Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Open data platforms: : Design principles for embracing outlaw innovators

Published: 21 November 2024 Publication History

Highlights

We report an ADR study of a public institution whose joint effort with outlaw innovators led to a new open data platform.
We offer novel design principles for embracing outlaw innovators and resolving related public–private tensions.
We show that public–private dialogue is possible by transcending to citizen-value creation as a higher-level goal.
We argue that public institutions must cater to diverse data demands of external developers to stop illegal scraping.
We uncover that public institutions benefit from a single data infrastructure equaling internal and external needs.

Abstract

Open data platforms freely provide citizens with access to public data, thus enabling improved governance transparency, enhanced public services, and increased civic engagement. However, unlocking the potential of this digital transformation strategy requires that public institutions manage the tension between public and private interests. Furthermore, even when public institutions break down traditional barriers for citizens’ access to data, the potential users often lack the knowledge to leverage it in meaningful ways. Open data platforms therefore tend to fall short of expectations. Leveraging a 10-year action design research study (ADR) in the Swedish Transport Administration (STA), this paper develops design principles for creating value-generating open data platforms in the public domain. The ADR project was initiated to assist STA in its efforts to deal with outlaw innovators who scraped train data from different websites to develop travel apps. Through three iterative design cycles that eventually led to the formation of a new open data platform, the outlaw innovators increasingly became valued partners in the digital transformation process. Theorizing this development process, this paper offers three design principles that provide guidance to public institutions aspiring to digitally transform by making public data accessible. We also reflect upon how these institutions might mitigate the risks associated with partnering with outlaw innovators in the pursuit of an open data strategy.

