Analyzing Determinants of Open Government Based Technologies and Applications Adoption in the Context of Organizations

Abstract

Adoption and acceptance of Open Government based technologies and applications by the organizations is important to reveal their advantages. This study presents a literature review research about acceptance of Open Government from organizational perspective. This study aims to identify the underlying factors to predict Open Government based technologies and applications adoption and acceptance and to propose a theoretical model based on Technology-Organization-Environment framework. The factors were retrieved from 6 Open Government acceptance studies which were reached via a systematic review procedure. The results of the systematic review resulted that relative advantage, data governance, complexity, organizational readiness, culture and size, top management support, external pressures, regulations and trust are the effective factors to predict adoption of Open Government applications by organizations. Also results propose that there are research opportunities within the organizational side of Open Government acceptance.

Full text

Analyzing Determinants of Open Government Based
Technologies and Applications Adoption in the Context of
Organizations
Murat Tahir Çaldağ1, Ebru Gökalp1, and Nurcan Alkış1
1Technology and Knowledge Management, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract - Adoption and acceptance of Open Government
based technologies and applications by the organizations is
important to reveal their advantages. This study presents a
literature review research about acceptance of Open
Government from organizational perspective. This study aims
to identify the underlying factors to predict Open Government
based technologies and applications adoption and acceptance
and to propose a theoretical model based on Technology-
Organization-Environment framework. The factors were
retrieved from 6 Open Government acceptance studies which
were reached via a systematic review procedure. The results
of the systematic review resulted that relative advantage, data
governance, complexity, organizational readiness, culture and
size, top management support, external pressures, regulations
and trust are the effective factors to predict adoption of Open
Government applications by organizations. Also results
propose that there are research opportunities within the
organizational side of Open Government acceptance.
Keywords: Open Government, open data, transparency,
TOE, adoption
1 Introduction
Open Government refers to more transparent, trustworthy,
participatory and collaborative government. OECD (The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
defined Open Government as “Open and responsive
government refers to the transparency of government actions;
the accessibility of government services and information; and
the responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands, and
needs” [1]. A holistic definition of Open Government is
“Open Government is a multilateral, political, and social
process, which includes in particular transparent,
collaborative, and participatory action by government and
administration” [2].
Open Government concept is actually an old tale of society
demands of participation in decision making, transparency,
openness to non-corrupt governance. Although, open
government literature dates back to the aftermath of the
Second World War as the need for transparency and openness
in society grew [2], [3]. Publication of The Open Government
Initiative, which is an effort by the administration of President
of the United States, Barack Obama in 2009 provided
increasing attention on Open Government [3]. The message in
the Open Government Directive created interest from all over
the world which promoted participation, collaboration and
transparency to increase public trust, strengthen democracy
and increase effectiveness and efficiency of government
operations [4]. The directive also merged Open Government
with open data [3].
With the new rising trend, other countries also started their
own Open Government initiatives. United Kingdom
government published Putting the Frontline First: Smarter
Government [5], Australian government published a
Declaration of Open Government [6], Danish government
published an Open Data Innovation Strategy [7] and
European Union made the commitment of Open Government
in the European E-Government Action Plan 2011-2015 [8],
[9]. Other countries also have continued to adapt Open
Government. Moreover, Open Government Partnership
launched in 2011 is promoting Open Government globally
[10]. These initiatives emphasize on transparency as
strengthening the role of citizens and civic society as well as
[9]–[11].
The adoption of the Open Government has been spreading
rapidly, owing to strengthen democracy and increase
effectiveness and efficiency of government operations. Thus,
the benefits and barriers of Open Government based
technologies and applications adoption and acceptance have
started to be investigated in the literature[12]–[14]. Upon
conducting an extensive literature search on Open
Government based technologies and applications adoption in
the organization context, we have realized that although there
are many studies which are related to citizen acceptance of
Open Government [15], [16], there are very few researchers
have investigated organizational adoption of Open
Government based technologies and applications [17]–[22].
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to determine factors
affecting organization's intention regarding Open Government
applications based on systematic literature review results in
order to give guidance to Open Government service providers
on how to design their products in order to increase
customers’ adoption of their services. Therefore, the research
question of the study is: How different types of determinants
affect organizational adoption of Open Government
applications?
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The
summary of the literature review and the theoretical
background of adoption and acceptance models are provided
in the following section. Then, the procedure of the systematic
literature review is presented. After then, the proposed
research model based on TOE framework is presented in
Section 4. This is followed by a conclusion and future
implications.
50
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©

2 Literature Review
2.1 Open Government
Open Government is defined as “Openness of government is
the extent to which citizens can monitor and influence
government processes through access to government
information and access to decision- making arenas” [23]. It
has been a popular research subject since Obama’s 2009 Open
Government Directive [4] which established Open
Government’s fundamental dimensions as transparency, public
participation and collaboration [2], [11], [24].
Transparency is the first and most researched concept in
Open Government. Transparency basicly refers to disclosure
of government information to citizens [22]. It is described as
“citizens and external parties of a democratic society’s
keeping track of government initiatives” [25]. Another study
defined transparency as “open communication between
citizens and government while protecting citizens privacy and
carrying out the principles of information dimensions” [26].
Participation in context of Open Government refers to
including citizens in decision making activities of government.
Open Governments encourages the public by establishing new
opportunities for participation in policy making. Participation
also creates value by the collective knowledge of the society
[2].
Collaboration is defined as joint effort to particpate in the
democratic process [26]. Collaboration enchances
effectiveness of governments by putting different sectors of
society to working together to solve public problems
[2].Collaboration can be perceived of participations of
citizens, buisnesses and government agencies in projects with
complex tasks and designated purposes [27].
Accessibility is refered in Open Government literature as the
ability of all stakeholders to utilize information or
participation options [22].
2.2 Adoption and Acceptance Theories
The literature review indicated that the adoption of innovative
technologies is important for gaining competitive benefits as
increasing profits and improving business processes. There are
five fundamental models that incorporate the implementation
of innovative technologies. These models are listed below:
x Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) [28],
x Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [29],
x Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) [30],
x Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) [31]
x Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP) [32] framework.
TBP, TAM and UTAUT theories are generally utilized to
research the individual perspective of acceptance of new
technologies while DOI and TOE theories are used for
organizational perspective for adoption of new technologies.
As stated in [33], the TOE framework is reliable and
applicable to numerous technological innovation fields. It
focuses on technology, organization and environmental
contexts in which organizational adoption processes occurs.
The environmental context distinguishes the framework from
DOI to explain intra-organizational adoption as a whole [34].
Therefore, the TOE framework is considered as an appropriate
basis to examine Open Government innovations’ adoption in
this study.
3 Proposed Approach
This study was carried out by a systematic literature review
procedure by following the guidelines proposed by
Kitchenham (2004). The process of the systematic literature
review is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 The Systematic Review Steps
Step
Explanation
Starting point
of the search
Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) and
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework was
selected as the starting point of the study.
Search
language
The search was performed in English.
Search terms
Keywords were selected within the scope of the research.
Search was carried out with combinations of the selected
keywords; “Open Government”, “open data” + “local
government”, “openness” + “local government”,
“transparent local government”, “acceptance”, “adoption”,
“TOE”, “behavioral intention”, “TAM”, “perception”,
“intention to use”
Databases
Review of the relevant studies was carried out with
database search. For the purpose of this research Scopus
(www.scopus.com/search/form.url), Web of Scien ce
(https://apps.webofknowledge.com) and Aisel
(https://aisel.aisnet.org) databases were searched.
Initial Search
Results
The search results of keywords in titles and abstracts; In
Scopus 73 articles from 161 relevant studies, In Web of
Science 67 articles from 93 relevant studies and Aisel 170
articles from 933 relevant studies were collected. Total of
310 articles went through further analysis
Citation search
Conference proceedings, series, meetings, and reviews are
excluded from the review. Journal articles are included.
Management of
results
A database was built in Microsoft Excel to manage the
search results and findings.
Selection of
primary studies
Initial Exclusion is done by examining keywords, titles
and abstracts whether the collected articles are appropriate
to Open Government based technologies and applications
adoption and acceptance.
