Governments worldwide are beginning to implement AI-based services to exploit data and seek solutions that provide value to citizens and assist in decision-making. AI-driven transformation and smart data management can replace the workforce or enhance it. This paper focuses on exploring AI-driven transformation and smart data management in the public sector value chain. Guided by two research questions, a systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA approach, complemented with empirical evidence on the emerging technological change applied to management levels and decision-makers in the public sector. The needs related to AI-driven transformation and smart data management for the public sector are characterized by an operational transformation, which includes human resources and know-how as the spearhead. Challenges have to do with the generation of efficient and transparent services that provide public value and promote the benefit of society. Some implications are related to governments deciding to plan digitalization that allows them to take advantage of the emerging technological change to improve activities along the value chain.
AndroutsopoulouAKaracapilidisNLoukisE, et al. (2019) Transforming the communication between citizens and government through AI-guided chatbots. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 358–367. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.001.
2.
AokiN (2020) An experimental study of public trust in AI chatbots in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly37(4): 101490. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101490.
3.
Brandon-JonesMKauppiK (2018) Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management38(1): 22–42. DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0346.
4.
CaddenTMarshallDHumphreysP, et al. (2015) Old habits die hard: exploring the effect of supply chain dependency and culture on performance outcomes and relationship satisfaction. Production Planning and Control26(1): 53–77. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2013.848478.
5.
ChoiYGil-GarciaJBurkeGB, et al. (2021) Towards data-driven decision-making in government: Identifying opportunities and challenges for data use and analytics. In: Proceedings of the 54th hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, US, January 2021, pp. 2183–2192.
6.
CoglianeseCLehrD (2016) Regulating by robot: administrative decision making in the machine-learning era. The Georgetown Law Journal105: 1147–1223.
7.
CohenJ (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155–159. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
8.
CoronCGilbertP (2021) Managing technological change. Digital Transformations in the Challenge of Activity and Work: Understanding and Supporting Technological Changes3: 225–236.
9.
CousinsPLawsonBSquireB (2008) Performance measurement in strategic buyer supplier relationships: the mediating role of socialisation mechanisms. International Journal of Operations Production Management28(3): 381–2381. DOI: 10.1108/01443570810856170.
10.
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(5): 438–450. DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178.
11.
CriadoJISandoval-AlmazanRGil-GarciaJR (2013) Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly30(4): 319–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.003.
12.
Di VaioAHassanRAlavoineC (2022) Data intelligence and analytics: A bibliometric analysis of human–Artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness. Technological Forecasting and Social Change174: 121201. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121201.
13.
DubeyRAGunasekaranDJBrydeY, et al. (2020) Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting. International Journal of Production Research58(11): 3381–3398. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1722860.
14.
EberhardBPodioMAlonsoAP, et al. (2017) Smart work: the transformation of the labour market due to the fourth industrial revolution (I4.0). International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research10(3): 47–66.
15.
Gil-GarciaJR (ed) (2013) E-Government Success Around the World: Cases, Empirical Studies, and Practical Recommendations: Cases, Empirical Studies, and Practical Recommendations. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
16.
Gil-GarciaJRHelbigNOjoA (2014) Being smart: emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly31: I1–I8. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.09.001.
17.
GillaniFChataKASadiqMS, et al. (2020) Implementation of digital manufacturing technologies: antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Production Economics229: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107748.
18.
GunalMM (2019) Simulation for Industry 4.0. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
19.
GunasekaranAPapadopoulosTDubeyR, et al. (2017) Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research70(C): 308–331. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004.
20.
HairJBlackWBabinB, et al. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
21.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
22.
HarlandCCaldwellNPowellP, et al. (2007) Barriers to supply chain information integration: SMEs adrift of ELands. Journal of Operations Management25(6): 1234–1254. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.004.
23.
HelmoldMTerryB (2021) Industry 4.0 and artificial intelligence (AI). Operations and Supply Management 4.0. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 77–83.
24.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(1): 115–135. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
25.
HercheuiMRanjithR (2020) Improving organization dynamic capabilities using artificial intelligence. Global Journal of Business Research14(1): 87–96.
26.
HwabamunguBBrownIWilliamsQ (2018) Stakeholder influence in public sector information systems strategy implementation—the case of public hospitals in South Africa. International Journal of Medical Informatics109: 39–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.002.
27.
IafrateF (2014) A journey from big data to smart data. In: Digital Enterprise Design & Management. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 25–33.
28.
JanssenMvan der VoortH (2020) Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information Management55: 102180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102180.
KharitonovaYSSavinaVSPagniniF (2021) Artificial intelligence’s algorithmic bias: ethical and legal issues. Perm University Herald Juridical Sciences53: 488. DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2021-53-488-515.
31.
KimSWangW (2020) An integrated view of data: application of knowledge modeling to data management. Journal of International Technology and Information Management29(2): 72–99. DOI: 10.58729/1941-6679.1448.
32.
KockNHadayaP (2018) Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: the inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal28(1): 227–261. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12131.
33.
KumarTS (2020) Data mining-based marketing decision support system using hybrid machine learning algorithm. Journal of Artificial Intelligence2(03): 185–193. DOI: 10.36548/jaicn.2020.3.007.
34.
LiTSahuAKTalwalkarA, et al. (2020) Federated learning: challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine37(3): 50–60.
35.
LutfiA (2022) Antecedents and impacts of enterprise resource planning system adoption among Jordanian SMEs. Sustainability14(6). DOI: 10.3390/su14063508.
36.
LuthfiAJanssenM (2019) Open data for evidence-based decision-making: data-driven government resulting in uncertainty and polarization. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology9(3): 1071–1078. DOI: 10.18517/ijaseit.9.3.8846.
37.
MedagliaRGil-GarciaJRPardoTA (2021) Artificial intelligence in government: taking stock and moving forward. Social Science Computer Review41(1): 089443932110340. DOI: 10.1177/08944393211034087.
38.
MeijerALorenzLWesselsM (2021) Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations: using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public Administration Review81(5): 837–846. DOI: 10.1111/puar.13391.
39.
MellouliSLuna-ReyesLFZhangJ (2014) Smart government, citizen participation and open data. Information Polity, 19(1, 2): 1–4. DOI: 10.3233/IP-140334.
PeaucelleJL (2000) From taylorism to post-taylorism: Simultaneously pursuing several management objectives. Journal of Organizational Change Management13(5): 452–467. DOI: 10.1108/09534810010377426.
43.
ProvostFFawcettT (2013) Data Science for Business: What You Need to Know About Data Mining and Data-Analytic Thinking. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
44.
SarireteABalfagihZBrahimiT, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence and machine learning research: towards digital transformation at a global scale. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing13: 1–3.
45.
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.
46.
Valle-CruzD (2019) Public value of e-government services through emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Sector Management32(5): 530–545. DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-03-2018-0072.
47.
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101509.
48.
Valle-CruzDFernandez-CortezVGil-GarciaJR (2021) From E-budgeting to smart budgeting: exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in government decision-making for resource allocation. Government information quarterly39(2): 101644. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101644.
49.
Valle-CruzDGarcía-ContrerasRMuñoz-ChávezJP (2022) Mind the gap: towards an understanding of government decision-making based on artificial intelligence. In: The 23rd annual international conference on digital government research, seoul, korea, 15-17 July 2022. ACM Digital Library.
50.
van NoordtCMisuracaG (2022) Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union. Government information quarterly39(3): 101714.
51.
VerbekeW (2000) A revision of Hofstede et al.’s (1990) organizational practices scale. Journal of Organisational Behaviour21(5): 587–602.
52.
WuFYeniyurtSKimD, et al. (2006) The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: a resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management35: 43–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.003.
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.