References

[1]
J. Attard, F. Orlandi, S. Scerri, S. Auer, A systematic review of open government data initiatives, Gov. Inf. Q. 32 (4) (2015) 399–418,.
[2]
C. Baldwin, K. Clark, Design Rules, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.
[3]
C. Baldwin, J. Woodard, The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View, in: A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2009, pp. 19–44.
[4]
V. Bartelt, A. Urbaczewski, A. Mueller, S. Sarker, Enabling collaboration and innovation in Denver’s smart city through a living lab: a social capital perspective, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 29 (4) (2020) 369–387,.
[5]
D. Beverungen, T. Hess, A. Köster, C. Lehrer, From private digital platforms to public data spaces: implications for the digital transformation, Electron. Mark. 32 (2) (2022) 493–501,.
[6]
C. Bonina, B. Eaton, Cultivating Open Government Data Platform Ecosystems Through Governance: Lessons From Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Montevideo, Gov. Inf. Q. 37 (3) (2020),.
[7]
K. Boudreau, Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs devolving control, Managem. Sci. 56 (2010) 1849–1872,.
[8]
J. Braa, S. Sahay, E. Monteiro, Design theory for societal digital transformation: the case of digital global health, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24 (6) (2023) 1645–1669,.
[9]
V. Braun, C. Herstatt, The freedom-fighters: how incumbent corporations are attempting to control user-innovation, Int. J. Innov. Manag. 12 (03) (2008) 543–572,.
[10]
S. Brunswicker, A. Schecter, Coherence or flexibility? the paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms, Res. Policy 48 (8) (2019),.
[11]
M. Chen, Y. Cao, Y. Liang, Determinants of open government data usage: Integrating trust theory and social cognitive theory, Gov. Inf. Q. 40 (4) (2023),.
[12]
L. Cingolani, The survival of open government platforms: empirical insights from a global sample, Gov. Inf. Q. 38 (1) (2021),.
[13]
P. Constantinides, M. Barrett, Information infrastructure development and governance as collective action, Inf. Syst. Res. 26 (1) (2014) 40–56,.
[14]
R. Davison, M. Martinsons, N. Kock, Principles of canonical action research, Inf. Syst. J. 14 (1) (2004) 65–86,.
[15]
B. Eaton, S. Elaluf-Calderwood, C. Sørensen, Y. Yoo, Distributed tuning of boundary resources - the case of apple’s ios service system, MIS Q. 39 (1) (2015) 217–244,.
[16]
D.S. Evans, A. Hagiu, R. Schmalensee, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006.
[17]
S. Flowers, Harnessing the hackers: the emergence and exploitation of outlaw innovation, Res. Policy 37 (2) (2008) 177–193,.
[18]
M. Gascó-Hernández, E. Martin, L. Reggi, S. Pyo, L. Luna-Reyes, Promoting the use of open government data: cases of training and engagement, Gov. Inf. Q. 35 (2) (2018) 233–242,.
[19]
A. Gawer, Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework, Res. Policy 43 (7) (2014) 1239–1249,.
[20]
A. Ghazawneh, O. Henfridsson, Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: the boundary resources model, Inf. Syst. J. 23 (2) (2013) 173–192,.
[21]
S. Gregor, The nature of theory in information systems, MIS Q. 30 (3) (2006) 611–642,.
[22]
S. Gregor, A. Hevner, Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact, MIS Q. 37 (2) (2013) 337–356,.
[23]
S. Gregor, D. Jones, The anatomy of a design theory, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8 (2007) 312–335,.
[24]
M. Grzenda, J. Legierski, Towards increased understanding of open data use for software development, Inf. Syst. Front. 23 (2) (2021) 495–513,.
[25]
A. Hanelt, R. Bohnsack, D. Marz, C.A. Marante, A Systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: insights and implications for strategy and organizational change, J. Manag. Stud. 58 (5) (2021) 1159–1197,.
[26]
A. Hein, M. Engert, S. Ryu, N. Schaffer, S. Hermes, H. Krcmar, Building open government data platform ecosystems: a dynamic development approach that engages users from the start, Gov. Inf. Q. 40 (4) (2023),.
[27]
S. Henningsson, H. Zinner Henriksen, Inscription of behaviour and flexible interpretation in Information Infrastructures: the case of European e-Customs, J. Strategic Inform. Syst. 20 (4) (2011) 355–372,.
[28]
A. Hund, H.-T. Wagner, D. Beimborn, T. Weitzel, Digital innovation: Review and novel perspective, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 30 (4) (2021),.
[29]
J. Iivari, Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24 (1) (2015) 107–115,.
[30]
M. Janssen, Y. Charalabidis, A. Zuiderwijk, Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government, Inf. Syst. Manag. 29 (4) (2012) 258–268,.
[31]
M. Janssen, H. van der Voort, Adaptive governance: towards a stable, accountable and responsive government, Gov. Inf. Q. 33 (1) (2016) 1–5,.
[32]
