I have spent the last few months talking to Board Executives, CIOs, Risk leaders and executives about their AI implementations.

Funny because at first, the conversations from last year were all pretty similar, everyone wanted to know what AI could do, you know the usual, could it automate processes? Could it improve customer service? Could it reduce costs? Could it help people be more productive?

The answer to all of those questions was generally yes.

Then the same people and the conversations have changed. My clients have stopped asking what AI could do and started asking what it might do.

Now, that’s a very different conversation. We have all heard in the news of rogue AI Agents breaking out of their guardrails, example of the recent break in to the NSW Government Medicare site.

It wasn’t that long ago I was sitting with a leadership team discussing their AI initiatives that I was pleased to say were progressing well. The technology was not the issue. The business case was sound and early implementations and pilots had delivered positive results.

So, when I asked some basic questions such as; ‘Who owns it?’

The response was none too confident.

The CIO thought it sat with the business sponsor, yet when I asked th same question of the business sponsor he assumed technology owned it.

My Risk contact really thought it was either the business or technology but I should check with the compliance team to be sure.

Guess what when I spoke to Compliance, they confidently said that governance already existed.

Nobody was being difficult, there was no disagreement, but the problem was that nobody actually knew the answer to a simple question.

What struck me afterwards was that this isn’t unusual, it’s becoming increasingly common.

Just like us all, organisations are moving quickly with AI. We don’t want to be left behind, and Boards are asking when can AI will create value, they are reading in the market press. Executives are under pressure to innovate with technology teams being asked to move faster than ever before.

The result is that AI projects are appearing everywhere, look around you it like weeds in the garden, they weren’t there yesterday, but they are there today.

We are being told that AI pilots are running and proofs of concepts are being funded, usually with money that would have gone to traditional technology projects, that have been put on hold or run as BAU projects.

Even the business units are experimenting with vendors knocking on the doors, bypassing the technology leaders.

Everyone is excited, and with excitement comes the need to quickly implement and see the rewards quickly.

Trouble is that I don’t see with the same level of consistency in clarity over accountability and this worries me.

Not because AI is dangerous or that organisations shouldn’t innovate, but because every major technology failure I’ve encountered over the last 25 years has had one thing in common.

The technology wasn’t usually the problem, the Governance was.

We have seen it many times, when programmes run off the rails, it’s rarely because a server failed or an application stopped working, it was because decisions were not made.

The ownership was not clear, risks were not identified and when they were they were not escalated.

We see it all the time people assumed somebody else was looking after that issue!

Years in the industry I can see the same pattern is starting to emerge with AI implementation projects.

Too many organisations are treating AI as a technology project!

My advice is STOP! I think that’s the wrong way to look at it.

AI is in most instances a business capability, and that means accountability belongs with the business.

Technology teams absolutely have a role to play, they provide the platforms, the security, the integration and of course the support.

But if an AI system influences a customer decision, that’s not an IT problem.

If it influences a financial outcome, that’s not an IT problem.

If it affects risk, compliance or regulatory obligations, that’s certainly not an IT problem.

Those responsibilities belong to the organisation governance teams.

Which means Executive Boards need to become more involved. They need to understand whether appropriate governance exists. Can somebody explain how decisions are being made, who is accountable, demonstrate oversight, provide evidence if a regulator asks questions?

These are not hardly revolutionary concepts, this is business as usual activities for the organisation governance teams. We have been applying exactly the same principles to financial governance, operational governance and cybersecurity governance for years.

The difference is that there is a new tool on the block and its AI, and it has has arrived so quickly that governance has not always kept pace.

Now, what is interesting is that many organisations are not struggling because they lack AI ideas, they are struggling because they’ve got too many. Almost every executive team I meet has a list of potential opportunities, some have fifty whilst others have hundreds.

I know when I sit down with CIOs and show them tools that can help manage ‘Use Cases’ we can quickly identify hundreds, not all relevant but it helps open their minds of the opportunities.

So, the real challenge is not identifying use cases, the real challenge is deciding which opportunities deserve investment and then governing those decisions properly, that’s the bit people often underestimate.

Moving from an interesting AI pilot to a fully operational business capability requires discipline and process.

It requires ownership, decision making, controls, but most importantly, it requires leadership, because regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes, somebody still needs to answer for the outcome.

That’s a principle which is not going away.

I do smile when I hear people say that AI will transform decision making.

I do agree, but I don’t believe it removes accountability. If anything, I think it makes accountability even more important.

Decisions can now be made faster, it is though now more important to understand who is responsible for them.

Which brings me back to my initial question that was not answered confidently.

‘Who owns it?’

Every Executive Board should be asking that question, and, every executive team should be asking that question.

Every organisation investing in AI should be asking that question, not because AI should be feared, far from it.

AI has the potential to create extraordinary opportunities for organisations prepared to embrace it, but the organisations that will benefit most won’t necessarily be the ones who implement AI first. They’ll be the ones who implement it with the clearest understanding of ownership, accountability and governance.

Those of us who have been in the technology industry will agree technology has always been the easy bit. The harder areas involve, people, decisions and accountability.

The organisations that understand that distinction will be the ones still talking about successful AI programmes five years from now.

The others may find themselves explaining to regulators, customers or shareholders why nobody knew who was in charge.

And trust me, that’s a conversation nobody wants to have, now or in the future.

At Bushey we developed the Bushey AI Governance Spine (BAIGS®) that helps organisations move beyond policies and good intentions by embedding governance directly into the way AI initiatives are proposed, assessed, approved, delivered and operated. Rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy, BAIGS provides clear accountability, risk-based controls, mandatory stage gates, governance artefacts, evidence registers and executive reporting that give Boards and leadership teams confidence that AI is being governed properly throughout its lifecycle. It brings together ownership, risk management, compliance, assurance and operational oversight into a single governance model, helping organisations identify gaps, assign accountability, monitor obligations and maintain a defensible record of decisions and controls. The result is greater visibility, stronger governance, improved regulatory readiness and the ability to scale AI with confidence whilst retaining control.

Most organisations are not struggling to find AI opportunities. They are struggling to answer a far more important question, who owns the decisions, the risks and the accountability when AI becomes part of the business. As organisations race to adopt AI, the leaders who succeed will not be those who move the fastest, but those who can clearly demonstrate governance, ownership and control when it matters most.

Bushey provides independent governance and assurance for technology transformation. Through structured oversight and disciplined programme control, we ensure outcomes are achieved with clarity, accountability, and confidence, supported by specialist capability across change, project leadership, AI, Cyber, Data Centre, and M&A services. Our focus is on aligning transformation to business objectives, applying proven frameworks, and enabling secure, resilient, and future-ready environments.

#AIGovernance#AITransformation#BoardResponsibility#TechnologyTransformation#OperationalResilience