Skip to main content

A Comparative Study of Methods for Deciding to Open Data

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD 2019)

Abstract

Governments may have their own business processes to decide to open data, which might be supported by decision-making tools. At the same time, analyzing potential benefits, costs, risks, and other effects-adverse of disclosing data are challenging. In the literature, there are various methods to analyze the potential advantages and disadvantages of opening data. Nevertheless, none of them provides discussion into the comparative studies in terms of strengths and weaknesses. In this study, we compare three methods for disclosing data, namely Bayesian-belief networks, Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making, and Decision tree analysis. The comparative study is a mechanism for further studying the development of a knowledge domain by performing a feature-by-feature at the same level of functionalities. The result of this research shows that the methods have different strengths and weaknesses. The Bayesian-belief Networks has higher accuracy in comparison, and able to construct the causal relationships of the selected variable under uncertainties. Yet, this method is more resource intensive. This study can contribute to the decision-makers and respected researchers to a better comprehend and provide recommendation related to the three methods comparison.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M.: Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a framework for comparison. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(1), 17–29 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M.: Towards decision support for disclosing data: closed or open data? Inf. Policy 20(2–3), 103–107 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. van Veenstra, A.F., van den Broek, T.A.: Opening moves – drivers, enablers and barriers of open data in a semi-public organization. In: Wimmer, M.A., Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J. (eds.) EGOV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8074, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40358-3_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Ubaldi, B.: Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 22, 60 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Luthfi, A., Janssen, M., Crompvoets, J.: Framework for analyzing how governments open their data: institution, technology, and process aspects influencing decision-making. In: EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2018. Edition Donau-Universität Krems, Donau-Universität Krems, Austria (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Luthfi, A., Janssen, M., Crompvoets, J.: A causal explanatory model of Bayesian-belief networks for analysing the risks of opening data. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2018. LNBIP, vol. 319, pp. 289–297. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94214-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Luthfi, A., et al.: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for analyzing the risks and benefits of opening data. In: 17th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2018. 2018. Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST), Kuwait: Springer LNCS 11195 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Luthfi, A., Janssen, M.: A conceptual model of decision-making support for opening data. In: Katsikas, S., Zorkadis, V. (eds.) e-Democracy 2017. CCIS, vol. 792, pp. 95–105. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71117-1_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Ali-Eldin, A.M.T., Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M.: Opening more data: a new privacy scoring model of open data. In: Seventh International Symposium on Business Modelling and Software Design (BMSD2017), SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publication, Lda, Barcelona (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nojava, F., Qian, S., Stow, C.: Comparative analysis of discretization methods in Bayesian networks. Environ. Modell. Softw. 87, 64–71 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jan, B., et al.: Deep learning in big data analytics: a comparative study. Comput. Electron. Eng. 75, 275–287 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Preece, A.: Building the right system right - evaluating V&V methods in knowledge engineering. In: The Eleventh Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management, Voyager Inn, Banff, Alberta, Canada (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Uusitalo, L.: Advantages and challanges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol. Modell. 203(3–4), 312–318 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fenton, N., Neil, M.: Risks Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks. CRC Press, Noca Raton (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Teicher, M.: Interviewing subject matter experts. In: International Cost Estimating and Analysis Association (ICEAA) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rezaei, P., et al.: Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making analysis for evaluating and selecting the best location for construction of underground dam. Acta Polytech. Hung. 10(7), 187–205 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ceballos, B., Lamata, M.T., Pelta, D.: Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making methods: a comparative analysis. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 32, 722–738 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C., Oztaysi, B.: Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature review. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 8(4), 637–666 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Delgado-Gómez, D., Laria, J.C., Ruiz-Hernández, D.: Computerized adaptive test and decision trees: a unifying approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 117, 358–366 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yeoa, B., Grant, D.: Predicting service industry performance using decision tree analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 38(1), 288–300 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yuanyuan, P., Derek, B.A., Bob, L.: Rockburst prediction in kimberlite using decision tree with incomplete data. J. Sustain. Mining 17, 158–165 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chakraborty, S., et al.: A Bayesian network-based customer satisfaction model: a tool for management decisions in railway transport. J. Decis. Anal. 3(4), 2–24 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Xiong, J., et al.: Personalized visual satisfaction profiles from comparative preferences using Bayesian inference. Energy Procedia 122, 522–547 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Castillo, E., et al.: Complexity reduction and sensitivity analysis in road probabilistic safety assessment Bayesian network models: complexity reduction and sensitivity analysis. Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 32(6), 546–561 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beuzen, T.: A comparison of methods for discretizing continuous variables in Bayesian Networks. Environ. Modell. Softw. 108, 61–66 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Safarov, I., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Meijer, A.: Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Inf. Policy 22(1), 1–24 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Herland, K., Hämmäinen, H., Kekolahti, P.: Information security risks assessment of smartphones using Bayesian networks. J. Cyber Secur. 4, 65–85 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Adina Tofan, C.: Decision tree method applied in cost-based decisions in an enterprise. Procedia Econ. Finance 32, 1088–1092 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Horný, M.: Bayesian Networks, in Technical Report No. 5. 2014, Department of Health Policy & Management: Boston University School of Public Health

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mohsen, D., et al.: A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for identifiying the suitable lands for urban development: an example from Bandar ABBS Iran. J. Urban and Environ. Eng. 8(1), 11–27 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Werro, N.: Fuzzy Classification of Online Customers. Fuzzy Management Methods (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Luthfi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Luthfi, A., Janssen, M. (2019). A Comparative Study of Methods for Deciding to Open Data. In: Shishkov, B. (eds) Business Modeling and Software Design. BMSD 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 356. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24854-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24854-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24853-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24854-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics