ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Open Government Data is the data made available free of charge by government entities and can be freely used, reused and redistributed by any person. Open Government Data Portals need to address a number of mechanisms so that society can effectively discover, extract, and utilize the data. The research focus is the identification of mechanisms that can increase transparency in Brazilian Open Government Data Portals. Through the use of scientific literature and the data collection with experts and users, 18 mechanisms have been proposed to increase the degree of transparency in Open Government Data Portals. The results showed that the evolution of the use and research on open data allowed the authenticity, irrefutability, integrity, compliance, breadth, reliability, comprehensibility, citizen participation, referential integrity, and connected data mechanisms to be added to the eight original mechanisms defined by the Open Government Working Group. The classification of these mechanisms and the definition of identifiers made it possible to evaluate the main Brazilian Open Data Portal (dados.gov.br). The criteria and ease of future reapplication will allow comparison with other national portals, serving as a benchmarking to public managers, stakeholders and researchers in the area.
Content may be subject to copyright.
692-715
Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. ISSN 1679-3951
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of
transparency in open data portals: an analysis
in the Brazilian context




Abstract

  





  


Keywords: 
Identicação de mecanismos para a ampliação da transparência em portais de dados abertos: uma análise no
contexto brasileiro
Resumo
  
 



 

 

benchmarking

Palavras-chave: 
Identicación de mecanismos para la ampliación de la transparencia en portales de datos abiertos: un análisis
en el contexto brasileño
Resumen





   





Palabras clave: 


