The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 20 of the 48 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
The human-centered AI approach posits a future in which the work done by humans and machines will become ever more interactive and integrated. This article takes human-centered AI one step further. It argues that the integration of human and machine intelligence is achievable only if human organizations—not just individual human workers—are kept “in the loop.” We support this argument with evidence of two case studies in the area of predictive maintenance, by which we show how organizational practices are needed and shape the use of AI/ML. Specifically, organizational processes and outputs such as decision-making workflows, etc. directly influence how AI/ML affects the workplace, and they are crucial for answering our first and second research questions, which address the pre-conditions for keeping humans in the loop and for supporting continuous and reliable functioning of AI-based socio-technical processes. From the empirical cases, we extrapolate a concept of “keeping the organization in the loop” that integrates four different kinds of loops: AI use, AI customization, AI-supported original tasks, and taking contextual changes into account. The analysis culminates in a systematic framework of keeping the organization in the loop look based on interacting organizational practices.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that human-centered AI must be extended to keep the organization—not just individual workers—in the loop, because organizational practices shape how AI/ML affects work. Using two predictive-maintenance case studies, it derives four organizational loops and a framework of six interacting practice categories.
Key findings
- The authors identify six organizational categories needed for AI/ML embedding in predictive maintenance: leadership and HR as enablers; decision-making about AI outcome; coordination of original tasks supported with AI; coordinating with the external world; dealing with changes; and evolving the AI system.
- They extrapolate four loops: UA-tasks (using and assessing AI output), CA-tasks (customizing the AI system), O-tasks (original tasks supported with AI), and C-tasks (contextual changes and factors in relation to AI).
- Case A involved a German car manufacturer’s chassis manufacturing division with 1,500 employees; four interviews in 2017 yielded 77 specific challenges for PM integration. Case B involved an automotive factory with around 15,000 employees; the sociological study included 28 qualitative interviews, several workplace observations, four group discussions, and six feedback workshops.
- The paper answers RQ1–RQ3 by arguing that keeping humans in the loop depends mainly on organizational practices, that reliable AI functioning requires continuous handling of external world and changes, and that a systematic framework must synchronize the four loops rather than treat organizational measures as isolated.
Methods
- Interdisciplinary reanalysis of two qualitative case studies of AI/ML-based predictive maintenance in the German automotive industry: Case A was a bottom-up PM implementation studied from business informatics, with four interviews and company documentation; Case B was a top-down Industry 4.0 case studied sociologically, with 28 qualitative interviews, workplace observations, four group discussions, and six feedback workshops.
- Interviews were transcribed and content-analyzed; the authors jointly re-examined both case materials through a cross-disciplinary re-interpretation combining business informatics and sociology.
- The analysis grouped challenges into six organizational categories and developed two general models: four intertwined loops of organizational practices and a schematic framework of tasks, actors, and interacting organizational practices.
Limitations
- The paper does not state a formal limitations section.
- Evident from the text: the findings are based on two predictive-maintenance cases in the automotive sector, one bottom-up and one top-down, so generalization to other sectors and AI applications is limited; the medical image analysis example is described as deliberately tentative.
- Evident from the text: the study reanalyzes existing case material originally collected for different research questions and disciplines, and the literature review notes a broader lack of reliable organizational-level data and qualitative case studies on AI use.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
92 Own interpretation · 35 No basis given · 12 Own result · 10 Partly supported · 10 No full text of the sources · 5 Supported · 4 Sources not found · 2 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The necessity of dealing with power relationships in organizations is mostly neglected in AI-related discourses (Ren 2019;Vallas and Hill 2012).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Ren 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Literature review (page unavailable) says existing research already examines institutions, interests, and power in organizational technology adoption; it argues instead that efficiency and organizational performance have received too little attention. The paper discusses technology adoption generally, not AI-related discourse specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallas and Hill 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, the more highly developed concepts of”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.1.1 The human as a gap-filler
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dellermann et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3, “Hybrid Intelligence,” argues that humans and machines will collaborate continuously and describes hybrid intelligence as a likely division of labor for years or decades. That supports a long-term human role in hybrid intelligence, but the paper does not establish the same claim for responsible AI as a distinct concept. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koch and Oulasvirta 2018 source
- Check pendingcites Schiff et al. 2020 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Trust in AI is also rather a question of collaboratively negotiated assessment of the performance of an AI system as a consequence of organizational practices that eventually lead to networked trust (Andras et al. 2018).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Andras et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Levels of Trust and Networks and levels of Trust sections (pages not provided) describe trust spreading through peers and being delegated to firms and institutions. The Operationalizing social trust through game theory section also describes using ratings and past behavior to judge an AI system. These passages support networked trust and assessment of behavior, but do not establish the claimed process of collaboratively negotiating a performance assessment through organizational practices. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Whenever the key actors of an organization negotiate who is authorized (4.1 & 4.3) to modify the AI system and to what extent modification is to be undertaken, dimensions of power and control are on the table (Kellogg et al. 2020;Ren 2019;Vallas and Hill 2012).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kellogg et al. 2020 source
- Partly supportedcites Ren 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion and discussion section (page unavailable) describes bargaining among decision-makers and staff over technology-adoption decisions, with greater uncertainty leaving more political room for negotiation. Task legitimacy (page unavailable) also links authority over implementation to organizational power. The paper studies ERP adoption, however, and does not address who is authorized to modify an AI system or how extensively the system may be modified. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallas and Hill 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Continuously interwoven explanation of AI behavior and exploratory adaptation can improve both AI and human learning (Holstein et al. 2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Holstein et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conceptual Framework section (page unavailable) describes co-learning in which humans and AI help one another improve over time. Decision Augmentation (page unavailable) discusses AI support for human professional development and human feedback that helps AI learn. The copy does not support the more specific claim that continuously interwoven explanations of AI behavior and exploratory adaptation produce those improvements. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Explainability is a prerequisite of AI customization, but an explanation is not only the result of algorithmic support (Adadi and Berrada 2018;Mueller et al. 2019).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Adadi and Berrada 2018 source
- Supportedcites Mueller et al. 2019 source
The Introduction (p. 69) says explanation in XAI may involve a co-adaptive dialogue between the user and the system. Section 7 likewise describes explaining as a collaborative process involving the user and the system, supporting the claim that explanation is not solely an algorithmic output. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Explainability is a prerequisite of AI customization, but an explanation is not only the result of algorithmic support (Adadi and Berrada 2018;Mueller et al. 2019).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Adadi and Berrada 2018 source
- Partly supportedcites Mueller et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The study summary on pp. 179–180 describes explanations that help users understand and correct an AI system, supporting a link between explainability and user-directed changes. It does not establish that explainability is a prerequisite for AI customization generally; the Introduction (p. 57) instead discusses customizing explanations for users. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The training and socialization for this kind of AI-related collaboration cannot be reduced to interaction with a”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Makarius et al. 2020 source
