Harsha Perera

Sung Une Lee, Harsha Perera, Yue Liu et al.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a widely developed and adopted technology across entire industry sectors. Integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations with AI investments is crucial for ensuring ethical and sustainable technological advancement. Particularly from an investor perspective, this integration not only mitigates risks but also enhances long-term value creation by aligning AI initiatives with broader societal goals. Yet, this area has been less explored in both academia and industry. To bridge the gap, we introduce a novel ESG-AI framework, which is developed based on insights from engagements with 28 companies and comprises three key components. The framework provides a structured approach to this integration, developed in collaboration with industry practitioners. The ESG-AI framework provides an overview of the environmental and social impacts of AI applications, helping users such as investors assess the materiality of AI use. Moreover, it enables investors to evaluate a company's commitment to responsible AI through structured engagements and thorough assessment of specific risk areas. We have publicly released the framework and toolkit in April 2024, which has received significant attention and positive feedback from the investment community. This paper details each component of the framework, demonstrating its applicability in real-world contexts and its potential to guide ethical AI investments.

Harsha Perera, Sung Une Lee, Yue Liu et al.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes integral to business operations, integrating Responsible AI (RAI) within Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks is essential for ethical and sustainable AI deployment. This study examines how leading companies align RAI with their ESG goals. Through interviews with 28 industry leaders, we identified a strong link between RAI and ESG practices. However, a significant gap exists between internal RAI policies and public disclosures, highlighting the need for greater board-level expertise, robust governance, and employee engagement. We provide key recommendations to strengthen RAI strategies, focusing on transparency, cross-functional collaboration, and seamless integration into existing ESG frameworks.

Sung Une Lee, Harsha Perera, Yue Liu et al.

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has underscored the urgent need for responsible AI practices. Despite increasing interest, a comprehensive AI risk assessment toolkit remains lacking. This study introduces our Responsible AI (RAI) Question Bank, a comprehensive framework and tool designed to support diverse AI initiatives. By integrating AI ethics principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability into a structured question format, the RAI Question Bank aids in identifying potential risks, aligning with emerging regulations like the EU AI Act, and enhancing overall AI governance. A key benefit of the RAI Question Bank is its systematic approach to linking lower-level risk questions to higher-level ones and related themes, preventing siloed assessments and ensuring a cohesive evaluation process. Case studies illustrate the practical application of the RAI Question Bank in assessing AI projects, from evaluating risk factors to informing decision-making processes. The study also demonstrates how the RAI Question Bank can be used to ensure compliance with standards, mitigate risks, and promote the development of trustworthy AI systems. This work advances RAI by providing organizations with a valuable tool to navigate the complexities of ethical AI development and deployment while ensuring comprehensive risk management.

Harsha Perera, Rashina Hoda, Rifat Ara Shams et al.

Human values, or what people hold important in their life, such as freedom, fairness, and social responsibility, often remain unnoticed and unattended during software development. Ignoring values can lead to values violations in software that can result in financial losses, reputation damage, and widespread social and legal implications. However, embedding human values in software is not only non-trivial but also generally an unclear process. Commencing as early as during the Requirements Engineering (RE) activities promises to ensure fit-for-purpose and quality software products that adhere to human values. But what is the impact of considering human values explicitly during early RE activities? To answer this question, we conducted a scenario-based survey where 56 software practitioners contextualised requirements analysis towards a proposed mobile application for the homeless and suggested values-laden software features accordingly. The suggested features were qualitatively analysed. Results show that explicit considerations of values can help practitioners identify applicable values, associate purpose with the features they develop, think outside-the-box, and build connections between software features and human values. Finally, drawing from the results and experiences of this study, we propose a scenario-based values elicitation process -- a simple four-step takeaway as a practical implication of this study.

Rifat Ara Shams, Mojtaba Shahin, Gillian Oliver et al.

Given the ubiquity of mobile applications (apps) in daily lives, understanding and reflecting end-users' human values (e.g., transparency, privacy, social recognition etc.) in apps has become increasingly important. Violations of end users' values by software applications have been reported in the media and have resulted in a wide range of difficulties for end users. Value violations may bring more and lasting problems for marginalized and vulnerable groups of end-users. This research aims to understand the extent to which the values of Bangladeshi female farmers, marginalized and vulnerable end-users, who are less studied by the software engineering community, are reflected in agriculture apps in Bangladesh. Further to this, we aim to identify possible strategies to embed their values in those apps. To this end, we conducted a mixed-methods empirical study consisting of 13 interviews with app practitioners and four focus groups with 20 Bangladeshi female farmers. The accumulated results from the interviews and focus groups identified 22 values of Bangladeshi female farmers, which the participants expect to be reflected in the agriculture apps. Among these 22 values, 15 values (e.g., accuracy, independence) are already reflected and 7 values (e.g., accessibility, pleasure) are ignored/violated in the existing agriculture apps. We also identified 14 strategies (e.g., "applying human-centered approaches to elicit values", "establishing a dedicated team/person for values concerns") to address Bangladeshi female farmers' values in agriculture apps.

Mojtaba Shahin, Waqar Hussain, Arif Nurwidyantoro et al.

Human values (e.g., pleasure, privacy, and social justice) are what a person or a society considers important. The inability to address them in software-intensive systems can result in numerous undesired consequences (e.g., financial losses) for individuals and communities. Various solutions (e.g., methodologies, techniques) are developed to help "operationalize values in software". The ultimate goal is to ensure building software (better) reflects and respects human values. In this survey, "operationalizing values" is referred to as the process of identifying human values and translating them to accessible and concrete concepts so that they can be implemented, validated, verified, and measured in software. This paper provides a deep understanding of the research landscape on operationalizing values in software engineering, covering 51 primary studies. It also presents an analysis and taxonomy of 51 solutions for operationalizing values in software engineering. Our survey reveals that most solutions attempt to help operationalize values in the early phases (requirements and design) of the software development life cycle. However, the later phases (implementation and testing) and other aspects of software development (e.g., "team organization") still need adequate consideration. We outline implications for research and practice and identify open issues and future research directions to advance this area.

Arif Nurwidyantoro, Mojtaba Shahin, Michel Chaudron et al.

Background: There is a growing awareness of the importance of human values (e.g., inclusiveness, privacy) in software systems. However, there are no practical tools to support the integration of human values during software development. We argue that a tool that can identify human values from software development artefacts and present them to varying software development roles can (partially) address this gap. We refer to such a tool as human values dashboard. Further to this, our understanding of such a tool is limited. Aims: This study aims to (1) investigate the possibility of using a human values dashboard to help address human values during software development, (2) identify possible benefits of using a human values dashboard, and (3) elicit practitioners' needs from a human values dashboard. Method: We conducted an exploratory study by interviewing 15 software practitioners. A dashboard prototype was developed to support the interview process. We applied thematic analysis to analyse the collected data. Results: Our study finds that a human values dashboard would be useful for the development team (e.g., project manager, developer, tester). Our participants acknowledge that development artefacts, especially requirements documents and issue discussions, are the most suitable source for identifying values for the dashboard. Our study also yields a set of high-level user requirements for a human values dashboard (e.g., it shall allow determining values priority of a project). Conclusions: Our study suggests that a values dashboard is potentially used to raise awareness of values and support values-based decision-making in software development. Future work will focus on addressing the requirements and using issue discussions as potential artefacts for the dashboard.

Waqar Hussain, Mojtaba Shahin, Rashina Hoda et al.

Agile methods are predominantly focused on delivering business values. But can Agile methods be adapted to effectively address and deliver human values such as social justice, privacy, and sustainability in the software they produce? Human values are what an individual or a society considers important in life. Ignoring these human values in software can pose difficulties or risks for all stakeholders (e.g., user dissatisfaction, reputation damage, financial loss). To answer this question, we selected the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), one of the most commonly used Agile methods in the industry, and conducted a qualitative case study to identify possible intervention points within SAFe that are the most natural to address and integrate human values in software. We present five high-level empirically-justified sets of interventions in SAFe: artefacts, roles, ceremonies, practices, and culture. We elaborate how some current Agile artefacts (e.g., user story), roles (e.g., product owner), ceremonies (e.g., stand-up meeting), and practices (e.g., business-facing testing) in SAFe can be modified to support the inclusion of human values in software. Further, our study suggests new and exclusive values-based artefacts (e.g., legislative requirement), ceremonies (e.g., values conversation), roles (e.g., values champion), and cultural practices (e.g., induction and hiring) to be introduced in SAFe for this purpose. Guided by our findings, we argue that existing Agile methods can account for human values in software delivery with some evolutionary adaptations.

Harsha Perera, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Waqar Hussain et al.

Failure to account for human values in software (e.g., equality and fairness) can result in user dissatisfaction and negative socio-economic impact. Engineering these values in software, however, requires technical and methodological support throughout the development life cycle. This paper investigates to what extent software engineering (SE) research has considered human values. We investigate the prevalence of human values in recent (2015 - 2018) publications at some of the top-tier SE conferences and journals. We classify SE publications, based on their relevance to different values, against a widely used value structure adopted from social sciences. Our results show that: (a) only a small proportion of the publications directly consider values, classified as relevant publications; (b) for the majority of the values, very few or no relevant publications were found; and (c) the prevalence of the relevant publications was higher in SE conferences compared to SE journals. This paper shares these and other insights that motivate research on human values in software engineering.