Oliver Henk

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature on the AI implementation in the public sector. Using the ADO framework, it analyzes the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes of an implementation of AI. In particular, the review identifies key drivers for the adoption of AI, such as technological advancements, policy directives, and the need for efficiency and transparency. Decision-making processes include the selection of the right policies, technologies, and work practices. Finally, the outcomes show an effect on the workforce, socio-economic benefits, services offered, trust, and policy-formulations. As such, the paper contributes to a greater theoretical understanding of an AI implementation in the public sector and highlights the current gaps in the literature. Practically, it offers insights and proposes a framework that will be useful for both policymakers and practitioners aiming to implement AI effectively in public sector organizations.

Purpose: This paper explores how conflicting institutional logics shape the behaviors of macro- and micro-level actors in their use of a calculative practice. Thereby, this paper explains how quantification can undermine the intended purpose of a governance system based on a single number.Design/methodology/approach: The study draws upon the literature on calculative practices and institutional logics to present the case of how a single number—specifically the conversion factor for Atlantic Cod, established by macro-level actors for the purposes of governance within the Norwegian fishing industry—is interpreted and used by micro-level actors in the industry. The study is based on documents, field observations and interviews with fishers, landing facilities, and control authorities.Findings: The use of the conversion factor, while intended to protect fish stock and govern industry actions, does not always align with the institutional logics of micro-level actors. Especially during the winter season, these actors may seek to serve their interests, leading to potential system gaming. The reliance on a single number that overlooks seasonal nuances can motivate unintended behaviors, undermining the governance system’s intentions.Originality/value: Integrating the literature on calculative practices with an institutional logics perspective, this study offers novel insights into the challenges of using quantification for the governance of complex industries. In particular, the paper reveals that when the logics of macro- and micro-level actors conflict in a single-number governance system, unintended outcomes arise due to a domination of the macro-level logics.

Despite the growing interest in research on the topic of internal control, there is confusion about the concept in both theory and practice. This study addresses this lack of clarity by systematically structuring the literature that uses the concept by investigating what we know from previous studies about the practice of internal control and how it is institutionalized. To examine the existing literature in this field, the paper utilizes the theoretical lens of‘institutional work’. The review finds that the understanding of internal control is currently divided: one part of the literature understands the concept as internal control over financial reporting, while the other part has a more global and strategic understanding of the term. Internal control is institutionalized by different organizational actors at the micro level in an attempt to implement internal control systems that are not a simple act of compliance but present an added value for the organization. At the same time, it is noteworthy that not all categories of institutional work could be identified in the internal control literature, indicating that the actors are largely limited by their institutional embeddedness. The paper also presents an aggregated understanding of the terminternal control, which can therefore significantly supplement the efforts of practitioners and regulators to implement internal control procedures that add value for the corporate governance of organizations.