paper applies the early steps of contribution analysis to two Canadian civic tech projects to demonstrate its feasibility for civic tech.
... The current administration has recognized the important role of ICT to opening government, but there is some level of controversy in the way ICT is considered important. Heckmann (2011) suggests ICT-driven approach to Open Government by integrating the notion of Open Government and ICT, whereas Wilson and Linders (2011) cast a caveat against prioritizing a focus on technology by placing heavier emphasis on policy, agency cultures, and institutional readiness. ...
The analysis on the secondary data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project's national survey (Government Online) found what influences American citizens' attitude about Open Government and Government 2.0, which can be identified as a new goal and tool, respectively, of e-government. This study employs a path analysis based on standardized structural equation estimation, which decomposes the causal relationships among multiple variables into standardized direct and indirect effects. The analysis suggests some noteworthy findings. Heavy users of e-government services and those with trust in government are likely to have positive attitudes toward the new phase of e-government, Open Government and Government 2.0. Socio-demographic conditions have indirect effects on citizen attitudes through the mediating effect of e-government use.
... Several governments have undertaken Open Data initiatives to publish public sector information, for example, governments of Colombia (Prieto & Rodríguez, 2012), Brazil (Matheus & Vaz, 2012), and the USA (Wilson & Linders, 2011). An overview of these initiatives can be found in (Yang & Kankanhall, 2013;Janssen, 2011). ...
Judiciary systems comprise various partner organizations (e.g., police, public prosecutor, courts, and
rehabilitation centres) that collaboratively resolve criminal cases. These partner organizations have
their own data administration and management systems, which are setup/operated separately and integrated
barely. This chapter explains the approach of the authors’ organization for integrating the data
sets of the Dutch judiciary systems, and for opening the data integration outcomes to the public and/
or to specific groups. These outcomes (e.g., data sets and reports) are meant to provide useful insights
into (the performances of) the partner organizations individually and collectively. Such data opening
efforts do not comply with all Open Data requirements, mainly due to the quality, (privacy) sensitivity
and interoperability issues of the raw data. Nevertheless, since these initiatives aim at delivering some
benefits of Open Data, the chapter introduces the new paradigm of Semi-Open Data for acknowledging
such data opening initiatives.
... A unique definition of Open Government (Wilson & Linders, 2011) or Smart City (Chourabi, et al., 2012) does not exist, but nevertheless there are key concepts and characteristics generally agreed, related with them. A city is much more than its government, but its governance is one of its key elements in order to become smart. ...
The advent of Smart Cities is one of the greatest challenges and field of opportunities in the goal to achieve sustainable, comfortable, and socially responsible living environments. A large number of factors, spanning from government/administration/citizen interaction models, heterogeneous communication network, interoperability, or security determine the capabilities and functionalities that can be deployed. In this chapter, different factors in the implementation and adoption of E-Government within Smart City scenarios are described. The authors include the Interoperability Principle as a part of the Open Government concept and link this concept with the Smart Cities view. Then, they describe a new model of public organization that they call "Intelligent," characterized by the "Smart Government," and they propose a matrix with the elements of this model. Then, the authors analyze the technical and infrastructure dimensions of the matrix.
... There are several government initiatives for publishing of public sector information. Example governments include Colombia (Prieto & Rodríguez, 2012), Brazil (Matheus & Vaz, 2012), and the USA (Wilson & Linders, 2011). Yang and Kankanhalli (2013) and Janssen (2011) provide an overview of these initiatives. ...
Institutions such as governmental and scientific organizations share information to gain the public trust. Information sharing, on the other hand, may cause privacy breaches and undermine the stakeholders' trust in such information sharing institutions. Thus, information sharing may work against the purpose of gaining trust through transparency. Moreover, fear of potential privacy breaches compels information disseminators to share minimum or no information. In this contribution, we present two procedures – the so-called restricted access procedure and open access procedure – to disseminate information for the contending purposes of transparency and privacy preservation. These procedures enable sharing of data with data requesters directly or via a trusted third party, respectively, in the context of our public judiciary organization. We have developed and operationalized these design artifacts in an organizational context and the resulting procedures have emerged from operational interactions within our organization. As such, our inquiry of knowledge thereto can be considered as an action design research. This contribution describes our approach and reflects upon our practice inspired research, where we share the gained insights and present some design guidelines – like providing usage control through implicit and explicit feedback, sharing data with scientists and for scientific purposes, and adopting a pre-commitment strategy – for the information systems that aim at sharing information in a real setting and in a privacy preserving way.
... The debate about defining open government is ongoing and there is a need to generate new theoretical insights from multiple disciplines and related fields (Fishenden and Thompson, 2013;Scholl, 2012). Wilson and Linders (2011) identify some of the effects of the lack of clarity conceptual limitations that need to be faced . Several concepts such as open data, big data, transparency, accountability, collaboration, participation, and egovernment are in some way related to the concept and/or the components of open government. ...
