## 4 Analysis and Findings
### Public Value Management and Inclusive Public Engagement  
As already noted, there is widespread recognition that merely making data accessible is insufficient as a driver of innovation and net benefit--and that in addition, even making many public data holdings available is a task frequently encountering resistance within a traditional government mindset and apparatus of secrecy and information control. Shifting beyond this proprietary mindset thus requires a new lexicon--one that stems from the governance framework of \"public value management\" (PVM) as an alternative to traditional public administration and new public management [24]. PVM, in turn, is consistent with what others have termed, \"public administration 2.0\" [2]. The commonality of such approaches is an outward and adaptive public service with collaborative networks rivaling hierarchies and markets as the central organizing principle, and where ongoing participation of the citizenry is the norm rather than the exception. In this regard, the many technical, policy, legal, and political issues at play in moving open data toward this higher plane are well understood and well articulated--by scholars, governments, think tanks, private sector bodies, and international organizations [1,2,3,6]. The OECD's efforts in fostering an international dialogue and comparative framework for capturing the empirical performance of open data initiatives is particularly noteworthy since it begins to institutionalize an openness mindset, grounding such a mindset into shared reforms and objectives [4]. While the OECD effort and other likeminded initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership underscore the globalizing dimensions of the open data and open government movements, it is arguably locally where the most traction can be gained in concretely measuring the impacts of openness initiatives--and as importantly where the community itself can become engaged in doing so. In this sense, the missing element thus far of municipal open data efforts in Canada and elsewhere has been in devising a performance scorecard measuring usage, outcomes, and public value creation as opposed to data availability and rates of access. In Ontario, moreover, municipalities have begun asking themselves whether such measurement schemes should best be done collectively--for the municipal sector as a whole, building on likeminded schemes already in place to address performance measurement in other realms, notably service delivery [25]. The essential point here, in my estimation, and in keeping with the prism of public value management and ubiquitous engagement, is for governments to not undertake such an evaluation scheme directly themselves but rather to do so in an open and shared manner with the affected (and engaged) communities. There are two reasons for such a claim. First, public value is a highly fluid term with many potential qualitative and quantitative dimensions of social, economic, and democratic dimensions to quality of life and it is crucial, therefore, to engage in an open conversation as to what should be measured and how. Secondly, and related to this first point, the advent of Web 2.0 and open source communities are indicative of a decline of societal deference to traditional authoritarian structures. As a result, if performance measures are to be viewed a legitimate by the citizenry--and this is a central tenant of public value management, it must be involved in its formation and deployment. The practical implication that follows is strong and direct ties between open data and public engagement, a point underscored by Salt Lake City in their articulation of an open governance framework encompassing both elements and others designed to foster innovation, participation and inclusiveness [26].