Post on 24-Jul-2020
Motivational factors from citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing
initiatives
Danny Sierra González
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Engineering Faculty, System and Industrial Engineering Department
Bogota, Colombia
2017
Motivational factors from citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing
initiatives
Danny Sierra González
This thesis is presented as partial requisite to opt to the title of:
Master in Industrial Engineering
Research director:
Ph.D. José Ismael Peña Reyes
Director:
Research director:
Ph.D. José Ismael Peña Reyes
Research line:
System Information and Information Technologies.
Research group:
GISTIC – Research Group on Systems and Information, Communication and
Technologies (ICT)
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Engineering Department
Bogota, Colombia
2017
To my mother for her tenacy in resolving
everything creatively and to my father for
always making me curious to learn more.
Thanks to
This work is the sign of the trust of Professor José Ismael Peña when in 2012 I told my
professional and academic interests and he motivated me to be part of the projects of the
Engineering Faculty and the research group GISTIC, he has been a mentor and a
facilitator for my personal, intellectual and responsibility with the University, city and
country.
I also want to thank Professor Pablo Rodríguez, Adriana Soacha, Ferney Osorio,
Mauricio Tovar, and many others who have given me the opportunity to dream in
transformative projects, always thinking how ICT can benefit cities, organizations and
individuals. That is the main reason; the research group InTIColombia is the portal to
work with very talented and outstanding people.
Thanks to Alta Consejería Distrital de TIC of Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá directed by Sergio
Martinez for providing information for the research in the Bogota Abierta platform.
The research contribution, motivation and ideas expressed in this work would not be
possible what it is today if it was not for Cindy Tobón. I want to express to my genuine
professional recognition for her commitment.
I want to thank Professor Sabine Brunswicker for whom I got interested in the topic of
open innovation and collaborative networks in Fraunhofer Institute IAO, Stuttgart,
Germany back in 2012 and now at Purdue University, Indiana in United States where she
instructed me methodologically and guided for the data analysis for this document during
my research internship at her Research Center of Open Digital Innovation.
Last but not least, Paola Cáceres who pushed me to the limits to finish this work
successfully. I am infinite thankful for her determination and love.
Abstract V
Abstract
The perspective of citizen participation via electronic means is a topic that is taking
relevance in the recent years from governments in order to find new ways to engage
citizens in a more direct dialogue about public matters. This research study is based on
the motivational drivers of citizens around a civic crowdsourcing model in order to
strengthen the guidelines of open government and e-government in Bogotá. For this, first
it was characterized a civic crowdsourcing initiative in Bogotá. Then, it was gathered
motivational user crowdsourcing dimensions from the literature review to set up a survey-
based analysis. Afterwards, an explorative factor analysis and clustering analysis was run
to profile the most relevant motivational drivers in the studied population. Finally, it was
described the data of clusters and interpreted against the literature.
Key words: civic crowdsourcing, citizen participation, motivational factors, e-
government, open government, open innovation.
Resumen VI
Resumen
La perspectiva de la participación ciudadana por medios electrónicos es un tema que
está tomando relevancia en los últimos años de los gobiernos para encontrar nuevas
maneras de involucrar a los ciudadanos en un diálogo más directo sobre asuntos
públicos. El estudio de investigación se basó en los factores motivacionales de los
ciudadanos en torno a un modelo cívico de crowdsourcing para fortalecer los
lineamientos de gobierno abierto y gobierno electrónico en Bogotá. Para ello, primero se
caracterizó una iniciativa cívica de crowdsourcing en Bogotá. Luego, se recopiló las
dimensiones motivacionales de crowdsourcing civicos de la revisión de la literatura para
establecer un análisis basado en encuestas. Posteriormente, se realizó un análisis de
exploratorio factorial y análisis de conglomerado para los perfiles motivacionales más
relevantes en la población estudiada. Por último, Se describieron los datos de los
conglomerados con la descripción de la literatura para su interpretación.
Palabras clave: crowdsourcing cívico, participación ciudadana, factores
motivacionales, e-gobierno, gobierno abierto, innovación abierta.
Content VII
Content
Page.
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. V
Resumen ..............................................................................................................................VI
List of figures ......................................................................................................................IX
List of tables ......................................................................................................................... X
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Open Government ............................................................................................... 9 1.2 E-Government ................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Public value ....................................................................................................... 18 1.4 Open Innovation ................................................................................................ 21 1.5 Civic crowdsourcing ........................................................................................... 23 1.6 User motivations in civic crowdsourcing ........................................................... 24
1.6.1 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) ........................................................... 25 1.6.2 Motivational dimensions ......................................................................... 28
2 Research methodology .............................................................................................. 33 2.1 Research approach ........................................................................................... 33 2.2 Study object: Bogotá Abierta ............................................................................. 34 2.3 Research method .............................................................................................. 37 2.4 Research design ................................................................................................ 40
2.4.1 Survey design ......................................................................................... 46 2.5 Sample selection ............................................................................................... 48 2.6 Data collection and tools ................................................................................... 50
3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 51 3.1 Descriptive analysis ........................................................................................... 52 3.2 Results ............................................................................................................... 60
4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................ 63 4.1 Characterization of a civic crowdsourcing platform. ......................................... 63 4.2 Self-determination theory and its applicability to the study of motivation in civic crowdsourcing............................................................................................................... 65 4.3 Predominants factors that motivated participation of citizens in a civic crowdsourcing initiative. ............................................................................................... 66
VIII Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
4.4 Suggestions for future research ........................................................................ 69 4.5 Recommendations for public managerial purposes ......................................... 69
5 Annexes ....................................................................................................................... 71 5.1 Citizen motivation and socio-demographic survey ........................................... 71 5.2 Bibliometric analysis for user motivation in crowdsourcing, bibliographic coupling por author. ...................................................................................................... 80
6 References .................................................................................................................. 81
Content IX
List of figures
Pág.
Figure 1-1: information flow in an ideal open government system. .................................. 14
Figure 1-2: framework for citizen-engaged governance. .................................................. 15
Figure 1-3: closed vs open innovation model. ................................................................... 22
Figure 1-4: the self-determination continuum showing types of motivation with their
regulatory styles, loci of causality, and corresponding processes. .................................... 27
Figure 2-1: open innovation funnel for Bogotá Abierta. .................................................... 35
Figure 2-2: civic crowdsourcing platform for Bogotá. ........................................................ 37
Figure 2-3: sample size determination calculated with STATS©....................................... 49
Figure 3-1: scree plot and eigenvalue line to define the principal components. .............. 55
Figure 3-2: histogram of eigenvalue, according to the Benzécri criteria. ......................... 57
Figure 3-3: dendrogram of hierarchical clustering with the Ward’s method. .................... 58
Figure 3-4: histogram with distances between cluster to conform. ................................... 58
Figure 3-5: first factor view of Multiple Correspondence Analysis with the five groups. .. 59
X Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
List of tables
Pág.
Table 1-1: open government definitions. ........................................................................... 11
Table 2-1: motivations, types, statements, variables names and references. .................. 41
Table 2-2: Likert scale to measure the survey................................................................... 47
Table 2-3: survey structure. ............................................................................................... 47
Table 3-1: descriptive statistics. ......................................................................................... 53
Table 3-2: correlation matrix of the variable of motivation. ............................................... 54
Table 3-3: eigenvalue, percentage of variance and cumulative percentage of variance
with the factor of motivations. ............................................................................................. 55
Table 3-4: Correlation variable with the Factors 1 and 2 retained after the PCA. ............ 56
Table 3-5: percentage of variance and cumulative percentage of variance with factors:. 57
Table 3-6: quantity of individuals classified in each cluster............................................... 59
Introduction 1
Introduction
Citizen participation is crucial for countries in order to have strong democracies and their
success depend mostly on how active their citizens are. Many governments struggle to
have a direct communication with their fellow citizens and the other way around. The
concept of Open Government has been in the agenda for many years suggesting
governments to establish constant and open conversation with citizens, listening to their
demands and requests, making decisions based on needs and preferences, creating dual
communications with their backgrounds pillars such as: transparency, participation and
collaboration (Lorenzo, S., & César, 2010; Ramírez-Alujas, 2010). It is still hard to capture
the citizens’ attention and to have them involved in this phenomenon. Modern
technologies have spread in such a way that it has become a daily channel to interact at
work, with family, friends and with the government. Therefore, the emergence of the
concept E-government is meant to deliver information, communication and technologies
tools to make governments more efficient and hence, to provide better services to citizens
and a wider coverage of electronic services (Field, 2003).
With these two concepts stated above and being aware of its benefits to the society, there
is still a missing piece of the puzzle of enhanced governance. A civic crowdsourcing
model will make the perfect fit. On one hand, using E-Government means to provide
institutional information. And on the other hand, it means to expand the participation
component proposed by Open Government. Basically, the term ‘crowdsourcing’ tries to
outsource a task to an undefined group (generally large) of people in the form of an open
call, by assuming that the collective intelligence of online communities will bring the best
solution to the organization (Daren C. Brabham, 2010a; E. Estelles-Arolas & Gonzalez-
Ladron-de-Guevara, 2012). The use of a crowdsourcing model in a public context would
potentially leverage the massive participation of citizens in regards with the public matters
and then, the government could establish an electronic platform to provide better services
to citizens. This could help to reach out the goals of making a more robust dialog between
citizens and governments. All this would work out as it is framed, only if it is known that
2 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
there is high citizen participation. The objective of this study is to identify the motivational
factors of citizen participation in a civic crowdsourcing model to boost participation in
government via electronic means.
According to a seasoned author about civic crowdsourcing that supports our arguments
towards the research objective, he says: “new online participatory arrangements, such as
crowdsourcing, hold the potential to improve government process by complementing
traditional, face-to-face public participation methods. In part, understanding how and why
people are motivated to use the Internet to participate in government activities is key to
unlocking the potential of the Internet for public affairs” (Daren C. Brabham, 2012a, p.
308).
Based on the study of knowledge and use of services of electronic government in citizens,
companies and organizations made by the GEL strategy (Spanish: Estrategia de
Gobierno en Línea, GEL),(GEL, 2013, 2014) that shows data collected corresponding to
the city of Bogotá in 2013, it uncovered that only 35.7% claimed to be aware to participate
in the definition of policies, plans, programs, projects and initiatives of current and future
development of public institutions by electronic means, and furthermore, only 2% of the
citizens have participated effectively using electronic tools. The same study, by 2014, up
only 3% said that 40.1% of the surveyed population knew to be involved; however, there
is a 9.1% for citizen participation in the development of projects in the city of Bogotá. It is
clear that there is an increasing electronic participation from citizens of Bogotá.
Nonetheless, this indicator is still low for a population of 7.980.001 according to (DANE,
2016). Consequently, this represents a huge challenge for the local administration in the
capital city to understand why few citizens participate.
In 2016, the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá launched a civic crowdsourcing platform called
Bogota Abierta, (Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá, 2015) to offer an additional channel for citizen
participation as a problem-solving model around the 2016-2020 District Development Plan
to give citizens the opportunity to contribute with ideas to the plan via this platform. The
participation consisted of 21.270 citizens during 55 days submitting with 20.259 ideas
(Peñalosa, 2016). It was selected this crowdsourcing platform that suits the research
objective.
Introduction 3
From these data and the E-Government and Open Government initiatives of the
Colombian Government stated, an opportunity found in order to analyze the motivational
factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing. For this point, it is intended to
solve the following question.
What are the main factors that motivated the participation of citizens from Bogotá in the
digital civic crowdsourcing platform: Bogotá Abierta, during the process of collecting ideas
for the District Development Plan 2016-2020 for Bogotá?
With this research, it is intened to contribute to the knowledge creation by identifying the
main motivational factors that citizens have in a digital civic crowdsourcing platform.
To achieve this main objective, it is characterized the civic crowdsourcing platform around
Bogotá Abierta, describing this model based on a literature review to fully understand its
theoretical framework. After that, it is analyzed the Self-Determination Theory and its
applicabilities in the study of motivations in participation in civic crowdsourcing platforms,
helping us to have motivational constructs to measure in a specific context sample.
Finally, it is identified predominant factors that motivated the participation of Bogotá
citizens through a multivariate data analysis.
Although, it is based the research on different topics around the public innovation to help
us broaden our study’s viewpoint and describe the motivational factors of citizens in a
civic crowdsourcing model, it does not intend to explain psychological theory.
In the methodology, first, it was developed a literature review of the topics around e-
government, open government, open innovation, user’s motivations in crowdsourcing
platforms where have previously demonstrated the understanding of similar model. Then,
it was gathered motivational constructs based on the literature in order to create a survey
that was delivered via mass mailing to all the active users that submitted ideas in the civic
crowdsourcing platform during the specific time lapse. Afterwards, it was used the
multivariate statistical technique of factor analysis to examine the underlying patterns and
relationships for a large arrange of variables to make summarized components and then
create groups profiling in motivations according sociodemographic data. Finally, it was
provided insights and observations based on the displayed data in order to bring useful
4 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
information for the decision making process of governments that run civic crowdsourcing
platforms for strategic and managerial purposes.
In order to ease the reading of this document it is structured as following:
In chapter one, it was described the background of Open Government, E-Government
with Open Innovation and Civic crowdsourcing as well as the theoretical framework of
users’ motivations that will explain the motivational drivers from citizens.
In chapter two, it was developed the methodological structure to measure the variables
gathered in the literature with our study sample.
In chapter three, from the information collection, it is applied a multivariate data analysis
in order to give meaning for the results and their interpretation based on the literature.
In chapter four, it is showed our most relevant conclusions and recommendations for
public management and future research efforts in this area of study.
Research and professional experience
During the two years of master student, Danny Sierra González has been very active as
leader of projects about innovation for the city, government and university among others.
To name some milestones:
• He was the director of the conceptualization model of the civic crowdsourcing
platform: Bogotá Abierta for the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá during 2015-2016.
o Bogotá Abierta, the most sucessful initiative for digital goverment en Latin
America in 2017 in the XVII Iberoamerica digital cities summit (Radio,
2017)
o Bogotá Abierta, won the best territorial initiative in the category “digital
innovation for open government” in 2016 in the Digital Public Innovation
Award, Índigo+ (Estrategia Gobierno en Línea - MinTIC, 2016).
Introduction 5
o Bogotá Abierta was presented by Danny Sierra González in the
CrowdsourcingWeek 20-24 April 2015, the 3rd annual Crowdsourcing
Week Global (CSW Global 2015) in Singapore.
• He was a visiting scholar at the Research Center of Open Digital Innovation under
direction of Professor Sabine Brunswicker from Purdue University for 6 months in
West Lafayatte, Indiana, USA (2016-2017)
• He coordinated an international technical collaboration with Purdue University and
Universidad Nacional de Colombia with the Open Data, Open Source and Open
Innovation hackathon contest: IronHacks in 2017 with systems engineering
undergrad students.
• He is part of coordinating team the innovation and entrepreneurial national system
of Universidad Nacional de Colombia: UNinnova (2016- Current).
• He got an extended abstract accepted to the 5th Edition of The Collective
Intelligence Conference, York University’s Tandon School of Engineering on June
15-16, 2017 with the article:
Sierra. D., Brunswicker, S., Peña-Reyes. I., (2017) Motivational factors of citizens
participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives.
