This article explores how to regain control over digital-induced change by nurturing digital competence through structural arrangements. Digital competence is a critical resource that cannot be limited to hiring people with technological skills in the ICT department, and which implies a broader transformation of the work and professional identities in public sector organizations. Unique in-depth data from a case study of an AI unit established to build internal technological expertise shows how organizational structure can help to empower civil servants and managers to act as catalysts. The AI unit was initially established as a data science lab and then restructured into interprofessional development teams. The two organizational arrangements cultivated different types of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and capabilities. The data science lab fostered competence in experimental work, and the interprofessional development teams fostered collective problem-solving. The findings demonstrate the importance of carefully considering structural arrangements as a resource for building digital competence.
AnastasopoulosL. J.WhitfordA. B. (2019). Machine learning for public administration research, with application to organizational reputation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy060
2.
BannisterF.ConnollyR. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
3.
BovensM.ZouridisS. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
4.
BullockJ. B. (2019). Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019856123
5.
CavalheiroG. M.JoiaL. A. (2014). Towards a heuristic frame for transferring e-government technology. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.09.005
6.
ClarkeA. (2020). Digital government units: What are they, and what do they mean for digital era public management renewal?International Public Management Journal, 23(3), 358–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1686447
CordellaA.GualdiF.van de LaarM. (2024). Digital skills within the public sector: A missing link to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Information Polity, 29(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-230008
9.
CordellaA.TempiniN. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
10.
DeterdingN. M.WatersM. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377
11.
DunleavyP.MargettsH. (2023). Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231198737
12.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
13.
EdelmannN.MergelI.LampoltshammerT. (2023). Competences that foster digital transformation of public administrations: An Austrian case study. Administrative Sciences, 13(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020044
14.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy Of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
15.
EubanksV. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
16.
FaroB.AbedinB.CetindamarD. (2022). Hybrid organizational forms in public sector’s digital transformation: A technology enactment approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(6), 1742–1763. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2021-0126
17.
FischerC.NeumannO. (2024). Introduction to the special issue ‘towards a multi-level understanding of agile in government: Macro, meso and micro perspectives’. Information Polity, 29(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-249007
18.
FreyC. B.OsborneM. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?Technological Forecasting And Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
19.
GeirboH. C.RøsteR. (2023). Talking about algorithms: How can interdisciplinary translation in the automation of public sector casework be facilitated? In R. Fugletveit & C. Sørhaug (Eds.), Lost in digital translations: Studies of digital resistance and accommodation to the welfare state in practice(Chap. 3, pp. 73–90). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.196.ch3
20.
GiestS. N.KlievinkB. (2024). More than a digital system: How AI is changing the role of bureaucrats in different organizational contexts. Public Management Review, 26(2), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2095001
21.
GräfeP.MarienfeldtJ.WehmeierL. M.KuhlmannS. (2024). Changing tasks and changing public servants? The digitalisation and automation of public administrative work. Information Polity, 13837605241289773. https://doi.org/10.1177/13837605241289773
22.
GuinanP. J.PariseS.LangowitzN. (2019). Creating an innovative digital project team: Levers to enable digital transformation. Business Horizons, 62(6), 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.005
23.
HaugN.DanS.MergelI. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
JanssenM.CharalabidisY.ZuiderwijkA. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
26.
JanssenM.van den HovenJ. (2015). Big and open linked data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy?Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.007
27.
JanssenM.Van Der VoortH. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.003
28.
KimS.WellsteadA. M.HeikkilaT. (2023). Policy capacity and rise of data-based policy innovation labs. Review of Policy Research, 40(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12494
Luna-ReyesL. F.Gil-GarciaJ. R. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007
31.
MadanR.AshokM. (2023). AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774
32.
McGannM.WellsT.BlomkampE. (2021). Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving. Public Management Review, 23(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1699946
33.
MedagliaR.Gil-GarciaJ. R.PardoT. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in government: Taking stock and moving forward. Social Science Computer Review, 41(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211034087
34.
MedagliaR.MisuracaG. (2024). Introduction to the special section on digital government and sustainable development goals: SDGs as a key challenge for digital government research. Information Polity, 29(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-249003
MergelI.EdelmannN.HaugN. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
37.
MergelI.GanapatiS.WhitfordA. B. (2021). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13202
38.
NewmanJ.MintromM.O'NeillD. (2022). Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic transformation. Futures, 136, 102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102886
39.
PittawayJ. J.MontazemiA. R. (2020). Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101474
40.
SeltenF.KlievinkB. (2024). Organizing public sector AI adoption: Navigating between separation and integration. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101885
41.
ThayerA. L.PetruzzelliA.McClurgC. E. (2018). Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: A review and practical considerations. American Psychologist, 73(4), 363. https://dx.https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000310
42.
TõnuristP.KattelR.LemberV. (2017). Innovation labs in the public sector: What they are and what they do?Public Management Review, 19(10), 1455–1479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1287939
43.
Van der VoetJ.SteijnB. (2021). Team innovation through collaboration: How visionary leadership spurs innovation via team cohesion. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1275–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1743344
44.
VieruD.BourdeauS.BernierA.YapoS. (2015, January). Digital competence: A multi-dimensional conceptualization and a typology in an SME context. In 2015 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. p. 4681–4690.
45.
Villa AlvarezD. P.AuricchioV.MortatiM. (2022). Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model. Policy Sciences, 55(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09448-4
46.
VuchkovskiD.ZalaznikM.MitręgaM.PfajfarG. (2023). A look at the future of work: The digital transformation of teams from conventional to virtual. Journal of Business Research, 163, 113912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113912
47.
WellsteadA. M.MechlingS. M.CarterA.GofenA. (2024). Artificial intelligence possibilities to improve analytical policy capacity: The case of environmental policy innovation labs and sustainable development goals. Policy Design and Practice, 7(4), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2024.2385118
48.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Bd. 5). Sage.
