@techreport{BreaughHammerschmidRackwitzetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Breaugh, Jessica and Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Rackwitz, Maike and Palaric, Enora}, title = {Research Report on Collaborative Management for ICT Enabled Public Sector Innovation}, pages = {103}, abstract = {The process of digitalising government is rapidly gaining speed, resulting in a pressing need for increased inter-governmental integration and challenging the traditional silo structures of government. This has sparked the adoption of inter-governmental collaborative working arrangements and efforts to develop joint standards and solutions; yet little is known about how exactly this manifests itself in the context of ambitious digitalisation projects. This report provides new empirical evidence on the challenges and dynamics of collaboration within and between public organisations in order to drive digital transformation. The report begins with a literature review on collaborative management with a particular focus on collaboration in the context of government digitalisation. This literature serves as a basis for developing a set of five propositions regarding how intergovernmental collaborative digitalisation projects can be best designed and managed. Following the conceptual framework of the TROPICO project deliverable 6.3 developed by Rackwitz et al. (2020), the report investigates the interplay between system context, collaboration challenges and dynamics (i.e. complexity, risk and power imbalances), public management interventions (i.e. institutional design and leadership) as well as outcomes. Emphasis is placed upon the role of institutional design and leadership in order to cope with the challenges inherent to collaborative governance approaches. The framework and related propositions are then verified through the use of empirical findings from ten comparative case studies from five European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom). The case studies, presented in detail in TROPICO deliverable 6.3, examine the development of national government-wide online portals, as well as the implementation of municipal Smart City initiatives. The cases show that the system dynamics and challenges of digitalisation projects, such as size and scope, tend to generate resource-intensive and demanding working conditions. Creating hybrid structures that incorporate both network and hierarchical approaches has been a common approach to handling these conditions and balancing the demands of inter-departmental collaboration with the inherent accountabilities and existing working cultures of public organisations. At the steering level, a central coordinator with collaborative leadership skills was found to be key to driving the projects forward and achieving outcomes. Participatory, network-style approaches at the working group level were successful in balancing the demands of all collaborative partners and encouraging wide-scale engagement. In addition, opting for wide-scale inclusion, setting ground rules and clear processes as well as a focus on trust and social capital development proved essential. While most leadership approaches still maintain elements of transactional leadership in managing projects, collaborative leadership approaches such as bringing stakeholders together, mediating problems, and guiding and steering the process were used in many instances to handle the complexities inherent in the project objectives. In the conclusion of the report, contributions are discussed, followed by an outline for future research avenues.}, language = {en} } @article{BreaughRackwitzHammerschmidetal., author = {Breaugh, Jessica and Rackwitz, Maike and Hammerschmid, Gerhard and N{\~o}mmik, Steven and Bello, Benedetta and Boon, Jan and Van Doninck, Dries and Downe, James and Randma-Liiv, Tiina}, title = {Deconstructing complexity: A comparative study of government collaboration in national digital platforms and smart city networks in Europe}, series = {Public Policy and Administration}, journal = {Public Policy and Administration}, doi = {10.1177/09520767231169401}, abstract = {This research deconstructs complexity as a key challenge of intergovernmental digitalisation projects. While much of the literature acknowledges that the fundamental restructuring coupled with technical capacity that these joint projects require leads to increased complexity, little is known about how different types of complexity interact within the collaborative process. Using established concepts of substantive, strategic, and institutional complexity, we apply complexity theory in collaborative digital environments. To do so, eight digital projects are analysed that differ by state structure and government level. Using a cross-case design with 50 semi-structured expert interviews, we find that each digitalisation project exhibits all types of complexity and that these complexities overlap. However, clear differences emerge between national and local level projects, suggesting that complexity in digitalisation processes presents different challenges for collaborative digitalisation projects across contexts.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Robot, all too human}, series = {XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students}, volume = {25}, journal = {XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1145/3313131}, pages = {56 -- 59}, abstract = {Advanced robotics and artificial intelligence systems present a new challenge to human identity.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Europe Is in Danger of Using the Wrong Definition of AI}, series = {Wired}, journal = {Wired}, abstract = {Some intelligent systems are at risk of being excluded from oversight in the EU's proposed legislation. This is bad for both businesses and citizens.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An Introductory Overview for Law and Regulation}, series = {The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI}, editor = {Dubber, Markus and Pasquale, Frank and Das, Sunit}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, isbn = {9780190067397}, doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.1}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {1000}, abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technical term often referring to artifacts used to detect contexts for human actions, or sometimes also for machines able to effect actions in response to detected contexts. Our capacity to build such artifacts has been increasing, and with it the impact they have on our society. This does not alter the fundamental roots or motivations of law, regulation, or diplomacy, which rest on persuading humans to behave in a way that provides sustainable security for humans. It does however alter nearly every other aspect of human social behaviour, including making accountability and responsibility potentially easier to trace. This chapter reviews the nature and implications of AI with particular attention to how they impinge on possible applications to and of law.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {The Past Decade and Future of AI's Impact on Society}, series = {Towards a New Enlightenment? A Transcendent Decade}, volume = {11}, booktitle = {Towards a New Enlightenment? A Transcendent Decade}, publisher = {BBVA}, isbn = {9788417141219}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technical term referring to artifacts used to detect contexts or to effect actions in response to detected contexts. Our capacity to build such artifacts has been increasing, and with it the impact they have on our society. This article first documents the social and economic changes brought about by our use of AI, particularly but not exclusively focusing on the decade since the 2007 advent of smartphones, which contribute substantially to "big data" and therefore the efficacy of machine learning. It then projects from this political, economic, and personal challenges confronting humanity in the near future, including policy recommendations. Overall, AI is not as unusual a technology as expected, but this very lack of expected form may have exposed us to a significantly increased urgency concerning familiar challenges. In particular, the identity and autonomy of both individuals and nations is challenged by the increased accessibility of knowledge.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BrysonBogani, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Bogani, Ronny}, title = {Robot Nannies Will Not Love}, series = {The Love Makers}, booktitle = {The Love Makers}, editor = {Campbell, Aifric}, publisher = {Goldsmiths Press}, address = {London}, isbn = {97819126858442}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {249 -- 258}, abstract = {How artificial intelligence and robotics are transforming the future of love and desire: a philosophical thriller and essays.A chance encounter between two women and a road trip into the future: It's Christmas Eve, and Scarlett, banker-turned-technologist, is leaving a secret underground lab to catch the last flight that will get her home in time to open presents with her three-year-old son. She offers a lift to a young woman in distress, who shares her intimate life story as they drive to the airport. These revelations will have devastating consequences for both of them. The Love Makers is a philosophical thriller about female friendship, class, motherhood, women, and work--and how artificial intelligence and robotics are transforming the future of love and desire. Aifric Campbell combines her novel with essays from leading scientists and commentators who examine what's at stake in our human-machine relationships. What is our future as friends, parents, lovers? Will advances in intelligent machines reverse decades of progress for women? From robot nannies to generative art and our ancient dreams of intelligent machines, The Love Makers blends storytelling with science communication to investigate the challenges and opportunities of emergent technologies and how we want to live. ContributorsRonny Bogani, Joanna J. Bryson, Julie Carpenter, Stephen Cave, Anita Chandran, Peter R. N. Childs, Kate Devlin, Kanta Dihal, Mary Flanagan, Margaret Rhee, Amanda Sharkey, Roberto Trotta, E. R. Truitt, and Richard Watson}, language = {en} } @incollection{BrysonEisenlauer, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Eisenlauer, Martin}, title = {Artificial Intelligence and ethics}, series = {Faster than the Future}, booktitle = {Faster than the Future}, address = {Barcelona}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {57 -- 73}, language = {en} } @article{BrysonHaataja, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Haataja, Meeri}, title = {The European Parliament's AI Regulation: Should We Call It Progress?}, series = {Amicus Curiae}, volume = {4, Series 2}, journal = {Amicus Curiae}, number = {3}, doi = {10.14296/ac.v4i3.5612}, pages = {707 -- 718}, abstract = {The European Union (EU) has been leading the world with its influential digital regulation. However, the EU's legislative process is sufficiently complex and careful that some national legislation clearly influenced by the EU's AI Regulation is already in place in other countries, before the law has even been finalized in the EU. Meanwhile, other states and regions are just beginning to develop AI policy. For both the EU and such others, we here describe the outcomes of the first round of legislative action by one of the EU's two legislative bodies, the European Parliament, in terms of modifying the Artificial Intelligence Act. The Parliament has introduced a number of changes we consider to be enormously important, some in a very good way, and some in a very bad way. At stake is whether the AI Act really brings the power and strength of product law to continuously scale improved practice on products in the EU with intelligent components, or whether the law becomes window-dressing aimed only at attacking a few elite actors post hoc. We describe here the EU process, the changes and our recommendations.}, language = {en} } @article{BrysonMalikova, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Malikova, Helena}, title = {Is There an AI Cold War?}, series = {Global Perspectives}, volume = {2}, journal = {Global Perspectives}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1525/gp.2021.24803}, abstract = {Regulation is a means societies use to create the stability, public goods, and infrastructure they need to thrive securely. This policy brief is intended to both document and to address claims of a new AI cold war: a binary competition between the United States and China that is too important for other powers to either ignore or truly participate in directly, beyond taking sides. We argue that while some of the claims of this narrative are based at least in part on genuine security concerns and important unknowns, evidence for its extreme binary nature is lacking. This absence of factual evidence is concerning, because related geopolitical tensions may be used to interfere with regulation of AI and agencies associated with its development. Here we first document and then analyze the extremely bipolar picture prominent policymakers and political commentators have been recently painting of the AI technological situation, portraying China and the United States as the only two global powers. We then examine the plausibility of these claims using two measures: internationally registered AI patents and the market capitalization of the companies that hold them. These two measures, while each somewhat arbitrary and imperfect, are often deployed in the context of the binary narrative and can therefore be seen as conservative choices in that they should favor exactly the "champions" of that narrative. In fact, these measures do not produce bipolar results: Chinese capacity has been exaggerated and that of other global regions deprecated. These findings call into question the motivation behind the documented claims, though they also further illuminate the uncertainty concerning digital technology security. We recommend that all parties engage in contributing to a safe, secure, and transparent regulatory landscape.}, language = {en} }