hp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395173241
693 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 693-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
INTRODUCTION
The use of informaon technology (IT) by public administraons has been an important contributor to social, economic, and
polical changes, such as administrave reform and increased social scruny (YILDIZ, 2007). As a result of this process, new
models for relaonships between the State and society have emerged, generang opportunies to transform the connecon
between government and cizens (CUNHA and MIRANDA, 2013).
Several global open government data (OGD) iniaves have emerged in the last decade, with transparency and the reuse of
data as the two main objecves (ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015). These iniaves have made a signicant amount of
public sector informaon available, free for use and unrestricted redistribuon (O’RIAIN, CURRY and HARTH, 2012), with the
aim of improving public accountability and cizen parcipaon, as well as collaboraon in intersectoral partnerships (LINDERS,
2013). Transparency can be considered the claricaon given to the cizen by the State—in reference to what occurs in its
sphere of competence—and making public informaon available quickly and accurately (LOURENÇO, 2015).
OGD is the data which can be freely used, reused, and redistributed by any person (ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015),
made available free of charge from governmental enes, and used for civil society projects or integrated with new products,
applicaons or services, such as navigaon systems, weather forecasts, or nancial and insurance services (UBALDI, 2013).
Lourenço (2015) aributed to OGD the fulllment of two of the main objecves of open government. The rst is to promote
transparency through the publicaon of government data, thus enabling cizens to see what the government does and
enhancing accountability of public agents and elected representaves for their acons and decisions. The second objecve
involves disclosing government data and informaon that can be reused and provide social or economic value. OGD contributes
to social scruny, strengthened democracy, acve cizenship, improvements in public administraon, innovaon, cooperaon,
and transparency (HARRISON, GUERRERO, BURKE et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, in order for these results to be achieved, the data must be in an open, accessible, machine-readable format, and
the informaon generated from them should be produced by everybody and for everybody (HARRISON, GUERRERO, BURKE
et al., 2012). The manner in which OGD are made available in Brazilian portals that provide open governmental data (Brazilian
portals that disclose OGD – OGDBP) is of fundamental importance. Such portals must meet a number of requirements such
that the discovery, extracon, and use of the data can be performed eecvely (ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015). To
contribute to this aspect, in 2007, the Open Government Working Group (OGWG, 2016) dened eight principles for the free
sharing of governmental data (VELJKOVIĆ, BOGDANOVIĆ-DINIĆ and STOIMENOV, 2014). However, these principles do not cover
important aspects such as reliability, authencity, and irrefutability. These aspects are important for ensuring the reliability
of the data and the connuity of the reuse of these data by dierent means, and they are a result of the maturity generated
by the use of the OGWG’s principles in the last 10 years.
Dawes (2010) highlighted two principles of transparency: usefulness and stewardship. According to these principles, the
governmental informaon made available needs to be appropriate for the purpose and use. Thus, transparency is not the
ulmate purpose but rather a means of making available data that aend to a purpose (BALL, 2009). This study analyzed the
increase in transparency to aend the purpose of the process of the Accountability Theory (AT) (VANCE, LOWRY and EGGETT,
2015), abstaining from other purposes that can be sased by transparency.
According to Vance, Lowry, and Egge (2015), in the AT, accountability may be a characterisc (virtue) of individuals when
demonstrang willingness to accept responsibility for their acons and decisions, or a process of advancing acons and decisions
with subsequent accountability. This study adopted the concept of accountability as a process in which individuals have an
obligaon to explain their acons and decisions to other individuals, who have the right to judge them and to administer posive
or negave consequences in response to the acons and decisions taken (VANCE, LOWRY and EGGETT, 2015). When adapted to
the focus and theme of this study, the accountability process of the AT is represented by the process of making OGD available
in the OGDBP, in relaon to the acons, decisions, and public data of public agents and governmental organizaons, such that
they can subsequently be made accountable (negavely or posively) by cizens, social organizaons, and supervisory bodies.
This study considered that an increase in government transparency is an increase in social scruny by cizens, because in
order to be funconal for democrac society and for cizens, transparency needs to enable the monitoring of government
iniaves (ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015). From this perspecve, the increase in the transparency of portals that
provide OGD can be considered an increase in social scruny by cizens through data obtained from these portals.
694 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 694-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
Considering the above, the criteria for evaluang the transparency in OGDBP can be improved by taking into account aspects
such as the opinions of experts and OGD users when dening the degree of importance of the aspects that lead to greater
transparency, with the purpose of sasfying the accountability process of the AT. This is the theme of this study, and the
queson that the research proposes is as follows:
• What are the mechanisms that increase the transparency of Brazilian portals and that make open government data
available for the purpose of aend the accountability process of the Accountability Theory?
The mechanisms represent the praccal implementaon of the high-level denions, such as transparency and accountability.
The term mechanism was used analogously to other research areas to idenfy procedures and groups of transparency
indicators in open government data portals. This study adopted the concept of accountability as a process in which individuals
have the obligaon to explain their acons and decisions to other individuals, who have the right to judge them and administer
posive or negave consequences (VANCE, LOWRY and EGGETT, 2015).
The objecve of this study was to idenfy and classify mechanisms that can increase the transparency of OGDBP, in order to
aend the accountability process of the AT.
To sasfy the objecve, a case study was conducted on the main OGDBP: the Open Data Portal of the Brazilian Federal Government
(hp://dados.gov.br). The remainder of this study is organized as follows: the theorecal framework is presented rst, followed
by the research method and then the analysis of the results, in which the characteriscs of the studies covered are described,
encompassing crical and systemac evaluaon; nally, the nal consideraons and the conclusions of the research are presented.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Accountability involves objecve and subjecve responsibility, scruny, transparency, mandatory accountability, juscaons
for the acons that were or have ceased to be undertaken, and rewards and penales (PINHO and SACRAMENTO, 2009). As a
dimension of accountability, the transparency of governmental acons is able to elicit more trust from those being governed
toward those governing because transparency is seen as being able to contribute to reducing corrupon in the public sphere,
and concurrently, it establishes more democrac relaons between the State and civil society (PINHO and SACRAMENTO, 2009).
However, according to Raupp and Pinho (2013), accountability may have an even broader perspecve, which considers
formalized and instuonalized control mechanisms, capable of requiring the accountability of public agents for the acts
pracced, and informal mechanisms, such as the scruny exerted by the press and by civil society. However, in the laer case,
there needs to be an ability to impose sancons on public agents in the relaonships developed from the informal mechanisms.
Through this approach, any relaonship of control and monitoring on public agents is allowed, using the mechanisms capable
of demanding accountability.
For the authors, the execuon of accountability requires the responsiveness of the public agents through the ability to report
on the acts, and it also depends on the capacity to suer penales and loss of power for those who have violated the dues,
which depends on the ability to punish (RAUPP and PINHO, 2013).
According to Janssen (2011), open data iniaves can help cizens learn about government acvies, improve government
accountability, and allow cizens to parcipate in the polical process. Höner, Marn, and Lehmann (2016) added that
open data about government spending has the power to reduce corrupon, thus increasing accountability and strengthening
democracy, because voters can make decisions by being beer informed, and an informed and condent public also strengthens
the government itself because the government is consequently more likely to commit to projects.
According to Lerner and Tetlock (1999) and Vance, Lowry, and Egge (2013), P. E. Tetlock developed the concepts and inial
mechanisms of AT in two seminal arcles (TETLOCK, 1983a; TETLOCK, 1983b), which then evolved through other arcles
(TETLOCK, 1985; TETLOCK and KIM, 1987; TETLOCK and BOETTGER, 1989; TETLOCK, SKITKA and BOETTGER, 1989; TETLOCK and
BOETTGER, 1994). J. S. Lerner later worked together with P. E. Tetlock on an arcle (LERNER and TETLOCK, 1999) to develop
what is referred to as AT (VANCE, LOWRY and EGGETT, 2015).
According to Vance, Lowry and Egge (2015), AT explains how the percepon of the need to jusfy behaviors to other
individuals produces a sense of accountability for the decision-making process. This percepon of accountability, about the
695 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 695-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
decision-making process and the outcome, increases the likelihood of a more profound and systemac raonalizaon of the
procedural behaviors themselves.
However, for Akutsu and Pinho (2002), the concept of accountability covers two parts. The rst part delegates responsibility
such that the second part proceeds to the management of the resources. Simultaneously, it generates the obligaon of the
resource administrators to account for their management, demonstrang the sound use of these resources.
Campos (1990) menoned that only from the organizaon of vigilant cizens who are aware of their rights will there be a
condion for accountability, for there will be no such condion as long as the people dene themselves as protected and the
State as the guardian. Therefore, accountability can only be ensured by the exercise of acve cizenship — not by cizens
individually but by the organized cizenry (CAMPOS, 1990).
Schillemans, Van Twist and Vanhommerig (2013) argued that accountability is not only benecial for cizens but also potenally
advantageous to the public organizaons themselves because by exhibing accountability for their acons, governmental
instuons can demonstrate their legimacy. According to the authors, accountability is a mirror for public organizaon—by
reecng on their past acons, the public organizaons can learn from their mistakes and successes and therefore improve
their performance in the future, which again can increase their support via the cizenry.
For De Kool and Bekkers (2015), the idea of publishing data on the Internet will help to improve not only the quality and
performance of a government but also the process of polical and public accountability.
The reuse of data maintained by government agencies has great potenal: encouraging the generaon of skilled services,
reducing work overload and redundant procedures, and guaranteeing unrestricted access to cizens (YANNOUKAKOU and
ARAKA, 2014). The portals that make OGD available can help to make public these essenal components of knowledge,
