|
February brought four articles that, taken together, describe a single underlying pressure: the gap between how organisations govern their most important assets and how fast those assets are transforming. The evidence is no longer directional — it is measurable, and the cost of inaction is compounding.
This month's collection moves through four interconnected themes. We begin with data — the invisible asset that sits outside the balance sheet yet underpins every AI initiative — and examine why Boards must extend stewardship disciplines to assets that accounting standards, for now, pretend don't exist. We then turn to the infrastructure shift already underway in consumer markets, where individuals are voluntarily spending more on always-on AI agents than on their entire entertainment stack, and ask what that demand signal means for enterprise governance in 2026. From there, we explore what happens when the most capable AI in your organisation belongs not to the company but to the individual who walks in with it each morning — a governance inversion with no contractual framework yet written to address it. We close with the signature piece of the month.
Across these four articles, a pattern emerges: the organisations pulling ahead are those that have moved from augmenting existing processes to redesigning how work is actually structured. BCG's February 2026 research puts the divergence in stark terms — only 5% of organisations have achieved substantial financial gains from AI, but that group shows three-year total shareholder returns roughly four times higher than laggards. The window for meaningful participation in what I am calling The Great Remaking is narrowing, and it is narrowing unevenly.
If your time is limited, I particularly recommend The Great Remaking: AI and the Race to Transform the Very Essence of Work. It is the most ambitious piece I have published in some time — an attempt to define precisely what is being restructured, across which dimensions, at what speed, and why late movers cannot close the gap through incremental catch-up. If you read only one article this month, make it this one.
How is your organisation approaching the distinction between augmenting existing processes and genuinely redesigning how work is structured? I am curious whether Boards are yet treating that distinction as a strategic question — or whether it remains something delegated below the governance line.
-Mario
|
