Tagged with: #board-advisory

The UK regime now requires four safeguards for any significant decision taken solely by automated processing: information, representations, human intervention, contestability. On the page these are procedural rights. In practice they all depend on something the law does not name: whether the organisation can interrogate its own decisions well enough for the safeguards to work. For a rule-based system, that capability is built in. For a probabilistic system, it is not, and most Boards have approved those systems without ever asking whether it exists. The first contestability request is when the gap surfaces.

The chair’s role was built for a stable world that no longer exists. The Board’s own work is being remade by AI tools that silently invite the substitution of director judgement, and the work the Board governs is being remade by operational AI deployments most directors cannot interrogate. This article works through how Cadbury, the FRC, and the IoD have set out chair responsibilities, none dispensable, all now requiring different execution. The principle that does not move is collective responsibility. The chair polices its boundary, actively, in both states.

For decades, tighter discipline over technology spend has rewarded the finance functions that applied it. AI capital behaves unlike anything they have measured before: it appreciates rather than depreciates through use, accumulates through reinvestment rather than paying back linearly, and surfaces value in functions other than the one that funded it. The project-ROI lens, optimised for predictability and attribution, cannot register these behaviours. CFOs who have scaled AI are seeing returns the rest cannot, not because their execution is better but because their instruments are. This article sets out what those instruments are and how to apply them.

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.

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.

AI governance is fragmenting into incompatible systems — Europe prioritising trust through transparency, America pursuing speed through scale, China maintaining control through integration — forcing Boards to choose rather than compromise. In this article, I explore the sovereignty trilemma and present three strategic stances for navigating these landscapes without fracturing your strategy.

Even the most meticulously crafted AI business case can fail at the final hurdle - securing Board buy-in. With research showing 88% of AI pilots never reach production, effective presentation isn’t just about gaining initial approval but establishing the path to full implementation. This final article in my series explores how to present AI investment proposals to Boards, addressing their six key areas of concern while building the stakeholder confidence necessary for successful transformation. By understanding Board dynamics, anticipating objections, and structuring presentations that balance strategic vision with implementation rigour, you can navigate the critical journey from business case to production-scale AI.

Organisations are demanding disciplined, comprehensive business cases for AI initiatives that balance traditional financial rigour with frameworks capturing AI’s unique value creation patterns. In this fourth article in my series on AI business cases, I provide a step-by-step guide to building AI business cases that secure approval and set the foundation for successful implementation.

Finding high-value AI opportunities requires looking beyond the obvious. While most organisations gravitate toward trendy applications like chatbots, the most impactful AI initiatives often lie in less visible but more strategically significant processes. By applying a structured evaluation approach that examines process characteristics, strategic alignment, and implementation feasibility, boards can identify AI investments that deliver transformative value across multiple business dimensions. This systematic method ensures scarce resources target opportunities with the greatest potential impact rather than those with merely the highest visibility or short-term appeal.

Building on my previous thoughts about why traditional business cases fail for AI investments, this article explores what I consider to be the essential building blocks for a more effective evaluation approach. This foundation provides boards with the tools to assess AI’s unique value creation patterns while maintaining financial discipline - helping leaders confidently navigate investment decisions that conventional models simply cannot adequately evaluate.