Motivational factors from citizens participating in civic ... · The perspective of citizen...

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


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.


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


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.


• 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,


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.


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).


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)”


(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).


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.


- 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


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.


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


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


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


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”.


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).


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.


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


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


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.


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,


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)


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).


▪ 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)


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


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


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).


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.

https://bogotaabierta.co/


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


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)


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.


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.


• 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).


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: )


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)


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)


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


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


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)


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.


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.)


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


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©.


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


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).


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


• 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

Annexes 73

Annexes 75

Annexes 77

Annexes 79


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


14(4), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.043051

Stahlbrost, A., & Kareborn, B. B. (2011). Exploring users motivation in innovation


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.


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

Motivational factors from citizens participating in civic ... · The perspective of citizen...

Documents

Transcript of Motivational factors from citizens participating in civic ... · The perspective of citizen...