Date: Papers published between 2010 and 2019 were
included
After applying these steps, 11 studies remained
Study quality
assessment
11 studies are reviewed, and it is observed that 6 studies
of them investigate the Open Government based
technologies and applications adoption within the
organization perspective. 5 studies of them are Open
Government based technologies and applications adoption
studies fro
m the citizen perspective.
The remaining 6 studies (primary studies) and the
references of the primary studies are also reviewed.
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
51
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©

Table 2 Primary Open Government Based Technologies
and Applications Adoption Studies in the Literature
Aut
hor
Adoption Behavior
Model
Used
Determined Factors
[17]
Adoption of Open
Government data
among government
agencies in Taiwan
TOE
Technology: Perceived
Benefits
Organization: Organizational
Readin
ess
Environment:
External
Pressures
[18]
Explore the factors
that affect
government open
innovation in China
TOE
Technology: Personnel IT
Access
and
Competence, IT
Infrastructure
Organization: Support of Top
Management, Department
Objective
Environment: Attitude of the
Local Social Environment
Toward Technological
Innovation,
Attitude
of the Local Social
Environment Toward
Government Information
Transparency
[19]
Examine the
potential socio
-
technical
determinants that
influences the
government
agencies intention
and behavior of
open data
publication
-
Perceived Usefulness,
Facilitating Conditions,
Organizati
onal Culture,
Organizational Capability,
Perceived Risks,
External Influence
[20]
Adoption and usage
of an Open
Government data
service for a
government agency
UTAUT
Effort Expectancy,
Performance Expectancy,
Facili
tating Conditions,
Social Influences
[21]
Determinants of
data sharing in U.S.
city governments
-
Technical Engagement
Capacity, Technical
Management Capacity, Inter
Organizat
ional Persuasion
[22]
Developing and
Testing an
Integrative
Framework for
Open
Government
Adoption in Local
Governments
-
Organizational Structure:
Organizational capacity,
technological capacity
Organizational Culture:
Routineness, Innovativeness
Organizational Environment:
External pressure, politicized
environment
As a result of the systematic review, 6 primary studies which
explore the significant determinants of the open government
based technologies and applications adoption, are referred as
a baseline to build a research model of this study as listed in
Table 2.
4 Research Model
As a result of systematic literature review, the most significant
factors (constructs) that affect the adoption of open
government are determined as: relative advantage, data
governance, complexity, organizational readiness,
organizational culture, organizational size, external pressure,
governmental regulations, and Trust. As seen in table 3 and
Figure 1, the constructs of the proposed research model are
incorporated with the technological, organizational and
environmental contexts of the TOE framework. Factors
derived from primary studies are relative advantage,
complexity, organizational readiness, organizational culture,
external pressure and trust. Additional factors that are placed
in the proposed model although they are not indicated in the
primary studies are data governance, organizational size and
government regulations.
Table 3 The Research Model
Context
Factor
Source
Technology
Relative Advantage
[17]
[19]
[20]
Data governance
[13]
[35]
Complexity
[20]
Organization
Organizational Readiness
[17]
[18]
[19]
[22]
[20]
[21]
Top Management Support
[18]
[36]
Organizational Culture
[19]
[22]
Organization Size
[34]
[37]
Environment
External Pressure
[17]
[18]
[22]
[21]
Government Regulations
[2]
Trust
[19]
52
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©

Figure 1 - Research Model
4.1 Technological Context
4.1.1 Relative Advantage
Relative Advantage is defined as “the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes”
[28]. In the innovation adoption context, determinants of
relative advantage, perceived usefulness, performance
expectancy and perceived benefits share similarities [38]. The
construct of Perceived benefits refers “to the anticipated
advantages of an innovation for an organization”[38].
Perceived usefulness in Open Government context refers to
“the degree to which a government agency believes that the
implementation of Open Government data” [19]. Perceived
expectancy is described as “the degree to which an individual
believes that using the system will help him or her to attain
gains in job performance” [20]. In this study context, relative
advantage refers anticipated advantages of implementation of
Open Government based technologies and applications and
includes perceived benefits, usefulness and expectancy
factors.
4.1.2 Data Governance
It is proposed in [13] that the approach to data are obtained,
used and stored by an organization has a significant effect on
the open data of local governments. The determinant of data
governance includes use of data within a service, where data is
stored, the source of the data and suitability of data for release.
Data governance capacity described in Zhao and Fan’s (2018)
research as “the ability to effectively manage data for efficient
and sustained dissemination of high quality and useful
data”[35]. In 2007 Open Government researchers established
a set of principles for Open Government data. These include
complete, primary, timely, accessible, machine processable,
non-discriminatory, non-proprietary and license-free [39].
Even though there is no defined determinant related to data
governance capacity of organizations in the primary studies
listed in Table 2, since it has significant effect on
organizational adoption of open government based
technologies and applications, data governance is defined as a
determinant in the proposed research model.
4.1.3 Complexity
Complexity is referred to as ”the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use”
[28]. According to adoption literature complexity construct
shares similarities with effort expectancy and perceived effort
which is described as “the degree to which technology is
perceived to be easy to use” [20]. Since complexity is a
significant factor that improves individuals use of new
technologies on Open Government initiatives to easiness, it is
defined as a determinant of open government based
technologies and applications adoption in the context of
organization in the proposed research model.
4.2 Organizational Context
4.2.1 Organizational Readiness
Review of the primary studies provides organizational
readiness constructs as organizational capability,
organizational capacity, facilitating conditions, IT
infrastructure, personnel IT access and competence, technical
management capacity, technological capacity. Iacovou (1995)
refers organizational readiness as “availability of the needed
organizational resources for adoption”. Yang et al (2015)
describes readiness as “employees preperation and
willingness to adopting new tecnologies on the perceived
capability of the organization”. Organizational readiness
which includes IT infrastructure and top management support
as constructs, is a significant factor that affect IT innovation
adoption processes [40], [41]. IT infrastructure provides
essential hardware, platforms, software programs, physical
facilities and computer networks for technology adoption and
usage. Facilitating conditions that influence Open Government
data, includes the support of high level authority, the
collaboration and experience sharing from other agencies, and
the acquisition of necessary resources.[19] Organizations with
higher capacity will have more opportunities for affordance
and experimentation with innovations [22]. In the proposed
model, the determinant of organizational readiness covers
technological capacity including technological infrastructure
and IT human resources (HR) in the organization. Since, the
availability of the HR with the required IT skills and
experiences, and the compliance of the existing technological
infrastructure are critical for organizational adoption of open
government based technologies and applications,
Organizational Readiness is defined as a determinant in the
proposed research model.
4.2.2 Top Management Support
In organization context top management support is a critical
factor that affects technology adoption [42]. Success of open
government initiatives can’t be achieved without top
management support and establishing the organizations
mission with the aim of innovation adoption [36]. In e-
government adoption top government support is proposed as
significant factor to overcome resistance to change in adoption
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
53
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©

[43]. Since top managers are the final decision makers in an
organizations, top management support is crucial for
technology adoption [44]. Top management support is a
critical factor that offers guidance, support and commitment
for the innovation adoption environment [17]. Therefore, top
management support is defined as a determinant in the
proposed research model.
4.2.3 Organizational Culture
Organizational culture refers to pattern of shared basic
assumptions learned by a group for setting solutions to
problems of external adaption and internal integration [45].
Organizational culture is a significant factor in government as
it is directly influenced with open data publication.
Government agency’s culture towards openness creates a
supportive environment for innovative policies and
encouragement for information sharing [19]. According to
[22] the determinant of organizational culture, which effect
Open Government based technologies and applications
adoption positively, influenced by the innovativeness of
organization, whereas work routineness which is a common
factor in risk-averse environment is negatively associated with
Open Government based technologies and applications
adoption. Thus, organizational culture including the factors of
innovativeness and routineness is defined as a determinant of
organizational adoption of open government based
technologies and applications.
4.2.4 Organization Size
Organization size is an important factor from the
organizational perspective of innovation adoption. Oliveira
and Martins (2011) research suggests in their IT adoption
studies using both TOE and DOI frameworks uses
organization size as a significant factor [34]. Small
organizations because of funding and lack of resources need
assistance in innovation adoptions [37]. Another opinion is
that smaller organizations are more flexible and innovative
[46]. Although organization size is not in the primary studies,
it can have significance on Open Government based
technologies and applications adoption. Thus, organizational
size is defined as a determinant of organizational adoption of
open government based technologies and applications in the
proposed research model.
