This study investigates the emerging field of innovative technology applications for public usage, focusing on employee perspectives. The research employs a questionnaire-based approach, collecting responses from 439 participants and examining demographics, technological proficiency, utility perceptions, personal data concerns, attitudes towards artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence, and willingness to endorse technology adoption. The data analysis minimises discrepancies between predicted and actual values through multiple linear regression. In addition, statistical methods such as Spearman’s ρ, the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test and chi-square statistics are employed to consolidate the findings, ensuring the thoroughness and validity of the research process. The results indicate a positive inclination among participants to perceive artificial intelligence as augmentative rather than a replacement in public usage contexts. The research’s originality lies in the unique contribution of employees to technology adoption and strategic knowledge asset renewal for the management in the public domain.
LiCYFangYHChangYH.Can AI chatbots help retain customers? An integrative perspective using affordance theory and service-domain logic. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 197: 122921.
2.
VialG.Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strat Inform Syst2021; 28: 118–144.
3.
MannuruNRShahriarSTeelZA, et al. Artificial intelligence in developing countries: the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for development. Informa Develop. Epub ahead of print 14September2023. DOI: 10.1177/02666669231200628.
4.
TegmarkM. Life 3.0: being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Maselheim: Knopf, 2017, p. 384.
5.
EnholmIMPapagiannidisEMikalefP, et al. Artificial intelligence and business value: a literature review. Inf Syst Front2022; 24(5): 1709–1734.
6.
MikalefPGuptaM.Artificial intelligence capability: conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Inform Manag2021; 58(3): 103434.
7.
Wamba-TaguimdjeSLWambaSFKamdjougJRK, et al. Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: the business value of AI-based transformation projects. Bus Proces Manag J2020; 26(7): 1893–1924.
8.
KaplanAHaenleinM.Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz2019; 62(1): 15–25.
9.
ChenJLiuY.Take the essence, discard the dregs: a perspective on blockchain technology in China. Manag Organiz Rev2020; 16(1): 203–209.
10.
WangYWangXWangX, et al. The ChatGPT after: building knowledge factories for knowledge workers with knowledge automation. IEEE/CAA J Automat Sinica2023; 10(11): 2041–2044.
11.
BudhwarPChowdhurySWoodG, et al. Human resource management in the age of generative artificial intelligence: perspectives and research directions on ChatGPT. Human Res Manag J2023; 33(3): 606–659.
NeumannOGuirguisKSteinerR.Exploring artificial intelligence adoption in public organizations: a comparative case study. Public Manag Rev2024; 26(1): 114–141.
HaefnerNWincentJParidaV, et al. Artificial intelligence and innovation management: a review, framework, and research agenda. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 162: 120392.
16.
VaioADHassanRAlavoineC.Data intelligence and analytics: a bibliometric analysis of human – artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 174: 121201.
17.
CriadoJIGil-GarciaJR. Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: from digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. Int J Public Sector Manag2019; 32(5): 438–450.
18.
Nguyen Dang TuanMNguyen ThanhNLe TuanL. Applying a mindfulness-based reliability strategy to the Internet of Things in healthcare – a business model in the Vietnamese market. Technol Forecast Soc Change2019; 140: 54–68.
19.
TwizeyimanaJDAnderssonA.The public value of E-Government – a literature review. Gov Inf Q2019; 36(2): 167–178.
20.
ChilunjikaAIntaunoKChilunjikaSR.Artificial intelligence and public sector human resource management in South Africa: opportunities, challenges and prospects. SA J Human Res Manag2022; 20: a1972.
JanssenMKukG.The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. Gov Inf Q2016; 33(3): 371–377.
23.
GoldsmithSCrawfordS.The responsive city: engaging communities through data-smart governance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
24.
BrynjolfssonEMitchellTRockD.What can machines learn and what does it mean for occupations and the economy?AEA Papers Proc2018; 108: 43–47.
25.
KangJSKuznetsovaPChoiY, et al. Using text analysis to target government inspections: evidence from restaurant hygiene inspections and online reviews. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013, https://ideas.repec.org/p/hbs/wpaper/14-007.html
26.
SunTQMedagliaR.Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: evidence from public healthcare. Gov Inf Q2019; 36(2): 368–383.
27.
Van NoordtCMisuracaG. Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union. Gov Inf Q2022; 39(3): 101714.
28.
ChanAJHooiLWNguiKS.Do digital literacies matter in employee engagement in digitalised workplace?J Asia Busines Stud2021; 15(3): 523–540.
29.
FerrarisAMazzoleniADevalleA, et al. Big data analytics capabilities and knowledge management: impact on firm performance. Manag Decis2019; 57(8): 1923–1936.
30.
TamilmaniKRanaNPWambaSF, et al. The extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): a systematic literature review and theory evaluation. Int J Inf Manage2021; 57: 102269.
31.
Cetindamar KozanogluDAbedinB. Understanding the role of employees in digital transformation: conceptualization of digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional organizational affordance. J Enterp Inform Manag2021; 34(6): 1649–1672.
32.
AlievaJPowellDJ.The significance of employee behaviours and soft management practices to avoid digital waste during a digital transformation. Int J Lean Six Sigma2022; 14(1): 1–32.
33.
MurawskiMBickM.Digital competences of the workforce – a research topic?Busines Proces Manag J2017; 23(3): 721–734.
34.
DietvorstBJSimmonsJPMasseyC.Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen2015; 144(1): 114–126.
35.
VenkateshV.Adoption and use of AI tools: a research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Ann Oper Res2022; 308(1–2): 641–652.
36.
CraigKThatcherJBGroverV.The IT identity threat: a conceptual definition and operational measure. J Manag Inform Syst2019; 36(1): 259–288.
37.
AndroniceanuASabieOMGeorgescuI, et al. Main factors and causes that are influencing the digital competences of human resources. Admin Manag Public2023; 42: 26–53.
38.
MergelIEdelmannNHaugN.Defining digital transformation: results from expert interviews. Gov Inf Q2019; 36(4): 101385.
39.
MentzasGApostolouDAbeckerA, et al. Knowledge asset management: beyond the process-centred and product-centred approaches: with 76 figures. Cambridge, MA: Springer, 2002, p. 19.
40.
AsiaeiKBontisNZakariaZ.The confluence of knowledge management and management control systems: a conceptual framework. Knowl Proces Manag2020; 27(2): 133–142.
41.
SeyrBFHofferT.Measuring, visualizing, and controlling intangible assets in knowledge management. J Knowl Econ2021; 12: 1462–1476.
42.
Garcia-PerezAGhioAOcchipintiZ, et al. Knowledge management and intellectual capital in knowledge-based organisations: a review and theoretical perspectives. J Knowl Manag2020; 24(7): 1719–1754.
43.
WuILHuYP.Examining knowledge management enabled performance for hospital professionals: a dynamic capability view and the mediating role of process capability. J Assoc Inf Syst2012; 13(12): 976–999.
44.
SerenkoABontisN.Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2017 update. J Knowl Manag2017; 21(3): 675–692.
45.
AsiaeiKRezaeeZBontisN, et al. Knowledge assets, capabilities and performance measurement systems: a resource orchestration theory approach. J Knowl Manag2021; 25(8): 1947–1976.
46.
BontisNFitz-EnzJ.Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents. J Intell Capital2002; 3(3): 223–247.
47.
BontisN.Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Manag Decis1998; 36(2): 63–76.
48.
KiantoASáenzJNekaneA.Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. J Bus Res2017; 81: 11–20.
49.
WestermanG.Why digital transformation needs a heart. MIT Sloan Manag Rev2016; 58(1): 19–21.
50.
MathraniSMathraniAViehlandD.Using enterprise systems to realize digital business strategies. J Enterp Inform Manag2013; 26(4): 363–386.
51.
DuWPanSLLeidnerDE, et al. Affordances, experimentation and actualization of FinTech: a blockchain implementation study. J Strat Inform Syst2019; 28: 50–65.
52.
BawdenDRobinsonL.The dark side of information: overload anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. J Inform Sci2009; 35(2): 180–191.
53.
Van der VoetJKuipersBSGroeneveldS. Implementing change in public organizations: the relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Manag Rev2016; 18(6): 842–865.
54.
ParkKParkNHeoW.Factors influencing intranet acceptance in restaurant industry: use of technology acceptance model. Int Bus Res2018; 11(10): 15.
55.
NunesALimpoTCastroSL.Individual factors that influence the acceptance of mobile health apps: the role of age, gender, and personality traits. In: Information and communication technologies for ageing well and E-health: 4th international conference, Prague, 22–24 April. New York: Springer, 2019, pp. 167–179.
56.
DwivediYKHughesLIsmagilovaE, et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage2021; 57: 101994.
57.
Bin TaherNAKrotovVSilvaL.A framework for leading change in the UAE public sector. Int J Organiz Anal2015; 23(3): 348–363.
58.
BarocasSSelbstAD.Big Data’s disparate impact. Calif L Rev2016; 104: 671.
59.
Burton-JonesAHubonaGS.The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Inform Manag2006; 43(6): 706–717.
60.
XiaQChiuTKChaiCS.The moderating effects of gender and need satisfaction on self-regulated learning through Artificial Intelligence (AI). Educ Inform Tech2023; 28(7): 8691–8713.
61.
DuanYEdwardsJSDwivediYK.Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data – evolution, challenges and research agenda. Int J Inf Manage2019; 48: 63–71.
62.
AhnMJChenYC.Digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration: the perception of government employees and the willingness to use AI in government. Govern Inform Quart2022; 39(2): 101664.
63.
SugdenRASmithTMFJonesRP.Cochran’s rule for simple random sampling. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol2000; 62(4): 787–793.
64.
HrdlickaMUrbanekTRotreklovaA, et al. Predictors of age at diagnosis in autism spectrum disorders: the use of multiple regression analyses and a classification tree on a clinical sample. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry2024; 33(4): 1171–1177.
65.
LiuYLiuXZhengM.A correlation study of music training, adult attachment, and personality traits using a large-sample questionnaire. Front Psychol2023; 14: 1218848.
66.
MasnawatiEKurniawanY.Empowering minds: unraveling the impact of information technology and technological integration in academic environments on learning outcomes. Int J Serv Sci Manag Eng Tech2023; 3(1): 17–20.
67.
JobsonJD.Multiple linear regression. Applied multivariate data analysis: regression and experimental design. New York: Springer, 1991, pp. 219–398.
68.
KelleyKBolinJH.Multiple regression. In: TeoT (ed.) Handbook of Quantitative Methods for Educational Research. Amsterdam: Brill Journals, 2013, pp. 69–101.
69.
StolzenbergRM.Multiple regression analysis. In: StolzenbergRM (ed.) Handbook of data analysis. New York: Sage, 2004, pp. 165–208.
70.
HaukeJKossowskiT.Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaest Geograph2011; 30(2): 87–93.
71.
XuWHouYHungYS, et al. A comparative analysis of Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau in normal and contaminated normal models. Signal Pr2013; 93(1): 261–276.
72.
PuthMTNeuhäuserMRuxtonGD.Effective use of Spearman’s and Kendall’s correlation coefficients for association between two measured traits. Anim Behav2015; 102: 77–84.
73.
Da Silva BernardinoABCBarreto-FilhoMAPompeuAS, et al. Validation of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) for the Brazilian population. Clinics2024; 79: 100414.
74.
DrososKTafiadisDVoniatiL, et al. Preliminary Validation of the Children’s Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS) and the Auditory Processing Domain Questionnaire (APDQ) in Greek Cypriot Children. Audiol Res2024; 14(4): 625–639.
75.
OtmaniLESandifordMHValentinE, et al. The French version of the surgical fear questionnaire is a valid and reproducible score to assess the fear of surgery. J Affect Disord Rep2023; 14: 100651.
76.
HappMBathkeACBrunnerE.Optimal sample size planning for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Stat Med2019; 38(3): 363–375.
77.
LynchSMLynchSM. Statistical approaches for nominal data: Chi-square tests. In: LynchSM (eds) Using statistics in social research: a concise approach. New York: Springer, 2013, pp. 107–116.
DebbieJDupuisDJVictoria-FeserMP.Robust VIF regression with application to variable Selection in large data sets. Ann Appl Stat2013; 7: 319–341.
80.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR.User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci1989; 35(8): 982–1003.
81.
ChangSELiuAYShenWC.User trust in social networking services: a comparison of Facebook and LinkedIn. Comput Human Behav2017; 69: 207–217.
82.
BarnardYBradleyMDHodgsonF, et al. Learning to use new technologies by older adults: perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Comput Human Behav2013; 29(4): 1715–1724.
83.
CharnessNBootWR.Aging and information technology use: potential and barriers. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2009; 18(5): 253–258.
84.
CzajaSJCharnessNFiskAD, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging2006; 21(2): 333.
85.
VromanKGArthanatSLysackC.‘Who over 65 is online?’ Older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Comput Human Behav2015; 43: 156–166.
86.
StypinskaJ.AI ageism: a critical roadmap for studying age discrimination and exclusion in digitalized societies. AI Soc2023; 38(2): 665–677.
87.
WeberBZinehILalondeR, et al. How debunking biases in research and development decisions could lead to more equitable healthcare?Clin Transl Sci2024; 17(7): e13880.
88.
LaineJMinkkinenMMäntymäkiM.Ethics-based AI auditing: a systematic literature review on conceptualizations of ethical principles and knowledge contributions to stakeholders. Inform Manag2024; 61(5): 103969.
89.
AbdullahRFakiehB.Health care employees’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence applications: survey study. J Med Internet Res2020; 22(5): e17620.
90.
OkrahJIreneB.The effect of top managers’ years of experience on innovation. Int J Innovat Stud2023; 7(3): 208–217.
91.
KuoTSShenHGeumJ, et al. Understanding frontline workers’ and unhoused individuals’ perspectives on AI used in homeless services. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Hamburg, 23–28 April 2023, pp. 1–17. New York: ACM.
92.
KlotzACHmieleskiKMBradleyBH, et al. New venture teams. J Manage2014; 40(1): 226–255.
93.
YusriadiYRusnaediRSiregarN, et al. Implementation of artificial intelligence in Indonesia. Int J Data Network Sci2023; 7(1): 283–294.
94.
JavaidMHaleemASinghRP.ChatGPT for healthcare services: an emerging stage for an innovative perspective. Benchcouncil Trans Benchmark Standard Evaluat2023; 3(1): 100105.
95.
El SawyOAKræmmergaardPAmsinckH, et al. How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Quart Execut2016; 15(2): 141–166.
96.
AvolioBJSosikJJKahaiSS, et al. E-leadership: re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leader Quart2014; 25(1): 105–131.
97.
YangTMMaxwellTA.Information-sharing in public organizations: a literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Gov Inf Q2011; 28(2): 164–175.
98.
AkyaziTE.A study on the relationship between employees’ attitude towards artificial intelligence and organizational culture. Asian J Econ Busin Account2023; 23(20): 207–219.
99.
GilliKLettnerNGuettelW.The future of leadership: new digital skills or old analog virtues?J Bus Strategy2023; 45(1): 10–16.
100.
EdelmannNMergelILampoltshammerT.Competences that foster digital transformation of public administrations: an Austrian case study. Administrat Sci2023; 13(2): 44.
