Using open government data to predict war: A case study of data and systems challenges

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 622-630

  Whitmore, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA SARASOTA MANATEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Case study; Data quality; Government portal; Military conflict; Open data; Research methods; System design

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922409514     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Association of the Unites States Army Decaying military infrastructure: Putting U.S. Army readiness at risk, Institute of Land Warfare 2001, Association of the United States Army, Arlington, VA.
2. Bender B. Marine units found to lack equipment: Corps estimates of needs in Iraq are called faulty 2005, Retrieved from. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment/?page=full.
3. Bertot J.C., McDermott P., Smith T. Measurement of open government: Metrics and process. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS2012), Maui, HI 2012, (January 4-7).
4. Borko H. Information science: What is it?. American Documentation 1968, 19(1):3-5.
5. Christian E. A metadata initiative for global information discovery. Government Information Quarterly 2001, 18(3):209-221.
6. Conradie P., Choenni S. Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in local government. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV '12), Albany, New York, USA 2013, 2012, October 22-25.
7. Denning P.J. Is computer science science?. Communications of the ACM 2005, 48(4):27-31.
8. Detlor B., Hupfer M.E., Ruhi U., Zhao L. Information quality and community municipal portal use. Government Information Quarterly 2013, 30(1):23-32.
9. Dupuy T.N. Numbers, predictions, and war: Using history to evaluate combat factors and predict the outcome of battles 1979, Bobbs-Merrill, New York.
10. Feinberg L.E. FOIA, federal information policy, and information availability in a post-9/11 world. Government Information Quarterly 2004, 21(4):439-460.
11. Harrison M. Resource mobilization for World War II: The U.S.A., U.K., U.S.S.R., and Germany, 1938-1945. The Economic History Review 1988, 41(2):171-192.
12. Jansen J., de Vries S., van Schaik P. The contextual benchmark method: Benchmarking e-government services. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27(3):213-219.
13. Janssen K. The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Government Information Quarterly 2011, 28(4):446-456.
14. Janssen M., Charalabidis Y., Zuiderwijk A. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management 2012, 29(4):258-268.
15. Kalampokis E., Tambouris E., Tarabanis K. Open government data: A stage model. Lecture notes in computer science: Electronic government 2011, 235-246. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. M. Janssen (Ed.).
16. Karr A.F. Citizen access to government statistical information. Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation 2008, 503-529. Springer, New York, USA. H. Chen (Ed.).
17. Kassen M. A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly 2013, 30(4):508-513.
18. Kerschberg B. Metadata, the freedom of information act, and government hypocrisy 2011, Retrieved from. http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkerschberg/2011/04/11/metadata-the-freedom-of-information-act-and-government-hypocrisy/.
19. King R.D., Liakata M., Lu C., Oliver S.G., Soldatova L.N. On the formalization and reuse of scientific research. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 2011, 8(63):1440-1448.
20. Lee G., Kwak Y.H. An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly 2012, 29(4):492-503.
21. Linders D. Towards open development: Leveraging open data to improve the planning and coordination of international aid. Government Information Quarterly 2013, 30(4):426-434.
22. Marchionini G., Samet H., Brandt L. Introduction to a special issue on digital government. Communications of the ACM 2003, 46(1):24-27.
23. Mclaren R., Waters R. Governing location information in the UK. The Cartographic Journal 2011, 48(3):172-178.
24. Nam T. New ends, new means, but old attitudes: Citizens' views on open government and government 2.0. Proceedings 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 2011, (January 4-7).
25. Napoli P.M., Karaganis J. On making public policy with publicly available data: The case of U.S. communications policymaking. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27(4):384-391.
26. Nolan J. Military computer upgrades 30years behind schedule, cost $7 billion 2012, Retrieved from. http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/06/22/military-computer-upgrades-30-years-behind-schedule-cost-7-billion.
27. Quam E. Informing and evaluating a metadata initiative: Usability and metadata studies in Minnesota's Foundations Project. Government Information Quarterly 2001, 18(3):181-194.
28. Schwartz M. Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis 2010, Congressional Research Service, Retrieved from. http://books.google.com/books?id=F5xB0r3qw0QC.
29. Singer P.W. The regulation of new warfare 2010, The Brookings Institution.
30. Strickland L.S. The information gulag: Rethinking openness in times of national danger. Government Information Quarterly 2005, 22(4):546-572.
31. Strong D.M., Lee Y.W., Wang R.Y. Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM 1997, 40(5):103-110.
32. U.S.Government Federal acquisition regulation. 2005, Retrieved from. http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/pdf/FAR.pdf.
33. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000, 46(2):186-204.
34. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2004, 27(3):425-478.
35. Whitmore A. A statistical analysis of the construction of the united nations e-government development index. Government Information Quarterly 2012, 29(1):68-75.
36. Whitmore A. Extracting knowledge from U.S. Department of Defense freedom of information act requests with social media. Government Information Quarterly 2012, 29(2):151-157.
37. Yang Z., Kankanhalli A. Innovation in government services: The case of open data. Grand successes and failures in IT. Public and private sectors 2013, 644-651. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. Y.K. Dwivedi (Ed.).
38. Yin R.K. Case study research: Design and methods 2009, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California. 4th ed.
39. Zuiderwijk A., Janssen M., Choenni S., Meijer R., Sheikh Alibaks R. Socio-technical Impediments of Open Data. Electronic Journal of e-Government (EJEG) 2012, 10(2):156-172.