making the data localizable, accessible, reusable, interoperable, and machine-readable, in order to improve the eciency of
the analyses and insights (LINDERS, 2013). Kassen (2013) added that OGD is a concept that involves making government data
widely available for anyone, without any copyright restricon.
Accordingly, the main task of public enes is not only to open public data but also to encourage its use and reuse. Thus,
the focus is not only on providing new or improved services to cizens but also to make available to society instruments for
evaluang the work of the government and to produce substuve services or services complementary to those provided
by public sector bodies (MARAMIERI, 2014).
According to Harrison, Guerrero, Burke et al. (2012), the relaonships between informaon, transparency, and democracy are
fundamental and elementary. Informaon is essenal for the development of basic democrac skills, such as the formulaon
of preferences and opinions, the conjuncon of hypotheses, and parcipaon in decision-making. Without these skills, cizens
are denied their voice and exercise of their rights. Transparency increases the exposure of government operaons to the close
scruny of the various components of the polical system (STAMATI, PAPADOPOULOS and ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, 2015), thus
increasing the risk of corrupon being detected (ANDERSEN, 2009).
According to Ferran, Jacinto, Ody et al. (2009), transparency refers to the public and mely availability — with comprehensive
and relevant quality of reliable informaon about the acvies of the government, and it is essenal for providing a
connuous basis for approval — by the cizenry — of those governing. It covers the voluntary and roune disclose of budget
data, audits, policies, and execuve acons, and it serves as a source of informaon for cizens to evaluate the eecveness of
administrave acon, increasing the demands on public services provided by the government. Coincidentally, this informaon
also creates pressure to improve performance, due to providing cizens with a connuous return of informaon and enabling
more comprehensive evaluaons of government services (HARRISON, GUERRERO, BURKE et al., 2012). Accordingly, Sol (2013)
added that transparency helps to hold government ocials accountable for their acons and omissions. Thus, as an essenal
requirement of transparency, the availability of OGD represents the method of making informaon available to the various
segments interested in its content (ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015).
Transparency is considered a precursor of accountability (AL-JAMAL and ABU-SHANAB, 2016), and the laer is closely linked
to transparency as an important reducer of corrupon levels by making public agents liable (MURILLO, 2015). However, the
relaonship between the two is not total because, according to Worthy (2015), the accountability associated with transparency
— through open data — is sll sporadic and unpredictable, driven by parcular circumstances, by local issues, and by the
combinaon of random data usage. Thus, lack of data quality is one of the threats to transparency (KOUSSOURIS, LAMPATHAKI,
696 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 696-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
KOKKINAKOS et al., 2015), as is the lack of policies that guarantee the connuity of the availability of updated data (SOLAR,
DANIELS, LÓPEZ et al., 2014; NUGROHO, ZUIDERWIJK, JANSSEN et al., 2015; LEONTIEVA, KHALILOVA, GAYNULLINA et al.,
2015). According to Barry and Bannister (2014), in the United Kingdom, the ulmate objecve of accountability through
transparency was not aained due to the lack of cizen parcipaon caused by a lack of understanding and trust in the data.
However, parcipaon is primarily linked to the appropriate divulgaon, through adversing or public nocaon, such that
cizens are aware of the availability of OGD and how such data can be used (KHAYYAT and BANNISTER, 2015). Consequently,
it depends on the quality of the data (AL-JAMAL and ABU-SHANAB, 2016; SÁEZ MARTÍN, DE ROSARIO and PÉREZ, 2016; WANG
and LO, 2016), the trust in the government, and the understanding of the data provided (WIRTZ, PIEHLER, THOMAS et al.,
2016; AL-JAMAL and ABU-SHANAB, 2016). The study of Al-Jamal and Abu-Shanab (2016) indicated that informaon quality
is a determinant of the intenon to use government data.
Paradoxically, the improvement in quality can be achieved by the increase in parcipaon and the inherent feedback regarding
the publicaons (ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015). Addionally, it can be obtained by adding services and applicaons
that depend on the data and that consequently generate pressure for higher quality (ZELETI, OJO and CURRY, 2016). Reliability
is another important aspect of data quality since it refers to the possibility of verifying and cerfying the compliance of the
procedures adopted as well as that the data were disclosed accordingly the principles of the government policies and the
desired data disclosure characteriscs (LOURENÇO, 2015). According to Carter and Bélanger (2005), reliability is one of the
signicant predictors of the intent of cizens to use an electronic government service. For Pérez, Hernández, and Bolívar
(2005), the reliability of nancial informaon can be enhanced if the informaon is subjected to an audit process that aests
to the authencity and accuracy of the informaon.
Informaon can only be obtained from the data when they are related to dierent contexts or semanc values (PRADO and
SOUZA, 2014). Therefore, the use of means that provide comprehensibility related to the OGD is highly relevant (VELJKOVIĆ,
BOGDANOVIĆ-DINIĆ and STOIMENOV, 2014; LOURENÇO, 2015). Data transparency involves ensuring that the data are well-
known, comprehensible, easily accessible, and open to all (VELJKOVIĆ, BOGDANOVIĆ-DINIĆ and STOIMENOV, 2014) because
although data may be available in a machine-readable format, they are not really useful unless they are easy to comprehend
(ATTARD, ORLANDI, SCERRI et al., 2015). Thus, a primary concern regarding publicly available data is their comprehension by
cizens who do not have specic knowledge in economic or administrave areas, which in turn will aect the ability of these
cizens to use the available data (LOURENÇO, 2015).
RESEARCH METHOD
This study adopted an exploratory strategy — it aimed to idenfy the inial concepts about a subject, seeking to discover new
possibilies and dimensions of the populaon of interest (PINSONNEAULT and KRAEMER, 1993). The nature of the research
is qualitave, due to the intended result. The research followed parcularly the recommendaons of Flick (2009) and Gibbs
(2009). The study was performed at a specic point in me. As data collecon techniques, the systemac literature review
(RSL) was used, especially following the recommendaons of Cooper, Hedges and Valenne (2009), interviews and discussions
with specialists, considering the indicaons of Gibbs (2009) and the electronic survey with DAG users, as recommended by
Malhotra (2012).
The study consisted of ve phases: Phase 1 idenes, in the literature, a list of mechanisms that meets the objecve of the
research; Phase 2 validates with experts and evaluates the mechanisms dened in the previous phase; Phase 3 empirically
evaluates the applicability of the mechanisms at the portal <hp://dados.gov.br>; Phase 4 evaluates the mechanisms with
OGD users and determines the weights of the mechanisms; and Phase 5 calculates the degree of transparency of the portal
<hp://dados.gov.br>. All phases of the research were conducted between September 2016 and July 2017.
Phase 1 was divided into ve stages, which, in an aggregated manner, allowed the idencaon of mechanisms that can
increase transparency in the OGDBP. In the rst stage, the bibliographic databases SCOPUS, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect
were consulted. The SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were chosen due to their being considered the most important
by Wang and Waltman (2016) and because, according to Tober (2011), ScienceDirect provides more results. Figure 1 shows
the terms, databases, criteria, and the number of arcles arising from the use of these criteria. This rst phase was conducted
between September and December 2016 and led to the selecon of 574 arcles, indexed to November 6, 2016.
697 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 697-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
In the second stage of Phase 1, repeated arcles and arcles originang from events and conferences were removed, which
le 310 arcles.
In the third stage, the arcles were veried, based on their content, in order to conrm whether they actually broached the
concept of OGD or its use. Arcles that did not meet these criteria were removed from the selecon. In terms of language,
only arcles in English and Portuguese were kept. Aer this phase, 186 arcles remained in the selecon.
In the fourth stage, the search tool of the MAXQDA 12 computer program was used, and the terms transparency, transparent,
transparência, and transparente were searched for in the 186 arcles. This stage was performed in order to sasfy the arcle’s
objecve of idenfying mechanisms that could contribute to the increase in transparency through open data. One hundred
and forty-ve arcles were idened using these search terms.
In the h stage, the content of the 145 arcles was analyzed — obeying the stages of reducon, display, conclusion, and
double vericaon — in isolaon (double blind), as dened by Flick (2009). During this analysis stage, 18 mechanisms that
could increase the transparency of open data portals were idened.
In Phase 2, the rst evaluaon of the mechanisms idened in Phase 1 was performed. In the rst stage, the 18 mechanisms
idened earlier were discussed at the “Roundtable Talk on Open Data” at the 1st Brazilian Open Government Meeng
(PARCERIA PARA GOVERNO ABERTO, 2016). The mechanisms presented were praised due to the high degree of evoluon in
relaon to the requirements for OGD.
In the second stage, a survey of the degree of importance of each mechanism was performed via semi-structured interviews with
OGD experts administered by the authors. All the individual interviews were performed face-to-face. Seven semi-structured interviews
698 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 698-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
were held in São Paulo and in Brasilia between November 30 and December 6, 2016, and were composed of a non-random sampling
for convenience, yielding results that are not generalizable (HAIR, BABIN, MONEY et al., 2005) but rather reect a specic context
of the main OGDBP (<hp://dados.gov.br>). All the respondents were recommended as references of renowned knowledge—at
the naonal level—regarding OGD and have strategic posions in the following organizaons: W3C Brazil, Cec.BR, NIC.BR, the
Ministry of Transparency or the Ministry of Planning. Five respondents had already used the data in scienc research and audits.
All respondents were directly or indirectly involved in dening data publicaon strategies at the portal <hp://dados.gov.br>. As a
collecon instrument for the interviews, an individual kit was prepared for each interviewee, consisng of one A3-sized sheet, ve
A4-sized sheets, and 18 post-it notes, each containing one of the 18 mechanisms and their indicators. When beginning the interviews,
the A3-sized sheet was presented—it contained the 18 items pasted on post-it notes, always in the same order. Also presented
were ve A4-sized sheets, which related to the dierent degrees of importance, varying from Extremely Important to Unimportant.
The objecve of the interview and the procedure were explained at the beginning of the interview. Subsequently, each
respondent was asked to place each post-it note on one of the A4-sized sheets in regard to their percepon of the degree of
importance of the mechanism. The collecon process enabled several reclassicaons of the degree of importance through the
rearrangement of the post-it notes on another A4-sized sheet. During this classicaon process, the respondent’s comments
were collected regarding the move for each degree of importance provided and the indicators of these mechanisms on
the portals. At the end, the respondents were asked to indicate other items they consider to be important. On average, the
interviews lasted 32 minutes. Figure 2 illustrates the collecon process, which was operated by the respondents themselves.


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
In Phase 3, the content analysis of the Open Data Portal of the Brazilian Federal Government (<hp://dados.gov.br>) was performed
between January 5 and 11, 2017, with the aim of idenfying the applicability of the mechanisms in a naonal empirical context.
The categories of informaon analyzed in this phase were based on the basic dataset indicator (BDS) of Veljković, Bogdanović-
Dinić, and Stoimenov (2014), which determines the presence of the most common predened open data categories: Finance
and Economy, Environment, Health, Energy, Educaon, Transport, Infrastructure, Employment, and Populaon.
In Phase 4, a collecon of data was performed with the OGD users through an electronic instrument sent via e-mail, which
contained the 18 mechanisms and their indicators, already adapted to the improvements indicated by the experts in Phase 2.
699 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 699-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
The electronic instrument had already passed the face-to-face and content validaon, which was performed by nine researchers
from the Administraon area—four of them were doctors with research related to OGD. Subsequently, the instrument
underwent a pre-test.
The electronic collecon with the open data users occurred between June 6 and July 15, 2017. The respondents were part
of a non-random sampling for convenience. The results were not generalizable (HAIR, BABIN, MONEY et al., 2005), but they
reected the usage context of the OGD. The sample used included respondents from 95 Brazilian cizen observatories, 10
respondents from Brazilian social acvism enes (Abraji, Argo19, Data Pedia, Gastos Abertos, LinKn, Operação Serenata
de Amor, PoliGnu, Radar Parlamentar, and Transparência Brasil), and 10 users who are members of the Dados Abertos (Open
Data) group on Facebook. The reliability of the instrument was measured using Cronbach’s alpha coecient. The SPSS 20.0
soware was used for the analyses. A Cronbach alpha of 0.677 was obtained for the group of 18 mandatory variables,
considering the 115 valid responders. According to Hair, Anderson, Tatham et al. (2009), Cronbach alpha values greater than
0.6 are acceptable in exploratory studies when dening new research instruments, as is the case in this study.
ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Among the results from the content analysis of the arcles, six arcles were idened as presenng methodologies for evaluang
OGD transparency, which were noteworthy due to them having clear criteria for OGD. The arcle by Aard, Orlandi, Scerri et
al. (2015) covers the largest number of requirements for OGD in relaon to the increase in transparency. The requirements
of these methodologies — regarding transparency — are summarized in Box 1.