Open government implementation connects to several actions: public policy design, software implementation, website development, policy informatics, and the development of new regulations. Despite this important progress, very little has been done to measure the impact of open government and provide feedback in terms of the next steps for implementation. Furthermore, very few models intend to explain the functions, characteristics, or the future of this new trend toward openness. Our research from 2006 to 2012 uses a multi-component model to measure open government websites in the 32 Mexican state governments. However, the website model could become obsolete as a result of technology advancements. This paper analyzes some knowledge gaps and potential problems with this type of model and proposes a new approach to open government portals based on four conceptual pillars: wikinomics, open data, new institutionalism, and the fifth state (Network State).
... No existe un planteamiento único sobre los orígenes del término si bien son diversos autores los que sitúan dicho origen en la firma del Memorándum sobre Transparencia y Gobierno Abierto por el presidente Obama (Jiménez y Gascó, 2012;Wilson y Linders, 2011). En realidad, la idea de gobierno abierto no es nueva (Cobo, 2013;Ramírez-Alujas, 2010) y son varias las corrientes que han dado lugar a la popularización de este concepto. ...
En enero de 2009, el presidente Obama firmó el Memorandum of Transparency and Open Government que declaraba el compromiso de la nueva administración con la creación de un nivel de apertura gubernamental sin precedentes basado en tres principios: la transparencia, la participación y la colaboración. Desde entonces, organizaciones y administraciones públicas de todo el mundo han puesto en marcha proyectos en este ámbito con el objetivo de redefinir las relaciones entre ellas y los ciudadanos.
Los beneficios atribuidos a las iniciativas de gobierno abierto son muchos y están universalmente aceptados. Diferentes autores han hecho referencia al hecho de que un gobierno abierto da lugar a procesos de toma de decisiones más efectivos, protege contra la corrupción, permite el escrutinio público y promueve la confianza de los ciudadanos en el gobierno. A pesar de estas importantes ventajas, la puesta en marcha de iniciativas de gobierno abierto no resulta fácil. Los diferentes significados que adquiere el concepto en distintos contextos, la falta de estrategia, la focalización en la apertura de datos como iniciativa estrella en este campo son sólo algunos de los factores que condicionan su pleno desarrollo. Pero es que, además, el gobierno abierto debe ir de la mano de una necesaria transformación interna de las administraciones públicas que debe pasar por el trabajo colaborativo y transversal y por una cultura de apertura que no siempre es sencilla de conseguir y difundir. Esta ponencia aborda estas cuestiones a partir de la revisión y análisis de la experiencia iberoamericana, lo que permitirá dejar constancia de la realidad y de la realización del gobierno abierto en la región.
... The debate about defining open government is ongoing and there is a need to generate new theoretical insights from multiple disciplines and related fields (Fishenden and Thompson 2013;Scholl 2012). Wilson and Linders (2011) identified some of the effects of the lack of clarity surrounding the definition of open government. In their assessment of the open government directive in the United States, they found greater focus on the technological perspective rather than open data, information policy, or new regulations. ...
Open government, as a concept, should be understood through a holistic perspective. It is not enough to provide access to government information without redesigning processes and changing regulations. However, little work has been done to measure the components of open government and provide guidance for implementation. We argue that one way to start filling this gap is through the development of models that integrate concepts, theories, and practical perspectives. However, very few of the existing models attempt to explain the functions and characteristics of open government, which could then provide guidance for its development. This paper is based on two main sources in order to propose an integrative open government assessment model: (1) a literature review of previous assessment models and theoretical perspectives to build a richer integrative model that goes beyond websites and (2) the results from a longitudinal research study performed from 2006 to 2012 using a multi-component model to measure open government websites from a practitioners’ perspective. As a result, this paper identifies knowledge gaps and proposes a new evaluation approach to open government based on two sets of components: one from practice and the other one from theory. This model contributes to existing knowledge and helps government organizations to better understand and implement open government initiatives.
... The best way to achieve such a goal is to establish live communication channel between these actors, and make policy making transparent and feedbackeager. That is what we known as an Open Government [16]. This is an important paradigm shift in e-Government concept comparing with initial view of that focused on exploiting advancement in the information and communication technologies as a means of delivering services. ...
This paper focus on collecting opinions and suggestions by entrepreneurs in order to enhance local economic development. Questions are expressed in the form of crowdsourcing pool, and answers are clustered by similarity. The frequency of similar answers obtained by the same or similar questions may point to obstacles for economic development that local government institutions should solve.
... However, open government initiatives overall have encountered many difficulties [22,27], and critics has pointed out that open government has a strong focus on technology solution instead of adapting organizational practices, policy and culture, lack of integration with existing legislation and regulation, lack of clear definition and measurable goals, divergent and ambiguous goals, and uncertain sustainability to the next administration [25,28]. In addition, the tradeoffs of transparency and national security, as well as economic return were criticized to be not carefully studied and articulated [4]. ...
More and more, technology and policy changes are stimulating innovative adoptions that promise to create and deliver public values through more effective public services and programs or smarter government decisions and policies. The availability of data and the effective use of new strategies and technologies, such as Big Data, semantic Web, social media, data visualizations and analytics, together with the adoption of open and collaborative approaches among government, industry, NGOs, and citizens provide new opportunities to enhance transparency and accountability of government operations, facilitate the co-design of services, generate new venues for citizen participation, streamline operations, and reduce costs, and consequently, promote technological innovations and economic development. What also have fueled the development are the Open Government Initiatives from the Obama administration, as well as similar open government initiatives of other States internationally. Since 2009, the US government and governments around the world have developed policy initiatives that promote disclosure of information held by both public and private entities [20,21]. Through the release of the Open Government Directive, the administration intended to promote transparency in government operations, participation from the public in decision making, and collaboration with multiple and diverse stakeholders [16]. The impact of the Directive efforts went beyond US and lead to an international effort of promoting open government through The Open Government Partnership [10].
... A unique definition of Open Government (Wilson & Linders, 2011) or Smart City (Chourabi, et al., 2012) does not exist, but nevertheless there are key concepts and characteristics generally agreed, related with them. A city is much more than its government, but its governance is one of its key elements in order to become smart. ...
The advent of Smart Cities is one of the greatest challenges and field of opportunities in the goal to achieve sustainable, comfortable and socially responsible living environments. A large number of factors, spanning from government/administration/citizen interaction models, heterogeneous communication network, interoperability or security determine the capabilities and functionalities which can be deployed.
In this chapter, different factor in the implementation and adoption of e-Government within Smart City scenarios will be described. We will include the Interoperability Principle as a part of the Open Government concept and we link this concept with the Smart Cities view. Then, we will describe a new model of public organization that we call “Intelligent”, characterized by the “Smart Government”, and we propose a matrix with the elements of this model. Then, we analyze the technical and infrastructure dimensions of the matrix.
... Critics have pointed out that open government focuses on technology solutions while overlooking the need for adapting organizational practices, policy and culture. They further highlight lack of integration with existing legislation and regulations, lack of clear definitions and measurable goals, divergent and ambiguous goals, and uncertain sustainability [64]. In addition, the tradeoffs between transparency and national security, as well as the potential for economic return to private and public entities, have not been carefully studied and articulated [16]. ...
Two important trends on openness are promoting improved accountability from government and private organizations. The case of private transparency finds its roots in consumer and other stakeholder movements. The open government movement in the US is looking for alternatives to "smart disclosure," which implies providing consumers with better information to make better buying choices. We explore current knowledge on ethical consumption, as well as two influential technological tools to support consumer decisions. Our initial discussion suggests that the use of ontologies and data architectures, together with the appropriate policy environment and governance system, may solve some of the current problems identified.
... In other countries, cautious pilot projects were started to better understand the effects of open government beforehand [11]. But even in the United States with its explicit FOIA statutes, insufficient funding [15] and poor information management practices [22] helped unduly maintain secrecy. Yet, public policy making in the 21 st century must be understood and competently discussed on the basis of open, comprehensive, and readily available data it has been argued [16]. ...
When coupled with direct stakeholder participation, transparency and open government have been touted as among the key drivers in the evolution of a less secretive, less single-handed, more responsive, and in essence more democratic government of the 21 st century committed to preserving the public good, serving citizens and business, and also curtailing the overwhelming influence of special interest groups. Based on a system dynamics model of major factors, we find evidence for information feedbacks as major influencers in changing the dynamic processes between the executive branch, the legislative branch, the press, and the general public.
El presente artículo ofrece un análisis comparado entre Costa Rica y Puerto Rico en materia de gobierno abierto, bajo la perspectiva de las implicaciones que esta gestión tiene en materia de gobernanza y gobernabilidad. Para los efectos indicados, se ha realizado una valoración de los principales elementos vinculados a los aspectos normativos y jurídicos en relación con este tema, así como también, sobre los principales avances obtenidos en los respectivos procesos de implementación. Ambos países fueron seleccionados debido a que comparten indicadores de desarrollo, formas de gobierno, reciente implementación del modelo de gobierno abierto, y otras proximidades que motivan a esta comparación (normativas, sociales y políticas, entre otras).