Section 4.1 recommends formal training before AI implementation, including reskilling and resources to help employees navigate onboarding. Section 4.2 also describes managers clarifying roles, tasks, and expectations during socialization. Together, these support the point that preparation for AI collaboration extends beyond interacting with the AI itself; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites Seeber et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Institution design passages treat education, training, human collaboration capabilities, and organizational capabilities as distinct design questions, supporting the idea that preparation involves more than interaction with an AI. But the paper frames these as research questions; it does not specifically discuss socialization or establish that training and socialization cannot be reduced to such interaction. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Therefore, the processes of socialization into procedures of interacting with AI applications cannot be limited to onboarding (Cai et al. 2019b;Makarius et al. 2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cai et al. 2019b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Makarius et al. 2020 source
Section 4 says socialization helps whenever roles, tasks, or job contexts change, and that AI systems with learning components must undergo socialization to adapt their procedures. The paper’s framework also includes employee learning as part of AI’s full assimilation, supporting the point that socialization is not limited to onboarding. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Avoiding misplaced trust in AI results is not essentially a technical challenge (Okamura and Yamada 2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Okamura and Yamada 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes misplaced trust as a failure to calibrate users’ trust to an AI agent’s reliability, and the Conclusion reports that cognitive cues helped participants recover from over-trust. Neither passage says that avoiding misplaced trust is not essentially a technical challenge; the paper also proposes a detection framework and user-interface intervention. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 96
- It may state two separate claims as one. 46
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is no reason this idea could not apply also to the meso level, i.e., to the organization in which AI is applied.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Rahwan (2018) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 (p. 3) introduces society-in-the-loop as a way to embed society’s values in oversight of AI with broad societal implications. It does not propose applying the framework at the meso level of an organization; that extension is the citing author’s inference. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, maintenance workers' knowledge and experience is of widely underappreciated value for the successful introduction of ML-based maintenance systems (Pfeiffer 2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Pfeiffer 2020 source
The Abstract identifies predictive maintenance as a field studied and concludes that workers have underestimated potential for successful AI/ML implementation. Section 4 explains that workers’ knowledge of the application context is needed for robust, productive use of AI/ML in these settings. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“There as yet hardly any reliable data on the use of AI from an organizational perspective; even quantitative data with regard to AI at the”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.3 AI and organization: missing links, blind spots, and some hope
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Seamans and Raj 2018 source
Section 3 says data on AI adoption and use are scarce and that no public datasets cover AI adoption at either the macro or micro level. Section 2 notes that some firm-level survey data exist but are not publicly accessible, supporting the claim of a firm-level research gap. Page numbers are not provided in our copy's passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Performance legitimacy, task legitimacy, and value legitimacy are of particular importance for the successful adaptation of new technologies, they have to be established and negotiated in organizational practices (Ren 2019).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.3 AI and organization: missing links, blind spots, and some hope
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ren 2019 source
The 'Three forms of intra-organizational legitimacy for technology' section identifies performance, task, and value legitimacy as the framework for technology adoption. The 'Conclusion and discussion' describes how organizational members change legitimacy in practice and how implementation leaves room for negotiation, supporting the claim that these forms matter and are worked out within organizations. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“But again, this evaluation has to be organized with respect to the effects on O-tasks.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.3 Interplay 3: between AI-related management activities and the original tasks
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ren 2019 source
The Performance legitimacy section says assessment centers on whether a technology improves organizational efficiency and reduces costs. The relationship-and-comparison section ties that assessment to organizational objectives and performance goals. The paper discusses technology generally rather than AI specifically, and defines performance legitimacy as a subjective assessment of those effects. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“To develop an interaction between 4.1 and 4.2, a complementary combination of human and AI strengths is to be pursued (Dellermann et al. 2019;Jarrahi 2018).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dellermann et al. 2019 source
Section 2.3 says hybrid intelligence aims to combine the complementary strengths of human intelligence and AI, directly supporting the attributed principle. The reference to developing an interaction between “4.1 and 4.2” is the citing authors’ application of that principle, not a separate finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jarrahi 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some changes result from external factors (4a) that include the societal context (Rahwan 2018), others usually include aspects of inter-organizational collaboration (Campion et al. 2020) with an ecology of external partners.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Rahwan 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Rahwan says broad societal values should guide the monitoring of AI systems (Section 6.1, p. 6), and that public-shaped norms should influence how their performance is measured (Section 7.5, p. 8). This supports societal context as an influence on changes to AI governance, but does not establish the broader claim that changes generally result from external factors. The inter-organizational collaboration clause is attributed to another citation, not Rahwan. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Supportedcites Campion et al. 2020 source
The citation is attached to the sentence’s inter-organizational collaboration point, not its separate claim about societal context. The Introduction identifies challenges of interorganizational collaboration as a focus, and “The case study” describes a university partnering with two county councils to adopt AI tools. The phrase “ecology of external partners” is the citing authors’ framing of those partnerships. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The survey method and the selection of the interviewees were based on approaches from the German sociology of work tradition (Pfeiffer et al. 2019).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Pfeiffer et al. 2019 source
Section 2, “Method and factory studied” (page not provided), explicitly says that the survey method and selection of interviewees were based on approaches from the sociology of work, namely the company case study and innovation process analysis. This supports the attributed methodological point. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We support this argument with evidence of two case studies in the area of predictive maintenance, by which we show how organizational practices are needed and shape the use of AI/ML.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > Abstract
boosteddirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For every domain of AI application, activities and the strengths needed to accomplish them have to be analyzed in the context of organizational practices.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, the plant operator was the main addressee of PM notifications, discussions and evaluations of warnings, malfunctions, and false alarms by the PM system and according reactions were object of team meetings on the shopfloor.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“From the interviews 77 specific challenges for PM integration were derived (Herrmann 2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Herrmann 2020 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the moment when the PM system issues a notification, an employee has to decide what to do about it and how to integrate the response into routine maintenance tasks.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2 Decision-making about AI outcome
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PM systems can make bad recommendations.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.2 Dealing with the shortcomings of AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In case A, a plant operator who is authorized to accept a notification is responsible for the coordination of its complete handling.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.2 Collaborative decisions about AI-initiated tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, we identified four intertwined loops of interacting organizational practices of collaborative task handling and compiled a detailed schematic of tasks, actors, and interacting organizational practices that we expect to find in most AI-using organizations.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 6 Conclusion
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That means that not every PM notification initiates a separate workflow, because coupling with other maintenance steps also takes place.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.3 Reflection of context and interdependencies with other maintenance activities
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maintenance processes are integrated into a network of actors from outside the company, with whom constant coordination must occur.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4 Coordinating with the external world