4.3 Environment Context
4.3.1 External Pressure
According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) external pressure
refers to “the formal and external pressures enforced upon
government agencies by the organizations that are dependent
to and society’s public expectations.”[47]. Most of the
research investigation the adoption of policy innovations are
influenced by institutional theory which portray organizations
adoption as a way to adapt their environment and legitimize
their existence [47], [48]. External pressures, expressed in the
systematic literature review, consists of local social attitudes
for innovativeness and transparency, persuasive mechanisms
by participants and politicized environment. Thus, external
pressure is defined as a determinant of organizational adoption
of open government based technologies and applications in the
proposed research model.
4.3.2 Government Regulations
Government regulatory practices, tax policies, patent law and
policies, the general issue of intellectual property and various
government policies are significant in influencing adopting of
innovation technology. In addition to government regulations,
government can promote specific programs to encourage or
actively intervene in some part of innovation process [31].
Government regulations with implications no new constraints
on industry can have beneficial or negative impacts. Creating
safety and privacy regulations may be significant, although it
can retard innovation [49]. For the creation of a successful
Open Government system, regulations and laws determine the
degree of participation and collaboration and enhance
transparency [2]. Although the primary studies haven’t
covered government regulations, the significance cannot be
overstepped. Thus, the determinant of Government
Regulations is defined in the proposed research model.
4.3.3 Trust
Trust can be defined as “the willingness of a party to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor
or control that other party”[50]. Perceived risks construct is
described as the degree of potential concerns of open data
publications of government agencies [19]. Government
agencies’ adoption of open government based technologies
and applications can be reluctant because of liability concerns
from data misuse [51]. Data quality is another potential
concern as can create negative public opinion. The research
model refers trust as the willingness of open data publication
in government agencies that are relevant with concerns data
misuse and data quality. As indicated by prior studies in the
literature, the trust affects the technology adoption [50], [52].
Therefore, Trust is defined as a determinant of organizational
adoption of open government based technologies and
applications in the proposed research model.
5 Conclusion
This study’s aim is to investigate the determinants that affect
Open Government based technologies and applications
adoption in the context of organization. In the scope of this
study, a systematic literature review of Open Government
based technologies and applications adoption has been
conducted and a research model, consisting of determinations
affecting open government based technologies and
applications adoption based on TOE framework has been
developed. As a result of literature review, it is determined
that although there are many studies related to citizen adoption
54
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©

of open government based technologies and applications, there
are limited number of studies related to organizational
adoption of open government based technologies and
applications and there is a need of investigating determinants
of organizational adoption of open government based
technologies and applications. The importance of this study is
to satisfy this need by developing a research model for
organizational adoption of open government based
technologies and applications. According to the literature
review there are still research areas that are not explored
thoroughly. Further research along these lines will contribute
to Open Government to be understood. This research can
provide researchers and practitioners some insight on factors
affecting Open Government based technologies and
applications adoption from an organizational perspective.
Accordingly, the research model as depicted in Figure 1 is
developed based on the literature review and the theories
related to IT innovation. It is structured within the
technological, organizational and environmental contexts of
the TOE framework. Thereby, the determinants of adoption of
Open Government based technologies and applications in the
context of organization are investigated from the aspects of the
TOE framework. Future studies include conducting a survey
and analyzing survey results to investigate importance of these
determinants on adoption of open government based
technologies and applications in the context of organizations.
6 References
[1] K. Gavelin, S. Burall, and R. Wilson, “Open
government: beyond static measures,” OECD Publ.,
no. July, p. 35, 2009.
[2] B. W. Wirtz and S. Birkmeyer, “Open Government:
Origin, Development, and Conceptual Perspectives,”
Int. J. Public Adm., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 381–396, 2015.
[3] H. Yu and D. G. Robinson, “UCLA LAW REVIEW
DISCOURSE The New Ambiguity of ‘ Open
Government ,’” UCLA Law Rev. Discourse, vol. 52,
no. 11, pp. 178–208, 2012.
[4] White House, “Memorandum for Heads of
Departments and Agencies,” no. open Government,
pp. 1–2, 2009.
