Stakeholder-accountability model for artificial intelligence projects

Abstract

Aim/purpose – This research presents a conceptual stakeholder accountability model for mapping the project actors to the conduct for which they should be held accountable in artificial intelligence (AI) projects. AI projects differ from other projects in important ways, including in their capacity to inflict harm and impact human and civil rights on a global scale. The in-project decisions are high stakes, and it is critical who decides the system’s features. Even well-designed AI systems can be deployed in ways that harm individuals, local communities, and society. Design/methodology/approach – The present study uses a systematic literature review, accountability theory, and AI success factors to elaborate on the relationships between AI project actors and stakeholders. The literature review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement process. Bovens’ accountability model and AI success factors are employed as a basis for the coding framework in the thematic analysis. The study uses a web-based survey to collect data from respondents in the United States and Germany employing statistical analysis to assess public opinion on AI fairness, sustainability, and accountability. Findings – The AI stakeholder accountability model specifies the complex relationships between 16 actors and 22 stakeholder forums using 78 AI success factors to define the conduct and the obligations and consequences that characterize those relationships. The survey analysis suggests that more than 80% of the public thinks AI development should be fair and sustainable, and it sees the government and development organizations as most accountable in this regard. There are some differences between the United States and Germany regarding fairness, sustainability, and accountability. Research implications/limitations – The results should benefit project managers and project sponsors in stakeholder identification and resource assignment. The definitions offer policy advisors insights for updating AI governance practices. The model presented here is conceptual and has not been validated using real-world projects. Originality/value/contribution – The study adds context-specific information on AI to the project management literature. It defines project actors as moral agents and provides a model for mapping the accountability of project actors to stakeholder expectations and system impacts. Keywords: accountability, artificial intelligence, algorithms, project management, ethics. JEL Classification: C33, M15, O3, O32, O33, Q55.

ChatGPTand consumers: Benefits, Pitfalls and Future Research Agenda

“…The principle of beneficence (Cowls et al, 2021) can be used to explore whether the use of ChatGPT promotes the well‐being of consumers, while the principle of non‐maleficence (Jobin et al, 2019) can be used to investigate whether the use of ChatGPT avoids harm to consumers. Theories such as privacy (Bandara et al, 2020), fairness (Jiang, Cao, et al, 2022) and accountability (Miller, 2022) can also be applied to investigate specific ethical concerns related to ChatGPT.…”

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in Project Management Curriculum: Exploration and Application to Time, Cost, and Risk

“…Using a Watson Machine Learning service, through AutoAI, a compute plan can be established that chooses a machine learning pathway as well as compute resources, Datasets can be allocated to the compute plan, In the foundation for the AI solution is now in place to begin the AutoAI and Explainable AI (XAI) process [23]. Next, the AutoAI process well provides the columns of the data set with predetermined or best fit data types in place.…”

“…Within the AutoAI, experiment prediction settings allow the user to focus on possible prediction types such as binary classification, multi-class classification, and regression. The binary classification will classify data into two distinct categories within the column, where multiclass classification allows for multiple distinct categories, and finally, regression allows for a continuous set of values along with a large range of possible outcomes [23]. Within this section of the experiment settings, the user can choose the optimization metric for which the test across multiple algorithms will be initially judged and reported.…”