Decision Intelligence for Regulated Enterpris
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/kq5z8680Keywords:
Adaptive Governance, Governance Intelligence, Strategic Product Decisioning, Regulatory Risk, Complex Enterprise Ecosystems .Abstract
Adaptive governance intelligence (AGI) helps organizations navigate trade-offs among speed, compliance costs, and product value, informing strategic decisions on product innovation and regulatory risk management—whether a firm takes a pace-setting or laggard role. Decision cycles coordinate decision-making across support functions and business units, promoting coherence and continuity while still allowing for adaptation. Leading firms’ choices around branding, communication, and risk management signal the expected market price of regulatory compliance, which in turn shapes incentives for other firms in the ecosystem. Taking a portfolio perspective helps organizations assess regulatory coherence (i.e., whether emerging regulation supports product innovation) and identify timing windows, high-risk regulatory sectors, and key markets to monitor and mitigate. In practice, adopting AGI faces challenges around data ingestion, integration, and quality assurance; provenance, lineage, and trust; and interoperability.
In enterprise ecosystems where strategic product decisions diffuse widely across business units, geographies, and governance types, effectively coordinating disparate perspectives is essential for managing the complexity of strategic product decisions and regulatory risk. Stakeholder networks—including interest groups, regulators, and contributing funders—define the interaction spaces in which AGI systems operate. The quality of AGI output depends on the maturity of the adaptive governance function, on coordination support from the risk precinct, and on decision processes that build stakeholder acceptance, manage regulatory approval, and anticipate risk for the finished product.
References
1. Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115.
2. Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825–836.
3. Gorle, R. (2023). Machine Learning-Based Access Risk Detection in Cloud Identity and Access Management Systems. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 241-252.
4. Krafft, T. D., Zweig, K. A., & König, P. D. (2022). How to regulate algorithmic decision-making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 119–136.
5. Moser, R., Rengarajan, S., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2021). Decision intelligence: Creating a fit between intelligence requirements and intelligence processing capacities. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 10(2), 160–177.
6. Mashetty, S., & Mukesh, A. (2022). Application of Machine Learning in Loan Default Forecasting. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, and Machine Learning, 3(4), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.63282/3050-9262.IJAIDSML-V3I4P114
7. Mökander, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics-based auditing of automated decision-making systems: Nature, scope, and limitations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27, Article 44.
8. Mökander, J., & Axente, M. (2023). Ethics-based auditing of automated decision-making systems: Intervention points and policy implications. AI & SOCIETY, 38, 153–171.
9. Rajesh Reddy Ellenki. (2022). Predictive Demand Forecasting Framework for Adaptive Retail Inventory Planning . International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 10(2s), 412–418. Retrieved from https://ijisae.org/index.php/IJISAE/article/view/8543
10. Giudici, P., & Raffinetti, E. (2022). Explainable AI methods in cyber risk management. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 38(3), 1318–1326.
11. Janssen, M., Hartog, M., Matheus, R., Ding, A. Y., & Kuk, G. (2022). Will algorithms blind people? The effect of explainable AI and decision-makers’ experience on AI-supported decision-making in government. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2).
12. Peters, U. (2022). Explainable AI lacks regulative reasons: Why AI and human decision-making are not equally opaque. AI and Ethics.
13. Waldman, A., & Martin, K. (2022). Governing algorithmic decisions: The role of decision importance and governance on perceived legitimacy of algorithmic decisions. Big Data & Society.
14. Kolla, S. K. (2021). Adaptive Graph-Based Framework for Secure and Efficient Distributed Data Processing. Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications (JoCAAA), 29(6), 1519-1523.
15. Zhou, N. (2022). Bias, fairness and accountability with artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. International Statistical Review, 90(3), 468–480.
16. Balayn, A., Lofi, C., & Houben, G.-J. (2021). Managing bias and unfairness in data for decision support: A survey of machine learning and data engineering approaches to identify and mitigate bias and unfairness within data management and analytics systems. The VLDB Journal, 30, 739–768.
17. Tsamados, A., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Roberts, H., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2022). The ethics of algorithms: Key problems and solutions. AI & SOCIETY, 37, 215–230.
18. Wang, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhu, R. (2022). A brief review on algorithmic fairness. Management System Engineering, 1, Article 7.
19. Sasidhar Reddy Mondeddula. (2022). AI-Driven Fraud Detection Using Ensemble Machine Learning for Secure Digital Banking Transactions. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 10(3s), 597–605. Retrieved from https://ijisae.org/index.php/IJISAE/article/view/8515
20. Mukhopadhyay, S. (2022). InfoGram and admissible machine learning. Machine Learning, 111, 205–242.
21. Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., & Marcinkowski, F. (2022). Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data & Society.
22. Lee, M. S. A., Floridi, L., & Denev, A. (2021). Innovating with confidence: Embedding AI governance and fairness in a financial services risk management framework. Working paper.
23. Reddy, V. A. R. (2022). Data-Driven Healthcare Operations: Architecting Unified Member, Provider, and Claims Intelligence Platforms. International Journal of Science, Research and Technology, 5(5), 8511-8521.
24. Martin, K., & Waldman, A. (2023). Are algorithmic decisions legitimate? The effect of process and outcomes on perceptions of legitimacy of AI decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 183, 653–670.
25. Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2023). Operationalising AI governance through ethics-based auditing: An industry case study. AI and Ethics, 3, 451–468.
26. Gadi, A. (2020). The Role of Digital Twins in Automotive R&D for Rapid Prototyping and System Integration. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication.
27. Krafft, T. D., Zweig, K. A., & König, P. D. (2020). How to regulate algorithmic decision-making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications. Regulation & Governance. Advance online publication.
28. Percy, C., Dragicevic, S., Sarkar, S., & d’Avila Garcez, A. (2021). Accountability in AI: From principles to industry-specific accreditation. AI Communications, 34(3), 181–196.
29. Lee, J., Suh, T., Roy, D., & Baucus, M. (2019). Emerging technology and business model innovation: The case of artificial intelligence. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), Article 44.
30. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44).
31. Kolla, S. K. (2021). Adaptive Graph-Based Framework for Secure and Efficient Distributed Data Processing. Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications (JoCAAA), 29(6), 1519-1523.
32. Suresh, H., & Guttag, J. V. (2021). A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. Association for Computing Machinery.
33. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), Article 115.
Additional Files
Published
Data Availability Statement
No new datasets were generated or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 David Schneider (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
You are free to:
- Share: copy and redistribute the material
- Adapt: remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and source.
Full license text: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