• He got an outline accepted to the International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM) in Porto - June 2016 with the article:
Sierra. D., Peña-Reyes. I., & Tobón C. (2016) Citizen motivation in civic
crowdsourcing initiatives.
• He presented the following poster:
Sierra. D., Peña-Reyes. I., (2015) Open Citizen Innovation: an argumentative
approach for a city crowdsourcing platform - II Conferencia en Gestión de
Sistemas de Información y TIC - GSTIC2015, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Bogotá.
• He was awarded for semester payment exemption for best grades in 2016-I.
• He designed the business model and services of the citizen innovation laboratory:
Vivelab Bogotá (2013 – current).
• He won the Innovation Spirit Award: UNinnova, 2013.
• He has organized and coordinated citizen entrepreneurial hackathons such as
Universidad Nacional de Colombia Startup Weekend 2013, GovJam 2014,
ServiceJam 2014, Startup Education 2015, BiblioJam 2015 among others.
6 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
1 Conceptual framework
Innovation is the key to create growth and development for the economy and this rapidly
is being adopted by enterprises, countries to survive in the market and also by the State
and its institutions (Á. V. Ramírez-Alujas, 2010). Therefore, in the 21st century, innovation
plays a central role in the public sector by strengthening the democracy due to the fact
that public policies have to be constantly adapted and this interaction needs to happen
among the government, the public sector and citizens to solve efficiently some failures in
the system.
As innovation has become an important strategy term for the public administration,
scientists and communities of practice have shed light on their analysis (Brandão &
Bruno-Faria, 2013). In Mulgan, (2007) , he states the following: “innovation in the public
sector means new ideas that work in the creation of a public value”. Some of the reasons
that support that concept lay on the potential benefits such as: respond more efficiently to
the citizens according to the changes of public needs, customize the solutions users’
needs instead of a Fordism approach of unique solutions for mass production and mass
consumption. Additionally, it optimizes solutions by keeping the costs with limited budget
and improves the public services constantly to bring a better experience to the citizens
and to the public organization.
In the public sector, it is focused the interest in the systemic or transformational innovation
(new and improved ways to interact with other organizations and knowledge sources).
This is a consequence of different situations that have occurred in the last 20 years in
western countries such as: “deregulation and increase of competition, budgetary
constraints in the public administration and increasing the role of service outsourcing, the
results of increasing sophistications by customers” (Windrum, P., & Koch, 2008). If these
Conceptual framework 7
new types of interactions bring exchange of information by different actors, there is an
enormous opportunity for an organization and more for a public organization to improve
its services, structure and culture. One of the evidences of this, it is reflected on the work
made in (Borins, 2006, 2010) in (Á. V. Ramírez-Alujas, 2010) that reveal the
characteristics and pillars of innovation process in the public sector.
• Use of system approach: the interconnection of organizations, activities and
concerns to understand, develop and apply innovations in a wider sense. These
are: 1) a systematic analysis of how to interact with a problem to be solved with
other public programs. 2) Promote the coordination among organizations to design
and apply innovation. 3) User-centered solutions and the interactions that the
citizen has with the services and institutions.
• Use of new ICT (Information and Communication Technology): the use of
technology allows accelerating the innovation in the public services affecting
significantly more population of citizens and the public organizations as well by
transforming the way the activities are regularly carried out.
• Improvement of processes: this refers the services and procedures in the public
sector have to be more rapid, user-friendly and accessible for citizens.
• Participation in the private sector / volunteer sector and civil society: the
interaction of private and public sector in terms of competition increase the active
participation of public matters.
• The empowerment of communities, citizens (users) and public workers: this a
bottom-up approach that transfer power to people to listen, think, connect and
collaborate within and outside the public organization to develop new programs
and innovative actions towards the public value. Additionally, these stimulate
public workers to assume risks and encourage them to challenge constantly the
change in its daily tasks (Borins, 2006, 2010) in (Á. V. Ramírez-Alujas, 2010).
The society is living every time more decentralized and social media active. Technology
8 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
gives us the opportunity to participate not isolated but in groups to push and pull the best
changes of our context. So to bring ICT tools in the framework of open innovation driven
with a crowdsourcing model places in the center of the conversation the citizen as a
source of knowledge, ideas and role, that consequently will lead to have a more
transparent, collaborative and participatory society and evidence of that, an improvement
in the public sector and in the democracy itself.
In this sense, to use and appropriate modern models and technologies serving citizens
and the public organization in a dual constant communication, leaving behind traditional
ways of participation by mean of voting every four or five years as an example among
other forms of civil participation. The emphasis here is to tackle the problems of a city
where citizens know the most of them and bring the citizenship and the public
organization in a collaborative way to build the city both agree to have via innovation. The
benefits of these approaches are immense, not only from a technical and operative
perspective but also from balanced distribution of power, trust government and State
legitimation in the institutions by transforming our daily public environment, creating a
stronger and truly democracy.
All the statements described above might sound utopic if there is not a sincere
understanding of the barriers and blockers that the public institutions face. According to
(Álvaro Ramírez-Alujas, 2010) he highlights based on the PUBLIC 2006 Project of the
European Union that evidenced the situations of innovation in public administration and
the obstacles that outstood the most, are the following:
• Size and complexity: the bigger the institution, the more complex is. This is one of
the reasons that innovation can be blocked in big scale organizations and intern
barriers can emerge.
• Heritage and legacy: in the public organizations the status quo is privileged, so
change the dynamic and different ways to solve problems are too risky. Therefore,
the current procedures tend to keep equal independent whether they are efficient
or not.
Conceptual framework 9
• Risk aversion: tied to the preview obstacle, the public organizations are under
constant surveillance. So to take a chance to make things different usually is an
option. It is rewarded to do what it is agreed to do a public workers are
acknowledged to keep it that way. There are not incentives of any kind to
innovate.
• Technological obstacles: there is a lack of use of information, communication and
technologies (ICT) to solve problems.
This let us analyze the public organization as a hostile and difficult arena to spread an
innovation culture in the administrative sense. However, their objectives look to solve
problems, articulate actors, constant evaluations and metrics of impact. This means, on
the other hand, innovation embraces an opportunity to bring better management results.
In terms of governance, there is a concept called Open Government that suggests to
establish a constant and open conversation with citizens, listening to their demands and
requests, making decisions based on needs and preferences creating dual
communications with their backgrounds like transparency, participation and collaboration
(Á. V. Ramírez-Alujas, 2010) in (Lorenzo, S., & César, 2010). However, this concept has
to be tied to the concept of Electronic Government which aims to include ICT applications
and tools to preexisting administrative procedures in Government but Open Government
reflect on the interactions that citizens and public organizations in terms of ways to public
manage, change of paradigms and govern. Now, the term “Open” let us think in a wider
dimension that not only is related to the information and access that the Government
should provide to citizens but also stimulate the interactions with open data, therefore, it
invites to work in networks where citizens can converse, propose, contribute, evaluate in
a more horizontal manner in order to secure concrete commitments from governments to
promote transparency and accountability, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness
new technologies to strengthen governance (OPG, 2011).
1.1 Open Government
The concept of Open Government is not new. Thomas Jefferson declared in 1789 for his
own government people needed to be informed in order to trust (Wirtz & Birkmeyer,
10 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
2015a). Also this concept was mentioned in the British political arena in late 70’s, where
government matters and initiatives of the government should be widely discussed and
citizens can assess and screen to mitigate opacity (Chapman & Hunt, 1987; Á Ramírez-
Alujas, 2011). And there was always the intention that citizens get involved with the
discussions and the decisions of the government; however, the demanding became more
about information access for accountability (Á Ramírez-Alujas, 2011).
In the United Stated filed an Act in 1966 called FOIA that stands for (Freedom Of
Information Act) where the government give free access of State information following the
privilege that have citizens of the “right to know”. This has provoked replication in
countries worldwide (Halstuk & Chamberlin, 2006).
One of the more recent events about the explicit consideration of an open government
was the one made by former President of United Stated, Barack Obama in 2009 stating
firstly that new communication technologies should provide information to the citizen
about what the government is doing, meaning with this: transparency. Secondly, the
government establishes the channels and fosters the opportunities for the citizens to
participate and engage throughout by enhancing the decision-making process, meaning
with this: participation. Thirdly, the government should be an example of collaboration
meaning with this; all executive departments ought to use technology platforms to
improve the collaboration within and outside the government agencies with those in the
private sector, non-profit, and academic communities (Obama, 2009).
However, the signification of the open government has raised importance also in a
different shift related to communication patterns, global social network, and ICT, where
the penetration has rapidly increased in the last thirty years with internet, so different use
not only in business but in government have drawn attention. The social media and the
Web 2.0 paradigm have contributed to use the term Government 2.0 based on
collaboration, openness, and transparency. This has caused that the citizens can interact
closely with the government and participate to have a social control that not only be
accepted in a closed and hermetic public administration.
Conceptual framework 11
The most accepted definitions of open government go as follows:
Table 1-1: open government definitions.
Author Definition
Obama.
Transparency and Open Government:
“…ensure the public trust and establish a
system of transparency, public participation,
and collaboration. Openness will strengthen
our democracy and promote efficiency and
effectiveness in Government” (Obama,
2009, p. 1).
Gavelin, Burall, & Wilson in OECD.
“…open government as ‘the transparency
of government actions, the accessibility of
government services and information and
the responsiveness of government to new
ideas, demands and needs” (Gavelin,
Burall, & Wilson, 2009) in (OECD, 2005).
Heckmann.
“Open Government is about improving
transparency and thereby accountability in
all public affairs” (Heckmann, 2011, p. 1).
Yu & Robinson.
“Open government used to carry a hard
political edge: It referred to politically
sensitive disclosures of government
information” (Yu & Robinson, 2012, p. 1).
Geiger & Lucke.
“Open government acts as an umbrella
term for many different ideas and concepts.
The narrow definition of open government
consists of transparency, participation, and
collaboration of the state toward third actors
in the economy or the citizenship. Most
often, open government is equated with e-
government and the usage of information
and communication technologies” (Geiger
& Lucke, 2012, p. 266).
12 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Meijer, Curtin, & Hillebrandt.
“Openness of government is the extent to
which citizens can monitor and influence
government processes through access to
government information and access to
decision-making arenas” (Meijer, Curtin, &
Hillebrandt, 2012, p. 13).
Wirtz & Birkmeyer, Hilgers.
“Open government as the practice of
integrating external knowledge into the
political and administrative process. This
integration is supported by the use of new
information and communication
technologies” (Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015a, p.
382) in (Dennis Hilgers, 2012).
Oscar Oszlak.
“Open government … it is a true philosophy
about how to govern and what should be
the roles of governments and citizens in
public management. Its implicit
assumptions may be summarized as
follows: (1) nowadays, technology permits a
fluid, two-way communication and
interaction between governments and the
citizenry; (2) governments must open these
channels of dialogue and interaction with
the citizens so as to benefit from their
potential contribution in the process of
policy choice, in the co-production of public
goods and services, and in the monitoring,
control and evaluation of its performance;
and (3) citizens should take advantage of
these new participatory channels, by
actively engaging in the performance of
their potential roles (as political decision-
makers, producers and comptrollers)”
Conceptual framework 13
(Oscar Oszlak, 2013, p. 1).
Evans & Campos.
“Open government is widely understood as
the leveraging of information technologies
to generate participatory, collaborative
dialogue between policymakers and
citizens” (Evans & Campos, 2013, p. 173).
Wirtz & Birkmeyer.
“Open government is a multilateral, political,
and social process, which includes in
particular transparent, collaborative, and
participatory action by government and
administration. To meet these conditions,
citizens and social groups should be
integrated into political processes with the
support of modern information and
communication technologies, which
together should improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of governmental and
administrative action” (Wirtz & Birkmeyer,
2015b, p. 382).
Source: compiled by the author, adapted from Wirtz & Birkmeyer, (2015a).
The approach of Open Government by Oscar Oszlak, (2013) is the closest and more
accepted in our study to include the roles of government and citizens in a co-management
of the public administration by allowing the two-way communication, co-production,
monitoring, control, evaluation and performance for mutual benefits and empower the role
of citizens in the political decision-making process.
To understand the logic of the open government system, it is seen interactions and flows
of information among entities, governments and citizens. Based on the figure 2 depited by
(Gavelin et al., 2009), there are three main actors: (government), (intermediary bodies),
and (citizens, business, civil society organizations) interact each other by
demanding and responding in a transactional form (See Figure 1-1).
14 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Figure 1-1: information flow in an ideal open government system.
Source: (Gavelin et al., 2009)
In figure 1-2, the dotted red lines are the requests and the bold black lines are the
responses. It is highlighted the relationship between Government and citizens. Citizens
request information, complaints and challenge the government for change and
modifications during the administration period. The Government responds to these
requests with information, public documents and other kind of consultation findings.
Now linking the principles of crowdsourcing and open innovation in the public field, there
is a framework created by Hilgers, (2012) that states and describes the procedures and
dimensions to satisfy the open government scheme and consequently the organizational
public strategy (see Figure 1-2).
- Citizen Ideation and Innovation: this first layer aims to gather knowledge and
ideas through creativity from citizenry to solve a common good by idea-and
innovation-contests through open innovation platforms.
Conceptual framework 15
- Collaborative Administration: the second layer aims to integrate citizen and
firms’ experiences with public administrative processes based on user
innovation and user-generated-content.
- Collaborative Democracy: the third layer sums up new ways of collaboration in
terms of public participation in decision and policy making, building institutional
trust among entities.
Figure 1-2: framework for citizen-engaged governance.
Source: (D Hilgers & Ihl, 2010, p. 74)
In the figure 1-2, It is identified the three main caracteristics that will make the Open
Government robust and this can be summarized with the concept of ‘citizensourcing’,
which basically means to bring citizens massively to contribute to the government efforts
by engaging in the public service, policy-making process and enhacing the common good
of society. Open Government in the words of D Hilgers & Ihl, (2010), highlights the
importace of citizen participation and the access and use of technologies to have a dual-
communication channel. Technologies in the government are imperative to make Open
Government work. In this sense, this relationship might sound natural but there is a still
way to go in terms of appropriations of the Open Government and E-Government. E-
Government suggests using technology intensively in order to digitalize the bureaucracy
to make it quicker and more efficient in administrative procedures but it lacks of cultural
16 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
transformation in terms of citizen participation and public organization interactions to
create real transformations for the public management.
1.2 E-Government
There is not a universal accepted concept about E-government; nonetheless, several
authors agree that it has to cover information and communication technology from the
government to deliver services to citizens. There are some of the authors in the last years
that have come across defining e-government found in (Yildiz, 2007).
As a simple definition, E-government is understood as “the use of information and
communications technology (ICT), and particularly the Internet, to achieve better
government”(Field, 2003, p. 23). Also, some other authors refer E-government as the use
of technologies (such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing) that
have the ability to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and other arms of
government. These technologies can serve a variety of different ends: better delivery of
government services to citizens, improved interactions with business and industry, citizen
empowerment through access to information, or more efficient government management.
The resulting benefits can be less corruption, increased transparency, greater
convenience, revenue growth and/or cost reduction (World Bank, 2015, p. 1). Additionally,
it can serve to establish relationships between governments, their customers (businesses,
other governments, and citizens), and their suppliers (again, businesses, other
governments, and citizens) by the use of electronic means (Means, Schneider, & By-
Schiro, 2000).
Moreover, there are different kind of potential types or models of relationships in an E-
government system: Government-to-Citizen (G2C); Citizen-to-Government (C2G);
Government-to-Business (G2B); Business-to-Government (B2G); Government-to-
Government (G2G); Government-to-Nonprofit (G2N); Nonprofit-to-Government (N2G);
and Government-to-Employee (G2E) (Fang, 2002, p. 2). This let us view the wide scope
of interaction that different publics can have with government.
Conceptual framework 17
In Colombia, Ministry of ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) defines it as
following: “contribute through the use of Information and Communications Technologies
(ICT), to build a State more efficient, more transparent, more participatory to provide
better services to citizens and enterprises, resulting in a more competitive production
sector, a modern public administration and more informed and better tools for community
participation” (Riascos & Martínez-Giordano, 2008, p. 4).
The definitions above, let understand the main elements of what an e-government means
and why it is strategic for a public administration to fulfill a democratic desire among
parties (e.g. citizens, local and international entities and businesses). It can be deduced
that e-government implies interaction on both ways enabled by technologies in different
sectors to improve economical, socially and political matters. In this sense, participation
and information management play an important role to meet the e- government’s goals as
a managerial strategic for the public sector.
Von Hippel (2005), has been researching on the field of lead user or also known as user
innovation. This concept basically means that users are the main source of innovation
due to the fact that in order to improve a self-experience with a product or service the
users changes it, adapts it, prototypes it and so to satisfy his own needs. So bringing user
innovation concept to this analysis, makes to express that the user (or in this case, the
citizen) plays an important role, taking into account that it is the main source of innovation
and a citizen-centered approach should be a bottom-up input of what would benefit the
State and its parties interconnected in an open innovation scheme via a civic
crowdsourcing technology.
The discussion of this topic has also drawn attention in the public sphere where external
actors can be engaged with the government in order to create a participatory connection
with citizens to have a public value-creation and a refined decision-making process
legitimized in a democratic innovation scenario.
Thus, in an E-government strategy, this opens the boundaries of the public organization
and take into account how the users of the public domain (citizens) can enhance the
public or State services by participating in the construction of their own country or city,
acknowledging that the main source of knowledge and innovation come from citizens in
18 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
their context, becoming this, the argument to outsource the decision making process
utilizing technology.
1.3 Public value
Moore coined the expression public value in 1995, with the objective to bring forward a
change in the way to consider and do public management, arousing a debate among its
research peers. He arguments that institutions should have more rentable strategies as
private organizations when public institutions have citizens to please, limited resources
and agreed functions (M Moore & Khagram, 2004). However, the controversy of the
concept is not mainly based in a “neo-institutionalism” (Massal & Sandoval, 2010). Here,
it is not only directed to the institutions for an excellent use of public resources satisfying
citizens, but also involving citizens in the public management, citizens perceive a greater
value in receiving the service of the State or public institution and represent a degree of
legitimacy. Moore in his book states, “The strategy has to be substantively valuable in this
sense; the organization produces things to value to overseers, clients and beneficiaries at
low cost in terms of money and authority” (MH Moore, 1995, p. 71).
It is necessary that institutions strive to build trust among the citizens so that their actions
can be good qualified and valued by citizens. Additionally, by using crowdsourcing
platforms, such public value can be fed, for the implementation of a participatory and
collaborative approach and creates in people's perception of the communicative bridge in
the real world is difficult to achieve, as possibilities for improving transparency, and
effectively fulfill its preset function. Finally, this set of benefits that keeps the use of the
platform can be summarized as this may provide a public function value (serve citizens
efficiently generate social welfare) for services (inexpensive civic participation) and results
(after effective interventions).
To operationalize this dimension of public value perceived by the participants (citizens) of
the E-Government platform it is necessary to add three social motivations, values raised
by political implications for the individual, and would be in order to positively impact
society, related to the perception of a public value for the fulfillment of a function also
proposed, strengthening public participation in relation to a perception of a function and
Conceptual framework 19
satisfied service, and finally, strengthening public institution, which is aimed at
determining whether the platform helps build legitimacy and trust in citizens, finally
measuring public value exceeds our study results, because this part is in the hands of the
secretaries who support the launch of the platform (Clary et al., 1998)
Creating public value, organizational strategy for public sectors. It is considered a public
organization a sort of monopoly; this means that competitors are out of place in this
regard. Therefore, a government administration’s efforts are oriented to satisfy the
demands of citizens by offering a portfolio of products based on financial terms; however,
it is not quite clear in terms of which elements of legitimacy those are based on. Thus, a
public organization has to define the mission and its goals for the public sector on certain
objectives. Kennedy School of Government stated in its research studies an
organizational strategy for public sector. They suggest that have to be three elements
simultaneously aligned in order to connect the citizens, stakeholders and clients’
aspirations to fit the public value (MH Moore, 1995).
This concept of organization strategy for the public sector stated by Moore goes as
follows:
1) “To declare the overall mission or purpose of an organization (in terms of
public value);
2) To offer an account of sources of support and legitimacy that will be tapped to
sustain society commitment to the enterprise;
3) And to explain how the enterprises will have to be organized and operated to
achieve the declared objectives”.
The strategy in order to be developed has to meet three broad tests described by him as
well:
1) “The strategy has to be substantively valuable in this sense; the organization
produces things to value to overseers, clients and beneficiaries at low cost in
terms of money and authority.
2) It has to be legitimate and political sustainable. That is, the enterprise must be
able to continually attract both authority and money from political authorizing
environment to which is ultimately accountable.
3) It must be operationally and administrable feasible in that the authorized, valuable
activities can actually be accomplished by the existing organization with help from
20 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
others who can be induced to contribute to the organizational goal”.
According to Moore, these three elements have to be linked and worked out to each other
to have a successful outcome. Just imagine if one of mentioned above lacks, the whole
strategy fails. If citizens do not feel benefited by the things produced by the organization,
then, is not valuable for them, hence, it fails. And if the political environment cannot
support them in terms of legitimacy, it fails. And if operationally the strategy does not meet
the goals helped by other organizations, then fails as well.
All of this bases its importance on the management of external demands and internals
capabilities to make things work as stated in mission and goals of a public administration.
If citizens are capturing the value of what the organization in producing the public
manages may feel happy. However, almost never is the case, because there is always a
constant alignment of strategic elements to fulfill the desires, supplies and execution
among parties to orchestrate efficiently.
This analysis draws attentions on how a public administration enables mechanisms in
order to empower citizens and bring a broader dynamics on the democratic field by using
technology in order to manage it better. For this reason, the literature of E-Government
shows how this can help to enhance the productivity of a government by using
technology. Since the large use of the internet and widespread use of personal computers
and mobile phones, governments are in the search of new and effective ways to improve
public administration taking as examples from other fields.
Open innovation is a paradigm that entails participation and collaboration, this embraces
the models of crowdsourcing per se (Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2012), its transference to the
public sphere is completely coherent with the shift of public management and more when
it is followed by E-Government strategies stated in the 2573 decree del 2014 in Colombia
(MinTIC, 2014), where innovation it is considered fundamental, that states the following:
“innovation consists of developing new ways to use information, communication and
technologies to produce changes that generate new and greater public value”.
Conceptual framework 21
1.4 Open Innovation
Chesbrough, (2003) coined the term open innovation as follows:
“Open innovation is the intentional use of inflows and outflows
of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand
markets with the external use of innovation, respectively use.
[This paradigm] assumes that firms can and should use external
ideas as well as internal, internal and external paths to market,
while advancing in their technology”.
This definition comes from the efforts of firms to exploit their knowledge within the
organization, through processes of research & development (R&D). Currently they have
ceased to become more competitive, because they have lost the opportunity to draw
experience and knowledge from external sources (Laursen & Salter, 2006). This is also
stressed by Cohen & Levinthal, (1990), which states that the ability to exploit external
knowledge is a vital component of innovation capabilities. That is, that the joint external
knowledge, recognizes the value of it, assimilates and implements the business model of
the organization, there is what these authors call "absorption capacity" seal for the
paradigm of open innovation.
Open innovation comes into discussion due to the fact of a closed innovation logic (see
Figure 1), where firms were engaged to generate their own innovations through
processes of ideation, development, construction products and services, marketing,
distribution, finance and support these processes without interacting with externals
(Huizingh, 2011).
22 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Figure 1-3: closed vs open innovation model.
Source: Chesbrough (2003, 2006).
Open innovation is distinguished by its two operating patterns (inside-out and outside-in).
On one hand, the organization manages some of the ideas and outsiders generating new
technologies, markets and business models that do not have direct value to the
organization, but that they can trade with other players. On the other hand, outside-in,
where other players can participate in the innovation process and can be part of a
different organization, including technology, co-development, patents, etc., thus speeding
up the process innovation (Enkel, Gassmann, & Chesbrough, 2009).
The concept of Open Innovation is introduced for being suitable model that is being used
mainly in the private sector and now it is becoming useful to interact with Open
Government and E-Government. There is a potential of adopting such model to break the
hermetic walls that public institutions have and to energize and channel the interaction
with outsiders.
According to Marjanovic, Fry, & Chataway, (2012) one type of Open Innovation is
Crowdsourcing and we are going to dedicate a descriptions in terms of definition,
fundamental dimensions and the users’ motivations of this research interest.
Conceptual framework 23
1.5 Civic crowdsourcing
Howe in (2006), in the article “The rise of crowdsourcing” that appeared in the Wire
magazine, explaining some successful cases by using the coined concept:
‘crowdsourcing’. Shortly after, the scientific community paid attention to this phenomenon
that turns difficult to have a solid and agreed conceptualization due to different
approaches to the definition. Consequently, Estellés-Arolas, Enrique, Navarro-Giner &
González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, (2015) applied an analysis of 40 articles in crowdsourcing
topics, summing up that the common base of the model lays on simply defined:
“Crowdsourcing represents the act of a company or institution taking a function once
performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network
of people in the form of an open call.” Moreover, not just recognizing the valuable result
of Enrique Estelles-Arolas & Gonzalez-Ladron-de-Guevara, (2012) there is a thorough
definition of crowdsourcing made by Brabham, which goes as follows:
“Crowdsourcing is an emerging problem-solving model that
leverages the collective intelligence of online communities for
specific purposes” (Daren C. Brabham, 2012b, p. 307) This
definition is taken by the platform Next Stop Design, one of the
earliest application of crowdsourcing in the public sector or by a
public crowdsourcer.
Some other authors created a conceptualization framework which they call it: the
fundamental dimensions of crowdsourcing (Malone, Laubacher, & Dellarocas, 2009; Y
Zhao & Zhu, 2014). In this framework, the authors make key questions in terms of
interactions in crowdsourcing. For example: 1) Who is performing the task? 2) Why are
they doing it? 3) How is the task performed? 4) What about the ownership and what is
being accomplished? So, the answers to the questions may let the reader understand the
specific interactions that the model needs in other to function. 1) Who: the crowds that
does the task (either the undefined crowds or specific groups), 2) Why: the motivation of
the participants and the incentives (either intrinsic or extrinsic), 3) How: the goal to be
achieved, the sense of collection (activities can be divided into small pieces that can be
done independently of each other), 4) What: competition (only one or a few good
solutions are rewarded) or collaboration (each individual performs a small fraction of the
24 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
activity: in this case participants are complementary) held in people’s minds when
participating and completing the task, and the solutions to the task be regarded as goods
and have the attribute of ownership (either public goods or private goods).
During the research development, it was found that authors like (Alam & Campbell,
2012a) in their study of motivations for participation in crowdsourcing in contexts GLAM
(Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums), we have noted that previous studies such as
(K. R. Lakhani & Wolf, 2003; Nov, Naaman, & Ye, 2010; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2012)
have identified a wide range of motivations for user participation, ranging from fun to the
enhancement of skills. The following description, it was outlined the dimensions that have
been involved in the study of user motivations of different experiences in crowdsourcing, it
is noted in line with the object of study.
When is mentioned the term civic crowdsourcing is related to urban planning with the
participationg of citizens. Also is used to capture the perception of dwellers based on their
city’s experience to compare the information in these collaborative platforms with the
reality, there are examples such as: Google’s Street (Pelechrinis, 2015). It is important to
recall that the concept ‘crowdsourcing’ is used with the prefix ‘civic’ that applies in a public
scenario of governance with citizens.
1.6 User motivations in civic crowdsourcing
A motivation is a driving force that inductees and leads behavior. Some motivations are
biological, such as the motivation for food, water, and sex. But there are a variety of other
personal and social motivations that can influence behavior, including the motivations for
social approval and acceptance, the motivation to achieve, and the motivation to take, or
to avoid taking risks (Morsella, Bargh, & Gollwitzer, 2009). In each case, It was followed
our motivations because they are rewarding. As predicted by basic theories of operant
learning, motivations lead us to engage in particular behaviors because doing so, makes
us feel good. Motivation can thus be conceptualized as a series of behavioral responses
that lead us to attempt to reduce drives and to attain goals by comparing our current state
with a desired end state (Lawrence & Carver, 2002). Also motivation is as a psychological
feature, arouses a person to action, while rewards are the goal objectives that reinforce
Conceptual framework 25
behavior (Porter, 1970) in (Borst, 2010). Finally, motivation is something that one can feel,
experiment, and it gives the sensation of well-being after concluded a motivated behavior.
A motivation is described as “a channel through which many basic needs may be
simultaneously expressed or satisfied” (Maslow, 1943, p. 370), these basic needs are a
set of objectives that human beings want to achieve. This set is compound by a hierarchy
that is arranged in terms of prepotency that go from physiological, safety, love, esteem
until self-actualization. Moreover, people are motivated by the wish to get or maintain
different conditions upon which these basic satisfactions remain and by certain more
intellectual desires. It important to remember, that these basic needs are related to each
other and here it is where a hierarchy appears, beginning from the most prepotent goal
that will monopolize consciousness and it will organize the capacities of the organism.
The less prepotent needs are minimized, sometimes forgotten or denied. However, when
this need is reached or satisfied the next need emerges and so on. To make this clearer,
the famous need pyramid of Maslow, (1943) it explains that if the need is not yet satisfied,
then it triggers a motivation, but if the need gratified, then, they are not active motivators.
1.6.1 Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Bringing an argument where motivations and triggers take place, the theory that is more
appropriated and cited by other authors according to the crowdsourcing studies is the Self
Determination Theory (SDT). I was choosen as the framework to explain the motivations
and its classifications. The definition of SDT is “an approach to human motivation and
personality that uses traditional empirical methods while employing an organismic
metatheory that highlights the importance of humans' evolved inner resources for
personality development and behavioral self-regulation” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 68) This
approach starts with three individual needs: autonomy, competence, relatedness and then
it devides in extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivations refer to the tasks and
do not expect anything else in return. For example, hobby, enjoyment, interest, and
extrinsic motivation refers to the factors that bring something in return and it is other than
the task itself; that can be in terms of economic income, rewards, acknowledgements,
social capital among others (Hossain, 2012a). The difference between extrinsic
motivations and intrinsic motivations, allow establishing a wide spectrum of possibilities
that in a crowdsourcing platform can be expressed.
26 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Having the classification between intrinsic and extrinsic; there are variables that can be
assessed and have relationships among them, the theory division should be taken as a
guide in order to deepen the study of the psycho-social phenomenon, but it should not be
unbreakable and one-way direction (Daren C. Brabham, 2012a). Extrinsic motivation,
associated with external forces, is described by self-determination theory as lying
somewhere along a continuum between controlled and autonomous regulation, (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). In the same way, this is compound of: external regulation, introjected
regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation, being the last one, the extrinsic
motivation the most similar to the intrinsic motivation orientation.
There are other studies in crowdsourcing that try to complement (SDT), “since
crowdsourcing contest is conducted by an undefined network of people in the form of an
open call, the underlying influencing mechanisms may vary across types of motivation,
thus, it is important to disentangle the motivation as a spectrum” (Zhao & Zhu, 2012).
Additionally, (SDT) it is found in the second tendency of human motivation theory (Walsh,
2005) that basically is present in most of the studies about user’ experience motivations in
crowdsourcing, enough reason to make a deeper review from this theory. In the same
way, Brabham, (2012a) and Seltzer & Mahmoudi, (2012) in “Citizen Participation, Open
Innovation, and Crowdsourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning”, in Zheng, Li,
& Hou, (2011) (2011) and (Leimeister, Huber, Bretschneider, & Krcmar, (2009), affirm the
complex activity immersed in the incentives and motivations of an individual detailing that
these can be tied to multiple influences and even present as motivations of a kind as the
other simultaneously. The challenge will consist of determining how intense can push one
against the others. Thereby, the ongoing research will take the both modes of motivation
from (SDT), privileging to see the diverse spectrum that can be presented in the
participant (citizens).
Ryan & Deci, (2000, p. 54) state the following “to be motivated means to be moved to do
something”. However, motivated behavior can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic.
“Added Intrinsic motivation refers of doing an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather
than for some separable consequence involving searches for new and challenging
activities, which involve an expansion of capacities, explore and learn” (Ryan et al., 2000,
Conceptual framework 27
p. 56). As studies of Battistella & Nonino, (2012) and Brabham, (2012b) capture the same
way the previous definition. Complementarily, Extrinsic Motivations personalities come out
are defined as “it is a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain
some separable outcome. Extrinsic motivation thus contrasts with intrinsic motivation,
which refers to do an activity simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, rather than its
instrumental value" (Ryan et al., 2000, p. 60). In Bakici, Almirall, & Wareham, (2011);
(Eriksson & Mörk, 2014; Geiger & Lucke, 2012; Hossain, 2012a; Linkruus Kim, Nilsson
Kristian, 2012) taking up again a (Ryan & Deci, 2000) in their studies, they say that the
extrinsic motivations could generate participation in an activity by providing individual
rewards, this type of motivation is caused by external and monetary compensation
incentives, recognition of others, assessments.
Borst, (2010) in her work, reflects another aspect of importance in (SDT), are the four
regulation styles in sublevels to extrinsic motivations diversifying according to the degree
of autonomy (self-determination).
In the figure 1-4, the regulartory styles are described from the external regulation,
introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation (Extrinsic motivation).
External regulation is driven by a reward or a punishment, introjecter regulation is more
self-control or ego driven. Identified regulation reflects a personal matter and integrated
regulation is about awareness and selfness. The (Intrinsic motivation) is about more an
internal process related to interest, enjoyment and self satisfaction.
Figure 1-4: the self-determination continuum showing types of motivation with their
regulatory styles, loci of causality, and corresponding processes.
Source: (Ryan et al., 2000)
28 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
However, the intention of motivation theory description has the objective to lay a theory
background to analyze the constructs that derive from them. The controversy among the
theory escapes from our research focus.
1.6.2 Motivational dimensions
As our interest is to measure the motivations that derive from the theory literature, it is
desired to expand to the public realm where participation through civic crowdsourcing can
take place; such is the case of Bogotá Abierta. Thereby, there is the need to identify the
constructs that allow finding the evidence of the dynamic of participation driven intrinsic
and extrinsic motivations.
if "the innovation process is strongly based on committed people, who have enthusiasm
and self- motivation to the concept or are at least convinced by an external incentive”
(Battistella & Nonino, 2012, p. 2) in (Amabile, 1998; Wallin & Von Krogh, 2010) the (SDT)
model is efficient to address this study object framework. According to (Linkruus Kim,
Nilsson Kristian, 2012, p. 14) paraphrased by (Leimeister, Huber, Bretschneider, &
Krcmar, 2009b) "both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation factors are important factors to why
an individual dedicates, and makes the decision to participate in a crowd" therefore it is
necessary to include them but also expand them, levels of self-determination within the
extrinsic motivations seem to be an appropriate way to achieve, this requires the
completion of an extensive tour of secondary sources that nourish the variety of
motivations that are necessary under the participation of individuals in an environment of
online open innovation environment. Finally, (Yuxiang Zhao & Zhu, 2012) made the
following model (see figure: 1-4), summarizing what is expressed here, that is, in order to
understand the model of crowdsourcing from a "macro-perspective" is not only necessary
to understand that consists of several dimensions, but also the dimension of motivation
taken from the (SDT).
Conceptual framework 29
▪ Extrinsic motivators
Hedonic: Develop professional or personal skills
Brabham, (2012a) commented the possibility users to participate due to his interest to
become skilled professionals “creative professionals see learning new tools and topical
domains as key for survival and advancement in a fast-paced market and technological
landscape” this dimension has been evaluated in: (Borst, 2010; Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-
Kåreborn, 2011a)
Obtain peer recognition
It refers to the extrinsic motivation of participation with the intention to receive a social
acknowledgement, in this case peer recognition from others, not only from the
crowdsourcing provider but also from other participants. This is included in studies made
by (Brabham, (2010); Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhoefer, (2011).
Win a reward
This motivation has been one of the most studied in previous research. It refers to users
who expect to receive a monetary reward because of their participation in a
crowdsourcing platform (Acar & Van den Ende, 2011; Alam & Campbell, 2012b; MJ
Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010; Battistella & Nonino, 2012; Borst, 2010; D. C. Brabham,
2008; Paulini, Maher, & Murty, 2014; Soliman & Tuunainen, 2015; Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-
Kåreborn, 2011a).
Fun & curiosity
Same as the previous, this dimension, fun is widely collected in past studies, as
expressed Eriksson & Mörk, (2014), these are often found together and even considered
that the fun could replace in some cases in communities of open software to monetary
rewards. About curiosity, (Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhoefer, 2011, p. 8)(Fahri Yetim,
Torben Wiedenhoefer, 2011, p. 8) states that: “Interest towards the system was increased
by the curiosity to discover and try out a new technology”. Previous studies are found in
Maria Antikainen & Väätäjä, (2008); MJ Antikainen & Vaataja, (2010); Battistella &
Nonino, (2012); Borst, (2010); Daren C. Brabham, (2010, 2012a); Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-
Kåreborn, (2011a)
30 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Social: networking and social capital
Some studies have involved this dimension, such as Battistella & Nonino, (2012); Daren
C. Brabham, (2012a); Paulini et al., (2014) which emphasizes the importance or
relevance that crowdsourcing platforms would strengthens social capital building based
on technological strategies, it would be interesting to situate online engagement in a
public participation program for governance in a capital framework.
Strengthen citizen participation
Strengthen citizen participation, it is characterized as extrinsic motivation - Identified
regulation, meaning thereby, the user to identify themselves as citizens, considering the
platform as a novel mechanism for citizen participation that would take advantage to use
in these terms, it is to say, to express their opinions, knowledge and solutions towards the
policy-making process of the city, and it may even represent a valid option for
strengthening citizen participation as one element of a democracy.
To be reference to these values or immersed rules in participating in Open Innovation
Platforms (OIP), two studies resort to the following: (Batson & Powell, 2003) in (Fahri
(Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhoefer, 2011) notes that one of four ways to get involved in a
community is "for principlism it is to uphold one or more principles moral" in (Paulini et al.,
2014, p. 4) who develops an empirical model which includes performances by values and
retakes existing motivations in volunteering and designs motivation Ideology, "to further a
cause or act according to a personal or ethical principle” (Paulini et al., 2014, p. 4). This
includes participation for altruistic and other reasons such as personal beliefs and a sense
of personal efficacy refers to as Enhancement (E. Clary & Snyder, 1999).
However, in order this behavior ideologically or morally motivated user to exist, the civic
crowdsourcing platform should be able to encourage it, for that reason, it is argued that
the Bogotá Abierta platform should generate or at least represent a public value for the
citizen. Thus, this value or perceived value is considered as the construction and
operationalization of Public Value. This term created 20 years ago by Mark Moore &
Khagram, (2004) wants to express all actions that makes public institutions to generate
well-being in the population, which by nature keeps them responsibility, the term has been
controversial because further argues the Public Value is also created, with the perception
Conceptual framework 31
of value that was able to create an institution with any action or intervention on a specific
matter, without being linked to a major change in reality or served problematic, also seeks
to strengthen the idea of lower cost.
Hence, Public Value has served as a conceptual tool by offering a wider spectrum, to
sustain the benefits that lie in implementing a civic crowdsourcing platform for any public
institution that decides to implement it, for this reason, it contains a facet of such terms is
"operational capabilities" which expresses the real capacity of an institution to manage or
to begin creating Public Value, so that the platform will be representing public
administration departments and their ability to manage their mission activities in
innovative forms via citizen participation and interaction through crowdsourcing
technology strategies. In other words, the platform must be able to represent a new
service focused on the inclusion of citizens, so that thus be given the possibility express
their public perception or expectation strengthening the citizen participation linked with de
administrative departments and consequently generate a new Public Value.
▪ Intrinsic motivators
Learning: knowledge and Exchange
“Emphasis lies on the fulfillment of acquiring new knowledge, incorporating, that into
one´s thought processes, and being able to solve new problems” (Eriksson & Mörk,
2014, p. 17). On many occasions this dimension is understood as an extrinsic motivation,
however, here is taken here as an intrinsic motivation, considering as an end in itself to
learn through exchange with other participants.
Altruism: produce a positive change in society
For altruism, it is to increase the welfare of another individual or other individuals (Fahri
Yetim, Torben Wiedenhoefer, 2011) and (Bakici et al., 2011), paraphrasing to (Kollock,
1999; Zeitlyn, 2003). Brabham, (2012b, p. 322) altruistic reasons may be driving someone
to give to the common effort. (Eriksson & Mörk, 2014, p. 15), express that “Altruism, it is
this motivator that causes the inherent willingness to work for the well-being of others
found with many individuals”. (Batson & Powell, 2003; Fahri Yetim, Torben
Wiedenhoefer, 2011, p. 257) say “most people value their own welfare and are motivated
to increase it when opportunities to do so arise. Batson & Powell, (2003) also say that
32 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
there are four reasons to get involved in community (egoism, altruism, collectivism, and
principlism) one of these is consistent with this dimension is collectivism that is to
increase the welfare of a group.
Research methodology 33
2 Research methodology
This research is a descriptive1 study that aims to specify the characteristics of a civic
crowdsourcing platform such as Bogotá Abierta (www.bogotaabierta.co) in Bogotá and
understanding the citizen motivational profiles, groups and their demographic description.
2.1 Research approach
The research approach in this study aims to be quantitative. It starts with delimited
statements, it measures phenomena using statistics. The quantitative research focuses
on analizing the objective reality, it generalizes about the results and it is precise.
The description of a quantitative consists of reducing and structuring a complex problem
to a limited number of variables. Additionally, it helps to the researcher to not have a
biase in terms of the subjectivity, it is impersonal. However, this approach is less detailed
than qualitative data and might miss wider desireable information from participants. Also,
in this approach the theory is used is to adjust the “empirical world”. Finally, with this
approach is necessary to find in the literature significant variables to be measured as it
was in this study (Hernandez Sampieri et al., 2010).
To contextualize the research, it is important to describe the study object that allows
comprehending the utility of this open government and e-government effort in Bogotá.
1 The descriptive study seeks to specify the properties, characteristics and profiles of people, groups, communities, processes, objects or any other phenomenon that is subjected to an analysis That is, they measure, evaluate or collect data on various concepts (variables), dimensions or components of the phenomenon an investigation in which a series of questions is selected and measured or collect information on each of them to describe what is being investigated (Dankhe, 1989; Hernandez Sampieri et al., 2010).
34 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
2.2 Study object: Bogotá Abierta
The Mayor’s Office of Bogotá (Spanish: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá) via the High District
Council of ICT and the Engineering Faculty of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia with
its Innovation Laboratory – Vivelab Bogotá carried out a project in 2015 to create a digital
platform where citizens could provide ideas to solve the challenges of the city called:
Bogotá Abierta (https://bogotaabierta.co/). The framework of this project followed the
guidelines of E-Government office of Ministry of Information, Communications and
Technologies (Spanish: Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las
Comunicaciones) to create in the public institutions more spaces of interaction via
electronic means to improve collaboration, transparency and participation with the society
(MinTIC, 2014).
BogotáAbierta.co is characterized as a crowd-based innovation strategy enabled digitally
and it has low communication costs, organizations can access distributed sources of
knowledge from outside tapping into communities (Baldwin & Clark, 2000; K. Lakhani,
Lifshitz-Assaf, & Tushman, 2012). In Bogota Abierta, citizens (users) submit ideas in
order to bring the best solutions to the questions (challenges). Behind the platform there
is an engagement online and offline strategy to invite citizens to participate through
different channels allowing them to be part of the public conversation in a very active way
contributing with solution ideas to the problems that the city faces.
In the following figure 2-1, it is described the open innovation model in the civic
crowdsourcing platform, having an understanding of how participation of citizens with
ideas go through the funnel process in term of time, online interaction with other citizens
by voting, commenting and sharing the ideas. Afterthat, ideas get assessed by external
judges and then, select the best suitable idea to implement in the city.
Research methodology 35
Figure 2-1: open innovation funnel for Bogotá Abierta.
Source: adapted from (H. W. Chesbrough, 2003).
The High District Council of ICT launched the platform for the first time December 3rd of
2015 with the objective “to build a smart city and promote innovation with the participation
of citizens” presented by the High District Counselor of ICT, Dr Alford Pedraza.
Subsequently, the next year in 2016, a new administration in office, adapted Bogotá
Abierta to run the citizen participation strategy in the formulation of the District
Development Plan 2016- 2020: ‘Bogotá, Mejor para Todos’.
According to the District Development Plan 2016- 2020 participation strategy (Peñalosa,
2016b) the objective was to collect solution initiatives in order to create a more
participatory proposal plan.
The process consisted of collecting ideas; this was mainly informative and deliberative,
inviting citizens to participate via different channels either face-to-face gathering or virtual.