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the first things that happens is that the PM message is forwarded to others who should know about it.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.1 Workflows and tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doing the repair work is usually not a job for one individual, and the plant operator has to check the availability of the others involved, their capabilities, the availability of replacement parts, the availability of tools, etc.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.3 Involving others in maintenance work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even practitioners in leadership positions within organizations tend to involve the organization and its experts from the various organizational contexts too little or too late when implementing AI systems.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 6 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if the plant operator solves the problem indicated by the PM system directly, additional specialists may have to get involved.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.3 Involving others in maintenance work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All in all, this coordination can possibly include complex negotiations, for example if a works council has to be involved because the repair work needs to be scheduled for a weekend or requires unplanned overtime.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.3 Involving others in maintenance work
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even already-implemented PM systems are in continuous need of intervening action of varying degrees of urgency and with varyingly serious consequences (planned production downtimes, ordering expensive spare parts, etc.).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.1 Aligning roles and people to PM-related tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When analyzing the data of both case studies from the perspective of embedding ML/AI within complex business organizations, we grouped the challenges and problems found into six categories where AI/ML use within PM requires or affects specific organizational practices.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4 Case study findings: organizational embeddedness of AI in predictive maintenance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A basic kind of coordination, which has to be clarified both generally and in particular situations, takes place between internal maintenance and the external providers of plant and equipment.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4.1 Regulation of access from outside: when, who, and what
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Employees may also have good reasons for not following the PM system's recommendation in certain situations, e.g., for an experimental handling of assumed false positive PM notifications.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.2 Dealing with the shortcomings of AI
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Predictive maintenance (PM) is considered to be one of the most important AI applications for Industry 4.0 (Garcia et al. 2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Garcia et al. 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It may not be surprising that engineering disciplines tend to leave organizational factors out of their equations, but also social sciences and management studies focus strongly on the”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.2 AI and organization in the social sciences and in management studies
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previous studies on the application of machine learning in the field of maintenance are predominantly focused on concepts for a future application or on the prediction of possible effects on the level of work.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the industry is highly automated and has been very active in the field of Industry 4.0 since the beginning, so there is already a lot of digital data with relevance for maintenance here.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A McKinsey study pointed to predictive maintenance as one of the most economically lucrative use cases for AI and ML, valuing it at 0.5-0.7 trillion USD (Chui et al. 2018, p. 21).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chui et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both studies impressively demonstrate the consequences for the organization and its members, but they leave open to a large extent which organizational embedding would be the prerequisite for satisfactorily functioning and error-robust applications in this context and how they should be organized.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.3 AI and organization: missing links, blind spots, and some hope
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Predictive maintenance is largely understood as an application of AI and machine learning, with organizational approaches slipping into the background in favor of datadriven, technical measures.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the empirical cases, we extrapolate a concept of”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > Abstract
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the integration of this new, dynamically changing technology into the complex organizational structures around all processes of maintenance play a marginal role.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, even when the organization is seen as more than just another context, the focus lies on the initial integration of AI and not on organizing AI and human development over long periods of time (RQ2).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.3 AI and organization: missing links, blind spots, and some hope
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the organizational practices required to realize benefits from these solutions are not extensively discussed within these approaches.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.1.2 Supporting the development of human strengths and competences
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Socio-technical design emphasizes the relevance of the organization and argues that the dimensions of human individuals, technology, and organization should be integrated (Baxter and Sommerville 2011;Eason 1989;Kirsch et al. 1995;Mumford 2006).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“We suggest that the intertwinement between both and its evolution are the most crucial challenges of sociotechnical design (Fischer and Herrmann 2015;Herrmann et al. 2021).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Originally, AI design includes aspects of replacing humans with machines, and there is a still-growing literature that identifies tasks that can be or will likely be automated (Brynjolfsson and Mitchell 2017).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.1.1 The human as a gap-filler
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brynjolfsson and Mitchell 2017 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both case studies took place in a similar data collection period and in the same industry, but deliberately contrast in two respects: (a) in the size of the plants studied and (b) in the disciplinary access as originally, case study A was researched from the perspective and with the methods of business informatics and case study B from the perspective and with the methods of sociology.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is also a dearth of qualitative case studies, which are necessary to reveal how organizations integrate AI in practice.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.3 AI and organization: missing links, blind spots, and some hope
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overlooked are the multiple layers between these micro and macro views: the meso level of organizations, institutions, networks, communities, processes, and agreements in which (any) use of technology is (and must be) decided, realized, concretized, micromanaged, and processed as well as changed and developed on a daily basis:”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.2 AI and organization in the social sciences and in management studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, the relationship between management and employees is particularly relevant but rarely addressed in AI research.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.2.3 AI and organization: missing links, blind spots, and some hope
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these authors do not consider the fact that humans are involved not only in human-machine loops but are also simultaneously engaged in organizational”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.1.1 The human as a gap-filler
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that explanations of the background of decisions proposed by AI do not only help improve a single instance of task handling but contributes to an overall understanding of the functioning of AI and its potentials and limits, and thus promote the development of users' competences when dealing with AI and the related tasks.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 2.1.2 Supporting the development of human strengths and competences
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While all kinds of complex technologies (such as ERP-systems, telecommunication infrastructure etc.) might benefit from the concept of keeping the organization in the loop, AI in its current and prospective stages of development represents one of the clearest challenges to be met by this concept.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 1 Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, a large set of organizational measures is needed to deal with AI-related shortcomings and to engage in quality assurance and continuous improvement.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most important, the interplay (1c) between handling an AI outcome and the carrying out of original tasks to be supported or triggered by this outcome has to be coordinated.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experiments and interventions can be risky and have to be authorized by the organization (2b).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Since AI is not based on conventional algorithms that could be tested with respect to complete knowledge about its internal structure, the quality of AI outcome has to be checked against its value for repeatedly handling the series of original tasks (maintaining of machinery in the case of PM).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.1 Not one but four organizational loops
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is particularly true for ML-based AI that draws on underlying training data and where every usage of AI produces new data that is potentially relevant for (re-)training.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.1 Not one but four organizational loops
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These human decisions can later prove to be bad or can lead to quality losses, high costs, or even legal liability problems.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.2 Dealing with the shortcomings of AI
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using and evolving AI of refining AI results is not mainly a question of HCI design (Cai et al. 2019a).It is a challenge for the entire organization.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cai et al. 2019a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameters of the PM system at the time the defective part was produced may have to be reconstructed weeks later.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.5.2 Tracing the causes of problems
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“b) Interactions in the organization should be investigated continuously, not just during AI rollout.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5 Discussion: keeping the organization in the loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The organization has to decide who is in charge of continuous quality assurance for PM and who is responsible for and has the permission to modify the PM system.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.6.1 Organizational procedures of improvements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An elaborated handling of PM notifications and the problem that generated them will include a reflection and understanding of their underlying causes (see Sect. 4.5.2) and a consideration of possible dependencies with other material and technical facts as well as relations to other ongoing or prescheduled maintenance work.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.3 Reflection of context and interdependencies with other maintenance activities
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This interplay supposes management and workers have to decide which subset of a larger set of original tasks will be supported by AI.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.3 Interplay 3: between AI-related management activities and the original tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The complex question of who is allowed to decide, initiate, order, or remedy what AI-provided decision, whether alone or with others, and at what level has to be resolved in the context of a PM system time and again.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.1 Aligning roles and people to PM-related tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A distinction must be made between situational versus general coordination requirements.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4 Coordinating with the external world
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead these have to instill organizational readiness for ongoing change and learning.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These four loops, derived from our empirical findings, refer to task handling that: 1) directly deals with AI (UA-tasks, loop 1) using and assessing the outcome of AI and includes steps of refining the outcome or experimenting with it, 2) directly deals with AI (CA-tasks, loop 2) by contributing to the evolution of the AI system based on its customization and improvement, 3) exist before AI usage”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.1 Not one but four organizational loops
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coordination with external partners is an ongoing task.It is not only necessary when implementing the PM system, but also in the case where external relations change (change of supplier, changed supplier evaluation, etc.) and, if necessary, also in case of the frequent changes in MLbased PM itself.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4.2 Various and varying external influences to be addressed
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, PM necessitates two types of maintenance, and also the second type of maintenance is surrounded by organizational roles and procedures.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.6 Evolving the PM system
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In implementing AI, the more technically oriented operational departments and HR administrators (who usually have little technical expertise) need to cooperate more than usual.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1 Leadership and human resources as enablers of AI/ML deployment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including AI into the realm of original tasks requires changes of the rights and duties of roles to be included (3a) and of the workflows to be coordinated (3b).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.3 Interplay 3: between AI-related management activities and the original tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, explainability is just another technical feature, not a quality of ML alone.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.6.3 Explainability and accountability as organizational challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is an ongoing endeavor, continuously triggered by the need to deal with changes (4.5) and by the interplay (2c) with the fulfillment of O-Tasks as an indicator of the quality of AI outcome.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every decision regarding how an anticipated problem has to be dealt with and how the upcoming tasks are handled and assigned has to be coordinated with upstream and downstream organizational functions and/or departments because of possible consequences concerning economic questions, technical issues, questions about the stream of material, productivity or quality, etc.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.2 Involving an ecology of the roles involved
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Necessary changes can be supported by the internal project team, but external partners can help in understanding the limitations and opportunities of the AI application as well as the potential for further evolution (4b).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a PM system is introduced, time management, the management of topics, their prioritization, and the subsequent documentation work have to be reorganized for running these meetings, and it has to be determined how far aspects such as prioritization become a matter of AI when its data-based capacities will increase over time.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.2 Collaborative decisions about AI-initiated tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We consider the customization of the AI system (CA-tasks) as an ongoing challenge.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These are similar to the company-case-study method more often used in international research (Yin 2008).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 3 Predictive maintenance: case description and methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yin 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the event of a malfunction, which kinds of problems can be fixed internally and which ones require calling in an external service must be clarified.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4.1 Regulation of access from outside: when, who, and what
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the organization has to decide who is authorized to deal with the PM messages (see Sect. 4.3).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.1 Responsibilities, duties, and rights
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“How the workforce deals with the outcome of an AI system is not only a matter of HCI but of complex, collaborative decisions (Fig. 2, 4.2) that need ongoing coordination (Fig. 2, 4.3).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(3) Not only AI usage produces potential training data for ML but also its context.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.1 Not one but four organizational loops
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• RQ2: Continuous ensuring of the functioning of AIbased socio-technical systems requires dealing with the external world (4.4) and with changes (4.5) to understand how the evolution of AI is coordinated (4.3) with respect to the contextually triggered dynamics of original tasks.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under the condition of AI usage, all of these organizational procedures have to set under consideration that they are triggered by more or less reliable forecasts that can become obsolete after a procedure has been started.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.2 Involving an ecology of the roles involved
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collecting examples-as a kind of a knowledge-management environmentis an organizational task involving a variety of people, procedures, responsibilities, and decisions.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.6.3 Explainability and accountability as organizational challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contextually produced data can permanently be used for new training cycles and it is more about organizational than technical questions about whether, when, and with which data the re-training will take place.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.1 Not one but four organizational loops
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the organizational processing and embedding of PM is anything but a self-starter.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1 Leadership and human resources as enablers of AI/ML deployment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Against this backdrop, it seems clear that “keeping the human in the loop” in any organization that uses AI involves a variety of interactions on many levels, both between humans and machines and among humans in different organizational roles.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5 Discussion: keeping the organization in the loop
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This applies particularly to the realm of AI and machine learning, too, where organizational practices have to accompany the continuing need and potential for improving AI based on new data that emerge by taskhandling and contextual changes.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 6 Conclusion
plainconditionaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the organization has to make sure that these rules are known and accepted by the employees dealing with PM notifications and by all employees in the organizational loops within which this decision-making is embedded.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.5 Complying with organizational rules
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A typical phenomenon to be accounted for in socio-technical design is that organizational practices and technology continuously co-evolve and have to be continuously aligned.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 6 Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“An AI result may not be considered when performing O-tasks, even if it is potentially relevant-this is a broader requirement than the approach of implementing the technical ability to veto as proposed by Rakova et al. (2020).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.3 Interplay 3: between AI-related management activities and the original tasks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rakova et al. (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The schema presented in Fig. 2 shows how each of the six categories identified and discussed in Sect. 4 mutually interact.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2 Schematic representation of organizational aspects of AI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• RQ3: A systematic framework of keeping the organization in the loop when applying AI has to acknowledge the interplay of organizational practices instead of regarding them as isolated measures.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This promotion has to acknowledge the value of developing human competence in dealing with AI and seek to protect the experiential property of the workers that is used and developed during decisionmaking with (4.2) and customization of AI (4.6).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This interplay has to be adjusted in a way that keeps the four loops displayed in Fig. 1 synchronized.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, for example, defective parts produced on the equipment are returned at a later date, it must be legally clarified whether the cause of the defect lay with the parts manufacturer, the equipment manufacturer, or the supplier of the PM system.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.5.2 Tracing the causes of problems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all successive decision-making after a PM warning and in its context, organizational rules have to be specified and conventions have to be established.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.5 Complying with organizational rules
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This necessity will not disappear after PM implementation.Rather, the way the interplay with the external world is managed will change and will face new challenges.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4 Coordinating with the external world
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this to occur, it must be promoted by the interplay (2a) between coordination and HR.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.2 Interplay 2: between the tasks to be supported and the preparation and coordination of AI customization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the realm of the O-tasks, extending the level of AI support simultaneously implies shifting control from management to technology and a redistribution of power because control over repairs is no longer in the hands of management alone but is also relegated in part to PM-driven notifications.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.3 Interplay 3: between AI-related management activities and the original tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of AI-where its quality cannot sufficiently be tested before runtime-documentation and the initiation of quality improvement is continuously necessary.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.4 Continuous improvement of AI-based PM-outcome
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Organizational practices (1a) have to provide the channels and procedures that allow negotiation and communication to take place as both can still be seen as superior human strengths (Jarrahi 2018).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.1 Interplay 1: between AI-supported tasks and the preparation and coordination of AI usage.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jarrahi 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Who has access to which data must first be clarified in general but also checked and adjusted during software updates (of the embedded system as well as of the AI/PM systems).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4.1 Regulation of access from outside: when, who, and what
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since AI plays the role of a decision-proposer, the persons addressed must have the standing and rights to oppose such a proposal; whether this is the case must be checked and determined at least once by superiors, process managers, and/or HR (see Sect. 4.1).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.1 Responsibilities, duties, and rights
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is a task of the organization that has implemented the PM system to provide the rules for these instances of decision-making, to align them with its strategies, and to continuously adapt the rules in accordance with changes in conditions and strategies.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.5 Complying with organizational rules
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specific human strengths have to be taken into account in these decisions-as described for instance by Jarrahi (2018).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.3 Interplay 3: between AI-related management activities and the original tasks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jarrahi (2018) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this purpose, maintenance contracts must be negotiated that also deal with the question of the extent to which external actors are allowed to influence AI-based PM.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4.1 Regulation of access from outside: when, who, and what
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every PM notification (or failure to appropriately notify) requires two human responses: whether the plant has to be maintained and whether the PM system itself needs to be adjusted (see Sect. 4.2).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.6 Evolving the PM system
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Leadership and human resource management (HR) are decisive factors in shaping organizational processes, supporting change, ensuring employee skill development, and enabling a learning organization-this is all the more true for embedding AI technology within organizations.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1 Leadership and human resources as enablers of AI/ML deployment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is a matter of organizational decision rules to whom and under what circumstances PM notifications can or must be forwarded.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2.1 Responsibilities, duties, and rights
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Understanding and reflecting these dynamics and diagnosing the causes of problems in the performance of the O-Tasks (4.5, tracing causes) may lead to new tasks.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a) The study of human-computer interaction has to include the organizational context.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5 Discussion: keeping the organization in the loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“d) To realize benefits from the complementary strengths of humans and AI and from fostering their coevolutionary improvement, it is not sufficient to just plug in AI technology.By contrast, it is necessary to also develop new organizational practices including organizational learning and improvement of human collaboration.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5 Discussion: keeping the organization in the loop
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PM systems based on machine learning and constantly changing learning data sets are dynamic systems, which means that completely new legal and liability challenges arise.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.5.2 Tracing the causes of problems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The outputs that enable explainability can create more explanations of PM notifications than the organization requires or can even process.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.6.3 Explainability and accountability as organizational challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“How to proceed in such cases and what consequences employees will face are questions the organization must answer (see Sect. 4.2).”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.2 Dealing with the shortcomings of AI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, new coordination requirements will likely only emerge after PM has been in use for a longer period of time.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.4 Coordinating with the external world
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond the involvement of people, the acquisition of spare parts or special tools also has to be organized.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.1 Workflows and tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Designing and improving PM systems, creating new learning queues, and deciding on new training data necessitates having qualified (or qualifiable) employees.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.1.1 Aligning roles and people to PM-related tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Procedures must be developed for this purpose that regulate how system states can be continuously documented and what to do in the event that liability has to be clarified.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.5.2 Tracing the causes of problems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If an operator decides autonomously or in communication with others that the PM messages should trigger further action, the subsequent activities have to be coordinated.”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.3.1 Workflows and tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
For every domain of AI application, activities and the strengths needed to accomplish them have to be analyzed in the context of organizational practices.
“Consequently, we assume that for every domain of AI application-such as predictive maintenance-activities and the strengths needed to accomplish them have to be analyzed in the context of organizational practices.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Organizations are subject to their own logic, integrated into complex external environments, and divided internally by competition among departments with divergent interests.
“Organizations-be they commercial enterprises or public institutions-are subject to their own logic, integrated into complex external environments, and divided internally by competition among departments with divergent interests.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Decisions, whether technically or humanly generated, must be negotiated and processed within the organization.
“No matter whether decisions are technically or humanly generated, they must be negotiated and processed within the organization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The organizational context surrounds human actors and affects the way they handle their tasks.
“This organizational context surrounds human actors and affects the way they handle their tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Predictive maintenance can have consequences not only for the organization and its members, but also for production technology, product quality, delivery reliability, etc.
“Precisely because PM can have consequences not only for the organization and its members, but also for production technology, product quality, delivery reliability, etc., we ask about the organizational conditions for this entire complex--and, also technical--system, not only for the impacts and consequences for the organization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In socio-technical systems, organizational practices and human-computer interaction are closely intertwined, shaping the roles humans play in their daily work.
“In socio-technical systems, organizational practices and human-computer interaction are closely intertwined, shaping the roles humans play in their daily work-when interacting with technology as well as within organizational practices and processes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two case studies of PM implementation provide a sufficient basis for deriving generic organizational requirements for the design of human-machine systems of AI-based systems.
“The following analysis systematically traces these organizational categories based on both case studies and then discusses the generic organizational requirements for the design of human-machine systems of AI-based systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Four feedback cycles are sufficient to ensure regulation, control, and supervision of AI-based processes.
“we argue that ensuring regulation, control, and supervision of AI-based processes needs four feedback cycles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The six organizational categories identified from the PM cases are applicable to AI/ML use in organizations generally.
“Below, we describe these categories in general terms that could also be valid for any organization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two empirical cases in predictive maintenance are representative of AI-using organizations generally.
“Based on sociological theory and two empirical cases in the field of predictive maintenance, the contribution of our study is to broaden human-centered AIdesign research by keeping the organization in the loop in analyses and design of AI use.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 5.2.4 Interplay 4: between the drivers of dealing with changes and applying or evolving AI
“decisionmaking about AI outcome (4.5) and evolving the AI sys-tem (4.6)”
§ Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence > 4.2 Decision-making about AI outcome
“## 4.2 Decision-making about AI outcome”
Citations
Cites
Case study research: design and methods
Phelan, S. (2011) · Evaluation & Research in Education · doi:10.1080/09500790.2011.582317 · Cited by 21,904
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2870052 · Cited by 6,294 · cited 2×
“Explainability is a prerequisite of AI customization, but an explanation is not only the result of algorithmic support (Adadi and Berrada 2018; Mueller et al. 2019).”
BackgroundArtificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007 · Cited by 2,772 · cited 6×
“Jarrahi describes their different strengths in decision-making, arguing that humans are better at dealing with uncertainty and equivocality (Jarrahi 2018).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAlgorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732 · cited 2×
“They also find signs of worker resistance which authors call “algoactivism” (Kellogg et al. 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialAwad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 · Cited by 1,859 · cited 1×
“Current considerations often reduce the interaction between humans and AI to a few or even single aspects, e.g., how AI decisions affect humans or the distribution of moral decision-making in the case of autonomous driving (Awad et al. 2018).”
BackgroundSocio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering
Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003 · Cited by 1,642 · cited 1×
“Socio-technical design emphasizes the relevance of the organization and argues that the dimensions of human individuals, technology, and organization should be integrated (Baxter and Sommerville 2011; Eason 1989; Kirsch et al. 1995; Mumford 2006).”
BackgroundPrinciples of mixed-initiative user interfaces
Horvitz, E. (1999) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems the CHI is the limit - CHI '99 · doi:10.1145/302979.303030 · Cited by 1,490
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y · Cited by 1,364 · cited 1×
“In engineering and computer science, the issue of machine behavior is commonly understood as an interdisciplinary task that raises ethical questions—appeals to scholars of law, humanities, and the social sciences to weigh in are common (Rahwan et al. 2019).”
BackgroundLee, M. K. (2018) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951718756684 · Cited by 1,338 · cited 1×
“Some compare, for example, the assessments of management and employees in terms of fairness, trust, and emotion (e.g., Lee 2018).”