[5] H. M. Government, “Putting the Frontline First:
Smarter Government.” Stationery Office Norwich,
2009.
[6] AGIMO, “Declaration of Open Government,” 2010.
[Online]. Available: http://www.finance.gov.au/e-
government/strategy-and-
governance/gov2/declaration-of-open-
government.html.
[7] Catherine Lippert, “Public sector information reuse in
Denmark,” Top. Rep. No. 20., no. 20, 2010.
[8] European Commission, “The European eGovernment
Action Plan 2011-2015 Harnessing ICT to promote
smart, sustainable & innovative Government,”
2010.
[9] N. Huijboom and T. Van Den Broek, “Open data : an
international comparison of strategies,” Eur. J.
ePractice, vol. 12, no. March/ April 2011, pp. 1–13,
2011.
[10] N. Veljković, S. Bogdanović-Dinić, and L.
Stoimenov, “Benchmarking open government: An
open data perspective,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 31, no. 2,
pp. 278–290, 2014.
[11] P. McDermott, “Building open government,” Gov. Inf.
Q., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 401–413, 2010.
[12] E. De Blasio and D. Selva, “Why choose open
government? Motivations for the adoption of open
government policies in four European countries,”
Policy & Internet, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 225–247, 2016.
[13] P. Conradie and S. Choenni, “On the barriers for local
government releasing open data,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol.
31, no. SUPPL.1, pp. S10–S17, 2014.
[14] M. Janssen, Y. Charalabidis, and A. Zuiderwijk,
“Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data
and open government,” Inf. Syst. Manag., vol. 29, no.
4, pp. 258–268, 2012.
[15] B. W. Wirtz, J. C. Weyerer, and M. Rösch, “Citizen
and Open Government: An Empirical Analysis of
Antecedents of Open Government Data,” Int. J. Public
Adm., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 308–320, 2018.
[16] T. Nam, “Citizens’ attitudes toward Open Government
and Government 2.0,” Int. Rev. Adm. Sci., vol. 78, no.
2, pp. 346–368, 2012.
[17] H. J. Wang and J. Lo, “Adoption of open government
data among government agencies,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol.
33, no. 1, pp. 80–88, 2016.
[18] N. Zhang, X. Zhao, Z. Zhang, Q. Meng, and H. Tan,
“What factors drive open innovation in China’s public
sector? A case study of official document exchange
via microblogging (ODEM) in Haining,” Gov. Inf. Q.,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 126–133, 2017.
[19] T. M. Yang and Y. J. Wu, “Examining the socio-
technical determinants influencing government
agencies’ open data publication: A study in Taiwan,”
Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 378–392, 2016.
[20] O. Mosweu and K. J. Bwalya, “A multivariate analysis
of the determinants for adoption and use of the
Document Workflow Management System in
Botswana’s public sector.,” South African J. Libr. Inf.
Sci., vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 27–38, 2018.
[21] E. W. Welch, M. K. Feeney, and C. H. Park,
“Determinants of data sharing in U.S. city
governments,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 393–
403, 2016.
[22] S. G. Grimmelikhuijsen and M. K. Feeney,
“Developing and Testing an Integrative Framework
for Open Government Adoption in Local
Governments,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 77, no. 4, pp.
579–590, 2017.
[23] A. J. Meijer, D. Curtin, and M. Hillebrandt, “Open
government: Connecting vision and voice,” Int. Rev.
Adm. Sci., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 10–29, 2012.
[24] D. Linders and S. C. Wilson, “What is Open
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
55
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©

Government?: One Year after the Directive,” Proc.
12th Annu. Int. Digit. Gov. Res. Conf. Digit. Gov.
Innov. Challenging Times, Coll. Park. Maryl., pp.
262–271, 2011.
[25] R. H. Klein, D. B. Klein, and E. M. Luciano, “Open
Government Data: Concepts, Approaches and
Dimensions Over Time,” Rev. Econ. Gestão, vol. 18,
no. 49, pp. 4–24, 2018.
[26] E. A. Abu-Shanab, “Reengineering the open
government concept: An empirical support for a
proposed model,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 32, no. 4, pp.
