applied

sciences
Article
Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Robotic Process
Automation: Literature Review and Proposal for
a Sustainable Model
Leonel Patrício 1, * , Leonilde Varela 1 and Zilda Silveira 2

1 Department of Production and Systems, Algoritmi/LASI, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães, Portugal;
[email protected]
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sao Carlos School of Engineering, University of Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo 13566-590, Brazil; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This article investigates the growing integration between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and
Robotic Process Automation (RPA), proposing an innovative model aimed at optimizing the op-
erational efficiency of organizations balancing the social and environmental impacts arising from
the use of these technologies. The research identifies a significant gap in the literature through a
systematic review, revealing the need for greater attention to the social and environmental impacts
of the implementation of AI and RPA. Employing an approach based on the PICO methodology
(Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), this study justifies the formulation of hypotheses
and the choice of methodology, ensuring scientific rigor. The proposed model considers ethical issues
such as privacy and cybersecurity and explores the challenges associated with the adoption of these
innovations. The discussion includes the readiness of organizations to integrate these technologies,
highlighting technical and cultural limitations that may influence the model’s effectiveness. The
theoretical results suggest that careful implementation can optimize resource utilization, promoting a
balance between operational efficiency and social and environmental responsibility. Furthermore, the
article presents an analysis of the positive impacts, such as improved efficiency, and negative impacts,
Citation: Patrício, L.; Varela, L.; such as the fear of job displacement associated with the integration of AI and RPA, reinforcing the
Silveira, Z. Integration of Artificial need for responsible adoption that fosters social and environmental sustainability in the digital age.
Intelligence and Robotic Process
Automation: Literature Review and
Keywords: RPA; AI; systematic review; integration systems; SIRAI
Proposal for a Sustainable Model.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app14219648

Academic Editors: Janis Arents, 1. Introduction

Vytautas Bucinskas and
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process Automation (RPA)
Andrius Dzedzickis
has emerged as an increasingly relevant topic in contemporary organizational contexts.
Received: 11 September 2024 As companies strive to enhance operational efficiency and adaptability within a rapidly
Revised: 10 October 2024 evolving market, the combination of these technologies presents an innovative and po-
Accepted: 14 October 2024 tentially transformative solution. AI, with its capacity to learn and adapt, in conjunction
Published: 22 October 2024 with RPA, which automates repetitive and rule-based tasks, creates an environment where
organizations can not only optimize internal processes but also respond more agilely to
customer needs and market demands [1].
The importance of this study lies in the pressing need to understand how the integra-
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
tion of AI and RPA can be achieved to improve operational efficiency without adversely
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
affecting social and environmental factors. Although the literature surrounding these
This article is an open access article
technologies has expanded considerably in recent years, a significant gap remains in ana-
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
lyzing the social and environmental impacts of their implementation. Issues related to data
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
privacy, cybersecurity, and potential job displacement warrant further investigation [2].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
This article seeks to address this gap by presenting a systematic review of existing literature
4.0/). and proposing a model that takes these critical factors into account [3].

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14219648 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 2 of 20

To effectively discuss the integration of AI and RPA, it is essential to clearly define

several key concepts. Strategic integration refers to aligning these technologies with an
organization’s long-term objectives, ensuring that the adoption of AI and RPA maximizes
benefits while minimizing risks [4]. Operational efficiency, in this context, can be assessed
through metrics such as cost reduction, service quality improvement, and decreased pro-
cessing times. Sustainability encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions,
acknowledging that organizational effectiveness should not be achieved at the expense of
societal well-being or environmental preservation [5].
The objectives of this study are multifaceted. Firstly, it seeks to analyze the existing
literature on the integration of AI and RPA, identifying gaps and areas requiring further
research. Secondly, it aims to develop a model that optimizes operational efficiency while
balancing the social and environmental implications arising from the implementation of
these technologies [6]. Finally, the study intends to offer practical recommendations for
organizations aiming to adopt these innovations responsibly and sustainably [7].
This article is structured into several sections. Section 2 presents a detailed literature
review, examining the evolution of AI and RPA technologies, as well as the challenges and
opportunities their integration poses. Section 3 outlines the methodology applied in the
systematic literature review, justifying the selection of the PICO approach and explaining
the hypothesis formulation process. Section 4 introduces the proposed model, highlighting
its key features and the advantages it offers over existing models. In Section 5, the research
findings are analyzed, discussing the implications of AI and RPA integration with respect to
operational efficiency and social and environmental sustainability. Finally, Section 6 concludes
the article, summarizing the key findings and suggesting directions for future research.
In summary, this article seeks to contribute to the understanding of the intersection
between Artificial Intelligence and Robotic Process Automation, proposing a model that
not only promotes operational efficiency but also incorporates social and environmental
responsibility, aligning with the demands of an increasingly digital and interconnected world.

2. Literature Review
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process Automation (RPA)
is an increasingly relevant topic within contemporary organizational contexts. AI refers
to computational systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intel-
ligence, such as speech recognition, decision-making, and learning from data [7]. These
capabilities enable AI to continually improve its performance as it is exposed to new infor-
mation. In contrast, RPA involves the use of software to automate repetitive, rule-based
tasks, resulting in enhanced efficiency and a reduction in human error. The combination
of these technologies represents a significant advancement, as AI can imbue automated
processes with intelligence, enabling more agile and responsive operations [8].
Numerous studies have explored the integration of AI and RPA, highlighting potential
benefits such as optimizing operational efficiency and enhancing the ability to respond to
market demands. The existing literature suggests that the combination of these technologies
allows organizations not only to reduce costs but also to improve the quality of the services
they provide. However, many studies lack an in-depth analysis of the interaction between
AI and RPA, often treating these technologies as isolated entities rather than as components
of an integrated system. More recent research indicates that collaboration between AI and
RPA may yield significant innovations, yet there is a scarcity of models that clearly explain
how this synergy can be achieved sustainably [9].
Despite the growing body of literature on AI and RPA, a notable gap remains in
the analysis of their social and environmental impacts. Most studies focus on metrics of
efficiency and cost reduction, overlooking social implications such as job displacement and
ethical concerns related to data privacy and security. The absence of empirical research
examining the effects of integrating AI and RPA across different sectors and organizational
contexts raises questions regarding the generalizability of existing findings. Furthermore,
the measurement of sustainability at the intersection of AI and RPA remains underexplored,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 3 of 20

underscoring the need for methodologies that consider not only economic outcomes but
also social and environmental impacts [10].
Sustainability is a multifaceted concept encompassing environmental, social, and
economic dimensions. Measuring operational efficiency alongside sustainability presents a
challenge, as each of these dimensions may require distinct metrics. For instance, while
operational efficiency can be assessed through cost reduction and quality improvement,
sustainability necessitates a more holistic approach, considering the environmental impact
of operations and social well-being. Consequently, the integration of AI and RPA should
be approached with a clear focus on sustainability outcomes, proposing indicators that
simultaneously measure economic performance as well as social and environmental effects.
The current literature lacks clear guidelines on how to implement these indicators effectively,
creating an urgent need for further research to explore these interconnections [11].
To integrate the proposed model in practice, organizations must begin by assessing
their readiness to adopt RPA and AI, taking into account both technological capacity and
cultural alignment. Once readiness is established, the model will guide the selection and
implementation of RPA and AI technologies based on predefined efficiency metrics and
sustainability indicators. These indicators will enable organizations to monitor not only
operational gains but also the broader social and environmental impacts. Regular evaluations
and adjustments will be made to ensure that the integration process aligns with both business
objectives and sustainability goals, thus ensuring responsible and effective adoption.
This review emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive study that not only analyses
the operational efficiency resulting from the integration of AI and RPA but also investigates
their social and environmental impacts. The limited focus on social aspects and the lack of
appropriate metrics indicates that, while the benefits of these technologies are evident, their
implementation must be meticulously planned to ensure that integration promotes not only
economic efficiency but also social responsibility and environmental sustainability.

3. Methodology
3.1. Method
The selection of the PICO methodology (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Out-
come) for this study’s methodology is based on its capacity to structure the research clearly
and precisely, enabling a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the issues under investiga-
tion. Unlike narrative reviews, which are vulnerable to subjective bias and lack a systematic
framework, the systematic review adopts a structured methodological approach, centered
around a core research question. This question directs the selection and analysis of relevant
studies, defining the essential elements of the investigation [12].
In this context, the population for this study comprises organizations that are either
implementing or considering the implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic
Process Automation (RPA) solutions. This definition is crucial, as it allows the focus to
be placed on a specific group that can provide valuable insights into the social, economic,
and environmental impacts of adopting these technologies, ensuring that the findings are
relevant and applicable to similar organizational contexts [12].
The intervention refers to the integration of AI and RPA into organizational practices.
This combination not only seeks to optimize operational efficiency but also aims to ensure
that the implementation of these technologies is conducted in a responsible and sustainable
manner. The choice of this intervention is justified by the growing evidence that the synergy
between AI and RPA can yield substantial benefits, while simultaneously raising ethical
and social concerns that need to be addressed [12].
The comparison will be drawn between organizations that have implemented the
integration of AI and RPA and those that have not, or those that have only implemented
one of these technologies. This comparison is essential to better understand the differences
in operational efficiency and the associated social and environmental impacts of each
approach. By emphasizing these comparisons, the study will identify the tangible outcomes
of the integration and the factors influencing its success or failure [12].
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 4 of 20

The expected outcome of the investigation is the identification of improvements

in operational efficiency, alongside a critical analysis of the social and environmental
implications of integrating AI and RPA. The application of the PICO methodology will
enable the formulation of robust hypotheses and the collection and analysis of data in a
manner that allows for the clear and objective measurement of these outcomes [12].
The methodology employed in this study involved the analysis of a selection of
relevant data sources. A PICO-based approach was utilized to select the articles included
in the literature review, using well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria [12]. Articles
were initially identified through a bibliographic search, and the screening process involved
reviewing titles and abstracts, with a focus on identifying works that specifically addressed
topics related to RPA, AI, or their integration. Articles unrelated to the subject or that did
not meet the defined criteria were excluded, resulting in a final selection of articles that
made significant contributions to the research.
Relevant information was drawn from the contributions of prominent authors who
have addressed this topic or related aspects. The collection of articles used for analysis was
obtained from the “B-on” online library database, selected for its comprehensive access to
full-text scientific publications across a wide range of indexed journals and international
conference proceedings, also indexed in the ISI WOS and/or Scopus systems. “B-on” is
among the most extensive databases, encompassing thousands of peer-reviewed journals
in various scientific fields.
Thus, the application of the PICO methodology not only provides a clear structure for
data analysis but also facilitates the connection between the formulated hypotheses and the
evidence found in the literature. The resulting systematic review aims to fill existing gaps and
offer a model that supports the responsible integration of AI and RPA within organizations,
promoting operational efficiency in alignment with social and environmental responsibility.
The central research question and hypotheses that guided this study were
formulated accordingly.
Central Research Question (CRQ):
CRQ: How can the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process
Automation (RPA) be optimized to enhance the operational efficiency of organizations
while balancing the social and environmental impacts arising from the implementation of
these technologies?
Hypotheses (H):

H1. The integration of AI and RPA in business processes allows us to identify successful practices
that combine operational efficiency with social and environmental responsibility, promoting a culture
of responsible innovation in organizations.

H2. The responsible adoption of a model that considers the social and environmental implications of
integrating AI and RPA is associated with greater acceptance from employees and a reduction in the
fear of job displacement, thereby promoting a more sustainable and ethical organizational environment.

By addressing these research questions, this study aims to provide a comprehensive

overview, elucidating how AI and RPA can be leveraged to achieve sustainability goals
within modern industries.
The two hypotheses underpin the premise that the integration of Artificial Intelli-
gence (AI) and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) can lead to significant improvements
in operational efficiency, provided that the social and environmental impacts of their
implementation are carefully considered. The first hypothesis (H1) posits that successful
practices can be identified that balance efficiency with social responsibility, while the second
hypothesis (H2) is based on the expectation that responsible adoption of these technologies
will foster employee acceptance and alleviate concerns regarding job displacement, thus
contributing to a more sustainable organizational environment.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 5 of 20

To conduct the search process underlying this study, researchers accessed the online
scientific library provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology,
focusing on three distinct groups (Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3), as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Groups searched through “B-on”.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

“RPA” Or “Robotic Process
Automation” Or “Intelligent
Process Automation” Or
“Tools Process Automation”
Or “Artificial Intelligence In
“Sustainability” Or
Business Process” Or
“Sustainable” Or “Social
“Machine Learning In
Sustainability” Or
Business Process” Or
“Environment” Or
“Cognitive Process
“Model” Or “Model “Environmental
Automation” Or “Automation
Evaluation” Or “Tool” Or Sustainability” Or “Economic
of Business Processes” Or
“Tool Evaluation” Or Sustainability” Or
“Digital Process Automation”
“Evaluation” Or “Framework” “Sustainable Development”
Or “Business Process
Or “Structure” Or “Template” Or “Eco-friendly” Or “Green
Optimization” Or “Business
Or “Model Assessment” Or Practices” Or “Sustainable
Workflow Automation” Or
“Tool Assessment” Or Growth” Or “Environmental
“AI-Driven Process
“Method” Or “Methodology” Conservation” Or “Ecological
Automation” Or “AI in
Or “System” Or “System Balance” Or “Sustainable
Workflow Management” Or
Evaluation” Or “Architecture” Practices” Or “Sustainable
“Process Automation Tools”
Or “Blueprint” Or “Schema” Economy” Or “Sustainable
Or “AI-Powered Business
Or “Design” Or “Framework Living” Or “Environmental
Automation” Or “Intelligent
Evaluation” Or “Structure Protection” Or “Social
Workflow Automation” Or
Evaluation” Or “Modeling Responsibility” Or “Green
“Smart Process Automation”
Framework” Or “Modeling Development” Or
Or “Business Automation
Tool” Or “Modeling Structure” “Sustainable Business” Or
Solutions” Or “End-to-End
Or “Approach” Or “Tool “Climate Action” Or
Process Automation” Or
Analysis” Or “Tool “Corporate Sustainability” Or
“Machine Learning in
Framework” “Environmental Stewardship”
Workflow Automation” Or
Or “Eco-conscious” Or
“Enterprise Process
“Sustainable Innovation” Or
Automation” Or “Cognitive
“Resilient Development” Or
Automation in Business” Or
“Circular Economy”
“Automated Business
Intelligence” Or “Process
Automation Platforms” Or
“AI in Business Process
Reengineering”

Research tests were conducted using the “B-on” platform, employing the OR operator
to connect either the Title, Keywords (KWs), or Abstract (AB) within the three specified
groups.
Subsequently, during the research process, filters were applied based on the sets of
publications acquired, and the outcomes, in terms of publication numbers, are summarized
in Table 2.

Table 2. Publications obtained through B-on, after the application of some filters.

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Initial result: 4 874 18
1—Restrict to Peer-Reviewed 2 598 14
2—From 2000 to 2024 2 518 14
3—Language: English 2 436 14
4—Restrict to Full Text 2 379 12
 2—From 2000 to 2024 2 518 14
3—Language: English 2 436 14
4—Restrict to Full Text 2 379 12
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 6 of 20
After applying the filters, a review of the titles, keywords, and abstracts of each article
was conducted to identify those directly relevant to the research. Initially, a total of 896
papers were retrieved.After applying the filters, a review of the titles, keywords, and abstracts of each article
Following the application of filters, 393 articles remained, of which
was conducted to identify those directly relevant to the research. Initially, a total of 896
only 54 were found to align
papers closely Following
were retrieved. with thethe research theme.
application One
of filters, 393reason for the limited
articles remained, of which
number of relevant papers
only 54 wereisfound
that many
to alignfocused
closely withonthe
assessing the formation
research theme. One reason offor
collabora-
the limited
number
tive networks, which of relevant
goes beyond papers
the isscope
that many focused
of this on assessing
study. the formation
It is important to of collaborative
distinguish
networks, which goes beyond the scope of this study. It is important to distinguish that
that evaluating network formation differs from assessing an organization’s participation
evaluating network formation differs from assessing an organization’s participation or
or integration within a network.
integration within a network.
Figure 1 presentsFigure
a flow diagram
1 presents a flowillustrating the literature
diagram illustrating search
the literature process
search processand
andthe
the
screening methodology
screening methodology used in this research.used in this research.

Filtering:
Identify 1 - Restrict to: Peer Reviewed
Identify
search (n=614)
search
string 2 - From: 2000 to 2024 (n=534)
terms
(n=896) 3 - Language: English (n=452)

4 - Restrict to: Full Text (n=393)

Excluded
No
Article

Literature Publications

search directly
Articles for
(n=393) related
Yes analysis

(n=54)

Figure 1. Flow diagram of1.literature

Figure search
Flow diagram and respective
of literature screening.
search and respective screening.

3.2. Articles Synthesis and Analysis

3.2. Articles Synthesis and Analysis
In this section, the articles most relevant to the topic under study are summarized and
In this section, the articles
analyzed in detail.most relevant
Table 3, presentedto the organizes
below, topic under studyarticles
54 identified are summarized
and the models
and analyzed in detail. Table
discussed 3, one.
in each presented below,
This table organizes
was created 54 identified
to categorize articles
the contributions andstudy
of each the
and was constructed in detail, based on an exhaustive search of academic databases.
models discussed in each one. This table was created to categorize the contributions of
each study and was constructed in detail, based on an exhaustive search of academic da-
tabases.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 7 of 20

Table 3. Identified articles and the respective themes of the models found.
Themes of the Models
Decision Support
Decision Model for RPA Governance RPA Financing Return RPA Monitoring Pillars of Sustainability
Template for Selecting
Implementing RPA Assessment Model Assessment Model Assessment Model Identified in the Articles
RPA Tool
Articles (Author/Year/Ref.)
Silva, A. (2017) [13] X
Pozdnyakov, O. (2019) [14] X Economic
Sobczak, A. (2019) [15] X
Hofmann, A. et al. (2019) [16] X
Kopper, V. et al. (2020) [17] X Economic
Timbadia, D. et al. (2020) [18] X Economic
Wellmann, C. et al. (2020) [19] X
Wewerka, J. et al. (2020) [20] X Social
Mora, H. and Sánchez, P. (2020) [21] X Economic, Social
Pargana, M. (2020) [22] X Economic
Amaral, M. (2020) [23] X
Farinha, D. (2021) [24] X Economic
Grande, V. (2021) [25] X Economic
Hernm, et al. (2022) [26] X Economic
Siderska, J. et al. (2020) [27] X Economic
Huang, F. et al. (2019) [28] X Economic
Eulerich, M.; et al. (2023) [29] X Social
Costa, D. et al. (2022) [30] X Social
Shende, A. et al. (2022) [31] X Economic
Flechsig, C. et al. (2021) [32] X Economic
Plattfaut, R. et al. (2022) [33] X Economic
Remlein, M. et al. (2022) [34] X Economic
Germundsson, N. et al. (2023) [35] X Social
Chaturvedi, R. et al. (2023) [36] X Economic
Fernandez, D. et al. (2023) [37] X Economic, Social
Nielsen, I. et al. (2023) [38] X Economic
Hoeft, M. et al. (2021) [39] X Social
Araujo, H. et al. (2022) [40] X Economic
Bayraktar, D. et al. (2022) [41] X Economic
Chugh, R. et al. (2022) [42] X Social
Axmann, B. et al. (2022) [43] X Economic
Radke, A. et al. (2020) [44] X Economic
Kutukov, N. et al. (2023) [45] X Social
Mohamed, S.et al. (2022) [46] X Economic
Arantes, M. et al. (2023) [47] X Economic
Devi, K. et al. (2023) [48] X Social
Prabodha, S. et al. (2023) [49] X Economic
Daase, C. et al. (2023) [50] X Economic
Enríquez, J. et al. (2020) [51] X Economic
Gunawan, A. et al. (2023) [52] X Social
Kokina, J. et al. (2019) [53] X Economic
Koh, H. (2022) [54] X Social
Zhang, C. et al. (2022) [55] X Economic
Vajgel, B. et al. (2021) [56] X Economic
Cris, an, E. et al. (2023) [57] X Social
Bhardwaj, V. (2023) [58] X Economic
Quille, R. et al. (2023) [59] X Social
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 8 of 20

Table 3. Cont.
Themes of the Models
Decision Support
Decision Model for RPA Governance RPA Financing Return RPA Monitoring Pillars of Sustainability
Template for Selecting
Implementing RPA Assessment Model Assessment Model Assessment Model Identified in the Articles
RPA Tool
Articles (Author/Year/Ref.)
Choi, D. et al. (2021) [60] X Economic
Fu, H. et al. (2023) [61] X Social
Jaiwani, M. et al. (2022) [62] X Economic
Vrontis, D. et al. (2021) [63] X Economic
Pramod, D. et al. (2021) [64] X Social
Huang, F. et al. (2019) [28] X Economic
Hong, Y. et al. (2022) [65] X Social
% Themes p/articles 56 9 13 7 15
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 9 of 20

The selected articles were read and analyzed with the aim of identifying the main
themes and methodologies covered. These themes were then organized in the table,
with each column representing a specific theme and the lines indicating the articles, with
markings for the models treated.
Additionally, the articles were classified according to the pillars of sustainability they
address, offering an important overview to identify gaps in the literature and possible
opportunities for future investigations.

3.3. Synthesis of the Results

Based on the analysis of the previous tables, the following key observations can
be highlighted:
• Five distinct themes have been identified within RPA evaluation models.
• A total of 56% of the reviewed models are primarily focused on RPA implementation.
• Among the sustainability pillars considered in these models, the economic dimension
is the most commonly discussed.
• Social sustainability is also addressed within these models.
• None of the reviewed studies explore Environmental Sustainability, highlighting a
potential area for pioneering research.
• No existing works integrate all three pillars of sustainability (social, economic,
and environmental).
• It is essential to conduct evaluations and implement RPA projects that incorporate all
three sustainability pillars—social, economic, and environmental.
• There is a clear opportunity to create a new RPA evaluation model that offers a holistic
assessment of all three sustainability pillars. This approach would enable a more
comprehensive evaluation, moving beyond the traditional focus on economic factors
to include social and environmental dimensions for organizations.

