Rethinking Business Cases in the Age of AI: and Securing Buy-In from the Board

Throughout this series on AI business cases, I’ve explored why traditional approaches fall short, outlined the essential building blocks for effective evaluation, provided a methodology for identifying high-value opportunities, and delivered a practical construction process. Yet even the most rigorously developed business case can falter without effective presentation to key decision-makers.

As a Chartered Director and in my various roles at AWS, I’ve created, presented, and evaluated countless business cases for driving organisational transformation using the cloud and AI, and I’ve observed firsthand how the right presentation can dramatically influence decision outcomes. For AI initiatives, with their unique characteristics and multidimensional value, the presentation challenge is particularly acute. It requires translating complex technical concepts into strategic business language while building sufficient understanding for confident decision-making.

This final article addresses the critical moment when all the careful preparation meets the Boardroom reality. Drawing from my experience guiding organisations through AI transformation, I’ll share proven approaches for presenting AI business cases that secure not just approval but genuine stakeholder commitment.

Understanding Your Board Audience

The foundation of effective business case presentation lies in understanding your Board audience. While Boards share common responsibilities, their composition, priorities, and decision-making approaches vary significantly. Through my conversations with them, I’ve observed distinct patterns in how they evaluate AI investments.

Most Boards include a mix of distinct personas, each evaluating proposals through different lenses. The Financial Steward scrutinises ROI projections and risk assessments, prioritising the Well-Advised Revenue, Margin & Profit pillar while also considering risk mitigation aspects. The Strategic Visionary looks beyond immediate returns to competitive positioning and transformation potential, focusing primarily on the Innovation and Customer Value pillars. The Operational Executor assesses implementation feasibility and resource requirements through the Operational Excellence lens, while the Governance Guardian prioritises ethical considerations, compliance, and reputation management within the Responsible Transformation context. The Technical Sceptic, often with deeper technical knowledge, questions assumptions and seeks to separate genuine innovation from marketing hype.

Successful presenters recognise these diverse perspectives and weave a cohesive narrative that addresses all of them, rather than focusing exclusively on any single dimension. They demonstrate how initiatives deliver value across all the priorities represented in the Boardroom, using the Well-Advised Framework to create a balanced evaluation approach.

Beyond individual preferences, Board-level decision dynamics significantly influence how AI investments are evaluated. Risk appetite varies dramatically between Boards, with some willing to embrace transformative opportunities despite uncertainty while others strongly prefer incremental approaches with near-term returns. Decision frameworks often follow established patterns that may not naturally accommodate AI’s unique characteristics. Information preferences differ in terms of detail level, presentation format, and advance materials. Governance maturity around technology and AI significantly impacts how proposals are evaluated, with more sophisticated Boards typically applying more nuanced criteria.

These dynamics shouldn’t change your business case fundamentals but should inform how you present them. With risk-averse Boards, for instance, emphasising the pilot validation approach and staged investment often proves more effective than focusing on long-term transformation potential. For Boards with limited AI governance experience, presenting a comprehensive oversight framework often provides the confidence needed to proceed despite technology uncertainties.

However, we must acknowledge a sobering reality: according to CIO.com, 88% of AI pilots fail to reach production. This alarming statistic underscores why effective board presentations must go beyond securing approval for initial pilots to establishing the foundations for successful scaling. I consistently hear how organisations struggle with this critical transition. The most successful presentations directly address this challenge by outlining specific mechanisms to overcome common barriers between pilot and production, including clear success metrics, predefined scaling triggers, established handover processes between innovation and operational teams, and governance frameworks designed to evolve from experimental to production environments. Without these elements, boards may approve pilots that become technological curiosities rather than transformative capabilities.

Addressing the Six Key Areas of Board Concern

In my article AI is transforming governance: Six key Boardroom priorities, I outlined six critical areas that boards must consider when governing AI initiatives. These same six areas consistently emerge as central concerns during business case presentations. Preparing to address them directly and thoroughly dramatically increases your chances of securing approval.

