Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a technological development is being implemented in the public sector with the intention of improving service delivery, as well as to help solve complex problems. However, there is a wide range of capabilities that AI can perform and that public officials perceive and implement in different ways. This paper aims to describe and analyze some categories into which AI capabilities in the public sector are divided. Using an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), our results show that the capabilities of AI from the perspective of public officials can be classified into two aspects: systematic factors and axiological factors. Systematic factors are related to the analysis and behavior of data, including monitoring, analyzing, interacting, remembering, and anticipation. Axiological factors refer to the impacts of values, ethics, and decisions, including acting, feeling, moralizing, creating, and deciding capacities. This categorization of AI capabilities in the public sector sheds light on the perception of public officials about the implementation of this technological development.
Abdel-BassetMChangVNabeehNA (2021) An intelligent framework using disruptive technologies for COVID-19 analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change163: 120431. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120431.
2.
BanerjeeSSinghPKBajpaiJ (2018) Nature inspired computing. Advances in intelligent systems and computing. In: PanigrahiEnBKHodaMNSharmaV, et al. (eds) A Comparative Study on Decision-Making Capability Between Human and Artificial Intelligence. Singapore: Springer, pp. 203–210. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6747-1_23.
3.
BarthTJArnoldE (1999) Artificial intelligence and administrative discretion: implications for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration29(4): 332–351. DOI: 10.1177/02750749922064463.
BlalockHMJr (1966) The identification problem and theory building: the case of status inconsistency. American Sociological Review31: 52–61.
6.
BolgerJ (2000) Capacity development: why, what and how. Capacity Development Occasional Series1(1): 1–8.
7.
CapatinaAKachourMLichyJ, et al. (2020) Matching the future capabilities of an artificial intelligence-based software for social media marketing with potential users’ expectations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change151: 119794–119811. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119794.
8.
CarrollJB (1953) An analytical solution for approximating simple structure in factor analysis. Psychometrika18: 23–38. DOI: 10.1007/BF02289025.
9.
CriadoJI (2021) Inteligencia Artificial: Madurez Tecnológica, Adopción e Innovaciones en La Gestión Pública. En CLAD (Centro Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrollo), Inteligencia Artificial y ética en La Gestión Pública. Caracas, Venezuela: CLAD, pp. 13–44.
10.
CriadoJIde Zarate-AlcarazoLO (2022) Technological frames, CIOs, and Artificial Intelligence in public administration: A socio-cognitive exploratory study in Spanish local governments. Government Information Quarterly39(3): 101688.
11.
CriadoJIGil-GarciaJR (2019) Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management32: 438–450.
12.
CriadoJISandoval-AlmazanRValle-CruzD, et al. (2020) Chief information officers’ perceptions about artificial intelligence: A comparative study of implications and challenges for the public sector. First Monday 26(1). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v26i1.10648.
13.
DanaherJ (2021) Axiological futurism: the systematic study of the future of values. Futures132: 102780.
14.
DuanYEdwardsJSDwivediYK (2019) Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of big data – evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management48: 63–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021.
15.
EcheverríaJTabarésR (2017) Artificial intelligence, cybercities and technosocieties. Minds and Machines27(3): 473–493.
16.
FerrándizCBermejoRSainzM, et al. (2008) Estudio de racionamiento lógico-matematíco desde el modelo de las inteligencias multiples. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology24(2): 213–222.
GaverWW (1996) Situating action II: affordances for interaction: the social is material for design. Ecological Psychology8(2): 111–129.
19.
GibsonJJCarmichaelL (1966) The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2(1), pp. 44–73.
20.
GirardiE (2019) Digitalización, política e inteligencia artificial ¿Qué futuro podemos esperar?Nueva Sociedad(283): 75–81.
21.
GodinoJDBataneroCy FontV (2003). Fundamentos de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de las matemáticas para maestros. Granada, España: Universidad de Granada.
22.
GoldmanAI (2015) Theory of Human Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
GorsuchRL (1983) Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
GorsuchR L (1997) Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment68(3): 532–560. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5.
25.
GreeneR (2017) Human Behavior Theory and Social Work Practice. Milton, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
GrimmelikhuijsenSMeijerA (2022) Legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making: six threats and the need for a calibrated institutional response. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance5: 232–242. DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvac008.
28.
GualdiFCordellaA (2021) Artificial intelligence and decision-making: the question of accountability. In: Bui, Tung X., (ed.) Proceedings of the 54th Annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Maui, Hawaii, 5-8 January 2021, 2297–2306.
29.
