AI runs alongside decision-making
That requires boards to make a fundamental judgement:
what can be delegated within the organisation,
and where the board needs to stay hands-on.
As AI becomes part of how decisions are made,
the issue is no longer technology or process alone,
but responsibility.
Paradyne works with boards and senior leaders
at the point where AI quietly starts to shape decisions
and board involvement needs to be reconsidered.
Governance before rules
In many organisations, AI is approached primarily through policies,
controls and regulation.
Those matter — but they do not answer the core question
boards ultimately face.
That core question is:
When can decisions reasonably sit within the organisation,
and when does the board need to remain directly involved
to carry responsibility?
Without making that judgement upfront,
boards risk having to explain decisions later
that were never consciously discussed at board level.
Why this matters
AI slides into decisions — often without a clear moment
AI is rarely introduced through an explicit board decision.
It usually starts as a tool:
an efficiency gain, an experiment, a form of support.
Over time, its role changes:
- recommendations become standard practice,
- decisions are steered or automated,
- exceptions become increasingly rare.
At that point, AI is no longer just technology —
it has become part of decision-making.
If boards have not reflected on their role at that stage,
tension emerges later around oversight,
intervention and responsibility.
Our perspective
AI governance is about staying involved
AI governance is not about controlling technology
or adding new layers of rules.
It is about clarity:
- where decisions can reasonably be left to the organisation,
- where oversight is required,
- and where boards need to remain involved.
AI governance concerns decision authority and responsibility —
not system ownership or IT structures.
How we work
A board conversation, not a checklist
We do not start with models, assessments or maturity scores.
Our work usually begins with a focused conversation
at board or senior-management level,
centred on a small number of practical questions:
- Where may AI influence decisions — and where not?
- When does board involvement remain necessary?
- Who can intervene or adjust course if things go wrong?
- Who must be able to explain these choices externally?
These conversations surface assumptions
without blame and without jargon.
Read how this works in practice
Sometimes this remains a single conversation.
Sometimes it leads to limited clarification
within existing governance or oversight structures.
What we do (and don’t)
What we do
- Clarify board involvement in AI-influenced decisions
- Align oversight with actual decision impact
- Help capture where boards choose to stay hands-on
What we do not do
- No AI implementation
- No compliance outsourcing
- No legal advice
- No standard frameworks or checklists
AI governance only works
when it fits the organisation
and the board that carries responsibility.
Who this is for
- Organisations where AI influences decision-making
- Boards and supervisory bodies that take responsibility seriously
- Leaders who prefer reflection upfront over explanation afterwards
Experience
Built on 30+ years of board-facing experience
across technology, data, regulated industries
and complex organisations.
Always grounded in practice,
where responsibility ultimately sits with people —
not systems.
How conversations usually start
Most engagements begin with an exploratory conversation
with a GC, CEO or board member.
No pitch.
No predefined solution.
Just a shared reflection on one question:
Where do we, as a board, need to stay at the controls
now that AI runs alongside our decisions?
AI will make mistakes.
Governance determines whether boards are prepared to explain them.