Open government data (OGD) exhibits substantial political, economic, cultural, and social values that have gained considerable attention globally. Based on the investigation and analysis of the OGD practice, this study raises the research question, “Why do considerable differences exist in the degree of OGD implementation among different agencies under the same local government?” Our study takes resource-based theory as theoretical foundation to explore the factors that affect OGD implementation of constituent agencies within the same local government. A questionnaire survey is conducted to analyze the effect of factors including technical capacity, organizational awareness, organizational arrangement, and rules and regulations on OGD implementation. Results show that the technical capacity, organizational arrangement, and rules and regulations of government agencies have a direct positive effect on OGD implementation. Notably, rules and regulations moderate the relationship between technical capacity and OGD implementation. Besides, the matching degree of technical capacity and other organizational factors in a government agency exerts a positive influence on OGD implementation. Finally, our study proposes policy suggestions that emphasize the direction and focus for OGD implementation.
The analysis on the secondary data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project's national survey (Government Online) found what influences American citizens' attitude about Open Government and Government 2.0, which can be identified as a new goal and tool, respectively, of e-government. This study employs a path analysis based on standardized structural equation estimation, which decomposes the causal relationships among multiple variables into standardized direct and indirect effects. The analysis suggests some noteworthy findings. Heavy users of e-government services and those with trust in government are likely to have positive attitudes toward the new phase of e-government, Open Government and Government 2.0. Socio-demographic conditions have indirect effects on citizen attitudes through the mediating effect of e-government use.
Judiciary systems comprise various partner organizations (e.g., police, public prosecutor, courts, and rehabilitation centres) that collaboratively resolve criminal cases. These partner organizations have their own data administration and management systems, which are setup/operated separately and integrated barely. This chapter explains the approach of the authors' organization for integrating the data sets of the Dutch judiciary systems, and for opening the data integration outcomes to the public and/or to specific groups. These outcomes (e.g., data sets and reports) are meant to provide useful insights into (the performances of) the partner organizations individually and collectively. Such data opening efforts do not comply with all Open Data requirements, mainly due to the quality, (privacy) sensitivity and interoperability issues of the raw data. Nevertheless, since these initiatives aim at delivering some benefits of Open Data, the chapter introduces the new paradigm of Semi-Open Data for acknowledging such data opening initiatives.
El gobierno abierto ha llegado intempestivamente a la administración públi- ca. Muchos gobiernos en todo el mundo intentan “transparentar” sus accio- nes y mejorar sus archivos gubernamentales usando las tecnologías de in- formación y comunicación disponibles. Los ciudadanos comienzan a exigir más y mejores datos sobre las decisiones del gobierno y la aplicación de los presupuestos públicos. Sin embargo, es poco conocido de donde viene este nuevo campo y cómo puede impactar a la política y la administración pública contemporánea. Muchos gobiernos aplican herramientas de transparencia, datos abiertos, gobernanza y cooperación como sí fueran sinónimos pero no es así. El propósito de este capítulo es entender al gobierno abierto a partir de tres elementos: un concepto que ayude a comprender este campo de estu- dio; en segundo lugar, proponer un modelo teórico que permita apoyar en la interpretación y análisis de otros casos de implementación y en tercer lugar brindar un ejemplo de medición actual sobre gobierno abierto a partir del caso mexicano. Con estos elementos se busca construir una visión integral sobre este novedoso campo de estudio y aportar algunas ideas sobre su futu- ro tanto en el mediano como en el largo plazo en la teoría como en la práctica y con el uso de nuevas tendencias de información como las redes sociales.
This document provides a high level overview of the GEA-NZ v2.0 content, describing its structure and internal and external linkages.
It describes the motivations for constructing and using the GEA-NZ v2.0, such as the directives of the Government of New Zealand, good practices performed in other government administrations and good practices performed in commercial enterprises.
The purpose of this work is to explore the main differences and similarities between open government policies developed since 2009 by the US and the EU, two major powerhouses in what concerns eGovernment-related policies. For that purpose, the authors analyzed the information on webpages and main policy documents as available to any ordinary citizen. The results show that both the US and EU policy share the same core concepts and goals. However, while the US opted to formulate an autonomous policy under a unifying ‘open government’ umbrella term, the EU choose to incorporate the goals and principles into an already existing eGovernment development effort, emphasizing ‘public services innovation’ instead. As a consequence, in the US case it is easier to identify and understand the policy main goals, and to find policy-related information online. Furthermore, the US policy seems to have had a bigger external impact and recognition.
Link Data (LD) initiative has fundamentally changed the way how data are published, distributed, and consumed. It advocates data transparency and accessibility to fulfill the Web of Data vision. Thus far, tens of billions of data items have been made publicly available in machine-understandable forms (e.g. RDF). The sheer size of LD data, however, has not resulted in a significant increase of data consumption and thus a self-sustainable consumption-driven publication. We contend that this is primarily due to the lack of tooling for exploiting LD. A new programming paradigm is necessary to simplify and encourage value-add LD data utilisation.
This paper reports an on-going project towards programmable Linked Open Data. We propose to tap into a distributed computing environment underpinning the popular statistical toolkit R. Where possible, native R operators and functions are used in our approach so as to lower the learning curve for experienced data scientists.
