Algorithmic Decision Making (ADM) has permeated all aspects of society. Government organizations are also affected by this trend. However, the use of ADM has been getting negative attention from the public, media, and interest groups. There is little to no actionable guidelines for government organizations to create positive impact through ADM. In this case study, we examined eight municipal organizations in the Netherlands regarding their actual and intended use of ADM. We interviewed key personnel and decision makers. Our results show that municipalities mostly use ADM in an ad hoc manner, and they have not systematically defined or institutionalized a data science process yet. They operate risk averse, and they clearly express the need for cooperation, guidance, and even supervision at the national level. Third parties, mostly commercial, are often involved in the ADM development lifecycle, without systematic governance. Communication on the use of ADM is generally responsive to negative attention from the media and public. There are strong indications for the need of an ADM governance framework. In this paper, we present our findings in detail, along with actionable insights on governance, communication, and performance evaluation of ADM systems.
翻译:分析分析决策(ADM)已经渗透到社会的各个方面,政府组织也受到这一趋势的影响,但是,ADM的使用一直受到公众、媒体和利益团体的负面关注,政府组织通过ADM产生积极影响的指导方针很少甚至根本没有可操作的指南。在本案例研究中,我们审查了荷兰八个市政组织实际和打算使用ADM的情况。我们采访了关键人员和决策者。我们的结果显示,各城市大多以临时方式使用ADM,它们尚未系统地界定数据科学进程或使之制度化。它们从事风险反向活动,明确表明需要在国家一级进行合作、指导甚至监督。第三方(大多数是商业方)经常在没有系统治理的情况下参与ADM发展生命周期。关于使用ADM的沟通通常对媒体和公众的负面关注作出反应。关于ADM治理框架的必要性有强烈的迹象。我们在本文件中详细介绍了我们的调查结果,同时对ADM系统的治理、沟通和绩效评价提出了可操作的见解。