Open Cities IndexInsights Report - 2019

OCI Insights Report 2019

01 Introduction

The Open Cities Index (OCI) serves as a tool for public sector organizations to measure the maturity of their open data programs. Results from previous OCI surveys showed that municipal open data programs are consistently maturing across Canada. What was once a pet project of a single staff member, open data has transformed into a program that is prioritized by public sector organizations for the many benefits it offers. The 2019 OCI has provided even more insight into the maturity of open data programs; 55 organizations completed the 2019 OCI, with organizations from nine provinces, as well as one territory. This insights report will highlight survey trends, as well as providing strategies, challenges and best practices shared by municipal open data leaders.

The OCI survey is organized into three sections reflecting the core competencies of an open data program: Readiness, Implementation, and Impact. The overall average score among survey respondents was 44.10 points or 29.4 percent (a drop from the 2017 average score of 36.7%) and within each section of the survey, there was a drop in average score. The overall lower scores of the 2019 OCI can be attributed in part to the 17 new organizations that filled out this year’s survey compared to previous years in which more mature open data programs predominately participated, signifying how open data is being more widely adopted across all types and sizes of municipal governments.

The drop is also attributed to the methodology and scoring of the 2019 OCI survey, compared to previous iterations in 2015, 2016, and 2017. What defines a mature open data program has changed and a total of 21 questions in the 2019 OCI were modified or added from the 2017 survey that considered new variables when measuring the maturity of an open data program. A full list of the new questions added to the 2019 OCI can be found here.

OCI Insights Report 2019

02 Readiness

The average score in the Readiness section was 8.8 points (35.2 percent) and had the highest average score by overall survey respondents compared to the Implementation and Impact sections. This section of the survey explores the capability of an organization to establish and sustain an open data program, such as funding and staff time, as well as buy-in from senior management and council. Central to the Readiness section were questions in reference to the core elements of an open data program: open data government committee, open data policy, open data strategic plan/master plan, and open data portal.

Open Data Portal

Of the four core elements, the existence of an open data portal was the most common element among survey participants – 51 percent of organizations reported having an open data portal (not provided by a third party), as well as an additional 18 percent of organizations reported having a third party portal. Among those that did not report having an open data portal, 18 percent reported having an open data catalogue and 11 percent reported considering introducing an open data portal. Ultimately, an open data portal is fundamental to the publication of datasets which is central to end users seeking to access and work with open datasets.

Figure 1. “Does your organization have an open data portal/catalogue?”

OCI Insights Report 2019

Open Data Policy

The next most prevalent element reported in the survey by respondents is an open data policy, in which 36 percent of organizations reported having an established policy as well as five percent with an updated and living document. An organization’s open data policy serves as an important tool in legitimizing an organization’s open data objectives and to formulate overarching measures to meet an organization’s open data priorities. The average score of those with an established policy in the Readiness section overall was 14.27 (compared to the overall Readiness average score 8.80), and 71.61 for the survey overall (compared to an overall 60.69 survey average score). Evidently, there is a strong correlation between having an established policy and an organization’s maturity in open data.

Most optimally, having a living open data policy ensures that an organization’s open data program is progressing in parallel to the evolving open data domain. For example, aligning an open data policy with all six principles of the International Open Data Charter is one way to stay up-to-date on key performance indicators related to open data and maturing your program overall.

Figure 2. “Does your organization have an open data policy?”

OCI Insights Report 2019

Open Data Committee

39 percent of organizations reported having an open data committee with 35 percent reporting that a committee was formed over a year ago and four percent reporting a committee formed within the last year. 31 percent of organizations reported not having a committee and another 31 percent of organizations reported considering establishing one. An open data committee is the overarching governance structure that is the steward of open data work for an organization. Having an open data committee has a strong correlation to an organization’s open data maturity. The average Readiness score of the 19 organizations that reported having a committee formed over a year ago was 15.39 – considerably higher compared to the overall average Readiness score of 8.80. In contrast, the average Readiness score of organizations who did not have an open data committee in place was 3.29.

To ensure the effectiveness of an organization’s open data committee, it should consist of representatives from core departments that are active users and/or contributors to the open data program and if possible, a representative from the City Manager’s office to ensure continued buy-in from senior management and to include the perspective of decision-makers in setting open data program objectives. Even more, organizations should consider engaging a number of “community” representatives on the Committee, including representatives from the business/tech community, non-profit/social innovation sector, and post-secondary/education. Only seven percent of organizations reported having a community representative as part of their committee.

Figure 3. “Do you have an open data/open government committee in place to assist with the governance of your open data initiative?”

OCI Insights Report 2019

Open Data Strategic Plan/Master Plan

An open data strategic plan/master plan outlines the direction and framework set by an organization to reach its open data objectives and priorities. Among the core elements of the Readiness section, the strategic plan/master plan was reported to have the least amount of uptake by survey respondents. 33 percent of respondents reported not having a plan in place and 38 percent were considering a plan. Of the 13 percent with an established plan and seven percent with a living/updated document, many shared commonalities and consistently included key elements to realize and measure open data objectives, including a governance model, potential and existing partnerships, training resources and opportunities, and quality performance indicators.

Figure 4. “Does your organization have an Open Data Master Plan/Strategic Plan?”

OCI Insights Report 2019

03 Implementation

Publishing quality data sets is the primary function of any open data program. After all, open data is most commonly associated with the publication of government data sets to be accessed freely by the public. The variety and number of datasets, along with their accessibility and quality, has a direct impact on an organization’s open data maturity. The average Implementation Score was 27.2 points (27.2 percent) and was the lowest scoring section overall among survey respondents. To advance their open data program forward, organizations need to recognize and understand which datasets are being published by other municipalities – both to enhance transparency and accountability, but also to provide end users with datasets to utilize.

Newly Added Datasets

43 datasets were listed in the 2019 OCI, including six new: local election campaign contributions, council attendance, council declared conflict of interest, parking citations, energy consumption and efficiency data, and GHG emissions. For each dataset, there were 11 attributes that organizations could select, if applicable, in order to convey the quality of the data. The attributes were as follows:

• • Do not have access to this dataDo not have access to this data• • The data existsThe data exists• • The data is available in any form onlineThe data is available in any form online• • Machine readableMachine readable• • Accessible/permanentAccessible/permanent• • FreeFree

The following graphs summarize how accessible each newly added dataset is based on survey respondents of the 11 listed attributes.

• • Available in bulkAvailable in bulk• • Openly licensedOpenly licensed• • Up-to-dateUp-to-date• • AutomatedAutomated• • Linked to APIsLinked to APIs

Local Election Campaign Contributions

OCI Insights Report 2019

Council Attendance

Council Declared Conflict of Interest

Parking Citations

OCI Insights Report 2019

Energy Consumption and Efficiency

GHG Emissions

OCI Insights Report 2019

Top 5 Most Accessible Datasets

1. Municipal Budget2. Park/Beaches Inventory3. Public Transit4. Zoning (GIS)5. Base GIS Data

Top 5 Least Accessible Datasets

The following are the Top 5 Least Accessible Datasets. To encourage the publishing of more datasets in these areas, examples are provided based on those who reported having access to these datasets.

1. Lobbyist Information

• City of Hamilton’s Lobbyist Registry

• City of Ottawa’s Lobbyist Registry

• City of Edmonton’s Lobbyist Registry

2. Restaurant Inspections

• Niagara Region’s Health Inspections (inspections related to food, tattoo, hair salons, pools and beaches)

• City of Guelph’s Check Before You Choose

3. Health Performance

• Durham Region’s Check&Go! (health inspection results)

• City of Edmonton’s Health and Wellness/Health Performance (provided by Alberta Health Services)

4. Education Performance

• York Region’s Early Development Instrument (EDI) results (the EDI measures early learning stages of child development and is taken by senior kindergarten teachers every three years).

• Provided by the Province of Alberta, the City of Calgary’s open data portal has education performance data sets that include education annual reports, business plans and fact sheets on demographics, enrolment and education results.

5. Air quality

• City of Winnipeg’s Air Quality (collected every five minutes by sensors in the City)

• City of Mississauga’s Air Quality (provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environment)

OCI Insights Report 2019

The Impact section of the survey is designed to measure to what extent an organization’s published data has been used, what benefits the community has accrued as a result of its open data program, and to what extent the organization is capable of measuring that impact. The average Impact score among survey respondents was 8.15 points (32.6 percent). The Impact section yielded the most feedback from respondents and offers various examples for other municipalities looking to mature their open data programs, particularly in reference to external partnerships.

Measurement

Since first launching the OCI in 2015, one of the key challenges reported by municipalities was the publication of relevant datasets. Although this remains a challenge for many organizations, the quality of datasets is an additional consideration as open data programs begin to mature across Canada. When asked, “does your organization have a framework in place to measure the quality of published datasets with key indicators?” only 12 respondents reported “yes.”

Having quality data is important in ensuring that the value and potential of the data are optimal for end users. A framework that employs indicators to measure the quality of datasets is a pivotal step in maturing an open data program. The average overall OCI score for organizations that reported having a framework was 69.95 points, compared to an average overall score of 37.58 points among the organizations that do not have a framework. In other words, those that have a framework in place scored on average higher than the average overall survey score of all survey participants (44.10 points).

Indicators included in a quality framework can vary, but often include measurement related to timeliness, completeness, comparability, interpretability, etc. Carlos Hernandez from the City of Toronto’s open data program discussed how to develop a framework that measures the quality of open data in a recent PSD webinar.

Collaboration

A prevailing theme underlying several questions in the Impact section references collaboration with external community organizations. Collaboration on open data initiatives has a strong influence on the extent to which open data has an impact on the community. The following provides a summary and or examples of collaboration as provided by OCI respondents.

