Pub Date : 2025-01-23DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102009
Huanhuan Li , Zongfeng Sun , Jiacheng Xi
While research has explored trust in algorithmic decision-making, the factors shaping civil servants' trust perceptions remain underexamined. Using public value theory and technology adoption frameworks, this study employs a survey experiment to analyze the effects of human-machine matching and algorithm regulation on civil servants' trust and adoption inclination. The findings indicate that both factors independently influence adoption inclination, with trust perceptions mediating this relationship, but no interaction effect is observed. Addressing gaps in technology acceptance and ethical frameworks, this study highlights the importance of algorithm regulation and human-machine matching in advancing algorithmic governance and achieving public value through procedural and performance dimensions, offering practical implications for policy and governance.
{"title":"Unveiling civil servants' preferences: Human-machine matching vs. regulating algorithms in algorithmic decision-making——Insights from a survey experiment","authors":"Huanhuan Li , Zongfeng Sun , Jiacheng Xi","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102009","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While research has explored trust in algorithmic decision-making, the factors shaping civil servants' trust perceptions remain underexamined. Using public value theory and technology adoption frameworks, this study employs a survey experiment to analyze the effects of human-machine matching and algorithm regulation on civil servants' trust and adoption inclination. The findings indicate that both factors independently influence adoption inclination, with trust perceptions mediating this relationship, but no interaction effect is observed. Addressing gaps in technology acceptance and ethical frameworks, this study highlights the importance of algorithm regulation and human-machine matching in advancing algorithmic governance and achieving public value through procedural and performance dimensions, offering practical implications for policy and governance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102009"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-20DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008
Mary K. Feeney , Federica Fusi , Ignacio Pezo
Open government data (OGD) seeks to promote transparency and accountability by enabling public access to government data. While public managers are increasingly supportive of OGD initiatives worldwide, researchers note that they also carefully select which data to release to balance openness with traditional values of professionalism and secrecy as well as concerns about cyber incidents and privacy. Understanding the factors that influence this micro-level choice is important to make valuable types of data publicly accessible. Using 2018 survey data from a nationally representative sample of 2500 department heads in 500 small and medium-sized US cities, we look at variation in public managers' level of comfort with making different types of government data open - from criminal records to government employee salary data. We find that managerial comfort reflects historic practices of public accessibility and privacy concerns with individual data. Managers who believe OGD creates positive outcomes for society are more comfortable with publicly disclosing all types of data. We also find variation across department types, suggesting fragmented views towards OGD within public organizations.
{"title":"Which data should be publicly accessible? Dispatches from public managers","authors":"Mary K. Feeney , Federica Fusi , Ignacio Pezo","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Open government data (OGD) seeks to promote transparency and accountability by enabling public access to government data. While public managers are increasingly supportive of OGD initiatives worldwide, researchers note that they also carefully select which data to release to balance openness with traditional values of professionalism and secrecy as well as concerns about cyber incidents and privacy. Understanding the factors that influence this micro-level choice is important to make valuable types of data publicly accessible. Using 2018 survey data from a nationally representative sample of 2500 department heads in 500 small and medium-sized US cities, we look at variation in public managers' level of comfort with making different types of government data open - from criminal records to government employee salary data. We find that managerial comfort reflects historic practices of public accessibility and privacy concerns with individual data. Managers who believe OGD creates positive outcomes for society are more comfortable with publicly disclosing all types of data<em>.</em> We also find variation across department types, suggesting fragmented views towards OGD within public organizations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102008"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-16DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984
Hendrik Scholta , Sebastian Halsbenning , Marco Niemann
The digitalization of public services is particularly challenging in federal states, in part because a federal structure separates organizations through a division of power and established jurisdictions, and digitalization facilitates interconnection between society and its organizations. The many actors involved in federal states' digital public services require coordination, so the literature suggests centralized coordination so federal states can benefit from the advantages of both unitary and federal states. However, this approach has not been adapted to digitalization and it remains unclear how centralized coordination applies to digital public services. This article determines how public managers in federal states should coordinate activities in digital public services with the help of centralization. Since coordination depends on decision-makers' being willing to give up some of their power, we also investigate the mechanisms that public managers in federal states use to influence decision-makers. Using a conceptual analysis and interviews with 28 public managers from three countries, we derive three types of coordination—shared services, digital identity, and strategic committee—and identify the influencing mechanisms of persuasion, incentive, pressure, and experience. In so doing, this article contributes to the literature in identifying the types of coordination, design principles for their arrangement, and the mechanisms managers typically use to influence decision-makers. The three types of coordination constitute a new theoretical lens through which to investigate the influence of the federal structure on the digitalization of public services, while the influencing mechanisms extend existing work by introducing the passive role of the influencer.
{"title":"A coordination perspective on digital public services in federal states","authors":"Hendrik Scholta , Sebastian Halsbenning , Marco Niemann","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The digitalization of public services is particularly challenging in federal states, in part because a federal structure separates organizations through a division of power and established jurisdictions, and digitalization facilitates interconnection between society and its organizations. The many actors involved in federal states' digital public services require coordination, so the literature suggests centralized coordination so federal states can benefit from the advantages of both unitary and federal states. However, this approach has not been adapted to digitalization and it remains unclear how centralized coordination applies to digital public services. This article determines how public managers in federal states should coordinate activities in digital public services with the help of centralization. Since coordination depends on decision-makers' being willing to give up some of their power, we also investigate the mechanisms that public managers in federal states use to influence decision-makers. Using a conceptual analysis and interviews with 28 public managers from three countries, we derive three types of coordination—shared services, digital identity, and strategic committee—and identify the influencing mechanisms of persuasion, incentive, pressure, and experience. In so doing, this article contributes to the literature in identifying the types of coordination, design principles for their arrangement, and the mechanisms managers typically use to influence decision-makers. The three types of coordination constitute a new theoretical lens through which to investigate the influence of the federal structure on the digitalization of public services, while the influencing mechanisms extend existing work by introducing the passive role of the influencer.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 101984"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-16DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003
Patricia Gomes Rêgo de Almeida , Carlos Denner dos Santos Júnior
While observing the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation and global governance, public organizations are faced with the need to structure themselves so that their AI systems consider ethical principles. This research aimed to investigate how public organizations have incorporated the guidelines presented by academia, legislation, and international standards into their governance, management, and AI system development processes, focusing on ethical principles. Propositions were elaborated on the processes and practices recommended by literature specialized in AI governance. This entailed a comprehensive search that reached out to 28 public organizations across five continents that have AI systems in operation. Through an exploratory and descriptive aim, based on a qualitative and quantitative approach, the empirical analysis was carried out by means of proposition analysis using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method in crisp-set and fuzzy modes, based on questionnaire responses, combined with an interview and document content analysis. The analyses identified how processes and practices, across multiple layers and directed at the application of ethical principles in AI system production, have been combined and internalized in those public institutions. Organizations that trained decision-makers, AI system developers, and users showed a more advanced stage of AI governance; on the other hand, low scores were found on actions towards AI governance when those professionals did not receive any training. The results also revealed how governments can boost AI governance in public organizations by designing AI strategy, AI policy, AI ethical principles and publishing standards for that purpose to government agencies. The results also ground the design of the AIGov4Gov framework for public organizations to implement their own AI governance.
