How our work at the Open Data Lab Jakarta influences how we think about data empowerment
By Andreas Pawelke and Michael Cañares
With the Web Foundation announcing the closing of its doors this year, it’s an opportune moment to reflect on the work of the Open Data Lab Jakarta, which we had the pleasure of scoping, designing and leading from 2013 to 2019.
While this post is not strictly about the core theme of this blog, our experiences with the Jakarta Lab had a significant influence on our thinking about how structural power asymmetries and deeply entrenched systems of data extraction result in people being perceived as passive data producers instead of actively involving them in the collection, analysis, and use of data.
The following reflections are our own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Web Foundation. But before we dive into our reflections, let us first give you a little background on the Lab.
About the Lab
The Open Data Lab Jakarta was established by the Web Foundation in 2014 to develop, test, and evaluate approaches to open data while investing in research and capacity-building to strengthen local open data ecosystems.
The idea of (government) data being made accessible proactively hadn’t been around for long during that time, and there were no blueprints or accessible frameworks to follow on how to use open data for social change.
We therefore built much of the early work of the Lab on the findings of the Web Foundation’s ‘From Data to Development: Exploring the Emerging Impact of Open Government Data in Developing Countries’, a three-year global research project that investigated how open data operates across the Global South in different political, social, and governance contexts.
The launch of the Lab was preceded by an extensive scoping phase conducted in 2013. Building on the intelligence gathered and the relationships established during an open data readiness assessment, we explored a variety of possible designs and implementation mechanisms for the Jakarta Lab. This included questions around the kinds of projects the Lab would take on; the key partnerships that needed to be established, formally or informally; and the nature of the Lab, i.e. whether it should be owned by the government (local or national) supporting innovation from within or acting as an external entity challenging existing policies and practices.
In our early work we sought to tackle data inequality by implementing projects grounded in a solid understanding of the issues affecting people and organizations.
We did this by enabling partner organizations to advocate for transparency in government processes and transactions through data disclosure. We also ran trainings, hackathons and learning events to strengthen the skills of infomediaries to use government data for advocacy and service provision.
We quickly managed to build evidence that government data disclosure, when matched with the needs and capabilities of data users, can bring about change in resource allocation and use and the prioritization of government.
Partner organizations of the Lab influenced government policies and decision-making in places like Banda Aceh, Jakarta and at the national government level. One of the Lab’s partners, for example, Gerak Aceh, convinced the local government to extend a mining moratorium by using government data, visualizing it and building a narrative around permit issuance, tax payments, and debts of mining companies.
Over the months and years, we developed and tested various open data supply, access and use models and tools for other organizations to use.
We also worked outside of Indonesia. We convened representatives from government, civil society, media, and academia across Asia to create action plans for open data initiatives in their respective countries and we worked with partners from the Philippines, Nepal and Malaysia exploring localized approaches to open data.
The Lab tried to enable local actors to undertake their own open data initiatives, be it on the supply side with government agencies or on the part of intermediaries and users of data. Using a mix of research, innovation, capacity-building and small-scale financial support, the goal was for organizations and individuals to continue investing into and working on open data
This strategy was largely successful, with partner organizations being able to develop long-term open data programs with 20 times the funding we were able to provide them with to achieve sustainable policy change in areas like extractives, education and information access, such as GeRAK Aceh in Indonesia, E-Net in the Philippines and Sinar in Malaysia. Others became long-term effective and reliable partners for the Lab with their presence outside of Jakarta, acting as local implementing partners for joint open data work on culture and gender-responsive budgeting, as was the case with IDEA.
In 2021, the journey of the Jakarta Lab ended.
How the Lab shaped our thinking about data empowerment
The Open Data Lab Jakarta has influenced our thinking about data empowerment through four key pillars: places, people, partners and processes.
By fostering localized innovation across various communities (places), the Lab has helped identify place-specific data challenges and opportunities. The Lab relied on a diverse team of skilled individuals who would often become leaders in their respective fields after leaving the Lab (people). The Lab has also refined its approaches to address data governance issues, promoting participatory methods and co-creation (processes). Lastly, strategic partnerships (partners) with government and civil society enabled the Lab to foster a broader culture of data-informed policy-making. We expound on these key dimensions below.
Places
The Open Data Lab Jakarta’s work was deeply rooted in its geographical context: Jakarta, Indonesia, Southeast Asia.
In the early days of open data, approaches to open data from developed countries were often transferred without critical attention to the local context or need. Standard recipe approaches were followed, data portals were created, and hackathons, boot camps, and contests were organized.
The results were often limited to online data portals with a few, low-value and low-quality datasets, prototypes of mobile applications with limited functionality and one-off capacity-building interventions with no to little follow-up support to the application of the skills.
Since then, it has become apparent that the technical issues of open data initiatives are much less of a barrier than the deeply entrenched political challenges that come with shifting information access and related changes in structural power asymmetries. Data supply would not automatically translate to the use of data, and use would not automatically lead to positive outcomes for citizens. The Lab was, therefore, founded on the belief that for open data to be effective, locally developed solutions tailored to specific contexts were required.
When the Lab closed in 2021, the number of jurisdictions actively involved in open data programs, including Jakarta, Banda Aceh, Bandung, Surabaya, Bojonegoro, and Yogyakarta, had constantly grown. Many local community groups had started to use government-disclosed data to initiate conversations that would ultimately improve transparency, public service delivery, and citizen participation.
We believe that open data initiatives need to be rooted in place. Our lofty ideals of how data can empower people and communities need to be grounded in the contextual realities of where we work. Cultural practices on data, data availability, data assets, among others, are all defined by geographies, and while there may be universal truths and practices, these have to find meaning in the realities of local contexts.
