The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
What is Open Government?
One Year after the Directive
Dennis Linders
University of Maryland
College of Information Studies
109 Bent Twig Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878
1+202-730-6850
dlinders@umd.edu
ABSTRACT
In response to President Obama’s Open Government Directive,
federal agencies developed plans to instill the principles of
transparency, collaboration, and participation into their
engagement with the public. Against the question, “what is open
government?,” the authors reviewed the prevailing literature and
the agency plans to identify a set of discrete lenses and objectives
that align with the Directive’s principles. The lenses and
objectives are then assessed for their policy implications, intended
outcomes, and implementation challenges. This analysis is
synthesized into a framework that will support future fieldwork to
identify and construct best-practice tools and guidance that help
agencies go beyond baseline compliance and apply the Directive
as a tool for mission success. We conclude with a discussion on
the factors and conditions for the sustainment of the Open
Government movement.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.5.2. [Legal Aspects of Computing]: Governmental Issues – e-
government, open government, transparency, regulation.
General Terms
Management, Measurement, Performance, Design, Economics,
Reliability, Standardization, Legal Aspects.
Keywords
Open government, Open Government Directive, transparency, e-
government, accountability.
1. INTRODUCTION: ONE YEAR IN
On his first day in office, President Obama committed his
administration to an “unprecedented level of openness in
government” [1]. The White House operationalized this
commitment through the release of the ambitious Open
Government Directive (OGD, or “the Directive”) [2] which
requires federal agencies to institutionalize the principles of
transparency in their operations, public participation in agency
decision-making, and collaboration with their stakeholders. Table
1 briefly identifies the goals and motivations for each Open
Government principle.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Dg.o’11, June 12–15, 2011, College Park, MD, USA.
Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0762-8/11/06…$10.00.
262
Susan Copeland Wilson
University of Maryland
College of Information Studies
218 Rabbitt Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878
1+301-963-8488
scwilson@umd.edu
Table 1: The Open Government Principles
1. Transparency
x Goal: Promote “accountability and provide information for
citizens about what the Government is doing.”
x Driver: “Information maintained by the Federal Government
is a national asset.”
2. Public Participation
x Goal: Enhance “the Government’s effectiveness and
improve the quality of decision-making.”
x Driver: “Knowledge is widely dispersed in society”;
government should tap this wider pool of knowledge.
3. Collaboration
x Goal: Engage “Americans in the work of their government,”
by collaborating “across all levels of Government, and with
nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals.”
x Driver: Partnerships and cooperation “improve the
effectiveness of Government.” [2]
As the Open Government Directive enters Year Two, the White
House’s initiative has already sparked a number of
accomplishments, but also remains surrounded by uncertainty due
to the absence of a clear roadmap.
1.1 Accomplishments
Open Government remains at its early stages. As Relyea observed
in a similar context: because the effort “continues to evolve, the
full measure of its success waits assessments” [3]. Nevertheless,
the Directive has made tangible progress towards “changing the
default setting of government from being closed, opaque, and
secretive, to becoming open, transparent, and participatory” [4].
Consequently, agency cultures have begun to adopt a posture of
deliberate openness, both in terms of opening up information for
public consumption and in opening up processes to stakeholder
participation and collaboration.
The OGD has also served as a rallying point for new, action-
oriented communities of practice that bring together practitioners,
advocates, subject matter experts, and academics to share best
practices, discuss implementation challenges, and collaboratively
develop solutions. Stakeholders—both inside and outside
government—collaborate together through online platforms
(particularly GovLoop.com), informal seminars (such as the
OpenGov Community Summit Series), and subject-specific
conferences (such as the International Open Government Data
Conference). This wider community remains active and has
helped foster relationships among enterprising government
workers, providing a network and support group for collectively
advocating from the ground up for a culture of openness within
their respective agencies.
Equally noticeable, the Directive has helped spur the development
and maturation of supporting technologies. Government adoption
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

and sponsorship of private sector and open source tools (e.g., the then hold them to account [2]. 29 agencies submitted plans as
IdeaScale ideation platform) has further helped spur growth and required. In the spirit of openness, an additional 10 exempted (i.e.
innovation and helped accelerate the emergence of supporting best smaller) agencies submitted plans on their own accord.
practices. Indeed, the government has begun to catch-up with the
private sector in embedding social media and Web 2.0 In the spirit of collaboration, a group of civil society organizations
interactivity into their planning and day-to-day activities, spurred and government watchdog groups conducted independent audits
in large part by the Open Government movement. of agency plans to help identify areas for improvement. Beginning
in April of 2010, a consortium of twelve open government
The Directive has also impacted change far beyond the U.S. advocate organizations 1 from the public, private, and academic
federal government. Local governments from San Francisco to sectors [6] reviewed two rounds of agency Open Government
Boston and state governments from Washington to Georgia have Plans to assess how purposefully those agencies addressed the
followed the federal government’s lead (see Directive’s mandates. Many agencies showed great interest in the
http://www.data.gov/statedatasites). Open Government has also consortium’s assessments and worked with the group to improve
gained significant momentum internationally, with Australia, their plans and level of compliance. 19 agencies submitted
Singapore, the European Union, the World Bank, and particularly updates to their original plans in response to this and other public
the United Kingdom launching similar initiatives inspired by— feedback.
and in some cases transcending—the U.S. Open Government
implementation. These efforts have enriched the global Open The final scores demonstrated significant variance in the level of
Government community by setting new examples and providing compliance (see Figure 1). Agencies scoring below the average
additional channels for innovation and exploration, resulting in stated that this was due in part to a lack of committed funding and
creative new solutions for improved government openness and staffing and the need to balance the priorities of open government
effectiveness. work with the agency’s regular workload and commitments.
Preliminary statistical analysis of the agency scores did not
1.2 Remaining Challenges and Uncertainties uncover clear trends and correlations beyond the rough and fairly
Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. The authors’
intuitive findings that (1) the very smallest agencies tended to
Open Government research team at the University of Maryland
receive the lowest scores, probably as a result of limited resources
was able to attend several of the OMB monthly meetings of the
and the fact that many were not required to produce a Plan, and
OG representatives with OMB. Consistent with conversations
(2) agencies with high levels of direct citizen interactions (social
with individual members of different agencies whose plans the
services, health, etc.) tended to score better than those focusing on
team specifically evaluated, it became evident that, at a high level,
back office or national security functions.
many of the agency representatives are committed to the ideals of
the Directive and the teeth it can give the agency to partner with
its stakeholder constituents. But those representatives voiced
concerns about the logistics to meet the Directive (especially
staffing and funding), hungered for additional guidance, and
remained unsure whether the Executive commitment will continue
as priorities and political leadership change.
