MEASURE-4.1—Measurement approaches for identifying AI risks are connected to deployment context(s) and informed through consultation with domain experts and other end users. Approaches are documented.

AI Actors carrying out TEVV tasks may have difficulty evaluating impacts within the system context of use. AI system risks and impacts are often best described by end users and others who may be affected by output and subsequent decisions. AI Actors can elicit feedback from impacted individuals and communities via participatory engagement processes established in Govern 5.1 and 5.2, and carried out in Map 1.6, 5.1, and 5.2.

Activities described in the Measure function enable AI actors to evaluate feedback from impacted individuals and communities. To increase awareness of insights, feedback can be evaluated in close collaboration with AI actors responsible for impact assessment, human-factors, and governance and oversight tasks, as well as with other socio-technical domain experts and researchers. To gain broader expertise for interpreting evaluation outcomes, organizations may consider collaborating with advocacy groups and civil society organizations.

Insights based on this type of analysis can inform TEVV-based decisions about metrics and related courses of action.

Organizations can document the following

• Did your organization address usability problems and test whether user interfaces served their intended purposes?
• How will user and peer engagement be integrated into the model development process and periodic performance review once deployed?
• To what extent can users or parties affected by the outputs of the AI system test the AI system and provide feedback?
• To what extent are the established procedures effective in mitigating bias, inequity, and other concerns resulting from the system?

AI Transparency Resources

• GAO-21-519SP - Artificial Intelligence: An Accountability Framework for Federal Agencies & Other Entities.
• Artificial Intelligence Ethics Framework For The Intelligence Community.
• WEF Companion to the Model AI Governance Framework – Implementation and Self-Assessment Guide for Organizations

Batya Friedman, and David G. Hendry. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2019.

Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry, and Alan Borning. “A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods.” Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 11, no. 2 (November 22, 2017): 63–125.

Steven Umbrello, and Ibo van de Poel. “Mapping Value Sensitive Design onto AI for Social Good Principles.” AI and Ethics 1, no. 3 (February 1, 2021): 283–96.

Karen Boyd. “Designing Up with Value-Sensitive Design: Building a Field Guide for Ethical ML Development.” FAccT '22: 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, June 20, 2022, 2069–82.

Janet Davis and Lisa P. Nathan. “Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adaptations, and Critiques.” In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, edited by Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, and Ibo van de Poel, January 1, 2015, 11–40.

Ben Shneiderman. Human-Centered AI. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.

Shneiderman, Ben. “Human-Centered AI.” Issues in Science and Technology 37, no. 2 (2021): 56–61.

Shneiderman, Ben. “Tutorial: Human-Centered AI: Reliable, Safe and Trustworthy.” IUI '21 Companion: 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces - Companion, April 14, 2021, 7–8.

George Margetis, Stavroula Ntoa, Margherita Antona, and Constantine Stephanidis. “Human-Centered Design of Artificial Intelligence.” In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, edited by Gavriel Salvendy and Waldemar Karwowski, 5th ed., 1085–1106. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.

Caitlin Thompson. “Who's Homeless Enough for Housing? In San Francisco, an Algorithm Decides.” Coda, September 21, 2021.

John Zerilli, Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin, and Colin Gavaghan. “Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Control Problem.” Minds and Machines 29, no. 4 (December 11, 2019): 555–78.

Fry, Hannah. Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2018.

Sasha Costanza-Chock. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2020.

David G. Robinson. Voices in the Code: A Story About People, Their Values, and the Algorithm They Made. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2022.

Diane Hart, Gabi Diercks-O'Brien, and Adrian Powell. “Exploring Stakeholder Engagement in Impact Evaluation Planning in Educational Development Work.” Evaluation 15, no. 3 (2009): 285–306.

Asit Bhattacharyya and Lorne Cummings. “Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance – Stakeholder Engagement Evaluation.” Business Strategy and the Environment 24, no. 5 (2013): 309–25.

Hendricks, Sharief, Nailah Conrad, Tania S. Douglas, and Tinashe Mutsvangwa. “A Modified Stakeholder Participation Assessment Framework for Design Thinking in Health Innovation.” Healthcare 6, no. 3 (September 2018): 191–96.

Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. "Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond 'Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir.'" arXiv preprint, submitted November 1, 2021.

Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth Watkins, Ranjit Singh, Madeleine Clare Elish, and Jacob Metcalf. “Assembling Accountability: Algorithmic Impact Assessment for the Public Interest.” SSRN, July 8, 2021.

Alexandra Reeve Givens, and Meredith Ringel Morris. “Centering Disability Perspectives in Algorithmic Fairness, Accountability, & Transparency.” FAT* '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, January 27, 2020, 684-84.