arXiv subjects

Kieran Conboy

Publications and source records attributed to Kieran Conboy.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Prioritization of Risks from Artificial Intelligence: A Delphi Study of 272 International Experts

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.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Software Startups -- A Research Agenda

Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited time frames and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models. Software startups are quite distinct from traditional mature software companies, but also from micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises, introducing new challenges relevant for software engineering research. This paper's research agenda focuses on software engineering in startups, identifying, in particular, 70+ research questions in the areas of supporting startup engineering activities, startup evolution models and patterns, ecosystems and innovation hubs, human aspects in software startups, applying startup concepts in non-startup environments, and methodologies and theories for startup research. We connect and motivate this research agenda with past studies in software startup research, while pointing out possible future directions. While all authors of this research agenda have their main background in Software Engineering or Computer Science, their interest in software startups broadens the perspective to the challenges, but also to the opportunities that emerge from multi-disciplinary research. Our audience is therefore primarily software engineering researchers, even though we aim at stimulating collaborations and research that crosses disciplinary boundaries. We believe that with this research agenda we cover a wide spectrum of the software startup industry current needs.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2022

Agile data management in NAV: A Case Study

To satisfy the need for analytical data in the development of digital services, many organizations use data warehouse, and, more recently, data lake architectures. These architectures have traditionally been accompanied by centralized organizational models, where a single team or department has been responsible for gathering, transforming, and giving access to analytical data. However, such centralized models presuppose stability and are incompatible with agile software development where applications and databases are continuously updated. To achieve more agile forms of data management, some organizations have therefore begun to experiment with distributed data management models such as 'data meshes'. Research on this topic is however limited. In this paper, we report findings from a case study of a public sector organization in Norway that has begun the transition from centralized to distributed data management, outlining both the benefits and challenges of a distributed approach.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2020

Applying Normalization Process Theory to Explain Large-Scale Agile Transformations

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.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

Implementing Large-Scale Agile Frameworks: Challenges and Recommendations

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.

cs.SE↗