Turn Artificial Intelligence into Proprietary Intelligence

How to Win with AI

Decision 7: Governance

Decision 7: Governance

Embed accountability, align funding, and move at speed.

By Sarah Elk, Chuck Whitten, Hernan Saenz, Gene Rapoport, Nicolas Bloch,
Pascal Gautheron, and Anne Hoecker

Governance should run two parallel motions—one to run the business, one to change it.
  • Most enterprises operate a single governance motion designed to run the business reliably and efficiently. AI transformation requires a second, parallel motion designed to change the business.
  • Token costs are the new unit economics of AI operations and must be tracked with the same rigor as any other material cost driver. As agent activity scales, aggregate compute spending can quickly become significant and in ways that traditional project-level IT reporting will not surface.
  • Funding models must shift: Align investment to strategic posture, not project-by-project ROI, and actively redeploy the labor and spend that agents free up.
  • The CEO must own accountability for AI risk; it cannot be delegated to a compliance team or abstracted into a black box.

Why to focus on learning, not delivery

Every large organization already has a governance system designed to run the business, ensuring that decisions are made with the right information, risks are managed appropriately, resources are allocated efficiently, and performance is tracked against commitments. This system is good at what it was designed for. It is almost perfectly wrong for managing an AI transformation. Its rhythms are too slow, its metrics are too backward-looking, its approval processes are too sequential, and its instinct is to control rather than enable. Running your AI transformation through your existing governance system is like trying to navigate in your car with a subway map; it is not fit for purpose.

What is needed alongside the existing governance motion is a second motion explicitly designed for transformation with a focus on learning rather than delivery, whose rhythm is built around the questions “what did we discover, where do we go next, and what do we need to get there,” and whose measure of success is whether the organization is making intelligent pivots toward multiyear value outcomes rather than hitting the milestones that were set before anyone knew what the program would encounter. This second motion does not replace the governance you have. It runs in parallel, with its own cadence, participants, and decision rights focused entirely on the change agenda rather than the run agenda, so that leadership can show up with the right mindset in each moment.

Token costs deserve specific attention as a new and largely invisible category of operational expense. Every action your agents take consumes compute, and as your agent estate scales, the aggregate cost of that compute can become material in ways that your existing IT cost reporting was never designed to capture. More importantly, token cost data tells you things that no other metric can: which workflows are generating value relative to their compute cost, where agent behavior may be drifting toward inefficiency, and where employees may be using AI tools in ways that are far more expensive than necessary. The discipline you need is real-time visibility into token cost by workflow, domain, and business outcome. This reporting is not to inform a cost-cutting exercise, but rather operational intelligence that tells you where to invest more, where to optimize, and where to redesign.

The funding model for AI transformation needs to evolve away from project-by-project business cases and toward portfolio management aligned to strategic posture. Funds are released at key points in scaling when economic benefits of testing are better known and large investments are then de-risked. It also means actively managing the reallocation of labor and spending freed up by your agents, so they can be reinvested in the next wave of capability, rather than allowing them to be absorbed invisibly into existing budgets. And it means treating your AI program as a dynamic portfolio that gets actively rebalanced based on what you are learning, not a static roadmap that gets executed regardless of what the evidence tells you.

Finally, the CEO must own AI risk. Not monitor it, not receive reports on it, but own it. As agents begin making consequential decisions autonomously, the question of accountability regarding who is responsible when an agent acts in a way that causes harm, creates liability, or undermines the trust of customers or employees cannot be answered by pointing to a compliance function or a black-box system. It requires a named individual at the top of the organization who understands the risk profile of the AI estate, has explicitly set the risk appetite, and is prepared to be accountable for the outcomes. Building that accountability into the governance design from the start rather than trying to retrofit it after something goes wrong is the ethical and strategically prudent choice.

  • AI TRANSFORMATION: ENTERPRISE GLOSSARY

Έτοιμοι να μιλήσουμε

Συνεργαζόμαστε με φιλόδοξους ηγέτες που θέλουν να καθορίσουν το μέλλον και όχι. Όχι να κρυφτούν από αυτό. Μαζί, επιτυγχάνουμε πετυχαίνουμε εξαιρετικά αποτελέσματα.