The Human-AI Interface: Socio-Technical Challenges in Implementing Generative AI for Project Documentation and Governance

The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping the landscape of project documentation and governance, offering benefits in automation, knowledge management, and decision support. But, the success of organizational adoption is not just about technology, it is also about collaboration between humans and AI, organizational governance, and socio-technical integration. This paper offers an exploratory literature review of the socio-technical issues involved in the adoption of GenAI tools in project documentation and governance. The relevant, peer-reviewed studies were identified in a structured search of the Scopus database, then screened with predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed by means of a structured quality assessment framework. The selected studies were then analysed inductively to synthesise common challenges in implementation, prevailing research themes and conceptual links.
The review synthesizes the literature into three interdependent pillars of responsible use of GenAI: technological trust and transparency, Human-AI collaboration and organizational governance. GenAI has great promise in enhancing the efficiency of documentation processes, organizational knowledge management, and decision-making support, but, there are significant challenges related to the reliability of output, explainability, data quality, accountability, ethical governance, regulatory adherence, cybersecurity, and user trust. The study builds on these insights and suggests a socio-technical conceptual framework that integrates these aspects into a unified view to inform people's understanding of responsible Human-AI collaboration in project settings.
This work adds to the growing amount of literature by offering an interdisciplinary synthesis, bringing together technological, organizational, governance and human perspectives in a single conceptual framework. The results provide practical advice for project managers, organizational leaders, and policymakers aiming for the responsible implementation of GenAI and give direction for further empirical studies. Although the review was limited to peer-reviewed literature available in Scopus, the proposed framework offers a theoretically based grounding for empirical testing and refinement in a variety of organizational and industrial settings

Generative AI, Project Governance, Human-AI Collaboration

1. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., … & Suh, J. (2021). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bélisle-Pipon, J. C., Couture, V., & Roy, M. C. (2023). Artificial intelligence ethics and socio-technical systems in organizations. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 445-458. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bommasani, R., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models, 1-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2023). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., … & Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Elsevier. (2025). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. European Commission. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2021). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 31(1), 100371. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Flemming, K., & Noyes, J. (2021). Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681-694. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Floridi, L., Holweg, M., Taddeo, M., Amaya Silva, J., Mökander, J., & Wen, Y. (2021). CapAI—A procedure for conducting conformity assessment of AI systems in line with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. AI and Ethics, 2(4), 1-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Herrmann, T., & Pfeiffer, S. (2023). Keeping the organization in the loop: A socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 38, 1523–1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01391-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O'Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Jarrahi, M. H., Memariani, A., & Guha, S. (2023). The principles of human-AI interaction and collaboration. International Journal of Information Management, 67, 102512. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kim, J. Y., et al. (2025). Establishing organizational AI governance in healthcare: A case study in Canada. npj Digital Medicine, 8, 522. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenAlex: Strengths and weaknesses for research evaluation. El Profesional de la Información, 30(6), e300605. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. OECD. (2021). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 Technical Report. ArXiv:2303.08774 [Cs]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Stahl, B. C., & Wright, D. (2024). Ethics and privacy in AI governance frameworks. AI and Society, 39(1), 77-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Weidinger, et al& Gabriel, I. (2022). Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Yu, X., Xu, S., & Ashton, M. (2022). Antecedents and outcomes of artificial intelligence adoption and application in the workplace: The socio-technical system theory perspective. Information Technology & People, 36(1), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2021-0254 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Revolutionizing Library Services in Nairobi: Ethical Implications and Future Trends in User Interaction
• ESPYREAL: A Mobile Based Multi-Currency Identifier for Visually Impaired Individuals Using Convolutional Neural Network
• Comparative Analysis of AI-Driven IoT-Based Smart Agriculture Platforms with Blockchain-Enabled Marketplaces
• AI-Based Dish Recommender System for Reducing Fruit Waste through Spoilage Detection and Ripeness Assessment
• SEA-TALK: An AI-Powered Voice Translator and Southeast Asian Dialects Recognition