Outline
The costs of public sector information in respect to added value has to be assessed taking into account large-scale detour effects and not merely at the level of the publishing organisation. This BP clarifies why this is a best practice, what can be the obstacles and approaches to actually implement the BP.
Links to the Revised PSI Directive
Challenge
The publication of data and information according to regulations, principles, best practices or recommendations generally has a positive effect. However, in cases where the publisher creates a substantial revenue by monetizing the concerned data, the loss of income represents a hard to deny fact which may contribute to the decisions against publishing data or information. Therefore more sophisticated assessments are required which are suitable to justify loss of income on one level in exchange to gained overall benefits.
Solution
A range of metrics taken at a higher level will often show significant benefits to the organisation as a whole, such as increased overall efficiency, improved services and increased transparency.
Why is this a Best Practice?
Generally, assessing the benefits of actions exclusively at local scale will lead to micro-optimisations and missed opportunities at the larger context. This is not only disadvantageous in the case of deciding on opening up data and information, but is an administrative leftover from times where holistic measure was mostly impossible due to non-existent integrated Information Systems which can provide a quick and comprehensive overview on policy making.
How do I implement this Best Practice?
The actual implementation of public sector value assessment is very much influenced by the administrative organisational setup. If and open data strategy is implemented at the federal level, chances are high, that impact assessment will also take place at that level.
To facilitate the transition from assessing efforts and value from the local level to a higher level, techniques and methodologies of management by objectives, rigorous data analytics by using dashboards, data mining and predictive modeling as means of evidence based government could be used.
The actual implementation will further depend on the level where the PSI directive got implemented. While all EU member states are required to implement EU directives into national law, some member states forward this obligation to provinces (mostly on NUTS-2 level), which adds additional difficulty when erecting holistic measures of costs and effects of data and information publication. Some individual departments, or sub-departments, are likely to see increased costs with no direct benefit to that department but at a higher level, the benefits should be evident and measurable.
Further reading
- Impact Monitoring Framework für Open Government Data Ein Impact Monitoring Framework für Open Government Data am Beispiel von »OGD Schweiz« (DE) PDF
- From Evidence-Based Policy Making to Policy Analytics (PDF)
- Big Data and Analytics, [1 PDF]
- The impact of open data, Mininstry of Finance, Finland. Heli Koski, Elinkeinoelämän tutkimuslaitos
Where has this best practice been implemented?
| Country | Implementation | Contact Point |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung | ABTEILUNG III/9: WIRKUNGSCONTROLLINGSTELLE DES BUNDES, VERWALTUNGSINNOVATION. |
| United Kingdom | Performance UK | |
| Finland | Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities | Prime Ministeŕs Office Finland |
| Italy | Impact of open data measured by indicators (in progress) | Giorgia Lodi |
References
- Samos Workshop Session: The Potential within the Government for Innovation and Efficiency from Open Data – Examples from the Norwegian public Sector
- Berlin Workshop Session: The Impacts of Open Data: Towards Ex Post Assessment
- Open Data Institute method report: Assessment tools for open data initiatives
- Open Data Institute technical report: Benchmarking open data automatically
Local Guidance
This Best Practice is cited by, or is consistent with, the advice given within the following guides:
- (Austria) Open-Government-Vorgehensmodell Open Government Process Model
- (Belgium) Open Data Handleiding Open Data Handbook
- (CzechRepublic) Standardy publikace a katalogizace otevřených dat veřejné správy ČR Open Data Standards
- (Estonia) Avaandmete loomise ja avaldamise juhend Open Data Guidelines
- (Finland) Avoimen Datan Opas Open Data Guide
- (Hungary) Nyílt Adatok kézikönyv Open Data Handbook
- (International) Open Data Handbook, Solutions Bank
- (International) ELI implementation methodology: Good practices and guidelines
- (Ireland) Guide for publishers
- (Italy) Linee Guida Nazionali per la Valorizzazione del Patrimonio Informativo Pubblico National Development Guidelines for Public Sector Information
- (Lithuania) Viešojo Sektoriaus Informacijos platinimo gerosios praktikos Best Practices for Sharing Public Sector Information
- (Luxembourg) Recommandations pour l'ouverture des données publiques Recommendations for opening data
- (Serbia) Open Data Handbook
- (Slovenia) Priročnik za odpiranje podatkov javnega sektorja Manual for the opening of public sector information
- (Spain) Government Data Openness and Re-use
- (Spain) Decálogo Open Data Open Data Decalogue
- (Spain) Guía metodológica para planes open data sectoriales Methodological Guide for Sectorial Open Data Plans
- (Spain) Guía para el desarrollo de la Universidad Abierta Open University Development Guide
Contact Info
Editor: Johann Höchtl, Danube University, Krems
Contributors: Anne Kauhanen-Simanainen, Ministry of Finance, Finland, Giorgia Lodi, AgID, Italy
Issue Tracker
Any matters arising from this BP, including implementation experience, lessons learnt, places where it has been implemented or guides that cite this BP can be recorded and discussed on the project's GitHub repository