People
Much has been written about the kinds of people who thrive in a lab environment. This was no less true for the Jakarta Lab, which had around seven core team members with the skills required to implement the Lab’s diverse activities, which included research and training, innovation projects, and policy advocacy.
What is less frequently mentioned is the value of well-connected staff with potential partners, clients, and even critics. In the first years of the Lab, in particular, the personal networks of Lab staff were critical in identifying project partners, securing the commitment of government leaders, and advancing the Lab’s open data agenda across the various sectors, from civil society to government, academia, and media.
What’s more, the Jakarta Lab wouldn’t have survived challenging times without the loyalty and commitment of the team members despite much uncertainty around its long-term existence, given its dependence on outside and largely short-term funding.
The Lab sought to change the way (government) data is collected, shared and used. Deviating from the norm made the Lab vulnerable to outside pressure and interventions in its first years. This is where the role of the Lab management was central in protecting the way Lab staff operate, from partner engagement to solving problems to communicating their work to external audiences.
We tried as hard as possible to attract and retain talented people with diverse skills and interests and provide a safe and enjoyable workspace and environment where people can thrive. When Lab members left the Lab to work elsewhere, they often became leaders in their own areas of work.
Partners
Outside the Lab, relationships with people within communities and organizations were paramount. Trust and confidence, as well as partnership and collegiality are critical to shape innovation work that is often new and uncertain.
One of the key strengths at the Lab was our ability to engage with a diverse range of partners. We successfully worked with local governments, adapting our approach to their specific needs. Our partnerships with NGOs were particularly fruitful, as they effectively disseminated open data concepts within their networks and constituencies.
However, our approach to partner engagement was often sporadic rather than strategic. We learned the importance of selecting partners with a strong interest and incentive to continue interventions beyond our direct involvement. Building and sustaining relationships with influential partners who had strong track records became a key focus for improvement.
On the positive side, we excelled at aligning incentives. Partners who directly benefited from our work remained engaged throughout and beyond. We found success in working with government officials who had an interest in long-term implementation of open data practices. Many of our partners were influencers in their own right, and some even made significant impacts independently.
We were fortunate to have cultivated a group of influential “Lab Champions” who became powerful advocates for our cause. Their support lent credibility to our work and opened doors to new opportunities.
We also need to acknowledge that our timing was opportune, as we benefited from the global hype surrounding open data. This led to interest in our approaches, providing us with a wide array of potential partnerships and project opportunities.
One challenge was balancing our work across local, national, and regional levels. While the Lab was well-positioned to work with partners at all these levels, our limited resources often constrained our reach. Our staffing, location, and other resource factors strongly dictated where we could work and with whom we could work effectively. However, being able to do more with less was only possible through partnerships.
We did not come to the places we worked in with all the resources we needed to make things happen. We also relied on our partners’ assets, their position of power, and their skills. Working with partners was mutually beneficial — it empowered us, as it empowered them. Power, after all, is not a zero-sum game.
Processes
When we started the Lab, the open data readiness assessment, the ODDC findings and the Open Data Barometer data gave us a good understanding of the open data ‘building blocks’ at a general level (policies, data, processes, capacity needs etc) to undertake effective high-level advocacy.
Still, before we set up the Jakarta Lab we had a limited granular understanding of the dynamics around things like power, the politics of data or specific user needs that can only be observed by ‘being on the ground’ and ‘getting our hands dirty’.
With the Ford Foundation as the first funder of the Lab and a range of other strategic partners, there was an opportunity to build this knowledge, map and test our assumptions, work with open data in the ‘real world’ away from our desks and conference rooms and the occasional training event, and learn and observe if and how open data would keep its promises of being a tool to drive social change and advance the transparency and accountability agenda.
We designed a series of action research projects to better understand existing data supply, use, and engagement practices; we designed a Lab framework around four pillars (research, incubation, capacity-building, engagement) that would address these needs; and outlined a work plan for the first few months of the Lab that would focus on rapid development of use cases to get partners, funders, and decision-makers to support open data efforts.
What’s important to note is that while the Lab benefited from being embedded in the Web Foundation, an established organization with a global reach and strong reputation, the Open Data Lab Jakarta has always been the one child in the family that was different from the rest. The Lab was one of the few initiatives of the Foundation with an almost exclusive localized approach which made it difficult at times to find common ground and speak the same language about how change happens.
Our approach to influencing policy centered on demonstrating the benefits of open data through partnerships, effectively combining advocacy with practical innovation. We innovated to influence, leveraging participatory processes in the design of our projects and events. A strong research component enhanced our understanding of context, while our high-level, flexible innovation framework provided structure for our projects.
We placed importance on documenting our work, which yielded valuable lessons learned, helped improve our models, facilitated scaling, and generated compelling public advocacy stories. However, we did face challenges with siloed interventions that had limited systemic impact.
Clarifying our ways of doing was critical, but it was not automatic. For example, we progressively developed and refined our innovation framework over the years and systematized our engagement approaches and our experimentation to policy over time, learning from our initial successes and misadventures. The same can be said on how you envision the process of enabling people to be empowered by data.
What remains
As the Web Foundation closes its doors, the principles and practices of the Jakarta Lab remain more relevant than ever. In an era where data and other technologies increasingly shape our world, the Lab’s work underscores the importance of empowering people not just as data producers, but as active participants in data collection, analysis, and use.
In reflecting on the Lab’s journey, we are reminded that true data empowerment is not about technology alone, but about people, places, partnerships, and processes. It’s about creating ecosystems where data serves communities, rather than the other way around.
We hope the Lab contributed to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of data access and use across sectors and geographies. More importantly, we hope it has inspired other organizations to undertake similar work, adapting the Lab’s principles to their own contexts and challenges.
