The aim of the research is to understand the role of intermediaries in the open data ecosystem. Although this research provided new insights in the role of intermediaries in an open data ecosystem, it should be considered a first small step towards a full understanding of open data intermediaries. This research therefore aspires to provide a base for future research. In addition, due to the qualitative nature of the research, more information was found than was required to answer the research questions. This secondary information could provide valuable starting points for future research. These will be discussed in this section.
First, it was found that some of the intermediaries also provide training and education to clients in different areas and act as a ‘educator’. This role has however not been described in the literature on open data intermediaries. Future research can therefore be focused on further describing this type of intermediary.
Secondly, despite links found in the interviews, further research can be dedicated to analysing in depth how certain types of intermediaries affect specific areas. Besides looking more in depth to the links found in this research, it is also possible to conduct more quantitative research to determine quantifiable effects; how many users of open data are able to work with open data because of intermediaries? How many potential users do intermediaries reach? How much of the open data use can be contributed to intermediaries?
Thirdly, in some of the interviews it was found that there is still much to improve in the area of communication. Because intermediaries have a better view of what certain groups of users want, providers can learn a lot from them to improve their open data overall. Future research
56 can be dedicated to analysing how the communication between providers and intermediaries can be improved and whether it is beneficial for open data.
Also, it was found in the interviews that many clients of the intermediaries do not have much interest for the data. The clients want specific information that is beneficial for their business.
How and with what data is used is not a priority for them. In addition, open data like the AHN are often seen as intermediate goods; the real value comes from combining it with other data.
Sometimes the desire was expressed that providers start to improve the capability of linking and combining it with other data.
Some intermediaries also felt that providers should not interfere too much with the business of intermediaries. For example, when an intermediary sells open data in different formats packages and a provider starts to do the same; then the intermediary is at risk of losing its business. This shows that there is an interesting tension field between how providers can improve open data while at the same time not doing too much to hinder the market. Future research can be dedicated to investigating the boundaries; how much services should open data providers provide? or should providers be limited to just releasing open data in open formats?
To conclude, future research could be aimed at analysing whether the found effects are also experienced by the clients of the intermediaries. This research limit itself to the viewpoint of intermediaries. However, by involving their client’s viewpoint, the found effect can be validated. This could also lead to the discovery of more effects.
57
References
AHN. (2015). Handleiding ‘AHN downloaden van PDOK’. Retrieved from
http://www.ahn.nl/binaries/content/assets/ahn-nl/downloads/handleiding-ahn-downloaden-via-pdok.pdf
Bregt, A., Grus, L., & Eertink, D. (2014). Wat zijn de effecten van een open basisregistratie topografie na twee jaar? Wageningen.
Bregt, A. K., Grus, L., Beuningen, T. Van, & Meijeren, H. Van. (2016). Wat zijn de effecten van een open Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland? Wageningen.
Davies, T. (2011). Open Data : Infrastructures and ecosystems. University of Southhampton.
Deloitte LLP. (2012). Open growth Stimulating demand for open data in the UK A briefing note from Deloitte Analytics. Deloitte, 1–9.
Dumpawar, S. (2015). Open Government Data Intermediaries: Mediating Data to Drive Changes in the Built Environment. Massachusetts Iinstitute of Technology.
González-Zapata, F., & Heeks, R. (2015). Understanding Multiple Roles of Intermediaries in Open Government Data. 13th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, 1–10.
Hagel III, J., & Rayport, J. (1997). The coming batle for customer information. The McKinsley Quarterly, 3, 64–77. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA20341539&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it
=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=00475394&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&u=utrecht&self Redirect=true
Heimstädt, M., Saunderson, F., & Heath, T. (2014). Conceptualizing Open Data ecosystems: A timeline analysis of Open Data development in the UK. In Proceedings of the
International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM2014), (2014/12). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/96627
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025570
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
Janssen, M., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2014). Infomediary Business Models for Connecting Open Data Providers and Users. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 694–711.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314525902
Kadaster. (2017). BRT. Retrieved 11 November 2017, from https://www.kadaster.nl/brt Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic
review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.
https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118
Magalhaes, G., Roseira, C., & Strover, S. (2013). Open government data intermediaries. In ICEGOV 2013 Proceedings - 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of
58 Electronic Governance (pp. 330–333). https://doi.org/10.1145/2591888.2591947
Mason, J. (2002). Research Methodology (Vol. 2).
Open Data Barometer. (2016). The Open Data Barometer. Retrieved 3 November 2017, from http://opendatabarometer.org/?_year=2016&indicator=ODB
Ponte, D. (2015). Enabling an Open Data Ecosystem. In ECIS 2015 - Research-in-Progress Papers -23rd European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–7). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2015_rip/55
Rijkwaterstaat. (2017a). Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland. Retrieved 11 November 2017, from https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/open-data/actueel-hoogtebestand-nederland/index.aspx.
Rijkwaterstaat. (2017b). Open data Rijkswaterstaat. Retrieved 11 November 2017, from
https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/open-data/actueel-hoogtebestand-nederland/index.aspx.
Rocco, S. T., & Plakhotnik, S. M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 Sawicki, D. S., & Craig, W. J. (1996). The democratization of data: Bridging the gap for
community groups. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 512–523.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975715
van Schalkwyk, F., Chattapadhyay, S., Caňares, M., & Andrason, A. (2015). Open Data intermediaries in Developing Countries. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1449222
van Schalkwyk, F., Willmers, M., & McNaughton, M. (2016). Viscous Open Data: The Roles of Intermediaries in an Open Data Ecosystem. Information Technology for Development, 22(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2015.1081868
Vancauwenberghe, G., Donker, F. W., & Loenen, B. Van. (2017). Business Models for
Geographic Information. In J. B. Kruse, J. Crompvoets, & F. Pearlman (Eds.), GEOValue:
The Socioeconomic Value of Geospatial Information. (pp. 85–115). CRC PRess.
Welle Donker, F., & van Loenen, B. (2016a). How to assess the success of the open data ecosystem? International Journal of Digital Earth, 10(3), 284–306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2016.1224938
Welle Donker, F., & van Loenen, B. (2016b). Sustainable Business Models for Public Sector Open Data Providers. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 8(1), 28–
61.
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., & Alibaks, R. S. (2012). Socio-technical Impediments of Open Data. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 10(2), 156–172.
https://doi.org/10.1641/b570402?ref=search-gateway:885882d1830675b0f27af0760faeaef8
59