Tagged with: #business-strategy

In The Great Remaking I established that businesses are being remade around AI. But “remake with AI” is not “put AI into everything”, and the difference between them is judgement. Asked recently how I decide which AI to use, I said that I do not start there. In this article, I argue for the three questions that come first, and that the one doing the real work is not the question about tools at all, but the one that asks how a piece of work is done today and whether it still needs doing, because a well-judged no is what makes every yes credible.

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.

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.

America’s 19GW power shortfall by 2028 is forcing hyperscalers to build their own generation, but the strategic insight is what happens next: surplus capacity transforms AI infrastructure operators from energy consumers into grid actors. This article examines how distributed generation reshapes the relationship between technology companies and national grids, exploring whether the UK’s smaller system enables transformation or creates concentration risk. For Boards, this evolution demands governance frameworks that address not just AI deployment but grid participation — before the transition forces answers upon them.

Boards are approving AI initiatives at record pace – 92% of companies plan increased investment – yet only 1% have achieved AI maturity: the gap reveals a fundamental misconception about AI strategy. In this article, I expose why accumulating business cases creates fragmentation rather than transformation, and why Boards must shift from project-level approvals to orchestrating systematic AI capability before their disconnected pilots become an expensive collection of failures.

When investment banks dedicate significant research to power constraints and markets reward energy-backed infrastructure with substantial valuations, UK Boards operating with energy costs four times higher than competitors need frameworks for navigating this validated reality. This article examines how Goldman Sachs’ institutional analysis transforms energy sovereignty from policy concern to strategic imperative, exploring practical approaches for UK Boards seeking competitive positioning in an energy-constrained AI landscape.

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.

The EU’s General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, effective August 2025, signals a new era of regulatory divergence. While the EU sets transparency and systemic risk guardrails, the U.S. accelerates through deregulation. For Boards, the challenge isn’t choosing sides but mastering dual-track governance — turning regulatory complexity into strategic advantage.

AI answer engines like Claude, ChatGPT, and Perplexity are fundamentally reshaping how value flows through information ecosystems. Unlike the web era’s simple traffic exchange, these systems synthesise and enhance proprietary data, creating entirely new possibilities for value creation. Bloomberg and the Financial Times demonstrate how organisations can transform this shift into competitive advantage through innovative AI models and sustainable value exchange frameworks. This article explores how Boards can leverage these lessons to build ecosystems where data owners, AI platforms, and users all benefit from the extraordinary value being created.