At this point in its maturity, Open Government, as formulated and
formally structured through the Directive, has not yet become the
“new norm.” Statutory mandates exist at the push-and-pull of
political tides. Similar policies (such as FOIA) have changed
significantly in scope and implementation as the philosophical
inclination of Congress and political appointees change. This lack
of consistency may easily move a highly visible agenda (such as
Figure 1: OGD Evaluation Scores
open government) from one President and/or Congress to a
backwater commitment. The consortium appears to be unique in having taken a federal-
wide view of the Plans; agencies and the White House did not
Indeed, White House initiatives live past their birth only when the
peer-review themselves, thus losing an opportunity to take an
operations to support them become part of agency culture and
integrated cross-agency approach to openness beyond the high-
standard operating procedures. Yet, following Peter Drucker’s
level compliance mandates of the Directive. This kept agencies
maxim [5] that “what gets measured, gets managed,” the absence
stove-piped in their approach and constrained the development of
of formal definitions, criteria, and metrics around government
federal-wide platforms to support initiatives across agencies. The
openness deprives agencies of clear guidance and milestones. This
resulting inconsistencies in implementation and intent made
became exceedingly clear during a formal assessment of agency
evaluation by the public difficult.
Open Government strategies conducted by a group of independent
auditors. Individual agencies and evaluators clearly interpreted
transparency, participation, and collaboration inconsistently, using
1.3 Findings from Open Government Plan Evaluations
The Directive required that each major agency implement the
1
three principles of openness into its everyday processes; See https://sites.google.com/site/opengovtplans/home for a
specifically, each agency was required to document “how it will description of the audit methodology, criteria, and results, and the
improve transparency and integrate public participation and roster of participants. The authors participated as part of the
collaboration into its activities” through the release of an agency University of Maryland College of Information Studies (UMD
Open Government Plan (OG Plan) against which the public could iSchool) team of faculty and students.

263
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
different definitions and thresholds. The Directive provides
limited guidance to level-set a common understanding. For
example, an agency may consider publishing data on its website
as also enabling public participation to, say, develop applications
off the data, thus meeting the letter of the Directive. But
evaluators may view this as simply making information available
rather a form of citizen engagement. Moreover, the Directive does
not really define the problem(s) it intends to solve, making it
difficult to infer appropriate metrics. Consequently, the absence of
detailed guidance and actionable goals failed to foster federal-
wide harmony in terminology, concepts, and metrics that clearly
identify the degree to which an agency can be assessed as open.
Developed almost in lockstep with the OGD, and deployed with
starter pistol timing, alternative third-party “solutions” made their
debut. Advertising “Your Open Government (OG) Plan Solution”
and “We help you comply,” commercial vendors, think tanks,
partisan and independent advocacy organizations began releasing
guidance to agencies to help them meet the mandates of the OGD.
Examples ranged from Microsoft’s OG Data Initiative and
Adobe’s open government guidance to Gartner’s OG Maturity
Model [7] and Sunlight Labs’ Opengovernment.org. These
products share an embrace of technology as a solution to openness
efforts and provided templates to guide agency compliance. But
one must question the efficacy of these tools if the basic questions
of OG are not well and universally understood and accepted.
1.4 Purpose and Structure of the Paper
The efforts to institutionalize Open Government (OG) bypass
several fundamental and unresolved questions. The most salient
is: what precisely is open government? Are there common
definitions and expectations of outcomes? What are its
characteristics? This paper intends to address these questions and
lay the groundwork for a methodology that identifies baseline
standards, definitions, assessment tools, and best practices that
may help US federal agencies design and implement OG
initiatives in ways that contribute to their mission.
After a brief literature review (Section 2), we first attempt to glean
a definition of open government conceptually in terms of
prevailing frameworks and perspectives–lenses, really–that are
popularly ascribed to open government (Section 3). We then
extract the discrete sets of objectives encompassed by the OG
movement (Section 4). From this foundation, the paper discusses
how the research team at the University of Maryland (UMD)
iSchool is partnering with several federal agencies to understand
the commonalities, disconnects, and best practices across Open
Government implementations in response to the OGD (Section 5).
We conclude with a few closing remarks on the future of Open
Government as a practice and as a subject of academic inquiry
(Section 6).
2. DEFINING OPEN GOVERNMENT: A HISTORY
Like many aspirational concepts, open government is frequently
defined by its characteristics. Its essence is difficult to pin down
but its anticipated benefits and outcomes are fairly well
understood. Thus, open government is often identified as an active
initiative that is both characteristic of—and required for—a
democratic society [8] and typically associated with the concepts
of government transparency and accountability. Making
government information publicly available has been termed a civil
and human right by the United Nations’ Millennium Development
Goals [9] and factors as a key strategy to gauge government
accountability. Historically, open government was a direct
264
response to the Enlightenment’s rebuke of absolutist rule, with
Sweden leading the way with its Freedom of the Press Act in
1766. The United States followed two centuries later with its own
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Since 1957, the “open
government principle” is generally linked to the public right-to-
know and to issues of public access vis-à-vis government secrecy.
Interestingly, many of the same issues then—government secrecy,
information over-classification, and undue influence—continue to
drive the conversation for open government today [10]. The most
common characteristics generally include free and open access to
the government’s information [11], independent oversight, and
whistleblower protection. Only in the last few years, with the
advent of the Free Open Source Software (FOSS) movement and
its culture of proactive collaboration, has the term also begun to
be associated with open public participation and interagency and
cross-sector partnerships [12].
Certainly, there is no clear consensus on how “open” open
government should be—and thus on when it is achieved. More
fundamentally, there really is no specific consensus definition of
open government [13]. In an attempt to provide some clarity, we
will look at open government through two different but
interwoven constructs: the prevailing lenses through which open
government is viewed by its diverse stakeholders (Section 3) and
its decomposition into the range of distinct objectives that guide
implementation (Section 4).
