Explainable and Predictive Artificial Intelligence Architectures for Risk-Aware Change Advisory Board Decision Systems in Complex Organizations
Keywords:
Explainable artificial intelligence, change management, predictive risk scoring, decision support systemsAbstract
The accelerating integration of artificial intelligence into organizational governance structures has transformed how complex enterprises evaluate, approve, and monitor operational change. Among these structures, the Change Advisory Board, commonly referred to as the CAB, occupies a uniquely critical position because it mediates between technological innovation, organizational stability, regulatory compliance, and operational risk. Traditional CAB processes, largely reliant on human deliberation and historical documentation, are increasingly insufficient to manage the volume, velocity, and interdependence of modern digital change. In response, predictive and explainable artificial intelligence systems are being introduced to support CAB decision making through automated risk scoring, scenario analysis, and evidence-based recommendations. However, the adoption of such systems introduces profound epistemological, technical, and ethical questions about how risk is represented, how decisions are justified, and how trust is sustained between human actors and algorithmic agents.
This study develops a comprehensive theoretical and methodological framework for integrating predictive risk scoring and explainable artificial intelligence into CAB decision systems. Grounded in contemporary research on explainable artificial intelligence, interpretable machine learning, causal modeling, and decision support systems, the article positions CAB governance as a socio-technical system in which algorithmic reasoning must remain intelligible, contestable, and accountable to human stakeholders. The analysis is anchored in the predictive risk scoring paradigm articulated by Varanasi, which conceptualizes CAB decisions as probabilistic assessments of change-induced disruption that can be systematically modeled using machine learning while remaining subject to governance constraints and human oversight (Varanasi, 2025). By situating this paradigm within a broader literature on explainability, rule-based modeling, and causal inference, the article demonstrates that CAB-oriented artificial intelligence must go beyond performance optimization to prioritize transparency, responsibility, and organizational learning.
Using a design-oriented methodological approach, the study synthesizes insights from explainable modeling techniques such as SHAP, LIME, rule-based classifiers, and causal Bayesian networks to propose a multilayer architecture for risk-aware CAB systems. The Results section interprets how such architectures transform the epistemic foundations of change management by making uncertainty explicit, by revealing the causal and statistical drivers of risk, and by enabling iterative human–machine calibration of decision policies. The Discussion extends this analysis to address competing scholarly positions on the trade-off between accuracy and interpretability, the risks of automation bias, and the ethical implications of delegating governance functions to algorithmic systems.
The article concludes that the future of CAB governance depends not on replacing human judgment with artificial intelligence, but on embedding predictive and explainable models within deliberative institutional frameworks that preserve accountability while enhancing analytical depth. By aligning predictive risk scoring with transparent explanation mechanisms, organizations can achieve a form of algorithmic governance that is not only efficient but also epistemically and ethically sustainable.
References
1. Kim, Y., and Panda, P. Visual explanations from spiking neural networks using inter-spike intervals. Sci Rep 11, 19037 (2021).
2. Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., and Elhadad, N. Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2015.
3. Rodriguez, P., Caccia, M., et al. Beyond trivial counterfactual explanations with diverse valuable explanations. Proceedings of the IEEE and Computer Vision Conference, 2021.
4. Naidu, G., Zuva, T., and Sibanda, E. A review of evaluation metrics in machine learning algorithms. Computer Science On Line Conference. Springer, 2023.
5. Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Pedreschi, D., Turini, F., and Giannotti, F. Local rule-based explanations of black box decision systems. 2018.
6. Varanasi, S. R. AI for CAB Decisions: Predictive Risk Scoring in Change Management. International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Technology, 2(06), 16–22, 2025.
7. Ross, A., Hughes, M. C., and Doshi-Velez, F. Right for the right reasons: Training differentiable models by constraining their explanations. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017.
8. Letham, B., Rudin, C., McCormick, T. H., and Madigan, D. Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2015.
9. Hasan, M. M. Understanding model predictions: A comparative analysis of SHAP and LIME on various machine learning algorithms. Journal of Scientific and Technological Research, 2023.
10. Xing, C., Rostamzadeh, N., Oreshkin, B., and Pinheiro, P. Adaptive cross-modal few-shot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.
11. Snell, J., Swersky, K., and Zemel, R. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.
12. Wu, H., and Li, B. Customer purchase prediction based on improved gradient boosting decision tree algorithm. International Conference on Consumer Electronics and Computer Engineering, 2022.
13. Issitt, R. W., Cortina-Borja, M., Bryant, W., Bowyer, S., Taylor, A. M., Sebire, N., and Bowyer, S. A. Classification performance of neural networks versus logistic regression models. Cureus, 2022.
14. Murikah, W., Nthenge, J. K., and Musyoka, F. M. Bias and ethics of AI systems applied in auditing. Scientific African, 2024.
15. Kindermans, P. J., et al. Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and patternAttribution. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
16. Lundberg, S. M., and Lee, S. I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.
17. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. Why should I trust you: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. ACM SIGKDD International Conference, 2016.
18. Kostopoulos, G., Davrazos, G., and Kotsiantis, S. Explainable artificial intelligence based decision support systems. Electronics, 2024.
19. Wang, L., Zhou, J., Wei, J., Pang, M., and Sun, M. Learning causal Bayesian networks based on causality analysis for classification. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
20. Parisineni, S. R. A., and Pal, M. Enhancing trust and interpretability of complex machine learning models using SHAP explanations. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 2024.
21. David, M., Mbabazi, E. S., Nakatumba-Nabende, J., and Marvin, G. Crime forecasting using interpretable regression techniques. Proceedings of the International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics, 2023.
22. Liu, B., and Lai, M. Advanced machine learning for financial markets: A PCA GRU LSTM approach. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 2024.
23. Breiman, L. Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statistical Science, 2001.
24. Xu, K., Ba, J., Kiros, R., Cho, K., Courville, A., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemel, R., and Bengio, Y. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.
25. McDermid, J. A., Jia, Y., Porter, Z., and Habli, I. Artificial intelligence explainability: The technical and ethical dimensions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 2021.
26. Nair, A., Reckien, D., and van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. Generalised fuzzy cognitive maps. Applied Soft Computing, 2020.
27. Nguyen, A., and Doan, T. Customer centric decision making with XAI and counterfactual explanations. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 2025.
28. Rainy, T. Mechanisms by which AI enabled CRM systems influence customer retention. SSRN, 2025.
29. Smith, C., and Jones, R. A perspective on explainable artificial intelligence methods: SHAP and LIME. ArXiv, 2023.
30. Hatami, R. Development of a protocol for environmental impact studies using causal modelling. Water Research, 2018.
31. Arrieta, A. B., Diaz Rodriguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., and Herrera, F. Explainable artificial intelligence: Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges. Information Fusion, 2020.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jonathan M. Keller

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.