Abstract
The relevance of the study is determined by the transition of public administration from electronic services and digital registers to algorithmically supported procedures of data analysis, forecasting, risk detection and preparation of managerial alternatives. Artificial intelligence can strengthen the analytical capacity of public authorities; however, in the public sector its use cannot be assessed only through speed and productivity, because a public management decision must comply with legality, accountability, transparency, non-discrimination, personal data protection, appealability and the personal responsibility of a public official. The purpose of the article is to substantiate mechanisms for using artificial intelligence in the preparation of management decisions in public administration and to develop a risk-oriented model for its institutional implementation based on legal admissibility, data quality, human control, documentation, audit and post-implementation monitoring. The methodological basis of the study combines systemic, institutional, comparative legal, logical-analytical and content-analytical approaches. The source base includes documents of the OECD, the European Union, the Council of Europe, UNESCO and NIST, Ukrainian regulatory and strategic acts, materials of the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, as well as recent academic studies on artificial intelligence in the public sector, algorithmic accountability, explainability, automated decision-making and public sector competences. The article systematizes the functions of artificial intelligence in decision preparation, identifies the main risks of algorithmisation, characterizes international and Ukrainian regulatory guidelines, and proposes a step-by-step mechanism for using artificial intelligence in a public authority. It is substantiated that the most defensible model for public administration is one in which artificial intelligence performs analytical, predictive and auxiliary functions, whereas the final authoritative decision, its reasoning and responsibility for consequences remain with an authorized public official. The practical significance of the article lies in forming an applied framework for designing, assessing and auditing AI solutions in Ukraine’s GovTech environment.
References
1. OECD. (2025). Governing with artificial intelligence: The state of play and way forward in core government functions. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en
2. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
3. Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 225. https://rm.coe.int/1680afb20c
4. UNESCO. (2022). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385082
5. Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
6. Kabinet Ministriv Ukrainy. (2020). Pro skhvalennia Kontseptsii rozvytku shtuchnoho intelektu v Ukraini [On approval of the Concept for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine] (Regulations No. 1556-r of December 2, 2020). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/1556-2020-%D1%80 (in Ukrainian)
7. Kabinet Ministriv Ukrainy. (2024). Pro skhvalennia Stratehii tsyfrovoho rozvytku innovatsiinoi diialnosti Ukrainy na period do 2030 roku ta zatverdzhennia operatsiinoho planu zakhodiv z yii realizatsii u 2025–2027 rokakh [On approval of the Strategy for Digital Development of Innovation Activity of Ukraine until 2030 and approval of the operational action plan for its implementation in 2025–2027] (Regulations No. 1351-r of December 31, 2024). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/1351-2024-%D1%80 (in Ukrainian)
8. Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2024). White Paper on Artificial Intelligence Regulation in Ukraine: Vision of the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. https://storage.thedigital.gov.ua/files/c/fc/36c4cae89deedfbf3781ec6bceddffcc.pdf
9. Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2026). Documents. AI Unit. https://ai.thedigital.gov.ua/en/documents
10. Kabinet Ministriv Ukrainy. (2024). Pro realizatsiiu eksperymentalnoho proektu shchodo orhanizatsii provedennia doslidzhennia vysokotekhnolohichnykh zasobiv metodom Sandbox [On implementation of the experimental project for organizing research of high-tech tools using the Sandbox method] (Resolution No. 1238 of October 29, 2024). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/1238-2024-%D0%BF (in Ukrainian)
11. Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2026). Sandbox for AI and blockchain solutions. AI Unit. https://ai.thedigital.gov.ua/en/sandbox
12. Van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: Results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), Article 101714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101714
13. De Bruijn, H., Warnier, M., & Janssen, M. (2022). The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), Article 101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666
14. Mergel, I., Dickinson, H., Stenvall, J., & Gasco, M. (2024). Implementing AI in the public sector. Public Management Review, 26(2), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2231950
15. Gualdi, F., & Cordella, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence to support public sector decision-making: The emergence of entangled accountability. In I. Constantiou, M. P. Joshi, & M. Stelmaszak (Eds.), Research handbook on artificial intelligence and decision making in organizations (pp. 266–281). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803926216.00024
16. Cordella, A., & Gualdi, F. (2025). Algorithmic formalization: Impacts on administrative processes. Public Administration, 103(2), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13030
17. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483
18. Chen, Y.-C., Ahn, M. J., & Wang, Y.-F. (2023). Artificial intelligence and public values: Value impacts and governance in the public sector. Sustainability, 15(6), Article 4796. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064796
19. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241272921
20. Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102061
21. Medaglia, R., Mikalef, P., & Tangi, L. (2024). Competences and governance practices for artificial intelligence in the public sector. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/7895569
22. Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024). Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), Article 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965
23. Selten, F., Robeer, M., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). “Just like I thought”: Street-level bureaucrats trust AI recommendations if they confirm their professional judgment. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13602
24. Wang, G., Guo, Y., Zhang, W., Xie, S., & Chen, Q. (2023). What type of algorithm is perceived as fairer and more acceptable? A comparative analysis of rule-driven versus data-driven algorithmic decision-making in public affairs. Government Information Quarterly, 40(2), Article 101803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101803
25. Orlov, O. (2025). Tsyfrova etyka ta alhorytmichna prozorist: vyklyky ta metody zabezpechennia spravedlyvosti avtomatyzovanykh rishen u derzhavnomu upravlinni [Digital ethics and algorithmic transparency: Challenges and methods of ensuring fairness of automated decisions in public administration]. Aspekty publichnoho upravlinnia – Aspects of public administration, 13(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.15421/152520 (in Ukrainian)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Victor Leshchynsky