Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Open data innovation: Visualizations and process redesign as a way to

bridge the transparency-accountability gap
Sora Park a, b, *, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia a, b, c
a
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany - State University of New York, USA
b
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany - State University of New York, USA
c
Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Mexico

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Open government data has led to public policy innovation in pursuit of various expected benefits. One of the
Open data intended goals of open data innovation to improve transparency and accountability. However, our current un­
Innovation derstanding of open data innovation and its ability to generate transparency and accountability is limited,
Transparency
particularly with regard to empirical evidence. In this paper, we describe how a state agency redesigned its
Accountability
Open government
organizational processes around visualization tools and how such efforts helped bridge the transparency-
Visualization accountability gap by enhancing the understandability and usability of open government data. We conclude
that open data innovation does not stop with the adoption of an open data policy, but rather involves an ongoing
cycle of improvements through which the organization responds to its various stakeholders’ use of open data,
thereby increasing usefulness of those datasets and, subsequently, improving overall accountability.

1. Introduction data innovation suggests that computer-mediated transparency will

Open government data has become the latest global phenomenon,
leading to policy innovation in the public sector over the past several
years (Chatfield & Reddick, 2018; Dawes et al., 2016; Jetzek, Avital, &
Bjorn-Andersen, 2014; McBride, Aavik, Toots, Kalvet, & Krimmer, 2019;
Mergel, 2015; Ruijer, Grimmelikhuijsen, & Meijer, 2017; Wang & Lo,
2016; Zuiderwijk, Helbig, Gil-García, & Janssen, 2014). Open data is
expected to bring not only economic (e.g., efficiency) and social (e.g.,
democratic values) benefits, but also advanced forms of policy decision-
making through data analytics (Kalampokis, Tambouris, & Tarabanis,
2013) and knowledge sharing capabilities for various stakeholders in
both the public and private sectors (Davies & Edwards, 2012; Zuider­
wijk, Janssen, & Davis, 2014). Open data relates to many societal-level
advantages, but it also refers to innovation of technical infrastructure
and integration of multiple, complex elements at different levels of
government for its effective use (Chatfield & Reddick, 2018; Zuiderwijk,
Janssen, & Davis, 2014). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence
about how open data innovation meets its intended goals and what
challenges block the ability to achieve the ultimate goal of creating
public value.
The fundamental assumption underpinning the global trend of open
promote public accountability by providing citizens with access to
government decision-making processes and outcomes (Bertot, Gorham,
Jaeger, Sarin, & Choi, 2014; Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2012; Meijer,
2009; Parycek, Hochtl, & Ginner, 2014). Similarly, Zuiderwijk, Janssen,
and Davis (2014) note that the transformation of data processing from
open data innovation creates public value by facilitating transparency,
efficiency, and accountability. However, the creation of public value is
only possible when the outcomes of open data innovation align with the
intended goals of providing useful information to the public. In reality,
only a small number of citizens are able to understand the underlying
meanings and implications of open data and thus fully realize its benefits
(Fierro & Gil-Garcia, 2012; Janssen, Charalabidis, & Zuiderwijk, 2012).
As a result, an increasing number of researchers have raised questions
about “a broken link” between transparency and accountability (Shka­
batur, 2012), indicating that data producers cannot anticipate that their
diverse stakeholders will all have the same level of understanding about
the nature of the data (Dawes & Helbig, 2010; Helbig, Gil-Garcia, &
Ferro, 2009; Zuiderwijk & Janssen, 2014).
The potential benefits and challenges of implementing open data
policy raise the following research question: How do government or­
ganizations attempt to bridge the gap between transparency and

* Corresponding author at: Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222, USA.
E-mail address: spark22@albany.edu (S. Park).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101456
Received 1 November 2017; Received in revised form 26 September 2019; Accepted 6 January 2020
Available online 17 May 2021
0740-624X/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
accountability through the implementation of visualizations and the
corresponding changes in organizational processes? We observed the
open data innovation process at a state health agency in which the
broken link between transparency and accountability was identified and
partly resolved as the agency made an effort to assess and enhance the
outcomes of its open data innovation in collaboration with a team of
computer programmers and analysts from a university research center.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with various internal stake­
holders at different levels of the organization in order to better under­
stand the complex dynamics between the agency and its stakeholders
within its legal, political, and technological contexts (Bannister &
Connolly, 2011; Meijer, 2013), as well as the agency’s organizational
structures and processes (Lourenço, 2015).
We found that innovation does not stop with the adoption of an open
data policy, but instead involves an ongoing cycle of improvements to
organizational processes through which the transparency-accountability
gap can be reduced. Notably, middle managers and non-managers
played an essential role in reducing this gap by evaluating and
enhancing data understandability and usability from both the data
producers’ and end users’ perspectives. Although this is a single case
study, we contribute to the extant literature by providing an empirical
grounding of open data innovation, especially in connection with the
ambiguous relationship between transparency and accountability, and a
basis for future theory-testing studies. We also highlight the role of
middle managers and non-managers in the continuous process of open
data innovation, while prior studies have primarily focused on the role
of top management support in open data adoption (Barry & Bannister,
2014; Chatfield & Reddick, 2018).
This paper is organized in six sections, including the foregoing
introduction. In the next section, we first identify two of the expected
benefits of open data policy: transparency and accountability. While
these two terms are often assumed to be closely related, we found it
necessary to develop a clear understanding of the conceptual link be­
tween transparency and accountability as their ambiguous relationship
has been continuously debated (Fox, 2007; Janssen et al., 2012;
Mayernik, 2017; Yu & Robinson, 2012). We then describe the open data
innovation process and the observed outcomes from it, followed by our
analysis of how the transparency-accountability gap is created and how
it could be reduced through wider organizational participation in the
assessment process and the implementation of visualizations and their
respective changes in organizational processes. Finally, drawing on the
concepts identified earlier, we found that the agency’s effort to assess
and enhance its policy outcomes improved the level of accountability in
relationship to responsiveness.
2. Literature review
This section explores the relationship between transparency and
accountability in the context of open data innovation. While those two
concepts are often represented as one of the intended goals of open data
policy, a number of researchers have argued that transparency does not
automatically produce increased accountability (Janssen et al., 2012; Yu
& Robinson, 2012). In exploring the various factors that can bridge the
transparency-accountability gap, we conceptualize that open data
innovation is not only related to making data available (e.g., visualiza­
tions), but also redesigning organizational processes and practices to
meet the users’ needs and improve their understanding of the data.
2.1. The concept of transparency
Transparency is considered to facilitate government accountability
as citizens are provided with the necessary information to make
informed decisions (Meijer, 2015, Lourenço, 2015) and to monitor
government decision-making processes and outcomes (Bertot et al.,
2014; Harrison & Sayogo, 2014; Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2012;
Meijer, 2009; Parycek et al., 2014). Transparency in that sense is
2
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
understood as the “visibility of the process” and specifically as “the
availability of information…to monitor the workings or performance” of
government (Meijer, 2013, p. 430). While the general concept of
transparency is focused on information availability, researchers have
increasingly noted that the concept of transparency has different di­
mensions and nuances when considering the diverse needs of relevant
stakeholders (Fierro & Gil-Garcia, 2011, 2012). For example, Heald
(2006) conceptualized different dimensions of transparency based on
the information receptor’s perception and capability to process the in­
formation made available. Drawing on external stakeholders’ percep­
tions of usefulness and understandability, he differentiated nominal
transparency from effective transparency. Similarly, Michener and
Bersch (2013) noted that the concept of transparency expands beyond
simple visibility. They argue that transparency includes “inferability” or
the degree to which information is user-friendly and verifiable so that it
can help the user reach accurate conclusions (p. 236).
In other words, data availability does not necessarily translate into
an increased level of transparency (Janssen et al., 2012) unless open
data is designed and implemented in a way to meet the different users’
expectations. While the concept of open data is associated with multiple
benefits, previous studies found many challenges to using open data.
One of the most widely discussed challenges is that citizens have a hard
time making sense of raw data (Dawes, 2010; Graves & Hendler, 2013;
Hellberg & Hedström, 2015). These researchers suggest that only a small
number of citizens are capable of understanding the underlying statis­
tical meanings and implications of open data and fully realize its ben­
efits. Janssen et al. (2012) defined this problem as one of the “myths” of
open government data, arguing that the use of open data in reality re­
quires that the end-user has a certain level of knowledge.
2.2. The concept of accountability
Since several researchers have argued that transparency does not
automatically lead to accountability, here we explore the concept of
accountability independently. Drawing on the public administration
literature, the concept of accountability concerns the interpersonal,
organizational, and political aspects of bureaucratic systems. For
example, Romzek and Dubnick (1987) provide typologies of account­
ability systems based on the degree and sources of agency control, which
address government agencies’ constraints and obligations to satisfy a
wide range of issues in modern society. Accountability also includes
norms, expectations, and interorganizational and interpersonal
behavior, although they are considered informal (Romzek, LeRoux, &
Blackmar, 2012). Koppell (2005) explores the five dimensions of
accountability in the context of public administration. Those dimensions
include transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility, and
responsiveness. While most of the dimensions are closely related to the
political and legal arrangements (e.g., Congress sets rules and the or­
ganization faces consequences for its performance), the responsiveness
dimension is left to the discretion of individual agencies as it involves
the question of whether the organization fulfilled its substantive ex­
pectations. These expectations can relate to citizen demands or to the
organizational need for an assessment of policy goals.
While there has been an ongoing discussion about the various di­
mensions of accountability in public administration, the concept of
accountability has not been fully developed in the context of open
government data. One of the major challenges of understanding
accountability is that there are no uniform standards for the evaluation
of accountability in practice. Although many studies recognize that data
availability alone may not be sufficient for the user to make informed
decisions, there is a lack of consensus on the definition of accountability
for open data policy. Fox (2007) conceptualizes accountability in rela­
tion to the data producer’s ability to respond to the data user’s needs,
regardless of whether it is voluntary or forced by compliance.
In particular, the opening of data in the public sector requires an
understanding of the complex dynamics between government agencies
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
and their stakeholders within their legal, political, and technological
contexts (Bannister & Connolly, 2011; Meijer, 2013), as well as the
agency’s organizational structures and processes (Lourenço, 2015). For
example, government agencies have to understand various frameworks
within state and national contexts while they assess the realities of
implementing open government data initiatives by weighing the costs of
such a mandate (e.g., technological and organizational capacity for
handling additional tasks) against other potential benefits for various
stakeholders outside the organization. On the one hand, government
agencies as data producers cannot expect their diverse stakeholders to
all have the same level of understanding about the nature of the data
(Dawes & Helbig, 2010; Helbig et al., 2009; Zuiderwijk & Janssen,
2014). On the other hand, government agencies need to develop data
systems that go beyond their own needs in order to communicate data
errors and improve the overall quality of the data (Dawes & Helbig,
2010). Integrating and linking data across organizational boundaries is
challenging, especially when it is expected to benefit all their users and
relevant stakeholders (Heise & Naumann, 2012; Hellberg & Hedström,
2015; Lourenço, 2015).
Given the challenges of implementing open data policy, the concept
of accountability addresses government agencies’ constraints and obli­
gations when attempting to satisfy a wide range of expectations sur­
rounding open data policy. Drawing on Romzek and Dubnick’s (1987)
typologies of accountability systems, the government’s role as a pro­
ducer of open data relates to their ability and willingness to adjust their
norms, or interorganizational and interpersonal behavior (Romzek
et al., 2012) in response to the data user’s needs (Fox, 2007), particu­
larly in relation to the understandability of data. As Koppell (2005) also
suggested, accountability is multidimensional. That is, the concept of
accountability not only relates to the political and legal arrangements (e.
g., Congress sets rules and the organization faces consequences for its
performance), but it also involves the discretion of individual agencies
in fulfilling the substantive expectations from the public, as well as their
own organizational need in terms of assessing policy goals and
outcomes.
2.3. The transparency-accountability gap in open data policy
While the ultimate goal of open data policy is to achieve both the
enhancement of government performance and the creation of public
value (Harrison et al., 2012), current open data practices are often
implemented under the assumption that transparency will be one of the
results and it will almost automatically lead to accountability. However,
transparency alone may not be sufficient to facilitate accountability due
to the sheer volume of data and their complex functionalities, as well as
the challenges arising from existing organizational structures and pro­
cesses (Lourenço, 2015). Moreover, transparency itself can take various
forms based on complex dynamics between governments and stake­
holders within their legal, political, and technological contexts (Ban­
nister & Connolly, 2011; Meijer, 2013).
Yu and Robinson (2012) questioned the ambiguous notion of the
term “open government data,” indicating that data transparency (i.e., an
emphasis on “data”) is not necessarily linked to accountability (i.e., an
emphasis on “open government”) depending on what policymakers
prioritize. Fox (2007) raised questions as to under what conditions
transparency leads to accountability or what types of transparency
promote what types of accountability. He provides typologies of trans­
parency and accountability. His conceptions of transparency include
dissemination of and access to information and institutional answer­
ability, while his conceptions of accountability relate to the capacity to
sanction or compensate. Drawing on these closely-related concepts of
transparency and accountability, Mayernik (2017) developed a model
that shows the multi-dimensional relationship between the two.
While there have been numerous attempts to create open data
assessment frameworks (e.g., open data barometer, open data maturity
initiative; also see Vetrò et al., 2016), open government policy does not
3
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
provide an assessment framework or guidelines as to what kind of data
disclosure is useful and usable and how agencies can evaluate their
implementation plans and outcomes (Bertot, McDermott, & Smith,
2012; Lourenço, 2015; Harrison et al., 2012). For example, one of the
major challenges of transparency and open data policy is the citizens’
ability to understand data or their level of technical knowledge (Fierro &
Gil-Garcia, 2011, 2012). Janssen et al. (2012) find that the opening of
data itself has little value and thus it would not automatically yield
benefits unless the user sees any value in using the data. Thus, simply
making data available does not necessarily translate into accountability
(Harrison et al., 2012; Janssen et al., 2012) and a gap can be identified
between the two (see Fig. 1). Fig. 1 visually shows how we conceptualize
the transparency-accountability gap, which can be created by the
misalignment between intended benefits of open data policy and its
actual outcomes.
2.4. Bridging the transparency-accountability gap
The gap between transparency and accountability highlights both
conceptual and practical challenges to open data policy. Since data users
often encounter difficulties in making sense of government data due to
their limited technical knowledge (Hellberg and Hedström, 2015;
Lourenço, 2015; Janssen et al., 2012), visualization is often considered
an approach that can bridge the transparency-accountability gap (Arti­
gas & Chun, 2013; Graves & Hendler, 2014). Visualizations, particularly
in the health data context, can help technical and non-technical users
understand the meaning of the data in the form of numbers, ratings, and
symbols (Graves & Hendler, 2014; Sopan et al., 2012; Tu & Lauer,
2009).
Visualizations are often proposed as a solution to bridge the
transparency-accountability gap, but they are just one component of
making data usable. The transparency-accountability gap requires a
holistic approach to the practice of open data policy because making
useful and usable data available involves a full understanding of data,
information technology, management structure and organizational
processes, and relevant laws and regulations (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005).
Consequently, open data innovation involves not only the trans­
formation of technical infrastructure, but also other social factors that
enable the effective use of open data, such as changes in organizational
processes in support of a better user experience. For example, the
redesigning of organizational processes and communication channels
may be necessary to enable the effective implementation of visualiza­
tions. As seen in Fig. 2, we propose that open data innovation includes
various efforts that can help bridge the transparency-accountability gap:
the development of visualizations and the redesign of organizational
processes.
3. Research design and methods
This section briefly describes our research design and methods,
including case selection, data collection, and data analysis. Overall, this
study is based on semi-structure interviews with open data producers
Fig. 1. The transparency-accountability gap.
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
Fig. 2. Open data innovation as a way to bridgethe transparency-
accountability gap.
and users in a state agency.
3.1. Case study methodology
This research used a case study approach to examine open data
innovation at a state health agency. While a case study provides a small
number of observations, it provides a vivid picture of a phenomenon and
enables in-depth analysis of the research problems (Creswell, 2009;
Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). This project investigated how the orga­
nizational process redesign for the implementation of visualization tools
enhanced the understandability and usability of open government data
and thus helped bridge the transparency-accountability gap.
3.2. Case selection
This study focused on a state health agency that has been actively
making their data publicly available and usable. This agency has
maintained a large number of databases for various health-related policy
areas. Among many program areas, the state agency chose to update a
specific dataset relating to quality of care provided by managed care
plans.
This dataset contains providers’ performance information on na­
tionally standardized measures and state-specific measures, all validated
by the licensed auditor. Most of those quality measures follow the
guidelines from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)’s
Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). The HEDIS
data set provides standardized performance measures on a set of public
health issues such as cancer, smoking, and asthma as well as standard­
ized surveys of consumers’ access to care and their experiences with
care. These data provide a good foundation for assessing the outcomes of
open data policy because they specifically relate to consumer informa­
tion and they are collected and published on a regular basis.
The state health agency requires all managed care plans to report
Fig. 3. Current view of the data (New York State Department of Health 2016)
4
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
their performance data annually. Once they submit their data, the QARR
Unit at the agency collects, validates, and publishes the data in both
their annual QARR reports and on their official agency website. The
QARR data available online is called “eQARR.” Essentially, one of the
major challenges of using eQARR involves the format of data presen­
tation because data are shown in a static table format. The user is
directed to the webpage shown in Fig. 3. There is no additional
description of those numbers on the same page. Additionally, healthcare
plans cannot be sorted or re-ordered based on user preference.
3.3. Research design
The pre- and post-test research design is a common assessment
method for measuring the change in outcomes before and after an
experimental manipulation (Creswell, 2009). Since the purpose of this
study is to conduct in-depth analysis of the open data innovation pro­
cess, we chose to conduct semi-structured, qualitative interviews to
examine not only the changes in user experience, but also the broader
organizational changes that accompanied the implementation of the
visualization tools. Even within the agency, internal users have varying
degrees of experience with open government data as they are involved in
different stages of data processing (e.g., collecting, validating, publish­
ing, updating, etc.) and therefore play diverse roles around visualiza­
tions. As the researchers identified the individuals involved in different
stages of data processing, we assessed the specific changes in each stage
before and after the adoption of visualization tools. This allowed a
deeper understanding of organizational change from the various per­
spectives of data producers and internal users. We relied on semi-
structured interviews to provide detailed perspectives of individuals
about their roles in the organization (Crotty, 1998; Strauss & Corbin,
1998).
Drawing on selected visualization assessment frameworks (Graves &
Hendler, 2014; Sopan et al., 2012) and open data quality measurement
frameworks (Ubaldi, 2013; Vetrò et al., 2016), this study developed a set
of questions to assess user experience and organizational change before
and after the adoption of visualization tools. A general assessment of
user experience was based on the data characteristics and information
systems. Interview questions were composed of two parts: first, a general
assessment of user involvement in data processing and their user char­
acteristics, such as the level of technical knowledge and interaction with
the open data on a daily basis; second, a specific assessment of user
experience with the open data before and after the implementation of
new visualizations.
A total of nine individuals participated in the pre-test interviews
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456

from May 31 to June 15, 2016. The same nine interviewees participated
in the post-test interviews from August 8 to August 12 after the imple­
mentation of specific visualization tools. Most interviews were one-on-
one meetings, except for two meetings where the interviewer met with
two participants from the same office. Interview participants were from
various program areas in the state agency with different priorities, yet
one of their responsibilities dealt with analyzing QARR data in order to
monitor managed care providers and their quality of care. Although they
are familiar with the raw datasets, their familiarity with eQARR, the
online version of the data, varied greatly based on their level of
involvement with eQARR data processing or their job responsibilities,
which may require extensive data analysis. Each interview lasted from
40 min up to 1.5 h. The interview questions remained the same for the
pre- and post-test interviews in order to compare any changes in user
experience.
3.4. Data analysis
All interviews were recorded and notes were taken, which were later
transcribed for coding. Key terms, issues with data use, and other major
emergent themes were coded and compared (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Codes were developed based on the review of the literature discussed
earlier. Those codes were evaluated continuously as more interviews
were conducted because they can help the researcher understand the
key ideas and further investigate the deeper meanings of them (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). In addition, the codes from pre-test interviews were
compared and contrasted with those from post-test interviews so as to
assess the role of visualization tools in relation to perceived trans­
parency (See Table 1).
Examples of emergent codes are as follows with sub-codes in pa­
rentheses: data characteristics of open data before and after visualiza­
tion (content, format, relevance, usefulness, perceptions of quality and
trust), difficulties with using the open data before visualization (ease of
navigation, display/format/organization of the data), user satisfaction
after visualization (usability, efficiency, cost savings), organizational
factors (performance goals, management support), political and regu­
latory environment (federal and/or state laws that may have an impact
on availability, accessibility, and quality of open data).
4. Analysis and results
In our analysis, we first identified the various factors that caused the
transparency-accountability gap. Second, we discussed how the
transparency-accountability gap was reduced through major changes in
the organizational processes associated with the implementation of
visualization tools. The new visualization tools obviated the production
of dozens of web pages and thus required a significant change in the
current organizational process around the “opening” of data. While
visualization may prompt some changes in data processing, it may not
Table 1
Comparison of codes before and after visualization.
Pre-test Post-test
The user description of Not intuitive Intuitive
features and Multiple steps Responsive
characteristics of the Time consuming Easily comparable
data A quick reference User-friendly
Allows for analysis
Factors relating to the Burdensome to access A shortcut
data system to data Interactive
Static
Factors relating to data Tedious, inefficient Implementation of data
processing and data processing visualization tools in
organizational process Limited server response to the user’s needs
capabilities and the Improvement in data
lack of technical processing and management
expertise
automatically lead to broader organizational change. The state agency
in this case put the extra effort into enhancing not only the availability of
open data, but also the understandability of open data by aligning their
internal users’ needs and the functions of visualization tools.
4.1. The primary causes of the transparency-accountability gap
4.1.1. The gap between “data” quality and data “system” quality
In comparing user experiences before and after the implementation
of data visualization tools, we found that users saw little value in
prioritizing data availability over data usability, while the goal of an
open data policy could be seen as to achieve both at the same time.
Particularly, an emphasis on transparency can result in data that the
users cannot understand. Since most open data policies are mandated by
legislative bodies without specific guidelines as to how data should be
published in a user-friendly manner for public consumption, public
managers often focus on data availability rather than on its usability in
practice, given the resource constraints they have for data enhancement.
What is worse, there are no standardized metrics for evaluation of the
quality of open government data. This in turn creates a gap between data
quality and data system quality, where users may not be able to use data
to its full potential, leading to a misalignment between user expectations
and agency goals for open data policies.
In this case, we found that the selected dataset was relevant, reliable,
and complete in a timely fashion for the purpose of quality control and
for statewide planning of health program initiatives. All interview par­
ticipants trusted the selected dataset because the data must be validated
by certified auditors when individual health plans report to the state
agency. Participants understood that health plans try to make sure that
the data is a true and accurate representation of their performance. On
the other hand, participants expressed their concerns about the current
electronic display of the dataset (as opposed to the raw data) due to
some accessibility, usability, and navigation issues. One of the major
challenges they faced with using the data was its static representation
format. Most participants expressed their frustration that quality mea­
sures (e.g., colon cancer screening, adult BMI assessment, flu shots for
adults, etc.) were categorized under different domains (e.g., adult
health, behavioral health, child and adolescent health, etc.), which was
not intuitive even for experienced users and required them to follow
multiple steps to find the data they want.
As mentioned before, the original open data format in the website
not only lacked user-friendliness, but also had some navigation issues.
For example, the user had to choose one among commercial HMO,
commercial PPO, and Medicaid, which would take her to another web
page with multiple quality measures under different disease categories.
Since this categorization system was not intuitive, the user often had to
click back and forth several times to get access to the data she wants and
it was almost impossible to compare information across different cate­
gories at once. In fact, even an experienced user might get confused
because similar measures exist under different disease categories (e.g.,
preventive care under adult health as opposed to preventive care under
women’s health).
As one participants stated, “It is burdensome to click multiple do­
mains. It takes several clicks to get to where you need to be. For example,
the colorectal cancer screening measure is in a different measurement
domain from the breast and cervical cancer. Colorectal cancer is in
preventive care while breast and cervical cancer are in women’s health.
It takes several clicks to toggle between those different measures. I wish I
could identify the measures I would look at and display them on the
same page.”
Another commented, “If you want to look at health plan performance
on the asthma medication ratio for ages 5-18, you have to look that up
under children and adolescent health. If you want to see the perfor­
mance in Medicaid for asthma measures, you look that up under adult
health. It’s the same measure in different age categories. They are the
same measure but in more than one section just because it is broken out

5
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
by different age groups. It’s not like we’re dividing categories by disease.
I think it would be cumbersome to do it that way. We would want to look
at the results of the measure across the whole spectrum of ages instead of
separating out age groups.”
The confusion over the groupings of health quality measures was
mainly caused by the way the dataset was originally implemented. The
data production unit is made up of research scientists whose primary job
responsibilities are to analyze health data rather than to enhance the
presentation of data. Due to their lack of expertise and data represen­
tation capabilities, members of the unit chose to reduce the already
heavy burdens associated with data processing (e.g., collecting, vali­
dating, updating, and publishing) by following a prescribed, simple
approach to data display. The unit ran a preset SAS program which
would produce a number of HTML pages, each containing the data in a
table format. Then the user had to navigate more than 60 web pages to
explore various measures under different categories and domains. This
approach is not convenient even for an internal user, but the unit also
had to take additional steps to make the data available for the public in
accordance with the agency’s open data policy goals, thereby spending a
considerable amount of time every year to create web pages for their
public website.
Once they created web pages and validated all of the data, they
forwarded the web pages to the Public Information Administration Of­
fice who then made minor revisions to coloring and shading on the web
pages in order to make it consistent with other content on the agency
website. Although the Public Information Administration Office
managed the agency website in general, they had limited server capacity
and lacked technical expertise in data visualization; under these con­
straints, the HTML data format was the best option available in meeting
the goals of open data policy.
4.1.2. The misalignment between agency goals and user expectations
The selected data in this case is originally mandated as part of State
Public Health and Social Services Laws. As a public reporting system, the
dataset is designed to monitor managed care plan performance and to
improve their quality of care. The state health agency further utilizes
individual health plan’s quality performance outcomes in calculating
financial incentives and organizing their focus areas for statewide health
improvement plans. While participants saw a great deal of potential for
promoting government transparency and accountability through the
collection and publication of this data, they admitted that their needs
were not being fully addressed in the current system. While they had
dynamic needs for information, their understanding of the data was very
limited even at the agency level in terms of who created the data, their
involvement in data collection, what their expectations were for its use,
and how the data were actually used in practice.
In developing a full understanding of user experiences and expec­
tations, this study found that there were different types of users engaged
with open data processing and actual data use. While some of the par­
ticipants preferred to use open data as a quick reference for validation
purposes, the rest of the participants did not find open data relevant to
their job tasks because of its limited functionality. For example, open
data only showed quality performance information for each individual
health plan compared to the state average for a given year. Some users,
however, wanted to see all of the health plans’ performance across
different years so as to easily compare a specific health plan’s perfor­
mance to its peers. Since the current data format did not allow for a
deeper level of analysis, many participants chose to personally down­
load the original dataset for their own analysis instead of referring to the
public website.
4.1.3. Organizational inefficiencies created from the misalignment
The misalignment of agency goals and user expectations also created
organizational inefficiencies around data processing because users could
not make use of the data to its fullest potential. While those who were
heavily involved in data processing saw a lot of value in data use and
6
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
data transparency, the costs outweighed the potential benefits from
using it. As data producers, members of the unit realized that data
processing required a considerable amount of their time, which reduced
the time they had available for data analysis. On the other hand, they
recognized that the dataset often did not allow for a deeper level of
analysis for other researchers and end-users. One participant from the
data production unit expressed her concerns:
“We are researchers who really understand how the data is collected
and how to use the data, but we most start with how to best display it.
That’s not our expertise. We miss the mark a lot. I think it’s better
suited of our time to work in partnering with other agencies to do
that for their business. We can help provide the context and insti­
tutional knowledge about the data and build off of their expertise on
how it can be used by consumers in making decisions.”
From a management perspective, another participant in the unit
suggested that data enhancement was outside the scope of their work in
practice:
“I think it’s actually inappropriate for my staff to create webpages.
That’s not what they are hired for and it’s not their expertise. I think
it’s not good use of their time to be programming web pages from
datasets. I want my staff very focused on integrity of the data, data
checking, validating, benchmarking, and hand it off to somebody to
worry about the display and have them do more of using it to inform
policymakers and help them make decisions where we need to look
and focus resources and redirect quality improvement activities. I
don’t want them spend much time on how to make the data visually
appealing. That’s not what they are hired for.”
4.2. Closing the transparency-accountability gap
4.2.1. Queryable and customizable visualization tools meet user
expectations
As most participants in the pre-test interviews expressed their pref­
erence for queryable tools such as drop-down menus, the newly devel­
oped visualization tools met their expectations and helped them find the
relevant information in a more effective way. As Fig. 4 shows, users can
now produce individually customizable visualizations on one web page
by selecting different payers, domains, subdomains, and years in the
menu option, rather than having to go back and forth on multiple web
pages. Users can also sort columns in ascending or descending order.
Moreover, the web page provides multiple visualization tools, including
bar charts, line charts, and scatter plots.
In the post-test interviews, participants agreed that the availability of
various data visualization tools helped them to bring new insights to the
data. If the user wanted to compare quality performance information
across different health plans, years, or measures, the visualization tools
provided an easy comparison by displaying all of the selected informa­
tion. Interestingly, the data format and its user-friendliness were the
major deciding factor for user satisfaction because participants already
had a high level of trust in the data, which is validated by state-certified
auditors based on nationally standardized measures. Knowing that the
information content is regularly validated by a trusted source, partici­
pants paid more attention to how easily the data could be manipulated
for their needs rather than whether the system provides comprehensive
information. Some of the burden on the agency to build trust was eased
because the data were collected and validated based on a set of highly
standardized guidelines, ensuring their integrity. Generally, internal
stakeholders, who may have a limited understanding of healthcare
quality measures and the meaning of statistical data, were highly
satisfied with the new data format. One stated, “I think it is easier to use
because it allows the user to customize it a little bit more. Probably the
data I would be taking from this, I could find it in the old system, but it’s
presented nicer. I like that you can compare the different payers.”
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
Fig. 4. Visualization tools.
Another commented, “It was what we wanted. Being customizable and
user friendly was our goal and it was met.” However, data visualization
may not meet the diverse needs of all stakeholders who are impacted by
open data policies, particularly when they are external to the agency. A
future study is necessary to identify the needs of external users and the
role of data visualizations in open data ecosystems at large.
4.2.2. New organizational processes surrounding visualizations reduce
organizational inefficiencies and improve data quality
As discussed earlier, one of the major challenges for the data pro­
ducer was the unit’s lack of technical expertise in order to enhance the
visual representation of the data. Consequently, they perceived their
data management-related job task as non-essential, although it took up a
considerable amount of their time over the course of a year. If a staff
member in the data production unit found an error on the current open
data web page, she would have to make a correction in the raw dataset,
rerun the SAS program to create an HTML web page, and ask another
staff member in the Public Information Administration Office to upload
the HTML web page to the agency website. Instead, the newly developed
data visualization tools now directly link a data repository with the
agency website through the use of JavaScript codes, which can be easily
manipulated and reproduced for other types of data. In that sense, data
visualization tools helped bridge the gap in technical expertise at the
state agency and increased the level of flexibility and convenience
around validating and publishing data. As a result, participants antici­
pated that they would see benefits associated with data processing and
use.
First, the data production unit was most likely to benefit from the
new visualization tools because it would save 1–2 months of full-time
staff work hours, while also eliminating inefficiencies in the current
organizational process around data reporting.
One data producer said, “Not having to recreate these [web] pages
probably saves me weeks of work…I would say two actually. Creating
the pages, making sure everything run smoothly, getting them up on the
website, validating them, and coordinating with other colleagues to
have them go through and check all the webpages and work with the
public website team to make sure that they get rid of any HTML errors
that I might have missed…I think that’s two solid weeks of work. So
that’s 75 hours of work over the course of a month, easy…”
Another commented, “All the levels of approvals…every time we
want to publish something on the website, even things like [this dataset]
would take years. We still have to print out PDFs and go through the
7
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
Executive Deputy clearance to publish them on the website. However, in
the new process we don’t have to do that because the dataset is up there
and we just have to append the data to it every year, so we are not
changing anything and we don’t have to get any additional permissions.
So that saves time because it takes several days for just the permission to
come back.”
Similarly, the Public Information Administration Office could see a
substantial increase in efficiency around managing their agency web
site. One staff member stated, “Instead of us having to reproduce this
content, in theory when they update the listing on Health Data, it will
automatically update it here [agency website] because it should be
pulling the data as it gets updated from the data site…There’s basically
no maintenance to it. Some of the other stuff we have to produce, by not
having to produce anymore, it’s gonna save us a considerable amount of
time. Some of those directories we have a [web] page for every county.
So we’re looking at 62 [web] pages and some would take a little while to
update.”
Participants in other offices anticipated cost-savings associated with
reduced time spent on finding relevant information to complete their job
tasks. While some participants noted that the use of open data is not
required to complete their job tasks, it can certainly help them as a quick
reference. For some participants, open data was an “invaluably
wonderful shortcut” as they try to quickly check the state’s progress (e.
g., comparing statewide averages to national averages) in formulating
business arguments. In this case, open data was a reliable source and it
saved the staff’s time otherwise spent on downloading the raw data set,
selecting certain measures of interest, and calculating quality perfor­
mance rates. Since visualization tools reduce the time spent navigating
different web pages (e.g., information under different payers, domains,
subdomains, and measures) to access the information that the user
wants, any user could anticipate cost savings associated with data
accessibility and usability.
5. Discussions and implications
As open data policy has led to innovations in the public sector across
the world due to its transformative power (Zuiderwijk, Helbig, et al.,
2014), some posited that transparency would automatically promote
accountability (Lourenço, 2013; Lourenço, Piotrowski, & Ingrams,
2017; Ruijer et al., 2017). However, an increasing number of researchers
have cast doubt on the ambiguous relationship between transparency
and accountability (Fox, 2007; Mayernik, 2017; Wong & Welch, 2004;
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
Yu & Robinson, 2012). They argue that information-based transparency,
focusing on accessibility rather than the quality of data, creates a gap
between the intended goals and actual outcomes of open data policy.
Thus, the goal of this study was to examine what creates the
transparency-accountability gap and what efforts can help bridge such a
gap in the open government data context.
Based on our observation of a state health agency, we found that
middle managers and non-managers played an essential role in identi­
fying the transparency-accountability gap as they were heavily involved
in multiple stages of data processing. For example, they were responsible
for not only managing data on a regular basis (i.e., collecting, cleaning,
publishing, and validating) to meet the open data policy guidelines, but
also for using data to perform their job tasks as research scientists (i.e.,
analyzing data for policymaking). In that light, publishing open data
itself could be an onerous task for them when they did not have the
technical capability to recreate and reuse the data in a meaningful way.
The role of middle managers and non-managers in open data inno­
vation has three implications. First, because middle managers and non-
managers are involved in data processing, they are often aware of the
effectiveness of open data policy both from the data producers’ and the
end users’ perspectives. Non-managers frequently serve the dual role of
publishing and using open data at public organizations and thus they can
play an essential role in identifying the transparency-accountability gap
in open data innovation. Yet there is a paucity of research investigating
the role of middle-managers and non-managers in open data innovation,
with prior studies primarily focused on the role of top management
support in open data adoption (Barry & Bannister, 2014; Chatfield &
Reddick, 2018).
Second, non-managers’ dissatisfaction with data processing reveals
the organizational inefficiencies caused by the misalignment between
agency goals and user expectations. Here, “user expectations” include
not only citizens, but also internal users at government agencies.