T. Jetzek, M. Avital, N. Bjorn-Andersen, The sustainable value of open government data, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 702–734 (2019),.
[33]
S. Jha, S. Pinsonneault, The evolution of an ICT platform-enabled ecosystem for poverty alleviation: the case of eKutir, MIS Q. 40 (2) (2016) 431–445,.
[34]
J. Johnson, From open data to information justice, Ethics Inf. Technol. 16 (4) (2014) 263–274,.
[35]
P. Johnson, P. Robinson, Civic hackathons: innovation, procurement, or civic engagement?, Rev. Policy Res. 31 (4) (2014) 349–357,.
[36]
R. Kapoor, S. Agarwal, Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: evidence from application software developers in the iOS and android smartphone ecosystems, Organ. Sci. 28 (3) (2017) 531–551,.
[37]
K. Karhu, R. Gustafsson, K. Lyytinen, Exploiting and defending open digital platforms with boundary resources: android’s five platform forks, Inf. Syst. Res. 29 (2) (2018) 479–497,.
[38]
E. Kazan, C.-W. Tan, E. Lim, C. Sørensen, J. Damsgaard, Disentangling digital platform competition: the case of UK mobile payment platforms, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35 (1) (2018) 180–219,.
[39]
A. Lee, R. Baskerville, Generalizing generalizability in information systems research, Inf. Syst. Res. 14 (3) (2003) 221–243,.
[40]
X. Li, S. Sun, K. Chen, T. Fung, H. Wang, Design theory for market surveillance systems, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 32 (2) (2015) 278–313,.
[41]
R. Lindgren, O. Henfridsson, U. Schultze, Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research study, MIS Q. 28 (2004) 435–472,.
[42]
R. Lindgren, L. Mathiassen, U. Schultze, The dialectics of technology standardization, MIS Q. 45 (3) (2021) 1187–1212,.
[43]
M. Lnenicka, A. Nikiforova, A. Clarinval, M. Luterek, D. Rudmark, S. Neumaier, K. Kević, M.P. Rodríguez Bolívar, Sustainable open data ecosystems in smart cities: A platform theory-based analysis of 19 European cities, Cities 148 (2024),.
[44]
G. Magalhaes, C. Roseira, Open government data and the private sector: an empirical view on business models and value creation, Gov. Inf. Q. 37 (3) (2017) 1–10,.
[45]
J. Magnusson, D. Koutsikouri, T. Päivärinta, Efficiency creep and shadow innovation: enacting ambidextrous IT governance in the public sector, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1–21 (2020),.
[46]
O. Marjanovic, D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, Exploring the tension between transparency and datification effects of open government IS through the lens of complex adaptive systems, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 26 (3) (2017) 210–232,.
[47]
L. Markus, A. Majchrzak, L. Gasser, A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes, MIS Q. 26 (2002) 179–212.
[48]
J. McKay, P. Marshall, The dual imperatives of action research, Inf. Technol. People 14 (1) (2001) 46–59,.
[49]
I. Mergel, N. Edelmann, N. Haug, Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews, Gov. Inf. Q. 36 (4) (2019),.
[50]
Mergel, I., Kattel, R., Lember, V., & McBride, K. (2018). Citizen-oriented digital transformation in the public sector. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, Delft, The Netherlands. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3209281.3209294.
[51]
E. Mollick, Tapping Into the underground, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 46 (4) (2005) 21.
[52]
W. Olphert, L. Damodaran, Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: the missing link in effective ICT design and delivery, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8 (9) (2007) 491–507,.
[53]
W. Orlikowski, S. Iacono, Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact, Inf. Syst. Res. 12 (2) (2001) 121–134,.
[54]
D. Parnas, On the Criteria to Be Used in Decomposing Systems Into Modules, Commun. ACM 15 (1972) 1053–1058,.
[55]
D. Parnas, P. Clements, D. Weiss, The modular structure of complex systems, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-11 (3) (1985) 259–266,.
[56]
G.V. Pereira, M.A. Macadar, E. Luciano, M.G. Testa, Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context, Inf. Syst. Front. 19 (2) (2017) 213–229,.
[57]
S. Purao, Truth or dare: the ontology question in design science research, J. Database Managem. (JDM) 24 (3) (2013) 51–66,.
[58]
L. Putnam, Unpacking the dialectic: alternative views on the discourse-materiality relationship, J. Manag. Stud. 52 (5) (2015) 706–716,.
[59]
M. Rosemann, I. Vessey, Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: the role of applicability checks, MIS Q. 32 (1) (2008) 1–22,.
[60]
M. Rosenberger, C. Lehrer, R. Jung, Integrating data from user activities of social networks into public administrations, Inf. Syst. Front. 19 (2) (2017) 253–266,.
[61]
F. Saadatmand, R. Lindgren, U. Schultze, Configurations of platform organizations: implications for complementor engagement, Res. Policy 48 (8) (2019),.