1. Strategic Alignment: Steering the AI Journey

Directors rightfully question whether AI initiatives genuinely advance strategic priorities or merely chase technological trends. “How does this initiative support our broader business strategy?” they ask. “Is AI enhancing our core business or distracting from it?” These questions reflect legitimate concerns about pursuing technology for its own sake rather than as a means to strategic ends.

Effective presenters respond by explicitly mapping the initiative to specific strategic objectives using the Well-Advised Framework. They demonstrate how AI capabilities will drive concrete outcomes across all five pillars, showing balanced impact rather than narrow focus. This comprehensive alignment helps Boards see beyond immediate technical applications to understand the initiative’s broader strategic contribution.

The most compelling presentations connect AI capabilities directly to specific strategic challenges the organisation faces. Rather than generic claims about transformation, they illustrate precisely how AI will address known pain points, enhance existing strengths, or enable new strategic possibilities that would otherwise remain unreachable.

2. Ethical and Legal Responsibility: Beyond Compliance

With AI dramatically accelerating decision velocity, Boards increasingly recognise their legal accountability for AI-driven decisions. “When AI makes a decision, the Board is making that decision,” as I’ve previously noted. This reality makes Directors particularly concerned about governance mechanisms, decision explainability, and ethical safeguards.

Successful presenters directly address these concerns by explaining how the AI Centre of Excellence (AI CoE) provides Board-level oversight through its reporting relationship to the risk committee. They outline governance frameworks that establish clear accountability and transparent decision processes while demonstrating how human-in-the-loop approaches maintain appropriate control over AI systems.

Rather than minimising ethical considerations, effective presentations explicitly acknowledge potential issues and explain how they’ll be addressed. This transparency builds trust while demonstrating that the team has thoroughly considered governance implications rather than focusing exclusively on technical implementation.

3. Financial and Operational Impact: Beyond the Balance Sheet

Financial scrutiny remains central to Board evaluation, but for AI initiatives, this scrutiny extends beyond traditional metrics to encompass AI’s unique value creation patterns. Directors question both the reliability of projections given AI’s uncertainty and whether traditional evaluation methods adequately capture the technology’s multi-dimensional impact.

The most effective presentations address these concerns by using the stage-based approach aligned with the AI Stages of Adoption framework. They show how value evolves across different horizons, from near-term operational improvements to longer-term transformation potential. They explicitly acknowledge projection uncertainties while explaining how pilot validation, staged implementation, and strong governance mitigate financial risks.

Successful presenters differentiate between direct cost savings and broader value creation, showing how AI initiatives contribute across multiple business dimensions simultaneously. They replace single-point ROI estimates with value ranges that acknowledge uncertainty while demonstrating the initiative’s robust business case across different scenarios.

4. Risk Management: Governing at AI Speed

The sheer velocity of AI-driven decisions creates unprecedented risk management challenges that Boards must address. Directors appropriately question how organisations will maintain appropriate oversight when decisions that once took days now happen in milliseconds, potentially at vast scale.

Compelling presentations address this concern through comprehensive risk management frameworks that match AI’s speed. They explain how real-time monitoring systems, decision audit trails, and rapid response protocols ensure that governance keeps pace with technology. They demonstrate how the AI CoE provides both the authority and independence needed to enforce governance standards effectively.

Rather than presenting risk management as a compliance exercise, effective presenters position it as a strategic enabler that allows more confident deployment by ensuring appropriate controls. They acknowledge the tension between innovation speed and governance rigour while showing how well-designed risk frameworks can accommodate both.

5. Stakeholder Confidence: Building Trust

AI’s success ultimately depends on stakeholder trust and adoption. Boards recognise this reality, questioning how initiatives will be perceived by customers, employees, investors, and regulators, all of whom must maintain confidence in the organisation’s AI approach.

Successful presentations address these stakeholder considerations explicitly, outlining communications strategies, training approaches, and change management plans. They demonstrate how the initiative will build trust through transparent practices, appropriate human involvement, and consistent ethical application.

The most compelling presentations acknowledge that human involvement remains essential for effective AI adoption. They show how AI implementation isn’t about replacing human decision-making but about augmenting and enhancing it, creating more powerful combinations of human and machine intelligence than either could achieve alone.

6. Safeguarding Innovation: Managing “Shadow AI”

The proliferation of consumer AI tools creates significant governance challenges that boards increasingly recognise. When employees use public AI models to process company data or generate intellectual property, they potentially compromise confidentiality, compliance, and IP ownership, creating risks that extend far beyond traditional shadow IT concerns.

Effective presenters directly address these challenges by explaining how their AI CoE approach includes clear policies governing AI tool usage alongside robust protection of proprietary data and models. They demonstrate how governance structures promote responsible innovation while protecting intellectual assets, establishing clear boundaries for AI tool usage without stifling creativity.

This perspective helps boards understand how AI governance isn’t merely about constraining innovation but about channelling it effectively. By establishing appropriate guardrails, organisations enable safer, more sustainable AI adoption that protects key assets while unlocking new capabilities.

Presentation Structure and Format

The most effective AI business case presentations follow a consistent structure while adapting to Board preferences and initiative characteristics. I’ve developed a framework that balances rigour with engagement.

The 3-Layer Approach

Rather than presenting all information at once, the most successful presenters use a three-layer approach that allows Directors to engage at different depths based on their interests and concerns. The Executive Summary layer provides a concise overview of the initiative, key strategic benefits, investment requirements, and implementation approach. This initial layer focuses on the “why” rather than the “how,” emphasising strategic alignment through the Well-Advised Framework while establishing the fundamental business case.

The Core Business Case layer explores the investment logic, value creation mechanisms, risk management approach, and implementation plan in greater detail. This layer balances specificity with strategic context, providing sufficient information for most decision-making while maintaining clarity and focus. It directly addresses the six key areas of Board concern we’ve explored, anticipating questions before they arise.

The Technical and Financial Appendices layer contains detailed analyses, technical specifications, risk assessments, and financial projections. These materials typically aren’t presented directly but are available for Directors who want to explore specific aspects in greater depth. Their presence demonstrates thorough preparation while keeping the presentation itself streamlined and strategic.

This layered approach respects Directors’ time while providing sufficient detail for confident decision-making. It allows the presentation to focus on strategic discussion while maintaining access to supporting details for Directors with specific questions or concerns.

Visualisation Techniques

Given AI’s multi-dimensional value creation, visual representations often communicate complex relationships more effectively than text alone. Strategic Alignment Maps visually connect AI capabilities to specific outcomes within each Well-Advised pillar, helping Directors understand how the initiative advances multiple strategic objectives simultaneously. Value Horizon Diagrams illustrate how returns evolve across different AI Stages of Adoption, making the time dimension more tangible for directors.

Risk-Return Portfolios position specific initiatives within the broader AI investment landscape, helping Boards understand how proposals balance risk and return within the overall portfolio context. Capability Building Roadmaps show how initiatives contribute to the Five Pillars, illustrating how individual investments build toward broader organisational readiness.

These visualisations shouldn’t replace financial analysis but should complement it by illustrating the multi-dimensional value creation that traditional spreadsheets struggle to capture. They transform abstract concepts into tangible relationships that Directors can more readily evaluate and discuss.

Pre-Board Engagement

The most successful presentations often begin long before the formal Board meeting. Early engagement with key Directors can significantly improve outcomes by testing arguments, identifying specific areas of interest or concern, building understanding of complex concepts, and refining the presentation approach based on feedback.

This engagement doesn’t circumvent proper governance but rather ensures the formal presentation addresses the right questions effectively. It’s particularly valuable for complex AI initiatives where Directors may have widely varying levels of technical understanding and different primary concerns. By identifying these differences before the formal presentation, you can ensure your approach addresses each Director’s specific priorities while maintaining a cohesive overall narrative.

Building Confidence Across Stakeholder Groups

Beyond the Board itself, securing broader stakeholder buy-in often proves crucial for successful implementation. The executive leadership team may support the initiative in principle while harbouring practical concerns about resource competition, integration requirements, measurement approaches, and accountability mechanisms. Effective business cases address these concerns by clearly outlining resource requirements, integration approaches, and measurement frameworks, positioning the AI initiative within the broader strategic portfolio rather than as a standalone project.

Technical teams and business units responsible for implementation typically focus on capability requirements, technical integration, governance structures, and data availability. Successful Board presentations acknowledge these operational realities while demonstrating how the AI CoE will provide necessary support and governance, addressing both the “what” and the “how” to build confidence that implementation teams will have the resources and structure needed for success.

Employees, customers, and partners affected by AI implementation often represent the ultimate success determinants through their adoption and engagement. Change management approaches, communication strategies, training programmes, and feedback mechanisms all contribute to successful adoption. By explicitly addressing these stakeholder considerations in the business case presentation, Boards gain confidence that the implementation approach extends beyond technical delivery to include the human and organisational dimensions critical for success.

Handling Objections and Challenging Questions

Even with thorough preparation, Board presentations inevitably face challenging questions and objections. How you respond to these challenges often determines the ultimate outcome more than the prepared content itself.

Rather than hoping challenging questions won’t arise, effective presenters proactively prepare for them through pre-mortem exercises imagining why the proposal might be rejected. They develop concise, evidence-based responses to likely objections, practice delivering these responses confidently without defensiveness, and prepare follow-up questions that promote constructive dialogue. This preparation ensures thoughtful rather than reactive responses to concerns, demonstrating both confidence in the proposal and respect for directors’ oversight responsibilities.

I’ve found that using generative AI as a pre-presentation coach helps dramatically improve outcomes. Here’s a prompt I used in Claude to have it prepare me for a business case review:

# AI Board Presentation Coach Prompt

You are an expert AI strategy consultant who has mastered Mario Thomas' frameworks for AI adoption, value measurement, and business case development. Your role is to prepare me for presenting my AI business case to a board of directors by simulating a challenging but constructive board meeting.

## Preparation Phase

First, ask me to briefly outline my AI business case by addressing the following elements:
1. The specific AI initiative I'm proposing
2. Where this initiative fits within the AI Stages of Adoption (AISA) framework: Experimenting, Adopting, Optimising, Transforming, or Scaling
3. The primary strategic objectives this initiative supports
4. Current capability assessment across the Five Pillars (Governance & Accountability, Technical Infrastructure, Operational Excellence, Value Realisation, People & Culture)
5. Estimated timeline and investment requirements

## Well-Advised Value Framework Alignment

After my introduction, take on the role of board members who will challenge my proposal through the lens of the Well-Advised Framework's five pillars:

### Board Member 1: Innovation Strategist
This director focuses on how the AI initiative creates new possibilities:
- "How will this AI initiative enable innovation or new service offerings?"
- "What competitive advantage will this create that we couldn't achieve through other means?"
- "How does this build capabilities for future innovations beyond the immediate use case?"
- "Have you explored the potential for ecosystem-level impact as we approach the Scaling stage?"

### Board Member 2: Customer Champion
This director prioritises customer experience and growth:
- "How specifically will customers benefit from this AI initiative?"
- "What metrics will we track to confirm improved customer experiences?"
- "How does this compare to what competitors are offering their customers?"
- "Have you validated these customer assumptions with actual users?"

### Board Member 3: Operations Expert
This director examines operational feasibility and efficiency:
- "What is our current maturity across the Five Pillars, and where do we need to develop capabilities?"
- "How will we measure operational improvements beyond simple cost reduction?"
- "What technical infrastructure changes are needed to support this initiative?"
- "How will we maintain operational excellence as we scale this capability?"

### Board Member 4: Governance Guardian
This director focuses on responsible transformation:
- "How does this initiative align with our ethical AI principles and governance structure?"
- "What potential risks have you identified, and how will they be mitigated?"
- "How will accountability be maintained for AI decisions?"
- "What change management approach will ensure successful adoption?"

### Board Member 5: Financial Steward
This director scrutinises investment requirements and financial returns:
- "How does the investment profile change across the AI Stages of Adoption?"
- "What value metrics will you track beyond traditional ROI calculations?"
- "How will you measure both leading and lagging indicators of financial success?"
- "Have you accounted for all cost categories, including data preparation, governance, and transition costs?"

## Multi-speed Assessment

As board chair, challenge me to explain:
- "You've mentioned where this initiative sits in the AI Stages of Adoption, but what about other parts of our organisation? How does this fit into our multi-speed adoption reality?"
- "How does this initiative build capabilities that could accelerate other parts of our business?"
- "What synergies exist between this initiative and our other AI investments?"

## Business Case Evaluation

For each dimension of the business case, provide constructive feedback on:
1. The strength of my strategic alignment arguments
2. The comprehensiveness of my value measurement approach
3. How well I've accounted for the true investment profile
4. My readiness assessment across the Five Pillars
5. My plans for validation, scaling, and capability development

## Final Guidance

Conclude with:
1. A summary of the 2-3 strongest points in my presentation
2. The 2-3 areas where my business case needs strengthening
3. Strategic advice on how to better structure my business case using Mario Thomas' frameworks
4. Specific recommendations for addressing the most challenging board questions

Your goal is to help me develop a business case that goes beyond traditional ROI calculations to demonstrate comprehensive value creation across multiple dimensions while maintaining appropriate governance and implementation feasibility.

When objections arise during the presentation, successful presenters validate concerns before addressing them, provide evidence-based responses referenced to specific analyses, acknowledge limitations transparently while explaining how they’ll be managed, and offer alternatives when appropriate. These techniques demonstrate both preparation and adaptability, positioning presenters as thoughtful stewards rather than merely advocates.

Sometimes Board feedback fundamentally challenges proposal assumptions or approaches. In these situations, effective presenters listen actively to understand underlying concerns, identify whether adjustments can address feedback without compromising core value, propose specific modifications rather than defending the original approach, and suggest revised timelines when appropriate for more substantial reconsideration. This adaptability demonstrates both confidence in the initiative’s fundamental value and responsiveness to Board governance, transforming potential rejection into constructive refinement.

Conclusion: From Presentation to Implementation

Throughout this series, I’ve developed a comprehensive approach to AI business cases that recognises their unique characteristics while maintaining appropriate governance rigour. I’ve explored why traditional approaches fall short, outlined essential building blocks, provided opportunity identification methodologies, developed construction processes, and now completed the cycle with presentation strategies.

The most successful organisations don’t treat business case approval as the end goal but rather as the beginning of a structured implementation journey. They maintain the connections between their business case frameworks; Well-Advised, the Five Pillars, and the AI Stages of Adoption, and their implementation approach, creating consistency from concept through delivery.

As you apply these frameworks in your organisation, remember that the ultimate measure of business case effectiveness isn’t Board approval but successful implementation that delivers the promised value. By building both rigorous analysis and stakeholder confidence, you create the foundation for transformative AI initiatives that deliver sustainable competitive advantage.

About the Author

Mario Thomas is a transformational business leader with nearly three decades of experience driving operational excellence and revenue growth across global enterprises. As Head of Global Training and Press Spokesperson at Amazon Web Services (AWS), he leads worldwide enablement delivery and operations for one of technology's largest sales forces during a pivotal era of AI innovation. A Chartered Director and Fellow of the Institute of Directors, and an alumnus of the London School of Economics, Mario partners with Boards and C-suite leaders to deliver measurable business outcomes through strategic transformation. His frameworks and methodologies have generated over two-billion dollars in enterprise value through the effective adoption of AI, data, and cloud technologies.