Rethinking how boards prioritise change
by David Germain & Jason Foster
In most organisations, the hardest decisions are not about what could be done, but what should be done next. Boards face a fundamental challenge in real decision‑making conditions, they often have difficulties in comparing the relative impact of different strategic options or to weigh the trade‑offs between them. What should be done next is rarely obvious, and without a clear framework for assessing consequences, boards can find themselves debating preferences rather than evaluating evidence.
Annual planning cycles tend to surface the same dynamic: a long list of credible initiatives competing for limited capital, attention, and delivery capacity. By the time proposals reach the board, many are already framed as essential. This can leave boards prioritising what feels necessary over what is genuinely consequential.
Particularly those linked to regulation.
Governance beyond obligation
It is entirely right that regulatory commitments are taken seriously. They form part of the licence to operate and underpin trust in markets and institutions.
However, within those commitments, there is often more discretion than first appears.
Not in whether to act, but in how to act, how much to invest and what outcomes to prioritise.
When every element of a programme is presented as fixed or unavoidable, it can become difficult for boards to exercise one of their core responsibilities: testing choices.
Too often the below questions are considered in isolation, when boards make far better decisions by viewing them across a portfolio of investments, where cumulative impact, opportunity cost, and system‑wide trade‑offs become visible, and without that portfolio lens, boards risk optimising individual decisions while undermining overall strategic coherence:
- Where is the organisation meeting a requirement efficiently?
- Where is it choosing to invest more heavily and for what return?
- How does this contribute to resilience, customer outcomes, or long-term performance?
These are not challenges to compliance. They are part of governing it well.
The most effective board discussions tend to shift the emphasis slightly, from obligation alone to intent and impact. This creates space to connect regulatory investment with broader value, rather than treating it as a standalone necessity. Impact is often left implicit, with expected outcomes neither made visible nor measurable from the outset. Without that clarity, boards cannot meaningfully govern progress, and work proceeds without a disciplined check‑back against the original intent. As a result, projects get completed and activity continues, but success becomes whatever people remember it to be, and important lessons disappear into the noise of business‑as‑usual.
AI changes the decision-making environment
That distinction becomes more relevant as organisations increase their focus on AI.
Here, the external reference points are less defined. Regulation is evolving, but it does not yet provide a comprehensive framework for decision-making. In many cases, it cannot keep pace with the underlying technology.
As a result, organisations are required to make more decisions without a fully formed rulebook.
This is not unusual in itself, but it does place greater weight on internal clarity:
- What are we trying to achieve with AI?
- Where do we believe it genuinely improves outcomes?
- What level of risk are we prepared to accept and where do we draw clearer boundaries?
These are strategic questions as much as technical ones. They benefit from a range of inputs, including legal, technical, and societal perspectives. But ultimately, they require a point of view.
AI decisions should aim to integrate intelligence into daily business processes, while also revising business and operating models based on AI capabilities, rather than relying on large standalone programmes.
Boards need a unified AI lens – one that aligns people, impact, decision‑rights, governance and ethics.
For boards, this is less about defining detailed policy and more about ensuring that decisions are being made within a coherent and understood framework:
- Clarity of purpose.
- Consistency of approach.
- Visibility of trade-offs.
Many organisations generate a great deal of activity, but without clear feedback loops to test whether intended outcomes are being realised, much of that effort risks disappearing into the mix.
The growing importance of judgement
There is also a broader consideration.
In many areas of corporate life, there has been a tendency (understandably) to look outward for direction. Regulation, policy, and precedent all play an important role in shaping decisions.
But they do not remove the need for judgment.
Particularly in areas where expectations are still forming, the quality of outcomes will depend less on the existence of rules and more on how thoughtfully decisions are made in their absence, including how boards understand and navigate the trade‑offs inherent in pursuing those outcomes, rather than treating risk solely as something to minimise or avoid.
AI brings that into sharper focus, but it is not unique in doing so.
For boards, the opportunity is to ensure that governance keeps pace, not by attempting to anticipate every scenario, but by reinforcing how decisions are framed, challenged and understood.
In the end, the question is not simply whether an organisation is compliant.
It is whether it is making deliberate, well-governed choices about where to invest, how to operate and what outcomes it intends to deliver.
Any views or opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.
David Germain is a Cynozure Advisory Board Member and Portfolio Non-Executive Director with more than 30 years’ experience leading large-scale technology, data and operational transformation across insurance and financial services.
Jason Foster is Founder & CEO of Cynozure and a strategist, advisor and speaker working at the intersection of data, AI and business, with a particular focus on helping organisations turn data and AI investment into measurable commercial impact.
Cynozure supports organisations in making more deliberate decisions around AI, data, governance, and transformation, helping leaders balance innovation, risk, and return on data and AI investment.
To discuss your organisation’s approach to data and AI governance and strategic prioritisation, contact our team.
