Kieran Conboy

Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel et al.

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

Noel Carroll, Kieran Conboy

Given the prevalence and effectiveness of agile methods at a team level, large organizations are now attempting to mimic this success at large scale by adopting large-scale methods such as Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), Spotify, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS). However, compared to insights on traditionally small scale methods, the extant literature provides sparse coverage on theories to examine large-scale agile transformations. In this article, we focus on the challenge of normalizing large scale agile transformations and apply Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to support theorize about this process. We present our initial case study findings and outline future research on the application of NPT for large-scale transformations. From a research and practice perspective, we explain how NPT can be adopted to focus on the processes of embedding and sustaining practices, activities which are very often ignored, yet central to the success or failure of transformations.

Kieran Conboy, Noel Carroll

Based on 13 agile transformation cases over 15 years, this article identifies nine challenges associated with implementing SAFe, Scrum-at-Scale, Spotify, LeSS, Nexus, and other mixed or customised large-scale agile frameworks. These challenges should be considered by organizations aspiring to pursue a large-scale agile strategy. This article also provides recommendations for practitioners and agile researchers.