Authors
Criteria (alphabecal order) [Solar] [Veljković] [Aard] [Lourenço] [Murillo] [Vetrò]
 XXXXX
 X
 XXX
 X X X X
 X X X X
 X X X
 X X
 XXXX
 X X X X
 X X
 X X X X
 X X
 X X
 XXXXX
 X X X X
 XXXX X
 XXXXX
Legend/Reference:
[Solar]: Solar, Daniels, López et al. (2014)
[Veljković]: Veljković, Bogdanović-Dinić, and Stoimenov (2014)
[Aard]: Aard, Orlandi, Scerri et al. (2015)
[Lourenço]: Lourenço (2015)
[Murillo]: Murillo (2015)
[Vetrò]: Vetrò, Canova, Torchiano et al. (2016)
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
700 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 700-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
Policy was a recurring theme in the arcles analyzed in the systemac literature review (present in 146 arcles), which
emphasized policy for the generaon of incenve legislaon and connuity of OGD publicaons. In the sixth stage, it was
considered appropriate to perform content analysis of the naonal legislaon regarding the publicaon of governmental
data intended for cizens. The legal requirements desned to increase transparency in government publicaons are
detailed in Box 2.


Laws or decrees
(alphabecal order)
Mechanisms/Requirements
(alphabecal order)
Complementary
law
131/2009
Decree
7.185/2010
Law
12.527/2011
Decree
7.724/2012
Decree
8.777/2016
 XXXXX
 X X
 X X
 XXX
 X X
 XXX
 X
 X
 XXXX
 X
 XXX
 XXX
 XXX
 XXX
 X
 X X X X
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
The legislaon analyzed considered the laws and the decrees used in the research of the Instute of Socio-Economic Studies
(INESC) regarding governmental transparency (INESC, 2014), the Brazil Transparent Scale (CGU, 2016), and the Naonal
Ranking of Transparency (MPF, 2016).
The mechanisms are part of the praccal funconing of the high-level denions, such as transparency and accountability.
Drawing a parallel with the research in informaon technology governance (ITG), ITG mechanisms can be understood as being
procedures, arfacts, or a set of acons that must always be associated with one or more of the objecves of the ITG (VAN
GREMBERGEN, DE HAES and GULDENTOPS, 2004). In the case of transparency in OGDBP, the mechanisms are reapplied as
procedures, arfacts, or a set of acons that aim for transparency by respecng principles.
The principles, issues, criteria, and requirements related to the increase in OGDBP transparency — with the purpose of sasfying
the accountability process of the AT (VANCE, LOWRY and EGGETT, 2015) — are addressed as mechanisms in the course of this
study, when dening methods of implemenng them by means of indicators that show them in OGDBP.
The 18 mechanisms that can increase transparency in open data portals were idened during Phase 1 of the study —
especially in the h stage — and are described in Box 3.
701 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 701-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano















  










  




Source: Elaborated by the authors.
Figures 3 and 4 show the groups of mechanisms with dierent numbers of indicators. The mechanisms with one indicator
are in Figure 3.
702 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 702-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
Among the 18 mechanisms, “Cizen parcipaon in quality evaluaon” and “Divulgaon” have, in total, four indicators that
evaluate the portal. The other 16 mechanisms have 32 indicators that analyze each dataset. Thus, in each dataset available
in a portal, 32 vericaons of indicaons of mechanisms are performed.
The mechanisms with mulple indicators are idened in Figure 4.
703 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 703-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
From the mechanisms idened in Phase 1 of the study, a conceptual model was dened with the relaonships between the
elements addressed in this study (Figure 5).
704 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 704-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
As presented, the principles direct mechanisms that meet the goals and that are monitored by indicators. Through the
mechanisms marked “(U)”, it is suggested that OGD becomes appropriate for the purpose of aend the accountability
process of AT. Similarly, by means of the mechanisms with the indicaon “(S)”, it is suggested that OGD is more suited to
this use, since they are authenc, reliable, comprehensible, whole, and irrefutable and have evaluated quality. Deference to
the principles of transparency — referred to as usefulness and stewardship — allows governmental data to be appropriate
for a purpose and a use (DAWES, 2010). Thus, transparency is not the ulmate purpose but rather a means to achieve
some purpose (BALL, 2009).
In this study, the purpose of the transparency was to attend the accountability process defined in the AT (VANCE,
LOWRY and EGGETT, 2015). In this process, individuals have an obligation to explain their actions and decisions to other
individuals, who have the right to judge and administer positive or negative consequences (VANCE, LOWRY and EGGETT,
2015). However, the objective of this research was not to measure the effectiveness of the accountability through OGD
but rather to identify and evaluate the mechanisms for increasing transparency for this purpose, through the perception
of experts and OGD users.
Thus, when adapted to the focus and theme of this study, the accountability process of the AT became the process for
making OGD available in portals, in relaon to the acons, decisions, and public data of public agents and governmental
organizaons, for them to be subsequently made accountable (negavely or posively) by cizens, social organizaons,
and supervisory bodies.
705 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 705-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
Expert evaluation of the mechanisms for increasing transparency
The result of the classicaon by degree of importance — obtained through the interview with experts — is shown in Graph 1.
In this graph, the mechanisms are arranged in descending order of weight, and the values of each bar show the total number
of respondents who aributed a level of importance to the mechanism.


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
The 18 mechanisms obtained from the specialized literature were considered to be important by the majority of the
respondents. Those who aributed lower degrees of importance jused the importance by order of priorizaon in the
implementaon, considering the current situaon of the Brazilian portals. Thus, all the mechanisms are important, but they
should be implemented at the end. Therefore, the mechanisms received very posive evaluaons—current praccal problems
were reported concerning the non-compliance of the mechanisms proposed in this study. However, during the treatment of
the interview-support instrument, the respondents were asked to discuss the reasons for aribung some importance to each
mechanism. Figure 6 presents a summary of the comments of the respondents who most clearly jused the evaluaons of
the mechanisms.
706 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 706-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
 

Source: Elaborated by the authors.
During the interviews, suggesons of new mechanisms that could increase transparency in OGD portals were requested
(Figure 7).


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
707 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 707-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
The suggesons will be used in future collecons in order to idenfy the degree of importance of each one from the perspecves
of both data publishers and data users.
Classication by users of the mechanisms for increasing transparency
The result of the classicaon by degree of importance — obtained by means of the electronic data collecon instrument
— is shown in Graph 2, with the mechanisms in descending order of weight and the values of each bar showing the total
number of respondents who aributed the respecve level of importance to the mechanism. The last column was obtained
by mulplying the total number of respondents by the weight related to each item of importance. This total weight will be
used in the evaluaon of the portal <hp://dados.gov.br>.


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
The 115 respondents of the study use OGD daily — in most cases, by means of acve transparency, with the OGD made
available on portals, or by passive transparency, with the OGD requested from the “Cizen Informaon Service”, as shown in
Graph 3, thus valuing even more the responses of these respondents.
708 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 708-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
The instrument used in the electronic collecon allowed each respondent (OGD user) mulple choices in the denion of
acvies performed with OGD (Graph 4).


