How can companies handle paradoxes to enhance trust in artificial intelligence solutions? A qualitative research

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Journal of Organizational Change Management Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1108/jocm-01-2023-0026
Zoltán Bakonyi
{"title":"How can companies handle paradoxes to enhance trust in artificial intelligence solutions? A qualitative research","authors":"Zoltán Bakonyi","doi":"10.1108/jocm-01-2023-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeExploring trust's impact on AI project success. Companies can't leverage AI without employee trust. While analytics features like speed and precision can build trust, they may also lower it during implementation, leading to paradoxes. This study identifies these paradoxes and proposes strategies to manage them.Design/methodology/approachThis paper applies a grounded theory approach based on 35 interviews with senior managers, users, and implementers of analytics solutions of large European companies.FindingsIt identifies seven paradoxes, namely, knowledge substitution, task substitution, domain expert, time, error, reference, and experience paradoxes and provides some real-life examples of managing them.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitations of this paper include its focus on machine learning projects from the last two years, potentially overlooking longer-term trends. The study's micro-level perspective on implementation projects may limit broader insights, and the research primarily examines European contexts, potentially missing out on global perspectives. Additionally, the qualitative methodology used may limit the generalizability of findings. Finally, while the paper identifies trust paradoxes, it does not offer an exhaustive exploration of their dynamics or quantitative measurements of their strength.Practical implicationsSeveral tactics to tackle trust paradoxes in AI projects have been identified, including a change roadmap, data “load tests”, early expert involvement, model descriptions, piloting, plans for machine-human cooperation, learning time, and a backup system. Applying these can boost trust in AI, giving organizations an analytical edge.Social implicationsThe AI-driven digital transformation is inevitable; the only question is whether we will lead, participate, or fall behind. This paper explores how organizations can adapt to technological changes and how employees can leverage AI to enhance efficiency with minimal disruption.Originality/valueThis paper offers a theoretical overview of trust in analytics and analyses over 30 interviews from real-life analytics projects, contributing to a field typically dominated by statistical or anecdotal evidence. It provides practical insights with scientific rigour derived from the interviews and the author's nearly decade-long consulting career.","PeriodicalId":47958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Change Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Change Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-01-2023-0026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeExploring trust's impact on AI project success. Companies can't leverage AI without employee trust. While analytics features like speed and precision can build trust, they may also lower it during implementation, leading to paradoxes. This study identifies these paradoxes and proposes strategies to manage them.Design/methodology/approachThis paper applies a grounded theory approach based on 35 interviews with senior managers, users, and implementers of analytics solutions of large European companies.FindingsIt identifies seven paradoxes, namely, knowledge substitution, task substitution, domain expert, time, error, reference, and experience paradoxes and provides some real-life examples of managing them.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitations of this paper include its focus on machine learning projects from the last two years, potentially overlooking longer-term trends. The study's micro-level perspective on implementation projects may limit broader insights, and the research primarily examines European contexts, potentially missing out on global perspectives. Additionally, the qualitative methodology used may limit the generalizability of findings. Finally, while the paper identifies trust paradoxes, it does not offer an exhaustive exploration of their dynamics or quantitative measurements of their strength.Practical implicationsSeveral tactics to tackle trust paradoxes in AI projects have been identified, including a change roadmap, data “load tests”, early expert involvement, model descriptions, piloting, plans for machine-human cooperation, learning time, and a backup system. Applying these can boost trust in AI, giving organizations an analytical edge.Social implicationsThe AI-driven digital transformation is inevitable; the only question is whether we will lead, participate, or fall behind. This paper explores how organizations can adapt to technological changes and how employees can leverage AI to enhance efficiency with minimal disruption.Originality/valueThis paper offers a theoretical overview of trust in analytics and analyses over 30 interviews from real-life analytics projects, contributing to a field typically dominated by statistical or anecdotal evidence. It provides practical insights with scientific rigour derived from the interviews and the author's nearly decade-long consulting career.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
企业如何处理悖论以增强对人工智能解决方案的信任?定性研究
目的探索信任对人工智能项目成功的影响。没有员工的信任,公司就无法利用人工智能。虽然速度和精度等分析功能可以建立信任,但它们也可能在实施过程中降低信任度,从而导致悖论。本研究确定了这些悖论,并提出了管理这些悖论的策略。本文基于对欧洲大型公司分析解决方案的高级经理、用户和实施者进行的 35 次访谈,采用了基础理论方法。研究结果本文确定了七种悖论,即知识替代、任务替代、领域专家、时间、错误、参考和经验悖论,并提供了一些管理这些悖论的真实案例。研究局限性/影响本文的局限性包括其重点关注过去两年的机器学习项目,可能忽略了更长期的趋势。本研究从微观层面审视实施项目,可能会限制更广泛的见解,而且本研究主要考察欧洲背景,可能会忽略全球视角。此外,所使用的定性方法可能会限制研究结果的普遍性。最后,虽然本文确定了信任悖论,但并未对其动态进行详尽的探讨,也未对其强度进行量化测量。实践意义本文确定了解决人工智能项目中信任悖论的几种策略,包括变革路线图、数据 "负载测试"、早期专家参与、模型描述、试点、机器与人类合作计划、学习时间和备份系统。社会影响人工智能驱动的数字化转型是不可避免的,唯一的问题是我们是要引领、参与还是落后。本文探讨了组织如何适应技术变革,以及员工如何利用人工智能提高效率,同时将干扰降到最低。原创性/价值本文从理论上概述了分析中的信任问题,并分析了 30 多份来自真实分析项目的访谈,为这个通常由统计或传闻证据主导的领域做出了贡献。它提供了具有科学严谨性的实用见解,这些见解来自访谈和作者近十年的咨询生涯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.60%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: ■Adapting strategic planning to the need for change ■Leadership research ■Responsibility for change implementation and follow-through ■The psychology of change and its effect on the workforce ■TQM - will it work in your organization? Successful organizations respond intelligently to factors which precipitate change. Economic climates, political trends, changes in consumer demands, management policy or structure, employment levels and financial resources - all these elements are constantly at play to ensure that organizations clinging on to static structures will ultimately lose out. But change is a dynamic and alarming thing - this journal addresses how to manage it positively.
期刊最新文献
Developing and validating a scale for entrepreneurial marketing orientations: EMICO framework and its impact on business performance in startups School principals’ resistance to change: a multilevel analysis of individual factors and contextual conditions A systematic literature review on the network perspective and resource interaction: where are we now and where should we go? “I am served by a Robot!”: internal antecedents of customer acceptance of robotic hotel-service agents How can companies handle paradoxes to enhance trust in artificial intelligence solutions? A qualitative research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1