3. LENSES
The ambiguity of the term “open government” has not been
without benefit. Principally, the lack of a strict definition has
allowed the OG movement to encompass a diverse range of
stakeholders who promote a wide range of approaches, demands,
and expectations. Individually, OG advocates can have specific,
narrow affinities and support them with zeal, sometimes in
concert with, and sometimes to the exclusion of, other
perspectives. But collectively—whether for good or for bad—they
give the OG movement tremendous elasticity which the Directive
has largely embraced. To understand the influence of these
perspectives – lenses, really – on open government, we examine
the four primary lenses that are most prevalent among advocacy
organizations and within public policy.
3.1 Transparency Lens: The Advocates
Key Players: Key transparency advocates include OMBWatch,
the Sunlight Foundation, OpentheGovernment.org, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and many
others. Independent fact checkers, such as Annenberg and Pew
Research, provide non-partisan fact checks.
Values and Perspective: Consistent with the traditional
definition of “open government,” this lens defines “openness” as
deliberate transparency or, at least, anti-secrecy in the workings of
government [14]. President Obama predicated much of his
administration on a promise of transparency [1] following
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ maxim that “sunlight is
said to be the best of disinfectants” [15] and Jefferson’s
observation that an informed citizenry is necessary to “keep the
government pure and the governors honest.”
Transparency advocates consider proactive information sharing,
releasing information upon request, whistleblower leaks, and
public access to meeting records and participant rosters to be the
most influential mechanisms for promoting trust in government
[16]. Transparency here includes not just access to government
information but also a deliberate jettison of impediments to that
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
information, including procurement costs, copyright, and
accessibility constraints on persons with disabilities and the
disenfranchised [17].
Indeed, transparency advocates see access to government
information as fundamental to democratic governance and the
public’s ability to hold government to account. Government
dealings with lobbyists and other interest groups are a particularly
prominent target of their efforts, resulting in such efforts as the
Sunlight Foundation’s Lobbyist Tracker.
Points of Controversy: The fine balance between public access,
national security, and privacy is yet unresolved—and appears to
be a moving target easily influenced by events (terrorist threats,
the introduction of airport body scanners, etc.). This policy debate
became particularly heated following the controversial,
unsanctioned release of government documents by rogue
transparency advocate, Julian Assange, whose organization,
Wikileaks—celebrated by advocates, condemned by
government—disclosed 391,832 reports from the Iraq War Log as
well as thousands of American diplomatic cables from around the
world. The Pentagon did not question the information’s veracity
and even affirmed that it provided no significant information [18]
but voiced outrage primarily at their disclosure.
3.2 Technology Lens: The Futurists
Key Players: O’Reilly Media, Sunlight Labs, Crisis Commons,
Center for Democracy and Technology, Google, and Participatory
Politics Foundation are examples of influential practitioners.
Values and Perspective: Drawing inspiration from the Free Open
Source Software (FOSS) movement, technology advocates focus
on technology as the conduit, strategy, and hallmark of openness.
To a large extent, the tools of technology – Web 2.0, open source
tools, delivery of government services and information via cloud
applications, ideation tools, and the like – influence the ability to
push government information and allow the public to pull it at
will. In many ways, this lens is the embodiment of the e-
government philosophy and strategy (summarized in [19]):
intertwining technology to support citizen engagement.
Silicon Valley luminaries, principally Tim O’Reilly and thought
leaders at such dot-com companies as Google, carry significant
technology gravitas. Most are guided by O’Reilly‘s “Government
as a Platform” vision whereby the government uses the Internet’s
ability of “harnessing the creativity of people in groups.” He
argues that the Internet-enabled public can leverage the “lessons
of creativity and collaboration [foundational to the Web 2.0
business model] to address challenges facing our country and the
world” [12]. O’Reilly ambitiously envisions Internet technologies
as enabling the realization of “the kind of participatory
government envisioned by our nation’s founders, in
which…‘every man…feels that he is a participator in the
government affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year,
but every day’” [20]. Most Technologists have a clear libertarian
bend that seeks to reduce the role of government (which they
deem inefficient and behind the times) by leveraging technology
in a way that empowers the public to help themselves. Indeed, this
community believes strongly in the “invisible hand,” not of
markets but of “data”—i.e., if you release it, they will come…and
develop applications with it that can substitute for government
services [21].
The technology approach is heavily leveraged by the White
265
House. Federal CIO Kundra [22] focuses on technology as the
means 2 of openness almost to the exclusion of non-technical
strategies. The OGD follows this lead. For example, it requires
agencies to establish OG websites and publish at least “three high-
value datasets.” In addition to the predisposition of the Obama
team, the technology lens may be emphasized quite simply
because technology—physical websites, systems, etc.—is
tangible.
Points of Controversy: The technology focus bypasses the
information needs of those on the wrong side of the digital divide
[8] [23] [24], thus removing them from the forum of discourse
that open government is charged to deliver. Understanding the
origins and nature of the digital divide before designing more
“sophisticated digital inclusion policies” [25] is often suggested
[26] as a necessary first step. Yet the impatient technologists often
have little time for such “red tape.”
Technical focus on data and outputs rather than the big-picture
problems that systems are intended to solve can (wrongly) remove
the very thorny issues of creating fully-developed policies as
guidelines, and can avoid sticky and difficult human negotiation
that is the key to engaging the public. Technology also introduces
a number of yet unresolved concerns over privacy, either through
collection (and accidental release) of identifying information [27]
or as a means of electronic surveillance [28].
3.3 eDemocracy Lens: the Civic Engagers
Key Players: Direct democracy/citizen engagement advocates,
Open Society Institute, AmericaSpeaks, and Personal Democracy
Forum champion strong government partnerships with citizens.
Values and Perspective: eDemocracy advocates support open
government as the cornerstone of a more democratic society by
providing the tools and enablement that help the public take active
part in the conversations and decision making processes of
government. eDemocracy is characterized by direct engagement
(e.g., agencies working with citizen groups) and direct
communication (e.g., town hall meetings, citizen outreach).
Technology has introduced rich options that enable mass
participation and collaboration, supporting renewed focus on the
participation component of openness. In this interpretation, an
open government is one that opens “government decision making
to public view and participation” [29]. Thus, eDemocracy
advocates generally flatten the engagement paradigm from
looking to the government to working with the government.
Certainly, public engagement may not always result in
administrative solutions to conflict, but they can build an
environment of trust that begins the conversation [30]. In short,
they take seriously citizens’ simultaneous roles as end users and
contributors as developers, technology designers, information
providers, and corroborators of information accuracy.
eDemocracy gained a tremendous boost during the Obama
presidential campaign. Obama’s triumph rested in no small part
2
Technology certainly does show some positive influence. In a
2009 survey, 80% of the respondents reported that a more open
and accountable government is a high priority [63]. Further,
people believe that greater accountability is the “greatest benefit
that e-government could confer” [61] [62]. However, the e-
government literature indicates that trust and accountability by the
public stakeholders is based on trust in the institution rather than
the technology [60] [19].
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
on his campaign’s successful and innovative use of Web 2.0
participatory technologies that united supporters around a
common vision that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”
[31]. Observers have concluded that “how politicians and the
public interact will never be the same” [32]. Now in government,
supporters expect Obama to apply Web 2.0 interactivity to
revolutionize governance as much as he did political campaigning
by “rebooting American democracy in a 21st-century model of
participation” and realizing a “newly interactive government”
[33].
Points of Controversy: Administratively, the government may
not be set up to handle such direct engagement. Conceptually,
“bureaucrats are not supposed to feel the pressures of direct
democratic involvement” as it can “corrupt the rationality of the
process with the distortions of private interests” [34]. In addition,
“too rigorous democratic control may squeeze the
entrepreneurship out of public managers” [35]. Moreover,
eDemocracy efforts are often dominated by single-issue politics
and typically “reflect polarized opinions” [36] and naturally also
“suffer from self-selection bias, favoring the more confident,
articulate, engaged, and motivated” [37].
3.4 Compliance Lens: The Bureaucrats
Key Players: Federal agencies, government implementers, and
public evaluators favor compliance to mandates and standards as a
concrete evaluation data point.
Values and Perspective: Open government efforts are assessed
for attainment and impact by the degree to which they meet
regulated mandates, thresholds, and standards. The OGD is
another federal mandate for compliance [13]; it may be viewed as
a structured, high-level checklist that agencies can follow to meet
its requirements. While it includes very little precision in its
guidance, it can serve as a starting point for agencies to develop
an OG focus that suits their culture and mission.
But the mandated adoption of unfamiliar technologies and
processes for which government best practices have yet to emerge
left agencies hungry for guidance and assistance, particularly in
managing the risks associated with improved government
transparency and participation. As a consequence—particularly in
the run up to the release of agency OG Plans—agency
implementers were among the most proactive participants in the
OG community. Among other government-to-government
channels, the collaborative Open Government Playbook
(https://opengovdirective.pbworks.com) uses a wiki to capture
ideas, best practices, and collaboration initiatives offered and
shared by federal employees themselves. OG forums and
collaborative platforms help bring agency participants together to
share ideas and emerging practices and provide channels for
cross-agency collaboration and consistency.
Many agency implementers were initially concerned with meeting
the mandates of the Directive and satisfying the compliance
checklist. Such participants were primarily focused on identifying
the criteria by which their efforts would be measured and the most
effective strategies for meeting them. This is not to say that
agency implementers simply wished to find ways to make the
Directive “go away.” In fact, a significant number of agency
participants (irrespective of levels of support by senior
management) enthusiastically welcomed the OGD as an
opportunity to improve citizen services and trust in the workings
of their agencies. Indeed, the OG community focused heavily on
equipping entrepreneurial agency implementers with an effective
266
approach and convincing business case for proactively “selling”
OG to senior management and instituting OG from the bottom-up
by fostering a “culture of openness.” Many also found common
cause in more general challenges in the workings of their
agencies, with discussions occasionally veering away from
explicit OG activities to issues of internal agency transparency,
knowledge management, and data quality.
Points of Controversy: Does compliance to the letter of the OGD
necessarily predict adoption of its spirit? It is hard to say, but it is
a first step. Statutes can serve as agents for change and can set
agencies and the public to a common understanding of an
agency’s obligations. This allows private citizens and watchdog
groups to challenge the government’s ability to meet its
deliverables and schedule—but will they?
3.5 Discussion
Generally, the lenses dovetail to leverage their respective benefits,
and, in implementation, they tend to overlap (e.g., Web 2.0
technologies support eDemocracy collaborative environments;
well-executed compliance can result in greater transparency).
Thus, when well-planned and integrated in a committed program
to implement agency OG initiatives, the goals and benefits each
brings may well complement one another. From a federal view,
without a strategic plan to knit these together in a cohesive
fashion, federal agencies will not be as able to take advantage of
those organizational and informational partnerships that can cross-
cut and interweave the key principles of the OGD. In other words,
strategic oversight at the agency level will yield some benefits,
but OG will be hampered by a lack of horizontal support from—
and consistency with—their peers. Regardless of the prevailing
lens used in an OG effort, the key players for each report that, at
core, the impediments are similar: the greatest challenge is “lack
of political leadership” [38].
4. OPEN GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES
While the ambiguity of the term “open government” has been
helpful in capturing these different expectations and ideas
expressed by the lenses above, the lack of a fine-grained
definition introduces challenges in implementation and
evaluation. Simply put, how can the public know their
government is “open” if the term is not clearly defined? Thus, it
becomes essential to more formally articulate the diverse demands
and expectations of the OG community. This section attempts to
do just that by decomposing the “Open Government” universe
into its discrete, actionable components which the authors term
Open Government Objectives. In so doing, this discussion intends
to improve understanding and clarity. Each Objective presents
different implementation needs and challenges, and may be
fundamentally distinct in both methodology and expected
outcome. Table 2 illustrates the alignment of the identified
objectives with the OGD principles and prevailing lenses.
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
Table 2: Alignment of Lenses with Objectives
ALIGNMENT OF
Transparency
eDemocracy
Compliance
Technology
STAKEHOLDER LENSES TO
OBJECTIVES
(X = primary; - = secondary)
Accountability X -
Transp.
Public Reuse - X
Citizen Engagement - X
Particip.
Citizen Sourcing X -
Collab. Service Delivery X X
Collab.
Interagency Partnering - X
The Objectives are described in detail in the remainder of this
section and are organized along the White House’s OG principles.
4.1 Transparency: Accountability and Public Reuse
The principle of transparency advocates for public accessibility to
government information. An evaluation of the lenses, literature,
on-going discussions, and official reports and speeches indicates
that publication of government data is intended to support (1)
accountability and (2) reuse for social or economic value.
4.1.1 Accountability
Accountability requires making public and accessible the inter-
workings and performance of government institutions to foster
trust and combat corruption. The administration has made it clear
that this traditional aim of government openness—advocated by
the Transparency Lens—remains a core component of its OG
efforts. For instance, the White House intends for the Directive to
help combat a "culture of secrecy in Washington, where
information is locked up, taxpayer dollars disappear without a
trace, and lobbyists wield undue influence" [39]. Consequently, it
has asked agencies to release datasets that “increase agency
accountability and responsiveness” and that “improve public
knowledge of the agency and its operations” [2].
Examples: The panoply of dashboards such as Data.gov,
FedSpending.gov, FederalRegister.gov, and individual agency
dashboards provide a range of information from raw data feeds,
FOIA request statistics, and reports posted on electronic reading
rooms [40].
Intended Outcomes: Deliberate publication of government
information in venues and formats that invite review help foster
trust and accountability, create a more informed citizenry, and
reduce scope for corruption and misinformation. Transparency is
a positive indicator of accountability [41] [42] [43] and is
essential to good governance [44]. It also offers the public the
opportunity to challenge government decision-making (and the
inputs that drive those decisions). For instance, Recovery.gov 3
and similar tools are explicitly designed to “Eliminate waste,
fraud, and abuse through unprecedented visibility into the
expenditure of taxpayer dollars, empowering agencies and the
public to spot, and halt, wasteful projects” [39], in essence,
“creating millions of Citizen IGs” [45].
3
Paradoxically, little information is available on how the initial
roll-out was designed, developed, and deployed, by whom, and
for how much [64].
Potential Inhibitors: Too much transparency can be dangerous
[46] [47] and may abridge security [48]. Excessive transparency
may also reduce creative problem solving by forcing
“enslavement” to standard operating procedure. This may foster a
risk-averse posture that undermines agency effectiveness [49].
4.1.2 Public reuse
Recognizing that government information is a national asset [1]
- with social and economic value that should be unlocked to the
maximum extent possible, public reuse focuses on using
-
government data to deliver value to the public by creating
- additional (and often unanticipated) public-facing applications
from that data.
-
- At the core of this Objective is the concept of information as a
service. Popular with the Technology Lens, this concept is
strongly associated with Tim O’Reilly’s model of “Government as
a Platform” [12]. Heavily promoted by Kundra, this vision intends
for government to expose its data so that the public and private
sector can use this as a platform on which to build useful apps. In
line with this vision, agencies are mandated to release data that
“create economic opportunity” [2].
Examples: Release of public health or census data (Data.gov,
Census.gov, Health.NIH.gov); contributing government expertise
via participation in social media and industry conferences.
Intended Outcomes: Public reuse of government data is
anticipated to provide economic and social value to spur growth,
promote a knowledge economy, and help the public help itself.
Such efforts are also seen as a potential cost-saver by enabling the
public to develop alternative service delivery channels based on
government data but developed, delivered, and financed by
nongovernmental actors.
Potential Inhibitors: There is a risk that commercial services
generated from government data could displace government-based
channels but without providing equal levels of access. Also,
favoring technology to the exclusion of other strategies disregards
those on the wrong side of the digital divide [8] [23] [24] [50].
Moreover, compliance may be met by posting data without
stringent regard for assuring its quality, identification of changes,
context, and forensics.
4.2 Participation: Citizen Engagement and Citizen
Sourcing
Participation focuses on engaging the public to inform
government solutions and decision-making. This can take two
discrete forms: (1) collecting opinions (citizen engagement) and
(2) collecting ideas and solutions (citizen sourcing).
4.2.1 Citizen engagement
Citizen engagement entails creating opportunities for citizens to
actively contribute to government decision-making and agenda
setting processes. In line with the e-Democracy Lens, the OG
Memorandum specifically seeks to “promote informed
participation by the public” [1]. The White House—and the
Obama Presidential campaign before it—has been at the forefront
of collecting input from the public. Likewise, both the Open
Government Memo and the Directive required agencies to
extensively consult with the public during the development of
open government initiatives and to implement robust mechanisms
that encourage citizen participation and communication.
Examples: Most agencies have implemented multi-channel
“Contact Us” mechanisms to respond to public query and
267
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
suggestion. Public comment is invited on such sources as
FederalRegister.gov and Regulations.gov. The White House holds
online question-answer sessions on Open for Questions
(www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions).
Intended Outcomes: Citizen engagement is intended to improve
governments’ responsiveness to the public by better aligning
government activity to the needs and desires of its ultimate
stakeholder. Engagement also has the effect of improving citizen
buy-in for government policies and actions.
Potential Inhibitors: Citizen engagement initiatives place a
heavy burden on agencies—likened by some as “drinking from a
firehose” [51]. Even with the necessary resources, “clusters of
priorities and opinions” may not aggregate into “a coherent
whole” [52].
4.2.2 Citizen sourcing
Citizen sourcing entails tapping the talent and inventiveness of the
public by sharing data and other inputs to enable citizens to
construct ideas and solutions to public/government problems.
Highly-influential advocates of crowdsourcing include Kundra,
who reinforces that “government does not have a monopoly on the
best ideas” and former Deputy CTO Beth Noveck, who developed
the concept of “wiki government.” In line with the eDemocracy
Lens, the OG Memorandum explicitly mandates government
agencies to “allow members of the public to contribute ideas and
expertise” [1]. The OGD follows by calling on agencies to adopt
“innovative methods, such as prizes and competitions, to obtain
ideas” from the public [2], recognizing that “many of the best
ideas come from outside of Washington” [39].
Examples: Government ideation platforms (IdeaScale);
innovation marketplaces (Challenge.gov); competitions (Apps for
Democracy); citizen reporting (FixMyStreet); expert consultations
with the private sector or academia; and private solutions to public
problems (Sunlight Labs).
