Understanding Automated Decision-Making in the Public Sector: A Classification of Automated, Administrative Decision-Making

Roehl, Ulrik B. U.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_3

Understanding Automated Decision-Making in the Public Sector: A Classification of Automated, Administrative Decision-Making

Ulrik B. U. Roehl⁴

Chapter
First Online: 15 March 2022

267 Accesses
1 Citations

Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

Service automation in the public sector is applied to a range of different activities that include policy development, administrative decision-making and public service delivery. This chapter focusses on the use of automated, administrative decision-making and conceptualises a classification of six ideal types ranging from Minimal automation to Autonomous decisions. Each type describes a configuration of decision authority between civil servants and algorithmic systems which illustrates how the use of advanced technology does not exist independent of its users and contextual factors. The classification allows new empirical sensitivities to be applied to applications of automated administrative decision-making that go beyond basic differentiations of semi- and fully automated decisions. It emphasises the need to understand empirical instances of automated decisions-making usage as ambiguous and often consisting of several ideal types of use. The chapter provides a basis for the understanding of consequences of automated administrative decision-making in the public sector. The classification furthermore supports informed choices among practitioners of appropriate IT-system design and test as well as choices of appropriate professional and management practices in relation to automated administrative decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
“ADM” is a common abbreviation for automated decision-making; “AADM” is used in this chapter to emphasise the focus on automated administrative decision-making as a particular type of automated decision-making.
2.
“Civil servant” is used as a term for case workers, case managers, adjudicators and other officials who are responsible for administrative decisions. In addition and for sake of ease, the singular “civil servant” is used although often it is empirically more correct to speak of civil servants in plural.
3.
Although frameworks of administrative law vary across legal traditions, the concept of administrative decisions is generic and known under headings such as “acte administratif individual” (Francophone tradition); “Verwaltungsakte” (German tradition); and “förvaltningsbeslut”/”-afgørelse”/”-vedtak” (Scandinavian tradition).
4.
Originating in relation to autonomous weapon systems, industrial production, etc., and occasionally mentioned as a theoretical possibility in discussions of automated decision-making in the public sector, it is also possible for the human operator to be ‘on’ the loop. This implies the operator is supervising the fully automated decision-making with the ability to stop it within a given timeframe (Hauptman, 2013). Empirical instances of the “on”-type in relation to administrative decision-making seem to be very few or non-existent.
5.
Parasuraman et al. (2000) suggest a two-dimensional model of function and level of automation. For sake of clarity and adaptability to administrative decision-making this has been combined to one dimension in Table 1
6.
A short caveat is appropriate in relation to the illustration of the classification (Figure 1): the illustration is downward sloping towards Autonomous decisions (Type F) thereby risking indicating a negative understanding of this type of automated decision-making (i.e. towards a “digital nightmare”). Bearing the descriptive nature of the classification in mind, this is not the intention, but the sloping character has been chosen—as a matter of the lesser of two evils—to avoid the risk of indicating a positive understanding of a “digital nirvana” through an upward slope.
7.
This basically describes a continuous process of “training” decision models based on previous patterns of use and/or data: it is thus also possible to envision a situation where an increased number of decisions are processed automatically (Type E) over time rather than processed manually (Type C or D) based on an explicit assessment of previous patterns of use by civil servants.

References

Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. (1997). Formal and real authority in organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 105(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/262063
CrossRef Google Scholar
Alter, S. (1977). A taxonomy of decision support systems. Sloan Management Review, 19(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(80)90041-0
CrossRef Google Scholar
Andersson, A., Hedström, K., & Wihlborg, E. (2018). Automated decision-making and legitimacy in public administration. In Scandinavian Workshop on Electronic Government (SWEG 2018) (Issue February). http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-73989
Averweg, U. R. (2010). Decision support systems and decision-making processes. In M. G. Hunter (Ed.), Strategic information systems: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 122–130). Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781599048437.ch025
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bader, V., & Kaiser, S. (2019). Algorithmic decision-making? The user interface and its role for human involvement in decisions supported by artificial intelligence. Organization, 26(5), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419855714
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bailey, D. E., & Barley, S. R. (2020). Beyond design and use: How scholars should study intelligent technologies. Information and Organization, 30(2), 100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100286
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bailey, K. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques (1st ed.). SAGE Publications. https://dx-doi-org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/10.4135/9781412986397
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). Administration by algorithm: A risk management framework. Information Polity, 25(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200249
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (2006). Comparative administrative law. In M. Reimann & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative law (pp. 1259–1286). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.001.0001
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bourgoin, A., Bencherki, N., & Faraj, S. (2020). “And who are you?”: A performative perspective on authority in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 64(Forthcoming), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1335
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
CrossRef Google Scholar
Buffat, A. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and E-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.771699
CrossRef Google Scholar
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data and Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
CrossRef Google Scholar
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170050
CrossRef Google Scholar
Carney, T. (2018). The new digital future for welfare: Debts without legal proofs or moral authority. The Forum, University of New South Wales Law Journal, March, 1–16. https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/forum_article/new-digital-future-welfare-debts-without-proofs-authority/
Cobbe, J. (2019). Administrative law and the machines of government: Judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making. Legal Studies, 39(4), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.9
CrossRef Google Scholar
Cummings, M. L. (2006). Automation and accountability in decision support system interface design. The Journal of Technology Studies, 32(1), 23–31.
CrossRef Google Scholar
Eberle, E. J. (1984). The West German Administrative Procedure Act: A study in administrative decision making. Dickinson Journal of International Law, 3(1), 67–106.
Google Scholar
Engstrom, D. F., & Ho, D. E. (2020). Algorithmic accountability in the administrative state. Yale Journal on Regulation, 37(3), 800–854.
Google Scholar
Fahnøe, K. (2015). Konstruktionen af IT-systemet “Digitalisering – Udsatte Børn Og Unge” som løsningen på problemer i den socialfaglige sagsbehandling. Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, 96(2), 37–54.
Google Scholar
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Google Scholar
Gillingham, P. (2019). Can predictive algorithms assist decision-making in social work with children and families? Child Abuse Review, 28(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2547
CrossRef Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). So, what is a conceptual paper? Group and Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
CrossRef Google Scholar
Hauptman, A. (2013). Autonomous weapons and the law of armed conflict. Military Law Review, 218, 170–195.
Google Scholar
Hogan-Doran, D. (2017). Computer says “no”: Automation, algorithms and artificial intelligence in government decision-making. Judicial Review: Selected Conference Papers: Journal of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 13(3), 345–382.
Google Scholar
Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39–64.
Google Scholar
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
CrossRef Google Scholar
Kellogg, K., Valentine, M., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Koulu, R. (2020). Proceduralizing control and discretion: Human oversight in artificial intelligence policy. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(6), 720–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20978649
CrossRef Google Scholar
Kuziemski, M., & Misuraca, G. (2020). AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications Policy, 44(6), 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976
CrossRef Google Scholar
Lange, A. C., Lenglet, M., & Seyfert, R. (2019). On studying algorithms ethnographically: Making sense of objects of ignorance. Organization, 26(4), 598–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418808230
CrossRef Google Scholar
Larsson, K. K. (2021). Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101547
CrossRef Google Scholar
Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
CrossRef Google Scholar
Lips, M. (2020). Digital government: Managing public sector reform in the digital era (1st ed.). Routledge.
Google Scholar
Liu, C., & Graham, R. (2021). Making sense of algorithms: Relational perception of contact tracing and risk assessment during COVID-19. Big Data & Society, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951721995218
CrossRef Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. L. (2007). Reasoned administration: The European Union, the United States, and the project of democratic governance. George Washington Law Review, 76(1), 101–125.
Google Scholar
Nevo, S., Nevo, D., & Ein-dor, P. (2009). Thirty years of IS research: Core artifacts and academic identity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02524
CrossRef Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 336–359. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26
CrossRef Google Scholar
On-Road Automated Driving (ORAD) Committee. (2021). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (J3016_202104). https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/
Oswald, M. (2018). Algorithm-assisted decision-making in the public sector: Framing the issues using administrative law rules governing discretionary power. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0359
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
CrossRef Google Scholar
Peeters, R. (2020). The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making. Information Polity, 25(4), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200253
CrossRef Google Scholar
Peeters, R., & Widlak, A. (2018). The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture – The case of the Dutch civil registry’s master data management system. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.003
CrossRef Google Scholar
Plesner, U., & Husted, E. (2020). Digital organizing: Revisiting themes in organization studies. Red Globe Press.
Google Scholar
Power, D. J. (2004). Specifying an expanded framework for classifying and describing decision support systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.01313
Google Scholar
Power, D. J. (2007). A brief history of Decision Support Systems (DSSResources.Com). http://dssresources.com/history/dsshistory.html
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2019). Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101377.
CrossRef Google Scholar
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2020). Digital discretion: Unpacking human and technological agency in automated decision making in Sweden’s social services. Social Science Computer Review, 38, 0894439320980434.
Google Scholar
Riksrevisionen (S). (2020). Automatiserat beslutsfattande i statsförvaltningen (RiR 2020: 22). https://www.riksrevisionen.se/rapporter/granskningsrapporter/2020/automatiserat-beslutsfattande-i-statsforvaltningen%2D%2D-effektivt-men-kontroll-och-uppfoljning-brister.html
Rosenbloom, D. H., O’Leary, R., & Chanin, J. (2010). Public administration and law (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Google Scholar
Schartum, D. W. (2018). Digitalisering af offentlig forvaltning (1st ed.). Fagbokforlaget.
Google Scholar
Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.010
CrossRef Google Scholar
Schuilenburg, M., & Peeters, R. (2021). In M. Schuilenburg & R. Peeters (Eds.), The algorithmic society. Routledge. https://doi-org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/10.4324/9780429261404
Google Scholar
Seaver, N. (2019). Knowing algorithms. In J. Vertesi & D. Ribes (Eds.), digitalSTS (1st ed., pp. 412–422). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77mp9.30
CrossRef Google Scholar
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation and human supervisory control. MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
CrossRef Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. Harper & Brothers Publishers.
CrossRef Google Scholar
Skeem, J., & Louden, J. E. (2007). Assessment of evidence on the quality of the correctional offender management profiling for alternative sanctions (COMPAS). Center for Public Policy Research, University of California.
Google Scholar
Smith, M. L., Martin, A. K., & Noorman, M. E. (2010). Automating the public sector and organizing accountabilities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26, 1–16.
Google Scholar
Stelkens, U. (2020). The impact of the Pan-European general principles of good administration in German law. In U. Stelkens & A. Andrijauskaitė (Eds.), Good administration and the Council of Europe: Law, principles, and effectiveness (pp. 301–329). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198861539.003.0012
CrossRef Google Scholar
Stoudt-Hansen, S., Karamouzis, F., Alexander, M., Shotton, L., Sturgill, N., & Kandaswamy, R. (2020). Predicts 2021: Accelerate results beyond RPA to Hyperautomation (Issue December).
Google Scholar
Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008
CrossRef Google Scholar
Veale, M., van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174014
Vogl, T. M., Seidelin, C., Ganesh, B., & Bright, J. (2020). Smart technology and the emergence of algorithmic bureaucracy: Artificial intelligence in UK local authorities. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 946–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13286
CrossRef Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1904/2012). The ‘objectivity’ of knowledge in social science and social policy. In H. H. Bruun & S. Whimster (Eds.), Max Weber: Collected methodological writings (pp. 100–138). Routledge.
Google Scholar
Widlak, A., van Eck, M., & Peeters, R. (2021). Towards principles of good digital administration: Fairness, accountability and proportionality in automated decision-making. In M. Schuilenburg & R. Peeters (Eds.), The algorithmic society: Technology, power, and knowledge (pp. 67–83). Routledge.
Google Scholar
Wihlborg, E., Larsson, H., & Hedström, K. (2016). “The computer says no!” - A case study on automated decision-making in public authorities. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 49, 2903–2912. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.364
CrossRef Google Scholar
Zalnieriute, M., Moses, L. B., & Williams, G. (2019). The rule of law and automation of government decision-making. Modern Law Review, 82(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12412
CrossRef Google Scholar
Zouridis, S., van Eck, M., & Bovens, M. (2020). Digital discretion. In T. Evans & P. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom (pp. 313–329). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19566-3
CrossRef Google Scholar