4. Model (SIRAI)
4.1. Proposal for a Model (SIRAI)
This study proposes an innovative model designed to optimize the integration of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) technologies within
organizations, while also considering the social and environmental impacts of these im-
plementations. The primary objective of the model is to provide a structured approach
that not only enhances operational efficiency but also ensures that the adoption of these
technologies is carried out responsibly and sustainably.
This model is intended to serve as a practical guide for organizations seeking to
implement AI and RPA technologies. It leads companies through a process of readiness
assessment, technological integration, and classification of the resulting impacts. The pro-
posal aims to balance the pursuit of efficiency with social and environmental responsibility,
reflecting the increasing demand for sustainable business practices in the contemporary
digital landscape.
The proposed model is named SIRAI (Sustainable Integration of RPA and AI), clearly
encapsulating its core focus. The acronym highlights the emphasis on the sustainable
integration of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), striving
to balance operational efficiency with social and environmental responsibility. The name
underscores the model’s objective of guiding organizations in the adoption of these tech-
nologies in a sustainable, ethical, and innovative manner, while considering the social and
ecological impacts of their implementation.
The operation of the model is divided into several stages, as illustrated in Figure 2.
 tegration of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), striving to
balance operational efficiency with social and environmental responsibility. The name un-
derscores the model’s objective of guiding organizations in the adoption of these technol-
ogies in a sustainable, ethical, and innovative manner, while considering the social and
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 10 of 20
ecological impacts of their implementation.
The operation of the model is divided into several stages, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Flow diagram of proposal for a sustainable model (SIRAI).

Figure 2. Flow diagram of proposal for a sustainable model (SIRAI).

Below, the
Below, the operation
operation of
of the
the model
model (SIRAI)
(SIRAI) will
will be
be explained
explained at
at each
each of
of the
the different
different stages:
stages:
1.
1. Technology Needs Assessment: Initially, the model evaluates whether
Technology Needs Assessment: Initially, the model evaluates whether the process inthe process in
question requires the implementation of RPA
question requires the implementation of RPA or AI. or AI.
2. Organizational
Organizational Readiness:
Readiness: Once
Once thethe necessary
necessary technologies
technologies have been identified, the
model
model assesses
assesses the
the organization’s
organization’s readiness
readiness to integrate these technologies. A table
will
will be
be presented
presented with technical and cultural limitations (Tables 4 and and 5).
5).
3. Operational
Operational Efficiency:
Efficiency: After
After assessing
assessing readiness,
readiness, the
the model examines whether the
organization’s
organization’s technological
technological resources
resources are
are being
being optimized. This
This evaluation
evaluation can be
based
based on
on predefined
predefined metrics, which include, but are not limited to (Table 6):
(Table 6):
4. Identification
Identification and Classification
Classification ofofImpacts:
Impacts:The Themodel
modelalso
also emphasizes
emphasizes thethe im-
impor-
tance of identifying
portance andand
of identifying classifying
classifyingthethe
social andand
social environmental
environmental impacts
impacts resulting
result-
from
ing thethe
from adoption of of
adoption AIAI
andand RPA.
RPA.This
Thisincludes
includesa aframework
frameworkthat that lists
lists potential
impacts, categorized
impacts, categorized as
as social
social and
and environmental,
environmental, and classified as either positive or
negative (Table
negative (Table 7).
How to Identify
How to Identify andand Classify
Classify Impacts:
Impacts:
•• Evaluation Methods:
Evaluation Methods: Use
Use questionnaires
questionnaires and
and interviews
interviews with stakeholders to
gather information
gather information on
on the
the perception of social and environmental impacts.
• Data Analysis: Monitor and analyze operational data to identify significant
changes in social and environmental indicators.
• External Consulting: Consider hiring sustainability experts to conduct indepen-
dent audits.
5. Ethical Considerations: Finally, the model incorporates an assessment of the current
privacy and cybersecurity standards. Organizations should be questioned regarding
their compliance with relevant regulations and the implementation of appropriate
security measures (Table 8).
Implementation of Security Measures:
• Regular Training: Promote ongoing training for the team on information
security practices.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 11 of 20

• Security Technology: Invest in software and tools that ensure data and
system protection.
• Continuous Monitoring: Establish a monitoring system to identify and respond
quickly to security incidents.

Table 4. Technical and cultural limitations.

Technical Limitations Cultural Limitations

Lack of adequate technological infrastructure Resistance to organizational change
Organizational culture that does not value
Low compatibility between systems
innovation
Difficulty in training the team for new Lack of communication and transparency in
technologies change implementation

Table 5. Challenges and recommendations for system implementation.

Limitation Recommendations How to Apply

Conduct a cost–benefit
Lack of infrastructure Invest in system upgrades analysis and develop an
investment plan
Implement integration Choose platforms that ensure
Low compatibility
solutions interoperability
Create a schedule for
Promote training and
Difficulty in training continuous training for the
workshops
team
Establish a feedback channel
Resistance to change Foster a culture of innovation and involve the team in
change decisions
Develop recognition and
Culture that does not value Encourage experimentation
reward programmed for
innovation and acceptance of failure
innovations

Table 6. Key metrics and implementation strategies.

Evaluation Metrics Description Recommendations How to Implement

Percentage of savings Use financial
Analyze costs before
Cost Reduction achieved after management
and after
implementation software
Assessment of service
Define quality Conduct quality
Quality Improvement quality before and
indicators audits
after
Average time
required to complete Monitor the time Use performance
Processing Time
processes before and spent on each step analysis tools
after
Assessment of
Conduct satisfaction Implement a feedback
Customer Satisfaction customer satisfaction
surveys system
before and after
Number of errors
Review processes and
Error Rate made before and after Reduce the error rate
training sessions
implementation
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 12 of 20

Table 7. Identified impacts.

Classification
Identified Impacts Category
(Positive/Negative)
Improvement in work efficiency Positive Social
Job displacement Negative Social
Increase in customer satisfaction Positive Social
Data privacy issues Negative Social
Reduction in energy consumption Positive Environmental
Increase in electronic waste Negative Environmental
Responsible use of natural resources Positive Environmental
Increase in carbon footprint Negative Environmental

Table 8. Implementing standards and regulations.

Standards or Regulations How to Implement

Conduct compliance audits and train staff on
GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)
the regulation.
Establish clear policies for handling personal
LGPD (General Data Protection Law) data and create a DPO (Data Protection
Officer).
ISO/IEC 27001 (Information Security Implement an information security
Management) [66] management system with regular audits.
Adopt the framework as a basis for developing
NIST Cybersecurity Framework
cybersecurity policies and training the team.

4.2. Characteristics and Benefits of the Model (SIRAI)

The proposed model (SIRAI) for evaluating the implementation of Robotic Process
Automation (RPA) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has several defining characteristics that
distinguish it from existing models. These include:
• Comprehensive Assessment Framework: The model provides a holistic evaluation
that encompasses technical readiness, operational efficiency, social and environmental
impacts, and ethical considerations.
• Customizable Metrics: Organizations can tailor the evaluation metrics based on their
unique operational requirements, industry standards, and strategic goals.
• Impact Identification and Classification: It emphasizes identifying and classifying
social and environmental impacts, aiding organizations in understanding the broader
consequences of their technology adoption.
• Guidance for Implementation: The model not only assesses but also provides action-
able recommendations for organizations to enhance their readiness and optimize their
technology use.
• Ethical Considerations Integration: The inclusion of ethical norms and regulatory
compliance ensures that organizations adhere to necessary standards while adopting
new technologies.
After presenting the characteristics of the proposed model, we will conduct an analysis
of the existing models (Table 9).

Table 9. Themes covered in the models.

Model Themes Articles Proposed Model

Decision model for [13,14,17,18,20–22,24–28,30,31,34,36,38–
x
implementing RPA 40,42,43,47,50,52,54,58,60,62]
Decision support template for
[28,29,32,55,63] x
selecting RPA tool
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 13 of 20

Table 9. Cont.

Model Themes Articles Proposed Model

RPA Governance Assessment
[15,16,23,29,35,46,57,59] x
Model
RPA Financing Return
[19,30,33,61]
Assessment Model
RPA monitoring assessment
[20,28,32,41,49,51,53] x
model

• Decision model for implementing RPA: The model addresses the integration of RPA
and AI, optimizing operational efficiency while considering social and
environmental impacts.
• Decision support template for selecting RPA tool: The model provides a practical
guide for implementation, focusing on assessing organizational readiness.
• RPA Governance Assessment Model: The model emphasizes the importance of ethical
and regulatory compliance, as well as the assessment of social and
environmental impacts.
• RPA Financing Return Assessment Model: This theme was not specifically addressed
in the proposed model, so it remains blank.
• RPA monitoring assessment model: The model includes evaluating operational efficiency
and classifying impacts, making it relevant for continuous monitoring (Table 10).

Table 10. Sustainability pillars covered in the models.

Sustainability Proposed
Articles
Pillars Model
Economic [14,17–19,21,22,24–29,31,32,34,36,38,40,43,47,50,55,58,60,62]
Social [20,21,30,35,39,42,45,48,52,54,57,59,61,64,65] x
Environmental x

• Economic: The economic pillar is widely covered by the articles, but the proposed
model does not include this pillar.
• Social: The proposed model addresses the social pillar, as do several articles.
• Environmental: The proposed model also includes the environmental pillar, although
none of the listed articles specifically addresses this aspect.
Next, the benefits identified in the selected articles will be presented, together with
those of the proposed model (Table 11).

Table 11. Benefits related in the models.

Proposed
Benefit Articles
Model
Increased Operational Efficiency [13–15,19,27,38,46,47] X
Cost Reduction [13,14,20,25,27,31,46,57] X
Improved Accuracy and Error Reduction [15,17,21,46,48]
Agility in Decision-Making [18,23,30,36,40,54]
Facilitation of Digital Transformation [19,21,22,26,50] X
Improved Customer Experience [16,20,27,39]
Increased Scalability [15,17,24,45,56]
Employee Empowerment and Engagement [29,30,35,49,52]
Governance and Compliance [29,32,42–44,55,63] X
Process Evaluation and Monitoring [18,33,39,59] X
Innovation in Business Models [20,28,37,63]
Economic and Social Sustainability [39,50,52,61,62] X
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 14 of 20

Table 11. Cont.

Proposed
Benefit Articles
Model
Process Selection for Automation [24,34,40,43,48,60] X
Development of Governance Models for RPA [29,42,51,55,63] X
Financing Models [28,41,53]
ROI and Impact Assessment [46,57,58,64,65]
Identification and Classification of Impacts X
Ethical Considerations X

The proposed model (SIRAI) for integrating RPA and AI encompasses characteristics
and benefits that were not sufficiently addressed in the previously analyzed articles. Here
are the key additional benefits identified:
• Identification and Classification of Impacts: The model emphasizes the need to rec-
ognize and categorize social and environmental impacts, which is not a central focus
in the previously analyzed articles. This classification allows organizations to under-
stand the broader repercussions of their RPA and AI implementations, promoting
sustainable business practices.
• Ethical Considerations: The model includes an assessment of privacy and cybersecu-
rity standards, ensuring that organizations comply with ethical and regulatory norms.
This emphasis on ethics and compliance was not widely discussed in earlier articles.
• Organizational Readiness Assessment: The model provides a practical guide for eval-
uating an organization’s readiness to integrate RPA and AI, which was not addressed
in depth in existing articles. This assessment helps companies adequately prepare for
technological changes.
• Customization of Metrics: Organizations can tailor evaluation metrics based on their spe-
cific needs, allowing for a more focused and efficient approach to RPA implementation.
• Actionable Recommendations: The model not only evaluates but also offers practical
recommendations that can be applied to optimize technology use, thereby improving
organizational readiness and effectiveness.
The proposed model for the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic
Process Automation (RPA) stands out for its comprehensive approach, which considers not
only operational efficiency, but also the social and environmental impacts of technologies.
Unlike existing models, which often focus exclusively on economic metrics, this model of-
fers a holistic assessment that includes organizational readiness, identification and ranking
of impacts, and practical recommendations for responsible implementation. This emphasis
on ethical considerations and customization of assessment indicators makes the model a
valuable tool for companies seeking not only to optimize processes, but also to promote
sustainable and responsible practices in a constantly evolving digital environment.

5. Discussion
The proposed model (SIRAI) for the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) within organizations is founded on a comprehensive
approach that seeks not only to enhance operational efficiency but also to promote social
and environmental responsibility. The results derived from analyzing the various stages of
the model demonstrate that a careful implementation of these technologies can optimize
resource utilization while achieving a balance between efficiency and sustainability.
The theoretical findings indicate that the strategic integration of AI and RPA can
lead to a substantial improvement in the efficiency of organizational processes. However,
such enhancements should not come at the expense of social and environmental responsi-
bility. Assessing technological requirements and organizational readiness highlights the
importance of preparing teams for change, while minimizing both cultural and technical
resistance. The recommendations provided to address limitations, such as inadequate
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 15 of 20

infrastructure and resistance to change, are crucial to ensuring that the adoption of these
technologies is both responsible and sustainable.
The analysis of the impacts associated with the adoption of AI and RPA reveals a
significant duality. On one hand, the integration of these technologies can yield considerable
gains, such as:
• Improved Operational Efficiency: The automation of repetitive processes frees up time
and human resources, allowing teams to focus on more strategic and creative activities.
• Increased Customer Satisfaction: With more agile and accurate processes, companies
can provide higher-quality services, leading to a positive customer experience.
• Cost Reduction: The efficiency brought about by automation can lead to a substantial
decrease in operational expenses.
On the other hand, there are also negative impacts that need to be carefully considered:
• Fear of Job Displacement: The implementation of AI and RPA may generate un-
certainty among employees, who may be concerned about the possibility of being
replaced by machines. This concern can affect team morale and organizational culture.
While implementing AI and RPA can result in significant efficiency and productivity
gains, one of the main concerns is the fear of job displacement. This is because au-
tomation technologies are seen as a threat to jobs, especially in areas where tasks are
repetitive and rules-based. This apprehension is amplified by the lack of clear com-
munication between business leaders and employees, often generating resistance to
change and even organizational dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the absence of effective
transition and reskilling policies can increase uncertainty among employees, fueling
fears that their jobs are at risk. It is crucial that organizations not only implement
technologies efficiently, but also develop strategies to minimize negative social impact.
Investing in training and requalification, in addition to involving employees in the
adaptation process, can help reduce the fear of job displacement and promote an
organizational culture that is more open to change.
• Data Privacy and Security Issues: With the digitalization of processes, organizations
face challenges related to data protection and compliance with regulations such as
GDPR. Another important aspect that must be considered during the adoption of AI
and RPA is data privacy. As organizations digitize their processes and implement AI-
based technologies, collecting, storing, and processing large volumes of data becomes
common practice. This raises concerns around the protection of sensitive information,
especially with regards to compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR (General
Data Protection Regulation). Inappropriate use of data, or even system security failures,
can expose confidential information, creating risks not only for the organization, but
also for the individuals whose data are processed. Companies must therefore adopt
strict data security practices, implement privacy protocols, and ensure that AI and RPA
technologies are aligned with current laws and regulations. This implies not only a
technical approach to data protection, but also an organizational culture that values and
respects the privacy rights of individuals, minimizing the risks of exposure and damage.
These impacts reinforce the need for responsible adoption that promotes social and
environmental sustainability in the digital age. Organizations must be proactive in commu-
nicating changes, engaging teams in the implementation process, and providing support,
such as training and skill development, to mitigate the fear of job displacement.
Based on the analysis of impacts, the model (SIRAI) offers practical recommendations
that can be implemented to optimize the adoption of AI and RPA:
• Continuous Evaluation: Organizations should establish monitoring systems to contin-
uously assess operational efficiency and the social and environmental impacts of the
implemented technologies. This will allow for real-time adjustments and ensure that
sustainability goals are achieved.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 16 of 20

• Promotion of an Innovation Culture: Fostering an environment that values innova-

tion and adaptation is crucial for minimizing resistance to change. Companies can
encourage experimentation and recognize initiatives that promote improvements.
• Engagement of Stakeholders: Involving employees, customers, and other stakeholders
in the implementation process is vital to ensure their concerns and suggestions are
taken into account. This can increase acceptance and support for the new technologies.
The successful implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process
Automation (RPA) represents a complex challenge that requires effective management
of organizational transitions. Companies must cultivate a robust capacity for adaptation
and continuous learning to navigate the rapid evolution of these technologies, as both
the dynamic nature of the market and changing customer demands are constant. What is
considered effective today may quickly become obsolete, necessitating that organizations
maintain an innovative mindset and remain willing to update their approaches. This
flexibility not only maximizes the return on investment in technology but also enables
businesses to stay competitive in a rapidly transforming environment.
Moreover, the integration of AI and RPA demands careful harmonization of two
distinct technologies. While AI is typically employed for complex cognitive tasks, RPA
is designed to automate repetitive, rule-based activities. This distinction is critical, as
misalignment between the two technologies can lead to operational inefficiencies and
cause frustration among teams. For example, in organizations where IT infrastructure and
data flows are disorganized, communication between AI and RPA systems can become
problematic, hindering the necessary synergy for effective automation. It is therefore
essential for companies to undertake a comprehensive assessment of their infrastructure
before beginning integration, ensuring that both technologies can work together seamlessly.
Although scalability and adaptability are often cited as benefits of the model, it is
important to highlight that there is insufficient empirical evidence demonstrating how these
technologies scale in practice, particularly in large or rapidly changing environments. The
absence of concrete data may lead to excessive optimism within organizations, potentially
underestimating the challenges associated with large-scale scalability. Therefore, companies
must not only implement these technologies but also develop management frameworks
that ensure the continuity and effectiveness of these solutions across different operational
contexts. This entails creating processes that allow for agile adjustments and continuous
improvements, ensuring that the combination of AI and RPA is not merely theoretical but
practical and applicable in a variety of scenarios. Consequently, the successful adoption of
AI and RPA requires a commitment to operational excellence and a readiness to confront
the challenges related to their integration and scalability.
Research into the integration of AI and RPA faces several challenges, including the
lack of practical testing of the proposed model. This gap in real-world validation limits
its effectiveness and applicability in organizational settings. For future evaluations, it is
crucial to conduct pilot studies that can demonstrate how the model performs in practice.
Incorporating empirical evidence in these areas will enhance the credibility of the model
and provide valuable insights for its implementation.
In summary, the proposal of a model for the integration of AI and RPA offers a
comprehensive and ethical approach to the adoption of these technologies. By considering
both the positive and negative impacts, the model not only underscores the importance
of operational efficiency but also highlights the significance of social and environmental
responsibility. The careful and conscientious implementation of these technologies can
foster a balance between innovation and sustainability, preparing organizations for the
challenges and opportunities of the digital era.

6. Conclusions
The conclusion of this study addresses the central research question, which aims to
explore how the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process Automation
(RPA) can be optimized to enhance organizational operational efficiency, while simultane-
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 17 of 20

ously balancing the social and environmental impacts resulting from this implementation.
A critical analysis of the results leads to several important considerations regarding the
current state of AI and RPA research, the ethical implications, the justification for the chosen
methodology, and potential avenues for future research.
Research in AI and RPA has advanced considerably, revealing practices and method-
ologies that enable the effective integration of these technologies. This study emphasizes
that the adoption of AI and RPA should not solely be viewed as a strategy for cost reduction
or productivity enhancement, but also as an opportunity to promote responsible innovation
within organizations. The proposed model, which incorporates a holistic assessment of
social and environmental implications, represents a significant contribution to the field,
addressing gaps left by previous models that predominantly focused on economic metrics.
In terms of ethical considerations, the model emphasizes the importance of compliance
with privacy and cybersecurity standards. The inclusion of ethical practices not only
safeguards user data but also fosters trust among employees, which is crucial in alleviating
concerns regarding job displacement. By assessing organizational readiness and cultural
concerns, the model seeks to foster a more transparent and collaborative environment,
essential for the successful acceptance of emerging technologies.
The choice of the PICO methodology was informed by the need for a systematic
approach to evaluating the effectiveness of AI and RPA integration. The hypotheses
formulated—exploring the combination of operational efficiency with social and environ-
mental responsibility, as well as employee acceptance of these technologies—were clearly
aligned with the results obtained. This connection between the methodology and the
outcomes strengthens the credibility of the proposed model and enhances its relevance to
the organizational context.
The proposed model (SIRAI) is notable for its comprehensiveness. The recommenda-
tions generated through the analysis provide a clear roadmap for organizations seeking
to optimize their operations responsibly. This includes promoting a culture of innovation
and mitigating risks associated with technology adoption, such as job displacement and
resistance to change.
It must be acknowledged that the implementation of the SIRAI model is not without
challenges. Variability in team responses and contextual differences within organizations
may impact the effectiveness of AI and RPA integration. Furthermore, the difficulty in
demonstrating causality between the implementation of these technologies and the desired
outcomes, such as improved efficiency and employee acceptance, must be considered. To
address these challenges, future research could explore practical case studies that assess
the implementation of the model in various organizational settings, providing valuable
insights into best practices and necessary adaptations.
For future work, it is recommended that attention be given to the practical applica-
tion of the SIRAI model in real organizational contexts. This could include conducting
longitudinal studies to analyze the evolution of operational efficiency and the social and
environmental impacts arising from the adoption of AI and RPA. Additionally, research
into the development of an organizational culture oriented towards responsible innovation
could offer new perspectives on how organizations can prepare for digital transformation
while maintaining a focus on sustainability.
In summary, this study contributes to the field by proposing a model that integrates
operational efficiency with social and environmental responsibility. By addressing ethical
concerns and providing a structured framework, this work takes a significant step towards
a future where technology and sustainability are aligned, fostering not only economic
success but also an ethical and inclusive work environment. The careful integration of
AI and RPA can transform operations and set a benchmark for responsible innovation in
contemporary organizations.

Author Contributions: In this paper, a model for the sustainable integration of artificial intelligence
and robotic process automation was proposed and presented by L.P., L.V. and Z.S. The main investi-
gation, including the development of the theoretical model and initial analysis, was carried out by
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 18 of 20

L.P.; initial drafting, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript were jointly conducted by L.P., L.V. and
Z.S. General supervision of this work was carried out by L.V. and Z.S.; project administration and
financing acquisition were coordinated by L.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The project was merged by FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology through the
scope of the R&D units project: UIDB/00319/2020.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Moraes, C.; Scolimoski, J.; Lambert-Torres, G.; Santini, M.; Dias, A.; Guerra, F.; Pedretti, A.; Ramos, M. Robotic Process Automation
and Machine Learning: A Systematic Review. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2022, 65, e22220096. [CrossRef]
2. Gružauskas, V.; Ragavan, D. Robotic Process Automation for Document Processing: A Case Study of a Logistics Service Provider.
J. Manag. 2020, 36, 119–126. [CrossRef]
3. Joseph, O. Sustainable Banking through Robotic Process Automation: What Role Does ESG and Cognitive AI Play? J. Digit. Inf.
Syst. 2023, 3, 116–140. [CrossRef]
4. Lubis, L.; Sembiring, D. Driving Digital Transformation: Leveraging Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to Enhance Business
Process Efficiency and Reducing Manual Errors. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data and Software
Engineering (ICoDSE), Toba, Indonesia, 7–8 September 2023; pp. 91–95. [CrossRef]
5. Shakiladevi, A.; Basariya, S. Impact of Human Interventions on Employee Performance in Organizations. Int. J. Recent Technol.
Eng. 2019, 8, 3051–3054. [CrossRef]
6. Iqbal, M.; Kang, Y.; Jeon, H. Zero Waste Strategy for Green Supply Chain Management with Minimization of Energy Consumption.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118827. [CrossRef]
7. Connell, J. Islands: Balancing Development and Sustainability? Environ. Conserv. 2018, 45, 111–124. [CrossRef]
8. Gupta, S.; Rudd, J.; Lee, N. Business Sustainability through Successful Integration of Marketing and Operations. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 2014, 43, 3–5. [CrossRef]
9. Yendluri, D.; Ponnala, J.; Tatikonda, R.; Kempanna, M.; Thatikonda, R.; Bhuvanesh, A. Role of RPA & AI in Optimizing Network
Field Services. In Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on Computation System and Information Technology for
Sustainable Solutions (CSITSS), Bangalore, India, 2–4 November 2023; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
10. Ribeiro, J.; Lima, R.; Eckhardt, T.; Paiva, S. Robotic Process Automation and Artificial Intelligence in Industry 4.0—A Literature
Review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 51, 51–58. [CrossRef]
11. Tsolakis, N.; Zissis, D.; Papaefthimiou, S.; Korfiatis, N. Towards AI-Driven Environmental Sustainability: An Application of
Automated Logistics in Container Port Terminals. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 60, 4508–4528. [CrossRef]
12. Cook, D.; Guyatt, G.; McDonald, R.; McDonald, J.; Morris, A.; Munn, A.; Niven, D.; Sibbald, W.; Stevens, R.; Whelan, T. Central
venous catheter replacement strategies: A systematic review of the literature. Crit. Care Med. 1997, 25, 1417–1424. [CrossRef]
13. Silva, A. Robotic Process Automation: Uma Análise Comparativa das Soluções Atuais. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Aberta and
Técnico Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2017.
14. Pozdnyakov, O. Benefícios da Implementação de RPA e IPA no Setor Bancário: Um Caso de Estudo. Master’s Thesis, Lisboa
School of Economics & Management, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2019.
15. Sobczak, A. Developing a Robotic Process Automation Management Model. Inform. Ekon. Bus. Inform. 2019, 2, 85–100.
16. Hofmann, A.; Fischer, M.; Imgrund, F.; Janiesch, C.; Geyer-Klingeberg, J. Process Selection in RPA Projects—Towards a Quantifi-
able Method of Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Munich,
Germany, 15–18 December 2019.
17. Kopper, V.; Rodrigues, G.; Zomb, M.; Zuxxolillo, F. Implementing Robotic Process Automation for Internal Process Optimization.
Bachelor’s Thesis, WPI—Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 2020.
18. Timbadia, D.; Shah, P.; Sudhanvan, S.; Agrawal, S. Robotic Process Automation Through Advance Process Analysis Model.
In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT), Coimbatore, India,
26–28 February 2020.
19. Wellmann, C.; Stierle, M.; Dunzer, S.; Matzner, M. A framework to evaluate the viability of robotic process automation for
business process activities. In Business Process Management: Blockchain and Robotic Process Automation Forum: BPM 2020 Blockchain
and RPA Forum, Seville, Spain, 13–18 September 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 219–233. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 19 of 20

20. Wewerka, J.; Reichert, M. Towards Quantifying the Effects of Robotic Process Automation. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE
24th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 5 October 2020.
[CrossRef]
21. Mora, H.; Sánchez, P. Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions with Business Process Management: Robotic Process
Automation mediation model. In Proceedings of the 2020 15th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies
(CISTI), Seville, Spain, 24–27 June 2020.
22. Pargana, M. Contributos para a Conceção de Uma Framework de Implementação de Robotic Process Automation Numa
Instituição Financeira: Estudo de Caso. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2020.
23. Amaral, M. Condições de Implementação dos Modelos de Governo de RPA. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Católica Portuguesa,
Lisboa, Portugal, 2020.
24. Farinha, D. Selecting Processes for Automation. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2021.
25. Grande, V. Desenvolvimento de Um Sistema para Tomada de Decisão sobre a Automatização de Processos de Negócio Utilizando
Sistema de Inferência Fuzzy. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2021.
26. Herm, L.; Janiesch, C.; Helm, A.; Imgrund, F.; Hofmann, A.; Winkelmann, A. A framework for implementing robotic process
automation projects. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 2022, 21, 1–35. [CrossRef]
27. Siderska, J. Robotic Process Automation—A Driver of Digital Transformation? Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2020, 12, 21–31. [CrossRef]
28. Huang, F.; Vasarhelyi, M. Applying Robotic Process Automation (RPA) in Auditing: A Framework. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2019,
35, 100433. [CrossRef]
29. Eulerich, M.; Waddoups, N.; Wagener, M.; Wood, D. The Dark Side of Robotic Process Automation (RPA): Understanding Risks
and Challenges with RPA. Account. Horiz. 2024, 38, 143–152. [CrossRef]
30. Costa, D.; Mamede, H.; Silva, M. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Adoption: A Systematic Literature Review. Eng. Manag.
Prod. Serv. 2022, 14, 1–12. [CrossRef]
31. Shende, A.; Roy, P. RPA Implementation in Banking. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Commun. Technol. 2022, 682–687. [CrossRef]
32. Flechsig, C.; Anslinger, F.; Lasch, R. Robotic Process Automation in Purchasing and Supply Management: A Multiple Case Study
on Potentials, Barriers, and Implementation. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2022, 28, 100718. [CrossRef]
33. Plattfaut, R.; Borghoff, V. Robotic Process Automation: A Literature-Based Research Agenda. J. Inf. Syst. 2022, 36, 173–191.
[CrossRef]
34. Remlein, M.; Bejger, P.; Olejnik, I.; Jastrzebowski, A.; Obrzeżgiewicz, D. The Application of Robotic Process Automation in
Financial Accounting in Entities That Operate in Poland. Zesz. Teoretyczne Rachun. 2022, 46, 47–65. [CrossRef]
35. Germundsson, N.; Stranz, H. Automating Social Assistance: Exploring the Use of Robotic Process Automation in the Swedish
Personal Social Services. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2023, 33, 647–658. [CrossRef]
36. Chaturvedi, R.; Pavithra, P.; Prathiksha, S.; Selvakanmani, S. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) in Healthcare. Int. Res. J. Adv. Sci.
Hub 2023, 5, 229–235. [CrossRef]
37. Fernandez, D.; Dastane, O.; Zaki, H.; Aman, A. Robotic Process Automation: Bibliometric Reflection and Future Opportunities.
Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2023, 27, 692–712. [CrossRef]
38. Nielsen, I.; Piyatilake, A.; Thibbotuwawa, A.; Silva, M.; Bocewicz, G.; Banaszak, Z. Benefits Realization of Robotic Process
Automation (RPA) Initiatives in Supply Chains. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 37623–37636. [CrossRef]
39. Hoeft, M.; Pieper, M.; Eriksson, K.; Bargstädt, H. Toward Life Cycle Sustainability in Infrastructure: The Role of Automation and
Robotics in PPP Projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3779. [CrossRef]
40. Araujo, H.; Mousavi, M.; Varshosaz, M. Testing, Validation, and Verification of Robotic and Autonomous Systems: A Systematic
Review. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022, 32, 1–61. [CrossRef]
41. Bayraktar, D.; Pitic, A.; Mihu, C. Streamlining Banking Processes by Implementing RPA. Rev. Econ. 2022, 74, 7–16. [CrossRef]
42. Chugh, R.; Macht, S.; Hossain, R. Robotic Process Automation: A Review of Organizational Grey Literature. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj.
Manag. 2022, 10, 5–26. [CrossRef]
43. Axmann, B.; Harmoko, H. Process & Software Selection for Robotic Process Automation (RPA). Teh. Glas. 2022, 16, 412–419.
[CrossRef]
44. Radke, A.; Dang, M.; Tan, A. Using Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to Enhance Item Master Data Maintenance Process.
Logforum 2015, 16, 129–140. [CrossRef]
45. Kutukov, N.; Vazhdaev, A. Application of Robotic Process Automation Technology in Education. Proc. Tomsk. State Univ. Control.
Syst. Radioelectron. 2023, 26. [CrossRef]
46. Mohamed, S.; Mahmoud, M.; Mahdi, M.; Mostafa, S. Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness of Robotic Process Automation in
Human Resource Management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3920. [CrossRef]
47. Arantes, M.; Santos, S.; Simão, V. Process Management: Systematic Review of Determining Factors for Automation. Bus. Process
Manag. J. 2023, 29, 893–910. [CrossRef]
48. Devi, K.; Kumar, J. An Efficient Data Collection Tool for Crop Recommendations Model Using Robotic Process Automation. In
Proceedings of the 2023 14th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT),
Delhi, Indi, 6–8 July 2023; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9648 20 of 20

49. Prabodha, S.; Liyanage, H. Enhancing the Existing Benefits of Robotic Process Automation in the Logistics Industry. In Proceedings
of the 2023 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 9–11 November 2023; IEEE: New York,
NY, USA, 2023; pp. 258–263. [CrossRef]
50. Daase, C.; Pandey, A.; Staegemann, D.; Turowski, K. Sustainability in Robotic Process Automation: Proposing a Universal
Implementation Model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems and Technology, Cusco, Peru,
8–10 February 2023; pp. 770–779. [CrossRef]
51. Enríquez, J.; Ramirez, A.; Domínguez-Mayo, F.; García-García, J. Robotic Process Automation: A Scientific and Industrial
Systematic Mapping Study. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 39113–39129. [CrossRef]
52. Gunawan, A.; Wijaya, M. Robotic Process Automation to Enhance Education’s Administration Process: Case of Attendance
Checking and Reporting. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Information Management and Technology
(ICIMTech), Malang, Indonesia, 24–25 August 2023; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
53. Kokina, J.; Blanchette, S. Early Evidence of Digital Labor in Accounting: Innovation with Robotic Process Automation. Inf. Syst.
Ebusiness Ejournal 2019, 35, 100431. [CrossRef]
54. Koh, H. Extending the purview of risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health insurance-related information
seeking as a long-term self-protective behavior. J. Am. Coll. Health 2022, 71, 496–506. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Zhang, C.; Issa, H.; Rozario, A.; Soegaard, J. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Implementation Case Studies in Accounting:
A Beginning to End Perspective. Account. Horiz. 2023, 37, 193–217. [CrossRef]
56. Vajgel, B.; Corrêa, P.; Sousa, T.; Quille, R.; Bedoya, J.; Almeida, G.; Filgueiras, L.; Demuner, V.; Mollica, D. Development of
Intelligent Robotic Process Automation: A Utility Case Study in Brazil. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 71222–71235. [CrossRef]
57. Cris, an, E.; Chis, D.; Bodea, E.; Buchmann, R. Mechanisms for robotic process automation implementation in organizations:
A systematic literature review. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2023, 20, 920–946. [CrossRef]
58. Bhardwaj, V. A Systematic Review of Robotic Process Automation in Business Operations: Contemporary Trends and Insights.
J. Intell. Syst. Control. 2023, 2, 153–169. [CrossRef]
59. Quille, R.; Almeida, F.; Borycz, J.; Corrêa, P.; Filgueiras, L.; Machicao, J.; Almeida, G.; Midorikawa, E.; Demuner, V.; Bedoya, J.;
et al. Performance Analysis Method for Robotic Process Automation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3702. [CrossRef]
60. Choi, D.; R’bigui, H.; Cho, C. Candidate Digital Tasks Selection Methodology for Automation with Robotic Process Automation.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8980. [CrossRef]
61. Fu, H.; He, L.; Ju, X.; Liu, Y. Research on Digital Transformation of New Retail Enterprises Based on AI+RPA. Adv. Econ. Manag.
Politi- Sci. 2023, 28, 250–258. [CrossRef]
62. Jaiwani, M.; Gopalkrishnan, S. Adoption of RPA and AI to Enhance the Productivity of Employees and Overall Efficiency of
Indian Private Banks: An Inquiry. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information
and Communication (iSemantic), Semarang, Indonesia, 17–18 September 2022; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 191–197.
[CrossRef]
63. Vrontis, D.; Christofi, M.; Pereira, V.; Tarba, S.; Makrides, A.; Trichina, E. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Advanced Technologies
and Human Resource Management: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 33, 1237–1266. [CrossRef]
64. Pramod, D. Robotic process automation for industry: Adoption status, benefits, challenges and research agenda. Benchmarking:
Int. J. 2021, 29, 1562–1586. [CrossRef]
65. Hong, Y.; Ly, M.; Lin, H. RPA Risk Management: Points to Consider. J. Emerg. Technol. Account. 2023, 20, 125–145. [CrossRef]
66. Kurylets, A.; Goranin, N. Security Ontology OntoSecRPA for Robotic Process Automation Domain. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5568.
[CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.