Boardrooms Running Blind with No AI Rulebook
AI is everywhere. Governance? Not so much.
Boardrooms Running Blind with No AI Rulebook
AI is everywhere. Governance? Not so much.
.
93% of organizations say they’re already using AI. Only 7% have real governance frameworks in place.
(Source: Trustmarque)
And no — a PowerPoint slide labeled “Ethical Use of AI” doesn’t count.
4 sobering academic reviews you probably ignored:
VoxEU: Governance gaps are widening as AI tools become more embedded in decision-making.
EDUCAUSE Review: Most institutions focus on technical development but ignore leadership and end-user impact.
IT Pro + Trustmarque: Governance is an afterthought despite widespread adoption.
arXiv (multiple papers): AI tools lack lifecycle integration for transparency, accountability, and cross-functional oversight.
Boards are greenlighting AI pilots without understanding who’s accountable when it fails.
Executives are deploying models that impact customers without oversight.
Entire departments are “experimenting” with AI tools no one actually evaluated.
Meanwhile, software lifecycles still run on old governance models built for products, not predictions.
The result?
Missed regulatory signals
Silent bias creeping into customer decisions
Leadership confusion masked by performance dashboards
Teams solving ethical questions with... ChatGPT prompts
It’s not just messy. It’s dangerous.
You’re not “transforming”—you’re improvising.
They’re a business leadership issue.
And yes, this is where method matters.
If you’re still governing AI the way you govern procurement or IT risk, you're probably training a disaster.
But if you’ve noticed this gap—and want to talk about how to fix it without breaking your org—
Send a message. Or drop a comment.
You don’t need a rulebook.
You need a method that doesn’t go blind when AI walks in.