AI-driven hazard tools are increasingly proposed for resident-facing risk communication. However, residents are often asked for feedback only after decisions about data use, privacy, and explanation have been made. This study takes an earlier approach by examining residents' values, concerns, and practical expectations for a proposed AI-based risk assessment tool before a predictive model or functional interface is developed. The proposed smartphone application would use property photographs to estimate parcel-level wildfire risk and provide an interpretable risk score, uncertainty information, and mitigation recommendations. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, we surveyed 30 Los Angeles County residents, seven of whom also participated in a virtual town hall. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, exploratory FDR-adjusted Spearman correlations, and inductive thematic coding of open-ended and town hall responses. Participants were cautiously receptive: 66.7% said they would be very likely or likely to use the tool. They linked fair risk assessment to whether the tool considered relevant property and neighborhood conditions. Privacy and data security were the most common concerns (64.3%), while cost was the main barrier to acting on recommendations (65.5%). Likelihood of using the tool was strongly associated with likelihood of saving or sharing risk results ($\rho = 0.752$, $p_{\mathrm{FDR}} < .001$). We translated the findings into the AI Value Map, a community-grounded artifact with nine value dimensions. The Map connects participant findings to provisional design requirements and possible consequences if they are not addressed. This study provides exploratory evidence on residents' responses to a proposed AI wildfire tool and offers a pre-model procedure for translating early community input into traceable design constraints for resident-facing AI hazard tools.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 7, 2026
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.