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The research described in this paper has been carried out as part of a PhD Project partly financed by the Danish public sector company, KOMBIT Ltd. After the author’s best consideration there are no conflicts of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Organization, Management and Administration, Department of Politics and Society, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Ulrik B. U. Roehl

Authors

Ulrik B. U. Roehl
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrik B. U. Roehl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

University of Borås, Borås, Sweden
Assoc. Prof. Gustaf Juell-Skielse
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Dr. Ida Lindgren
Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
Dr. Maria Åkesson

Appendix: Empirical Examples of Ideal Types of Use of AADM

See Table 4.

Table 4 Selected, approximate empirical examples of ideal types of AADM usage. “X” indicates that the example bears resemblance to the type; and “(X)” indicates the example might bear resemblance to the type. Please note empirical examples are not based on thorough review and are simplified in descriptions. “*” indicates technology appears to no longer be in use as described

Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roehl, U.B.U. (2022). Understanding Automated Decision-Making in the Public Sector: A Classification of Automated, Administrative Decision-Making. In: Juell-Skielse, G., Lindgren, I., Åkesson, M. (eds) Service Automation in the Public Sector. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_3
Published: 15 March 2022
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92643-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92644-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)

Abstract

Buying options

Notes

References

Conflict of Interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Empirical Examples of Ideal Types of Use of AADM

Appendix: Empirical Examples of Ideal Types of Use of AADM

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter