tachAId-An interactive tool supporting the design of human-centered AI solutions.

In an era where Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration into business processes is crucial for maintaining competitiveness, there is a growing need for structured guidance on designing AI solutions that align with human needs. To this end, we present "technical assistance concerning human-centered AI development" (tachAId), an interactive advisory tool which comprehensively guides AI developers and decision makers in navigating the machine learning lifecycle with a focus on human-centered design. tachAId motivates and presents concrete technical advice to ensure human-centeredness across the phases of AI development. The tool's effectiveness is evaluated through a catalog of criteria for human-centered AI in the form of relevant challenges and goals, derived from existing methodologies and guidelines. Lastly, tachAId and one other comparable advisory tool were examined to determine their adherence to these criteria in order to provide an overview of the human-centered aspects covered by these tools and to allow interested parties to quickly assess whether the tools meet their needs.

Configurations of human-centered AI at work: seven actor-structure engagements in organizations.

Purpose: The discourse on the human-centricity of AI at work needs contextualization. The aim of this study is to distinguish prevalent criteria of human-centricity for AI applications in the scientific discourse and to relate them to the work contexts for which they are specifically intended. This leads to configurations of actor-structure engagements that foster human-centricity in the workplace. Theoretical foundation: The study applies configurational theory to sociotechnical systems' analysis of work settings. The assumption is that different approaches to promote human-centricity coexist, depending on the stakeholders responsible for their application. Method: The exploration of criteria indicating human-centricity and their synthesis into configurations is based on a cross-disciplinary literature review following a systematic search strategy and a deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis of 101 research articles. Results: The article outlines eight criteria of human-centricity, two of which face challenges of human-centered technology development (trustworthiness and explainability), three challenges of human-centered employee development (prevention of job loss, health, and human agency and augmentation), and three challenges of human-centered organizational development (compensation of systems' weaknesses, integration of user-domain knowledge, accountability, and safety culture). The configurational theory allows contextualization of these criteria from a higher-order perspective and leads to seven configurations of actor-structure engagements in terms of engagement for (1) data and technostructure, (2) operational process optimization, (3) operators' employment, (4) employees' wellbeing, (5) proficiency, (6) accountability, and (7) interactive cross-domain design. Each has one criterion of human-centricity in the foreground. Trustworthiness does not build its own configuration but is proposed to be a necessary condition in all seven configurations. Discussion: The article contextualizes the overall debate on human-centricity and allows us to specify stakeholder-related engagements and how these complement each other. This is of high value for practitioners bringing human-centricity to the workplace and allows them to compare which criteria are considered in transnational declarations, international norms and standards, or company guidelines.