While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems promises to bring significant economic and social benefits, it is also coupled with ethical, legal, and technical challenges. Business leaders thus face the question of how to best reap the benefits of automation whilst managing the associated risks. As a first step, many companies have committed themselves to various sets of ethics principles aimed at guiding the design and use of AI systems. So far so good. But how can well-intentioned ethical principles be translated into effective practice? And what challenges await companies that attempt to operationalize AI governance? In this article, we address these questions by drawing on our first-hand experience of shaping and driving the roll-out of AI governance within AstraZeneca, a biopharmaceutical company. The examples we discuss highlight challenges that any organization attempting to operationalize AI governance will have to face. These include questions concerning how to define the material scope of AI governance, how to harmonize standards across decentralized organizations, and how to measure the impact of specific AI governance initiatives. By showcasing how AstraZeneca managed these operational questions, we hope to provide project managers, CIOs, AI practitioners, and data privacy officers responsible for designing and implementing AI governance frameworks within other organizations with generalizable best practices. In essence, companies seeking to operationalize AI governance are encouraged to build on existing policies and governance structures, use pragmatic and action-oriented terminology, focus on risk management in development and procurement, and empower employees through continuous education and change management.

In the original publication of the article, all the tables and figures were misplaced in the text. The original article has been corrected.

Organisations that design and deploy artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly commit themselves to high-level, ethical principles. However, there still exists a gap between principles and practices in AI ethics. One major obstacle organisations face when attempting to operationalise AI Ethics is the lack of a well-defined material scope. Put differently, the question to which systems and processes AI ethics principles ought to apply remains unanswered. Of course, there exists no universally accepted definition of AI, and different systems pose different ethical challenges. Nevertheless, pragmatic problem-solving demands that things should be sorted so that their grouping will promote successful actions for some specific end. In this article, we review and compare previous attempts to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing AI governance in practice. We find that attempts to classify AI systems proposed in previous literature use one of three mental models: the Switch, i.e., a binary approach according to which systems either are or are not considered AI systems depending on their characteristics; the Ladder, i.e., a risk-based approach that classifies systems according to the ethical risks they pose; and the Matrix, i.e., a multi-dimensional classification of systems that take various aspects into account, such as context, input data, and decision-model. Each of these models for classifying AI systems comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. By conceptualising different ways of classifying AI systems into simple mental models, we hope to provide organisations that design, deploy, or regulate AI systems with the vocabulary needed to demarcate the material scope of their AI governance frameworks.

No abstract