453–463, 2015.
[27] G. Lee and Y. H. Kwak, “An Open Government
Maturity Model for social media-based public
engagement,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 492–
503, 2012.
[28] M. Rogers Everett, “Diffusion of Innovations,” New
York, 1995.
[29] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology,”
MIS Q., pp. 319–340, 1989.
[30] F. D. Venkatesh, Viswanath and Morris, Michael G
and Davis, Gordon B and Davis, “User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS
Q., pp. 425–478, 2003.
[31] L. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, “The process of
technology innovation,” Lexington, MA Lexingt.
Books, 1990.
[32] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–
211, 1991.
[33] T. Oliveira and M. F. Martins, “Understanding e-
business adoption across industries in European
countries,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 110, no. 9,
pp. 1337–1354, 2010.
[34] T. Oliveira and M. F. Martins, “Literature review of
information technology adoption models at firm
level,” Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval., vol. 14, no. 1, p.
110, 2011.
[35] Y. Zhao and B. Fan, “Exploring open government
data capacity of government agency: Based on the
resource-based theory,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 35, no. 1,
pp. 1–12, 2018.
[36] M. Hossain and C. Chan, “Open data adoption in
Australian government agencies: an exploratory
study,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1606.02500, 2016.
[37] A. Y. Akbulut, P. Kelle, S. D. Pawlowski, H.
Schneider, and C. A. Looney, “To share or not to
share? Examining the factors influencing local agency
electronic information sharing,” Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst.,
vol. 4, no. 2, p. 143, 2009.
[38] I. Moore, Gary C and Benbasat, “Development of an
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation,” Inf. Syst. Res.,
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 192–222, 1991.
[39] “Eight Principles of Open Government Data,” 2007.
[Online]. Available: www.opengovernmentdata.org.
[Accessed: 21-Feb-2019].
[40] C. L. Iacovou, I. Benbasat, and A. S. Dexter,
“Electronic data interchange and small organizations:
adoption and impact of technology,” MIS Q., pp. 465–
485, 1995.
[41] Z. Yang, J. Sun, Y. Zhang, and Y. Wang,
“Understanding SaaS adoption from the perspective of
organizational users: A tripod readiness model,”
Comput. Human Behav., vol. 45, pp. 254–264, 2015.
[42] V. Grover, “An empirically derived model for the
adoption of customer‐based interorganizational
systems,” Decis. Sci., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 603–640,
1993.
[43] T. Altameem, M. Zairi, and S. Alshawi, “Critical
success factors of e-government: A proposed model
for e-government implementation,” in 2006
Innovations in Information Technology, 2006, pp. 1–
5.
[44] U. Şener, E. Gökalp, and P. E. Eren, “Cloud-based
enterprise information systems: determinants of
adoption in the context of organizations,” in
International Conference on Information and
Software Technologies, 2016, pp. 53–66.
[45] E. H. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership,
vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[46] R. T. Frambach and N. Schillewaert, “Organizational
innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of
determinants and opportunities for future research,” J.
Bus. Res., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 163–176, 2002.
[47] P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, “The iron cage
revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields,” Am. Sociol. Rev.,
pp. 147–160, 1983.
[48] F. Damanpour, “Organizational innovation: A meta-
analysis of effects of determinants and moderators,”
Acad. Manag. J., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 555–590, 1991.
[49] J. Baker, “The technology–organization–environment
framework,” in Information systems theory, Springer,
2012, pp. 231–245.
[50] R. C. Mayer, J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman, “An
integrative model of organizational trust,” Acad.
Manag. Rev., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 709–734, 1995.
[51] M. Dulong de Rosnay and K. Janssen, “Legal and
institutional challenges for opening data across public
sectors: towards common policy solutions,” J. Theor.
Appl. Electron. Commer. Res., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1–14,
2014.
[52] H.-F. Lin, “An empirical investigation of mobile
banking adoption: The effect of innovation attributes
and knowledge-based trust,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol.
31, no. 3, pp. 252–260, 2011.
56
Int'l Conf. e-Learning, e-Bus., EIS, and e-Gov. | EEE'19 |
ISBN: 1-60132-495-2, CSREA Press ©