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
The results show that from the percepon of users, OGD cannot have their transparency measured only by technical aspects
originated from the OGD principles of the OGWG dened in 2007. Nevertheless, they also cannot be measured based
solely on the number of datasets made available because transparency is not an end in itself; i.e., it is not the ulmate
purpose, and the amount of data must aend a purpose. In the case of the OGD users who responded to this survey, the
main purpose was to obtain OGD that can make public agents accountable, not only in the sense of sancons provided for
in legislaon but also in the idencaon of the people responsible who will be subject to various consequences, either
negave and posive. At the very least, the proposed mechanisms were considered important by a wide range of users
and for dierent means of using OGD in accountability, thus increasing the support for the results, in the increasing of
transparency for this purpose.
The purpose of increasing transparency to aend the accountability process of the AT produced the greatest appreciaon of
the Amplitude, Periodicity, Comprehensibility, Reliability, and Authencity mechanisms, in relaon to the other mechanisms,
due to the need for these mechanisms in the use of OGD for accountability.
709 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 709-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
Thus, the results showed that according to the percepon of these OGD users, the Amplitude mechanism is more valued than
the Complete Data mechanism, meaning that the detailing and coverage of the OGD — in accordance with the legislaon
— are more valued than the publicaon in the OGDBP of all the public data, when this concerns increasing transparency for
the purpose of accountability.
Application of the mechanisms in the analysis of the portal <http://dados.gov.br>
In Phase 3 of the study, the content of the Open Data Portal of the Brazilian Federal Government (<hp://dados.gov.br>) was
analyzed — it is a catalogue intended for the data federaon, since it allows the publicaon of data from various sources of
government data, from various spheres and powers. However, it mainly makes available data from the execuve branch in
the federal sphere.
From the denion of the weights of the mechanisms, dened by the OGD users in Phase 4, the points obtained by the portal
<hp://dados.gov.br> in each category were calculated — see Appendix A. Among the posive aspects of the content analysis
of this portal, the author’s recommendaon of the datasets from the Economics and Finance category and in the Health
category stand out — these correspond to indicaons of the Irrefutability/Author (Person) mechanism. The presence — in
various datasets — of informaon about the periodicity was also idened; however, it was not being respected during the
analysis. The edion number was informed in all datasets from this portal, which is evidence of the Authencity mechanism.
Another highlight was the divulgaon of new datasets in social networks, and the promoon of hackathons on at least an
annual basis —both of these are indicators of the Divulgaon mechanism.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although the experts interviewed did not refute the mechanisms presented during the interviews, many indicators were not
aended to during the analysis of the portal. Considering the posive opinions of the respondents about the mechanisms and
the fact that the respondents have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the denion of publishing strategies on this same
portal, it is possible to consider the mechanisms as an evoluon on OGD publishing requirements. No technical or nancial
infeasibility related to the adopon of the presented mechanisms was menoned during the interviews. The results of the
mechanisms evaluaon by the OGD users show their signicant importance in OGD publicaons in the Brazilian context, even
though some mechanisms were not yet present in the portal analyzed.
Considering the increasing importance of governmental acons transparency, the objecve of this study was to idenfy the
mechanisms that promote OGDBP transparency. The results obtained are relevant to the pracce of public managers who
want to assess the transparency and quality of open data portals and formulate strategies to disclose governmental data. The
method to idenfy and dene mechanisms that increase OGDBP transparency facilitates the understanding of criteria and
reuse form of those mechanisms in the future. This method allows a comparison with other portals, serves as a benchmark for
public managers, stakeholders, and researchers in the area, and enables a transparency ranking of the evaluated portals. The
theorecal contribuon comes from the unprecedented combinaon and vericaon of dierent mechanisms for increasing
transparency to achieve accountability, which can be the basis of future researches.
All idened mechanisms were considered important, very important, or extremely important by 92% of respondents using
OGD. These mechanisms broaden the principles of the OGWG (2016), with an emphasis on data reliability and the connuity
of reuse of these data by dierent purposes.
The study demonstrated the performance of parcipatory democracy in the Brazilian context through the evaluaons and
opinions collected from social acvism enes, such as the opinion of members of cizen observatories who use OGD for social
scruny. Addionally, through the percepon of users, the study showed that the OGDBP cannot have its transparency measured
only by technical aspects such as the type of electronic le, the type of licenses, and machine processable. Nevertheless,
transparency also cannot be measured based solely on the number of datasets available because transparency is not an end
in itself, i.e., it is not the ulmate purpose, and the amount of data must aend a purpose to be dened.
710 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 710-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
It is important to reect on the main objecve expected by the cizens who use OGD. According to the OGD users responding
to this survey, the main objecve was to inspect governmental and public agents accountability, not only on the legislaon
sancons, but also to idenfy those who will be subjected to the consequences, either negave or posive.
The evaluaon of the mechanisms by the percepon of experts and parcularly by the percepon of OGD users shows the
greater importance of data quality and stewardship of the correct OGD than data quanty. A large amount of OGD does
not mean an increase in governmental transparency if the OGD does not have the quality and reliability provided by the
informaon safeguard mechanism. In terms of government transparency, it is insucient for the informaon to be suitable
for the purpose if it is not suitable for the use.
The results also demonstrated that there is frequent use of OGD for accountability. The use of OGD by the cizen observatories
is a good example. They use the data both in consultaon with the OGDBP (acve transparency) and in the requests to the
informaon services for cizens (passive transparency). Nevertheless, the number of cizen observatories in relaon to the
number of Brazilian municipalies is low. Thus, it is suggested to idenfy in further researches the social and psychological
aspects that movate cizens to use OGD as a way to contribute to public agents’ accountability, provided this parcipatory
behavior in the accountability process is sll incipient in the Brazilian populaon. Rousseau (1973) proposed the direct
democracy, which currently relates to parcipatory democracy, because according to the author, democracy is that which
places the popular will above individual interests and requires the constant popular approval on issues that regulate policies,
not adming the representaon of this will. In the naonal context, the representave democracy seen in the elecons
overlaps parcipatory democracy, which could be more acve by means of instruments such as OGD. Further studies can
invesgate the reasons for the existence of this dierence in cizen parcipaon between these two forms of democracy. It
may be linked not only to compulsory vong in Brazil but also to the greater ease of parcipaon through vong, in contrast
to the processes of parcipatory democracy, which require greater involvement and eort on the part of the parcipang
cizens. However, there may be others social and psychological factors responsible for this dierence in engagement between
these two forms of democracy.
Thus, the use of OGD by the minority of the populaon may also be related to the lack of divulgaon, the diculty in
understanding the informaon regarding the public budget, and the low quality and lack of condence in the data, as already
discussed in the theorecal framework. These possible reasons are reinforced by the increased appreciaon of the mechanisms
suggested by this study, which provide the divulgaon, comprehensibility, quality, and reliability of the OGD made available
on OGD portals. In that way, to some extent, the groups of cizens that were respondents in this study (OGD experts and
members of cizen observatories) do not represent the democrac acvity of the majority of Brazilian cizens due to the
large number of parcipants in the electoral process. Future collecons that are able to obtain the percepon of these other
cizens may present dierent but equally important results.
This study also addressed the increase in transparency to aend the accountability process of the AT. Other objecves for
increasing transparency, such as the innovaon in or ease of access to public services, may enhance or revise the mechanisms
suggested by this study.
This study did not explore many other objecves for increasing transparency, e.g., the innovaon in or ease of access to public
services, which can be considered a limitaon. New studies may evaluate new objecves for increasing transparency in OGD,
in addion to increasing the consistency of the scores aributed to the mechanisms proposed, through focal groups or Delphi
techniques, emphasizing the opinion of OGD users. Addionally, these studies could check the relaonships proposed in the
conceptual model.
711 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 711-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
CAMPOS, A. M. Accountability: quando poderemos traduzi-la para o
português? , v. 24, n. 2, p. 30-50, 1990.
CARTER, L.; BÉLANGER, F. The ulizaon of e-government services:
cizen trust, innovaon and acceptance factors. 
, v. 15, n. 1, p. 5-25, 2005.
CONTROLADORIA GERAL DA UNIÃO – CGU. 
. 2016. Available at: <http://www.cgu.gov.
br/assuntos/transparencia-publica/escala-brasil-transparente/
metodologia>. Accessed on: 14 Jan. 2016.
COOPER, H.; HEDGES, L. V.; VALENTINE, J. C. 
. New York: Russell Sage Foundaon, 2009.
CUNHA, M. A. V. C.; MIRANDA, P. R. M. O uso de TIC pelos governos:
uma proposta de agenda de pesquisa a parr da produção acadêmica
e da prática nacional. , v. 20, n. 66,
p. 543-566, 2013.
CUNHA, M. A. V. C. D. et al. 
. 2015. Available at: <hp://bibliotecadigital.
fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/16373/Dados_Abertos_
nos_Munic%C3%ADpios_Estados_e_Governo_Federal_Brasileiros_
Volume_3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>. Accessed on: 27 Mar. 2018.
DAWES, S. S. Stewardship and usefulness: policy principles for
informaon-based transparency. ,
v. 27, n. 4, p. 377-383, 2010.
DE FERRANTI, D. et al. : a new framework
for analysis and acon. Washington, DC: Brookings Instuon Press,
2009.
DE KOOL, D.; BEKKERS, V. The perceived impact of open inspecon
data on the quality of educaon in Dutch primary schools: a parent
perspecve. , v. 33, n. 5, p. 645-
659, 2015.
FLICK, U. Introdução à pesquisa qualitava. 3. ed. Porto Alegre:
Artmed, 2009.
GIBBS, G. . Porto Alegre: Bookman,
2009. (Coleção Pesquisa Qualitava).
GRAVES, A.; HENDLER, J. A study on the use of visualizaons for
open government data. , v. 19, p. 73-91, 2014.
HAIR, J. F. et al.  
. 7. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2005.
HAIR, J. F. et al. . 6. ed. Porto Alegre:
Bookman, 2009.
HARRISON, T. M. et al. Open government and e-government:
democrac challenges from a public value perspecve. 
, v. 17, n. 2, p. 83-97, 2012.
HÖFFNER, K.; MARTIN, M.; LEHMANN, J. LinkedSpending: OpenSpending
becomes Linked Open Data. , v. 7, n. 1, p. 95-104, 2016.
INSTITUTO DE ESTUDOS SOCIOECONÔMICOS – INESC.