We believe a report to the relevant community at this stage can help us to collect critical requirements before moving into the next stage of development. The crux of our future work lies in comprehensive and extensive evaluations, in terms of, but not limited to, system performance, system stability, system scalability, programming productivity and user experience.
Three countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) (i.e. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates (UAE)) have launched official Open Government Data (OGD) initiatives and started offering public data openly on their national portals. These initiatives are part of a new phase of the eGovernment programs in these three countries. This case study explores and compares the current status of these initiatives in an effort to understand the key driving forces behind launching the initiatives, the countries' approach to launching and managing them, the major challenges facing them and their plans to overcome them, and their future plans for sustaining and improving their open data initiatives. We also use data from interviews with the government officials in charge of these initiatives in Saudi Arabia and UAE to evaluate how these countries perceive the Open Government Partnership (OGP) as an example of a key global OGD initiative. Our analysis showed similarities in the countries' motivations to open up their governments, driven by the potential economic returns. We found that the current status of these countries' OGD portals (in terms of richness of the published data and its strategic value) does not match the desired standards. Although the studied countries follow different approaches in managing their OGD initiatives, they face the common challenge of poor cooperation between government agencies, which is mainly caused by cultural barriers, variations in agencies' readiness, a lack of necessary policies and legislation, and uncertainties about the value of OGD for these agencies. To overcome these challenges, and to improve and sustain the OGD initiatives over the long term, we offer the following specific recommendations: develop a national OGD strategy to align OGD activities with the overall national agenda, build a framework that clearly defines the major components of OGD, such as the roles and responsibilities of government agencies and other stakeholders, and all aspects related to data gathering and publishing on the portals. We also recommend building up an open data community across government and non-government sectors to act as a platform for exchanging OGD knowledge and practices. In addition, we recommend expending more effort to fill the legislation gap, adopt and adapt international practices, and promote continuous learning and development.
Freedom of information laws allow the public to request access to an increasingly vast collection of government documents often stored in electronic databases, and fight corruption by encouraging accountability through transparency. With the convergence of government transparency, big data troves, and automated technologies, governments are faced with the task of figuring out which kinds of interactivity to provide to document seekers, some of which they are entitled to receive under the law. This metadata can potentially reveal information about the creation or modification of documents, such as when the document was created, when it was accessed and edited, who edited it, and what they edited. The United States' Freedom of Information Act, was enacted in 1966. Commonly known as FOIA, the Act establishes the right of the public to obtain information from all 15 departments of the federal government and 73 other federal agencies in the executive branch, but not the Congress, the courts, or the president.
El pasado 20 de septiembre de 2011, ocho gobiernos se reunieron en Nueva York para lanzar la Open Government Partnership (Alianza para el Gobierno Abierto, en adelante OGP)1, una iniciativa multilateral para promover el gobierno abierto; es decir, un gobierno basado en la transparencia, la colaboración y la participación. Dos de esos ocho países eran de Iberoamérica (Brasil y México, el primero, además, co-chair de la iniciativa) y trece más se han ido adhiriendo desde entonces: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, España, Guatemala, Honduras, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana, Trinidad y Tobago, y Uruguay. De un total de quince países, once ya han presentado sus compromisos con el gobierno abierto y cuatro están todavía desarrollándolos. Comparada con otras regiones, la participación de países iberoamericanos es alta. Una vez más, la región parece dispuesta a adoptar nuevos conceptos y términos, tal y como ha hecho en el pasado. Pero, ¿qué debe esperarse de estas declaraciones de buenas intenciones? Esta ponencia intentará contestar a esta pregunta. Para ello, se estructura de la siguiente manera: En primer lugar, se presentará la idea de gobierno abierto poniendo especial énfasis en las diferencias que existen entre este nuevo término y el “tradicional” de gobierno electrónico. A continuación, se analizarán los compromisos adquiridos por los países de la región de modo que se pueda explorar el nivel de actividad en torno al concepto de gobierno abierto en comparación con el de otros países. Entre otras cuestiones, se hará referencia a la existencia de una estrategia de gobierno abierto o al tipo de iniciativas de gobierno abierto. Finalmente, se expondrán algunas conclusiones acerca del compromiso real de los países de Iberoamérica con el gobierno abierto.
Through various platforms enabled by Web 2.0 technologies, citizens can collectively create public information, provide service, and take part in policy processes. Pushed by the Open Government Directive of the Obama administration, citizen-sourcing may be a new mode of government operations in the U.S. This paper suggests two frameworks to examine the emerging mechanism. The first framework provides three dimensions of citizen-sourcing initiatives: purpose (image-making or ideation), collective intelligence type (professional knowledge or innovative ideas), and strategy (contest, wiki, social networking, or social voting). Second, the paper presents a framework for assessing current citizen-sourcing initiatives. Its categories include design evaluation, process evaluation, and outcome evaluation. The performance of citizen-sourcing primarily depends on the appropriateness of the platform design. The effectiveness of the process needs to be evaluated in terms of the Open Government Directive's three pillar goals of transparency, participation, and collaboration. Evaluating the impact of citizen-sourcing will reveal whether citizen-sourcing is rhetorical or if it actually exerts significant effects on society.
