Artificial Intelligence (AI) Risk Management Framework

AI Risk Management Framework

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Risk Management Framework by NIST enables organizations designing, developing, deploying, or using AI systems to incorporate comprehensive AI Testing, Evaluation, Validation, and Verification (TEVV) practices, thereby managing the many risks of AI and promoting trustworthy and responsible development and use of AI systems.

The AI Risk Management Framework functions (GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, MANAGE) can be applied to fit the interests and needs for organizations of all sizes and in all sectors.

GOVERN
The GOVERN function ensures policies, processes, procedures and practices across the organization related to the mapping, measuring and managing of AI risks are in place, transparent, and implemented effectively.

MAP
The MAP function establishes the context to frame risks related to an AI system. The AI lifecycle consists of many interdependent activities involving a diverse set of actors. The information gathered while carrying out the MAP function enables negative risk prevention and informs decisions for processes such as model management, as well as an initial decision about appropriateness or the need for an AI solution.

MEASURE
The MEASURE function employs quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method tools, techniques, and methodologies to analyze, assess, benchmark, and monitor AI risk and related impacts.

MANAGE
The MANAGE function entails allocating risk resources to mapped and measured risks on a regular basis and as defined by the GOVERN function. Risk treatment comprises plans to respond to, recover from, and communicate about incidents or events.

AID11
FunctionGOVERN
FIDGOV-3
Description

Workforce diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility processes are prioritized in the mapping, measuring, and managing of AI risks throughout the lifecycle.

Category

Governance and Oversight, AI Design

GIDGovern 3.1
Guidance

A diverse team that includes AI actors with diversity of experience, disciplines, and backgrounds to enhance organizational capacity and capability for anticipating risks is better equipped to carry out risk management. Consultation with external personnel may be necessary when internal teams lack a diverse range of lived experiences or disciplinary expertise.

To extend the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion to both the users and AI actors, it is recommended that teams are composed of a diverse group of individuals who reflect a range of backgrounds, perspectives and expertise.

Without commitment from senior leadership, beneficial aspects of team diversity and inclusion can be overridden by unstated organizational incentives that inadvertently conflict with the broader values of a diverse workforce.

Recommendations

Organizational management can:

- Define policies and hiring practices at the outset that promote interdisciplinary roles, competencies, skills, and capacity for AI efforts.
- Define policies and hiring practices that lead to demographic and domain expertise diversity; empower staff with necessary resources and support, and facilitate the contribution of staff feedback and concerns without fear of reprisal.
- Establish policies that facilitate inclusivity and the integration of new insights into existing practice.
- Seek external expertise to supplement organizational diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility where internal expertise is lacking.
- Establish policies that incentivize AI actors to collaborate with existing nondiscrimination, accessibility and accommodation, and human resource functions, employee resource group (ERGs), and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives.

Documentation

Organizations can document the following
- Are the relevant staff dealing with AI systems properly trained to interpret AI model output and decisions as well as to detect and manage bias in data?
- Entities include diverse perspectives from technical and non-technical communities throughout the AI life cycle to anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences including potential bias and discrimination.
- Stakeholder involvement: Include diverse perspectives from a community of stakeholders throughout the AI life cycle to mitigate risks.
- Strategies to incorporate diverse perspectives include establishing collaborative processes and multidisciplinary teams that involve subject matter experts in data science, software development, civil liberties, privacy and security, legal counsel, and risk management.
- To what extent are the established procedures effective in mitigating bias, inequity, and other concerns resulting from the system?

AI Transparency Resources
- WEF Model AI Governance Framework Assessment 2020. [URL](https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/Files/PDPC/PDF-Files/Resource-for-Organisation/AI/SGModelAIGovFramework2.pdf)
- Datasheets for Datasets. [URL](http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09010)

Tasks

Diversity, Interdisciplinarity, Governance

Reference(s)

Dylan Walsh, “How can human-centered AI fight bias in machines and people?” MIT Sloan Mgmt. Rev., 2021. [URL](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-can-human-centered-ai-fight-bias-machines-and-people)

Michael Li, “To Build Less-Biased AI, Hire a More Diverse Team,” Harvard Bus. Rev., 2020. [URL](https://hbr.org/2020/10/to-build-less-biased-ai-hire-a-more-diverse-team)

Bo Cowgill et al., “Biased Programmers? Or Biased Data? A Field Experiment in Operationalizing AI Ethics,” 2020. [URL](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.02394.pdf)

Naomi Ellemers, Floortje Rink, “Diversity in work groups,” Current opinion in psychology, vol. 11, pp. 49–53, 2016.

Katrin Talke, Søren Salomo, Alexander Kock, “Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: The relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, pp. 819–832, 2011.

Sarah Myers West, Meredith Whittaker, and Kate Crawford,, “Discriminating Systems: Gender, Race, and Power in AI,” AI Now Institute, Tech. Rep., 2019. [URL](https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.pdf)

Sina Fazelpour, Maria De-Arteaga, Diversity in sociotechnical machine learning systems. Big Data & Society. January 2022. doi:10.1177/20539517221082027

Mary L. Cummings and Songpo Li, 2021a. Sources of subjectivity in machine learning models. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 13(2), 1–9

“Staffing for Equitable AI: Roles & Responsibilities,” Partnership on Employment & Accessible Technology (PEAT, peatworks.org). Accessed Jan. 6, 2023. [URL](https://www.peatworks.org/ai-disability-inclusion-toolkit/ai-disability-inclusion-resources/staffing-for-equitable-ai-roles-responsibilities/)