CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Public Procurement and PolicyE-Government and Public ServicesPublic Policy and Administration Research

Procurement of Artificial Intelligence Systems in UAE Public Sectors: An Interpretive Structural Modeling of Critical Success Factors

Open access
Alshehhi, Khalid, Cheaitou, Ali, Rashid, Hamad·2024·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su16177724
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates the critical success factors (CSFs) influencing the procurement of artificial intelligence (AI) systems within the United Arab Emirates (UAE) public sector. While AI holds immense potential to enhance public service delivery, its successful integration hinges on critical factors. This research utilizes Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) to analyze the CSFs impacting AI procurement within the UAE public sector. Through ISM, a structural model is developed to highlight the interrelationships between these CSFs and their influence on the procurement process, outlining the key elements for successful AI procurement within the UAE public sector. Based on the literature review and expert validation from the UAE public sector, ten CSFs were identified. This study found that clear needs assessment is the most influential CSF, while the long-term value of AI systems or services is the least influential. This study provides policymakers and public sector leaders with valuable insights, enabling them to formulate effective strategies to optimize the procurement process and establish a strong foundation for AI adoption. Finally, this will lead to an improved and more efficient public service delivery in the UAE.

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 · 10.3390/su16177724

Cites

7 of 7 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the UAE, procurement plays a critical role in AI adoption when success factors such as clear needs assessment, legal compliance, technical expertise, and supplier transparency are in place.

    “In the UAE, procurement has been shown to play a critical role in AI adoption when success factors such as clear needs assessment, legal compliance, technical expertise, and supplier transparency are in place [7].”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 2.3 identifies critical success factors for successful AI procurement in the UAE public sector, and the paper lists clear needs assessment, regulatory compliance, and vendor technical capabilities among relevant considerations. It discusses transparency in procurement and AI systems, but does not identify supplier transparency as a success factor. The claim also extends the paper’s public-sector scope to AI adoption in the UAE generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Newman, J.; Mintrom, M.; O'Neill, D. Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic transformation. Futures 2022, 136, 102886. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Ahn, M.J.; Chen, Y.-C. Digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration: The perception of government employees and the willingness to use AI in government. Gov. Inf. Q. 2022, 39, 101664. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Sarker, I.H. AI-based modeling: Techniques, applications and research issues towards automation, intelligent and smart systems. SN Comput. Sci. 2022, 3, 158. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  4. Pugliese, R.; Regondi, S.; Marini, R. Machine learning-based approach: Global trends, research directions, and regulatory standpoints. Data Sci. Manag. 2021, 4, 19-29. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Mathivathanan, D.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Rana, N.P.; Khorana, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the adoption of blockchain technology in business supply chains: A total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 3338-3359. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Chui, M.; Francisco, S. Artificial Intelligence the Next Digital Frontier; McKinsey and Company Global Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Volume 47, pp. 6-8.
  7. Von Eschenbach, W.J. Transparency and the black box problem: Why we do not trust AI. Philos. Technol. 2021, 34, 1607-1622. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Pernica, B.; Palavenis, D.; Dvorak, J. Small arms procurement and corruption in small NATO countries. J. Public Procure. 2024, 24, 348-370. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Ingrams, A.; Piotrowski, S.; Berliner, D. Learning from our mistakes: Public management reform and the hope of open government. Perspect. Public Manag. Gov. 2020, 3, 257-272. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Susar, D.; Aquaro, V. Artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges for the public sector. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 3-5 April 2019.
  11. Divatia, A.S.; Tikoria, J.; Lakdawala, S. Emerging trends and impact of business intelligence & analytics in organizations: Case studies from India. Bus. Inf. Rev. 2021, 38, 40-52.
  12. Wirtz, B.W.; Weyerer, J.C.; Sturm, B.J. The dark sides of artificial intelligence: An integrated AI governance framework for public administration. Int. J. Public Adm. 2020, 43, 818-829. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  13. Starke, C.; Baleis, J.; Keller, B.; Marcinkowski, F. Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data Soc. 2022, 9, 20539517221115189. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  14. Stahl, B.C.; Brooks, L.; Hatzakis, T.; Santiago, N.; Wright, D. Exploring ethics and human rights in artificial intelligence-A Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 191, 122502. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  15. Isley, R. Algorithmic Bias and Its Implications: How to Maintain Ethics through AI Governance. NYU Am. Public Policy Rev. 2022, preprint. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Busuioc, M. Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Adm. Rev. 2021, 81, 825-836. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  17. Henckaerts, R.; Antonio, K.; Côté, M.-P. When stakes are high: Balancing accuracy and transparency with Model-Agnostic Interpretable Data-driven suRRogates. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 202, 117230. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Kleanthous, S.; Kasinidou, M.; Barlas, P.; Otterbacher, J. Perception of fairness in algorithmic decisions: Future developers' perspective. Patterns 2022, 3, 100380. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Guida, M.; Caniato, F.; Moretto, A.; Ronchi, S. The role of artificial intelligence in the procurement process: State of the art and research agenda. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2023, 29, 100823. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  20. Crawford, K.; Calo, R. There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature 2016, 538, 311-313. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  21. Chui, M.; Manyika, J.; Miremadi, M.; Henke, N.; Chung, R.; Nel, P.; Malhotra, S. Notes from the AI Frontier: Insights from Hundreds of Use Cases; McKinsey Global Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Volume 2, p. 267.
  22. Babu, H.; Bhardwaj, P.; Agrawal, A.K. Modelling the supply chain risk variables using ISM: A case study on Indian manufacturing SMEs. J. Model. Manag. 2020, 16, 215-239. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Moro-Visconti, R.; Rambaud, S.C.; Pascual, J.L. Artificial intelligence-driven scalability and its impact on the sustainability and valuation of traditional firms. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 795. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Pot, W.D. The governance challenge of implementing long-term sustainability objectives with present-day investment decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124475. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Saidakhrarovich, G.S.; Sokhibjonovich, B.S. Strategies and future prospects of development of artificial intelligence: World experience. World Bull. Manag. Law 2022, 9, 66-74.
  26. Werder, K.; Ramesh, B.; Zhang, R. Establishing data provenance for responsible artificial intelligence systems. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. (TMIS) 2022, 13, 1-23. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Tariq, M.U.; Abonamah, A.A. Proposed strategic framework for effective artificial intelligence adoption in UAE. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1-14.
  28. Huyen, C. Designing Machine Learning Systems; O'Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2022.
  29. Khan, S.; Shael, M.; Majdalawieh, M.; Nizamuddin, N.; Nicho, M. Blockchain for Governments: The Case of the Dubai Government. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6576. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Lu, Q.; Zhu, L.; Xu, X.; Whittle, J.; Zowghi, D.; Jacquet, A. Responsible AI pattern catalogue: A collection of best practices for AI governance and engineering. ACM Comput. Surv. 2024, 56, 1-35. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Wu, S.P.-J.; Straub, D.W.; Liang, T.-P. How information technology governance mechanisms and strategic alignment influence organizational performance. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 497-518. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Arab Emirates: Recent Developments. Arab. Law Q. 1993, 8, 325-335. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Rankin, E.M.; Hill, S.L. The United Arab Emirates. In The International Application of FIDIC Contracts; Informa Law from Routledge; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 386-405.
  34. Jensen, S. Policy implications of the UAE's economic diversification strategy: Prioritizing national objectives. In Economic Diversification in the Gulf Region, Volume II: Comparing Global Challenges; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2018; pp. 67-88.
  35. Al-Shamsi, H.O. The state of cancer care in the United Arab Emirates in 2022. Clin. Pract. 2022, 12, 955-985. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  36. Zadorina, O.; Hurskaya, V.; Sobolyeva, S.; Grekova, L.; Vasylyuk-Zaitseva, S. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Creation of Future Education: Possibilities and Challenges. Future Educ. 2024, 4, 163-185.
  37. Thanvi, I.A. UAE Legal Amendments during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Law Political Rev. 2022, 7, 109-127. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Rubin, L. A Middle East space race? Motivations, trajectories, and regional politics. Space Policy 2024, 101608. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Shaer, S.; O'Neil, A.; Salem, F.; Akrout, Z.; Shibl, E. Advancing Artificial Intelligence Impact in Dubai: Future Directors towards Strengthening the Digital Economy (March 9, 2023). Future of Government Series. 2023. Available online: https: //ssrn.com/abstract=4688560 (accessed on 20 July 2024).
  40. Conde, F.E. Achieving the Promise of a First-Rate Education: The UAE's Attempt at Transforming Education Through the Lens of the Leadership for Learning Theoretical Framework. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Pedagogical Innovations and Practices in the Middle East; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 375-393.
  41. Halegoua, G. Smart Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
  42. Górski, J.; Bhukya, K. Opening India to International Competition in Government Procurement Markets: CEPA with UAE a Breakthrough? 2024. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4898534 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  43. Arnaut, M. Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2024, 16, 518-550. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Panayiotou, N.A.; Gayialis, S.P.; Tatsiopoulos, I.P. An e-procurement system for governmental purchasing. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2004, 90, 79-102. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Chofreh, A.G.; Goni, F.A.; Klemeš, J.J.; Malik, M.N.; Khan, H.H. Development of guidelines for the implementation of sustainable enterprise resource planning systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118655. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Cui, R.; Li, M.; Zhang, S. AI and procurement. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2022, 24, 691-706. [CrossRef] · DOI
  47. Ahmed, M.O.; Nabi, M.A.; El-Adaway, I.H.; Caranci, D.; Eberle, J.; Hawkins, Z.; Sparrow, R. Contractual guidelines for promoting integrated project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 05021008. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Jafari, P.; Mohamed, E.; Lee, S.; Abourizk, S. Social network analysis of change management processes for communication assessment. Autom. Constr. 2020, 118, 103292. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Niederman, F. Project management: Openings for disruption from AI and advanced analytics. Inf. Technol. People 2021, 34. [CrossRef] · DOI
  50. Aubert, B.A.; Rivard, S.; Patry, M. A transaction cost model of IT outsourcing. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 921-932. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Dor, L.M.B.; Coglianese, C. Procurement as AI governance. IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc. 2021, 2, 192-199. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  52. El Khatib, M.; Al Mulla, A.; Al Ketbi, W. The role of blockchain in e-governance and decision-making in project and program management. Adv. Internet Things 2022, 12, 88-109. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Ledro, C.; Nosella, A.; Dalla Pozza, I. Integration of AI in CRM: Challenges and guidelines. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100151. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  54. Attri, R.; Dev, N.; Sharma, V. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2013, 2319, 1171.
  55. Anggia, P.; Sensuse, D.I.; Sucahyo, Y.G.; Rohajawati, S. Identifying critical success factors for knowledge management implemen- tation in organization: A survey paper. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), Sanur Bali, Indonesia, 28-29 September 2013.
  56. Gardas, B.B.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B.E. A state-of the-art survey of interpretive structural modelling methodologies and applications. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2017, 11, 505-560. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Robbins, D. Understanding Research Methods: A Guide for the Public and Nonprofit Manager; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
  58. Jayalakshmi, B.; Pramod, V. Total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) of the enablers of a flexible control system for industry. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2015, 16, 63-85. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Mathiyazhagan, K.; Haq, A.N. Analysis of the influential pressures for green supply chain management adoption-An Indian perspective using interpretive structural modeling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 68, 817-833. [CrossRef · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alshehhi, K., Cheaitou, A., & Rashid, H.
Affiliations
University of Sharjah (AE)
Corresponding author
Alshehhi, Khalid
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-09-05
Volume
16
Issue
17
Pages
7724
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su16177724
OpenAlex
W4402278272
Cited by
19
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
public sector AI adoption, success factors, public service delivery, needs assessment, e-government

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