Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to reshape operations across industries. Yet its real-world impact reveals a jagged and uneven implementation frontier. To make sense of this emerging landscape, we develop a foundational framework that synthesizes research and practice at the intersection of AI and Operations Management (OM), anchored in three interdependent pillars: (1) AI for OM, (2) OM for AI, and (3) Human–AI Interaction. First, AI for OM analyzes how AI enhances core operational processes, including design, procurement, production, and delivery. Second, OM for AI argues that scaling AI safely and effectively stands to benefit from core OM principles, including workflow design, capacity management, process control, drift detection, and continuous improvement, all of which are central to AI development and deployment. Third, Human–AI Interaction emphasizes the role of trust, incentives, and organizational design in mediating how humans and machines learn from and collaborate with each other. This triadic framework provides a foundation for organizing research on AI and OM and offers practical guidance for integrating AI into business and societal systems.
AbràmoffMDWhitestoneNPatnaikJL, et al. (2023) Autonomous artificial intelligence increases real-world specialist clinic productivity in a cluster-randomized trial. npj Digital Medicine6(1): 184.
2.
AcemogluDRestrepoP (2018) The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review108(6): 1488–1542.
3.
AgrawalAGansJGoldfarbA (2018) Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
4.
AgrawalAGansJGoldfarbA (2022) Power and Prediction: The Disruptive Economics of Artificial Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
5.
AgrawalNCohenMADeshpandeR, et al. (2024) How machine learning will transform supply chain management. Harvard Business Review102(2): 128–137.
BertsimasDKallusN (2020) From predictive to prescriptive analytics. Management Science66(3): 1025–1044.
10.
BhatiaASwaminathanJM (2025) Measuring consistency in service delivery: Examining the effect of process standardization on hospital performance. Production and Operations Management. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/10591478251361985.
11.
BinnsR (2018) Algorithmic accountability and public reason. Philosophy & Technology31(4): 543–556.
12.
BoltonGEKatokE (2008) Learning by doing in the newsvendor problem: A laboratory investigation of the role of experience and feedback. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management10(3): 519–538.
13.
BommasaniRHudsonDAAdeliE, et al. (2021) On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Tech. Report Stanford CRFM Report, Center for Research on Foundation Models, Stanford.
14.
BreckECaiSNielsenE, et al. (2017) The ML test score: A rubric for ML production readiness and technical debt reduction. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on big data, pp.1123–1132. (IEEE).
15.
BreckEPolyzotisNRoyS, et al. (2019) Data validation for machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd SysML conference.
16.
BrynjolfssonELiDRaymondL (2025) Generative AI at work. Quarterly Journal of Economics140(2): 889–942.
17.
BrynjolfssonEMitchellT (2017) What can machine learning do? workforce implications. Science (New York, N.Y.)358(6370): 1530–1534.
18.
BrynjolfssonERockDSyversonC (2017) Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. Working Paper 24001, National Bureau of Economic Research.
19.
C-Suite Strategy (2024) AI in procurement: Revolutionizing strategic sourcing for today’s C-suite. Available at: https://bit.ly/AIinProcureCSuite (accessed 31 May 2025).
20.
CachonGP (2026) The current and future impact of ai on supply chains. In: CohenMCDaiT (eds) AI in Supply Chains: Perspectives from Global Thought Leaders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 3–12.
ChowdhurySDeyPKJoel-EdgarS, et al. (2022) AI-employee collaboration and business performance: Integrating knowledge-based view, socio-technical systems and organisational socialisation framework. Journal of Business Research144: 31–49.
25.
CohenMCDahanSKhern-am nuaiW, et al. (2023) The use of AI in legal systems: Determining independent contractor vs. employee status. Artificial Intelligence and Law1–30.
CuiRLiMZhangS (2022) AI and procurement. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management24(2): 691–706.
28.
CummingsML (2004) Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In: AIAA 1st Intelligent systems technical conference, Vol. 2, pp.557–562 (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).
29.
DaiTSinghS (2025) Artificial intelligence on call: The physician’s decision of whether to use AI in clinical practice. Journal of Marketing Research62(5): 854–875.
30.
DaiTSycaraKLewisM (2011) A game theoretic queueing approach to self-assessment in human–robot interaction systems. In: 2011 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation, pp.3775–3780. (IEEE).
31.
DaiTTaylorT (2025) Designing enterprise AI systems: Hallucination, creativity, and moral hazard. Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University. 10.2139/ssrn.5996714.
32.
DaiTTayurSR (2022) Designing AI-augmented healthcare delivery systems for physician buy-in and patient acceptance. Production and Operations Management31(12): 4443–4451.
33.
DanonB (2018) How GM and Autodesk are using generative design for vehicles of the future. ADSK News, https://bit.ly/gam-autodesk (accessed 31 May 2025).
34.
DavisAMMankadSCorbettCJ, et al. (2024) The best of both worlds: Machine learning and behavioral science in operations management. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management26(2): 345–359.
35.
DawtryRJCallanMJ (2024) Hazardous machinery: The assignment of agency and blame to robots versus non-autonomous machines. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology111: 104582.
36.
DeanJCorradoGSMongaR, et al. (2012) Large scale distributed deep networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems25: 1223–1231.
DemingWE (2000) Out of the Crisis. MA: MIT Press: Cambridge.
39.
DietvorstBJSimmonsJPMasseyC (2015) Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General144(1): 114–126.
40.
EinavLLevinJ (2014) Economics in the age of big data. Science (New York, N.Y.)346(6210): 715–721.
41.
European Commission (2024) Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act). https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ (accessed 31 May 2025).
42.
FazlollahiAMYilmazRWinkler-SchwartzA, et al. (2023) AI in surgical curriculum design and unintended outcomes for technical competencies in simulation training. JAMA Network Open6(9): e2334658.
43.
FDA (2018) FDA permits marketing of artificial intelligence-based device to detect certain diabetes-related eye problems. https://bit.ly/fda-idx-dr (accessed 31 May 2025).
44.
FDA (2024) Predetermined change control plans for medical devices: Draft guidance for industry and FDA staff. Available at: https://bit.ly/fda-pccp (accessed 31 May 2025).
45.
FerrucciDBrownEChu-CarrollJ, et al. (2010) Building watson: An overview of the deepQA project. AI Magazine31(3): 59–79.
46.
FeurerMKleinAEggenspergerK, et al. (2015) Efficient and robust automated machine learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems28: 2962–2970.
47.
FickenscherL (2021) UPS upgrades ORION tool with real-time data to improve delivery routes. Supply Chain Divehttps://bit.ly/ups-orion-route (accessed 9 May 2025).
FransooJCPeelsRUdenioM (2026) Navigating supply chain dynamics for sustained AI growth. In: CohenMCDaiT (eds) AI in Supply Chains: Perspectives from Global Thought Leaders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 37–54.
50.
GarciaPMaSPShahS, et al. (2024) Artificial intelligence–generated draft replies to patient inbox messages. JAMA Network Open7(3): e243201.
51.
GavirneniSKapuscinskiRTayurSR (1999) Value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management Science45(1): 16–24.
52.
GawandeA (2011) The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
53.
GijsbrechtsJBouteRNVan MieghemJA, et al. (2026) AI in inventory management: The disruptive era of DRL and beyond. In: CohenMCDaiT (eds) AI in Supply Chains: Perspectives from Global Thought Leaders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 137–148.
54.
GoodrichMAOlsenDR (2003) Seven principles of efficient human robot interaction. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp.3942–3948. Washington, DC: IEEE.
GurkanHde VéricourtF (2022) Contracting, pricing, and data collection under the AI flywheel effect. Management Science68(12): 8791–8808.
57.
Harchol-BalterM (2013) Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems: Queueing Theory in Action. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
58.
HermannJDel BalsoM (2017) Meet Michelangelo: Uber’s machine learning platform. Available at: https://ubr.to/4e0tHLV (accessed 30 May 2025).
59.
HoppWJSpearmanML (2011) Factory Physics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
60.
IBM (2024) Leading companies launch consortium to address AI’s impact on the technology workforce. Available at: https://bit.ly/ibm-consort (accessed 31 May 2025).
61.
International Federation of Robotics (2023) World robotics 2023: Industrial robots. Available at: https://bit.ly/ifr23pdf (accessed 31 May 2025).
62.
JinHShepardsonD (2023) California Sidelines GM Cruise’s Driverless cars, Cites Safety Risk. CA, Reuters. Available at: https://bit.ly/GMCruise.
63.
JordanMIMitchellTM (2015) Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science (New York, N.Y.)349(6245): 255–260.
64.
KatzY (2012) Noam chomsky on where artificial intelligence went wrong. The Atlantichttps://bit.ly/chomsky-atlantic12 (accessed 31 May 2025).
65.
KavadiasSSommerSC (2009) The effects of problem structure and team diversity on brainstorming effectiveness. Management Science55(12): 1899–1913.
66.
KleinbergJLakkarajuHLeskovecJ, et al. (2017) Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics133(1): 237–293.
67.
KleindorferPRSinghalKVan WassenhoveLN (2005) Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management14(4): 482–492.
68.
LaiJXuLLFangX, et al. (2025) Regulating adaptive new products: Can less oversight lead to better development practices?. Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University. 10.2139/ssrn.5009572.
69.
LanteriACappuccioMLGalliottJC, et al. (2023) Successful AI adoption requires building employees’ tolerance. Available at: https://bit.ly/lse-ai (accessed 31 May 2025).
70.
LeCunYBengioYHintonG (2015) Deep learning. Nature521(7553): 436–444.
71.
LeeHL (2004) The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review82(10): 102–112.
72.
LeeHLSoKCTangCS (2000) The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management Science46(5): 626–643.
73.
LeeHLTangCS (2018) Socially and environmentally responsible value chain innovations: New operations management research opportunities. Management Science64(3): 983–996.
74.
LeporeJ (2009) Not so fast. The New Yorker85(32): 114–122.
75.
LindermanKSchroederRGChooAS (2006) Six sigma: The role of goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management24(6): 779–790.
76.
LittleJDC (1961) A proof for the queuing formula: L = λW. Operations Research9(3): 383–387.
77.
LochCHLadasKKavadiasS (2025) Organizational culture, innovation, and competitive performance: A multilevel dynamic model. Management Science71(11): 9193–9212.
78.
LochCHTerwieschC (1999) Measuring the effectiveness of overlapping development activities in complex product development. Management Science45(6): 733–750.
79.
LoggJMMinsonJAMooreDA (2019) Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes151: 90–103.
80.
LohrS (2014) For big-data scientists, ‘janitor work’ is key hurdle to insights. The New York Timeshttps://bit.ly/data-janitor (accessed 31 May 2025).
81.
LuTTomlinB (2025) Augmenting the operations manager with a prediction machine, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5282711.
82.
LuanSSinghSDaiT (2024) Algorithmic bias and physician liability. Working Paper 25-16, Johns Hopkins University, available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5046254.
83.
LurieNHSwaminathanJM (2009) Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes108(2): 315–329.
84.
MarionTJSrourMPillerF (2024) When generative AI meets product development. MIT Sloan Management Review. Available at: https://bit.ly/gai-npd (accessed 31 May 2025).
85.
McCarthyJMinskyMLRochesterN, et al. (2006) A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Magazine27(4): 12.
86.
McKinsey (2024a) Harnessing AI and analytics for advanced procurement strategies. McKinsey Insights.https://mck.co/3SO28vM (accessed 31 May 2025).
87.
McKinsey (2024b) LLM to ROI: How to scale generative AI in retail. https://bit.ly/llm2roi.
88.
MetzCHenryJLaffinB, et al. (2024) How self-driving cars get help from humans hundreds of miles away. The New York Timeshttps://nyti.ms/3SO2aUq (accessed 31 May 2025).
89.
MillerT (2019) Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence267: 1–38.
90.
MišićVVPerakisG (2020) Data analytics in operations management: A review. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management22(1): 158–169.
91.
MontgomeryDC (2009) Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. 6th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
92.
MurrayCCChuAG (2015) The flying sidekick traveling salesman problem: Optimization of drone-assisted parcel delivery. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies54: 86–109.
93.
NongPAdler-MilsteinJApathyNC, et al. (2025) Current use and evaluation of artificial intelligence and predictive models in US hospitals. Health Affairs44(1): 90–98.
94.
Nucleus Research (2023) Quantifying the value of predictive maintenance. Technical report, Nucleus Research, x98.
95.
OitzmanM (2025) Starship Technologies surpasses 8M autonomous deliveries. Available at: https://bit.ly/starship8m (accessed 31 May 2025).
96.
OlsenTLTomlinB (2020) Industry 4.0: Opportunities and challenges for operations management. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management22(1): 113–122.
97.
ParasuramanRSheridanTBWickensCD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans30(3): 286–297.
PriceWNIGerkeSCohenIG (2019) Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. JAMA322(18): 1765–1766.
100.
RajkomarADeanJKohaneI (2019) Machine learning in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine380(14): 1347–1358.
101.
RibeiroMTSinghSGuestrinC (2016) ‘Why should I trust you?’: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.1135–1144. ACM.
102.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed.New York, NY: Free Press.
103.
RudinC (2019) Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence1(5): 206–215.
104.
SagonaMDaiTMacisM, et al. (2025) Trust in AI-assisted health systems and AI’s trust in humans. npj Health Systems2: 10.
SaqlainMAbbasQLeeJY (2020) A deep convolutional neural network for wafer defect identification on an imbalanced dataset in semiconductor manufacturing processes. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing33(3): 436–444.
107.
SculleyDHoltGGolovinD, et al. (2015) Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. In: Cortes C, Lawrence ND, Lee DD, et al. (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems28 (NeurIPS 2015). Montréal, Canada: Curran Associates, Inc.
108.
SendasN (2025) Operational excellence in MLOps. Available at: https://bit.ly/oe-mlops (accessed 31 May 2025).
109.
ShortliffeEH (1976) Computer-Based Medical Consultations: MYCIN. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
110.
Siemens (2024) Generative artificial intelligence takes Siemens’ predictive maintenance solution to the next level. Available at: https://bit.ly/gai-siemens (accessed 31 May 2025).
111.
SilverDHuangAMaddisonCJt (2016) Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature529(7587): 484–489.
112.
Simchi-LeviD (2014) OM research: From problem-driven to data-driven research. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management16(1): 2–10.
113.
Simchi-LeviDDaiTMenacheI, et al. (2025) Democratizing optimization with generative AI. Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University. 10.2139/ssrn.5511218.
114.
Simchi-LeviDMellouKMenacheI, et al. (2026) Large language models for supply chain decisions. In: CohenMCDaiT (eds) AI in Supply Chains: Perspectives from Global Thought Leaders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 93–104.
115.
Simchi-LeviDSchmidtWWeiY (2015) From superstorms to factory fires: Managing unpredictable supply-chain disruptions. Harvard Business Review92(1–2): 96–101.
116.
SimonHA (1987) Two heads are better than one: The collaboration between AI and OR. Interfaces17(4): 8–15.
117.
SingerSJKelloggKCGalperAB, et al. (2021) Enhancing the value to users of machine learning-based clinical decision support tools: A framework for iterative, collaborative development and implementation. Health Care Management Review47(2): E21–E31.
118.
SinghalKSinghalJ (2022) Technology and manufacturing-and-service operations since the industrial revolution. Production and Operations Management31(12): 4276–4282.
119.
SkitkaLJMosierKLBurdickM (1999) Does automation bias decision-making?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies51(5): 991–1006.
120.
SnyderCKepplerSLeiderS (2025) Algorithm reliance, fast and slow. Management Science. ePub ahead of print.
121.
StanleyKDMignanoJBlumenthalMS (2024) Public welfare and emerging technology: Balancing interests in automated vehicle regulations across six jurisdictions. Road Vehicle Automation 11, pp.32–48. (Springer).
122.
StewartJ (2017) A drone-slinging UPS van delivers the future. WIREDhttps://bit.ly/drone-ups (accessed 29 May 2025).
123.
SunilG (2025) Cognitive load theory in UI design. Aufait UXhttps://bit.ly/UX-cog (accessed 31 May 2025).
124.
SwaminathanJM (2001) Enabling customization using standardized operations. California Management Review43(3): 125–135.
125.
SwaminathanJM (2025) OM forum—operations management research: Relevance and impact. Manufacturing & Services Operations Management27(1): 1–7.
SwaminathanJMTayurSR (1998) Managing broader product lines through delayed differentiation using vanilla boxes. Management Science44(12.2): S161–S172.
128.
SwaminathanJMTayurSR (2003) Models for supply chains in e-business. Management Science49(10): 1387–1406.
129.
SwaminathanJMXuY (2026) Human-AI enabled supply chains. In: CohenMCDaiT (eds) AI in Supply Chains: Perspectives From Global Thought Leaders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 191–205.
130.
SwellerJ (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science12(2): 257–285.
131.
TaylorFW (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
132.
TayurSR (2026) Can AI really transform real-world supply chains anytime soon?. In: CohenMCDaiT (eds) AI in Supply Chains: Perspectives from Global Thought Leaders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 281–294.
133.
TreveilMOmontNStenacC, et al. (2020) Introducing MLOps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
134.
TulsyanAGarvinCÜndeyC (2018) Advances in industrial biopharmaceutical batch process monitoring: Machine-learning methods for small data problems. Biotechnology and Bioengineering115(8): 1915–1924.
135.
VandeHeiJAllenM (2025) Behind the curtain: A white-collar bloodbath. Axioshttps://bit.ly/ai-job-axios (accessed 31 May 2025).
136.
Van HoekRDeWittMLacityM, et al. (2022) How Walmart automated supplier negotiations. Harvard Business Reviewhttps://bit.ly/hbr-wmt (accessed 31 May 2025).
137.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
138.
WangHZongZXiaT, et al. (2021) Rewriting by generating: Learn heuristics for large-scale vehicle routing problems, manuscript submitted to ICLR 2021; Available at: https://openreview.net/forum?id=xxWl2oEvP2h.
139.
WangYLiuJLiuY, et al. (2017) Ladder: A human-level bidding agent for large-scale real-time online auctions. arXivhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1708.05565.
140.
WibergHDaiTLamH, et al. (2025) Synergizing artificial intelligence and operations research: Perspectives from INFORMS fellows on the next frontier. INFORMS Journal on Data Science. Epub ahead of print. DOI:10.1287/ijds.2025.0077.
141.
WienerEL (1989) Cockpit automation. In: Human Factors in Modern Air Transport Operations, pp.433–449. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
142.
WomackJPJonesDTRoosD (1990) The Machine That Changed the World. New York, NY: Free Press.
143.
Workhorse (2023) Workhorse group announces first commercial drone purchase orders. https://bit.ly/workhorse23 (accessed 31 May 2025).
144.
WuestTKusiakADaiT, et al. (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on manufacturing and supply networks—The case for AI-inspired digital transformation. Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University. 10.2139/ssrn.3593540.
145.
XuYDaiHYanW (2024) Identity disclosure and anthropomorphism in voice chatbot design: A field experiment. Management Science. ePub ahead of print.
146.
YagodaM (2024) Airline held liable for its chatbot giving passenger bad advice: What this means for travellers. Available at: https://bbc.in/49xDqsY.
147.
YanCZhuHKorolkoN, et al. (2020) Dynamic pricing and matching in ride-hailing platforms. Naval Research Logistics67(8): 705–724.
148.
YinMVaughanJWWallachH (2019) Understanding the effect of accuracy on trust in machine learning models. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.1–12. ACM.
