International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 3 (March 2025), Pages: 109-118

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Implementing data-driven decision-making in Saudi Arabia’s public sector: A path to progress

 Author(s): 

 Majed Salem Alsuhaimi *

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Administrative Studies, King Fahad Security College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6735-1900

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.03.012

 Abstract

This study explores the use of data-driven decision-making (DDDM) in Saudi Arabia’s public sector, examining its role in improving governance efficiency and supporting the goals of Saudi Vision 2030. A quantitative analysis was conducted with 382 employees from various public sector organizations to assess the current level of DDDM adoption, challenges to its implementation, and its effects on organizational performance. The study applies the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework to identify factors influencing DDDM adoption. The results show a positive relationship between DDDM and improved decision-making quality, operational efficiency, and alignment with national development objectives. However, key challenges include issues related to data quality, skill shortages, and organizational resistance. The findings offer useful insights for policymakers and public sector administrators, providing recommendations for the effective integration of DDDM to enhance public sector performance.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Data-driven decision-making, Public sector governance, Saudi Vision 2030, Organizational performance, Implementation challenges

 Article history

 Received 22 October 2024, Received in revised form 17 February 2025, Accepted 1 March 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study adheres to strict ethical research principles throughout its execution. All participants are provided with comprehensive information about the study's purpose and their rights before giving informed consent. The study ensures the protection of respondents' identities, and all data is anonymized to maintain confidentiality.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Alsuhaimi MS (2025). Implementing data-driven decision-making in Saudi Arabia’s public sector: A path to progress. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(3): 109-118

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

----------------------------------------------   

 References (34)

  1. Alshehri M and Drew S (2010). Challenges of e-government services adoption in Saudi Arabia from an e-ready citizen perspective. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66: 1053-1059.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Alshehri M and Drew SJ (2011). E-government principles: Implementation, advantages and challenges. International Journal of Electronic Business, 9(3): 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2011.042545   [Google Scholar]
  3. Awa HO, Ojiabo OU, and Emecheta BC (2015). Integrating TAM, TPB and TOE frameworks and expanding their characteristic constructs for e-commerce adoption by SMEs. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 6(1): 76-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-04-2014-0012   [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker J (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. In: Dwivedi Y, Wade M, and Schneberger S (Eds.), Information systems theory. Integrated series in information systems, vol 28. Springer, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12   [Google Scholar]
  5. Brynjolfsson E and McElheran K (2016). The rapid adoption of data-driven decision-making. American Economic Review, 106(5): 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161016   [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen DQ, Preston DS, and Swink M (2015). How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management? Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(4): 4-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1138364   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cordella A and Paletti A (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4): 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409   [Google Scholar]
  8. Davenport T and Harris J (2017). Competing on analytics: Updated, with a new introduction: The new science of winning. Harvard Business Press, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, Duan Y, Dwivedi R, Edwards J, Eirug A, and Galanos V et al. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57: 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002   [Google Scholar]
  10. El-Hassan O, AbdulRahman M, Al Redha M, and Scheuer A (2025). Digital maturity strategy for modernizing Dubai’s healthcare ecosystem. In: Scheuer A and Studzinski J (Eds.), Digital maturity in hospitals. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80704-6_5   [Google Scholar]
  11. Gangwar H, Date H, and Ramaswamy R (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1): 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065   [Google Scholar]
  12. Giest S (2017). Big data for policymaking: Fad or fasttrack? Policy Sciences, 50(3): 367-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9293-1   [Google Scholar]
  13. Gupta M and George JF (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics capability. Information and Management, 53(8): 1049-1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004   [Google Scholar]
  14. Janssen M and van den Hoven J (2015). Big and open linked data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy? Government Information Quarterly, 32(4): 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.007   [Google Scholar]
  15. Klievink B, Romijn BJ, Cunningham S, and de Bruijn H (2017). Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2): 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9686-2   [Google Scholar]
  16. Le LT, Jeenanunta C, Ueki Y, Intalar N, and Komolavanij S (2024). The role of managerial competencies in driving Industry 4.0 adoption: A comparative study of Thailand and Vietnam’s manufacturing sectors. Sustainability, 17(1): 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010077   [Google Scholar]
  17. Liang Y, Zhao C, and Lee MJ (2023). Institutional pressures on sustainability and green performance: The mediating role of digital business model innovation. Sustainability, 15(19): 14258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258   [Google Scholar]
  18. McAfee A, Brynjolfsson E, Davenport TH, Patil DJ, and Barton D (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10): 60-68.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Mergel I, Rethemeyer RK, and Isett K (2016). Big data in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 76(6): 928-937. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12625   [Google Scholar]
  20. Oliveira T and Martins MF (2010). Understanding e‐business adoption across industries in European countries. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(9): 1337-1354. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011087428   [Google Scholar]
  21. Olumoye MY and Govender I (2018). An empirical investigation of factors influencing integrated e‐Government implementation in Nigeria: A case of housing and urban development agency. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(1): e12012. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12012   [Google Scholar]
  22. Pappas IO, Mikalef P, Giannakos MN, Krogstie J, and Lekakos G (2018). Big data and business analytics ecosystems: Paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 16(3): 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-018-0377-z   [Google Scholar]
  23. Rahman MM and Szabó G (2023). Assessing the status of national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) of Bangladesh. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 12(6): 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12060236   [Google Scholar]
  24. Saka TN, Hormiga E, and Valls-Pasola J (2024). Crisis response strategies: A digital reluctance perspective. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00822-5   [Google Scholar]
  25. Singh A (2025). Sustainable digital leap: A bibliometric study on its impact on human learning and organizational development in the MENA region. Future Business Journal, 11: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-025-00429-6   [Google Scholar]
  26. Sivarajah U, Kamal MM, Irani Z, and Weerakkody V (2017). Critical analysis of big data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research, 70: 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.001   [Google Scholar]
  27. Tornatzky LG and Fleischer M (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Twizeyimana JD and Andersson A (2019). The public value of e-government–A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2): 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001   [Google Scholar]
  29. van der Voort HG, Klievink AJ, Arnaboldi M, and Meijer AJ (2019). Rationality and politics of algorithms: Will the promise of big data survive the dynamics of public decision making? Government Information Quarterly, 36(1): 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.011   [Google Scholar]
  30. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, and Davis FD (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540   [Google Scholar]
  31. Vydra S and Klievink B (2019). Techno-optimism and policy-pessimism in the public sector big data debate. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4): 101383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.010   [Google Scholar]
  32. Wamba SF, Gunasekaran A, Akter S, Ren SJF, Dubey R, and Childe SJ (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70: 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009   [Google Scholar]
  33. WBG (2023). Digital government report 2023. World Bank Group, Washington, USA. 
  34. Xian M, Zhao C, and Zhou Y (2022). From bureaucratic coordination to a data-driven model: Transformation and capacity building of community-based prevention and control of public health events. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14): 8238. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148238   [Google Scholar] PMid:35886091 PMCid:PMC9323052