Assessing Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence’s Potential Impact on Decision-Making in South Africa’s Public Sector: A Case Study of the Gauteng Department of Social Development
Abstract:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognised as a technology with the potential to support decision-making, operational efficiency, and service delivery in public institutions. In South Africa, interest in AI has grown through digital-transformation and Fourth Industrial Revolution initiatives. However, limited empirical research has examined how senior provincial public-sector leaders perceive AI before full organisational implementation. This study explored such perceptions within the Gauteng Department of Social Development (GDSD). An interpretivist paradigm and qualitative single-case study design were adopted. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with twelve senior officials selected purposively because of their strategic decision-making responsibilities. Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis was applied, supported by NVivo 14, while the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) informed interpretation. Three themes emerged: strategic optimism and alignment; anticipated operational and decision-making benefits; and leadership commitment and organisational readiness. Participants expected AI to support service delivery, resource allocation, data management, and evidence-informed decisions. These findings represent leadership perceptions and anticipated benefits rather than measured outcomes from fully implemented AI systems. Limited attention to algorithmic bias, privacy, cybersecurity, workforce implications, and avenues for contesting AI-supported decisions revealed an important governance-readiness gap. The study recommends phased, low-risk piloting supported by human oversight, impact assessment, data governance, stakeholder participation, and compliance with South African privacy and administrative-justice requirements.References:
[1].
Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC, Geyer C. Artificial
intelligence and the public sector: Applications and challenges. Gov Inf Q.
2019;36(4):101-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.001
[2].
Pencheva I, Esteve M, Mikhaylov SJ. Big data and AI
– A transformational shift for government: So, what next for research? Public
Policy Adm. 2020;35(1):24-44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718780537
[3].
Meijer A, Wessels M. Predictive policing and
AI-driven governance in the public sector. Public Adm Rev. 2021;81(4):658-68.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13321
[4].
Misuraca G, van Noordt C. Artificial intelligence
for the public sector: Results of exploratory mapping. Soc Sci Comput Rev.
2020;40(2):426-44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980449
[5].
Janssen M, van der Voort H. Agile and adaptive
governance in crisis response: Artificial intelligence in government. Int J Inf
Manag. 2020; 55:102180. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102180
[6].
Twizeyimana JD, Andersson A. The public value of
e-government: A literature review. Gov Inf Q. 2019;36(2):167-78. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
[7].
van Noordt C, Misuraca G. Artificial intelligence
for government: A systematic review. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2021;40(2):426-44.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980449
[8].
Smart Nation Singapore. Smart Nation Initiative
Overview [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.smartnation.gov.sg
[9].
Sousa W, Rocha Á, de Carvalho JV, van der Wieringa
R, Vasconcelos J. Digital transformation and AI adoption in public sector
organisations. Gov Inf Q. 2021;38(3):101577. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
[10]. Marwala T.
Artificial intelligence and economic development in Africa. Cham: Springer;
2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45141-5
[11]. Chouldechova
A, Benavides-Prado D, Fialko O, Vaithianathan R. A case study of algorithmic
decision-making in child welfare. Proc FAT*. 2018:134-48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287589
[12]. Margetts H,
Dorobantu C. Rethinking government with AI. Public Adm Rev. 2019;79(5):675-81.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13146
[13]. Sun TQ,
Medaglia R. Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public
sector. Gov Inf Q. 2019;36(2):368-83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008
[14]. Bryson JM,
Crosby BC, Bloomberg L. Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional
performance measures. Public Manag Rev. 2018;20(5):641-62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1366430
[15]. Dwivedi YK,
Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, et al. Artificial
intelligence in business and government: Impacts and implications. Int J Inf
Manag. 2019; 48:1-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.001
[16]. Wirtz BW,
Weyerer JC, Geyer C. Digital government transformation and AI adoption. Gov Inf
Q. 2019;36(4):101-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.001
[17]. Janssen M,
Estevez E, Janowski T. Digital transformation challenges in public
organisations. Gov Inf Q. 2020;37(3):101442. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101442
[18]. Marwala T.
Artificial intelligence in Africa: Opportunities and risks. Cham: Springer;
2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45141-5
[19]. Presidential
Commission on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Final report on the Fourth
Industrial Revolution strategy for South Africa. Pretoria: Government of South
Africa; 2019.
[20]. Department
of Communications and Digital Technologies. South Africa National Artificial
Intelligence Policy Framework. Pretoria: Government of South Africa; 2024.
Available from: https://www.dcdt.gov.za/sa-national-ai-policy-framework.html
[21]. Bertot JC,
Jaeger PT, Grimes JM. Using ICTs in public administration: E-government and
transparency. Gov Inf Q. 2010;27(3):264-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.004
[22]. Davis FD.
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[23]. Venkatesh
V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
[24]. Creswell
JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2018.
[25]. Bryman A.
Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
[26]. Yin RK.
Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks
(CA): Sage Publications; 2018.
[27]. Guest G,
Namey E, Mitchell M. Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied
research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2020.
[28]. Braun V,
Clarke V. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications;
2021.
[29]. Kahneman D.
Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
[30]. Lincoln YS,
Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1985.
[31]. Republic of
South Africa. Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013. Pretoria:
Government Printer; 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.za/documents/protection-personal-information-act
[32]. Republic of
South Africa. Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000. Pretoria:
Government Printer; 2000. Available from: https://www.gov.za/documents/promotion-administrative-justice-act
[33]. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO; 2021. Available from: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence
