1.
Latin American and The
Caribbean Open Data
Barometer 2020
Lessons Learned

2.
Agenda
1. About the LAC ODB Edition
2. Lessons learned

3.
Roles and
organization
Silvana Fumega
Coordinator
David Zamora
Main
Researchers
Peer
Reviewers
(Each researcher also conducted the peer review of another country)

4.
Latin America
Team
Argentina Félix Pedro Penna
Bolivia Milenka Villegas Taguasi
Brasil Larissa Galdino de Magalhães Santos
Chile Carlos David Carrasco Muro
Colombia Juan Pablo Marín Díaz
Costa Rica Jorge Umaña Cubillo
Ecuador Eduardo Bejar
El Salvador Iris Bertila Palma Recinos
Guatemala Julio Roberto Herrera Toledo
Honduras Daniel Emilio Rodriguez Rivera
México Aura Eréndira Martínez Oriol
Nicaragua Guillermo Incer Medina
Panamá Aída Martínez Mórtola
Paraguay David Riveros García
Perú Ana Isabel Fiafilio Rodriguez
Uruguay Eliana Álvarez

5.
Caribbean Team
Bahamas Michelle McLeod
Belice Audrey Robin
Guyana Lenandlar Singh
Jamaica Suzana Russell
Santa Lucía Suzana Russell
Trinidad & Tobago Michelle McLeod
Haití Marlene Sam
República Dominicana Victor Gonzalez

6.
Research timeline
Jan 2020
Apr 2020
May 2020
Jul 2020
Research period Data gathering and peer
review
Final review and
processing
Sep 2020
Dec 2020
Launch (website, report)

7.
● Most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have
stagnated
● Best scores in the region are in the area
of implementation
● Impact: the region still does not seem to have
achieved the expected results
● The least open and lowest-quality datasets: land
ownership, company registration, and public transport
routes and schedules
Some findings

8.
● Governments must invest, in a constant and sustained manner
● Governments should holistically consider the different aspects
of the production and use of data
● Governments must redouble their efforts to include the private
sector and civil society in the open data ecosystem
● Governments must improve the quality of their data, taking
special care to consider gender dimensions, as well as other
relevant variables, so that the data include all people in their
societies.
Four key recommendations

9.
Lessons
Learned

10.
General methodology approach
● Researchers need to answer the questions of an Expert Survey following
specific rules for consistency, objectivity and quality.
● Those answers are later reviewed thorough a peer review process, where
feedback and responses move back and forth until answers are accepted.

11.
Data collection

12.
2.1 Make a solid team selection
● The coordination had a strong experience with other Indexes.
● All researchers had a good understanding and previous experience with open data.
● Researchers represented both, CSO and academia.
● The team was highly motivated.
● The team had good time availability to conduct the project.

13.
2.2 Make administrative issues
quick and easy
● The administrative process was extremely agile for team members.
● Contract conditions were very clear in terms of scope, duration, and payments.

14.
2.3 Digest the methodology as
the first activity
● Contribution of the Web Foundation (Q&A and learned lessons).
● Individual initial preparation (from all team members).
● Followed by a training session that focused on the most complex issues.
● And the first answer to the expert survey was deeply reviewed before
researchers continued with the second question (for quality and consistency).

15.
2.4 Closely follow the research
progress
● There is a need of a close relation between coordination and researchers to:
○ Monitor the individual progress (quality and deadlines).
○ Provide minor time flexibility based on particular issues.

16.
Peer review

17.
2.6 Carefully match reviewers and
researchers (for the peer review)
● Researchers also conducted the peer review:
○ Reduced the time for understanding the methodology.
○ Allowed the reviewers to go directly to the content analysis.
○ Offer a step-by-step guide for reviewers to standardize the level and quality
of review.
● CSO representatives reviewed the academics research, and the other way around.
● Reviewers had open data knowledge of the country they reviewed.

18.
2.7 Coordination needs to
moderate the peer review
● The coordination needs to solve questions reviewers and researchers address,
specially when they do not agree on one particular point.
● The coordination should follow the conversations, intervene when necessary,
and guide the team into a certain level of consistency.
● Offer minor timeline flexibility, some reviews and conversations take longer in
the back and forth between reviewers and researchers.

19.
https://barometerlac.org/; https://barometrolac.org/

20.
@Ildalatam
@SilvanavF
@davidzb06
Muchas gracias