Factors influencing open government data post-adoption in the public sector: The perspective of data providers

Providing access to non-confidential government data to the public is one of the initiatives adopted by many governments today to embrace government transparency practices. The initiative of publishing non-confidential government data for the public to use and re-use without restrictions is known as Open Government Data (OGD). Nevertheless, after several years after its inception, the direction of OGD implementation remains uncertain. The extant literature on OGD adoption concentrates primarily on identifying factors influencing adoption decisions. Yet, studies on the underlying factors influencing OGD after the adoption phase are scarce. Based on these issues, this study investigated the post-adoption of OGD in the public sector, particularly the data provider agencies. The OGD post-adoption framework is crafted by anchoring the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework and the innovation adoption process theory. The data was collected from 266 government agencies in the Malaysian public sector. This study employed the partial least square-structural equation modeling as the statistical technique for factor analysis. The results indicate that two factors from the organizational context (top management support, organizational culture) and two from the technological context (complexity, relative advantage) have a significant contribution to the post-adoption of OGD in the public sector. The contribution of this study is threefold: theoretical, conceptual, and practical. This study contributed theoretically by introducing the post-adoption framework of OGD that comprises the acceptance, routinization, and infusion stages. As the majority of OGD adoption studies conclude their analysis at the adoption (decisions) phase, this study gives novel insight to extend the analysis into unexplored territory, specifically the post-adoption phase. Conceptually, this study presents two new factors in the environmental context to be explored in the OGD adoption study, namely, the data demand and incentives. The fact that data providers are not influenced by data requests from the agency’s external environment and incentive offerings is something that needs further investigation. In practicality, the findings of this study are anticipated to assist policymakers in strategizing for long-term OGD implementation from the data provider’s perspective. This effort is crucial to ensure that the OGD initiatives will be incorporated into the public sector’s service thrust and become one of the digital government services provided to the citizen.

7. Introduction Section is lacking significance and expected contribution of the study.

RESPONSE:
Thank you for your insights. We have redrafted the introduction section. We think these changes are now better than the previous draft. We hope that you agree.
8. The statement "The OGD is a combination of innovation, methodology, and organizational-level initiative that operates ideally in a data-sharing ecosystem" needs an authentic reference.

RESPONSE:
We agree with your assessment; hence we have removed the sentences and rewritten the paragraph. Changes can be seen at lines 131-137 9. How do you differentiate between implementation and post-adoption? Why is there a need to explicitly write "post-adoption"? What are the advantages you get while writing post-adoption over implementation?

RESPONSE:
How do you differentiate between implementation and post-adoption?
i. We have addded the explanation between implementation and post-adoption at this statements (line 226-229) in the manuscript: Implementation is one of the post-adoption activities, while post-adoption is the phase that happens after innovation has been decided to adopt during the adoption (decision) phase (Rogers, 1995;Damanpour, 2006).
Why is there a need to explicitly write "post-adoption"?
i. We have added these explanation to explicitly use the term 'post-adoption' at line 232-239. Following the innovation adoption process, this study resorted to using the postadoption term to identify the consequences of OGD in data providers' environments. The question raised by Rogers (1983), "Why Haven't Consequences Been Studied More?", suggested that post-adoption is a pro-found area of study. The fact that there are various desirable or undesirable effects on adopters or the social system, thus widens the post-adoption study perspective. The undesirable consequences that could happen in the post-adoption phase include decommissioning, stagnant, discontinuation of innovation, and the like that goes beyond pro-innovation bias (Rogers, 1983).
What are the advantages you get while writing post-adoption over implementation? i. Some advantage of using the post-adoption term is that the: ii. 'Successful and beneficial adoption of an innovation is acknowledged when the innovation is put into practice and integrated into the organization' iii. The statement is added at line (252-254).
10. Better to write, "Most of the time, these data are not accessible to the public" instead of Most of the time, these data are stored in a way that is inaccessible to the public...

RESPONSE:
Thank you for your suggestion. However, we have removed this sentence for it has no context to the previous sentences. 12. Line 208, how do you determine that it is the highest? Groups as a unit of analysis is lowest? Countries as a unit of analysis is not highest? Please explain highest.

RESPONSE:
Thank you for highlighting this. We admit our mistake in this statement. A country analysis is the highest unit of analysis. We have removed the statement from the manuscript.
13. Line 215, How can you determine that TOE is the most recognized attempt…? Any reference? Strong justification is necessary here.

RESPONSE:
We proposed this statement because, according to some studies, the TOE framework's proposed generic factors and offer more insightful lenses for examining users' perceptions of particular technologies, making it valid, most dominant, and specific for enterprise-context adoption (Gangwar et al., 2014, Al-Natour andBenbasat, 2009). Furthermore, the T-O-E framework addresses the requirement for more socioeconomic strides and has received more substantial theoretical and empirical backing in the IS area than many other adoption models (Awa, 2017). According to Zhu et al. 2003 theoretical evaluation, the TOE framework is more important than Rogers's (1983) Innovation Diffusion Theory.
The justification statements have been added in the manuscript at line (271-282).
14. Section 3, a real need to join two theories is not clear.

RESPONSE:
We have added the explanation of joining the two theories at line 305-312.

RESPONSE:
We agree with your assessment and we are glad that our paper has been reviewed by prominent scholars. We have rewritten the sentences, elaborated each study accordingly, and removed studies unrelated to Lewin's (1947 (Table 3) with the previous literature within or outside the OGD domain.

RESPONSE:
i. Thank you for providing these insights. At the moment, there is no study about routinization and infusion of OGD. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to explore the post-adoption phase of OGD, particularly the routinization and infusion stage (we add this explanation at line 573-574 and 604-605). ii. Hence, the references are mostly outside of the OGD domain. The question items for routinization and infusion were self-developed by authors through the concept of routinization and infusion from studies in other fields. However, we have taken the reviewer's advice and remove the Studies 105 and 107, instead replace with a 'selfdeveloped' indication. Other items' citations have been updated within or outside the OGD domain. iii. To strengthen the validity of the survey, the survey instrument underwent content validity procedure and pilot test before the main study was conducted (we add this explanation at line 697-699). However, we did not cover the content validity procedure in this paper due to its lengthy steps and not included as one of the scope of this paper. iv. The survey instrument was built in two language versions (Malay and English). Most of the respondents choose to answer in the Malay version, thus the grammar mistake was overlooked. Thank you for pointing out the grammar error for item DAD1. We will be more careful in selecting our proofreading services.
28. Which constructs are formative and which are reflective? Please mention/elaborate/justify.

RESPONSE:
Thank you for highlighting this. The formative and reflective constructs have been elaborated through the Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis (CTA) starting at line 2242 until 2363.
29. No issue is found in results of Measurement and Structural model. However, a valid and reliable questionnaire avoids rolling of errors in result, discussion, and conclusion which is not true in the current study.

RESPONSE:
Thank you for providing these insights. Please see point #27 above.
30. Line 757-758, "this result is consistent with….". In fact, the result is not consistent with reference 32 because the study is related to the adoption of OGD at the firm level from the data use perspective instead of data providers' perspective (as your main research question is "What are the factors that influence OGD post-adoption among the data providers?)".

RESPONSE:
Thank you for providing these insights. We agree with your assessment, therefore, we have removed reference 32 (now reference no. 44).
31. Overall, the manuscript has a large references outside the domain of OGD, even a large number of studies conducted in OGD.

RESPONSE:
Thank you for providing these insights. We have added the latest related references of OGD in the manuscript and removed some of the unrelated references to OGD.