{"title":"Artificial intelligence governance: Understanding how public organizations implement it","authors":"Patricia Gomes Rêgo de Almeida , Carlos Denner dos Santos Júnior","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While observing the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation and global governance, public organizations are faced with the need to structure themselves so that their AI systems consider ethical principles. This research aimed to investigate how public organizations have incorporated the guidelines presented by academia, legislation, and international standards into their governance, management, and AI system development processes, focusing on ethical principles. Propositions were elaborated on the processes and practices recommended by literature specialized in AI governance. This entailed a comprehensive search that reached out to 28 public organizations across five continents that have AI systems in operation. Through an exploratory and descriptive aim, based on a qualitative and quantitative approach, the empirical analysis was carried out by means of proposition analysis using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method in crisp-set and fuzzy modes, based on questionnaire responses, combined with an interview and document content analysis. The analyses identified how processes and practices, across multiple layers and directed at the application of ethical principles in AI system production, have been combined and internalized in those public institutions. Organizations that trained decision-makers, AI system developers, and users showed a more advanced stage of AI governance; on the other hand, low scores were found on actions towards AI governance when those professionals did not receive any training. The results also revealed how governments can boost AI governance in public organizations by designing AI strategy, AI policy, AI ethical principles and publishing standards for that purpose to government agencies. The results also ground the design of the AIGov4Gov framework for public organizations to implement their own AI governance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102003"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-14DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102002
Anouk Decuypere, Anne Van de Vijver
Governments are increasingly using AI for their decision making. Research on citizen perceptions highlight the context-dependent nature of their fairness assessment, rendering administrations unsure about how to implement AI so that citizens support these procedures. The survey experiments in this study, conducted in a pilot and a main study, (Npilot = 232; Nmain study = 2366) focuses on a high-risk decision-making context, i.e., selection of citizens for fraud detection. In the scenarios, we manipulated the proportion of the selection made by AI, based on information from past fraudsters, versus civil servants, who work based on their experience. In addition, we tested the effect of transparency (and explanation) statements and its impact on procedural fairness scores. We found that a higher proportion of AI in the selection for fraud audits was perceived as more procedurally fair, mostly through increased scores on bias suppression and consistency. However, participants' general attitude toward AI and trust in the administration explained more variance than the experimental manipulation. Transparency (explanations) had no impact.
{"title":"AI: Friend or foe of fairness perceptions of the tax administration? A survey experiment on citizens' procedural fairness perceptions","authors":"Anouk Decuypere, Anne Van de Vijver","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Governments are increasingly using AI for their decision making. Research on citizen perceptions highlight the context-dependent nature of their fairness assessment, rendering administrations unsure about how to implement AI so that citizens support these procedures. The survey experiments in this study, conducted in a pilot and a main study, (N<sub>pilot</sub> = 232; N<sub>main study</sub> = 2366) focuses on a high-risk decision-making context, i.e., selection of citizens for fraud detection. In the scenarios, we manipulated the proportion of the selection made by AI, based on information from past fraudsters, versus civil servants, who work based on their experience. In addition, we tested the effect of transparency (and explanation) statements and its impact on procedural fairness scores. We found that a higher proportion of AI in the selection for fraud audits was perceived as more procedurally fair, mostly through increased scores on bias suppression and consistency. However, participants' general attitude toward AI and trust in the administration explained more variance than the experimental manipulation. Transparency (explanations) had no impact.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102002"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-10DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102006
Helen K. Liu , MuhChyun Tang , Antoine Serge J. Collard
With the increasing attention paid to artificial intelligence (AI) and crowd intelligence (CI) in government, their connections still need to be explored. This study explores the dynamic relationship between AI and CI that constitutes hybrid intelligence for the public sector. Thus, we adopt a bibliometric analysis to identify trends, emerging themes, topics, and interconnections between these two streams of literature. Our review illustrates the intersection between AI and CI, revealing that AI designs can improve efficiency from CI inputs. Meanwhile, AI advancement depends on the quality of CI data. Furthermore, our review highlights key domains such as smart cities (Internet of Things), personnel design, social media, and governance through cases. Based on these illustrated cases, we conceptualize a hybrid intelligence spectrum, ranging from “engagement” to “efficiency,” with crowd intelligence anchoring the former through its emphasis on public participation and AI anchoring the latter through its focus on automation and optimization. Hybrid intelligence, encompassing various forms, occupies the middle ground to balance maximizing public engagement and achieving computational efficiency. Additionally, we elaborate on components of hybrid intelligence designs regarding input (conscious crowds and unconscious crowds), process (algorithmic management and artificial discretion), and outcome (user-focus benefits and non-user-focus outputs). Finally, we recommend prioritizing questions related to the design, regulation, and governance of hybrid intelligence for the public sector.
{"title":"Hybrid intelligence for the public sector: A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence and crowd intelligence","authors":"Helen K. Liu , MuhChyun Tang , Antoine Serge J. Collard","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With the increasing attention paid to artificial intelligence (AI) and crowd intelligence (CI) in government, their connections still need to be explored. This study explores the dynamic relationship between AI and CI that constitutes hybrid intelligence for the public sector. Thus, we adopt a bibliometric analysis to identify trends, emerging themes, topics, and interconnections between these two streams of literature. Our review illustrates the intersection between AI and CI, revealing that AI designs can improve efficiency from CI inputs. Meanwhile, AI advancement depends on the quality of CI data. Furthermore, our review highlights key domains such as smart cities (Internet of Things), personnel design, social media, and governance through cases. Based on these illustrated cases, we conceptualize a hybrid intelligence spectrum, ranging from “engagement” to “efficiency,” with crowd intelligence anchoring the former through its emphasis on public participation and AI anchoring the latter through its focus on automation and optimization. Hybrid intelligence, encompassing various forms, occupies the middle ground to balance maximizing public engagement and achieving computational efficiency. Additionally, we elaborate on components of hybrid intelligence designs regarding input (conscious crowds and unconscious crowds), process (algorithmic management and artificial discretion), and outcome (user-focus benefits and non-user-focus outputs). Finally, we recommend prioritizing questions related to the design, regulation, and governance of hybrid intelligence for the public sector.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102006"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-08DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005
Simon Dechamps, Anthony Simonofski, Corentin Burnay
Putting citizens as the cornerstone of a policymaking or service design process is usually referred to as citizen-centricity and is often considered a key practice in the context of digital government transformation. Nevertheless, the lack of a common comprehension of what citizen-centricity entails leads to practical and theoretical difficulties, among which the confusion generated by the multiple heterogeneous definitions and the difficulty of measuring the level of citizen-centricity of a digital initiative, to cite only two. As an answer, this study characterizes citizen-centricity by suggesting a typology grounded in theory and practice. It does so by surveying the recent scientific literature using a systematic literature review of 58 studies, combined with 14 qualitative interviews with public agents. The key contribution from our citizen-centricity typology is threefold. First, by emphasizing four understandings of citizen-centricity, sometimes referring to an end-result, a design process, a governance mode, or a way of identifying the user, we demonstrate that the concept has the potential to encompass a multitude of disparate realities. Furthermore, it provides a crucial lens through which to comprehend the concept, thereby facilitating alignment between stakeholders engaged in the pursuit of citizen-centricity. Second, we identify the characteristics given by the literature and practitioners for each understanding. Finally, we suggest that the four understandings of citizen-centricity cannot be sequenced, even iteratively, since they interact continuously. These contributions should guide future research and facilitate communication between research and practice about this concept.
{"title":"Citizen-centricity in digital government: A theoretical and empirical typology","authors":"Simon Dechamps, Anthony Simonofski, Corentin Burnay","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Putting citizens as the cornerstone of a policymaking or service design process is usually referred to as citizen-centricity and is often considered a key practice in the context of digital government transformation. Nevertheless, the lack of a common comprehension of what citizen-centricity entails leads to practical and theoretical difficulties, among which the confusion generated by the multiple heterogeneous definitions and the difficulty of measuring the level of citizen-centricity of a digital initiative, to cite only two. As an answer, this study characterizes citizen-centricity by suggesting a typology grounded in theory and practice. It does so by surveying the recent scientific literature using a systematic literature review of 58 studies, combined with 14 qualitative interviews with public agents. The key contribution from our citizen-centricity typology is threefold. First, by emphasizing four understandings of citizen-centricity, sometimes referring to an end-result, a design process, a governance mode, or a way of identifying the user, we demonstrate that the concept has the potential to encompass a multitude of disparate realities. Furthermore, it provides a crucial lens through which to comprehend the concept, thereby facilitating alignment between stakeholders engaged in the pursuit of citizen-centricity. Second, we identify the characteristics given by the literature and practitioners for each understanding. Finally, we suggest that the four understandings of citizen-centricity cannot be sequenced, even iteratively, since they interact continuously. These contributions should guide future research and facilitate communication between research and practice about this concept.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102005"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-03DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102001
Heidi Hietala , Tero Päivärinta
Digitalization drives societal transformation to reform existing practices in the evolving environment. Central to this transformation is the creation of interoperable digital public services across diverse organizations, increasingly guided by human-centric principles and life-event orientation. This paper explores the complex process of achieving digital service innovation, emphasizing the need for inter-organizational balancing between radical transformation and efficiency through collective ambidexterity, where multiple ecosystem actors coordinate to balance innovation and efficiency simultaneously. While previous research predominantly studied ambidexterity at the organizational level, focusing on its antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes, our study extends this inquiry to the broader ecosystem. Via a single-case study, we investigate how collective ambidexterity can be governed in a large-scale digital service ecosystem. To address the research question, we developed a multi-level conceptual model of governing mechanisms, antecedents, and outcomes of collective ambidexterity across three analytical levels: the ecosystem, organization group, and organization. Our theoretical contribution is twofold. First, we enhance conceptual clarity on collective ambidexterity and show how Modes of Collaboration (MoC) can facilitate innovation and efficiency of human-centric digital services throughout the three levels of governance. Second, the resulting governance model emphasizes the need to connect centralized, decentralized, and group-level governance strategies for developing digital services—to achieve and govern collective ambidexterity in the development of digital services in the public sector.
{"title":"Governing collective ambidexterity: Antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes in digital service ecosystems","authors":"Heidi Hietala , Tero Päivärinta","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Digitalization drives societal transformation to reform existing practices in the evolving environment. Central to this transformation is the creation of interoperable digital public services across diverse organizations, increasingly guided by human-centric principles and life-event orientation. This paper explores the complex process of achieving digital service innovation, emphasizing the need for inter-organizational balancing between radical transformation and efficiency through collective ambidexterity, where multiple ecosystem actors coordinate to balance innovation and efficiency simultaneously. While previous research predominantly studied ambidexterity at the organizational level, focusing on its antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes, our study extends this inquiry to the broader ecosystem. Via a single-case study, we investigate how collective ambidexterity can be governed in a large-scale digital service ecosystem. To address the research question, we developed a multi-level conceptual model of governing mechanisms, antecedents, and outcomes of collective ambidexterity across three analytical levels: the ecosystem, organization group, and organization. Our theoretical contribution is twofold. First, we enhance conceptual clarity on collective ambidexterity and show how Modes of Collaboration (MoC) can facilitate innovation and efficiency of human-centric digital services throughout the three levels of governance. Second, the resulting governance model emphasizes the need to connect centralized, decentralized, and group-level governance strategies for developing digital services—to achieve and govern collective ambidexterity in the development of digital services in the public sector.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102001"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-27DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102004
Zhichao Ba , Leilei Liu , Yikun Xia
Scholarly citation has been extensively utilized to explore scholars' citation behaviors and elucidate their citation decision-making during academic writing. Likewise, policy citation serves as an invaluable instrument for scrutinizing policymakers' policy adoption decisions during policy formulation. This study offers a fine-grained portrayal and measurement of policy citation features, providing insights into policy adoption decisions from a novel perspective of citation choice. Specifically, each policy citation is conceptualized as a multidimensional feature collection consisting of 26 interpretable citation features (comprising 51 measurements) pertinent to the adoption of specific policies. These features are classified into three main categories: citation authority, citation proximity, and citation continuity. Utilizing large-scale information and communications technology (ICT) policies in China as empirical data, we conduct a series of logistic regressions and Random Forest-based classification experiments to quantitatively evaluate the importance of each constructed citation feature on policymakers' adoption decisions. Our empirical results reveal that policymakers' adoption of specific policies is predominantly influenced by citation proximity, followed by citation authority and citation continuity. Notably, central and local policymakers exhibit distinct adoption patterns; the former tends to prioritize policy continuity in their decision-making, whereas the latter lean towards adopting high-impact policies and learning from policy adoption pioneers. Moreover, the impact of policies is intricately entwined with their citation patterns, with high-cited policies often spearheading policy innovations, while low-cited policies tend to follow and imitate.
