Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Fairness Hazard Analysis (FHA), a structured methodology designed to systematically identify and mitigate fairness hazards in socio-technical processes during requirements engineering. Through a proof-of-concept validation and a qualitative multiple-case study in two organizations, the authors demonstrate that FHA can reveal significant fairness hazards, affecting up to 27% of process elements, and provide relevant mitigation strategies. The findings underscore the importance of iterative reflection with domain experts and highlight transferable mitigation patterns like independent review and collective decision-making, which can help prevent systemic bias in organizational settings.
Fairness Hazard Analysis reveals that up to 27% of process elements in socio-technical systems may harbor fairness hazards, necessitating proactive mitigation strategies.
Fairness is increasingly recognised as a first-class requirement in socio-technical processes, where interactions among human actors, software systems, and AI technologies may lead to unfair outcomes in decision-making workflows. If left unaddressed, fairness hazards may accumulate and reinforce systemic bias, highlighting the need to engineer fairness proactively. Despite growing interest in fairness-aware systems, systematic methods for identifying fairness hazards in socio-technical processes and deriving requirements-level mitigations remain limited. To support fairness-by-design during requirements engineering (RE), Fairness Hazard Analysis (FHA) is introduced as a methodology for systematically identifying, analysing, and mitigating fairness hazards. FHA is first assessed through a proof-of-concept validation conducted via two focus groups. Then, a qualitative multiple-case study involving two organisations examines its applicability in real-world settings. The proof-of-concept validation highlighted the benefits derived from the structured nature of the method, and suggested the need to include iterative, dialogic reflection with domain experts. In the multiple case-study where FHA was applied, the practitioners involved were positively impressed by the results and confirmed the relevance of the identified fairness hazards (spanning up to 27% of the process elements), as well as the appropriateness of most of the proposed mitigations, while noting that contextual factors might hinder their implementation. The evaluation also highlighted mitigation patterns, such as independent review and collective decision-making, which can be transferred to different organisations. This paper contributes a structured and empirically validated methodology for integrating fairness considerations in RE and preventing systemic bias in socio-technical processes.
