Tagged with: #ai-strategy

The informational asymmetry between management and the Board has always been the central tension of governance. For AI, it is no longer manageable through existing structural checks; the distance is not merely larger than previous technology waves, it is qualitatively different. A director must be able to interrogate maturity claims, assess whether governance is operational or merely presentational, and identify which AI risks are personal development challenges and which are failures of oversight itself. The IoD has formally named the gap. This article defines what closing it actually requires: not technical fluency, but specific capacities for independent evaluation mapped against the governance obligations every director carries, and a diagnostic framework for identifying exactly where the work needs to start.

The part of AI value that is technological and replicable is also the part that standard progress measures capture best. Pilot counts, budget lines, and strategy documents say nothing about whether the essence of work is genuinely being remade, or whether the three compounding loops are operating. A Board that accepts those reports without probing them is not exercising oversight; it is ratifying a narrative the evidence shows is inflated. This article provides the diagnostic that does: probing questions structured around the data, talent, and process redesign loops, with an interpretive guide to what credible answers look like — and what their absence reveals.

Every previous technology wave rewarded fast followers. Identify what the leaders built, acquire or replicate it, close the gap. That logic fails for The Great Remaking — not because AI is different technology, but because the source of advantage is not a product that can be studied and replicated. It is operational accumulation: proprietary data shaped by AI-integrated workflows, human capability developed through sustained practice, and institutional knowledge embedded through iterative redesign. None of it can be purchased. All of it compounds with time. This article explains the three self-reinforcing loops that make the gap harder to close with every month an organisation defers the decision to redesign.

AI is not remaking the four dimensions of the essence of work at the same speed, through the same mechanisms, or toward the same end state. Treating them as a single strategic question is the mistake most organisations are currently making. The organisations pulling ahead understand which dimensions are moving fastest in their sector, where redesign would produce the greatest compounding advantage, and what form of human value would survive in each case. This article goes dimension by dimension through the specific patterns of remaking that distinguish organisations building structural advantage from those still augmenting the status quo.

An AI agent that can only see the public internet is no more useful to an organisation’s business than a very expensive search engine. The intelligence is not the constraint. The connectivity is. Model Context Protocol — MCP — is the infrastructure standard that connects agents to the proprietary data, systems, and processes that constitute real competitive advantage. This article explains what MCP is, why the major enterprise vendors have already converged on it, and the governance questions Boards should be asking before their technology teams answer them by default.

Over five decades, five technology revolutions each transformed organisations, but none restructured the essence of work itself. AI does — remaking how organisations think, decide, create, and deliver. The gap between bolting AI onto existing processes and redesigning how work is structured is already producing four times higher total shareholder returns for those who commit. This article defines what the essence of work actually is, why AI is remaking all four dimensions at different speeds, and why The Great Remaking is a race with compounding consequences that late movers cannot close through incremental catch-up.

In June 2024, I proposed that organisations would need to compensate workers whose expertise became embedded in corporate AI models. The rise of personal AI agents inverts that assumption entirely: individuals are already investing thousands annually in always-on agents that encode their professional judgement, domain expertise, and decision-making patterns — capability that belongs to them, not their employer. This article explores what happens when the most valuable AI in your organisation walks in with the employee and walks out when they leave, and why the IP boundaries, contractual frameworks, and talent strategies needed to navigate this shift don’t yet exist.

Consumers are voluntarily paying $3,650–9,125 annually for always-on AI agents — more than their combined entertainment subscriptions. When ChatGPT followed exactly this pipeline from consumer novelty to shadow enterprise adoption within three years, most organisations were caught unprepared. Agentic AI is now running the same cycle. This article examines the inference migration — the architectural shift from episodic queries to always-on agents, why the determinism objection is narrower than Boards assume, the shadow agentic AI wave already forming, and why governance frameworks established in 2026 will determine which organisations capture agentic value and which scramble to retrofit controls on adoption already underway.

Boards apply rigorous stewardship to physical assets: regular condition assessments, clear ownership, maintenance investment, impairment testing. Data assets — which increasingly drive competitive advantage — receive none of these disciplines. The gap isn’t technical; it’s governance. Accounting standards render data invisible on the balance sheet, so Boards govern it as though it doesn’t exist. This article argues for balance-sheet thinking applied to data, using the AI Centre of Excellence as the governance vehicle. For Boards, the question isn’t whether data belongs on the balance sheet; it’s whether you’ll steward it as if it does.

AI coding tools don’t close the expertise gap — they amplify it. Research shows senior developers capture twice the productivity gains of juniors, while a randomised controlled trial found experienced developers actually worked slower with AI than without, the hidden taxes of verification offsetting initial speed. This article explores the verification premium — and why Boards should ask not “can we use AI to write code cheaper?” but “do we have the verification capability to ensure AI-generated code creates value rather than debt?”