GuineaJ (2022) The artificial intelligence implementation challenge in the European Union and Spain. In: SauraEnJDebasayF (eds) Handbook of Research on Artificial Intelligence in Government Practices and Processes. Pennsylvania: IGI Global, pp. 126–141. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-9609-8.ch008.
30.
HartmanRS (1967) Formal axiology and the measurement of values. The Journal of Value Inquiry1(1): 38.
31.
HommelBWiersRW (2017) Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences21(12): 940–949.
32.
JaquesECasonK (1994) Human Capability: A Study of Individual Potential and its Application. Rockville, MD: Cason Hall and Co Publishers.
33.
JohnstoneJ (2007) Technology as empowerment: a capability approach to computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology9(1): 73–87.
34.
Oliveira-TeixeiraFDonadon-HomemTPPereira-JuniorA (2021) Aplicación de inteligencia artificial para monitorear el uso de mascarillas de protección. Revista Científica General José María Córdova19(33): 205–222. DOI: 10.21830/19006586.725.
35.
KahnJH (2006) Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist34(5): 684–718. DOI: 10.1177/0011000006286347.
36.
KaiserHF (1958) The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika23(3): 187–200.
37.
KerikmäeTPärn-LeeE (2021) Legal dilemmas of Estonian artificial intelligence strategy: in between of e-society and global race. AI and Society36(2): 561–572. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-020-01009-8.
38.
KlineP (2000) Handbook of Psychological Testing. London, England: Routledge.
39.
LeungbootnakNChaithongratTAksornP (2018) An exploratory factor analysis of government construction procurement problems. In: MATEC web of conferences, 4-7 July, 2018. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences, 192: 02057.
40.
LepriBOliverNPentlandA (2021) Ethical machines: the human-centric use of artificial intelligence. iScience24(3): 102249–102317. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102249.
41.
Lloret-SeguraSFerreres-TraverAHernández-BaezaA, et al. (2014) El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología30(3): 1151–1169. DOI: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361.
42.
MargettsH (2022) Rethinking AI for good governance. Daedalus151(2): 360–371. DOI: 10.1162/daed_a_01922.
43.
MavrouI (2015) Análisis factorial exploratorio. Revista Nebrija De Lingüística Aplicada a La Enseñanza De Lenguas19: 71–80. DOI: 10.26378/rnlael019283.
44.
MedagliaRGil-GarciaJRPardoTA (2021) Artificial intelligence in government: taking stock and moving forward. Social Science Computer Review41: 08944393211034087.
45.
MerendaPF (1997) A Guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: pitfalls to avoid. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development30(3): 156–164. DOI: 10.1080/07481756.1997.12068936.
46.
MikalefPGuptaM (2021) Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Information and Management58(3): 103434.
47.
Monarcha-MatlakA (2021) Automated decision-making in public administration. Procedia Computer Science192: 2077–2084. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.215.
48.
NagittaPOMugurusiGObicciPA, et al. (2022) Human-centered artificial intelligence for the public sector: the gate keeping role of the public procurement professional. Procedia Computer Science200: 1084–1092. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.308.
49.
NeumannOGuirguisKSteinerR (2022) Exploring artificial intelligence adoption in public organizations: a comparative case study. Public Management Review: 1–28. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2048685.
50.
NormanDA (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions6(3): 38–43.
51.
OngaroE (2020) Philosophy and Public Administration: An Introduction. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
52.
OrozcoHD (2005) Axiología, ética y valores. Avances en Enfermería23(2): 76–81.
53.
OrtízD (2014) Bases para la construcción de una Psicología Sistémica. Sophia: Colección de Filosofía de La Educación, 16(1): 84–98. DOI: 10.17163/soph.n16.2014.04.
PerezAM (2014) Axiological elements to consider ethics applied to robotics. ROBOT2013: First Iberian Robotics Conference. Cham: Springer, pp. 649–660.
56.
PérezERMedranoLA (2010) Análisis factorial exploratorio: bases conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento (RACC)2(1): 58–66.
57.
Pérez-GilJChacónSMorenoR (2000) Validez de constructo: El uso de análisis factorial exploratorio-confirmatorio para obtener evidencias de validez. Psicothema12(Su2): 442–446.
58.
SunTQMedagliaR (2019) Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 368–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008.
59.
RescherN (2013) Value matters: Studies in Axiology. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 8.
60.
RouhiainenL (2018) Inteligencia Artificial: 101 Cosas Que Debes Saber Hoy Sobre Nuestro futuro. Barcelona, España: Editorial Planeta.
Ruvalcaba-GómezEA (2021) Inteligencia artificial en los gobiernos locales de México: análisis de percepciones de los responsables de las TIC. En CLAD, Inteligencia Artificial y Ética en La Gestión Pública. Caracas, Venezuela: CLAD, pp. 75–110.
63.
Ruvalcaba-GomezEIgnacio CriadoJSandoval-AlmazanR, et al. (2019) Understanding the perspectives of open government: Exploratory factor analysis in Spain and Mexico. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on digital government research, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 18 June, 2019, pp. 507–508.
64.
SaizCRivasSF (2008) Intervenir para transferir en pensamiento crítico. Praxis10(13): 129–149.
65.
SalvadorM (2021) Capacidades institucionales para afrontar las infraestructuras organizativa y ética de la inteligencia artificial en las administraciones públicas. En CLAD, Inteligencia Artificial y Ética en La Gestión Pública. Caracas, Venezuela: CLAD, pp. 45–74.
66.
SalvadorMy RamióC (2020) Capacidades analíticas y gobernanza de datos en la administración pública como paso previo a la introducción de la inteligencia artificial. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia77: 5–36.
67.
SamoiliSCoboMLGómezE, et al. (2020) AI watch. Defining artificial intelligence. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial intelligence. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial intelligence, EUR 30117 EN, JRC118163. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2760/382730.
68.
Sandoval-AlmazánR (2021) Inteligencia artificial aplicada al gobierno: una exploración internacional de casos. En CLAD, Inteligencia Artificial y Ética en La Gestión Pública. Caracas, Venezuela: CLAD, pp. 75–110.
69.
SauraJRPalacios-MarquésDRibeiro-SorianoD (2023) Exploring the boundaries of open innovation: evidence from social media mining. Technovation119: 102447. in press DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102447.
70.
SauraJRRibeiro-SorianoDPalacios-MarquésD (2022b) Assessing behavioral data science privacy issues in government artificial intelligence deployment. Government Information Quarterly39: 101679.
71.
SchwartzRVassilevAGreeneK, et al. (2022) Towards a Standard for Identifying and Managing Bias in Artificial Intelligence (NIST Special Publication 1270). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. DOI: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1270.
72.
SilvermanBGHanrahanNHuangL, et al. (2016) Artificial intelligence and human behavior modeling and simulation for mental health conditions. Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 163–183.
73.
SiversV (2020) The axiological aspects of the relationship between the human and artificial intelligence in the context of futurist conceptions of the XXI century’s beginning. Scientific Studios on Social and Political Psychology45(48): 130–138.
74.
TabachnickBGFidellLS (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper and Row.
75.
UmarAAZawawiNAWAAbdul-AzizAR (2018) Exploratory factor analysis of skills requirement for PPP contract governance. Built Environment Project and Asset Management9 (2): 277–290.
76.
UNESCO (2021) Organización de las naciones unidas para la educación, la ciencia y la cultura. Proyecto de Recomendación sobre la Ética de La Inteligencia Artificial. Paris, France: UNESCO.
77.
Valle-CruzDCriadoJISandoval-AlmazánR, et al. (2020) Assessing the public policy-cycle framework in the age of artificial intelligence: from agenda-setting to policy evaluation. Government Information Quarterly37(4): 101509–101512.
78.
Valle-CruzDFernandez-CortezVGil-GarciaJR (2022) From E-budgeting to smart budgeting: Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in government decision-making for resource allocation. Government Information Quarterly39(2): 101644.
79.
WangCTeoTSHJanssenM (2021) Public and private value creation using artificial intelligence: an empirical study of AI voice robot users in Chinese public sector. International Journal of Information Management61: 102401. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102401.
80.
WangHLiuYZhouB, et al. (2020) Taxonomy research of artificial intelligence for deterministic solar power forecasting. Energy Conversion and Management214: 112909.
81.
WangZSrinivasanRS (2017) A review of artificial intelligence based building energy use prediction: contrasting the capabilities of single and ensemble prediction models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews75: 796–808.
82.
YangCHuangC (2022) Quantitative mapping of the evolution of AI policy distribution, targets and focuses over three decades in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change174: 121188. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121188.
83.
YigitcanlarTAgdasDDegirmenciK (2021) Artificial Intelligence in Local Governments: Perceptions of City Managers on Prospects, Constraints and Choices. Berlin, Germany: AI and Society.
84.
ZeadallySAdiEBaigZ, et al. (2020) Harnessing artificial intelligence capabilities to improve cybersecurity. Ieee Access8: 23817–23837.
85.
ZuiderwijkAChenYCSalemF (2021) Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly38(2): 101577–101619. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