A rich and challenging dialogue about the shape of eRulemaking is underway. While in its infancy, an interdisciplinary research community has formed to assess and inform the development of information technologies that serve the public and rule writers. To date, little is actually known about whether this transition is likely to benefit or degrade the role of public participation. As with all policy innovation, particularly technologically determined innovation, the risk of unintended consequences is present. While the Internet may usher in a new era of more inclusive, deliberative, and legally defensible rulemaking, it may be just as likely to reinforce existing inequalities, or worse, create new pitfalls for citizens wishing and entitled to influence the decision-making process.This article examines the origin of Regulations.Gov, a federal Web portal, in the context of recent literature on public participation, and federally funded research into impact of eRulemaking. It draws on workshop, interview, and focus group experiences that have fed into a multiyear dialogue between researchers, regulators, and the regulated public. It argues this dialogue is a fruitful and necessary part of the development of a standard architecture for eRulemaking that is consistent with the intent of public participation in the regulatory rulemaking process. “We have been as welcoming and joyous about the Net as the earthlings were about the aliens in Independence Day; we have accepted its growth in our lives without questioning its final effect. But at some point, we too will come to see a potential threat.” [2] 2.
Lessig , L. 1999. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, 58New York: Basic Books. View all references
Early literature on e-democracy was dominated by euphoric claims about the benefits of e-voting (digital direct democracy) or continuous online citizen consultations (digital representative democracy). High expectations have gradually been replaced with more genuine approaches that aim to break with the dichotomy of traditional notions of direct and representative democracy. The ensuing question relates to the adequate design of information and communication technology (ICT) applica-tions to foster such visions. This article contributes to this search and discusses issues concerning the adequate institutional framework. Recently, so-called Web 2.0 applications, such as social networking and Wikipedia, have proven that it is possible for millions of users to collectively create meaningful content online. While these recent developments are not necessarily labeled e-democracy in the litera-ture, this article argues that they and related applications have the potential to fulfill the promise of breaking with the longstanding democratic trade-off between group size (direct mass voting on predefined issues) and depth of argument (deliberation and discourse in a small group). Complementary information-structuring techniques are at hand to facilitate large-scale deliberations and the negotiation of interests between members of a group. This article presents three of these techniques in more depth: weighted preference voting, argument visualization, and the Semantic Web initiative. Notwithstanding these developments, the maturing concept of e-democracy still faces serious challenges. Questions remain in political and computer science disciplines that ask about adequate institutional frameworks, the omnipresent democratic challenges of equal access and free participation, and the appropriate technological design.
Researching and evaluating social media initiatives is essential to encourage usage, continually improve the tools and policies governing their use, and develop governance processes that incorporate social media participation in its many forms.
Which SUVs are most likely to rollover? What cities have the unhealthiest drinking water? Which factories are the most dangerous polluters? What cereals are the most nutritious? In recent decades, governments have sought to provide answers to such critical questions through public disclosure to force manufacturers, water authorities, and others to improve their products and practices. Corporate financial disclosure, nutritional labels, and school report cards are examples of such targeted transparency policies. At best, they create a light-handed approach to governance that improves markets, enriches public discourse, and empowers citizens. But such policies are frequently ineffective or counterproductive. Based on an analysis of eighteen U.S. and international policies, Full Disclosure shows that information is often incomplete, incomprehensible, or irrelevant to consumers, investors, workers, and community residents. To be successful, transparency policies must be accurate, keep ahead of disclosers' efforts to find loopholes, and, above all, focus on the needs of ordinary citizens. © Archon Fung, Mary Graham, and David Weil 2007 and Cambridge University Press, 2009.
For nearly two decades, the federal government has embraced Information Resources Management (IRM) as a philosophy, policy initiative, and management practice. During this time, IRM has undergone major management transformations within agencies and throughout the IRM policy environment. To date, however, there had been no government-wide assessment of IRM's impact on agency mission attainment, particularly through a strategic planning process. This article presents findings from a government-wide study to, in part, measure the extent to which IRM assists agencies achieve their missions and objectives, identify a general agency strategic planning model, and determine whether agency strategic planning efforts facilitate the alignment of agency business processes and information technology (IT).