Achieving the goal of transparency alone does not translate into an in­
crease in public value if the internal users themselves do not see the
value of open data beyond simply complying with the policy guidelines.
Although the open government rhetoric is organized around democratic
values (e.g., participation, transparency) and economic efficiency
(Kornberger, Meyer, Brandtner, & Höllerer, 2017), public organizations
are often left with limited options to prioritize data availability and
accessibility over data quality (e.g., usefulness and usability) when they
are seldom equipped with the appropriate resources or methods to begin
with (Pasquier & Villeneuve, 2007).
Lastly, although transparency and accountability goals seem com­
plementary, promoting one does not automatically lead to the other.
Transparency is not always positively related to user expectations
mainly due to data quality issues concerning their fitness for use
(Thompson, Ravindran, & Nicosia, 2015; Wang & Strong, 1996). While
previous studies found that data quality (e.g., usefulness) is an essential
component in evaluating the effectiveness of open data policy (Dawes,
2010; Lourenço, 2015), it was often limited to technical features.
Visualization tools can certainly help enhance data quality, yet the role
of visualization tools in open data innovation has not been fully explored
in relation to its impact on the organizational processes that are neces­
sary to implement it and the resulting improvements in accountability.
As internal users at the state health agency distinguished the benefits
from the usability of data from that of the data system, the redesign of
data processing was necessary to allow for the successful implementa­
tion of visualization tools, which improved the overall quality of avail­
able data.
Open data innovation involves continuous adjustments for the
effective use of open data, including evaluation of the “fitness” of the
data from a non-technical end user’s point of view (Lourenço, 2015) and
the efficiency of data processing from the data producer’s point of view.
In extending the concept of accountability to the data producer’s ability
to meet the data user’s needs, regardless of whether it is voluntary or
forced by compliance (Fox, 2007), accountability relates to not only
8
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
structural elements such as formal authority (Matheus, Janssen, &
Maheshwari, 2018) but also ongoing efforts to identify and reduce the
transparency-accountability gap. Open data innovation, hence, relates
to a comprehensive understanding of how the information can be
recreated and reused for both ordinary citizens and the public organi­
zation that is responsible for the implementation of open data policy and
what organizational efforts are appropriate to support the effective use
of open data. Making open government data more useful and usable
could potentially contribute to reducing the gap between transparency
and accountability.
6. Conclusions
Acknowledging that transparency does not automatically promote
accountability in the context of open data policy, this paper first
explored the relationship between transparency and accountability.
Drawing on both public administration and open data literature, we
argue that various efforts that can help bridge the transparency-
accountability gap could be conceptualized as open data innovation.
We then provided some empirical evidence about how data visualiza­
tions, and their corresponding organizational processes redesign, could
bridge the transparency-accountability gap by realigning the agency
goals with user expectations. While enhancing technical capabilities
such as visualization tools can be useful to ordinary citizens, the gov­
ernment agency − as the main actor who is responsible for disclosing
data to the public – could not realize the value of open data unless vi­
sualizations were complemented with organizational efforts to identify
inefficiencies arising from the existing processes and structures around
the open data policy.
We contribute to existing literature on open data innovation by un­
derstanding how the organizational process redesign around the
implementation of visualization tools can enhance the understandability
and usability of open government data and thus helped bridge the
transparency-accountability gap. We also have identified the role of
middle managers and non-managers in closing the transparency-
accountability gap and understanding the role of visualizations in rela­
tion to the efficiency gain from redesigning organizational processes.
However, there are a few limitations with our current study that we
hope to address in future research. First, this study relies on a single case
and a small number of observations about the internal use of open data
at the individual organizational level and the results cannot be gener­
alized beyond that setting. We suggest that future research should
further examine what other efforts constitutes open data innovation
beyond the organizational context. For example, open data innovation
may involve interorganizational- and institutional-level efforts in which
the transparency-accountability gap could also be identified.
Second, we were able to focus on organizational factors (e.g., orga­
nizational processes) that might cause or reduce the transparency-
accountability gap without much concern about data quality (such as
accuracy and reliability) given the fact that the datasets we observed
were nationally standardized and audited. In many other cases, how­
ever, we understand that data quality can also create or at least
contribute to the transparency-accountability gap. As previous research
has established, transparency is not always positively related to
perceived trustworthiness of government organizations due to data
integrity and quality issues (Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2012). Thus,
we hope that future research tests our findings by exploring other cases,
including non-standardized datasets.
Acknowledgements
This study was partially supported by the funding opportunity
number PR-PRP-13-001 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The content
of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of HHS, HHS agencies, HRI, or
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
the New York State Department of Health.
References
Artigas, F., & Ae Chun, S. (2013 Jun). Visual analytics for open government data. In
Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
(pp. 298–299). ACM.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: A critical review of
openness in e-government. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–30.
Barry, E., & Bannister, F. (2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top.
Information Polity, 19(1, 2), 129–152.
Bertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C., & Choi, H. (2014). Big data, open
government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information
Polity, 19(1, 2), 5–16.
Bertot, J. C., McDermott, P., & Smith, T. (2012). Measurement of open government:
Metrics and process. In 45th Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS)
(pp. 2491–2499). USA: IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2018). The role of policy entrepreneurs in open
government data policy innovation diffusion: An analysis of Australian federal and
state governments. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 123–134.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Davies, T., & Edwards, D. (2012). Emerging implications of open and linked data for
knowledge sharing in development. IDS Bulletin, 43(5), 117–127.
Dawes, S., & Helbig, N. (2010). Information strategies for open government: Challenges
and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. Electronic
Government, 50–60.
Dawes, S. S. (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based
transparency. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383.
Dawes, S. S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (2016). Planning and designing open
government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information
Quarterly, 33(1), 15–27.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Fierro, A. E., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). Más allá del acceso a la información: El uso de
tecnologías de información para fomentar la transparencia, la participación y la
colaboración en el sector público. In , 262. Documento de trabajo. http://repositori
o-digital.cide.edu/handle/11651/727.
Fierro, A. E., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Transparency websites as tools for decision
making in a democratic government. In Paper presented at the transatlantic conference
on transparency research. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability.
Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 663–671.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical
tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216.
Graves, A., & Hendler, J. (2013, June). Visualization tools for open government data. In
Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
(pp. 136–145). Quebec City, Canada: ACM.
Graves, A., & Hendler, J. (2014). A study on the use of visualizations for open
government data. Information Polity, 19(1, 2), 73–91.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2012). Effects of transparency on the perceived
trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157.
Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N.,
Hrdinova, J., & Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic
challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83–97.
Harrison, T. M., & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability
practices in open government: A comparative study. Government information
quarterly, 31(4), 513–525.
Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood, & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency:
The key to better governance? (pp. 25–43). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press for
The British Academy.
Heise, A., & Naumann, F. (2012). Integrating open government data with stratosphere for
more transparency. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide
Web, 14, 45–56.
Helbig, N., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of
electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government
Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97.
Hellberg, A. S., & Hedström, K. (2015). The story of the sixth myth of open data and open
government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(1), 35–51.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and
myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4),
258–268.
Jetzek, T., Avital, M., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2014). Data-driven innovation through open
government data. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9
(2), 100–120.
Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2013). Linked open government data
analytics. In M. A. Wimmer, M. Janssen, & H. J. Scholl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th
IFIP WG 8.5 international conference, EGOV2013 (pp. 99–110). Koblenz, Germany:
Springer.
Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of
“multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.
9
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
Kornberger, M., Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C., & Höllerer, M. A. (2017). When bureaucracy
meets the crowd: Studying “open government” in the Vienna City Administration.
Organization Studies, 38(2), 179–200.
Lourenço, R. P. (2013). Data disclosure and transparency for accountability: A strategy
and case analysis. Information Polity, 18(3), 243–260.
Lourenço, R. P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of
transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323–332.
Lourenço, R. P., Piotrowski, S., & Ingrams, A. (2017). Open data driven public
accountability. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 42–57.
Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Maheshwari, D. (2018). Data science empowering the public:
Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart
cities. Government Information Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.006
(in press).
Mayernik, M. S. (2017). Open data: Accountability and transparency. Big Data & Society,
4(2), 1–5.
McBride, K., Aavik, G., Toots, M., Kalvet, T., & Krimmer, R. (2019). How does open
government data driven co-creation occur? Six factors and a ‘perfect storm’; insights
from Chicago’s food inspection forecasting model. Government Information Quarterly,
36(1), 88–97.
Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–269.
Meijer, A. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public
Administration Review, 73(3), 429–439.
Meijer, A. (2015). Government transparency in historical perspective: from the ancient
regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration,
38(3), 189–199.
Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to
collaborate with external problem solvers. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5),
599–612.
Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Polity, 18(3),
233–242.
Parycek, P., Hochtl, J., & Ginner, M. (2014). Open government data implementation
evaluation. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2),
80–99.
Pasquier, M., & Villeneuve, J. P. (2007). Organizational barriers to transparency: A
typology and analysis of organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict
access to information. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 147–162.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from
the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.
Romzek, B. S., LeRoux, K., & Blackmar, J. M. (2012). A preliminary theory of informal
accountability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review,
72(3), 442–453.
Ruijer, E., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2017). Open data for democracy:
Developing a theoretical framework for open data use. Government Information
Quarterly, 34(1), 45–52.
Shkabatur, J. (2012). Transparency with (out) accountability: Open government in the
United States. Yale Law & Policy Review, 31(1), 79–140.
Sopan, A., Noh, A. S. I., Karol, S., Rosenfeld, P., Lee, G., & Shneiderman, B. (2012).
Community Health Map: A geospatial and multivariate data visualization tool for
public health datasets. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 223–234.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. SAGE.
Thompson, N., Ravindran, R., & Nicosia, S. (2015). Government data does not mean data
governance: Lessons learned from a public sector application audit. Government
Information Quarterly, 32(3), 316–322.
Tu, H. T., & Lauer, J. R. (2009). Designing effective health care quality transparency
initiatives. Issue Brief (Center for Studying Health System Change), 126, 1–6.
Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open
Government Data Initiatives. In OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22.
Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en.
Vetrò, A., Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C. O., Iemma, R., & Morando, F. (2016).
Open data quality measurement framework: Definition and application to open
government data. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 325–337.
Wang, H. J., & Lo, J. (2016). Adoption of open government data among government
agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80–88.
Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data
consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33.
Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does e-government promote accountability? A
comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability.
Governance, 17(2), 275–297.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Yu, H., & Robinson, D. G. (2012). The new ambiguity of “open government,” UCLA law
review. Discourse, 59, 178–208.
Zuiderwijk, A., Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Janssen, M. (2014). Special Issue on
Innovation through Open Data: Guest Editors’ Introduction. Journal of Theoretical
and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), i–xiii.
Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Barriers and development directions for the
publication and usage of open data: A socio-technical view. In M. Gascó-Hernández
(Ed.), 4. Open government: Opportunities and challenges for public governance (pp.
115–135). New York, NYL: Springer.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Davis, C. (2014). Innovation with open data: Essential
elements of open data ecosystems. Information Polity, 19(1, 2), 17–33.
New York State Department of Health (2016). eQARR - An Online Report on Quality
Performance Results for Health Plans in New York State.
Sora Park is a Doctoral Candidate in Public Administration at Rockefeller College of
Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research is
S. Park and J.R. Gil-Garcia
at the intersection of organizations, management, and technology. Her dissertation in­
volves a theoretical and empirical study of sensemaking in regulatory agencies over
technology-related disruptions in markets.
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy and the
Research Director of the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State
University of New York (SUNY). Currently, he is also an Affiliated Professor at the Uni­
versidad de las Americas Puebla. In 2009, he was considered the most prolific author in the
field of digital government research worldwide and in 2013 he was selected for the
10
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101456
Research Award, which is “the highest distinction given annually by the Mexican Academy
of Sciences to outstanding young researchers.” Dr. Gil-Garcia is the author or co-author of
articles in prestigious international journals in Public Administration, Information Sys­
tems, and Digital Government and some of his publications are among the most cited in the
field of digital government research worldwide. His research interests include collabora­
tive digital government, inter-organizational information integration, smart cities and
smart governments, adoption and implementation of emergent technologies, digital divide
policies, and multi-method research approaches.