The Adoption Dilemma: Unlocking the Potential of Open Government Data in Developing Countries
Abstract
Open Government Data (OGD) initiatives have become increasingly crucial for promoting transparency, increasing efficiency, and encouraging citizen engagement in public administration. However, organisations' successful adoption of OGD, especially government agencies, depends on various factors. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model is expanded in this study by including perceived risk as a crucial factor influencing OGD uptake in Tanzania.. Recognising that data accuracy, privacy, and security concerns can hinder user engagement, the study explores how perceived risk interacts with the original UTAUT dimensions: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. Using a quantitative methods approach, the study surveyed a diverse sample of potential OGD users. The analysis reveals that perceived risk positively correlates with behavioural intentions toward OGD adoption. This implies that addressing perceived risk is essential for enhancing OGD adoption strategies, particularly in this field where security and privacy concerns are paramount. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing practical insights for developers, practitioners, and policymakers aiming to facilitate user engagement in an increasingly OGD adoption. Employing a quantitative research methodology, this study surveyed a diverse sample of potential OGD users, including public administrators, private sector representatives, and citizens. Statistical analysis revealed that perceived risk has a significant positive correlation with behavioural intentions to adopt OGD. Notably, concerns about data misuse, privacy breaches, and inaccuracies emerged as critical factors influencing trust and confidence in OGD systems. The findings underscore the importance of addressing perceived risk to enhance OGD adoption strategies, particularly in contexts where security and privacy concerns are paramount
References
de Souza AA, d'Angelo MJ, Lima Filho RN. Effects of predictors of citizens' attitudes and intention to use open government data and government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly. 2022 Apr 1;39(2):101663.
Shao D. Empirical analysis of open government data usage in Tanzania. Information Discovery and Delivery. 2024 Jan 15;52(1):73-84.
Talukder MS, Shen L, Talukder MF, Bao Y. Determinants of user acceptance and use of open government data (OGD): An empirical investigation in Bangladesh. Technology in Society. 2019 Feb 1;56:147-56.
Park JJ, Kim E, Jun HJ. Development of an Open Government Data (OGD) evaluation framework for BIM. Buildings. 2022 Apr 14;12(4):490.
Alexopoulos C, Saxena S. Moderating effects of gender, perceived importance and usage experience towards Open Government Data (OGD) adoption and usage. InProceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 2023 Jul 11 (pp. 205-213).
Huang H, Liao CZ, Liao HC, Chen DY. Resisting by workarounds: Unraveling the barriers of implementing open government data policy. Government Information Quarterly. 2020 Oct 1;37(4):101495.
Matheus R, Alexopoulos C, Rizun N, Loukis E, Saxena S. Impact of information systems (IS) infusion on Open Government Data (OGD) adoption. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance. 2024 Jan 16;26(2):209-22.
Amalia DN, Susanto TD. Analysis of motivation and perceived risk factors in open data measurement: a conceptual model. Procedia Computer Science. 2019 Jan 1;161:308-15
Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Jeyaraj A, Clement M, Williams MD. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information systems frontiers. 2019 Jun 15;21:719-34..
Lněnička M, Nikiforova A, Saxena S, Singh P. Investigation into the adoption of open government data among students: the behavioural intention-based comparative analysis of three countries. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2022 Jan 6;74(3):549-67.
O'Donnell AB, Lutfey KE, Marceau LD, McKinlay JB. Using focus groups to improve the validity of cross-national survey research: a study of physician decision making. Qualitative Health Research. 2007 Sep;17(7):971-81.
Caruso R, Arrigoni C, Groppelli K, Magon A, Dellafiore F, Pittella F, Grugnetti AM, Chessa M, Yorke J. Italian version of Dyspnoea-12: cultural-linguistic validation, quantitative and qualitative content validity study. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis. 2017;88(4):426.
Jamaludin TS, Nurumal MS, Ahmad N, Muhammad SA, Chan CM. Development and evaluating content validity of clinical skill analysis index tools. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021;9(T5):6-12.
Kock N, Hadaya P. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods. Information systems journal. 2018 Jan;28(1):227-61.
Ponchio MC, Barth NL, Zambaldi F. Using the internet for data collection in business research. RAUSP Management Journal. 2021 Aug 9;56(2):254-8.
Yusoff AS, Peng FS, Abd Razak FZ, Mustafa WA. Discriminant validity assessment of religious teacher acceptance: The use of HTMT criterion. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series 2020 Apr 1 (Vol. 1529, No. 4, p. 042045). IOP Publishing.
Kleiman EM, Yeager AL, Grove JL, Kellerman JK, Kim JS. Real-time mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college students: ecological momentary assessment study. JMIR mental health. 2020 Dec 15;7(12):e24815.