One of the core elements of the vision of ‘electronic democracy’ is the hope that the Internet permits free and equal access to political debates. However, experiences with online discourse challenge this view. The digital divide being one obstacle to participation, even more interesting is the fact that online communication is constrained in ways similar to the offline world. This paper attempts to reassess the question of whether the Internet makes political debate more open to voices that are normally not heard in the political field. Based on empirical evidence from a large-scale online deliberation, it analyses who participates in political debates on the Internet and whose views are represented. The results challenge both the optimistic and the sceptical view on electronic democracy. A theoretical model is developed that is able to explain the results. It extends current research by including the cultural practices of technology use and the specific effects of large-scale communication in the analysis. Though preliminary this model can help to inform the designers of online deliberations to make the most of their democratic potential.
Access to government records is increasingly shifting to a nether world-governed neither by the FOIA and the Privacy Act, nor by an executive order on classification. Instead, new categories of records, labeled “sensitive but unclassified,” “for official use only,” or “critical infrastructure information,” are being created in a variety of agencies, and are governed by agency regulations. Statutory authority is found in a number of separate laws, such as the Homeland Security Act and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. These categories can be assigned by agency officials, contractors, or those in the private sector who originated the records; many records categorized this way are not subject to appeal or review by agencies or the courts, or to any automatic “declassification” process that has applied to documents withheld under the FOIA or subject to classification. Trends toward increased secrecy at all levels of government have become sufficiently alarming that individuals across the political spectrum have begun to speak out, and members of the access community (e.g., newspaper editors and public interest groups) have formed coalitions to focus debate on the need to rethink the balance of access with privacy and records protection, and to lobby actively for reinstatement of principles of access that have governed records policy for the past 35 years.
Relations between the public and holders of political authority are in a period of transformative flux. On the one side, new expectations and meanings of citizenship are being entertained and occasionally acted upon. On the other, an inexorable impoverishment of mainstream political communication is taking place. The Internet has the potential to improve public communications and enrich democracy, a project that requires imaginative policy-making. This argument is developed through three stages: first exploring the theoretical foundations for renewing democratic citizenship, then examining practical case studies of e-democracy, and finally, reviewing the limitations of recent policies designed to promote e-democracy and setting out a radical, but practical proposal for an online civic commons: a trusted public space where the dispersed energies, self-articulations and aspirations of citizens can be rehearsed, in public, within a process of ongoing feedback to the various levels and centers of governance: local, national and transnational.
Although the electronic revolution in publishing fostered a new Information Age, the need for government documents in tangible format continues. This paper examines the historical roots of congressional printing compared to 21st century challenges to information policy. The author argues that the founding fathers intentionally did not include language mandating the printing of government information, aside from the Journal as described in the Constitution, for the simple reason that they viewed it as an inherent obligation on the part of all elected officials. As such, restrictive information policies, such as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, impinge upon the original intent of the founding fathers and indeed, threaten the ideal of a democratic society.
Throughout a two-year campaign, Barack Obama's political team -- including campaign manager David Plouffe and senior adviser David Axelrod -- tapped into information technology to redefine the election process and interact with people in new and different ways. From the beginning, the Obama team understood the power of the technology and how it could be harnessed for political gain, says Deniece Peterson, principal analyst at INPUT, a Reston, VA, government-focused market research and consulting firm. It should come as no surprise that databases, social networking tools, and IT systems are likely to play a central role in the Obama administration. While new media has enormous power to help a candidate get elected, it also wields influence as a tool for operating a more efficient and transparent government -- and advancing a political agenda. As campaigns and government become more familiar with digital tools and the technology advances, the face of politics will continue to change.
The Clinger-Cohen Act, 10 years later: The five percent solution
- W Andrues
Andrues, W. (2006, July 11). The Clinger-Cohen Act, 10
years later: The five percent solution. GovExec.com.
Available: www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0706/071106cc.htm.
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America
- B Bamford
- Bamford B.
Bamford, B. The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA
from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. New York:
Doubleday, 2008.
Freedom of Information Act Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
- J Ashcroft
5 Reasons Why Clinger-Cohen Failed
- A Holmes
Holmes, A. (2010, Aug. 11). 5 Reasons Why Clinger-Cohen
Failed. Tech Insider. Available:
http://techinsider.nextgov.com/2010/08/five_reasons_why_cl
inger-cohen_failed.php?oref=latest_posts.
Nurturing nature: Federal agencies' track records show that the best way to conserve our natural resources and protect the environment is to deal with problems at the local and state levels
- W F Jasper
Jasper, W.F. (2007, Aug. 6). Nurturing nature: Federal
agencies' track records show that the best way to conserve
our natural resources and protect the environment is to deal
with problems at the local and state levels. CBS Money
Watch. Available:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_16_23/ai_n25
010189/?tag=content;col1.
Fact check: Stimulus money to phantom districts? Federal News Radio
- M Apuzzo
Apuzzo, M. (2009, Nov. 19). Fact check: Stimulus money to
phantom districts? Federal News Radio. Available:
http://federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1816601&nid=3
7.
Crisis of confidence
- J Carter
Carter, J. Crisis of confidence, July 15, 1979. Available:
www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/crisis_of_co
nfidence.html.
Keynote address at the Open Government: Defining, Designing, and Sustaining Transparency
- A Dash
- Dash A.
Dash, A. Keynote address at the Open Government:
Defining, Designing, and Sustaining Transparency, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ, Jan. 21 2010. Available:
http://citp.princeton.edu/open-government-workshop/.
The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State
- S Harris
Harris, S. The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance
State. Penguin Press HC, 2010.
Providing for consideration of H.R. 985, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007. Testimony to the House of Representatives
- A L Hastings
Hastings, A.L. "Providing for consideration of H.R. 985,
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007.
Testimony to the House of Representatives," Congressional
Record, pp. H2510-H2515, March 14, 2007. Available:
www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2007/h031407-wpea.html.
Who Needs to Know? The State of Public Access to Federal Government Information
- P Mcdermott
McDermott, P. Who Needs to Know? The State of Public
Access to Federal Government Information. Bernan Press,
pp. 225-246, 2007.
Under Obama, a newly interactive government?
- A Marks
Marks, A. (2009 Nov 13). Under Obama, a newly interactive
government? Christian Science Monitor.
Generational differences in online activities
- Pew Internet
Pew Internet (2009). Generational differences in online
activities. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available:
http://pewinternet.org/Infographics/Generational-differencesin-online-activities.aspx.
Framework for assessing the acquisition function at federal agencies
- K V Schinasi
- Schinasi K. V.
Schinasi, K.V. "Framework for assessing the acquisition
function at federal agencies." Government Accountability
Office. Report GAO-05-218G, Sept. 2005.
Secrecy in the Bush Administration
- D Vladek
Vladek, D. "Secrecy in the Bush Administration."
Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff.
Open government directive. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Available: www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive
- P Orszag
Orszag, P. (2009, December 8). Open government directive.
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies. Available:
www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-governmentdirective.
Demographics of internet users. Pew Internet & American Life Project Available: www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Whos-Online
- Pew Internet
Toads on the Road to Open Government Data Open Government: collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice
- B Schrier
An Act to authorize the use of the metric system of weights and measures
39th Congress of the United States, Session 1 (May 13,
1866). "H.R. 596, An Act to authorize the use of the metric
system of weights and measures."
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
- J Ashcroft
- Ashcroft J.
Ashcroft, J. "Freedom of Information Act." Memorandum
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Oct.
12, 2001.
OMB and Agencies Need to Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars
Government Accountability Office (GAO), "OMB and
Agencies Need to Improve Planning, Management, and
Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars,"
Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, GAO-08-1051T, July 31, 2008.
Solving 'Stovepipe America
- D Ignatius
Ignatius, D. (2007, June 7). Solving 'Stovepipe America.'The
Washington Post. Available: www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602290.html.
White House Open Government Initiative Blog
- V Kundra
- B Noveck
Kundra, V. and Noveck, B. (2009, May 21). Transparency
and Open Government. White House Open Government
Initiative Blog. Available:
www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/05/21/Opening/.
About those recovery act job numbers
- Omb Watch
OMB Watch (2009, Nov. 10). About those recovery act job
numbers. Available: www.OMBWatch.org/node/10548/.
Demographics of internet users
Pew Internet (2009). Demographics of internet users. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Available:
www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx.
Germany's Election and the Digital Dark Ages. The Washington Post
- C Risen
Risen, C. (2009 September 18). Germany's Election and the
Digital Dark Ages. The Washington Post. Available:
www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801145.html.
Open Government : collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice
- B Schrier
- Schrier B.
Schrier, B. "Toads on the Road to Open Government Data."
Open Government: collaboration, transparency, and
participation in practice. Ed: D. Lathrop & L. Ruma.
O'Reilly Media, 2010.
Open Government : collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice
- Tapscott
- Tapscott D.
Tapscott. D. "Foreword." Open Government: collaboration,
transparency, and participation in practice. Ed: D. Lathrop
& L. Ruma. O'Reilly Media, 2010.
Thumbs Up for Obama's Open for Questions
- N Thompson
Thompson, N. (2009 March 25). "Thumbs Up for Obama's
Open for Questions." Wired.com Epicenter. Available:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/the-early-revie/
Judge rejects keeping White House visitor logs private. The Washington Post
- P Yost
Yost, P. (2009, January 10). Judge rejects keeping White
House visitor logs private. The Washington Post. Available:
www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010903412.html.
Time's Person of the Year: You. Time. Available: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0 9171 1569514 00
- L Grossman
- Coleman S.
Transparency and Open Government. White House Open Government Initiative Blog
- V Kundra
- B Noveck
The Clinger-Cohen Act 10 years later: The five percent solution. GovExec
- W Andrues
Under Obama a newly interactive government? Christian Science Monitor
- A Marks