. Brasília, DF: Inesc, 2014.
REFERENCES
AKUTSU, L.; PINHO, J. A. G. Sociedade da informação, accountability
e democracia delegava: invesgação em portais de governo no
Brasil. , Rio de Janeiro, v. 36,
n. 5, p. 723-745, 2002.
AL-JAMAL, M.; ABU-SHANAB, E. The inuence of open government
on e-government website: the case of Jordan. 
, v. 8, n. 2, p. 159-179, 2016.
ANDERSEN, T. B. E-government as an anti-corruption strategy.
, v. 21, n. 3, p. 201-210, 2009.
ATTARD, J. et al. A systematic review of open government data
iniaves. , v. 32, n. 4, p. 399-
418, 2015.
BALL, C. What is transparency? , v. 11, n. 4, p. 293-
308, 2009.
BARBOUR, R. . Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2009.
BARRY, E.; BANNISTER, F. Barriers to open data release: a view from
the top. , v. 19, n. 1-2, p. 129-152, 2014.
BRASIL. Decreto n. 7.185, de 27 de maio de 2010.  
, edição extra, 27 May 2010. Available at: <hp://www.
planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/decreto/d7185.
htm>. Accessed on: 08 Dec. 2016.
BRASIL. Decreto n. 7.724/2012, de 16 de maio de 2012. Regulamenta
a Lei n. 12.527, de 18 de novembro de 2011, que dispõe sobre o
acesso a informações previsto no inciso XXXIII do caput do art. 5º,
no inciso II do § 3º do art. 37 e no § 2º do art. 216 da Constuição.
, 16 May 2012. Available at: <hp://www.
planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/decreto/d7724.
htm>. Accessed on: 27 Mar. 2018.
BRASIL. Decreto n. 8.777, de 11 de maio de 2016. Instui a Políca de
Dados Abertos do Poder Execuvo Federal. ,
12 May 2016. Available at: <hp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_
ato2015-2018/2016/decreto/d8777.htm>. Accessed on: 27 Mar. 2018.
BRASIL. Lei Complementar n. 101, de 4 de maio de 2000. Estabelece
normas de nanças públicas voltadas para a responsabilidade na
gestão scal e dá outras providências. , 5 May
2000. Available at: <hp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/
lcp101.htm>. Accessed on: 27 Mar. 2018.
BRASIL. Lei Complementar n. 131, de 27 de maio de 2009. Determina
a disponibilização, em tempo real, de informações pormenorizadas
sobre a execução orçamentária e nanceira da União, dos Estados,
do Distrito Federal e dos Municípios. , 28 May
2009. Available at: <hp://www.planalto.gov.br/CCivil_03/leis/LCP/
Lcp131.htm>. Accessed on: 27 Mar. 2018.
BRASIL. Lei n. 12.527, de 18 de novembro de 2011. Regula o acesso
a informações previsto no inciso XXXIII do art. 5º, no inciso II do §
3º do art. 37 e no § 2º do art. 216 da Constuição Federal; altera a
Lei no 8.112, de 11 de dezembro de 1990; revoga a Lei n. 11.111,
de 5 de maio de 2005, e disposivos da Lei n. 8.159, de 8 de janeiro
de 1991; e dá outras providências., 18 Nov.
2011. Available at: <hp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-
2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm>. Accessed on: 27 Mar. 2018.
712 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 712-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION;
INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION – ISO/IEC.
:security techniques – informaon security
management systems. Overview and vocabulary. Geneva: ISO/IEC, 2014.
JANSSEN, K. The inuence of the PSI direcve on open government
data: an overview of recent developments. 
, v. 28, n. 4, p. 446-456, 2011.
KASSEN, M. A promising phenomenon of open data: a case study of
the Chicago open data project. ,
v. 30, n. 4, p. 508-513, 2013.
KHAYYAT, M.; BANNISTER, F. Open data licensing: more than meets
the eye. , v. 20, n. 4, p. 231-252, 2015.
KOUSSOURIS, S. et al. Accelerang policy making 2.0: innovaon
direcons and research perspecves as dislled from four standout
cases. , v. 32, n. 2, p. 142-153, 2015.
LEE, G.; KWAK, Y. H. An open government maturity model for social
media-based public engagement. ,
v. 29, n. 4, p. 492-503, 2012.
LEONTIEVA, L. S. et al. Social-communicave innovaons in an-
corrupon acvies (regional aspect). , v. 11,
n. 7, p. 387, 2015.
LERNER, J. S.; TETLOCK, P. E. Accounng for the eects of accountability,
, v. 125 n. 2, p. 255-275, 1999.
LINDERS, D. Towards open development: leveraging open data
to improve the planning and coordination of international aid.
, v. 30, n. 4, p. 426-434, 2013.
LOURENÇO, R. P. An analysis of open government portals: a perspecve
of transparency for accountability. ,
v. 32, n. 3, p. 323-332, 2015.
MALHOTRA, N. K. : uma orientação aplicada.
6. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2012.
MARAMIERI, J. Open government data: a cizen’s right or a concession
of public authories? ,
v. 10, n. 2, p.11-22, 2014.
MINISTÉRIO PÚBLICO FEDERAL MPF.  
. 2016. Available at: <hp://www.rankingdatransparencia.
mpf.mp.br/>. Accessed on: 09 Dec. 2016.
MURILLO, M. J. Evaluang the role of online data availability: the
case of economic and instuonal transparency in sixteen Lan
American naons. , v. 36,
n. 1, p. 42-59, 2015.
NUGROHO, R. P. et al. A comparison of naonal open data policies:
lessons learned. 
, v. 9, n. 3, p. 286-308, 2015.
OPEN GOVERNMENT DATA – OGD. 
. 2007. Available at: <hps://opengovdata.org/>. Accessed on:
22 Apr. 2015.
OPEN GOVERNMENT WORKING GROUP OGWG. 
. 2007. Available at: <hp://www.opengovdata.org>.
Accessed on: 08 Dec. 2016.
O’RIAIN, S.; CURRY, E.; HARTH, A. XBRL and open data for global
nancial ecosystems: A linked data approach. 
, v. 13, n. 2, p. 141-162, 2012.
PARCERIA PARA GOVERNO ABERTO. Encontro Nacional de Governo
Aberto. , Brasília, 06 out. 2016. Available at: <hp://www.
governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/nocias/2016/i-encontro-brasileiro-de-
governo-aberto>. Accessed on: 12 Dec. 2016.
PÉREZ, C. C.; HERNÁNDEZ, A. M. L.; BOLÍVAR, M. P. R. Citizens’
access to on-line governmental nancial informaon: pracces in
the European Union countries. ,
v. 22, n. 2, p. 258-276, 2005.
PINHO, J. A. G.; SACRAMENTO, A. R. S. Accountability: can we now
translate it into Portuguese? , Rio
de Janeiro, v. 43, n. 6, p. 1343-1369, 2009.
PINSONNEAULT, A.; KRAEMER K. L. Survey research methodology
in management informaon systems: an assessment. 
. v. 10, n. 2, p. 75-105, 1993.
PRADO, E.; SOUZA, C. A. .
Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2014.
RAUPP, F. M.; PINHO, J. A. G. Accountability em câmaras municipais:
uma invesgação em portais eletrônicos. ,
v. 48, n. 4, p. 770-782, 2013.
ROUSSEAU, J. J. . 4. ed. São Paulo:
Cultrix, 1973.
SÁEZ MARTÍN, A.; DE ROSARIO, A. H.; PÉREZ, M. D. C. C. An internaonal
analysis of the quality of open government data portals. 
, v. 34, n. 3, p. 298-311, 2016.
SCHILLEMANS, T.; VAN TWIST, M.; VANHOMMERIG, I. Innovaons
in accountability: learning through interacve, dynamic, and cizen-
iniated forms of accountability. 
, v. 36, n. 3, p. 407-435, 2013.
SOL, D. A. The instuonal, economic and social determinants of
local government transparency. ,
v. 16, n. 1, p. 90-107, 2013.
SOLAR, M. et al. A model to guide the open government data
implementaon in public agencies. 
, v. 20, n. 11, p. 1564-1582, 2014.
STAMATI, T.; PAPADOPOULOS, T.; ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, D. Social
media for openness and accountability in the public sector: cases
in the Greek context. , v. 32,
n. 1, p. 12-29, 2015.
TANAKA, S. Engaging the public in national budgeting: a non-
governmental perspecve. , v. 7, n. 2,
p. 139, 2007.
TETLOCK, P. E. Accountability and complexity of thought. 
, v. 45, n. 1, p. 74-83, 1983a.
TETLOCK, P. E. Accountability and the perseverance of rst impressions.
, v. 46, n. 4, p. 285-292, 1983b.
TETLOCK, P. E. Accountability: a social check on the fundamental
aribuon error. , v. 48, n. 3, p. 227-
236, 1985.
713 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 713-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
TETLOCK, P.E.; BOETTGER, R. Accountability: a social magnier of
the diluon eect.  ,
v. 57, n. 3, p. 388-398, 1989.
TETLOCK, P. E.; BOETTGER, R. Accountability amplies the status-quo
eect when change creates vicms. 
, v. 7, n. 1, p. 1-23, 1994.
TETLOCK, P. E.; KIM, J. I. Accountability and judgment processes
in a personality predicon task.  
, v. 52, n. 4, p. 700-709, 1987.
TETLOCK, P. E.; SKITKA, L.; BOETTGER, R. Social and cognitive
strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity,
and bolstering. , v. 57,
n. 4, p. 632-640, 1989.
TOBER, M. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar:
which is the best search engine for an effective literature research
in laser medicine? , v. 26, n. 3, p. 139-
144, 2011.
UBALDI, B. Open government data: towards empirical analysis of
open government data iniaves.  
, v. 22, p. 1-61, 2013.
VANCE, A.; LOWRY, P. B.; EGGETT, D. Using accountability to reduce
access policy violaons in informaon systems. 
, v. 29, n. 4, p. 263-290, 2013.
VANCE, A.; LOWRY, P. B.; EGGETT, D. Increasing accountability
through user-interface design arfacts: a new approach to addressing
the problem of access-policy violaons. , v. 39, n. 2,
p. 345-366, 2015.
VAN GREMBERGEN, W.; DE HAES, S.; GULDENTOPS, E. Control and
governance maturity survey: establishing a reference benchmark
and a self-assessment tool. ,
v. 6, p. 32-35, 2004.
VELJKOVIĆ, N.; BOGDANOVIĆ-DINIĆ, S.; STOIMENOV, L. Benchmarking
open government: an open data perspecve. 
, v. 31, n. 2, p. 278-290, 2014.
VETRÒ, A. et al. Open data quality measurement framework: denion
and applicaon to open government data. 
, v. 33, n. 2, p. 325-337, 2016.
WANG, H.-J.; LO, J. Adoption of open government data among
government agencies. , v. 33,
n. 1, p. 80-88, 2016.
WANG, Q.; WALTMAN, L. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the
journal classicaon systems of Web of Science and Scopus. 
, v. 10, n. 2, p. 347-364, 2016.
WIRTZ, B. W. et al. Resistance of public personnel to open government:
a cognive theory view of implementaon barriers towards open
government data. , v. 18, n. 9, p. 1335-
1364, 2016.
WORTHY, B. The impact of open data in the UK: complex, unpredictable,
and polical. , v. 93, n. 3, p. 788-805, 2015.
YANNOUKAKOU, A.; ARAKA, I. Access to government informaon:
right to informaon and open government data synergy. 
, v. 147, p. 332-340, 2014.
YILDIZ, M. E-government research: reviewing the literature, limitaons,
and ways forward. , v. 24, n. 3,
p. 646-665, 2007.
ZELETI, F. A.; OJO, A.; CURRY, E. Exploring the economic value of
open government data. , v. 33,
n. 3, p. 535-551, 2016.
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein



Deisy Crisna Barbiero Klein



Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
 



714 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 714-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
APPENDIX A


Source: Elaborated by the authors.
Notes:
(1) Each mechanism has indicators, and each indicator is checked again for each dataset. Each mechanism has a maximum score
of 1. Example: If a category has 27 datasets, and only 1 dataset has the requested indicator (as in the glossary case, which is worth
0.3 points), then the formula is as follows: 1/27 × 0.3 = 0.01;
715 Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 16, nº 4, Rio de Janeiro, Oct./Dec. 2018. 715-715
Identication of mechanisms for the increase of transparency
in open data portals: an analysis in the Brazilian context
Rodrigo Hickmann Klein | Deisy Cristina Barbiero Klein
Edimara Mezzomo Luciano
(2) The Amplitude was evaluated according to Decree no. 7.185/2010 (BRASIL, 2010), which determines the elds that should be made
available when publishing budget data.
(3) The percentage of the weight of the mechanisms for each indicator—in the mechanisms that have mulple indicators—was evaluated
by a focus group with 10 parcipants: one user who is part of a cizen observatory; four users-researchers involved in research on
OGD, transparency, parcipaon, and open government; and ve professionals involved with the publicaon of OGD in Rio Grande
do Sul. The recommendaons of Barbour (2009) were followed in the focus group’s planning and execuon. The use of a focus group
was decided upon due to the large number of indicators that would produce a very extensive electronic quesonnaire, with constant
sum scales for the distribuon of the weight percentages of the mechanism between indicators, thus increasing the non-response bias
(HAIR, BABIN, MONEY et al., 2005).
(4) The sum of the weights of all the mechanisms resulted in a value of 6743. For this value to conform to the scale ranging from 0 to
100, the scale factor formula was applied: scale factor = 100/6473 = 0.01483. This formula was adapted from the Brasil Transparente
(Transparent Brazil scale (CGU, 2016). The weights of the mechanisms were mulplied by the scale factor such that the results stayed
in the range from 0 to 100.
... In the past few years, various authors have reported that the release of OGD on open data portals seems to affect processes that have contribution to transparency in areas where corruption, wastage and inefficiency happen the most (Bertot et al., 2010;Hogan et al., 2017;Lourenço, 2015;Matheus and Janssen, 2020;Murillo, 2015;Safarov et al., 2017). According to Klein et al. (2018), "OGD portals need to address a number of mechanisms so that society can effectively discover, extract, and utilize the data." Although the perspective of transparency achieved through data portals was already analysed by Lourenço (2015), Klein et al. (2018) or Thorsby et al. (2017), these authors dealt mostly with the basic principles and characteristics of open data. ...
... According to Klein et al. (2018), "OGD portals need to address a number of mechanisms so that society can effectively discover, extract, and utilize the data." Although the perspective of transparency achieved through data portals was already analysed by Lourenço (2015), Klein et al. (2018) or Thorsby et al. (2017), these authors dealt mostly with the basic principles and characteristics of open data. There is a research gap in identifying the enabling features that are provided by open data portals and are crucial to work with and enhance transparency through OGD. ...
... This research contributes scientifically by being the first to provide insights into feature-related transparency mechanisms provided by open data portals and their ability to stimulate the reuse of OGD through unique features and capabilities. In response to a study by Klein et al. (2018), who explored the transparency mechanisms as "procedures, artifacts, or a set of actions that aim for transparency by respecting principles of OGD", we conceptualize them on the basis of existing open data portals that are critical component of data infrastructures and represent the entry point for reusing OGD. Since our aim is to explore open data portals as a complex whole we do not strictly focus only on the characteristics that OGD should meet but also on other feature-related transparency mechanisms through which it is enabled to work with OGD. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose - The purpose of this paper was to draw on evidence from computer-mediated transparency and examine the argument that open government data and national data infrastructures represented by open data portals can help in enhancing transparency by providing various relevant features and capabilities for stakeholders' interactions. Design/methodology/approach - The developed methodology consisted of a two-step strategy to investigate research questions. First, a web content analysis was conducted to identify the most common features and capabilities provided by existing national open data portals. The second step involved performing the Delphi process by surveying domain experts to measure the diversity of their opinions on this topic. Findings - Identified features and capabilities were classified into categories and ranked according to their importance. By formalizing these feature-related transparency mechanisms through which stakeholders work with data sets we provided recommendations on how to incorporate them into designing and developing open data portals. Social implications - The creation of appropriate open data portals aims to fulfil the principles of open government and enables stakeholders to effectively engage in the policy and decision-making processes. Originality/value - By analyzing existing national open data portals and validating the feature-related transparency mechanisms, this paper fills this gap in existing literature on designing and developing open data portals for transparency efforts.
... No dizer de Klein et al. (2018), Dados Abertos Governamentais são aqueles que podem ser livremente utilizados, reutilizado e redistribuído por qualquer pessoa e disponibilizado de modo gratuito a partir de entes governamentais. Estes podem ser utilizados para projetos da sociedade civil ou integrados a novos produtos, aplicativos ou serviços, tais como sistemas de navegação, previsões meteorológicas ou serviços financeiros e de seguros. ...
... Both variables are frequently cited as ways to reduce the levels of corruption [38], and it is the central assumption of this paper. One contribution of this study is to demonstrate that this assumption works for a set of 164 countries. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This study aims to identify the contribution of governmental open data disclosure and debureaucratization in reducing a country's level of corruption. For this purpose, a theoretical model has been created, and three global country-based indicators—namely the Corruption Perception Index, Global Open Data Index, and The Ease of Doing Business Ranking— were analyzed. . The study is exploratory and employs a combined quantitative analysis of secondary data, which were analyzed through PLS. The reduction of bureaucracy has shown a more significant effect that the opening of data related to corruption perception in the 164 countries analyzed. Results show that government open data disclosure and the level of reduction in bureaucracy contribute to making a country less vulnerable to corruption; nonetheless, debureaucratization presented a superior and more significant effect. The results show that debureaucratization might be a starting point for initiatives against corruption, especially in countries with limited financial resources, and that it can support governmental decision-making in this regard.
Article
Full-text available
Transparency in the public sector is one of the most important topics of the current debates on accountable, participatory, and responsive governance. An open government addresses these major topics and aims to encourage the relationships and flows of information between involved stakeholders. This article explores the role of open data portals in supporting these efforts and provides findings regarding the features in the design of these data infrastructures. On the basis of evidence from the concept of transparency-by-design, we argue that transparency is facilitated by open data portals and their features enabling to work with datasets. We therefore propose the list of the categories and corresponding features of open data portals that should constitute the checklist of the portal aiming to achieve the highest level of transparency. The mapping of existing features found in literature to the phases of the transparency cycle demonstrates that open data portals meet the transparency requirements.
Article
Full-text available
The wide spread of the internet, mobile technologies and social networks facilitated the emergence of open concepts. Open data concept means to unfold data to the public free of charge and free of other constrains. With the increasing calls from people for freedom, democracy and participation, the concept of 'Open Government' emerged. Open government is opening government's data to the public and leaving a room for participation, transparency and collaboration. Jordan has adopted open government initiative since 2011. In this paper, we will investigate the perceptions of Jordanian citizens regarding the major concepts of open government. We have developed a research model based on the literature, and then conducted an empirical test on the model based on citizens' responses to a survey. Results indicated that collaboration and transparency have positive influence on citizen's intentions to use E-government websites, and participation has a negative influence.
Article
Full-text available
The diffusion of Open Government Data (OGD) in recent years kept a very fast pace. However, evidence from practitioners shows that disclosing data without proper quality control may jeopardize dataset reuse and negatively affect civic participation. Current approaches to the problem in literature lack a comprehensive theoretical framework. Moreover, most of the evaluations concentrate on open data platforms, rather than on datasets.In this work, we address these two limitations and set up a framework of indicators to measure the quality of Open Government Data on a series of data quality dimensions at most granular level of measurement. We validated the evaluation framework by applying it to compare two cases of Italian OGD datasets: an internationally recognized good example of OGD, with centralized disclosure and extensive data quality controls, and samples of OGD from decentralized data disclosure (municipality level), with no possibility of extensive quality controls as in the former case, hence with supposed lower quality.Starting from measurements based on the quality framework, we were able to verify the difference in quality: the measures showed a few common acquired good practices and weaknesses, and a set of discriminating factors that pertain to the type of datasets and the overall approach. On the basis of this evaluation, we also provided technical and policy guidelines to overcome the weaknesses observed in the decentralized release policy, addressing specific quality aspects.
Article
Full-text available
Access-policy violations are a growing problem with substantial costs for organizations. Although training programs and sanctions have been suggested as a means of reducing these violations, evidence shows the problem persists. It is thus imperative to identify additional ways to reduce access-policy violations, especially for systems providing broad access to data. We use accountability theory to develop four user-interface (UI) design artifacts that raise users' accountability perceptions within systems and in turn decrease access-policy violations. To test our model, we uniquely applied the scenario-based factorial survey method to various graphical manipulations of a records system containing sensitive information at a large organization with over 300 end users who use the system daily. We show that the UI design artifacts corresponding to four submanipulations of accountability can raise accountability and reduce access policy violation intentions. Our findings have several theoretical and practical implications for increasing accountability using UI design. Moreover, we are the first to extend the scenario-based factorial survey method to test design artifacts. This method provides the ability to use more design manipulations and to test with fewer users than is required in traditional experimentation and research on human-computer interaction. We also provide bootstrapping tests of mediation and moderation and demonstrate how to analyze fixed and random effects within the factorial survey method optimally.
Article
Business models for open data have emerged in response to the economic opportunities presented by the increasing availability of open data. However, scholarly efforts providing elaborations, rigorous analysis and comparison of open data models are very limited. This could be partly attributed to the fact that most discussions on Open Data Business Models (ODBMs) are predominantly in the practice community. This shortcoming has resulted in a growing list of ODBMs which, on closer examination, are not clearly delineated and lack clear value orientation. This has made the understanding of value creation and exploitation mechanisms in existing open data businesses difficult and challenging to transfer. Following the Design Science Research (DSR) tradition, we developed a 6-Value (6-V) business model framework as a design artifact to facilitate the explication and detailed analysis of existing ODBMs in practice. Based on the results from the analysis, we identify business model patterns and emerging core value disciplines for open data businesses. Our results not only help streamline existing ODBMs and help in linking them to the overall business strategy, but could also guide governments in developing the required capabilities to support and sustain the business models.
Article
In this paper we present a necessarily brief overview of the legal and regulatory aspects of Open Government Data in Italy. The thesis of the article is that in Italy some regulatory issues and a still inadequate culture do not allow this innovation to fully develop its potential. Despite those critical elements, in the last few years a growing number of local governments have opened up their public data and published them on the web, allowing users to reuse them for broad purposes. In this regard, the paper considers the example of the strategy of opening up public sector information of the Autonomous Province of Trento.
Article
With an emerging interest in open government data (OGD) around the world, there has been an increasing need for research on the determinants of OGD adoption. This study examines factors influencing the adoption of OGD among government agencies in Taiwan to fill the existing knowledge gap. Accordingly, based on previous research on innovation adoption, we develop a research model that integrates the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework and the following four factors that are central to adoption decisions: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, organizational readiness, and external pressures. We examined this model through survey data from 342 government agencies of the Executive Yuan in Taiwan. The results show a significant positive relationship among perceived benefits, organizational readiness, and external pressures and the adoption of OGD by government agencies. This study creates a valuable reference for other countries in the early stages of OGD initiatives and has significant implications for governmental policy practitioners.