Quentin CasaresData and AI leadership for regulated growth
Products and services

Board and ExCo intervention

Board AI governance workshop

A focused half-day session that turns AI governance from abstract policy into explicit decision rights, materiality thresholds, evidence, and board oversight.

A board that can distinguish innovation from unmanaged exposure and knows which decisions it owns.

The problem

Start with the decision failure, not the technology label.

Many organisations have an AI policy but no usable operating model: use cases arrive through different routes, materiality is inconsistent, third-party models are poorly understood, and accountability is spread across committees.

What changes

  • A shared language for AI risk, materiality, and control.
  • Clear board, executive, first-line, second-line, and technical decision rights.
  • A practical view of the organisation's most material AI use cases and blind spots.
  • A concise 60-day governance action plan.

Scope

Concrete artefacts, not advisory fog.

The scope is deliberately explicit so the buyer knows what will exist at the end of the engagement or product implementation.

01

Pre-session evidence review and sponsor interview

02

Board briefing on current AI governance obligations and market practice

03

Use-case materiality and decision-rights exercise

04

Control and evidence gap map

05

Board question set and 60-day action note

Method

A short sequence that ends in ownership and a decision.

Each stage has a purpose, an evidence expectation, and a defined hand-off.

  1. 01

    Prepare

    Review the current policy, use-case register, governance structure, and the sponsor's principal concerns.

  2. 02

    Challenge

    Stress-test how the organisation classifies, approves, monitors, changes, and retires AI use cases.

  3. 03

    Design

    Agree decision rights, escalation thresholds, evidence expectations, and board reporting.

  4. 04

    Commit

    Document the immediate actions, accountable owners, and matters reserved for board oversight.

Strong fit

  • The board is being asked to approve AI investment or risk appetite.
  • The AI policy exists but has not changed operating behaviour.
  • Use cases are proliferating through vendors, copilots, and business-led experimentation.
  • A regulator, auditor, investor, or customer is likely to ask for evidence.

Boundaries

  • The workshop creates direction and ownership; it does not replace detailed legal interpretation.
  • The most useful sessions include both business and risk leaders, not technology alone.
  • Outputs are calibrated to the organisation's actual use cases rather than a generic framework.

Related pathways

Start at the level of commitment the problem justifies.

Products, workshops, diagnostics, and embedded leadership are designed as one commercial ladder rather than disconnected offers.

Fixed-scope diagnostic

Executive confidence review

A ten-business-day independent review of whether the organisation's data, reporting, governance, and AI controls can support the decisions now being asked of them.

View offer

Practical digital toolkit

AI governance essentials

A concise implementation pack for moving from AI policy to a usable register, risk classification, decision rights, evidence, and board reporting.

View offer

Complete governance operating kit

Governance launchpad

A board-ready suite of operating templates for launching or resetting data and AI governance: charters, registers, decision rights, controls, evidence, metrics, and a 90-day mobilisation plan.

View offer

Next step

The first conversation should test fit, not manufacture urgency.

Bring the live decision, deadline, evidence gap, and stakeholder context. You will get a direct view on whether this offer is the right intervention.

Book the board workshop