journal article·2026-05-12Open access

PRIME–INSPECT: A Socio-Technical Framework for Trustworthy Intelligent Automation and Real-Time Decision-Making in Industry 4.0

Nebojša Avramović, Aleksandar Marković, Tijana Čomić, Sava Čavoški, Nikola Zornić, Vladimir Vujović

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 10

Abstract

Intelligent automation is a core component of Industry 4.0, enabling artificial intelligence (AI) systems to support or execute operational and managerial decisions in real time. In high-risk industrial environments such as mining and metallurgy, real-time decision-making improves efficiency but also raises critical challenges related to trust, explainability, human oversight, and institutional accountability. This study proposes PRIME–INSPECT, a two-layer socio-technical framework designed to support trustworthy AI-driven real-time decision-making. The PRIME (predict, regulate, interpret, mitigate, execute) layer formalizes the operational decision flow, embedding control mechanisms, uncertainty quantification, and explainability into the automation pipeline. The INSPECT (integrity, navigability, supervisory control, policy maturity, ethical compliance, collaboration, trust calibration) layer defines the organizational and governance conditions required for safe deployment. The framework is conceptually developed through a structured literature synthesis and supported by exploratory empirical grounding through stakeholder perceptions from IT and top management participants, alongside an illustrative industrial use case intended to demonstrate conceptual applicability rather than engineering performance validation. The findings highlight the importance of aligning operational AI processes with institutional safeguards to support calibrated trust and responsible automation. The empirical component is intended to provide conceptual and organizational grounding of framework dimensions rather than quantitative validation of predictive performance. PRIME–INSPECT provides a structured architecture for designing and governing AI-enabled real-time decision systems in high-risk industrial contexts.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

IT DNA, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

The Faculty of Organizational Studies “Eduka” in Belgrade, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

School of Computing, Union University, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of East Sarajevo, 71126 East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. The Business of Artificial Intelligence: What It can—And cannot—Do for Your Organization
2. Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data—Evolution, challenges and research agenda
3. Rojas, L., Peña, Á., and Garcia, J. (2025). AI-Driven Predictive Maintenance in Mining: A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Detection, Digital Twins, and Intelligent Asset Management. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15063337 ↗
4. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology10.2307/249008 ↗
5. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view10.2307/30036540 ↗
6. Understanding managers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions towards using artificial intelligence for organizational decision-making10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102312 ↗
7. Exploring facilitators and barriers to managers’ adoption of AI-based systems in decision making: A systematic review10.3390/ai5040123 ↗
8. Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research10.5465/annals.2018.0057 ↗
9. The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551 ↗
10. Artificial intelligence risk measurement
11. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err10.1037/xge0000033 ↗
12. Automation bias and verification complexity: A systematic review10.1093/jamia/ocw105 ↗
13. Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review10.1080/14639220500337708 ↗
14. Exploring automation bias in human–AI collaboration: A review and implications for explainable AI10.1007/s00146-025-02422-7 ↗
15. How the different explanation classes impact trust calibration: The case of clinical decision support systems10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102941 ↗
16. Calibrating reliance on automated advice: Transparency and trust calibration feedback10.1080/10447318.2025.2487861 ↗
17. Jacovi, A., Marasović, A., Miller, T., and Goldberg, Y. (2021, January 3–10). Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ′21), Virtual Event.10.1145/3442188.3445923 ↗
18. Amaliah, N.R., Tjahjono, B., and Palade, V. (2025). Human-in-the-loop XAI for predictive maintenance: A systematic review of interactive systems and their effectiveness in maintenance decision-making. Electronics, 14.10.3390/electronics14173384 ↗
19. Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
20. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., Iqbal, S., Bennett, P.N., and Inkpen, K. (2019, January 4–9). Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK.10.1145/3290605.3300233 ↗
21. Human control of AI systems: From supervision to teaming10.1007/s43681-024-00489-4 ↗
22. Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101885 ↗
23. Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective
24. Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices
25. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0).
26. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.-I. (2017, January 4–9). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA.
27. Automating occupant–building interaction via smart zoning of thermostatic loads: A switched self-tuning approach10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.188 ↗
28. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y ↗
29. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill. [2nd ed.].
30. European Parliament (2024). Regulation
31. (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Off. J. Eur. Union.
32. (2023). Information Technology–Artificial Intelligence—Management System (Standard No. ISO/IEC 42001:2023).
33. OECD (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD. Available online: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449.
34. Collaborative Human–AI Trust (CHAI-T): A Process Framework for Active Management of Trust in Human–AI Collaboration10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100200 ↗
35. Trusting Automation: Designing for Responsivity and Resilience10.1177/00187208211009995 ↗