To inform the development of the Barometer we have carried out 20 interviews over 4 weeks, including representatives of civil society, OD4D regional hubs, multilateral agencies, researchers and private sector organisations. This initial analysis gathers insights from these interviews, structured around the four focus areas of each conversation: user needs from a Barometer-like study; the wider research landscape; study design and governance; and potential focus topics for the Barometer.

1. Understanding user needs

A global expert survey can generate data and analysis that responds to a wide range of different needs. By asking about the existing indicator frameworks and studies our interviewees have used, and particularly about the use of the Open Data Barometer, we have sought to distill a set of potential needs that the Global Data Barometer could aim to meet. These are presented below in order of consensus ranging from points that appeared to have strong consensus, to those in need of further consultation.

The Barometer as a policy tool

Many interviewees had experience of engaging with the Open Data Barometer (ODB) and Global Open Data Index (GODI). These have been used in the past as tools to work with governments and push for more and better open data policies. They have proven useful to get a clear view of where a government is on its open data policies at different stages of their implementation.

Interviewees identified particular strengths of these tools that would be expected to remain for the reframed Global Data Barometer.

• Peer comparison - The ODB allowed comparison between countries. This helped officials and practitioners push for improvements, whilst also providing clear signposting to where a country can improve.
• Actionable diagnostic - The structure of the ODB provided a clear snapshot of the readiness, implementation and impact. This provided a diagnostic of the internal capacity and status of a country regarding open data.
• Educational component - Linked to peer comparison, when measurements were starting, tools such as the ODB and GODI were useful to show how open data should look, and to understand what good publishing looks like.
• Value chain - When looking at the ODB and GODI, you could see a clear value chain of data, not just data provision. This is something important to take into account as the Global Data Barometer starts looking at other topics related to data governance and closed data.
• Clear measurable indicators - The clarify of the indicators helped governments to identify where they can improve, and helped to set priorities.

The Barometer as a research tool

Interviewees noted that the ODB also served as a research instrument that provided qualitative and quantitative data and allowed its users to see the evolution of a country across time. A number noted the value of the data for secondary research. The main advantages of the Barometer in this sense were:

• Transparency - The Barometer was transparent about changes in the methodology. It iterates and learns from previous years and indicates what changes from year to year.
• Pinpoint improvement - As part of the research elements of the Barometer, it needs to help pinpoint the specific aspects of where a country needs to improve. This requires a results design that gives a clear path to the missing bits or gaps of information.

However, interviewees also noted areas for improvement, including:

• Clearer context - Although the Barometer provides a clear overview of open data around the world, in some countries it still requires additional context about the state of FOIA, transparency on specific aspects, etc. This is something the interviewees reported as necessary to use the data as part of the policy work.

Room for improvement

Despite the clear usefulness of the ODB and GODI, there are some weaknesses that are important for the interviewed stakeholders: