2026· International journal of research and scientific innovation· Vol 13, pp. 1650-1669· 0 citations
TL;DR
The proposed framework provides a practical and theoretically grounded approach for advancing responsible AI adoption and strengthening board-level governance oversight and contributes to theory by positioning AI governance as a dynamic organisational capability rather than a collection of compliance activities.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance has emerged as a critical organisational and board-level concern as AI systems become increasingly embedded in business operations and decision-making. Although existing AI maturity models assess technological capability and deployment readiness, they provide limited mechanisms for evaluating governance effectiveness, accountability, and board oversight. Consequently, organisations lack structured approaches for assessing whether AI governance practices are achieving their intended objectives.
This study addresses this gap through the development of an AI Governance Capability Maturity Model that reconceptualises AI governance as a measurable organisational capability. Using a qualitative integrative synthesis of regulatory frameworks, legal doctrine, governance standards, and academic literature, the study identifies key governance mechanisms and integrates them within a six-phase governance framework. These governance phases are subsequently transformed into a five-level maturity model supported by a multi-dimensional measurement architecture comprising input, process, output, and outcome metrics.
The analysis demonstrates that existing maturity models focus primarily on AI deployment capability, while governance-oriented frameworks emphasise operational controls but provide limited support for performance evaluation, strategic governance, and board-level accountability. To address these limitations, the proposed model links governance processes to measurable indicators and maturity levels, enabling organisations to assess governance effectiveness, identify capability gaps, and monitor continuous improvement.
The study contributes to theory by positioning AI governance as a dynamic organisational capability rather than a collection of compliance activities. It contributes to practice by providing a structured framework that supports governance assessment, performance monitoring, and board oversight. The model aligns with emerging governance expectations reflected in the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO/IEC 42001, and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act.
By integrating governance processes, capability development, maturity assessment, and performance measurement, the proposed framework provides a practical and theoretically grounded approach for advancing responsible AI adoption and strengthening board-level governance oversight.
Governance systems across sectors vary widely in their ability to integrate artificial intelligence,
real-time monitoring, and adaptive oversight. While advanced organizations increasingly rely on
continuous sensing, data-driven decision-support, and event-validated learning, many institutions
remain anchored in reactive, compliance-centric governance models. This manuscript introduces
the Governance Maturity Model (GMM), a five-level capability framework that evaluates an
organization's readiness to implement adaptive, AI-enabled governance systems. The GMM
extends the Adaptive Governance Systems Framework (AGSF) and the AI-Enabled Governance
Oversight Model (AIGOM) by defining progressive stages of governance capability—from
reactive oversight to fully adaptive, intelligence-augmented governance ecosystems. The GMM
further establishes governance maturity as a dynamic institutional capability involving
governance observability, operational intelligence integration, adaptive recalibration, and crossdomain governance coordination within complex socio-technical environments. The model
provides a structured pathway for organizations seeking to modernize governance practices,
strengthen accountability, and align oversight mechanisms with the demands of complex,
dynamic risk environments.
Dr. Robb Shawe· International journal of adv...· 0 citations
This paper argues for a transition from AI Governance as Compliance to AI Governance Engineering , a systems-oriented discipline in which governance is embedded throughout the enterprise intelligence lifecycle, enabling enterprise intelligence systems that are secure, explainable, trustworthy, and governable by design.
Faruk Çelikkanat· International Journal of Res...· 0 citations
This article examines three interconnected dimensions of responsible AI for enterprise modernization: governance infrastructure for accountable AI deployment, algorithmic equity in high-impact decision environments, and the evolving international regulatory landscape shaping enterprise AI governance.
M. Modi· International Journal of Eng...· 0 citations
This study develops a six-phase human-centred governance framework for responsible AI adoption through an integrative synthesis of academic literature, international standards, and regulatory frameworks, including the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO/IEC 42001, and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act.
Examining how artificial intelligence (AI) governance supports sustainable decision-making across organizational contexts in Europe reveals that governance increasingly aligns with formal frameworks through policies, dedicated structures, human oversight and Environmental, Social and Governance oriented indicators, enhancing transparency and reliability.
Fernando Almeida· Journal of Ethics in Entrepr...· 0 citations
The model demonstrates how AI can serve as a governance augmentation layer, generating decision-support intelligence, generating decision-support intelligence, accelerating operational awareness, enhancing adaptive oversight, and supporting real-time governance recalibration.
Dr. Robb Shawe· International journal of adv...· 0 citations