Cited by 106E-Government and Public ServicesInformation Technology Governance and StrategyPublic Policy and Administration Research

An attention-based view of AI assimilation in public sector organizations: The case of Saudi Arabia

Open access
Alshahrani, Albandari, Dennehy, Denis, Mäntymäki, Matti·2022·Government Information Quarterly

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been suggested to have transformative potential for public sector organizations through enabling increased productivity and novel ways to deliver public services. In order to materialize the transformative potential of AI, public sector organizations need to successfully assimilate AI in their operational activities. However, AI assimilation in the public sector appears to be fragmented and lagging the private sector, and the phenomena has really limited attention from academic research community. To address this gap, we adopt the case study approach to explore three Saudi-Arabian public sector organizations and analyze the results using the attention-based view of the organization (ABV) as the theoretical lens. This study elucidates the challenges related AI assimilation in public sector in terms of how organizational attention is focused situated and distributed during the assimilation process. Five key challenges emerged from the cases studied, namely (i) misalignment between AI and management decision-making, (ii) tensions with linguistics and national culture, (iii) developing and implementing AI infrastructure, (iv) data integrity and sharing, and (v) ethical and governance concerns. The findings reveal a re-enforcing relationship between the situated attention and structural distribution of attention that can accelerate the successful assimilation of AI in public sector organizations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101617

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 144 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alshahrani, A., Dennehy, D., & Mäntymäki, M.
Affiliations
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Dennehy, Denis
Venue
Government Information Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
101617
ISSN
0740-624X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3186485936
Cited by
106
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 2
FWCI
43.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Government Information Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Taif University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
public sector organizations, attention-based view, distributed attention, AI adoption barriers, management decision-making, national culture, AI infrastructure, AI ethics, AI governance, Saudi Arabia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review