Human-AI Work Redistribution Across the Software Development Life Cycle: A Socio-Technical Study of Indonesian Developers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15408/aism.v9i2.53455Keywords:
AI coding assistant, human-AI collaboration, human-AI work redistribution, SDLC, socio-technical systemsAbstract
AI Coding Assistants are becoming increasingly integrated into software development, changing not only how developers perform their tasks but also how humans and AI share responsibilities. However, how this redistribution of work occurs across the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) remains insufficiently understood. This study investigates how responsibilities are distributed between developers and AI across SDLC activities, how these changes affect software engineering workflows and developer roles, and which socio-technical factors influence this process. Semi-structured interviews with seven software professionals in Indonesia were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The results identify three patterns of human-AI work redistribution: AI-delegated, AI-augmented, and human-controlled work. AI contributes more substantially to structured, repetitive, and relatively verifiable activities, particularly code generation, debugging, testing, and documentation. In contrast, requirements analysis, architectural decisions, security assessment, and release approval remain largely under human control because they require contextual understanding, professional judgment, and accountability. The findings also indicate a shift in developer responsibilities. This redistribution depends on developer experience, AI literacy, trust, model capability, task complexity, security requirements, team practices, and organizational policies. Drawing on socio-technical systems theory and activity theory, the study develops an empirically grounded Human-AI Work Redistribution Model that conceptualizes AI-assisted software engineering as a selective redistribution of responsibilities rather than uniform automation across the SDLC.
Downloads
References
[1] A. M. Turing, “Computing machinery and intelligence,” Mind, vol. 59, no. 236, pp. 433–460, Oct. 1950, doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433.
[2] N. Perry, M. Srivastava, D. Kumar, and D. Boneh, “Do users write more insecure code with AI assistants?,” in Proc. 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur. (CCS ’23), 2023, pp. 2785–2799, doi: 10.1145/3576915.3623157.
[3] J. T. Liang, C. Yang, and B. A. Myers, “A large-scale survey on the usability of AI programming assistants: Successes and challenges,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th, 2024, pp. 1–13, doi: 10.1145/3597503.3608128.
[4] S. Barke, M. B. James, and N. Polikarpova, “Grounded Copilot: How programmers interact with code-generating models,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 7, no. OOPSLA1, pp. 85–111, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1145/3586030.
[5] P. Vaithilingam, T. Zhang, and E. L. Glassman, “Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the usability of code generation tools powered by large language models,” CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp. 1–7, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1145/3491101.3519665.
[6] X. Hou et al., “Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1–79, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1145/3695988.
[7] I. Ozkaya, “Application of large language models to software engineering tasks: Opportunities, risks, and implications,” IEEE Softw., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 4–8, 2023, doi: 10.1109/MS.2023.3248401.
[8] D. Russo, “Navigating the complexity of generative AI adoption in software engineering,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1–50, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1145/3652154.
[9] H. Pearce, B. Ahmad, B. Tan, B. Dolan-Gavitt, and R. Karri, “Asleep at the keyboard? Assessing the security of GitHub Copilot’s code contributions,” 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 754–768, May 2022, doi: 10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833571.
[10] Q. Zhang et al., “A survey on large language models for software engineering,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 69, no. 4, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1007/s11432-025-4670-0.
[11] S. S. M. Sinaga, Z. Indra, M. R. Wijaya, and M. G. Almahdi, “The role of generative AI in the software development life cycle: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4273–4278, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.59934/jaiea.v5i3.2431.
[12] A. Sergeyuk, Y. Golubev, T. Bryksin, and I. Ahmed, “Using AI-based coding assistants in practice: State of affairs, perceptions, and ways forward,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 178, Art. no. 107610, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107610.
[13] A. Mastropaolo et al., “On the robustness of code generation techniques: An empirical study on GitHub Copilot,” in Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, 2023, pp. 2149–2160. doi: 10.1109/ICSE48619.2023.00181.
[14] G. Baxter and I. Sommerville, “Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering,” Interact. Comput, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 4–17, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003.
[15] E. Mumford, “The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes and failures,” Inf. Syst. J., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 317–342, 2006, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00221.x.
[16] M. Maguire, “Socio-technical systems and interaction design – 21st century relevance,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 162–170, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.011.
[17] C. Clegg, “Sociotechnical principles for system design,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 463–477, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0.
[18] Y. Engeström, Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit, 1987.
[19] V. K. and B. A. Nardi, “Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design,” in First Monday, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2006, doi: 10.5210/fm.v12i4.1772.
[20] D. Mwanza, “Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice,” Open Research Online (the Open University), Jan. 2002, doi: 10.21954/ou.ro.0000dc95.
[21] V. Kaptelinin, “Activity theory as a framework for human-computer interaction research,” Mind, Cult. Act., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2010, doi: 10.1080/10749039.2017.1393089.
[22] I. Seeber et al., “Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration,” Information & Management, vol. 57, no. 2, Art. no. 103174, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2019.103174..
[23] R. P. and C. A. Riley, “Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse,” Hum. Factors, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 230–253, 1997, doi: 10.1518/001872097778543886.
[24] J. D. L. and K. A. See, “Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance,” Hum. Factors, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 50–80, 2004, doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.
[25] B. J. Dietvorst, J. P. Simmons, and C. Massey, “Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.,” Journal of Experimental Psychology General, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 114–126, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.1037/xge0000033.
[26] V. B. and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[27] V. B. and V. Clarke, “Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis,” Qual. Res. Sport. Exerc. Heal., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 589–597, 2019, doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.
[28] S. Peng, E. Kalliamvakou, P. Cihon, and M. Demirer, “The impact of AI on developer productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot,” arXiv (Cornell University), Feb. 2023, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2302.06590.
[29] R. Hoda, H. Dam, C. Tantithamthavorn, P. Thongtanunam, and M.-A. Storey, “Augmented Agile: Human-centered AI-assisted software management,” IEEE Software, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 106–109, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1109/ms.2023.3268725.
[30] X. Hou et al., “Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1–79, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1145/3695988.
[31] F. Wirdemann, M. Borg, N. Hagatulah, and A. Tornhill, “Code health in LLM-based test generation: effectiveness and token efficiency,” arXiv (Cornell University), Aug. 2026, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2608.18645.
[32] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Arisantoso Arisantoso, Achmad Benny Mutiara, Abdullah Said Alkalbani, Saipul Anwar, Muhamad Femy Mulya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
