Search

Merging Artificial Intelligence (AI) with Business Process Management Systems (BPMSs) has given rise to AI-Augmented Business Process Management Systems (ABPMSs). These modern setups deliver flexible adaptability, instantaneous process refinement, and superior knowledge management workflows. Yet, notable hurdles persist, especially regarding contextual clarity, user buy-in, and the incorporation of behavioral dynamics. This research introduces a novel conceptual model that unifies the Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization (SECI) knowledge paradigm with Agile workflows (specifically Scrum) and advanced AI capabilities like explainable AI (XAI), process mining, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA). This setup streamlines the formalization, validation, and dissemination of insights through structured, intuitive software and collaborative frameworks, particularly Communities of Practice (CoPs). The system highlights context-sensitive transparency, step-by-step deployment, and iterative refinement to foster productive human–AI partnerships. It delivers both conceptual and practical blueprints for linking AI strengths with corporate knowledge assets. The introduced model eases the upgrade path from legacy BPMSs to advanced ABPMSs by utilizing systematic practices and technologies. This strategy accelerates knowledge distribution and operational refinement, mapped out via exhaustive BPMN 2.0 diagrams.

Intelligent systems increasingly influence decisions, allocate attention, generate recommendations, and mediate interactions across technical, organizational, and social environments. Yet trustworthiness is often approached through isolated interventions, such as improving model accuracy, adding post-hoc explanations, documenting datasets, or assigning nominal human oversight. This article proposes a trustworthy-by-design conceptual framework that treats trustworthiness as a system-level property requiring coordinated design and evaluation across the full intelligent-system lifecycle. The framework begins with system-purpose and risk-context definition, followed by stakeholder and responsibility mapping, data-integrity assessment, provenance and lineage review, data documentation and governance, model-reliability evaluation, robustness and uncertainty assessment, and bias and fairness review where relevant. It then connects explanation quality with human interpretability and decision usefulness, rather than assuming that technically generated explanations will necessarily support understanding. Human oversight, meaningful control, contestability, recourse, institutional accountability, traceability, auditability, monitoring, and feedback updating form additional interdependent layers. The framework’s principal contribution is to clarify how technical evidence must be connected to human decision conditions and institutional responsibility without treating any individual safeguard as sufficient. Data provenance does not establish data appropriateness, robustness does not prove safety, explanations do not guarantee interpretability, human presence does not ensure meaningful control, and governance arrangements do not independently establish accountability. The framework may support conceptual analysis, assurance-oriented evaluation, and lifecycle governance planning, but requires empirical validation, human-centered assessment, domain-specific interpretation, and continuing institutional review.