Authors : Osman Angeles Conteh; Alimamy Kamara; Aminata Kera Conteh

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

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yc3u8hpt

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct578

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

Abstract : The paper provides a system dynamics model that would explain the way in which small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can use AI compliance as an administrative burden, rather than an organizational resilience capacity. Based on the dynamic capabilities theory, organizational resilience studies, AI risk management principles, and system dynamics, the research designs feedback among AI experimentation, strength of deploying AI, compliance maturity, risk exposure, learning incidents, slack resources, and resilience capacity. The results section describes normal simulation behavior in three policy options: innovation-first, compliance-first, and balanced adaptive governance. The simulated findings suggest that innovation-first adoption creates high early growth in capabilities; on the other hand, compliance-first governments create less exposure but hides innovation throughput. The adaptive-governance with balance scenario works best within a 36-month horizon since it encompasses leveled controls, more adaptive learning loop, and even-tailed review. The debate suggests that AI risk governance in SMEs needs to be technologised as dynamic resourcefulness instead of an unchanging compliance audit. The paper also introduces a feedback based theory of AI governance among SMEs and where the policy leverage points are that managers can use to safeguard innovation whilst enhancing resiliency.

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. Forrester, J. W. (1968). Industrial dynamics after the first decade. Management Science, 14(7), 398-415.
15. G7 Italy. (2024). Driving factors and challenges of AI adoption and diffusion in MSMEs. G7 Industry, Tech and Digital Ministerial Meeting.
16. International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO 22316:2017 Security and resilience - Organizational resilience - Principles and attributes. ISO.
17. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. (2023a). ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Management system. ISO.
18. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. (2023b). ISO/IEC 23894:2023 Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Guidance on risk management. ISO.
19. Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. Mikalef, P., & Gupta, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Information & Management, 58(3), 103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103434
24. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501-507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. OECD. (2024). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). OECD.
29. OECD. (2025). AI adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises. OECD Publishing.
30. 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
31. 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
32. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
33. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe and trustworthy. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
34. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
35. Sterman, J. D. (2002). System dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
36. 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
37. 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
38. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
39. 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
40. 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.