Intended Outcomes: Crowdsourcing enables an agency to
expand its capabilities and capacity by tapping into the “wisdom
of the crowd” to leverage new sources of innovation and find
solutions to its most pressing problems.
Potential Inhibitors: Increasing collaboration with the public is
likely to encounter legal and regulatory obstacles as government,
in the Weberian and Wilsonian traditions, has historically sought
to insulate itself from the public through top-down planning and a
“single locus of decision-making” [53].
4.3 Collaboration: Collaborative Service Delivery and
Inter-agency Partnering
Collaboration motivates the government to actively seek out
partnerships to improve effectiveness in meeting the needs of the
public. Collaboration differs from participation in two regards.
First, collaboration requires significant (if not equal) power
sharing (partnering), whereas with participation opportunities the
government maintains full decision-making powers. Second,
collaboration, as defined in the OGD, has an implicit link to
organized entities (corporations, nonprofits, etc.) rather than
individuals. Improved collaboration can occur both externally
with nongovernmental entities and internally within the
government.
4.3.1 Collaborative Service Delivery
Collaborative service delivery entails enabling citizens and
partner organizations to participate in the design and delivery of
268
services to improved their quality and responsiveness by opening
government to contributions from the community.
The OG memorandum specifically calls on agencies to encourage
“partnerships and cooperation…between the Government and
private institution” [1]. Collaborative service delivery differs from
crowdsourcing in that it is more about continuous collaboration
and power sharing than about relying on self-selected citizens to
contribute the brunt of a solution to a discrete problem.
Examples: Public government wikis (GSA BetterBuyProject),
volunteers, academic partnerships, open source projects.
Intended Outcomes: Collaboration can improve the quality,
flexibility, and responsiveness of public service providers and
promote community involvement. The use of nongovernmental
actors in the delivery of public services can reduce the burden on
government while empowering the public. This can enable
agencies to address those problems too big for it to solve on its
own.
Potential Inhibitors: Public-private partnerships often suffer
from unclear divisions of labor and poorly defined roles and
responsibilities [54]. Diffusion of responsibility and conflicting
demands often result, putting stress on the partnership and
constraining effectiveness. The government’s vast size and
burdensome regulations often also make it an intimidating partner.
4.3.2 Intra-governmental partnering
Intra-governmental partnering entails collaboratively constructing
government-wide solutions, improving intra-agency and inter-
agency collaboration, promoting knowledge sharing, and
disseminating best practices to improve government efficiency
and effectiveness.
This Objective also seeks to promote bottom-up entrepreneurship
by equipping front-line workers with the tools to more effectively
reach out to their colleagues and clients. In line with the vision,
the Directive specifically calls on agencies and government
officials to seek “partnerships and cooperation within the Federal
Government and across levels of government” [2].
Examples: Government-wide social media and collaboration
platforms (FedSpace.gov); one-stop-shops (USA.gov);
information sharing initiatives (the National Information
Exchange Model, or NIEM); federal-state-local collaboration, and
communities of practice (CIO Council)
Intended Outcomes: Improved intergovernmental collaboration
helps promote best practices, the sharing of risks and
responsibilities, and communities of practice. Agencies benefit
from improved situational awareness, expanded resources and
specialized expertise, and collaborative solutions to problems they
could not solve alone. Moreover, technology is often highly
scalable and reusable across agency borders for improved
efficiencies as applications can be cloned and scaled to support
similar efforts (e.g., Data.gov is now replicated in 11 states).
Potential Inhibitors: Collaboration often leads to a clash of
cultures and approaches. Government agencies also lack strong
information sharing capabilities due to incompatible legacy
systems, and face bureaucratic challenges in sharing resources and
budgets. The rapid formation of the Department of Homeland
Security provides one of several comprehensive examples [55].
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
4.4 Implications for Agency Implementation: Towards
a Model
The suitability of any of the above Objectives to an agency’s OG
initiative is a function of desired outcomes, the context in which
the agency operates, and its business needs. It should not be
surprising, for instance, that the Department of Commerce, parent
of the Census Bureau, focuses heavily on data publication while
the Department of State’s initiatives are much more geared
towards citizen engagement. Any one initiative may incorporate
multiple Open Government Objectives, but few if any will
incorporate all. The same is true for best practices. While there are
undoubtedly best practices that will advance the success of
multiple objectives, the authors caution practitioners in blindly
applying lessons learned from one Objective to another. For
instance, best practices for collecting expert ideas (i.e., Citizen
Sourcing) may not be effective—or even appropriate—in the
context of collecting public opinion (i.e., Citizen Engagement).
For instance, the PeerToPatent project’s proactive and effective
recruitment of Fortune 500 participants would be highly
controversial in less technocratic, more democratically oriented
contexts. Indeed, the authors’ evaluations of agency flagship
initiatives indicate that initiatives designed around different
Objectives are typically advanced by different implementation
mechanisms.
The success of any OG Objective will be dependent on the
presence of certain enablers—i.e., tools, policies, roles, inputs,
and business practices. Such enablers range from a social media
policy to a platform for data publication to a process for
moderating comments. For each enabler, agencies must identify 1)
emerging best practices for guidance on how it is best
implemented and 2) appropriate metrics for most effectively
tracking and measuring the performance of the selected enabler.
These relationships are graphically depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Components of an Open Government Initiative
Different Objectives may require different sets of enablers.
Indeed, the enablers that need to be implemented for effective
Accountability initiatives (e.g., financial data standards, FOIA
guidance) are rather different from the tools and policies that
facilitate effective Citizen Sourcing initiatives (ex: ideation tools,
prizes). It is imperative, then, that toolkits, repeatable patterns,
and guidance are developed around a specific Objective. The
authors intend to do precisely that via future research.
5. FUTURE RESEARCH: THE UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND’S OPEN GOVERNMENT PROJECT
The Center for Library & Information Innovation (CLII) of the
University of Maryland iSchool plans to build from these
concepts by developing an OG framework that embeds best
practices and guidance for practitioners. As a first step, the team
has initiated a “listening tour” of several agency OG
representatives to better understand their concerns, inhibitors,
enablers, and perspectives on rolling out the OG plans. As a part
269
of this effort, CLII has assembled a team of doctoral students with
government experience to partner with agency implementers to
ensure that its research and output is accurate and of practical
assistance to the government. The team intends to identify best
practices and other criteria for success in designing and
implementing OG activities, and how those activities intersect
with agency mission and impact its culture and operations.
To this end, the team has taken an exploratory approach to solicit
a baseline understanding. First, we developed an open-ended
survey designed to solicit information on the experiences of the
agencies. This preliminary guide is based on characteristics
commonly identified with government transparency, citizen
participation, and accountability. Next, the team has begun to
partner with agency implementers to conduct an initial round of
interviews and tool validation sessions and gain better insight into
the practices and challenges faced by government agencies in
meeting the OGD. The team will follow a “snowball” approach to
meet other agency members for further insight. Understanding
that this research is in its infancy, the team will iteratively update
the information collection survey for further refinement.
5.1 Anticipated Outcomes
As an exploratory study, the team expects to identify a
preliminary collection of themes, common definitions, inhibitors,
best practices, enablers, assessment procedures and thresholds,
and risks. Through active and on-going collaboration with agency
OG implementers, the UMD research team seeks to develop an
Open Government Model with accompanying practical guidance
and tools that will equip government agencies with the best
practices and insight to use the OGD as a tool for institutional
transformation and mission success. Planned products include: an
evaluation framework for identifying appropriate metrics and
critical success factors against which to assess OG
implementations; an OG tool that helps an agency tailor the
demands of the Directive for mission success; and a synthesized
best practices guide to help agencies implement, modify, and
assess their Open Government efforts. Future research is
necessary to assess the long-term, sustained value that is at the
spirit of the OGD.
6. CLOSING REMARKS: TOWARDS PUBLIC
VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY
This paper was intended as a starting point for addressing
foundational considerations in Open Government by offering a
more detailed, structured definition and identifying its intended
objectives. The UMD team of researchers aims to further evolve
this into a complete framework for guiding agency open
government initiatives.
The economic downturn in 2010, exacerbated by Congress’ delay
in passing a federal budget, and lack of “hot button” attention to
open government during the 2010 election cycle [56] has focused
agencies’ attention to cost saving rather than the innovation and
experimentation called for by the OGD. In this environment and
with the completion of their OG Plans, many agencies may be
tempted to sign off as “mission accomplished” and move on to
other priorities. Certainly, the OGD has few teeth—neither
explicit incentive nor penalty for non-compliance.
While the White House continues to articulate its commitment to
OG as a way of doing business rather than a set of check-the-box
actions, it also has yet to announce a clear roadmap for furthering
Open Government. Indeed, the White House’s e-government
policies appear to be shifting priorities towards extracting cost
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
savings, with data center consolidation and the application of
cloud computing [57] largely dominating the Federal CIO’s
agenda. These trends have also coincided with the perhaps not
coincidental departure of a number of key open government
players, particularly the Office of Science and Technology
Policy’s Beth Noveck and Andrew McLaughlin [58] as well as the
transparency and ethics czar Norm Eisen [59].The future of Open
Government as a concerted, formal effort thus remains unclear.
Yet, properly leveraged, Open Government can provide a strategic
opportunity to improve government processes and sought
outcomes, while fostering improved public trust in agency
operations [13]. In this spirit, UMD’s on-going research activities
aim to assist agencies in shifting the focus of their open
government efforts from a compliance challenge and public
relations effort to a catalyst for mission success.
7. References
1 Obama, Barack H. Transparency and open government.
Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and
agencies. 2009.
2 Orszag, Peter. Open government directive: Memorandum for
the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. 2009.
3 Relyea, Harold C. E-gov: Introduction and overview.
Government Information Quarterly, 19, 1 (2002), 9-35.
4 Kundra, Vivek. Removing the Shroud of Secrecy: Making
Government More Transparent and Accountable (March 23,
2010). http://www.cio.gov/pages.cfm/page/Vivek-Kundra-
Testimony-Resolving-the-Shroud-of-Secrecy.
5 Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management.
HarperCollins, New York, 1954.
6 OPENTHEGOVERNMENT.ORG. Secrecy Report Card
2010. 2010.
7 di Maio, Andrea. Gartner Launches Open Government
Maturity Model. Gartner.com (June 28, 2010).
8 Bertot, John Carlo, Jaeger, Paul T., Munson, Sean, and
Glaisyer, Tom. Engaging the Public in Open Government:
Social Media Technology and Policy for Government
Transparency. IEEE Computer (In press).
www.tmsp.umd.edu/TMSPreports_files/6.IEEE-Computer-
TMSP-Government-Bertot-100817pdf.pdf.
9 UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Millennium
Declaration. 2000. Available:
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf.
10 Parks, Wallace. The Open Government Principle: Applying
the Right to Know Under the Constitution. Geo. Wash. L.
Rev., 26, 1 (October 1957-1958), 1-22.
11 Pacquette, R. Scott, Jaeger, Paul T., and Wilson, Susan C.
Identifying the security risks associated with governmental
use of cloud computing. Government Information Quarterly,
27, 3 (2010), 245-253.
12 O'Reilly, Tim. Government As a Platform. 2010.
http://opengovernment.labs.oreilly.com/ch01.html.
13 Wilson, Susan C. and Linders, Dennis. The Open Government
Directive: A Preliminary Assessment. In iConference 2011
270
(Seattle 2011), In press.
14 Terris, Ben. Transparency Advocates Excited by Obama's
Call for More Congressional Disclosure. National Journal
(January 27, 2011).
15 Brandeis, Louis C. Other Peoples' Money. Stokes, New York,
1914.
16 Piotrowski, Suzanne J. Governmental Transparency in the
Path of Administrative Reform. SUNY Press, 2007.
17 Perritt, Jr., Henry H. Open Government. Government
Information Quarterly, 14, 4 (1997), 397-406.
18 Morrell, Geoff. The Defense Department’s Response. New
York Times (October 22, 2010).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23resp
onse.html.
19 Löfstedt, Ulrica. e-Government -- Assessment of Current
Research and Some Proposals for Future Directions.
International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1, 1
(2005), 39-52.
20 O'Reilly, Tim. Gov 2.0: The Promise Of Innovation. Forbes
(August 10, 2009).
21 Robinson, D. G, Yu, H., Zeller, W. P, and Felten, E. W.
Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law
\& Technology, 11 (2009), 160.
22 Kundra, V. and Noveck, B. Transparency and Open
Government. White House Open Government Initiative Blog
(May 21, 2009).
23 Fox, Susannah. Americans living with disability and their
technology profile. Pew Internet & American Life Project,
2011.
24 Bèlanger, France and Carter, Lemuria. Evaluation, The
Effects of the Digital Divide on E-Government: An
Emperical. In HICSS '06 Proceedings of the 39th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(Washington, DC 2006), IEEE Computer Society, 81.3.
25 Ferro, Enrico, Helbig, Natalie C., and Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon.
The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs.
Government Information Quarterly, 28, 1 (2011), 3-10.
26 Bertot, John Carlo and Jaeger, Paul T. The E-Government
paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less.
Government Information Quarterly, 25, 2 (2008), 149-154.
27 Reitz, John C. E-Government. The American Journal of
Comparative Law, 54, 733-754.
28 Prins, Corien. E-government: A Comparative Study of the
Multiple Dimensions of Required. Electronic Journal of
Comparative Law, 11, 3 (December 2007).
29 Little, Joseph W. and Tompkins, Thomas. Open Government
Laws: An Insider’s View. North Carolina Law Review, 53
(1975), 451, 453.
30 Teich, Alfred H. Can administrative measures resolve a
political conflict? Public Administration Review, 68, 1 (2008),
 The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
19-22.
31 Obama, Barack H. Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Super
Tuesday. Organizing for America, Chicago, 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/05/remarks_of_senato
r_barack_obam_46.php.
32 Greengard, S. he first internet president. Communications of
the ACM, 52, 2 (2009), 16-18.
33 Marks, A. Under Obama, a newly interactive government?
Christian Science Monitor (November 13 2009).
34 Noveck, Beth Simone. Wiki-government. Democracy: A
Journal of Ideas, 7 (2008).
http://www.democracyjournal.org/7/6570.php?page=2.
35 Curtin, D., & Meijer, A. J. Does transparency strengthen
legitimacy? Information Polity, 11, 2 (2006), 109-122.
36 Miller, L. e-Petitions at Westminster: the Way Forward for
Democracy? Parliamentary Affairs (2008).
37 Coleman, S., & Gøtze, J. Coleman, S., & Gøtze, J.
Communication and Society, 7, 1 (2001), 1-22.
38 Slocum, Mac. The state of open government in Canada.
O'Reilly Radar (March 9, 2010).
39 WHITE HOUSE. Progress Report on Open Government.
Washington, DC, 2010.
40 Metcalfe, Daniel J. The nature of government secrecy.
Government Information Quarterly, 26, 2 (April 2009), 305-
310.
41 Dawes, S., S. Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles
for information-based transparency. Government Information
Quarterly, 27 (2010), 377-383.
42 Gasser, U., Burkert, H., Palfrey, J., and Zittrain, J.
Accountability and transparency at ICANN: An independent
review. Harvard University, Boston, 2010.
43 Purcell, D. E. Center for Global Standards Analysis,
Washington, 2010.
44 Newell, P. and Wheeler, J. Introduction. In Newell, P. and
Wheeler, J., eds., Rights, Resources and the Politics of
Accountability. Zed Books, London, 2006.
45 Maggs, John. Recovery.gov prepares for major reboot.
National Journal (July 18, 2009), 18.
46 von Furstenberg, G. M. Hopes and delusions of transparency.
North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 12
(2001), 205-120.
47 Lessig, Lawrence. Against transparency: The perils of
openness in government. The New Republic (October 12,
2009).
48 Feldman, Noah. In defense of secrecy. The New York Times
(February 15, 2009), 11.
49 Curtin, D. and Meijer, A. J. Does transparency strengthen
legitimacy. Information Polity, 11, 2 (2006), 109–122.
271
50 Jaeger, Paul T. and Bertot, John C. Transparency and
technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public
access to government information. Government Information
Quarterly, 27, 4 (2010), 371-376.
51 Shafie, D. M. articipation in E-Rulemaking: Interest Groups
and the Standard-Setting Process for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5, 4
(2008), 399-410.
52 Hurrell, C. Civility in Online Discussion: The Case of the
Foreign Policy Dialogue. Canadian Journal of
Communication, 30, 4 (2006).
53 Whitaker, G.P. Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service
Delivery. Public Administration Review, 40, 3 (May-Jun
1980).
54 Ryan, Christine and Walsh, Peter. Collaboration of public
sector agencies: reporting and accountability challenges.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 7
(2004), 621 - 631.
55 Hite, Randolph. Homeland Security: Despite Progress, DHS
Continues to Be Challenged in Managing Its Multi-Billion
Dollar Annual Investment in Large-Scale Information
Technology Systems. GAO-09-1002T, 2009.
56 FEDERAL COMPUTER WEEK. Election aftershocks could
hit IT agenda. Washington Technology (November 5, 2010).
http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/11/08/buzz-
midterm-elections-federal-it-agenda.aspx?sc_lang=en.
57 Kundra, V. 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal
Information Technology Management. 2010.
http://cio.gov/documents/25-Point-Implementation-Plan-to-
Reform-Federal%20IT.pdf.
58 Montalbano, Elizabeth. White House Loses Open
Government Leader. InformationWeek (January 11, 2011).
59 Sloan, Melanie. CREW Congratulates White House Ethics
Counsel Norm Eisen on nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to
Czech Republic. Citizens (Blogging) for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington (June 29, 2010).
60 Lee, Jooho, Kim, Hyun Joon, and Ahn, Michael J. The
willingness of e-Government service adoption by business
users: The role of offline service quality and trust in
technology. Government Information Quarterly (In press).
61 COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT. e-
Government: The Next American Revolution. 2001.
www.netcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/Bluecove.pdf.
62 McClean, Tom. Who pays the piper? The political economy
of freedom of information. Government Information
Quarterly, 27 (2010), 392-400.
63 LAKE RESEARCH PARTNERS/TOPOS PARTNERSHIP.
Transparency Poll Data Memo. 2009. www.pogo.org/pogo-
files/alerts/government-oversight/go-so-20090204.html.
64 Wilson, Susan C. Show Me the Data: Assessing Transparency
in Data.gov and Recovery.gov. First Monday (In review).