Evaluation of AI Tools in Terms of Sustainable Workforce Productivity and Their Impact on Organizational Outcomes Using an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Approach

Adis Puška; Jurica Bosna; Darko Božanić

doi:10.31181/jopi41202665

Authors

Adis Puška Department of Public Safety, Government of Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brčko 76100, Bosnia and Herzegovina Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3274-0188
Jurica Bosna Department of Economics, University of Zadar, Zadar 23000, Croatia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7633-4862
Darko Božanić Military Academy, University of Defence in Belgrade, Belgrade 11000, Serbia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9657-0889

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/jopi41202665

Keywords:

AI tools, Sustainable productivity, Intuitionistic fuzzy approach, SWARA method, MABAC method

Abstract

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant opportunities to improve organizational performance. However, organizations must leverage its potential to enhance productivity without compromising employees' long-term well-being. This study addresses this challenge by developing a multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating six AI tools against eight sustainability-oriented criteria. Expert judgments provided by academic researchers from the Republic of Croatia were used to assess both the importance of the evaluation criteria and the performance of the AI tools in supporting sustainable organizational efficiency. Given the uncertainty and imprecision inherent in expert evaluations, an intuitionistic fuzzy framework was employed. The SWARA (Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) method was applied to determine the criteria weights, while the MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison) method was used to rank the AI tools. The results indicate that improving individual productivity and enhancing employee engagement and motivation are the most influential evaluation criteria. The findings further show that AI tools supporting employee learning and development, together with decision-support capabilities, represent the most suitable solutions for sustainable organizational efficiency. The robustness of the proposed framework was confirmed through comparative and sensitivity analyses. The study provides practical guidance for managers seeking to balance technological advancement with the long-term development and well-being of human resources.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics (Working Paper 24001). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24001

Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2023). Generative AI at Work (Working Paper 31161). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161

Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174

Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2023). The duality of algorithmic management: Toward a research agenda on HRM algorithms, autonomy and value creation. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100876

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job Demands & Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Mitrovic Veljkovic, S., Djakovic Radojicic, I., Nesic Tomasevic, A., Subotic, M., Nikolic, D., & Dudic, B. (2026). Decision-Making Style of Managers in the Public Sector: Is There a Possibility for Improvement? International Journal of Economic Sciences, 15(1), 386-405. https://doi.org/10.31181/ijes1512026283

Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863

Pezeshgi, A., Abarghoei, M. V., Naeimi, M., & Family, Q. (2026). Trusting the Machine: How Consumer Trust in Artificial Intelligence Shapes Future Adoption Intentions. Management Science Advances, 3(1), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202640

Özekenci, E. K. (2025). A Multi-Criteria Framework for Economic Decision Support in Urban Sustainability: Comparative Insights from European Cities. International Journal of Economic Sciences, 14(1), 162-181. https://doi.org/10.31181/ijes1412025188

Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3

Işık, Ö., & Adalar, İ. (2025). A multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment based on the extended CRADIS method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A case study of Turkish non-life insurers. Neural Computing & Applications, 37(5), 3317–3342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-10803-0

Tešić, D. (2025). A Machine Learning and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Student Grade Prediction. Smart Multi-Criteria Analytics and Reasoning Technologies, 1(1), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.65069/smart1120253

Cherradi, M., & El Haddadi, A. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Sentiment Analysis in Film Reviews. Acadlore Transactions on AI and Machine Learning, 3(3), 137-147. https://doi.org/10.56578/ataiml030301

Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work (Working Paper 24196). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24196

Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072

Ball, K. (2010). Workplace surveillance: an overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00236561003654776

Ravid, D. M., Tomczak, D. L., White, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2020). EPM 20/20: A review, framework, and research agenda for electronic performance monitoring. Journal of Management, 46(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319869435

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J.-F. (2019). The technostress trifecta ‐ techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169

Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. B. (2009). Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Developing Social Sustainability. Routledge.

Mariappanadar, S. (2020). Sustainable Human Resource Management: Strategies, Practices and Challenges. Red Globe Press.

Shneiderman, B. (2022). Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press.

Sheeran, Z., Sutton, A., & Cooper-Thomas, H. D. (2025). Environmental sustainability and the happy-productive worker: examining the impact on employee well-being and work performance in educational institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 39(2), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-11-2024-0704

Ramgolam, G., Ramphul, N., & Chittoo, H. (2025). The role of sustainable human resource management practices to achieve sustainable employee performance – literature review and future research directions. The Learning Organization, 32(6), 885–903. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-01-2025-0014

Jiang, Y., Jamil, S., Zaman, S. I., & Fatima, S. A. (2024). Elevating organizational effectiveness: synthesizing human resource management with sustainable performance alignment. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 11(2), 392–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp-03-2023-0111

Islam, M. F., Al Masud, A., Emon, M., Shuvro, R. A., Jony, M. T. I., & Akter, T. (2025). Integrating green HRM for productivity and sustainability: green innovation, engagement and pro-environmental behavior as key mediators. Future Business Journal, 11(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-025-00433-w

Madero-Gómez, S. M., Rubio Leal, Y. L., Olivas-Luján, M., & Yusliza, M. Y. (2023). Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability, 15(6), 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065435

Sypniewska, B., Baran, M., & Kłos, M. (2023). Work engagement and employee satisfaction in the practice of sustainable human resource management – based on the study of Polish employees. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 19(3), 1069–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00834-9

Khlud, V. (2026). Governing Fair Algorithmic Hiring Under the EU AI Act: A Multi-Layer Decision Architecture for High-Risk Recruitment Systems. Applied Decision Analytics, 2(1), 271-282.

Ilinca Fron, M., & Fleseriu, C. (2025). AI versus Human Content Creation on Instagram: Engagement Outcomes and Consumer Perceptions. Oeconomica Jadertina, 15(2), 19-47. https://doi.org/10.15291/oec.4845

Petrović, N., Jovanović, V., Marković, S., Marinković, D., & Petrović, M. (2024). Multicriteria sustainability assessment of transport modes: A European Union case study for 2020. Journal of Green Economy and Low-Carbon Development, 3(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.56578/jgelcd030104

Chabok, S. H., & Tešić, D. (2024). Comprehensive strategic planning for construction companies using fuzzy MADM techniques. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics, 2(4), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020403

Katrancı, A., Kundakcı, N., & Arman, K. (2026). Fuzzy SIWEC and Fuzzy RAWEC Methods for Sustainable Waste Disposal Technology Selection. Spectrum of Operational Research, 3(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633

Ali, A., Ullah, K., & Hussain, A. (2023). An approach to multi-attribute decision-making based on intuitionistic fuzzy soft information and Aczel-Alsina operational laws. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 3(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10006062023a

Petrović, I. B., & Petrović, M. D. (2025). Optimization of the short-range surface-to-air artillery-missile system design process using the hybridized triangular IT2FS-DEMATEL-MABAC approach. Vojnotehnički glasnik/Military Technical Courier, 73(3), 826-855. https://doi.org/10.5937/vojtehg73-57246

Shahin, V., Alimohammadlou, M., & Pamucar, D. (2026). An Interval-Valued Circular Intuitionistic Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Renewable Energy Source Selection. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 3(1), 243-268. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202645

Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new Step‐Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12

Li, D., Rong, Y., Zhang, B., & Simic, V. (2026). Assessing digital transformation capability evaluation of logistics enterprises utilizing spherical fuzzy alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization approach. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 24(1), 089-116. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME250615003L

Yalçın, G. C., Özyürek, H., & Dişçi, C. (2026). Benchmarking the Financial Performance of the Corporate Governance Index under Borsa Istanbul Companies Using SITDE and MABAC Framework. Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, 2(1), 169-193.

Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., & Özekenci, E. K. (2025). Measuring Logistics Performance in Emerging Economies: Insights from the SITDE–MABAC Method. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics, 3(4), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.56578/josa030401

Sharma, S., & Singh, S. (2025). Single – Valued Neutrosophic Yager Power Aggregation Operators and Its Application to MCDM. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 35(4), 837–856. https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR240715004S

Vahabzadeh, S., Haghshenas, S., Ghoushchi, S., Guido, G., Simic, V., & Marinkovic, D. (2025). A new framework for risk assessment of road transportation of hazardous substances. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 23(3), 479-509. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME240801007V

Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057

Ergün, M. (2025). Strategic Assessment of Port Logistics Information Systems Using Fuzzy FUCOM–Fuzzy RAWEC: A Case from the Black Sea Region. Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 36-55. https://doi.org/10.56578/jote030103

Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., Gürol, P., & Babič, M. (2025). A Fermatean Fuzzy MCDM Framework for Green Port Transformation and Heavy-Duty Forklift Selection. Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 4(4), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse040404

Saeed, M., Inam, U. H. H., Ali, M., & Mustafa, M. (2026). A Robust Algorithmic Framework for the Evaluation of World Happiness Ranking Based on Q Rung Orthopair Triangular Fuzzy Neutrosophic Set With Possibility Setting (PQ-RTFNS). Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR240718017S

Mishra, A. R., & Rani, P. (2025). Evaluating and Prioritizing Blockchain Networks using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 2(1), 78-92. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202527

Bakary, S., Bouraima, M. B., & Badi, I. (2026). A Multi-Criteria-Decision Making Methodology to Prioritizing Telemedicine Expansion Opportunities. Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, 2(1), 55-63.

Obeidat, A. M., Khaddam, A. A., Alzghoul, A., Al Afeshat, M. T. M., & Al Ghizzawi, M. (2026). How Business Intelligence Shapes Service Innovation: Knowledge Sharing as a Mediator and Culture as a Moderator in the Jordanian Context. Economics - Innovative and Economic Research Journal, 14(1), 391-411. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2026-0019

Jemmali, S., Sadraoui, T., & Azouzi, M. A. (2026). CEO Emotional Intelligence Level, Creativity, Innovation and Economic Growth. Economics - Innovative and Economic Research Journal, 14(1), 413-439. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2026-0020

Botunac, I. (2025). Implementacija višeagentnog sustava umjetne inteligencije za donošenje financijskih trgovačkih odluka. Oeconomica Jadertina, 15(2), 90-115. https://doi.org/10.15291/oec.4863

Sarkar, A., & Goswami, S. S. (2026). A Review of the Application of MCDM Methods in Business Analytics. Applied Decision Analytics, 2(1), 150-180. https://doi.org/10.66972/ada21202614

Yürüyen, A. A., & Ulutaş, A. (2024). Assessing the urban competitiveness of European cities using LOPCOW-RAWEC methodologies. International Journal of Knowledge and Innovation Studies, 2(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis020305

Mitrović, D., Demir, G., Badi, I., & Bouraima, M. B. (2025). Balancing Efficiency and Risk in Public Sector Artificial Intelligence with Data Envelopment Analysis and Portfolio Approaches. Applied Decision Analytics, 1(1), 15-35. https://doi.org/10.66972/ada1120254

Nedeljković, M., Đokić, M., & Ćosić, M. (2026). Selection of Robots in Precision Agriculture Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. Smart Multi-Criteria Analytics and Reasoning Technologies, 2(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.65069/smart2120265