BackgroundPredictive maintenance in the Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review
Zonta, T., da Costa, C. A., Righi, R. D. R., de Lima, M. J., da Trindade, E. S., & Li, G. P. (2020) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2020.106889 · Cited by 1,322 · cited 1×
“Predictive maintenance (PM) is defined as a “technology to recognize the condition of an equipment to identify maintenance requirements to maximize its performance” (Zonta et al. 2020, p. 49).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Davenport T, Miller S (2021) Working with smart machines: insights on the future of work. Asian Manage Insights 8(1):18–25
- Kamar E (2016) Directions in Hybrid Intelligence: Complementing AI Systems with Human Intelligence. IJCAI, 4070–4073
- Silverman K (2020) Why your board needs a plan for AI oversight. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 62(1):1–6
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–173 of 173
Qiu, Y., Tang, Z., & Luo, Y. (2023) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36014-5_7 · Cited by 1
Evolution of interaction-free usage in the wake of AI
Herrmann, T. A. (2024) · i-com · doi:10.1515/icom-2024-0005 · Cited by 1
Self-citationHuman-in-the-circular-loop (HITCL): A human-centric approach in circular economy ecosystems research
Vayona, A., Hartwell, H., Britton, J. R., & Gillingham, P. K. (2024) · International Conference on Distributed Computing in Smart Systems and the Internet of Things (DCOSS-IoT) · doi:10.1109/dcoss-iot61029.2024.00102 · Cited by 1
Singh, K. (2024) · Quality and User Experience · doi:10.1007/s41233-024-00069-8 · Cited by 1
“In the absence of a sociotechnical design, complex data-intensive computational systems, such as cyberinfrastructure, are considered ‘noisy black boxes’ where the users cannot comprehend the system [19, 56, 67].”
Shankar, L., Singh, C. D., & Singh, R. (2024) · ShodhKosh Journal of Visual and Performing Arts · doi:10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.3282 · Cited by 1
AI and Medicine: Separating Fact from Fiction in the Quest for Effective and High Quality Healthcare
Graßmann, S., & Pfeiffer, S. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45708-2_18 · Cited by 1
Self-citationImproving Housing Resilience through Disaster Knowledge Management (DKM) Assessment
Shaikh, S. (2023) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.24216768 · Cited by 1
AI in HRM: a unified model of AI capabilities and process efficiency for enhanced HRM effectiveness
Zahrani, A. A. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7685386/v1 · Cited by 5
Flores-García, E., Nam, S., Jeong, Y., Wiktorsson, M., & Woo, J. H. (2023) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43670-3_32
Toliyat, S. M. H. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4789647
AI and its role in predictive preclinical models for drug efficacy testing
Dave, R., Irfan, N., Dave, S., & Bandil, D. K. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21870-5.00015-7
Human-Machine Communication: Complete Volume. Volume 9
(2024) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.9
Tihlarik, A., Albert, B., Blinzler, R., & Röbenack, S. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45708-2_15
Between Vision and Reality: Rethinking the Role of Employees in AI-Driven Retail
Schönian, K., & Pfeiffer, S. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45708-2_16
Self-citationPfeiffer, S. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45708-2_14 · Cited by 1
Self-citationUse of Artificial Intelligence in Interdisciplinary Risk Management in Road Transport
Tubis, A. A., & Čižiūnienė, K. (2025) · Ecoproduction · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88918-9_2
Hybride Arbeit gestalten – Gestaltungsdimensionen und Handlungsfelder. Ein Strukturierungsversuch.
Hardwig, T., & Latniak, E. (2025) · Gruppe Interaktion Organisation Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) · doi:10.1007/s11612-025-00829-w
Digitize your knowledge-powered culture to double the impact of A.I.
Sayyadi, M., & Provitera, M. J. (2025) · Business Information Review · doi:10.1177/02663821251385337 · Cited by 1
Exploring the Role of Trust and Perception in AI Adoption: A South African Perspective
Cowper, R., Oosterwyk, G., & Belle, J.-P. V. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7508-1_36
Pfeiffer, S. (2025) · Fehlzeiten-Report · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-71885-8_16
Self-citationResearch Methodology and Materials
Rosa, A. (2025) · Future of business and finance · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04091-6_5
Analyse der Mensch-KI-Interaktion – Vertrauen, Akzeptanz und der Human-in-the-Loop-Ansatz
von Garrel, J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-49275-5_4
Ha, M. R., & Ali, S. (2025) · World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) · doi:10.1109/weef-gedc66748.2025.11256192
“The goals of engineering ethics education are informed by the way engineering and the ethical issues related to engineering are embedded within organizational and industry environments that add social and technical complexity to an engineer’s work (e.g. [13], [14], [15]).”
Implementation - Stage Human-Centered AI Assessment
McKay, M. H. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13184-3_5
Socio-Technical Machine Learning - Putting the User in Control
Cooray, S. (2026) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2025.2600955 · Cited by 1
Selvalakshmi, V., UmaDevi, B., Raja, S., & Ranjani, R. D. (2025) · International Conference on Smart Structures and Systems (ICSSS) · doi:10.1109/icsss66939.2025.11346239
“Firms within industries are openly adopting the use of AI to stay ahead of business performance in terms of efficiency and reduction of operational costs, so as to ensure sustainable innovation [6].”
Human-Centered Algorithms and Responsible AI in Employee Decision Making
Vinodh, N., & Subramani, A. K. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4144-6.ch013
Ziethmann, P., Stieler, F., Walter, S. K., Hartmann, D., Bauer, B., & Schlögl-Flierl, K. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-02906-0
“…in how participants constructed trust (or mistrust) in AI-supported care: if technologies are seen as embedded in a system driven by profit motives, this can undermine trust not only in the AI itself, but also in the professionals and institutions promoting its use (Herrmann and Pfeiffer 2023).”
carrera tecnológica internacional: ¿cómo afecta a México?
Casalet, M., & Stezano, F. (2026) · Perfiles Latinoamericanos · doi:10.18504/pl3467-002-2026
Human-Centered AI (HCAI): Foundations and Approaches
Xu, W. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8440-0_1-2
Zahoor, S., & Chaudhry, I. S. (2026) · Evidence-based HRM a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship · doi:10.1108/ebhrm-02-2026-0057
Bentler, D., Aksu, V., & Maier, G. W. (2026) · Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s41449-026-00526-4 · Cited by 1
Vo, B., & Quy, H. T. K. (2026) · Research in Transportation Business & Management · doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2026.101697
“I Cannot Teach it Anything”: Human-in-the-Loop AI After Deployment in Clinical Documentation
Vase, S., & Andersen, T. O. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3815172
Hoang, T. G., & Dang, T. T. T. (2026) · International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · doi:10.1108/ijssp-02-2026-0165
Organizational Practices and Socio-Technical Design of Human-Centered AI
Herrmann, T. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3658-0_66
Self-citationHuman-centric analytics: collaborative design for mathematics, AI and data-driven insights
Phillips, C. J. (2026) · IMA Journal of Management Mathematics · doi:10.1093/imaman/dpag018
Rodrigues, R. B., & Creen, C. M. (2026) · Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management · doi:10.1590/jatm.v18.1437
Flowing intelligences: Taoist and indigenous perspectives on organisational AI ethics
Sposato, M., & Dittmar, E. C. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03109-3
“Situated adaptation approaches remain underdeveloped, with insufficient attention to how implementation processes must vary across organisational cultures and contexts (Abdilla and Fitch 2017; Herrmann and Pfeiffer 2023).”
Abusaadah, L., Alias, M., & Ismail, N. (2026) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.180293.1
Gangaiah, Y. K. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Systems, and Emerging Technologies (ICAISET) · doi:10.1109/icaiset66439.2026.11541997
Wang, S., Chamikara, M. A. P., Chhetri, M. B., Xing, Z., & Ko, R. K. L. (2026) · ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS) · doi:10.1145/3779208.3807495
Modeling and Analyzing Identity-Sensitive Requirements in Human-AI Collaboration
Chung, Y. J., Bae, K. E., & Yu, E. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28117-3_4
XAI-Based Evaluation Model for Navigating Academic Ambiguity
Pathak, D. R. K., & Upadhyay, P. (2026) · International Journal of Innovations in Science Engineering and Management. · doi:10.69968/ijisem.2026v5si153-58
“In order to get around these challenges, http://ijisem.com a lot of work has been done recently to develop explainable systems, which try to make AI systems and their results comprehensible to humans [4] [5][6].”
Schönian, K., & Ayeh, D. (2026) · Journal of Organizational Ethnography · doi:10.1108/joe-07-2026-159
Mahmoud, M. H. (2026) · Industrial and Commercial Training · doi:10.1108/ict-10-2025-0133
Tariq, M. U. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5213-8.ch004
Tiwari, A., & Qaffas, Y. (2026) · Automation · doi:10.3390/automation7040122
“Operational logs, appeal and challenge procedures, periodic revalidation, data rights for affected communities [80–83] Oversight institutions; affected communities; researchers”
Working With Intelligent Systems
Nozima, D., Aarthi, S., Yulduz, S., Xidirov, N. G., Ravikumar, R. N., & Bobur, M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8282-1.ch005
Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Influencer Marketing and the Creator Economy
Balhara, N., & Gupta, N. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8084-1.ch009
Stadler, M., Brückner, A., Frisch, S., Heimann, L., & Buruck, G. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7329702
Kushvaktov, N., Ravikumar, R. N., Jumaniyazova, I., Aarthi, S., Suyunovna, B. K., & Yuldibayevna, B. G. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8377-4.ch006
Hua, J., & Lin, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/ijeis.420809
Perry, A., & Cameron, C. D. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009639057.024
Beyond efficiency: epistemic well-being at work under algorithmic governance
Salazar-Altamirano, M. A., & Ravina-Ripoll, R. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03351-9 · Cited by 1
Baik, S., Yoon, Y. H., Jo, S. J., Choi, H., & Kang, S. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14091116
Arghode, V., & Nafukho, F. M. (2026) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/15344843261488197
Human Centered Artificial Intelligence and Digital Platforms in Talent Attraction
Ghosh, S., & Kanwal, P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9599-9.ch004
Mugurusi, G., Ortova, M., Syversen, A. G., & Thomai, F. (2026) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38618-2_9
Contemporary Perspectives on AI and Neurocomputational Ethics
Harris, J., & Dubljević, V. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03169-3_10
Liu, Y. (2026) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1155/jonm/5559768
Key Concepts Regarding the Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence: A Review
ADEMIJU, O. (2026) · Journal International Review of Research Studies · doi:10.66104/724edx15
“Herrmann and Pfeiffer (2022) argue that AI systems must remain subject to human oversight to prevent the delegation of critical governance responsibilities to opaque systems.”
Kraus, J., Liebherr, M., Schnücker, G., Onnasch, L., Hein, I., Gößwein, E., Lermer, E., Thomaschewski, L., Schlicker, N., Uth, R., et al. (2026) · Psychologische Rundschau · doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000783
Reshaping Human and Organizational Resources Through Artificial Intelligence
Mitharia, R. K., Tripathi, R., & Prastyanti, R. A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9868-6.ch001
A Governance Design Framework for Human-AI Collaboration in SMEs’ Production Management
Couto, F. A. P., Malta, M. C., & Soares, A. L. (2026) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-41234-8_6
Güldenberg, S. (2026) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-07-2026-1821
Yapay Zekâ Çağında Örgütsel Davranış: Araçtan Örgütsel Aktöre
Uludağ, D. (2026) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub1551.c6301
Park, E., Chae, B. K., Lee, M., & Kim, S. (2026) · Tourism Economics · doi:10.1177/13548166261500510
Diagnosing Human–AI Fit in Mid-Market Operating Systems: A Viable-System Alignment Model
Naraločnik, A., Bertoncelj, A., Meško, M., & Bertoncel, T. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14101333
Sharma, E., & Gupta, A. (2026) · Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies · doi:10.11648/j.tecs.20261104.11
Manamperi, S. K., Peng, W., & Zhang, G. (. (2026) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2026.107320
Metadata
- Authors
- Herrmann, T., & Pfeiffer, S.
- Affiliations
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Herrmann, Thomas
- Pfeiffer, Sabine
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2022-02-18
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1523-1542
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W4213272379
- Semantic Scholar
- 4f7a26037f94f01d92cb3d84a99c8820afce5c49
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 38.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Ruhr-Universität Bochum
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
- Keywords
- human-centered AI, socio-technical systems, organizational practices, predictive maintenance, human-machine interaction, context change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
