{"id":114830,"date":"2026-08-28T10:33:34","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T08:33:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/industry-science.com\/?post_type=article&p=114830"},"modified":"2026-08-28T10:55:27","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T08:55:27","slug":"ai-demonstrators-manufacturing","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/industry-science.com\/en\/articles\/ai-demonstrators-manufacturing\/","title":{"rendered":"Explaining AI in Industrial Production in an Accessible Way"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in manufacturing can trigger negative emotions among employees\u2014such as uncertainty, fear, overwhelm, and skepticism\u2014and thus hinder the acceptance of AI in industrial transformation processes [1]. Against this backdrop, competencies in working with AI are becoming increasingly important. An ability to understand, interpret, and critically evaluate AI system is essential for their competent use. A recent study also shows that acceptance of AI increases when individuals have prior experience [2].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI demonstrators represent a suitable means of imparting these competencies. They serve as interactive artifacts that facilitate practical experience, didactic understanding, and reflective engagement with AI. As boundary objects, they also support communication and exchange among scientific, technical, and application-oriented stakeholders. [3]\n\n\n\n

Despite their practical relevance, there is currently a lack of systematically derived requirements for AI demonstrators that explicitly aim to reduce negative emotions and promote acceptance. This leads to the following research question: What requirements must AI demonstrators meet to promote acceptance of AI in industrial production and reduce negative emotions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Method for deriving requirements for AI demonstrators<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To answer the research question, a multistage, qualitative research design was chosen that combines empirical data collection with a market and literature analysis (Fig. 1)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure
Figure 1: Method for developing requirements for AI demonstrators to promote acceptance of AI in manufacturing.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The analysis is based on guided interviews with experts, supplemented by market research on existing AI demonstrators as well as (meta)studies. A total of 15 interviews were conducted with experts from academia, industry, and associations (for details, see [7]). The goal of the interviews was to identify relevant design aspects and requirements for AI demonstrators from different perspectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the interviews, an exploratory market and literature analysis was conducted to gain a systematic overview of existing AI demonstrators. Publicly available AI demonstrators were identified, systematically documented, and evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. The analysis shows that demonstrators<\/a> focus on industrial applications such as quality management and process optimization, and that physical and interactive formats are frequently used. Shortcomings in the didactic design are evident, particularly with regard to the transparent presentation of limitations and the tailoring of content to the target audience (for details, see [3]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Meta-)studies on changes in work due to AI\u2014with a focus on shifts in job tasks and competence requirements\u2014, areas of industrial AI application and AI acceptance were also taken into account. The findings from these studies served to supplement the empirical results from interviews and market research. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A qualitative content analysis was initially conducted on the interviews and the market and literature analysis at the meta-level using a based on Mayring\u2019s method with MAXQDA. The framework from [4], which describes design principles for demonstrators, was used as the analytical framework. Aspects of technology acceptance were incorporated into the analysis using established acceptance models such as the AI-TAM [8] and empirical findings from a meta-analysis [9]. Furthermore, studies investigating changes in work tasks and competency requirements [10-13], as well as meta-analyses on fields of application for AI in industrial practice [14, 15], were considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To translate the identified aspects from the meta- to the implementation level, the framework described in [6] was applied, which distinguishes between functional requirements, quality requirements, and constraints. The codes and categories formed as part of the content analysis were assigned to the respective requirement types and then selected. The selection criterion was that a code had to be mentioned by at least one-third of the interviewed experts and\/or identified in the other analyzed sources (market research and studies). In this way, the number of codes was reduced, and the focus was narrowed to central, repeatedly documented content. Based on the prioritized codes, requirements were finally formulated according to [6].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a subsequent step, the derived requirements were extended with additional requirements from a user-centered perspective. A persona-based workshop was conducted, building on a prior study investigating the causes of negative emotions toward AI [1]. The underlying personas made it possible to systematically incorporate emotional patterns into the requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an interdisciplinary workshop, user requirements for AI demonstrators were jointly developed, structured, and prioritized (for details, see [16]). Existing requirements from the preliminary analysis were consolidated where content overlapped and newly identified aspects were added to the requirements catalog. While not claiming to be statistically representative, the goal is to develop a structured, practical framework for the design and evaluation of AI demonstrators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results: Requirements for AI demonstrators<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Based on the analysis, a total of 69 requirements for AI demonstrators were identified, including 42 functional requirements, 22 quality requirements, and five overarching constraints. The functional requirements address content-related and didactic characteristics, while the quality requirements focus on user experience, design, and operation. The constraints describe fundamental prerequisites for the development of AI demonstrators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The functional requirements were structured according to the goals and design principles outlined in [4] (Fig. 2)<\/strong>. These include requirements aimed at transparency, expectation management, and the contextualization of AI systems. Several experts emphasize that demonstrators should also specifically highlight the limitations and errors of AI in order to counteract inflated expectations. A technical expert illustrates this with an example: [One should] make the limitations visible in the demonstrator by showing what was necessary to achieve the result and everything that was done to make it work [\u2026] Then one could take a small and seemingly obvious next step, one that a human would still be able to understand [\u2026] whereas the AI system [\u2026] would fail completely.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This perspective is supported by both the market and the literature analysis. It underscores the importance of realistic expectation management as a central function of AI demonstrators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to highlighting technical limitations, illustrating concrete potential benefits is essential. As one company representative explains: \u201cFor production workers, the demonstrator needs to highlight the personal benefits much more clearly and at an earlier stage […].\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, functional requirements include practical scenarios, everyday examples, and the visualization of concrete ways in which work is made easier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure
Figure 2: Functional requirements for AI demonstrators (EI = expert interviews).<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The quality requirements were structured according to the categories in [6] as well as supplementary categories derived from the analysis (Fig. 3)<\/strong>. In addition to traditional aspects such as reliability and usability, requirements related to design, visual impact, and user experience stand out. As one AI developer puts it: \u201cSomething where you can try things out for yourself [\u2026] and not only see the AI\u2019s decisions on the screen, but actually experience them physically [\u2026], that\u2019s naturally always a crowd-pleaser.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure
Figure 3: Quality requirements for AI demonstrators (EI = expert interviews).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the following five constraints were identified that pertain to the development and design process of AI demonstrators [EI]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n