Abu-El Mai

Ralf Seoud

Klischewski
email: ralf.klischewski@guc.edu.eg

Mediating Citizen-Sourcing of Open Government Applications -a Design Science Approach

whether they are published or not. The documents may come

Introduction

Since the introduction of the open government concept in 2009, many governments started to follow this path. However, intermediate monitoring revealed that governments still need to exert much more effort to utilize the emerging technologies in the service of open government [START_REF] House | The Obama"s Administration Commitment to Open Government: Status Report[END_REF], one of which citizen-sourcing, among other Government 2.0 technology supports [START_REF] Yu | The New Ambiguity of' Open Government[END_REF][START_REF] Brabham | Using crowdsourcing in Government. Collaborating across Boundaries Series[END_REF]. Citizen-sourcing is defined as the adoption of crowdsourcing principles and technologies in the public sector [START_REF] Lukensmeyer | Citizensourcing: Citizen Participation in a networked nation[END_REF], and crowdsourcing is well-established in the private sector as an instrument for supporting customer participation and knowledge sharing [START_REF] Geiger | Managing the crowd: Towards taxonomy of crowdsourcing processes[END_REF].

The focus of this research is on enabling citizen-sourcing of open government applications because (a) applications are needed to harness the benefit of available open data [START_REF] House | The Obama"s Administration Commitment to Open Government: Status Report[END_REF], and (b) governments mostly do not have the capacity to develop such applications to serve citizens" needs. While citizen-sourcing could be the solution to address this shortage, the research gap is perceived as the lack of sufficient knowledge of how to efficiently and effectively develop citizen-sourcing platforms that enable citizens to share self-developed web applications to support open government. In this regard, the research question is: Which architectural artefacts are needed to develop an open government application sourcing platform? Accordingly, this research aims to develop, validate, demonstrate, test, and communicate the appropriate architectural artefacts that are required and could be easily replicated for developing open government application sourcing platforms. As being concerned with developing new innovative artefacts and testing them in real world context, a design science approach has been followed. After discussing the extant literature on citizen-sourcing and open government applications (section 2), the applied design science process is introduced and subsequently the main activities and results of each phase are presented (section 3). Finally, the conclusion (section 4) summarizes the findings and points to future research.

Citizen-sourcing of Open Government Applications

Private organizations always seek for new innovative approaches that help in improving their customers" engagement and participation [START_REF] Boudreau | Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs. devolving control[END_REF][START_REF] Majchrzak | Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation[END_REF]. Recently, governments worldwide are following similar strategies in attempting to enhance citizen participation and collaboration. Moreover, the unremitting evolution of ICTs has changed the way governments interact with their citizens [START_REF] Dutil | Rethinking government-public relationships in a digital world: Customers, clients, or citizens?[END_REF]. The concept of citizen-sourcing relates to and integrates several other well-established concepts [START_REF] Hilgers | Open Governance and Citizensourcing: Applying the idea of Open Innovation to the public sector[END_REF][START_REF] Nam | Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0[END_REF]:

 Citizen engagement reveals the main objective of citizen-sourcing [START_REF] Lukensmeyer | Citizensourcing: Citizen Participation in a networked nation[END_REF][START_REF] Nam | Citizens" attitudes toward open government and government 2.0[END_REF]. Citizen engagement is not only about governments being transparent and gaining support from citizens in return, but it is also concerned with changing the traditional and often insufficient ways of exchanging information between governments and citizens [START_REF] Klein | Building consensus[END_REF][START_REF] Dobos | Citizen Engagement as a Learning Experience[END_REF]. Moreover, with the acceleration of citizens" demands, governments have started to realize the importance of adopting a citizen-centric approach to understand citizen demands towards government transformation [START_REF] Medeni | The Demand for Development of E-Government Service and Gateway in Turley Taking Citizens Perceptions and Suggestions into Account‖[END_REF][START_REF] Hilgers | Open Governance and Citizensourcing: Applying the idea of Open Innovation to the public sector[END_REF].  Crowdsourcing as a term has been first coined by Jeff Howe [START_REF] Howe | The rise of Crowdsourcing[END_REF][START_REF] Howe | Crowdsourcing: A definition[END_REF] as the act of an institution or a company to perform a function or a task that was once performed by the employees. It provides a number of benefits to companies such as the ability to gain access to a very huge community of current workers in the requested field, save cost and time, enhance quality of the provided solution or idea [START_REF] Nam | Citizens" attitudes toward open government and government 2.0[END_REF][START_REF] Iren | Methodology for Managing Crowdsourcing in Organizational Projects[END_REF]. The task should be outsourced to an undefined network of people which is referred to as the crowd. Accordingly, Hilgers and Ihl [START_REF] Hilgers | Open Governance and Citizensourcing: Applying the idea of Open Innovation to the public sector[END_REF] defined citizen-sourcing as the governmental adoption of the crowdsourcing principles and techniques in the public sector. Citizen-sourcing is seen as a new approach that (re-)shapes the relationship between governmental agencies and citizens based on evolving practices from the private sector [START_REF] Lukensmeyer | Citizensourcing: Citizen Participation in a networked nation[END_REF][START_REF] Hilgers | Open Governance and Citizensourcing: Applying the idea of Open Innovation to the public sector[END_REF].  Open government as a term dates back to the initiative of U.S. President Obama having announced a new era of participation, transparency, and collaboration in 2009. Since then widely adopted, this concept embraces new approaches to further involve citizens and external parties in governmental processes [START_REF] Hilgers | Open Governance and Citizensourcing: Applying the idea of Open Innovation to the public sector[END_REF]. Yet, the ambiguity regarding open government expectations largely remains, and definitions in the literature (e.g. [START_REF] Chun | Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government[END_REF][START_REF] Yu | The New Ambiguity of' Open Government[END_REF]) mostly rely on three principles which are: availability of regularly updated governmental information for citizens (transparency); citizen engagement across all the levels of government, non-profit organizations, and businesses (collaboration); and improving effectiveness in government and enhance decision-making quality through citizen engagement (participation). Challenges in open government implementation and evaluation are manifold and still subject to research.

While there are many efforts directed to serve open government initiatives worldwide, most of these initiatives have been restricted to tackling the ability of the governments to present their data to the public in the form of open data such as Data.gov platform [START_REF] Ding | Data-gov Wiki: Towards Linking Government Data[END_REF]. Hence, it was claimed that governments need to direct more efforts in utilizing the emerging technologies in the service of open government [START_REF] House | The Obama"s Administration Commitment to Open Government: Status Report[END_REF]. Moreover, to be able to make best use of open data, either web or mobile applications are needed to harness the benefit of the availability of this available open data. Notably, the Obama administration gave citizen-sourcing superiority among other Government 2.0 technologies [START_REF] Nam | Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0[END_REF][START_REF] Brabham | Using crowdsourcing in Government. Collaborating across Boundaries Series[END_REF]. Yet, there is still very limited research directed towards utilizing citizen-sourcing in an open government context [START_REF] Prest | Citizensourcing[END_REF][START_REF] Nam | Citizens" attitudes toward open government and government 2.0[END_REF].

From the research perspective no unique definition of open government applications has been coined on the basis of which their scope and expected deliverables could be identified. Hence, for the time being, we refer back to the definition of webbased applications. A web-based application can be considered as an application that is developed to be executed in a web-based environment [START_REF] Finkelstein | Ubiquitous web application development-a framework for understanding[END_REF][START_REF] Bruno | Characteristics of web applications that affect usability: a review[END_REF], i.e. enables information processing functions to be initiated remotely from a web browser and executed partly on a web server, application server, and/or database server [START_REF] Bruno | Characteristics of web applications that affect usability: a review[END_REF]. Based on this, an open government application is considered as a web-based application that serves the purpose of open government by serving its above mentioned principles. In the current research, open government applications are envisioned to be provided through a platform-based citizen-sourcing process.

A Design Science Approach for Platform Development

The platform development assumes the following scenario: The citizen-sourcing process starts by an application request in the form of an open call. The requester can be representatives from the government, non-government organization, or citizens. This request is then published on an online platform that acts as an intermediate between the requesters and providers. The skilled citizens are the providers who submit applications that fulfil the published requests. An intermediate in the form of an online platform facilitates the process between the requesters and providers. Citizens can also act as testers and evaluate the submitted applications by reviewing them, posting possible enhancements to the developers, providing a rating etc. After testing the uploaded web applications, the requesters can choose applications that match best the call requirements and proceed with setting these applications into productive mode either on the intermediate or on another platform.

Based on this scenario figure 1 depicts the main actors, concepts, and their interrelations as perceived within the frame of this research. Since the research gap is concerned with the lack of knowledge with regards to efficiently and effectively developing open government application sourcing platforms, the creation of the appropriate architectures as reusable blueprints is considered essential (samples of architecture The literature has put forward several schema variations of the design science processes from which the widely cited approach by Peffers et al. [START_REF] Peffers | A design science research methodology for information systems research[END_REF] has been adopted in the current research. This design science process consists of six main phases with the different possible entry points for the research: identifying problem and motivation, defining objectives for a solution, design and development, demonstration, evaluation, and communication. This research has started the nominal process from the second phase as the research problem has been identified from previous literature and governmental documents on the status of open government (see section 2). For each of the remaining five phases the main activities (stretching from April 2014 until January 2015) as well as the results are described in the following subsections.

Defining Objectives for a Solution

Objectives for a solution should be inferred from the problem definition. The problem is perceived as (1) the governmental necessity to utilize new technologies, especially citizen-sourcing, in the favour of open government, (2) the need to make use of the available open data through web applications, (3) the need of enhancing the relationship between citizens and their governments through enhancing citizen engage-ment (see section 2). All of this can be achieved by engaging citizens in the development of open government web applications. Using a citizen-sourcing process will not only help governments achieve a new level of citizens" engagement but also provide governments with a wide range of developed and tested web applications at minimal cost.

Artefact development should be based on theories and/or constructs. Research has frequently emphasized the importance of high-level integration, alignment, and coordination between different architectures in an organization, as various architectures are needed to manage the complexity of large information systems [START_REF] Barros | Enterprise and process architecture patterns[END_REF][START_REF] Frankel | The Zachman framework and the OMG's model driven architecture. A White Paper by the Business Process Trends[END_REF][START_REF] Gregor | Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government[END_REF][START_REF] Lankhorst | A language for enterprise modeling[END_REF]. Even though the to-be developed intermediary platforms are not a priori assumed to be part a larger organizational context, using an enterprise architecture framework is considered an appropriate approach to ensuring the integration of all system"s components. Enterprise architectures transform the broader principles, capabilities, and goals defined in the strategies into systems and processes that enable the enterprise to realize these goals [START_REF] Tamm | How does enterprise architecture add value to organizations? Communications of the Association for Information Systems[END_REF]. From various available enterprise architecture frameworks, the Zachman framework [START_REF] Zachman | A framework for information systems architecture[END_REF] was chosen to provide guidance for identifying relevant information systems" artefacts. The framework offers a logical structure by which organization can follow to ensure the information flow architectures are integrated with their business units [START_REF] Ertaul | Security planning using Zachman framework for enterprises[END_REF]. Zachman framework ensures accurate and consistent results and enables the description of the architecture from the view point of every stakeholder respectively. The core of the Zachman framework consists of a two dimensional matrix of which the six columns represent various abstractions (data, process, location, people, time, and motivation) and the six rows indicate different actor perspectives (planner, owner, designer, builder, programmer, and user) [START_REF] Zachman | A framework for information systems architecture[END_REF].

One of the authors has acted as the planner, owner, and designer of the online platform covering the first three top levels of Zachman framework, following the recommendation to elaborate on the columns in a top-down approach. A variety of artefacts have been proposed to satisfy Zachman framework, from which the approach of Pereira and Sousa [START_REF] Pereira | A method to define an Enterprise Architecture using the Zachman Framework[END_REF] has been employed for identifying the artefacts of this research. Most of these proposed deliverables have been developed except for those strongly requiring contextualization (i.e. all artefacts related to location as well as to people and motivation from the designer"s view).

Blueprint Design and Development

This phase is mainly concerned with developing and designing the artefacts. Each blueprint is developed following certain design notations, for example unified modelling language (UML) for activity diagrams, crow"s foot notation for entity relationship diagram, and business process modelling notation (BPMN) for business process modelling. Requirements were elaborated from analysing existing crowdsourcing processes, extended through applying open government principles as far as feasible. See table 1 for the type and number of blueprints developed, and figure 2 depicts a sample of the developed blueprints from the owner"s view: the entity relationship diagram, one of the business process models, and the app developer"s use case diagram (all artefacts are available on request).

After developing the initial set of the blueprints, an expert panel has been conducted consisting of four academics from the Information Systems field (one associate professor and three senior assistants) as well as three software developers working in the software development industry. Although the participants were selected upon convenience, it was ensured that they all have sufficient knowledge and experience regarding development and use of architectural models. The participants were first presented with the project scope, all the developed artefacts, and the notations used. Subsequently they were asked to review the compatibility of the artefacts with Zachman framework, the clarity and correctness (logic) of the artefacts, and the artefacts notations, as well as to suggest ways to enhance the artefacts and recommend new artefacts that might be missing.

Feedback was collected through one-to-one sessions with each panel expert. All feedback has been taken into consideration and accordingly some of the artefacts have been modified and enhanced. Most of the artefacts (such as the activity diagrams, use case diagrams) have only been slightly altered to improve the wording to be clearer for readers. However, the entity relationship diagram was significantly changed in terms of adding more entities and relationships between them for a better database design. Since the development of the class diagram considers the entity relationship diagram as an input, it was also modified with the new changes. For the framework compatibility, the feedback showed that the presented artefacts are compatible with Zachman"s description of each cell.

Demonstration: Blueprints Used for Prototyping

In this stage, the artefacts are utilized in a suitable context to solve one or more instances of the originally identified problem. According to [START_REF] Peffers | A design science research methodology for information systems research[END_REF], this could take the form of experiments, case study, or any appropriate form. In this research, a simplified version of the platform has been developed based on the enhanced version of the designed artefacts from the previous stage, now used as blueprints. A prototype is considered a simple version that implements the core features of the intended system Fig. 2. Sample blueprints: app developer"s use cases, process of call request, ERD (cropped) to be developed quickly and to be used for early evaluation [START_REF] Sabale | Comparative Study of Prototype Model For Software Engineering With System Development Life Cycle[END_REF]. According to [START_REF] Scacchi | Process models in software engineering[END_REF], prototypes take the architectures, designs, features, and functionalities of the system as an input and demonstrate them through the implementation of the prototype.

The prototype development has been outsourced to a computer science graduate who has been working in a reputable software development company for two years. The developer was chosen based on his qualifications, development skills, availability, and willingness to develop the platform. The development process took about six weeks. The developer was provided with all the enhanced artefacts. All the core features are implemented except some supporting features such as the "forgot password". The outcome of this phase is an implemented prototype based on the blueprints. The prototype has some limitations such as it only runs on Firefox internet browser, the user interface is very basic and simple, and the uploaded applications should be coded with the same language as the prototype. Two dummy applications were developed to be used in the prototype testing.

Evaluation of Effectiveness and Efficiency

The artefacts in use should be observed and measured for their effectiveness and efficiency to solve the problem. In this phase, a comparison between the objectives of the solution and the actual results should take place. At the end of this phase, the researcher can choose either to iterate back to the design and development phase to improve the artefacts or to continue to the last phase and leave the improvements to future research and projects [START_REF] Peffers | A design science research methodology for information systems research[END_REF].

In general, effectiveness is the extent to which the stated objectives are met. To be able to test the effectiveness of blueprints in developing open government application sourcing platforms, the researcher has initially generated 110 test cases to test each blueprint through the prototype. Each blueprint was used to generate success and failure test cases to be used for evaluation by a testing committee. For example, using an activity diagram, test cases are generated that ensure the prototype is following the same sequence as the design etc.

A test case is a specific input including procedures that the tester will do to test the software at hand [START_REF] Keyvanpour | A Classification Framework for Automatic Test Case Generation Techniques for web applications[END_REF]. The main purpose of the test cases is to detect the faults in the software against the design and requirements. This is considered a black box testing as it is concerned with the external functionalities of the platform, not the coding design and style [START_REF] Desikan | Software testing: principles and practice[END_REF]. Accordingly, the test cases were validated by a certified software tester (chosen based on convenience) who works in the website testing field for almost three years. The tester was provided with all the developed artefacts plus the generated test scenarios and asked to validate the wording of the test cases, the test cases in accordance with the artefacts, the classification of the test cases, and to identify missing test cases.

After the validation, four new test cases were added to the initial pool to result in 114 cases to be executed. Upon execution 105 passed test cases were found as well as 9 failed cases. Accordingly, the pass rate is calculated to identify the percentage of passed test cases, reflecting the quality of the implemented software and how far it meets the objectives and designs. Since a pass rate of the total test cases above 90% is claimed to be acceptable for many software development projects [START_REF] Desikan | Software testing: principles and practice[END_REF], a pass rate of more than 92% in this research is considered satisfactory.

Second, efficiency is doing the work with fewer resources. The resources utilized to develop the prototype (e.g. time consumed to understand and use the blueprints) are identified and a set of three efficiency measurable variables are used to evaluate efficiency. A simple questionnaire (to be answered by the prototype developer) had been developed to test each of these variables a 5-point Likert scale. The prototype developer agreed that the blueprints meet the clarity, time, and accuracy standards; this confirms a positive feedback after using the blueprints as a base for implementing the application sourcing platform.

Communication: Architecture Review by the Egyptian Government

The problem, the developed artefacts, and their solution capability should also be communicated to researchers and other relevant audiences (professionals, other stakeholders). This research has been communicated through presenting the research problem, artefacts, prototype, and evaluation results to selected citizens, including academics, and representatives of the ministry that is responsible of electronic government in Egypt with the main objective to employ ICTs in implementing and improving e-government services. As the Egyptian government has started to consider open government and recently announced an open data initiative,1 feedback from these stakeholders was considered essential. The vice minister has been contacted and interviewed as well as a project manager and the software quality assurance manager who are mainly interested in improving the electronic services which the Egyptian government offers to the citizens. The interviews were mainly directed towards the applicability of such technology within the Egyptian context and whether the government can consider the architectures as a first step of implementing citizen-sourcing to develop open governments web applications or not.

During the interviews, the representatives from the Egyptian government have shown serious interest in such projects, highlighting that this is what they actually need now in terms of citizens engagement and participation. However, Egypt is still at a very early stage having an open data initiative. After some discussion about the readiness of the government to consider the research artefacts, it was agreed that some prerequisites should be met before implementing such technology: (a) current regulations prevent the government from acquiring software solutions except from a few contracted software vendorsthis would have to change when implementing the application sourcing platform as the providers will be citizens expected not to belong to one of these vendors; (b) the availability of governmental open data for the citizens is considered a first step before implementing this application sourcing platformyet multiple efforts are still needed to achieve this in the near future; (c) the availability of skilled citizens who can develop and test the open government applications should be ensuredthis can be achieved through establishing partnerships with different university, research centres, and software development start-ups.

Conclusion

After reviewing the extant literature on the related concepts and identifying the research gap, this research has developed the needed architectures for developing a platform for sourcing open government applications from citizens. Subsequently, these architectures were validated through an expert panel upon which the architectures were enhanced. These architectures were then demonstrated by implementing a prototype of the online application sourcing platform by a third party. Test cases had been developed and applied to evaluate the effectiveness of the blueprints based on the implemented prototype, and a simple questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the blueprints" efficiency in developing the application sourcing platform. Finally, the research has been communicated namely to governmental representatives, leading to identification of success factors of platform utilization.

The contribution of this research is both practical as well as theoretical. Firstly, a set of validated, demonstrated, tested, and communicated software architectures for developing open government application sourcing platforms is provided as blueprints for reuse. Secondly, the prototype developed based on these architectures can be further enhanced and used by governments or other stakeholders to adopt citizensourcing for open government applications. And the set of validated test cases can be used as a base for generating more test cases for testing a fully functioning platform. Moreover, the government feedback may serve as input for developing action plans and roadmaps when implementing such citizen-sourcing projects. As contribution to e-government research can be considered the adoption of Zachman"s framework to develop and categorize application sourcing platforms architectures as well as the systematic approach of utilizing architectures to bring out an e-government solution intended for replication.

Limitations of time and other resources have caused also several limitations in research such as: limited number of high-level expert panellists; the prototype was only implemented for Firefox internet browser; the efficiency questionnaire was simple and not validated nor piloted; only dummy application were uploaded ("sourced") and no sourced application was set into production mode; only one developer was recruited to actually use the artefacts to implement the prototype. Especially the last limitation raises concerns about generalization of the efficiency evaluation results.

Beyond overcoming these limitations, future research is suggested to address the following questions: How to ensure security of the submitted applications as well as property rights? How to integrate the developed applications with the already available governmental infrastructure? How to publish the open government applications on the platform and link them with governmental public databases? What kind of open government tests are appropriate as pre-defined test cases executable on the application sourcing platform? And on the infrastructure level: what is the role of architectures in developing, disseminating, and managing e-government solutions in a distributed environment? After all, the application sourcing platform is only an intermediary which could be replicated in many countries and contexts. However, what the principles of open government mean in a given context and what quality benchmarks are to be applied, this should be subject to an on-going government-citizen dialogue.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Research model

Table 1 .

 1 Summary of developed artefacts

	Level	Abstractions	Current Research deliverables
		Data (What)	List of important data
	Level 1 -	Function (How)	List of important business process
	Objectives/Scope	People (Who)	List of stakeholders -Stakeholders" analysis
	Planner's View	Time (When)	List of important events
		Motivation (Why)	List of the business goals
	Level 2 -Business Conceptual Model Owner's View	Data (What) Function (How) People (Who) Time (When) Motivation (Why)	Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) Business Process Models (5) Use case diagrams (5) Event process chain Diagrams (5) Platform"s rules
	Level 3 -	Data (What)	Class diagram
	System Model	Function (How)	Activity Diagrams (17)
	Designer's View	Time (When)	State diagram

http://www.egypt.gov.eg/english/general/Open_Gov_Data_Initiative.aspx


Katarina L Gidlund
email: katarina.lindblad-gidlund@miun.se

Makers and Shapers or Users and Choosers Participatory Practices in Digitalization of Public Sector

Keywords: public e-services, critical design, participatory practices, exploratory study

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

For long we have argued for user involvement in IT design, already in 1984 Ives & Olson [START_REF] Ives | User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research[END_REF] made a literature review touching upon user involvement and indicators of system success, and since then many others have followed [START_REF] Kappelman | The Respective Roles of User Particiption and User Involvement in Information System Implementation Success[END_REF][START_REF] Hartwick | Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use[END_REF][START_REF] Iivari | Determinants of user participation: a Finnish survey[END_REF], among others. This knowledge has spread and merged with knowledge on public administration development and different development strategies of enhanced service delivery for citizens. Moreover, areas such as eParticipation [START_REF] Saebø | The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area[END_REF][START_REF] Sanford | Characterizing eParticipation[END_REF] and demand driven development of public e-services surface and sometimes blurs the intersections between democratic participation, customer focus and IS design [START_REF] Gidlund | Demand Driven Development of Public e-Services, Electronic Government[END_REF]. The idea of putting the user/citizen/customer in the center seems to be easily shared on a narrative level, however, what it might implicate in practice in the context of public sector (in terms of complexities and methods) is still often left out of the story [START_REF] Gidlund | Demand Driven Development of Public e-Services, Electronic Government[END_REF]. What is repeated is the story of a positive correlation be-tween user involvement and quality, such as for example in one of the central policy documents of digitalization of public sector in Europe; The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015 [START_REF]The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015, Harnessing ICT to pro-mote smart, sustainable & innovative Government, SEC[END_REF]. In the Action plan it is stressed that the imperative of "involving users actively in design and production of eGovernment services" [8:7] and throughout the document the importance of a user presence is repeated over and over again in different shapes: involvement, empowerment, collaboration, flexible and personalized, user satisfaction etc. From reasoning it is understood that user participation is perceived as fundamental. The line of thought is expressed as a strong need to "move towards a more open model of design, production and delivery of online services, taking advantage of the possibility offered by collaboration between citizens, entrepreneurs and civil society" [8:3].

And of course, as this is in line with a lot of IT design research and practice it is both welcomed and appreciated by the community. However, as always when things seems to be going in what we perceive to be in the right direction and we easily can incorporate them in our established thinking there is an extra need for a nuanced and careful reflection; How come this happens now? Are there mechanisms that support this and what are then these mechanisms? And, is this only talk or is it supported in practice? With resources, methods, tools and deepened understanding of what is required in practice in order to not only let it be lip service?

All the questions above are in some way or another guiding the objective of this paper i.e. to dig deeper into the idea of participatory practices and do so with a critical approach. But the articulated aim is to challenge the established mechanisms of participatory approaches to design of public e-services, theoretically by an analytical framework, and in practice by an exploratory study.

The paper is structured as follows; first there is a section contextualizing participation in the design of public e-service by a brief analysis of how the idea is framed in six central policy documents on European and national level. Second, the theoretical framework of a combination of updated design thinking and development and participatory studies from outside the digital design discipline is put forward and argued for as missing pieces for understanding the intersections between democratic participatory ideals, market oriented target group ideals and user centered design orientations. Third, the set up of the exploratory study is presented in line with methodological reflections and the operationalization of the analytical framework. Next, the results of the study (performed in a Swedish municipality) is presented and discussed, followed by concluding remarks and thoughts of contributions.

Users, citizens or customersparticipatory practices in digitalization of public sector

As mentioned in the introduction the idea of an active participant in the development of information technology in general is far from new in the IS discipline [START_REF] Ives | User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research[END_REF][START_REF] Kappelman | The Respective Roles of User Particiption and User Involvement in Information System Implementation Success[END_REF][START_REF] Hartwick | Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use[END_REF][START_REF] Iivari | Determinants of user participation: a Finnish survey[END_REF] and the idea of an active participant in the development of public e-services is also rather well established in terms of research volume with for ex-ample a yearly international conference devoted especially to eParticipation is-sues and a vast amount of papers written with eParticipation as a key word [START_REF] Saebø | The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area[END_REF][START_REF] Sanford | Characterizing eParticipation[END_REF]. What is in focus here is therefore not to argue for, show evidence of, or analyze this area of research. Instead this section will be devoted to make a brief analysis of how this idea shows itself in cru-cial policy documents in Europe and the national case of Sweden, since the empirical case that will follow takes place in that context. The objective of this section is therefore to underpin and illustrate the statement that there is in fact an enhanced focus on user involvement in public sector digitalization, and also briefly show how it is framed.

Therefore, six texts are chosen, two on a European level and four Swedish pol-icy documents (strategies and action plans) within eGovernment and digitalization of public sector. The texts included (see table 1 below) are chosen because they are the "active" policy documents at the time this paper is written and a very simple analysis is made in two steps. First, a search for instances of "user" and "citizen" in the document is made, secondly these instances are read through and a full sentence including either "user" or "citizen" is chosen to represent the kernel of how the document are arguing for participatory practices.

Table 1. Participation in eGovernment policy documents and digital agendas

The above simple illustration has no intentions of being a deep and discursive analysis; it is only put forward to prove the case that the logic is repeated in similar ways in central documents. Still, it is possible to interpret the overall logic as: the citizens would use the e-services if they could be part of their creation and the underlying reason for the existence of e-services (and government IT spending on the creation of them) is articulated as "[public e-services] help the public sector develop innovative ways of delivering its services to citizens while un-leashing efficiencies and driving down costs" [8:3]. The solution is as such ex-pressed as making the development of public e-services demand driven, based on the thought of ensuring the usage by letting the users-to-be to state what services they want, need and will use (even though these three elements not always corresponds). Moreover, it is stated that "eGovernment, which is intended to simplify contacts with citizens and companies, should always be conducted on the basis of user needs and benefits..." [23. 6].The statement in the remit is regarded as one such instance (among many) where demand driven development is emphasized. Related to this is also a fear that citizens do not use the e-services enough; "the majority of EU citizens are reluctant to use them [the public e-services]" [8:3].Thus, that the expected savings will not be realized and it is supposed, that if the citizens are somehow involved in the development of these services, they will also be more inclined to use them. And the importance of a user presence is repeated over and over again in different shapes: involvement, empowerment, collaboration, flexible and personalized, user satisfaction etc. [START_REF]The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015, Harnessing ICT to pro-mote smart, sustainable & innovative Government, SEC[END_REF].

There is however little agreement on what this involvement in the development of public e-services is and on how it will come about (the logic as such leaves a lot of room for further interpretations in the social practices the documents are to be realized in). It seems as if it is wanted by all, but no one knows exactly what it is, there are very few (if any) conceptual analyses resting on a critical stance analyzing how this notion is translated in practical settings ( leaving a gap in between for practitioners to solve) [START_REF] Gidlund | One for All, All for One-Performing Citizen Driven Development of Public E-Services. Electronic Participation[END_REF]. This is of course part of the nature of policy documents, to be enacted and translated in their contextual set-tings [START_REF] Giritli-Nygren | Leaders as Mediators of Global Megatrends: A Diagnostic Framework[END_REF]. Nevertheless, a number of actors, such as director generals, systems designers and various employees in public sector organizations, are about to realize the thought on different levels and the field of eGovernment research could contribute to their practices by deconstructing the idea and link it to practical undertakings.

As Lindblad [START_REF] Gidlund | Demand Driven Development of Public e-Services, Electronic Government[END_REF] and Sefyrin et al [START_REF] Sefyrin | Representational practices in demands driven development of public sector[END_REF] have shown the question of who participates in participatory practices such as demands driven development, and on what grounds, determines much of the legitimacy for these projects in the wider democratic system. In the Swedish guidelines for demands driven development [START_REF]Vägledning för behovsdriven Utveckling, Vägledning från E-delegationen[END_REF], it is stated that "A difficult question is how to find users who are representative for a target group and whose demands and wishes covers the demands of the whole target group. Additionally asking everybody is too costly. The point of departure should be that it is always better to have asked "some" than not to have asked at all. One does not get a comprehensive image of the demands, but at least some general demands can be found" [12:20]. Statements as the ones above shows that there is a need for further analysis on in what way the participation takes place and in the next section a combination of updated design knowledge and development and participatory studies is put forward as a rewarding analytical framework to address what is done today and what could be done tomorrow. Some things we are doing today are of course important to keep, while others are equally important to question and further develop if taking the idea of participation seriously.

Analytical toolkitprepositions and roles

In a recent article Sanders and Stappers [START_REF] Sanders | Co-creation and the new landscapes of design[END_REF] draws a picture of the design discipline from 1984 to 2044 (including user-centered design, participatory design, cocreation and several others), addressing both the what-question (results of designing), the who-question (the roles and professions), and the why-question (the values that guide design decisions). According to Sanders and Stappers all three questions could be illustrated by three phases. In 1984 we designed products (what), for consumers (who) guided by sales in marketplace (why). In 2014 we design interaction personproduct (what), with users (who) to create sales and long-term relations (why). Their forecast is that in 2044 we will design multiple relations between people, products, services and infrastructures (what), by people (who) for multiple values not reducible to a single dimension (why). This of course raises questions on design thinking and design knowledge and the need for a new set of skills for digital designers. In this paper their use of three different prepositions (for, with and by) are used to shed some light on the ideas of participatory practices in the digitalization of public sector; where one dimension is their use of consumer, user and people (in relation to the use of citizen, consumer and user in the policy texts listed above) and the other dimension is the power position implied by the different terminology. A consumer chooses a certain product among other products, a user is involved in a certain degree in the design of the product whereas design by people implies that it is them themselves that makes and shapes the result of designing.

A similar discussion is put forward in a quite different setting, that of development and participatory studies, by Cornwall and Gaventa [START_REF] Cornwall | From user and chooser to maker and shaper: repositioning participation in social policy[END_REF] and Cornwall [START_REF] Cornwall | Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development[END_REF] talking about "from users and choosers to makers and shapers". Even though development and participatory studies are not especially focused on digital de-sign but on societal development in general and in most often in development region and countries [START_REF]Participation--from tyranny to trans-formation?: Exploring new approaches to participation in development[END_REF] it holds several interesting reflections due to a longer time span of reflection. In the beginning, around 1940"s and 1950s development theory was mostly influence by colonial efforts and participation was seen as an obligation of citizenship, in 1960s and 1970s it changed into post-colonial and emancipator efforts stressing participation as both a right and obligation, whereas in the 1980s a focus on more populist efforts where the idea of participation had a more project-oriented logic (development professionals and agencies and some local participants), and finally, late 1990s to present a focus on participatory governance giving that participation is primarily seen as a right (for a more thorough description see Hickey & Mohan [START_REF]Participation--from tyranny to trans-formation?: Exploring new approaches to participation in development[END_REF]). What Cornwall and Gaventa [START_REF] Cornwall | From user and chooser to maker and shaper: repositioning participation in social policy[END_REF] then address is what they talk about as a more actor-oriented approach, going beyond "users and choosers" and instead introduce the idea of "makers and shapers". Makers and shapers are not only practicing their rights but also social re-sponsibilities exercised through self-action [START_REF] Cornwall | From user and chooser to maker and shaper: repositioning participation in social policy[END_REF]. By repositioning participation "to encompass the multiple dimensions of citizenshipincluding a focus on agency based on self-action and self-identity, as well as demands for accountability amongst actors" [14:59]. According to Cornwall and Gaventa, the role and capacity of civil society is growing resulting in an increasing pressure for democratization and new forms of citizen-state interaction.

Cornwall presents four different modes of participation; (1) functional, (2) instrumental, (3) consultative and (4) transformative giving that participants are viewed as;

(1)objects, (2) instruments, (3) actors and (4) agents. These different modes of participation hold different motives for inviting and involving participants; (1) to secure compliance, minimize dissent and lend legitimacy, (2) to make projects or interventions run more efficiently, by enlisting contributions and delegating responsibilities, (3) to get in tune with public views and values, to garner good ideas, to diffuse opposition, to enhance responsiveness, and (4) to build political capabilities, critical consciousness and confidence, to enable to demand rights, to enhance accountability.

In this paper it is claimed that these two different disciplines have touched up-on a similar trend that is very topical for the area of participatory practices in digitalization of public sector; the difference between for/with/by and choose and use/make and shape i.e. the difference in between active claims-making critical agents and rather passive customers choosing in between different off-shelf products. The overall claim here is that a similar updating is needed in the realm of participatory practices in eGovernment, not only in practice but conceptually and theoretically. And the above will serve as a lens in order to analyze this with the help of an explorative case. The shift in prepositions (for, with and by) is supported by the shift of roles (users and chooser or makers and shapers) and it also informs design actions in practice. To open up the design space (from functional to transformative) implies that it is important to not narrow the "what" before or without, the "who". The values that guide design decisions are not to be decided by anyone else than the people who will use what will be designed. In order to touch upon these issues the explorative case is presented together with some critical design notions that have been guiding the performance.

4

The explorative casemethodological reflections

In recapitulating the dimensions of the explorative study the first one is based on the analytical toolkit above which guided the objective and purpose of the study. But yet another dimension is added, not as a theoretical or analytical tool, but as a practical influence in order to open up the design space in the specific situation of the explorative work shop i.e. critical design. Before describing some of the underpinnings of critical design it is then possible to say that they explorative study, based on the analytical reasoning above, tried to challenge:

• the what • the who • the why However, according to the idea of critical design put forward by Dunne [START_REF] Dunne | Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design[END_REF] it is crucial to address the ideological and norm reproducing elements of what, who and why which could be described as "the how". To be able to touch upon how the ideological and norm reproducing elements work Dunne claims that designing starts when the technological artifacts are linked to a certain discourse (guiding values). This gives that the ideological nature of how our everyday social and cultural experiences are mediated by digital artifacts are in focus. This in order to deconstruct or dematerialize what is proposed, but also to increase the possible interpretations in order to give room for creativity and new approaches, i.e. not delaying the possibility of new translations. If not, we might be "superimposing the known and comfortable into the new and alien" [18:17].

It is therefore essential to create opportunities for "defamiliarizing" and "making strange" what is linked to the "ideological dimension of everyday technologies" [18:2]. To defamiliarize is to provoke, making ambiguous, and making strange in order to discuss hidden social meanings. Defamiliarizing could then be used as a methodology to break free of structures, in line with rethinking the assumptions that underlie technology [START_REF] Agre | Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI[END_REF] [START_REF] Dunne | Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects[END_REF]. Making the constructs (discourses) strange provides the opportunity to actively reflect on existing politics and culture, and develop new alternatives for design [START_REF] Bell | Making by making strange: Defamiliarition and the design of domestic technologies[END_REF] i.e. to remove objects from the automatism of perception; "it seeks to explore the ways in which our categories of thought reduce our freedom by occluding recognition of what could be" [22:xviii]. Questioning the naturalized assumptions inherent in the design opens up design spaces, and is a critical endeavor for two reasons: it (i) questions the taken for grantedness and (ii) reveals possibilities for transformative redefinition. And to make the familiar strange Dunne proposes the idea of gentle provocation [START_REF] Dunne | Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design[END_REF], i.e. a way of provoking complex and meaningful reflection. To gently provoke, disturb and make uneasy means to gently make the line of thought more reflective, to struggle with uneasiness. Therefore, what is challenged by the explorative case study is also:

• the how

The four challenges (what, who, why, how) are then used to intentionally provoke and create a situation where these four issues could be addressed in an alternative manner. The results of the intervention are then discussed as a back-drop to gain a deeper understanding of, and challenge the existing mechanisms of, participatory practices in the digitalization of public sector.

A collaborative workshop on making the digital story of a town

The empirical material is multi-facetted and rich and is based on a series of explorative initiatives related to making the digital story of a town. The back-ground is digitalization in general and accessibility in specific and concerns a medium-sized town in Sweden trying to develop a digitally interactive story targeted both to the town"s inhabitants and tourists. When trying to complement printed information and marketing material with what they perceive as modern tools, a discussion on digitalization surfaced. During that discussion a contact with the regional university were established and started as an open-ended discussion between a representative from the municipality and two representatives from the university. The municipal representative was the secretary of cultural affairs at the municipal cultural center (called Kulturmagasinet) and the representatives from the university were two researchers, one from sociology and one from informatics, working within a research group of critical studies of digital technology and societal change.

The project name became "Technology in becoming" and the point of departure were a shared apprehension that digitalization could be more than just making the existing databases, the established and already at hand stories of the town, accessible in digital form. The aim of the co-work was formulated as; -the digital stories could be more than only doing what is already done. In the town there were already stories made, a lot of material (exhibitions, city walks, interactive performances during open city days and traditional marketing and information material) existed based on established and well known stories of the town. Famous historical inhabitants, well known historical events and historical information about buildings etc. were all part of that. The objective then became to challenge, provoke and co-construct new stories.

The above then led to several steps, the first meeting (attended by the secretary of cultural affairs and the two researchers) circled around if, and if so, how, it was possible to re-create the established stories, and be more inclusive to other stories than the established ones, during the digitalization. And as a result of that discussion the secretary of cultural affairs invited two artists to the discussions as experts on friction and change of perspectives, and also managed to attract internal funding for paying for their participation.

The next step was then to continue the discussion of "technology in becoming" in the larger group (the initial three participants and the added two artists) and develop a work form in order to, in a more inclusive and alternative way, create the stories that were to be digitalized. After presenting the ideas in the larger groups the two artists continued the discussion separately from an artistic point of view and developed a first suggestion of a work form. There after the larger group met again and discussed the artists" suggestions and collectively decided upon a work flow.

The final idea was to make a fully open event in the cultural center; it was to be both announced in the local newspaper and spread through several mail lists and held in a very architecturally creative studio at the cultural center. The day was chosen to create the opportunity for as many as possible to be able to participate and was therefore decided to be on a Sunday between 14 and 16 pm. In the studio there was a table with a printed three by three meters large map of the town in color and a lot of adhesive dots and stars in a multitude of colors (see picture 1 below) related to the questions the artists were to ask the participants.

The two hours were structured as below: ─ 5 minutes very short introduction (important to not become too long and steer the associations)/ by the research leader ─ 5 minutes equally short introduction of some of the work done by the university on mobile applications and visualization (in the same way important not to become too long and give the workshop a technology centered focus)/ an invited researcher in computer science ─ 5 minutes short introduction of the project team ─ Straight after the above the workshop started with the first quick introductory exercise. The artists asked the participants (also the researchers, the secretary of the cultural affair, and the artists participated) to mark eight places on the map (a place in town that I would show children/show friends from another country/show the prime minister/ a forbidden place for children/ a place where I get ideas/ a very ugly place/ a place I avoid/ a place dogs like) (20 minutes) ─

A short break and a cup of coffee ─

The second exercise. The artists asked the participants to mark four places (the most beautiful place in town, the darkest place in town, the most equal place in town, the hottest place in town). Important to note is that the questions were deliberately a bit fuzzy (20 min) ─

The third exercise. The artists asked the participants to mark "the most memorable place in town". (15 min) ─ Discussion and reflections

The above exercise gave a map (for one fraction of the map see picture 2 be-low) with a lot of different dots and stars on the giant map in the center of the studio which the participants could reflect upon, ask each other about, try to understand and also discuss as they were easily accessible and very illustrative. The tangibility of the map in the room with all the markings and the participants moving around in the room bumping in to each other, trying to both put their dots on the map and see where others put their dots, created a movement and atmosphere in the room that encouraged discussion.

Results and analysisdisrupting established stories

There are several interesting reflections made during the six months long project and the final workshop. First of all, it is hard to get funding for these kind of risk taking, nonprofit work with a norm critical approach which needs actors that holds a strong belief that it is important to address these issues even though they are not instantly linked to the step of becoming a realized product. They also need to be very creative to find the small resources that are available. Second, this gives that the project group had to be organically formed, and not to be decided upon from the beginning. The adding of the two artists was central to the final results and that was not at all the initial understanding in the first discussions. But during the discussion the need for competence in disruptive practices surfaced as highly important. Third, the inclusive and open invitation to the de-sign activity (regarding place and time) were crucial. The place is a very well-known place and has also been ranked as "the most open and inclusive place" for a multitude of citizens. The choice of time, a day of week and a time at day when most people could participate without losing income, also showed to be important in order to get a diverse group of participants. Finally, the disruptive stories created by the artists showed to be very useful in order to create provocation, reflection and discussion and get hold of stories outside of the established stories of importance in the already existing archival artifacts.

All the above created could be linked to the four challenges the analytical framework touch upon: the what, the who, the why and the how. In participatory practices "the what" is very often already decided upon, in this exploratory case it was important to keep "the what" an as open question as possible, throughout the initial project meetings and to the end with the final workshop. And "the who" is maybe one of the most interesting questions during this project, to be able to stay in ignorance of who will attend is challenging for several reasons. To stand there at the day of the workshop without any knowledge about who the participants will be was demanding. The project team was a bit nervous and tried to comfort each other that morning and it was important to have the ability to share the responsibility in between the professions and competencies (IS-researcher, researcher in sociology, secretary of cultural affairs, and artistic skills). This also influenced "the why", it was discussed together with the different participants and there were room for translations and re-translations regarding why it could be of importance to open up a discussion of what story that should be told about the town. Finally, concerning "the how", as shown by the discussion above, to choose these kinds of work forms requires courage and nerves to deal with insecurities-which also proves why we often chose not to. To be as iterative and open as possible while also consciously adding provocations forces us to challenge our own professional positions and legitimacy. The fact that, as researchers and project leaders to some extent, attend the exploratory workshop with on equal terms and use private and personal experiences while trying to add to the co-constructed map and story really brought us out of our comfort zone.

Conclusions and contributions

The overall conclusion of the case discussed in this paper is that the idea of participatory practices in the digitalization of public sector is still an open question from many perspectives. The four challenges used in this paper highlight some of these and especially the perception of "participation". To use development and participatory studies in combination with up-dated design thinking provided tools to analyze "participation" in more detail and also repositioned the idea of participatory subjects. Throughout the empirical case the framework pro-vided a sensibility to the boundaries and legitimacy of who were to make and shape and who were to use and choose and what it actually means to transmit that power to an unknown crowd of participants. The four questions, the what, the who, the why and the how, proved to be practical and useful and it is argued here that they could be part of a new era of design of public e-services. However demanding, they, used to the fullest or not, address aspects of participation that needs to be addressed to avoid empty and almost dishonest promises of participation that in the end fosters frustration and disappointment that could backfire on very well intended digitalization processes. The argument here is not that every digitalization project should be designed as the one above, rather than an awareness of these aspects creates a better take-off in communicating the initiatives in a more truthful manner.