AI governance is about where decision-making belongs
when AI runs alongside it.
Not about technology or models,
but about the board-level question:
what can remain delegated within the organisation,
and where does the board need to stay involved?

In theory, yes.
In practice, AI often slides into decisions gradually,
without a conscious discussion about
where board involvement needs to remain.
AI governance brings that judgement to the surface.

IT, Legal and Compliance each play an essential role.
AI governance begins where those roles intersect
and where the board must decide
where it stays at the controls.
That is not an execution question, but a board-level one.

No.
Regulation belongs to compliance.
AI governance is about careful board-level judgement:
have we thought through in advance
where oversight is needed
and where intervention must remain possible?

Often the opposite.
Governance questions frequently arise with seemingly simple applications,
because they start as tools
and only later begin to shape decisions.
That is where board attention becomes necessary.

No — quite the opposite.

Micromanagement arises when boards have to intervene after the fact,
because it was never made explicit in advance
where decision-making could be delegated and where it could not.

AI makes this more sensitive, because it can quietly run alongside decisions.
Without clear board-level choices, later intervention can easily feel like micromanagement.

AI governance is therefore not about how decisions are made,
but about where the board wants to remain involved —
and where it explicitly does not.

Well-designed governance prevents micromanagement,
by making board-level boundaries clear in advance.

Not that AI makes mistakes — that will happen.
The risk is that afterwards it is unclear
who should have stepped in,
and the board must explain
why that judgement was never made.

No tools, models or assessments.
We help boards and senior management to:

• clarify where AI may run alongside decisions
• decide where board involvement needs to remain
• capture those choices so they remain explainable later

Often this starts with a single, focused conversation.

It depends.
Sometimes one conversation is sufficient.
Sometimes limited clarification follows
within existing governance.
Always proportionate, never heavy.

• organisations where AI influences decision-making
• boards and supervisory bodies that take responsibility seriously
• leaders who prefer reflection upfront over explanation afterwards

• No AI implementation
• No compliance outsourcing
• No legal advice
• No standard frameworks

AI governance only works
when it fits the organisation
and the board that carries responsibility.

Usually with an exploratory conversation
with a GC, CEO or board member.
No pitch —
just a shared reflection on
where the board needs to stay at the controls.

In that case, we can support from a board perspective.

• keeping responsibilities clear
• separating governance from management action
• avoiding reflexive decisions that blur accountability

Always strictly board-level.
No operational role.