For the virtual channel, the digital tool was the civic crowdsourcing platform
36 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
www.bogotaabierta.co. The process of participation started with seven thematic forums2
and different groups (social organizations, academia, citizenry, etc.) and six inter-local
territorial sessions in five urban sectors3 and one rural: Sumapaz.
The participation strategy in the civic crowdsourcing platform, Bogotá Abierta was
organized with 18 related question about the following topics: mobility, neighborhood
enhancement, quality of life, sexual diversity, development of children and teenagers,
environment, citizen security, healthcare services, animal protection, people with physical
disabilities, public space, equity and equality gender, what’s your idea to make Bogotá
happier?, transparency and participation, Bogotá 2038, income generation, culture and
coexistence and child mobility (Bogotá, 2016).
The electronic participation was from March 1st to April 16th of 2016. After that, there was
a systematization of the ideas submitted by the citizens and the study of the best ideas
(most suitable to the local government for the plan) of each sector was evaluated by
government representatives to be included in the District Development Plan 2016 - 2020.
During the participation, the time lapse was 55 days; there were 21.270 citizens and
social organizations that submitted 20.259 ideas for the District Development Plan
(2016b).
All the effort of the Mayor’s Office of Bogota was orchestrated by the Secretary of District
Planning, the Institute of Citizen Participation (IdPAC) and the High District Counselor of
ICT to capture the ideas from citizens to help channeling the city challenges based on the
secretariats planning addressees.
2 Forum 1: Bogotá, a competitive and innovative city. Forum 2: Culture, Security and Coexistence
Forum 3: Bogotá, a city with better mobility. Forum 4: Bogotá, a city of opportunities for everyone. Forum 5: Planning a better Bogotá. Forum 6: Education for Quality of life. Forum 7: Decent and efficient health. (Bogotá, 2016) 3 North sector: Usaquén, Suba, Chapinero and Barrios Unidos. Sector western: Bosa, Kennedy, Fontibón, Engativá y Suba. South sector: Puente Aranda, Antonio Nariño, San Cristóbal and Tunjuelito. South-Eastern sector: Ciudad Bolívar, Usme y Rafael Uribe Uribe. Center sector: Santa Fe, La Candelaria, Los Mártires y Teusaquillo. Rural sector: Sumapaz. (Bogotá, 2016)
Research methodology 37
In the following figure 2-2, there is a screenshot of the civic crowdsourcing platform,
Bogota Abierta with example of challenges:
Figure 2-2: civic crowdsourcing platform for Bogotá.
Source: retrieved from bogotaabierta.co
In the figure 2-2, in the platform, citizens are asked “what is your idea for Bogotá” (In
Spanish: ¿cuál es tu idea para Bogotá?) and below this question, there are “challenges”
in terms of questions where the citizens can submit ideas, they can see how much time
left for each challenge and the number of ideas submitted by other citizens.
2.3 Research method
The aim of this research is to describe the main motivational factors of citizens
participating in a civic crowdsourcing platform. Given the nature of the research problem,
the study is non-experimental, this means, there is not deliverative manipulation of
variables and the phenomena are observed to be analyzed as it is. This research has a
quantitative approach, cross-sectional descriptive study and the research method is a
survey (Hernandez Sampieri et al., 2010). However, the importace of this approach is to
describe the responses to constrast it with the literature to give a better understanding in
meaning to the motivational behavior.
38 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
In the research, survey is asummed as a process. This means, it has an entire procedure
that includes: objetives, sample frames, strategy for data collection and conduction of
analysis (Schonlau, Jr, & Elliott, 2002).
As following is described the survey method process:
▪ Defining the survey objectives:
• Specifying the population of interest: 7349 citizens signed up in the civic
crowdsourcing platform (Bogotá Abierta) when the survey was sent by May 11th
2016.
• Delineating the type of data to be collected: electronic (e-mail) survey.
▪ Determining who will be sampled:
• Convenience-based: In this case, it is not needed to compute probabilities of
selection. It was taken the whole population of citizens that signed up in the
platform and for that, the electronic survey was sent.
▪ Creating and testing the instrument:
• Choosing the response mode: the mode used was via email by responding the
survey in a web-based tool.
• Drafting the questions: the questions were taken from different authors from
related literature in previous studies.
Research methodology 39
• Pretesting and revising the survey instrument: the questions were tested out with
expert and non-expert respondents and adjusted, calculating the Cronbach’s
Alpha4 for its reliability before launching the official survey via email.
▪ Contacting respondents throughout the survey process by using the following:
• Notification of survey: It was sent an email with the introduction information
describing the objetive research and the authors involved in Universidad Nacional
de Colombia, this survey was sent May 11th of 2016 at 8:08am (See: Annex:
survey email).
• Postdelivery reminder and thank-you note: When the survey was filled out by the
participant, there was a thank you note.
• Nonresponse follow-up for those who do not return the survey: there was not
non-response follow-up.
▪ Data collection, data reduction, and analysis.
• After the data was collected, it was proceeded to apply some multivariate data
analysis for data reduction and analysis.
The main advantages of on-line surveys are (Ilieva, Baron, & Healey, 2002):
• very low financial resource implications,
• short response time,
• researcher's control of the sample (and no involvement in the survey),
• Data can be directly loaded in the data analysis software, thus saving time and
resources associated with the data entry process.
4 Cronbach's alpha determines the internal consistency or average correlation of items in a survey instrument to gauge its reliability (Santos, 1999).
40 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
2.4 Research design
It was done a systematic review of literature from different authors about user motivation
in crowdsourcing according to some previous studies made by Maria Antikainen &
Väätäjä, (2008); MJ Antikainen & Vaataja, (2010); Bakici et al., (2011); Borst, (2010);
Daren C. Brabham, (2010); Leimeister et al., (2009b); Nov, Arazy, & Anderson, (2011);
Paulini et al., (2014) Then it was created a survey with a self-report Likert (1-5) scale that
was also used in Borst, (2010) and Brabham, (2008); (Nov et al., 2011) (Paulini et al.,
2014), conceptually proposed in (Zhao & Zhu, 2012) to measure the motivations and the
intensity of these.
The measurement instrument is structured in two sections to collect data:
The first part of the survey was designed to measure four (4) constructs that were taken
from the literature review in terms of motivation: learning, altruistic, hedonic and social.
For each construct, it was taken validated statements based on the literature that the
reader can find in detail in the table 2-3. For the fifteen (15) statements responded a
unique question using (0-5) Likert scale, being 1- nothing important, 2- less important, 3-
somehow important, 4- important, 5- very important.
The the second part of the survey was designed to capture six (6) socio demographic
variables that contain questions of gender, sex, age range, occupation, neighborhood’s
sectors in Bogotá, socioeconomic stratum and education level.
In the following table 2-3, the reader can visualize the dimensions, type of motivation
(intrinsic or extrinsic), statements created in a survey that will be describe later and the
references cited above.
"How important is for you, that your participation gives you the opportunity to” (this
questions is adapted by survey made by (Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2011a)) In
Spanish, (Qué tan importante es para ti, que tu participación te dé la oportunidad de: )
Research methodology 41
Table 2-1: motivations, types, statements, variables names and references.
Motivation Type of
motivation
Statements
(In Spanish)
Variable names References
ALTRUIST
Produce a positive
change in society
Intrinsic
To be
capable of
contribute of
the wellbeing
of other
citizens.
(poder aportar al
bienestar de otros
ciudadanos.)
CONTRIBUTE
(Stahlbrost &
Kareborn,
2011)
(McLure
Wasko &
Faraj, 2000a)
(Hars & Ou,
2002)
(Chris Zhao
& Zhu, 2014)
(J Lampel &
Bhalla, 2007)
To think your
ideas could
be useful to
other
citizens.
(pensar que tus
ideas pueden ser
útiles para otros
ciudadanos.)
USEFUL
LEARNING
Knowledge and
Exchange
Intrinsic
To Learn
something
new about
your city.
(aprender algo
nuevo sobre tu
ciudad)
Learn
(Stahlbrost &
Kareborn,
2011)
(McLure
Wasko &
Faraj, 2000a)
and and
(Hars & Ou,
2002)
42 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
To know
new ideas for
the city.
(conocer nuevas
ideas para la
ciudad).
KNOW
(Daren C.
Brabham,
2012b), (J
Lampel &
Bhalla, 2007)
To share
your
knowleadge
and
experience
with others.
(compartir tu
conocimiento y
experiencia con
los demás)
SHARE
HEDONIC
Obtain
peer recognition
Extrinsic
(Introjected
regulation)
To get
recognitizon
from other
citizens.
(obtener
reconocimiento de
otros ciudadanos.)
RECOGNITION
(Maria
Antikainen &
Väätäjä,
2008b;
Stahlbrost &
Kareborn,
2011)
Research methodology 43
To let other
people know
how good
you are for
your ideas.
(que otras
personas sepan
que tan bueno
eres por tus ideas)
GOOD
(Casaló,
Cisneros,
Flavián, &
Guinalíu,
2009)
To know how
other people
react to you
for your
ideas.
(saber cómo otras
personas
reaccionarán por
tus ideas.)
REACTION
44 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Win a reward
Extrinsic
(Introjected
regulation)
To know that
I would win
something if
my idea is
selected to
the solution
to the city.
(saber que
ganarías algo, si tu
idea es
seleccionada
como solución en
la ciudad)
REWARD
(Amabile,
1998; M. J.
Antikainen &
Vaataja,
2010;
Stahlbrost &
Kareborn,
2011;
Stewart,
Huerta, &
Sader, 2009;
Y Zhao &
Zhu, 2014)
To obtain a
monetary
reward.
(Obtener una
recompensa
monetaria)
MONEY
Fun and curiosity Intrinsic
To have fun
participating.
(Divertirte
participando)
FUN
(Daren C.
Brabham,
2010b,
2012b;
Stahlbrost &
Kareborn,
2011; Y Zhao
& Zhu, 2014)
(McLure
Wasko &
Faraj, 2000b;
Nov et al.,
2011)
To know the
ideas of other
citizens.
(curiosear las
ideas de otros
ciudadanos)
OTHERS
Research methodology 45
SOCIAL
Networking and
social capital
Reciprocity
Extrinsic
Identified
regulation
To benefit
from the
ideas
submitted by
other
citizens.
(beneficiarte de las
ideas publicadas
por otros
ciudadanos)
To relate with
other citizens
with common
interests.
(relacionarte con
otros ciudadanos
con intereses
comunes)
BENEFIT
RELATE
(Chiu, Hsu, &
Wang, 2006;
Joseph
Lampel &
Bhalla, 2007)
Strengthen citizen
participation
Extrinsic
Identified
regulation
To know if
other people
are interested
in citizen
participation.
(saber si otras
personas les
interesa la
participación
ciudadana)
PARTICIPATION
(E. Gil Clary
& Snyder,
1999)
46 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
2.4.1 Survey design
In the survey, it was used the Likert scale which is a technique for attitude measurement.
In this technique, a respondent is confronted with statements that basically are value
judgements. These value judgments reflect the reality of the participant psychic deposition
as feeling, desires, wants etc. So, the participant is invited to express his reflection of
judgement according to a number of scores or degrees called Likert scale. These scores
are usually in ascending order of agreement interpreted by strongly disagree, disagree,
neutral (undecided), agree, strongly agree (Göb, McCollin, & Ramalhoto, 2007).
Likert scales are commonly used in attitude measurements in questionnaires or surveys
in areas such health care, economics, marketing, psychology, marketing and such. In this
sense, the scale for our tool as selected based on literature in the related study approach
in crowdsourcing.
The survey consisted of six demographic questions and 15 statements based on
motivation constructs. The survey was written originally in Spanish (See: Annex 5-1)
because of the native language spoken in Bogotá, Colombia. However, it was translated
the questions and statements in English in order to be consistant with the current
document.
The respondents had to answer for each item a value between 0 to 5 in a Likert scale,
being 0 least important and 5 very important.
Research methodology 47
Table 2-2: Likert scale to measure the survey.
1 2 3 4 5
| | |
Not important somehow important very important
(Nada importante) (medianamente importante) (muy importante)
Table 2-3: survey structure.
Items Question: "How important is for you, that your participation gives you the opportunity to” (In Spanish: Qué tan importante es para ti, que tu participación en Bogotá Abierta te dé la oportunidad de)
1 Learn something new about your city. (Aprender algo nuevo sobre tu ciudad).
2 Be capable of contribute of the wellbeing of other citizens. (Poder aportar al bienestar de otros ciudadanos.)
3 Think your ideas could be useful to other citizens. (Pensar que tus ideas pueden ser útiles para otros ciudadanos.)
4 To know new ideas for the city. (Conocer nuevas ideas para la ciudad.)
5 Get recognitizon from other citizens. (Obtener reconocimiento de otros ciudadanos.)
6 To let other people know how good you are for your ideas. (Que otras personas sepan que tan bueno eres por tus ideas.)
7 To know how other people react to your for your ideas. (Saber cómo otras personas reaccionarán por tus ideas.)
8 To know that I would win something if my idea is selected to the solution to the city. (Saber que ganarías algo, si tu idea es seleccionada como solución en la ciudad.)
9 To know the ideas of other citizens (Conocer las ideas de otros ciudadanos.)
10 To know if other people are interested in citizen participation. (Saber si otras personas les interesa la participación ciudadana.)
11 Share your knowleadge and experience with others (Compartir tu conocimiento y experiencia con los demás.)
12 Benefit from the ideas submitted by other citizens (Beneficiarte de las ideas publicadas por otros ciudadanos.)
48 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
13 Have fun participating (Divertirte participando.)
14 Relate with other citizens with common interests (Relacionarte con otros ciudadanos con intereses comunes.)
15 Obtain a monetary reward. (Obtener una recompensa monetaria.)
Demographic questions:
1 What is your birthday? (¿Cuál es tu fecha de nacimiento?)
2 What is your gender? (¿Cuál es tu género?)
3 What do you do for living? (¿Cuál es tu ocupación?)
4 What neighborhood do you live in Bogotá
(¿En cuál localidad de la ciudad de Bogotá vives?)
5 What is your socio-economic stratum? (Indícanos cuál es tu estrato socio-ecónomico)
6 Lastly, indicate the highest level of education achieved: (Por último, señala el último nivel de educación alcanzado)
2.5 Sample selection
Non-probabilistic sample: in the subgroup of the universe when selecting the elements
does not depend on the probabilities due to the characteristic of this research. This is the
case of the users of Bogotá Abierta. Every citizen-user is part of the sample. For the
research intention is that every citizen-user of the platform has or has not proposed an
idea or several ideas, therefore it was desired to measure the motivations for doing it or
not. For this case, it was developed a non-probabilistic sample for the following reasons:
1) we can measure the error size in our predictions, also called standard error
(Hernandez Sampieri et al., 2010).
Sample unit: citizen-users of Bogotá Abierta should be 356 according to the sample size
Research methodology 49
determination.
Characteristics - delimiting sample unit: all citizen-users at web platform
Bogotabierta.co since March 1st to April 16th of 2016 who proposed ideas for the
development plan 2016-2020 of the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá.
Representative sample unit of the universe: In the case of the web platform
Bogotaabierta.co there are 7349 citizen-users that make them the universe by May 11th of
2016. It was used STATS© to measure the sample size by taking 5% the maximum
acceptable percentage points of error, 50% estimated percentage level and 95% desired
confidence level. Once it was calculated the sample size, it was obtained the following
result: 365. This means it was needed to receive 365 questionnaires answered with the
universe of 7349 citizen-user that is in BogotaAbierta.co platform.
For the sample selection, in order to guarantee the validation of the instrument, it was
needed to go through a testing process of the instrument:
1. Evaluation with experts to ensure the relevance of these, identify redundancies
and reduce the possibility confusion in people who take the online survey.
2. It was sent a first draft to 40 people who know the project and proposed ideas on
BogotaAbierta.co and answer 21 questions, 6 of them demography and 15 based
on motivation constructs.
Figure 2-3: sample size determination calculated with STATS©.
50 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
To validate the instrument in terms of reliability, it was ran the procedure of Cronbach’s
Alpha in SPSS5. The responses show that according to 15 elements, the Cronbach’s
Alpha is 0,851. This number is very close to 1, then, it makes the instrument reliable.
2.6 Data collection and tools
To collect the data, an e-mail survey was used to send to all the signed-up participants in
the civic crowdsourcing platform. The aim of this instrument is to identify the main
motivational factors when participating in a civic crowdsourcing platform as the case
Bogotá Abierta.
For this, it was sent a 2,45-minute survey to the active users in the platform on May 11th
of 2016 less than a month after the close of participation on the District Development Plan
2016-2020 that was due on April 16th 2016.
The time gap for data colletion from respondents was from May 11th 2016 to September
6th 2016, resulting in 1344 answers to run the multivariate data analysis.
The online tool used for the survey called Typeform.6
5 SPSS: Statistics is a software package used for logical batched and non-batched statistical analysis. (https://www-01.ibm.com/software/co/analytics/spss/) 6 Typeform: a web-based platform to collect and share information in a conversational and human way (https://www.typeform.com).
Data analysis 51
3 Data analysis
The data analysis consisted of the deployment of three multivariate data methods: an
explorative factor analysis in order to define the underlying structure among the variables
depicted in the survey. This method let us interpret, describe and understand de data in
much small number of concepts than the original set of variables. It is needed to
understand what these factors represent as collective concept; this is done by reducing
the amount of original information (variance) in a minimum number of factors for
prediction purposes (Hair, 2009). For this reason, Principal Components Analysis (PCA)
method helps to reduce data focusing on obtaining a minimum number of factors needed
to account for the maximum portion of the total variance represented in the original set of
variables and losing the minimal data possible. With the factors derived from PCA, it was
built indicators for the latent components.
The purpose of building the indicators is to rescale values from 0 to 1 by making use of
the following formula:
𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑖 =𝑋 −𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑋)
𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝑋) − 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑋)
Subsequently, indicators were categorized with the objective of knowing the relative
importance of the respondents on each of the observed dimensions by the scaled
depicted below:
[0-0.2] → Not important
(0.2-0.4] → Less important
(0.4-0.6] → Somehow important
(0.6-0.8] → Important
(0.8-1.0] → Very important
52 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
After that, it was utilized the methods Multiple Correspondence Analysis (ACM) and the
Classification Method proposed by a Mixed Algorithm proposed by Pardo & Del Campo,
(2007).
The first method consists of observing the relationships of variables and individuals by
categorical variables, by allowing quantify the categorical variables and reduce its
dimensions through factorial coordinates for detecting possible clusters.
The second method is an strategy proposed by (Morineau, Lebart, & Piron, 1995) and
implemented by (Pardo & Del Campo, 2007) in the library FactoClass in R language, that
consists of running a factor analysis with the current nature of the data, in order to
implement a hierarchical clustering application by using the Ward Method and identifying
the clusters to gather. After that, it was run the K-Means method to consolidate the
individuals by their centroids to finally make a description of each of the cluster and its
active variables.
To characterize the clusters, it was used the function cluster.carac available in the same
library in R by test values which are the built descriptive indexes to identify the variables
that characterize positively and negatively in each cluster. The selected test values are
those where their percentage in each cluster is big enough of the global percentage.
3.1 Descriptive analysis
In the following table 1, the statistical descriptive results are based on the answers
presented by the respondents. The score of each item is in a 5-point scale. The table
shows the variables with greater variate coefficient such as Money, Good, Reward and
Recognition, indicating are the ones with the greatest discriminative capacity.
Data analysis 53
Table 3-1: descriptive statistics.
Variables Min Max 1°
Quartile Mean
3°
Quartile Median Variance
Standard
deviation
Variance
coefficient
LEARN 1 5 4 5 5 4.3490 0.8886 0.9426 22%
CONTRIBUTE 1 5 4 5 5 4.6704 0.4088 0.6394 14%
USEFUL 1 5 5 5 5 4.6659 0.4505 0.6712 14%
KNOW 1 5 4 5 5 4.5476 0.5696 0.7547 17%
RECOGNITION 1 5 2 3 5 3.1942 1.9183 1.3850 43%
GOOD 1 5 2 3 4 3.1138 2.0354 1.4267 46%
REACTION 1 5 3 4 5 3.6012 1.6175 1.2718 35%
REWARD 1 5 2 3 5 3.2530 2.0864 1.4444 44%
OTHERS 1 5 4 5 5 4.3728 0.6882 0.8296 19%
PARTICIPATION 1 5 3 4 5 4.0521 1.2303 1.1092 27%
SHARE 1 5 4 5 5 4.4903 0.6566 0.8103 18%
BENEFIT 1 5 3 4 5 4.0119 1.3938 1.1806 29%
FUN 1 5 3 4 5 3.7083 1.8091 1.3450 36%
RELATE 1 5 3 4 5 3.9598 1.4236 1.1931 30%
MONEY 1 5 1 3 4 2.6823 2.2482 1.4994 56%
In the graphic 1, the data presents positive correlations and significantly statistically
(p_value < 0.001). The higher correlations are Good, Reaction, Reward against
Recognition as the Reward variable to Money.
When using the correlation matrix to identify the five (5) theory groups proposed by the
clustering technique of Ward’s Method, these are not fully clustered according to the
theory. The variables Fun and Others that by definition should be in the construct of
Hedonic.
These results allow observing a high degree of correlation of variable and increasing the
possibility of clustering. However, in order to have a more structure manner to show
evidence of the underlying meaning of all the 15 variable. Then, it is proceeded with the
technique Principal Components Analysis (PCA).
54 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Table 3-2: correlation matrix of the variable of motivation.
According to JF Hair, (2009), it was desired to select the factors that had the highest
cumulative percentage of variance and the eigenvalues greater than 1. The results seen
in the table 3-2 there are 2 principal components accumulating 54.83% of the data.
Another criterion applied to recognize the components are the scree plot depicted in the
graphic below where it is noticed the difference that there are not others above the
eigenvalue > 1.
Data analysis 55
Figure 3-1: scree plot and eigenvalue line to define the principal components.
Table 3-3: eigenvalue, percentage of variance and cumulative percentage of variance with the factor of motivations.
Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Eigenvalue 6,16 2,07 0,98 0,79 0,74 0,67 0,54 0,51 0,48 0,45 0,40 0,38 0,35 0,26 0,22
Percentage
of variance 41,04 13,79 6,58 5,25 4,94 4,49 3,61 3,37 3,20 2,98 2,70 2,53 2,31 1,72 1,48
Cumulative
percentage
of variance
41,04 54,83 61,41 66,67 71,60 76,09 79,71 83,08 86,28 89,26 91,96 94,49 96,80 98,52 100,00
The Table # presents the results of correlation coefficients of each observed variable with
the 2 principal components. The first column, it can be noticed the first component where
reflects the first four variables’ correlation coefficients are greater than 0.70 which
correspond to Relate, Reaction, Good and Others. These variables belong to Hedonic
and Social construct. In the second column, there is the second component with greater
correlation in the variables Contribute, (0,58), Money (-0,55), and Reward (-0,55); so
these variables belong to Hedonic and Altruism.
56 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Table 3-4: Correlation variable with the Factors 1 and 2 retained after the PCA.
Variable
Factor
1
Factor
2
RELATE 0.7290 -0.0003
REACTION 0.7237 -0.1836
GOOD 0.7126 -0.4598
OTHERS 0.7059 0.2713
PARTICIPATION 0.6812 0.1644
FUN 0.6656 -0.1429
RECOGNITION 0.6649 -0.4245
SHARE 0.6360 0.3444
RECOMPENSA 0.6260 -0.5492
KNOW 0.6185 0.4114
LEARN 0.6073 0.3254
BENEFIT 0.6052 0.0351
MONEY 0.5682 -0.5550
USEFUL 0.5295 0.4192
CONTRIBUTE 0.4775 0.5852
Index building
It was proceeded with the Index building in order to group the variables in similar
categories based on the data resulted from PCA in the first and second component.
These value were transformed by the Max-Min method that allows to establish a scale 0-1
in each factor for a categorization to demonstrate the relative importance of each factor
with the socio-demographic data of respondents.
Multiple Correspondence Analyses
Once the index was created, it was needed to analyze it with the socio demographic
answers of the respondents. The objective is to identify the associated profiles. The first
step is to identify the quantity of axes to retain. For this, it was used the selection criterion
of Benzecri proposed by Pardo & Del Campo, (2007), which let it take the associated
Data analysis 57
factor of superior values to the invers of the number of variables 1
𝑠 and, the histogram of
the inertia rates that will be used to select the axes to retain as shown in the graph 3.
Figure 3-2: histogram of eigenvalue, according to the Benzécri criteria.
Table 3-5: percentage of variance and cumulative percentage of variance with factors:
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentage of variance 51.6 25.5 9.3 4.95 2.62 2.09 1.54 1.13 0.7 0.54
Cumulative percentage of
variance 51.6 77.1 86.4 91.4 94 96.1 97.6 98.8 99.5 100
With the objective to cluster the respondents, it was applied the method of mixed
classification. We find in the histogram of level’s index and the dendogram presented in
the figure 3-3, we can observe that we selected 4 groups.
Finally, it was consolidated the clustering by a K-means in 4 clusters, taking initial
centroids generated previously. In the figure 3-4 it is observed the clustering of the 5
groups of the Multiple Correspondance Analysis.
58 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Figure 3-3: dendrogram of hierarchical clustering with the Ward’s method.
Figure 3-4: histogram with distances between cluster to conform.
Data analysis 59
Figure 3-5: first factor view of Multiple Correspondence Analysis with the five groups.
Table 3-6: quantity of individuals classified in each cluster.
cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Individuals 172 340 155 7 61 264 346
60 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
3.2 Results
Cluster 1
According to the data results, there are 405 citizens belonging to this cluster, (33.9%)
have a post grade in the educational level and their occupation description says (36.3%)
are students. Citizens in this cluster found IMPORTANT the following dimensions that
belong to each construct. The Hedonic construct is composed of 3 dimensions: (Curiosity,
Recognition, and Reaction). For “Curiosity” (To know ideas of other citizens) this
represents (66.7 %); “Recognition” (To get recognition from other citizens) represents
(42.7%) and “Reaction” (To know how other people react to your ideas) represents
(42.7%). For the Learning construct, there are 2 dimensions (Know and Share). For
“Know” (To know new ideas for the city) here represents (51.1 %); “Share” (To share your
knowledge and experience with other citizens) represents (51.1 %). For the Social
construct, there are 3 dimensions (Benefit, Participation and Relate). For “Benefit” (To
benefit from ideas submitted by other citizens) represents (48.9 %); “Participation” (To
know if other citizens are interested in participating) represents (52.1%); and “Relate” (To
relate with other citizens with common interests) represents (47.7%). Finally, there is the
Altruist construct with (Useful and Contribute). For “Useful” (To think your ideas could be
useful to other citizens) represents (41.7%) and for “Contribute” (To be capable of
contributing to the welfare of other citizens) represents (40.7 %).
Cluster 2
This cluster is composed of 454 citizens that mainly belong to the 3rd socio economic
stratum and consider as VERY IMPORTANT the following motivations: “Curiosity” (To
know ideas of other citizens) this represents (75.6%), “Share” (To share your knowledge
and experience with other citizens) represents (83.5%), “Useful” (To think your ideas
could be useful to other citizens) represents (90.7%), “Know” (To know new ideas for the
city) here represents (83.9%), “Contribute” (To be capable of contributing to the welfare of
other citizens) represents (87.2%), “Learn” (To learn something new about your city)
represents (74.9%), “Participation” (To know if other citizens are interested in
participating) represents (59.7%), “Relate” (To relate with other citizens with common
Data analysis 61
interests) represents (55.9%) and “Benefit” (To benefit from ideas submitted by other
citizens) represents (58.6%).
Cluster 3
This cluster is composed of 169 citizens that live in the sectors of Chapinero, Fontibón
and Usaquén (65.8%) they have a post grade educational level and their socio economic
stratum is 5 and 6. This cluster considers as NOT IMPORTANT the following variables:
“Good” (To let to know good you are with your ideas) represents (75.7%), “Recognition”
(To get recognition from other citizens) represents (70.4%), “Fun” (Have fun participating)
represents (51.5%), “Reaction” (To know how other people react to your ideas)
represents (47.3%), “Reward” (To know that I would win something, if my idea is selected
as a solution for the city) represents (62.1%) and “Money” (Obtain a monetary reward)
represents (82.2%).
Cluster 4
This cluster is composed of 8 citizens; they belong to the 1st socio economic stratum
(25%) and find NOT IMPORTANT the following dimensions: “Learn” (To learn something
new about your city) represents (100%), “Contribute” (To be capable to contribute to the
wellbeing of other citizens) represents (75%), “Useful” (To think your ideas could be
useful to other citizens) represents (75%), “Know” (To know new ideas for the city) here
represents (75%), “Curiosity” (To know ideas of other citizens) this represents (75%),
“Share” (To share your knowledge and experience with other citizens) represents (75%),
“Fun” (To have fun participating) represents (100%), “Benefit” (To benefit from ideas
submitted by other citizens) represents (87.5%), “Participation” (To know if other citizens
are interested in participating) represents (75%), “Reaction” (To know how other people
react to your ideas) represents (87.5%), “Relate” (To relate with other citizens with
common interests) represents (75%), “Reward” (To know that I would win something, if
my idea is selected as a solution for the city) represents (87.5%), “Good” (To let to know
good you are with your ideas) represents (87.5%), “Recognition” (To get recognition from
other citizens) represents (75%), “Money” (Obtain a monetary reward) represents
(87.5%).
Cluster 5
62 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
This cluster is composed of 309 citizens, which mainly live in the sector of Kennedy
(30,9%) with an educational level of high school, technical professional and technological
(29.9%). Their occupation show that (21.4%) are unemployed or working in something
else. Their age range is between 55 and 64 years old. The citizens belonging to this
cluster, find these motivations VERY IMPORTANT “Reaction” (To know how other people
react to your ideas) represents (88.7%), “Good” (To let to know good you are with your
ideas) represents (75.7%), “Recognition” (To get recognition from other citizens)
represents (74.4%), “Reward” (To know that I would win something, if my idea is selected
as a solution for the city) represents (78%), “Fun” (To have fun participating) represents
(90%), “Relate” (To relate with other citizens with common interests) represents (91.9%),
“Benefit” (91.6%), “Others” (97.1%), “Participation” (To know if other citizens are
interested in participating) represents (90.6%), “Share” (To share your knowledge and
experience with other citizens) represents (99.4%), “Money” (Obtain a monetary reward)
represents (53.1%), “Know” (To know new ideas for the city) here represents (98.1%),
“Learn” (To learn something new about your city) represents (93.9%), “Useful” (To think
your ideas could be useful to other citizens) represents (98.4%), “Contribute” (To be
capable to contribute to the wellbeing of other citizens) represents (95.8%).
Conclusions and recommendations 63
4 Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Characterization of a civic crowdsourcing platform.
The State as institution is responsible for the economical and social growth of a country.
So innovation is not exclusive for enterprises only; governments are constantly confronted
from external and internal forces to change and for this reason, it has to keep up to
respond to such claims. As covered in the conceptual framework of this document, the
public organizations have to innovate in order to provide better public experience to
citizens and their public institutions. It was understood the public pillars of innovation that
go from the interconnection of the organizations, their use of ICT that support the in-
bound and outbound communications, the improvement of process to serve to citizen to
the empowerment of public workers and citizen communities.
It was introduced open government as an umbrella framework in order to understand its
characteristics and how this concept, public institutions can adopt it and transform
themselves by having a more transparent, participatory and collaborative government.
In this research, open government was understood not only to provide full access of
public information to the people but also establish a transparent public management
where all citizens have the right to know and the duty to contribute in the political
decision-making process eliminating the opacity in governance. Hence, citizen
participation is key and brings benefits not only to the citizen but to the government as
well. For citizens, it is important to build trust between citizens and government, this helps
to improve to manage power in the public administration. Moreover, citizen participation
helps reduce biase around problem situations that could be tied to party’s political
interests in government. The process of participation has also a positive effect in social
terms, this means, not only because citizens participate and have an outcome but also
64 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
empowers them to care about the public value. Citizen participants can learn from and
inform the government for alternative solutions, gain citizen activism and could persuade
the government based citizen’s viewpoint. For goverments, build strategic alliance with
citizens for a good public management, gain legitimacy of decisions and better policy and
implementation of decisions (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004).
In Colombia, the 134 law of 1994 that establishes the mechanisms for citizen participation
has 8 legal procedures such as: 1) the legislative and normative popular initiative for
public corporations, 2) referendum, 3) derogatory referendum, 4) approval referendum, 5)
revocation of mandate, 6) plebiscite, 7) people consultation and 8) open councils. These
mechanisms, allow citizens to demand to the government about political matters and in all
cases the people’s choice is compulsory. However, the law also highlights other kinds of
mechanism of citizen participation will not be impeded (Colombia, 1994).
Therefore, other kind of participation where citizens not only demand change or oust
governmental representatives but to build an open and constant conversation about
public matters is also important and necessary and it is possible as explained in open
government.
ICT enables a radical instrument in public management, for this E-government have been
in the agenda for many countries in order to provide better delivery of government
services to citizens, increase transparency, enhance interation with industries and
establish faster channels for communication with citizens. E-government facilitates to
build a more efficient, competitive, participatory and transparent State and therefore,
having a modern public management.
It was understood that is strategic for a country to have a robust E-government because it
can respond faster to the economical, social and political problems that it daily faces.
From the citizen’s perspective, it helps to interact more easily for public services and be
part of the political decision-making process that the traditional mechanisms of
participation stated above can not allow in a daily basis.
Conclusions and recommendations 65
As a result, it was concluded that E-government and open government can revitalize a
democracy by taking the benefits of interations with citizens that allow the ICT in
government and align them with the pillars of transparency, participation and collaboration
of open government.
Additionally, it was analyzed the concept of open innovation and placing it into the public
scenario, as a model that use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge in an
organization to accelerate innovation efforts. In other words, the public organization as the
Mayor’s Office of Bogotá, is tapping into civic communities to capture ideas to structure
them in the public management or for the city’s improvement.
Under this model, it was characterized a digital platform (Bogotá Abierta) that behaves as
crowdsourcing that is a type of open innovation. As a result, Bogotá Abierta fits and
pursues the concepts of open government and e-government.
4.2 Self-determination theory and its applicability to the study of motivation in civic crowdsourcing
The Self-determination theory depicted three basic needs: for competence, for
relatedness, and for autonomy. These are compound of propensities of growth and
integration, constructive social development and personal well being Ryan et al., (2000).
This SDT theory describes motivations in intrinsic and extrinsic; this was helpful in order
to have the measures to build the instrument that was applied to the citizens that
participated in the civic crowdsourcing platform. This theory was used by (Daren C.
Brabham, 2012b) to measure crowdsourcing experiments before. It demonstrated
consistency to evaluate our research objective. The constructs were taken from this
literature and became suitable to the objective population as it is in this study (i.e:
citizens). As in other studies such (Hossain, 2012b; Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-Kåreborn,
2011b) it was tested the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in private crowdsourcing
initiatives with their users. Here it is applied in a public context where their expectation
and drives are different.
It was possible to gather 4 constructs (Altruist, Learning, Hedonic and Social) that are
extrinsic and intrinsic letting build statements taken from seasoned authors in the
66 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
motivations field of crowdsourcing and innovation communities to then assign to each
variable and compute with the multivariate data analysis.
The SDT constituted the baseground to identify in terms of user motivations what to
measure and the meaning of each measure in the realm of participants in crowdsourcing.
4.3 Predominants factors that motivated participation of citizens in a civic crowdsourcing initiative.
This research is interested in highlighting the motivational factors of citizen participation in
a civic crowdsourcing initiative. For this reason, the researchers came across to
examining the citizens that submitted ideas on the current civic crowdsourcing platform of
the city of Bogotá during a specific time lapse where the platform was going to receive a
considerable amount of interations and was key in that moment to capture the research
objective because of the buzz word it was generating.
Cluster 1: Citizens are curious and eager to share information to benefit other
citizens
The two factors that excel in this cluster are Curiosity (66.7%) and Share (51.1%).
According to the literature, these dimensions correspond to Hedonic and Learning (both
intrinsic motivations) constructs respectively. Curiosity is considered an intrinsic
motivation that facilitates the participation due to the fact that “users want to try or
discover new things in the specific environment” (Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhoefer,
2011, p. 8). It is also affirmed according to Ryan & Deci, (2000) that individuals want to
explore and learn without requiring external incentives. This means that citizens find in the
civic crowdsourcing platform a way to learn new things for the city from peer citizens
rather than having an external motivational driver. With Share, there are different
motivational perspectives for this dimension. The one that describes it better in the
context of public good, people share knowledge and experiences because of a sense of
community interest, moral obligation, sentiment of justice, public value and awareness of
the community (McLure Wasko & Faraj, 2000b). It is understood with this, people care to
Conclusions and recommendations 67
share and eager to know more about the other fellow citizens think as a result of a
collective and pro-social interest to contribute to the city.
Cluster 2: Citizens are motivated by the welfare of others.
The two factors that excel in this cluster are Useful with (90.7%) and Contribute (87.2%),
both dimensions correspond only to the Altruist construct (intrinsic motivation) and when
analyzing with the theoretical definition, these stand for increasing the welfare of other
individuals. This can also be understood as a non-calculative generosity that is often used
to explain this behavior. In other words, there is self-interest as a motivating factor that
lacks of reasonable evidence or absence of obvious external rewards (Batson & Powell,
2003; J Lampel & Bhalla, 2007). Citizens are motivated in this cluster mainly for the
general well-being of their citizen neighbors and they might have well felt identified as a
sense of reciprocity. This means, citizens that contribute for others would expect to feel
pleased when others achieve their desired goals.
Cluster 3: Citizens are not motivated by money and do not care about a personal
reward.
These factors only excel in this cluster as Hedonic, these are composed of 4 most
relevant factors such as: Money (82.2%) and Reward (62.1%), both described as “Win a
Reward” component. Good 75.7%) and Recognition (70.4%), both described as “Obtain
peer recognition”. These 4 are (extrinsic motivations - introjected regulation). There are
two types of “Rewards”: tangible as trophies, awards, paychecks etc. (monetary). Or
intangible that is described as public recognition, as to be in the top five of a leaderboard,
give privileges etc (MJ Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010). In our results it is observed that
citizen found the dimension Money as not important with a high percentage, this means in
this public context that citizens are not motivated at all by looking for money or public
recognition in return. It can be infered, that it is more relevant other motivational factors
that drive the participation behavior. The same happens with the dimensions Good and
Recognition, it could be inferred that citizens would participate as anonymous because
their status or credit are not important either.
68 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Cluster 4: Not relevant information to interpret.
This cluster is considerable small in terms of the global population. The representations
for the factors seem very homogenous, making it difficult or irrelevant to profile this
cluster. The fifteen dimensions are represented in three percentage proportions:
recognition, useful, contribute, relate, participation, share and know show 75%. Money,
reward, good, reaction and benefit show 85%. And finally, the dimensions fun and learn
show 100%. It is interpreted these results that the 8 citizens have not importance in any of
the motivations or just responded with the survey in a proper manner.
Cluster 5: Citizens are motivated by a positive impact in society and colletive
benefit.
Only the factor “Money” is 53.1 % and the rest fifteen motivational dimensions are above
(75.7%), starting from “Reward” until “Useful” (98.4%), “Curiosity” (97.1) and “Share”
(99.4%). It can be assumed here that citizens want to produce a positive impact in society
with useful ideas. They also are intrigued and find curious to know how the city’s problem
can be solved with different approaches. And being “Share” the most relevant motivation
in the public good, according to McLure Wasko & Faraj, (2000, p. 161) “…it goes beyond
the maximization of self/interest and personal gain”. Additionally, these motivations could
be also understood according to Batson & Powell, (2003); Fahri Yetim, Torben
Wiedenhoefer, (2011) that say, people get involved in participating in online communities
by “upholding some moral values as principlism” and collectivism that “refers to increase
the welfare of a group or collective” rather for external tangible reward.
In general, it is concluded that citizens are driven more as a pro-social collective interest
than a personal benefit. They feel motivated to learn and share what is happening in the
city and how it can changed for the better, it is just an intrinsic motivation to discover
about its own habitat. It is more a moral obligation or walfare awareness that the city can
be improved because he or she as a pedestrian for example will be benefitted for the
implementation of the solution. Money or reward is not a drive in this public context, it
could be imagined that citizens would be driven to participate because of a tangible
Conclusions and recommendations 69
extrinsic motivation as a public recognition or monetary paycheck, they do it more
because he or she feels that the solution will be best collective reward he or she can get
that not only help oneself but other anonymous citizens in the same citizen situation.
4.4 Suggestions for future research
This research motivates future research in different aspects:
• How citizens change overtime when participating in a civic crowdsourcing
platform. This means, is it a change of role? Is it now more a lurker than a
contributor.
• What are the motivations of public workers by managing the civic crowdsourcing
platform.
• How can it be assessed the effects of using the civic crowdsourcing instrument in
open government and e-government.
• What can be the managerial strategies derived from these study to implement in
terms of political marketing to engage more citizens to participate.
4.5 Recommendations for public managerial purposes
Throughout the document it was identified the relevance that Open Government and
E-Government represent for public institutions and the only way to strengthen the
democracy is to empower the citizens. It was observed that citizens have different
behaviors in terms of contributing to their city and to the public management; they do
not participate expecting something in return as a reward or money. what they expect
is to live better not only for themselves but for their neighbors.
• The principal recommendation for public managerial purposes is to target
campaigns to citizens with altruistic and collective welfare benefits to attract
citizen’s attention.
• Money or recognitions are not principal motivational drivers. Instead, it is
suggested to invite them to the discussion of the city.
70 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
• It is suggested to empower the citizens and upbring their knowledge to make it
useful for the city.
• Stress that the ideas collected in the civic crowdsourcing platform are for their
benefits and collective well-being for the city.
• Strategies should be more local focused. Meaning with this that citizens care
more about problems around them and they feel part of the solution and
therefore, leverage the participation rate.
• ICT tools are spreading fast in a capital city as Bogotá is. So it is
recommended to bring more services for citizens to bring more trust in
governance by interacting constanly with them.
• It is recommended to express the results of the finished challenges in the civic
crowdsourcing platform so that citizens can spread the word and engage more
not only with the digital tool but also to cautivate others to participate.
• Bogotá Abierta is a citizen’s tool served by the local government. So this
message is very strong to send. The purpose is to bring public value to the city
by the proposal of the citizens and the government a facilitator of this effort
and not the other way around.
• In the communicational campaigns, it should be stressed that the most
important knowledge to improve the city is from the citizens.
Annexes 71
5 Annexes
5.1 Citizen motivation and socio-demographic survey
72 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Annexes 73
74 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Annexes 75
76 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Annexes 77
78 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Annexes 79
80 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
5.2 Bibliometric analysis for user motivation in crowdsourcing, bibliographic
coupling by author.
Source: elaborated by the author.
References 81
6 References
Acar, O. A., & Van den Ende, J. (2011). Motivation, Reward Size and Contribution in Idea
Crowdsourcing. DIME-DRUID Academy Winter Conference, 1–30.
Alam, S. L., & Campbell, J. (2012a). Crowdsourcing Motivations in a not-for-profit GLAM
context: The Australian newspapers digitisation program. In ACIS 2012 :
Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
Alam, S. L., & Campbell, J. (2012b). Crowdsourcing Motivations in a not-for-profit GLAM
context: The Australian newspapers digitisation program. In ACIS 2012 :
Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved
from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
84878303844&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá. (2015). Bogotá Abierta - Civic crowdsourcing platform for
Bogotá. Retrieved April 5, 2017, from https://bogotaabierta.co/
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5).
Antikainen, M. J., & Vaataja, H. K. (2010). Rewarding in open innovation communities.
How to motivate members ? Technology, 11(4), 440–456.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.032267
Antikainen, M., & Vaataja, H. (2010). Rewarding in open innovation communities–how to
motivate members. And Innovation Management. Retrieved from
http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.032267
Antikainen, M., & Väätäjä, H. (2008a). Innovating Is Fun - Motivations to Participate in
Online Open Innovation Communities. Proceedings of the First ISPIM Innovation
Symposium Singapore: Managing Innovation in a Connected World, Singapore.
Retrieved from http://www.ispim.org/abstracts/The Proceedings of the 1st ISPIM
Innovation Symposium, Singapore - 14-17 December 2008/antikainen_m.html
Antikainen, M., & Väätäjä, H. (2008b). Innovating Is Fun - Motivations to Participate in
Online Open Innovation Communities. Proceedings of the First ISPIM Innovation
Symposium Singapore: Managing Innovation in a Connected World, Singapore.
82 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2011). Motives for Participation in On-Line Open
Innovation Platforms. Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics, 14(11).
Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity.
Batson, C., & Powell, A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. Handbook of
Psychology. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471264385.wei0519/full
Battistella, C., & Nonino, F. (2012). Exploring the impact of motivations on the attraction of
innovation roles in open innovation web-based platforms. Production Planning &
Control, (March 2012), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.647876
Bogotá. (2016). Estrategia de Participación Ciudadana en la Formulación del Plan de
Desarrollo Distrital 2016-2020.
Borins, S. (2006). The Challenge of Innovating in Government. Innovations in
Management Series – IBM Center for the Business of Government, USA (reedición
de la versión original de 2001).
Borins, S. (2010). Innovation as narrative. Ash Center for Democratic Governance and
Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge.
Borst, I. (2010). Understanding Crowdsourcing Effects of Motivation and Rewards on
Participation and Performance in Voluntary Online Activities. ERIM PhD Series in
Research in Management (Vol. 221). Haveka. Retrieved from
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21914/EPS2010221LIS9789058922625.pdf
Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction
and Cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, 14(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507084420
Brabham, D. C. (2010a). Brabham, D. C. (2010). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem
solving: leveraging the collective intelligence of online communities for public good
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah).
Brabham, D. C. (2010b). Moving the Crowd At Threadless. Information, Communication &
Society, 13(8), 1122–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691181003624090
Brabham, D. C. (2012a). Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application to
Improve Public Engagement in Transit Planning. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 40(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.693940
Brabham, D. C. (2012b). Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application to
Improve Public Engagement in Transit Planning. Journal of Applied Communication
References 83
Research, 40(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.693940
Brandão, S. M., & Bruno-Faria, M. de F. (2013). Inovação no setor público: análise da
produção científica em periódicos nacionais e internacionais da área de
administração. Revista de Administração Pública, 47(1), 227–248. Retrieved from
http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ezproxy.unal.edu.co/full_record.do?product=UA&s
earch_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=4AIaGVCEiDamZJU61Hg&page=2&doc=
14#addressSCIELO:S0034-76122013000100010-1
Casaló, L. V., Cisneros, J., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2009). Determinants of success in
open source software networks. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(4),
532–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570910948650
Chapman, R., & Hunt, M. (1987). Open government. New York: Croom Helm.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). The era of open innovation. Managing Innovation and Change,
35–42. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015090
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision
Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
Chris Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on
participation in crowdsourcing contest. Online Information Review, 38(7), 896–917.
https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2014-0188
Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The Motivations to Volunteer: Theoretical and Practical
Considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156–159.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00037
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. a, Haugen, J., & Miene, P.
(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
Clary, E., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Current Directions in Psychological. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8721.00037
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393553
84 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
Colombia, C. de la R. (1994). LEY 134 Ley Estatutaria de los mecanismos de
participación.
DANE. (2016). Estimaciones de población 1985 - 2005 y proyecciones de población 2005
- 2020.
Dankhe, G. (1989). Investigación y comunicación. —Collado Y GL DANHKE (Comps.). La
Comunicación ….
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open
innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&d Management. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x/full
Eriksson, F., & Mörk, M. (2014). What Drives the Crowd ? A study of user motivations on
web-based innovation platforms.
Estellés-Arolas, Enrique, Navarro-Giner, R., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2015).
Crowdsourcing Fundamentals: Definition and Typology. In Advances in
Crowdsourcing (pp. 33–48).
Estelles-Arolas, E., & Gonzalez-Ladron-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated
crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638
Estelles-Arolas, E., & Gonzalez-Ladron-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated
crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638
Estrategia Gobierno en Línea - MinTIC. (2016). Premios Índigo+ reconocieron lo mejor de
la innovación pública digital en el 2016 - Estrategia GEL. Retrieved April 6, 2017,
from http://estrategia.gobiernoenlinea.gov.co/623/w3-article-22073.html
Evans, A. M., & Campos, A. (2013). Open Government Initiatives: Challenges of Citizen
Participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172–185.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21651
Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhoefer, and M. R. (2011). Designing for Motivation: Focusing
on Motivational Values in Two Case Studies. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(p. 255). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68339-9_34
Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in digital era: concept, practice, and development.
International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/download/32415104/EG_in_digital_era.pdf
Field, T. (2003). The e-Government Imperative. OECD egovernment studies. OECD
References 85
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264101197-en
Gavelin, K., Burall, S., & Wilson, R. (2009). Open government: beyond static measures.
OECD Publishing, (July), 35. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/gov/46560184.pdf
Geiger, C. P., & Lucke, J. von. (2012). Open Government and (Linked) (Open)
(Government) (Data). JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government,
4(2), 265–278.
GEL. (2013). Estudio de Conocimiento y Uso de Servicios de Gobierno Electrónico en
Ciudadanos, empresas y entidades (2013). Retrieved December 17, 2015, from
http://estrategia.gobiernoenlinea.gov.co/623/articles-7913_conocimiento1_2013.pdf
GEL. (2014). Estudio de Conocimiento y Uso de Servicios de Gobierno Electrónico en
Ciudadanos, Empresas y Entidades (2014). Retrieved December 17, 2015, from
http://estrategia.gobiernoenlinea.gov.co/623/articles-7913_monitoreo3_2014.pdf
Göb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of
Likert scales. Quality & Quantity. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-007-9089-z
Hair, J. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Retrieved from
https://works.bepress.com/joe_hair/2/
Halstuk, M. E., & Chamberlin, B. F. (2006). The Freedom of Information Act 1966–2006:
A Retrospective on the Rise of Privacy Protection Over the Public Interest in
Knowing What the Government’s Up To. Communication Law and Policy, 11(4),
511–564. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326926clp1104_3
Hars, A., & Ou, S. (2002). Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source
projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2001.927045
Heckmann, D. (2011). Open government - Retooling democracy for the 21st century. In
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Hernandez Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2010). Metodología
de la Investigación. McGraw Hill (Vol. 53).
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Hilgers, D. (2012). Open Government: Theoretische Bezüge und konzeptionelle
Grundlagen einer neuen Entwicklung in Staat und öffentlichen Verwaltungen.
Zeitschrift Für Betriebswirtschaft, 82(6), 631–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-
012-0571-2
Hilgers, D., & Ihl, C. (2010). Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to
86 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
the public sector. The International Journal of Public. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/027e/28e33c592adc746c5ba4b77e8ca14fc1cd75.p
df
Hossain, M. (2012a). Users’ motivation to participate in online crowdsourcing platforms. In
2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology
Research (pp. 310–315). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTR.2012.6236409
Hossain, M. (2012b). Users’ motivation to participate in online crowdsourcing platforms. In
2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology
Research (pp. 310–315). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTR.2012.6236409
Howe, J. (2006). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. North, 14(14), 1–5.
Huizingh, E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
Technovation. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497210001100
Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and
cons. International Journal of Market. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/722ba830392d07b5fed26fc6a93ff583/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=45628
Irvin, R., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the
effort? Public Administration Review. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x/full
Kollock, P. (1999). (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in
cyberspace.
Lakhani, K., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Tushman, M. (2012). Open innovation and
organizational boundaries: the impact of task decomposition and knowledge
distribution on the locus of innovation. Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1980118
Lakhani, K. R., & Wolf, R. G. (2003). MIT Sloan School of Management Why Hackers Do
What They Do : Understanding Motivation Effort in Free / Open Source Software
Projects. Social Science Research, (September).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.443040
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving
the gift of experience. Journal of Computer‐Mediated. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00332.x/full
References 87
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving
the gift of experience. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 100–121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00332.x
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management
Journal. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.507/abstract
Lawrence, J., & Carver, C. (2002). Velocity toward goal attainment in immediate
experience as a determinant of affect. Journal of Applied Social. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00242.x/abstract
Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009a). Leveraging
Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260108
Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009b). Leveraging
Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260108
Linkruus Kim, Nilsson Kristian, W. A. (2012). Crowdsourcing - Take on Goliath -
Motivating people to participate in Crowdsourcing. Retrieved from http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:560799/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Lorenzo, S., & César, C. (2010). Open government: gobierno abierto. Jaén, España:
Algón Editrores MMX, 2010..
Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2009). Harnessing crowds : Mapping the
genome of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan School of Management, 1, 1–20.
Marjanovic, S., Fry, C., & Chataway, J. (2012). Crowdsourcing based business models: In
search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy. Retrieved from
http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/08/scipol.scs009.short
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Retrieved December 10, 2015,
from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
Massal, J., & Sandoval, C. G. (2010). Electronic government. Análisis Político, 23(68), 3–
25. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0121-
47052010000100001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es
McLure Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000a). “It is what one does”: why people participate and
88 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(2–3), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-
8687(00)00045-7
McLure Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000b). “It is what one does”: why people participate and
help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00045-7
Means, G., Schneider, D., & By-Schiro, J. F. (2000). Metacapitalism: The e-business
revolution and the design of 21st-century companies and markets. Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=556829
Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision
and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533
MinTIC. Decreto 2573 (2014).
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Retrieved
from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=es&lr=&id=Hm9uKVj0qDYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&
dq=Moore,+M.+(1995).+Creating+public+value.+Cambridge,+MA:+Harvard+Universi
ty+Press&ots=5FGiC-QyQL&sig=5l02Isfd-Td_lLiJU3fwnZx7eH0
Moore, M., & Khagram, S. (2004). On creating public value: What business might learn
from government about strategic management. Corporate Social Responsibility
Initiative Working.
Moore, M., & Khagram, S. (2004). On creating Public Value: What Business might learn
from Government about Strategic Management. Corporate Social Responsibility
Initiative - Working Paper 3.
Morineau, A., Lebart, L., & Piron, M. (1995). Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle.
Dunod, Paris.
Morsella, E., Bargh, J., & Gollwitzer, P. (2009). Oxford handbook of human action.
Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2008-14699-000
Mulgan, G. (2007). Ready or not?: taking innovation in the public sector seriously. Nesta.
Nov, O., Arazy, O., & Anderson, D. (2011). Dusting for science: motivation and
participation of digital citizen science volunteers. iConference, 68–74.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1940761.1940771
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2010). Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing
References 89
community: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 555–566.
Obama, B. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies.
President of the United States [Obama Memorandum]. Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2009.03.06_Exhibit_7_-
_President_Obama_FOIA_Memo.pdf
OECD. (2005). Modernising Government: The way forward. Paris.
OPG. (2011). Open Government Partnership - Brochure (2011). Retrieved December 17,
2015, from http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about
Oscar Oszlak. (2013). Gobierno abierto: hacia un nuevo paradigma de gestión pública.
Red de Gobierno Electrónico de América Latina Y El Caribe – Red GEALC.
Pardo, C. E., & Del Campo, P. C. (2007). Combinación de métodos factoriales y de
análisis de conglomerados en R: el paquete FactoClass. Revista Colombiana de
Estadística, 30, 231–245.
Paulini, M., Maher, M. Lou, & Murty, P. (2014). Motivating participation in online
innovation communities. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 10, p.15.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2014.058388
Pelechrinis, K. (2015). On the Pitfalls of Crowdsourcing for Civic Information
Management. iConference 2015 Proceedings. Retrieved from
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/73458
Peñalosa, E. (2016). Plan de Desarrollo Bogotá Mejor Para Todos 2016-2020. Bogotá.
Porter, L. (1970). The use of rewards in motivating marginal members of the work force.
Retrieved from
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD07016
89
Radio, C. (2017). Bogotá Abierta, la iniciativa más exitosa de gobierno digital en América
Latina. Retrieved April 6, 2017, from
http://caracol.com.co/emisora/2017/04/04/bogota/1491342048_137447.html
Ramírez-Alujas, Á. (2010). Innovación en la Gestión Pública y Open Government
(Gobierno Abierto): Una vieja nueva idea. Retrieved December 26, 2015, from
https://www.academia.edu/823883/Innovación_en_la_Gestión_Pública_y_Open_Go
vernment_Gobierno_Abierto_Una_vieja_nueva_idea_Innovation_in_Public_Manage
ment_and_Open_Government_An_old_
Ramírez-Alujas, Á. (2011). Open Government y Gobernanza Colaborativa: El (inevitable)
90 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
camino hacia un nuevo paradigma de Gobierno y Gestión Pública. Estado del arte,
desafíos y. Ponencia Presentada En El X Congreso de AECPA:“La. Retrieved from
http://www.recp.es/uploads/files/modules/congress/10/papers/555.pdf
Ramírez-Alujas, Á. V. (2010). Innovación en la Gestión Pública y Open Government
(Gobierno Abierto): Una Vieja Nueva Idea (Innovation in Public Management and
Open Government: An Old New Idea). Revista Buen Gobierno, (9).
Riascos, S., & Martínez-Giordano, G. (2008). El Gobierno Electrónico como estrategia de
participación ciudadana en la Administración pública a nivel de Suramérica-Casos
Colombia y Uruguay. CollECTer. Retrieved from
http://gyepro.univalle.edu.co/documentos/linc1.pdf
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determinaton Theory and the
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,
55(February), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Santos, J. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal
of Extension. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.php/journal-
current-issue.php
Schonlau, M., Jr, D. R., & Elliott, M. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and
the web. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=es&lr=&id=dyJMxgV7JScC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq
=Conducting+Research+Surveys+via+E-
Mail+and+the+Web&ots=9n_tcmh8z4&sig=-TeIL3nWv_P4buviVEFggfirXp0
Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2012). Citizen Participation, Open Innovation, and
Crowdsourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning. Journal of Planning
Literature, 28(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412212469112
Soliman, W., & Tuunainen, V. K. (2015). Understanding Continued Use of Crowdsourcing
Systems: An Interpretive Study. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic
Commerce Research, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
18762015000100002
Ståhlbröst, A., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2011a). Exploring users motivation in innovation
communities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
References 91
14(4), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.043051
Ståhlbröst, A., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2011b). Exploring users motivation in innovation
communities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
14(4), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.043051
Stahlbrost, A., & Kareborn, B. B. (2011). Exploring users motivation in innovation
communities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
14(4), 298. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.043051
Stewart, O., Huerta, J. M., & Sader, M. (2009). Designing crowdsourcing community for
the enterprise. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human
Computation - HCOMP ’09 (p. 50). https://doi.org/10.1145/1600150.1600168
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2012). Participation in an Online Mathematics
Community : Differentiating Motivations to Add. Organization, 207–216. Retrieved
from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145204.2145237
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user
innovation. Journal Für Betriebswirtschaft. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/index/k302272841762854.pdf
Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: Focus on the
integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154.
Windrum, P., & Koch, P. M. (Eds. . (2008). Innovation in public sector services:
entrepreneurship, creativity and management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015a). Open Government: Origin, Development, and
Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–
396. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015b). Open Government: Origin, Development, and
Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(March),
381–396. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
World Bank. (2015). e-Government. Retrieved January 14, 2017, from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ict/brief/e-government
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways
forward. Government Information Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X07000056
Yu, H., & Robinson, D. G. (2012). The New Ambiguity of “Open Government.” UCLA Law
Review Discourse, 59(2012), 178–208.
92 Motivational factors of citizens participating in civic crowdsourcing initiatives
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012489
Zeitlyn, D. (2003). Gift economies in the development of open source software:
Anthropological reflections. Research Policy, 32(7), 1287–1291.
Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (n.d.). Exploring the motivation of Participants in Crowdsourcing
contest, 1–13.
Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and
future direction. Information Systems Frontiers. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-012-9350-4
Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task Design, Motivation, and Participation in
Crowdsourcing Contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 57–
88. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415150402