[62]
S. Sadiq, M. Indulska, Open data: quality over quantity, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 (3) (2017) 150–154,.
[63]
M. Schäfer, Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2011.
[64]
C. Schulz, S. Wagner, Outlaw community innovations, Int. J. Innov. Manag. 12 (03) (2008) 399–418,.
[65]
A. Scupola, I. Mergel, Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark, Gov. Inf. Q. 39 (1) (2022),.
[66]
M. Sein, O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, R. Lindgren, Action design research, MIS Q. 35 (1) (2011) 37–56.
[67]
P. Spagnoletti, F. Ceci, B. Bygstad, Online black-markets: an investigation of a digital infrastructure in the dark, Inf. Syst. Front. 24 (6) (2022) 1811–1826,.
[68]
F. Svahn, L. Mathiassen, R. Lindgren, Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms how volvo cars managed competing concerns, MIS Q. 41 (1) (2017) 239–254,.
[69]
S. Tana, C. Breidbach, A. Burton-Jones, Digital transformation as collective social action, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24 (6) (2023) 1618–1644,.
[70]
D. Tilson, K. Lyytinen, C. Sørensen, Research commentary - digital infrastructures: the missing is research agenda, Inf. Syst. Res. 21 (4) (2010) 748–759,.
[71]
A. Tiwana, Platform ecosystems: aligning architecture, governance, and strategy, 1st ed., Morgan Kaufman, Waltham, MA, 2014.
[72]
A. Tiwana, Platform desertion by app developers, Journal of MIS 32 (4) (2015) 40–77,.
[73]
A. Tiwana, B. Konsynski, A.A. Bush, Research commentary-platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics, Inf. Syst. Res. 21 (2010) 675–687,.
[74]
F. Ulrich, S. Müller, S. Flowers, The professionalization of hackers: a content analysis of 30 years of hacker communication, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 52 (2023) 988–1016,.
[75]
A. Van De Ven, M.S. Poole, Explaining development and change in organizations, Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (3) (1995) 510–540,.
[76]
O. Velsberg, U. Westergren, K. Jonsson, Exploring smartness in public sector innovation - creating smart public services with the Internet of Things, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 29 (4) (2020) 350–368,.
[77]
J. Venable, J. Pries-Heje, R. Baskerville, FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25 (1) (2016) 77–89,.
[78]
V. Venkatesh, J. Thong, F. Chan, P. Hu, Managing citizens’ uncertainty in e-government services: the mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust, Inf. Syst. Res. 27 (1) (2016) 87–111,.
[79]
G. Vial, Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 28 (2) (2019) 118–144,.
[80]
T. Wainwright, F. Huber, C. Stöckmann, S. Kraus, Open data platforms for transformational entrepreneurship: Inclusion and exclusion mechanisms, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 72 (2023),.
[81]
J. Walls, G. Widmeyer, O. El Sawy, Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS, Inf. Syst. Res. 3 (1) (1992) 36–59,.
[82]
J. Walls, G. Widmeyer, O. El Sawy, Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was Our 1992 initial rendition?, JITTA: J. Inform. Technol. Theory Appl. 6 (2) (2004) 43–58.
[83]
J. Wareham, P. Fox, J. Cano Giner, Technology ecosystem governance, Organ. Sci. 25 (4) (2014) 1195–1215,.
[84]
V. Weerakkody, Z. Irani, K. Kapoor, U. Sivarajah, Y. Dwivedi, Open data and its usability: an empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective, Inf. Syst. Front. 19 (2) (2017) 285–300,.
[85]
S. Westin, M. Sein, The design and emergence of a data/information quality system, Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 27 (1) (2015) 3–26.
[86]
M. Wiener, C. Saunders, S. Chatterjee, A. Dennis, S. Gregor, M. Mähring, P. Mertens, Information systems research: making an impact in a publish-or-perish world, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (2018) 466–481,.
[87]
F.A. Zeleti, A. Ojo, Open data value capability architecture, Inf. Syst. Front. 19 (2) (2017) 337–360,.
[88]
Zhu, X., & Freeman, M. A. (2019). An evaluation of U.S. municipal open data portals: A user interaction framework. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(1), 27-37.
[89]
A. Zuiderwijk, M. Janssen, C. Davis, Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems, Information Polity 19 (1,2) (2014) 17–33,.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image The Journal of Strategic Information Systems
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems  Volume 33, Issue 3
Sep 2024
86 pages

Publisher

Butterworth-Heinemann

United States

Publication History

Published: 21 November 2024

Author Tags

  1. Open data platforms
  2. Digital transformation
  3. Public–private tension
  4. Action design research

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media