04 Impact

OCI Insights Report 2019

Q51. “To what extent does your organization collaborate with your region/province on open data?”

27 percent of organizations reported little collaboration and another 25 percent reported only moderate collaboration. For organizations that did report some form of collaboration with region/provinces, the most common type was in the form of sharing datasets and providing knowledge sharing related to open data policy and procedures. For example, the Halifax Regional Municipality worked with the Province of Nova Scotia to help develop their open data portal as well as sitting on the Property Valuation Services Corporation review board to assist with new open data submissions for its open data program. From a regional perspective, the Town of Huntsville created the Open Data Muskoka Working Group which collaborates with local municipal governments within the District of Muskoka.

OCI Insights Report 2019

Q53. “Does your open data team partner with your Economic Development Office, Business Improvement Areas (BIA’s), OR Board of Trade to utilize your Open Data for an economic impact?”

62 percent of respondents reported no partnership. Of the 38 percent that reported “yes”, examples of partnerships reported by organizations included:

• partnership with the local economic development department to provide workshops to local entrepreneurs and business support organizations, providing hands-on demonstration of the potential economic value of open data

• partnering with the local economic development office on the publication of economic census data to be used for analysis

• the City of Calgary’s open data program partners with the City’s Economic Development Office to collaborate on work launched by the local Living Lab

• the City of Brampton reported that their Economic Development Office and Business Improvement Areas collaborate with the open data team on the GeoHub

• the City of Whitby also has an innovation hub that supports local start-up businesses in the community that the open data program is supporting and endorsing

OCI Insights Report 2019

Q61. “To what extent is your organization collaborating with post-secondary academic institutions to strengthen your open data programs.”

Compared to primary academic institutions – in which 56 percent of municipalities reported no collaboration – the 2019 OCI survey revealed that organizations are more often collaborating with post-secondary institutions, though still minimally. Only 16 percent of respondents reported substantial collaboration. Despite low levels of collaboration, it is evident that open data programs are slowly building relationships to create advantageous opportunities for both the organization and the post-secondary institution.

A number of post-secondary institutions were referenced by respondents, including the University of Toronto, Ryerson University, University of Waterloo, University of Victoria, Durham College, McGill University and York University. Opportunities for collaboration with post-secondary institutions included examples of utilizing student open data projects to brainstorm the ways local policies can be changed and updated, providing students with open data for research project purposes (such as a solar rooftop project at the University of Victoria using City of Victoria’s open datasets), and partaking in conferences and presentations on the topic of open data. In partnership with McGill University, the City of Montreal even offers a data science fellowship with the open data team.

The City of Winnipeg shared that their open data is incorporated into post-secondary course curriculum. “Multiple college and university courses make use of our open data in their curriculum. We have done this through various meetings, conferences and presentations. This is a win-win for both us and the education institutions.” Likewise, the City of Prince George reported that they share data from their geodatabase to local technological and university institutions for use in their course curriculum.

OCI Insights Report 2019

Community Problems

One of the core objectives of open data is to utilize datasets to both recognize and create solutions for community problems. Question 59 of the survey asked respondents, “Does your organization utilize open data to identify community problems and plan for solutions?” While 55 percent reported no, a significant 45 percent of organizations did report utilizing open data concerning addressing community problems. For many, open data is used as a tracking indicator to determine which community issues the municipality ought to address. The Region of Durham reported that datasets related to demographics, health and education, among others, are used to inform the Region on which types of programs to create in response and also, as a tool to explain to the public why such programs are being prioritized. Grey County shared a similar notion, stating that open data is used to address community programs related to poverty reduction, housing attainability, and community health initiatives. Finally, the City of Montreal incorporated the use of open data into their Smart Cities application (an application that they were approved for), utilizing open data to address community needs related to mobility and food access.

05 Conclusion

Open data serves many objectives for municipalities, but predominately its value lies in being both a mechanism to uphold greater transparency and accountability, as well as a tool for end users to solve community problems with innovative solutions. This insight report shows that open data programs across Canada are progressing: 51 percent of organizations have an open data portal and a significant portion of organizations have or are in the beginning stages of creating and implementing open data policies, committees and strategic plans. However, beyond creating a strong governance structure to foster maturity, municipalities still have significant strides to make in progressing their programs to yield the most impact of open data’s potential. As we launch our 2020 OCI survey, PSD looks forward to participating on your organization’s open data journey and we encourage you to share your strategies for success as well as your challenges your organization are working through.

Contact Us

www.psdrcs.com

519-690-2565

info@psdrcs.com

PSD provides infrastructure asset management, finance and climate change adaptation solutions for sustainable and resilient communities. Together, our enterprise software and consulting services empower governments to optimize process, enhance decision-making and improve service delivery.

London Office:

148 Fullarton Street

9th Floor

London, ON N6A 5P3

Toronto Office:

5045 South Service Road

Suite 203

Burlington, ON L7L 5Y7

Victoria Office:

535 Yates Street

Suite 405

Victoria, BC V8W 2Z6

@PSDintelligence