5.2.1. Necessary conditions
The literature review showed that having sufficient organizational resources and feedback
mechanisms in place are two important conditions for citizen-led engagement with OGD. This was
confirmed in the case since one of the interviewed commissioners said that the Commission had
prepared the worst situation that could impede the process of opening up election data such as
electricity outage by hiring a power generator. He also added that the Commission had allocated
budget resources for necessary elements needed for open election data provision including internet
connectivity, computer software and applications, hardware (i.e., computers, scanners, servers),
network infrastructure and additional personnel hired specifically for scanning, inputting and
uploading data.
The case also confirmed that the availability of feedback mechanism between OGD providers and
users is another condition necessary for the citizen-led engagement. Since the C1 forms were created
manually at polling stations and later transported to the village’s offices, they were prone to errors
and manipulation. Brajawidagda and Chatfield (2014) identified 125 anomalous C1 forms on the
Commission’s open data portal which were reported by citizens on photography-based social media
platforms located at https://c1yanganeh.tumblr.com. The Kawal Pemilu volunteers also found such
forms and reported them to the Commission through a liaison. Interestingly, the Commission officially
instructed KPUDs to monitor the platform and plan the corrective follow-up actions (Komisi Pemilihan
Umum, 2014a). One commissioner confirmed this and described the corrective actions as follows.
“The correction mechanism was done, for example, by the head of the KPPS, [the committee
at polling station level], in the recapitulation meeting at a district level. He or she read the C1
form in front of the witnesses, the oversight committee, and the PPK members. If there was a
mistake, for example, a number writing error, it would be corrected immediately. The right
numbers were written and signed by the meeting participants, while the errors were crossed
out. After that, the corrected C1 form was scanned and uploaded and the previously uploaded
form was overwritten.”
One Kawal Pemilu volunteer who was tasked to inspect anomalous C1 forms corroborated the followup mechanism by the Commission and viewed it as a significantly important condition for the
engagement. The volunteer described her experience in reporting the errors as follows.
“So, I know very well that the KPU people who manage the server must have been overloaded.
But, every time we send an email and send it once like twenty erroneous C1s, and they
protested 'Ma'am, don't send us twenty problems please, at least five per batch, so we can
check them easily.' They corrected the C1s as fast as they can. That's it. So even though they’re
busy and I don’t know whether they’re overwhelmed or not, but I was sure they’re busy. Even
at eleven o'clock at night or two o'clock in the morning, I send an e-mail to them, it was always
be responded. Yes, the response was not immediate at that time, but definitely responded. Not
being ignored.”

5.2.2. Contributing factors
Our literature review showed that institutional arrangements related to OGD provision encompassing
organizational culture, process, and structure and technical aspects of OGD provision are two
contributing factors that influence citizen-led engagement with OGD. The case corroborated this as
the Commission institutionalized not only through formal regulations and internal memos but also
through informal reminders distributed to KPUDs and KPUPs via a messaging application. For example,
a message was circulated by the Commission to its branches for achieving “100% target uploaded in 2
x 24 hours”.