{"id":112923,"date":"2026-02-09T18:34:32","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T17:34:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/industry-science.com\/?post_type=article&p=112923"},"modified":"2026-03-26T15:07:29","modified_gmt":"2026-03-26T14:07:29","slug":"guidelines-fair-use-generative-ai","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/industry-science.com\/en\/articles\/guidelines-fair-use-generative-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"Guidelines for the Fair Use of Generative AI"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and other generative AI-based assistants are being introduced in more and more companies. They can be employed for a wide range of tasks, including for creating, correcting, translating, and summarizing texts as well as for programming and control tasks, problem solving, and knowledge generation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies are also recognizing that developing company-specific usage strategies is necessary to tap into the productivity potential [1] of these AI tools: in addition to aspects such as the protection of sensitive company data [2] or the risk of so-called \u201challucinations\u201d [3], the introduction of generative AI can also lead to resistance among employees, e.g., due to concerns about impending job losses [4, 5<\/a>]. For the trustworthy and responsible use of the technology, it is therefore particularly important to consider fairness criteria (non-discrimination, no performance monitoring, job promotion\/security) and to develop AI guidelines on that basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A number of good practice examples (e.g., Deutsche Telekom\u2019s AI manifesto) and general guidelines are now available to operational decision-makers as a \u201cblueprint\u201d for developing employee-oriented guidelines [6]. However, it is essential for successful implementation that company guidelines are developed with the participation<\/a> of the various stakeholder groups and taking into account the areas of application within the company [7]. This requires the identification of specific potential uses and risks in the company setting. But how can companies identify the potential and risks of AI use in a participatory manner and incorporate them into their AI guidelines?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As part of the HUMAINE project, the Institute for Work, Skills and Training at the University of Duisburg-Essen has developed the FriendlyTechCheck (FTC), a dialogue process that enables company stakeholders to independently identify design requirements for the implementation of artificial intelligence and use them, for example, to develop guidelines [8, 9]. This article presents the process. Based on two practical examples from companies, it shows how the FTC can support the development of context-sensitive and employee-oriented AI guidelines in companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FriendlyTechCheck for risk and potential analysis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The aim of the FTC is to enable operational designers to analyze AI systems in their respective socio-technical contexts with regard to resource-promoting (\u201cfriendly AI\u201d) and harmful effects (\u201cunfriendly AI\u201d). The tool is based on established human criteria (e.g., learning supportiveness, harmlessness) for the introduction and use of digital technologies [10] and covers various dimensions (Fig. 1<\/strong>). The theoretical basis is a modification of Demerouti\u2019s demand-resource model [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure
Figure 1: Dimensions and evaluation criteria of the FriendlyTechCheck.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The FTC can be used during planning as well as during and after technology introduction. The procedure aims to facilitate dialogue between various operational stakeholders in order to take different perspectives into account. The evaluation of an AI system using the FTC checklist is therefore generally carried out by several operational stakeholders (e.g., managers, works councils, users). It is embedded in a workshop format moderated by trained company stakeholders (e.g., from the works council or from the human resources or occupational safety department). Participants should have knowledge of how the planned AI system works and initial experience of using it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The workshop (duration approx. 1.5 hours, depending on operational requirements) consists of the following phases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Survey phase<\/strong>: Participants evaluate the AI system using the FTC checklist. The risk and potential analysis along the FTC dimensions takes less than ten minutes to complete.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Evaluation phase: <\/strong>The collected data is presented graphically and made available to the moderator. They then present the results of the screening and ask participants to place the results in the industrial context. The aim is to establish a specific contextual reference to the identified potentials and risks, which is essential for the subsequent development of design measures.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Design phase:<\/strong> Against the backdrop of the identified potentials and risks, the participants develop concrete design ideas. This includes both the promotion of potentials and the preventive reduction of risks through accompanying measures. The design ideas are evaluated by the participants in terms of their feasibility and relevance. The documentation of the results is forwarded to those responsible for implementation in the company (unless the participants already have the relevant authority or resources).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Practical application in the company<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Below, we provide an insight into how the FTC was used in two different fields of application and what implications this had for the development of AI guidelines. At Fraunhofer IAO, the Production Excellence department used the method to assess the risks and potential of generative AI-based chatbots in production management. The nine participants (seven members of project staff, one manager, one occupational safety specialist) are responsible for planning logistics and production processes in customer and research projects and have initial experience of using ChatGPT. The tool is used here for research purposes, programming, and to support the preparation of quotations and reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The second group consisted of six employees from Iserlohner Werkst\u00e4tten gGmbH, most of whom work in the field of digitalization and represent the interests of workshop employees. The group (one supervisor, three employees from the technical department, and two representatives from the works council) was given the opportunity to act as \u2018early adopters\u2019 and identify potential areas of application for ChatGPT in workshops for people with disabilities. Among other things, AI is used here to populate a self-developed content management system for creating personalized work instructions for workshop employees. The participants expected the FTC deployment to provide insights into the potentials and design requirements associated with a possible rollout of generative AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The key findings based on the evaluation of the FTC surveys and workshops for both case studies are presented separately below. We focus on the dimensions of well-being, skills, and fairness. For results on the other FTC dimensions, see [12].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Key findings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \"Figure
    Figure 2: Potential and risks of ChatGPT from the perspective of production management.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    The FTC results in the area of production management (Fig. 2) show that participants see considerable potential in the use of ChatGPT. For example, respondents report that using ChatGPT enables them to improve the linguistic quality of applications or reports, which boosts their self-esteem. Potential is also seen in familiarizing oneself with new, particularly non-specialist topics and reducing processing times for bureaucratic tasks such as business trip requests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In addition to these potentials for relief and learning, however, respondents also see challenges, particularly with regard to long-term effects on professional status and employment opportunities. The majority of participants fear that their expertise may be less in demand among customers in the future. One project employee commented: \u201cBut if it turns out that artificial intelligence produces results just as good as you do, there\u2019s no reason why what you do is still a valuable job.\u201d The majority of engineers assume that ChatGPT will not completely replace their work and that instead there will be a shift in tasks toward control activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, there are fears, particularly in the area of project acquisition, that project providers will reduce volumes due to the possibilities of automation, which could lead to involuntary part-time work or shorter project durations. All participants also see the lack of systematic training in the use of ChatGPT as a central problem in its current operational deployment, which they believe could have a negative long-term impact on both career opportunities and the productivity of the institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Figure
    Figure 3: Potential and risks of ChatGPT from the perspective of social welfare.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    At first glance, we see some similar FTC assessments in social welfare (Fig. 3). However, during the group discussion, it becomes clear that these must be viewed in a different (usage) context. The rehabilitation specialists employed in the workshops hope that the introduction of a company-specific ChatGPT will free up time for their original educational tasks. For example, the content management system currently being developed by the digitalization department will use ChatGPT to support the creation of needs-based work instructions for workshop employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The participants do not see any particular employment risks for either the educational staff or the people with disabilities entrusted to them in the workshops when introducing an in-house ChatGPT: \u201cI don’t think we’ll be cutting jobs. Instead, the task will shift\u201d (supervisor). The question of appropriate training in the use of generative AI is less acute due to its current \u2018experimental status\u2019. However, involving workshop employees in the use of and training in ChatGPT is considered an important task for the future as it ensures that they are prepared for the primary labor market: \u201cBut the [training] should definitely be provided because it simply breaks down barriers\u201d (technical department employee).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Implications for a human-centered generative AI usage strategy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The results show that the impact of generative AI on work and employment is ambivalent and context-dependent. Participants in both FTC workshops rated ChatGPT as a useful tool. At the same time, key design requirements were discussed. In production management, these mainly related to the acquisition of new skills in the use of generative AI and dealing with potential employment risks. In the case of social welfare, any negative effects were considered less acute due to the \u2018experimental status\u2019 of the technology. Nevertheless, training and organizational guidelines are required in order to ensure the quality of work and compliance with data protection requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In both cases, the development and implementation of an AI usage strategy geared toward design requirements was assessed as a decisive success factor in leveraging the potential of AI use in business. From the perspective of those involved, the following guidelines are central:<\/p>\n\n\n\n