{"title":"Multidimensional policy citation features: Insights into policymakers' policy adoption decision-making","authors":"Zhichao Ba , Leilei Liu , Yikun Xia","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102004","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102004","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholarly citation has been extensively utilized to explore scholars' citation behaviors and elucidate their citation decision-making during academic writing. Likewise, policy citation serves as an invaluable instrument for scrutinizing policymakers' policy adoption decisions during policy formulation. This study offers a fine-grained portrayal and measurement of policy citation features, providing insights into policy adoption decisions from a novel perspective of citation choice. Specifically, each policy citation is conceptualized as a multidimensional feature collection consisting of 26 interpretable citation features (comprising 51 measurements) pertinent to the adoption of specific policies. These features are classified into three main categories: citation authority, citation proximity, and citation continuity. Utilizing large-scale information and communications technology (ICT) policies in China as empirical data, we conduct a series of logistic regressions and Random Forest-based classification experiments to quantitatively evaluate the importance of each constructed citation feature on policymakers' adoption decisions. Our empirical results reveal that policymakers' adoption of specific policies is predominantly influenced by citation proximity, followed by citation authority and citation continuity. Notably, central and local policymakers exhibit distinct adoption patterns; the former tends to prioritize policy continuity in their decision-making, whereas the latter lean towards adopting high-impact policies and learning from policy adoption pioneers. Moreover, the impact of policies is intricately entwined with their citation patterns, with high-cited policies often spearheading policy innovations, while low-cited policies tend to follow and imitate.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102004"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-24DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102000
Simone Busetti, Francesco Maria Scanni
The escalating threat of cyber risks has propelled cybersecurity policy to the forefront of governmental agendas worldwide. Incident reporting, a cornerstone of cybersecurity legislation, may facilitate swift responses to cyberattacks and foster a learning process for policy enhancement. Despite its widespread adoption, there are no analyses on its efficacy, implementation, and avenues for improvement. This article provides a theory-based evaluation of incident reporting using the methods of realist synthesis and process tracing. We develop a program theory of incident reporting hypothesizing its dual role as a fire alarm and a catalyst for policy learning. The program theory is tested by drawing upon a range of literature and official documents, supplemented by insights from the Italian context through interviews with key informants. The evaluation reveals mixed findings. While incident reporting effectively serves as a fire alarm, particularly for organizations with limited cybersecurity capacity, challenges persist due to capacity gaps and a reluctance to report incidents. The link between incident reporting and policy learning remains tenuous, with evidence of inertia hindering the implementation of more radical changes. Policy recommendations include streamlining internal communications, combining rapid and in-depth reporting, fostering data-sharing agreements, ensuring dedicated communication of lessons from central cyber actors, and streamlining organizational procedures for implementing changes.
{"title":"Evaluating incident reporting in cybersecurity. From threat detection to policy learning","authors":"Simone Busetti, Francesco Maria Scanni","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102000","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102000","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The escalating threat of cyber risks has propelled cybersecurity policy to the forefront of governmental agendas worldwide. Incident reporting, a cornerstone of cybersecurity legislation, may facilitate swift responses to cyberattacks and foster a learning process for policy enhancement. Despite its widespread adoption, there are no analyses on its efficacy, implementation, and avenues for improvement. This article provides a theory-based evaluation of incident reporting using the methods of realist synthesis and process tracing. We develop a program theory of incident reporting hypothesizing its dual role as a fire alarm and a catalyst for policy learning. The program theory is tested by drawing upon a range of literature and official documents, supplemented by insights from the Italian context through interviews with key informants. The evaluation reveals mixed findings. While incident reporting effectively serves as a fire alarm, particularly for organizations with limited cybersecurity capacity, challenges persist due to capacity gaps and a reluctance to report incidents. The link between incident reporting and policy learning remains tenuous, with evidence of inertia hindering the implementation of more radical changes. Policy recommendations include streamlining internal communications, combining rapid and in-depth reporting, fostering data-sharing agreements, ensuring dedicated communication of lessons from central cyber actors, and streamlining organizational procedures for implementing changes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102000"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号