Conceptual framework proposes integration of AI governance, safety, and human-machine interaction for digital transformation.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly transforming service systems, organizational operations, and digital transformation initiatives. However, the successful adoption of AI requires organizations to address critical challenges relating to governance, safety, transparency, accountability, and human oversight. Existing research has largely examined AI Governance, AI Safety, and Human–Machine Interaction as separate domains, resulting in limited understanding of their combined influence on intelligent service systems. This study proposes the Trustworthy Intelligent Service Systems (TISS) Framework, a conceptual model that integrates AI Governance, AI Safety, and Human–Machine Interaction to support trustworthy AI deployment and sustainable digital transformation. Drawing upon literature from Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems, Service Management, and Digital Transformation, the framework conceptualizes governance mechanisms, safety controls, and human-centered interaction as interdependent organizational capabilities that collectively influence intelligent service systems. The paper contributes to the growing body of knowledge on Trustworthy AI by providing an integrated socio-technical perspective that links responsible AI deployment with organizational resilience, service quality, innovation capability, and long-term sustainability. In addition, the study develops a future research agenda that extends toward AI-driven Decision Support Systems (AI-DSS) and intelligent service management. The proposed framework provides practical insights for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and organizations seeking to balance technological innovation with ethical responsibility and stakeholder trust in increasingly complex digital environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Firdaus Ismail Malek (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: