Authors : Aminata Kera Conteh

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4s8tpbch

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct766

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This paper is building a system dynamics model to investigate how the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can regulate artificial intelligence (AI) risk without reducing the innovation value that can be justified when implementing AI. The work contends that the relationship between innovation and compliance is not a linear kind of trade-off, but a dynamical regulatory system with feedback mechanisms whereby experimentation, deployment levels, risk exposure, governance mechanisms, learning routines, and resilience resources interact with one another through time. The paper incorporates the constructs of SMEs into a stock-flow simulation based on the dynamic capabilities theory, organizational resilience research, technology-organization-environment logic, AI risk management standards, and system dynamics. Findings indicate that innovation-first strategy generates rapid initial ability development and generates shadow AI, risks that were not fully resolved, more recovery time, and shorter resilience. Compliance first approach minimizes risk exposure at the cost of experimentation and introduces approval lag. Balanced adaptive governance is the strongest in the long-term outcome where tiered controls, learning loops, human oversight, and reusable compliance routines minimize risk without impacting the innovation throughput. The article adds a dynamic conceptualization of AI risk governance among SMEs and the leverage points to use by managers and policymakers aiming at responsible adoption of AI given the limited resources.

Keywords : Artificial Intelligence Governance; AI Risk Management; SMEs; System Dynamics; Organizational Resilience; Innovation-Compliance Trade-off; Dynamic Capabilities.

References :

1. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial intelligence, automation, and work. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24196.
2. Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction machines: The simple economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.
3. Badghish, S., & Soomro, Y. A. (2024). Artificial intelligence adoption by SMEs to achieve sustainable business performance: Application of technology-organization-environment framework. Sustainability, 16(5), 1864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051864.
4. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16274.
5. Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: The concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5375-5393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563826.
6. Conz, E., & Magnani, G. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European Management Journal, 38(3), 400-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.004.
7. Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108-116.
8. Drydakis, N. (2022). Artificial intelligence and reduced SMEs' business risks: A dynamic capabilities analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information Systems Frontiers, 24, 1223-1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10249-6.
9. Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7.
10. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., ... Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence, business and society: A research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.
11. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union.
12. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People - An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28, 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
13. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press.
14. International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO 22316:2017 Security and resilience - Organizational resilience - Principles and attributes. ISO.
15. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. (2023a). ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Management system. ISO.
16. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. (2023b). ISO/IEC 23894:2023 Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Guidance on risk management. ISO.
17. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
18. Laine, J., Minkkinen, M., & Mäntymäki, M. (2024). Ethics-based AI auditing: A systematic literature review on conceptualizations of ethical principles and knowledge contributions to stakeholders. Information & Management, 61(5), 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2024.103969.
19. Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential publications and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 4-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12076.
20. Madaio, M. A., Stark, L., Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2020). Co-designing checklists to understand organizational challenges and opportunities around fairness in AI. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376445.
21. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501-507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4.
22. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020). From what to how: An initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2141-2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5.
23. Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2023). Operationalising AI governance through ethics-based auditing: An industry case study. AI and Ethics, 3, 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00171-7.
24. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
25. OECD. (2024). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). OECD.
26. OECD. (2025). AI adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises. OECD Publishing.
27. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072.
28. 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. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
29. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
30. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
31. Sterman, J. D. (2002). System dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
32. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.
33. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
34. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
35. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
36. Wamba-Taguimdje, S. L., Wamba, S. F., Kamdjoug, J. R. K., & Wanko, C. E. T. (2020). Influence of artificial intelligence on firm performance: The business value of AI-based transformation projects. Business Process Management Journal, 26(7), 1893-1924. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0411.