For the executive who has to present it
The board has asked for an AI plan
Last updated
Justas Butkus is a fractional AI officer based in Vilnius, Lithuania, working with mid-market companies and scale-ups across the UK, EU and US. He writes board-ready AI plans and then owns their delivery, at two to four days a month.
Short answer
A board asking for an AI plan is rarely asking what AI can do. It is asking whether management has a defensible position on opportunity, risk and spend. A good paper names what you will not do, states who is accountable, and is honest about what is not yet known.
What the board is actually asking
Almost never "what can AI do". They can read that anywhere, and several of them already have.
The question underneath is whether management has thought about this properly. Directors carry personal responsibility for oversight, and AI has arrived as a topic they are expected to have a view on, with very little to anchor that view to. The request for a plan is a request for something they can be satisfied by.
- Are we missing something our competitors are doing?
- Are we exposed — data, regulatory, reputational?
- Is money being spent, and is anyone accounting for it?
- Who is responsible for this?
What to put in the paper
- Where we are now, honestlyIncluding the tools already in use that were never approved. Disclosing this yourself is far better than a director discovering it.
- What we are going to do, rankedA short list, in order, each tied to a specific business process rather than a technology.
- What we are deliberately not doingThe most credible section in the paper. It shows selection happened rather than enthusiasm.
- What could go wrong and what we have done about itRegulatory exposure, data handling, dependency, failure modes, and the oversight that addresses each.
- Who is accountableA name. Not a committee, not a function. Boards are reassured by names.
- What we will report and how oftenDefine the reporting line yourself before someone defines it for you.
The questions to be ready for
| Question | Weak answer | What they are testing |
|---|---|---|
| What are competitors doing? | A list of press announcements | Whether you can distinguish activity from results |
| What is this costing us? | A software licence figure | Whether staff time and rework are counted |
| What is our exposure? | "We are compliant" | Whether you know which obligations apply to you |
| What happens if it gets something wrong? | "There is a human in the loop" | Whether the oversight is real or nominal |
| Why not do more, faster? | Enthusiastic agreement | Whether you have a considered pace |
The most common mistake in these papers
Presenting a list of possibilities instead of a position.
A paper that describes ten things AI could do for the business, without ranking them or committing to any, reads as research rather than management. It invites the board to do the prioritising, which is not their job and will not go the way you want.
The second most common mistake is overclaiming certainty about return. Boards contain people who have watched technology programmes miss their projections for decades. A plan that says "we believe this process is expensive, here is what we will learn in ninety days, and here is the point at which we will stop if it is not working" is far more credible than one promising a number nobody can support yet.
Frequently asked questions
What should an AI plan for the board contain?
An honest picture of current usage including unapproved tools, a short ranked list of what you will do, an explicit statement of what you will not do, the risks and the oversight addressing them, a named accountable person, and a defined reporting cadence.
What does a board actually want to hear about AI?
That management has a defensible position on opportunity, risk and spend, and that someone is accountable. Boards are rarely asking to be impressed by the technology; they are asking to be satisfied that it has been thought about.
Should the plan promise a return on investment?
Be careful. Boards have watched technology programmes miss projections for decades. A stated hypothesis, what you will learn within a defined period, and the point at which you would stop is more credible than a figure nobody can yet support.
Who should present the AI plan?
Whoever will be accountable for delivering it. A plan presented by someone who will not own the outcome invites the obvious question of who will, and it is better to answer that in the paper than from the floor.
How long should the paper be?
Short enough to be read in full before the meeting. The ranked list and the exclusions matter more than the background, and the background is usually the part that gets padded.
If you have a board date and no paper
This is a well-defined piece of work with a hard deadline attached, which makes it one of the easier things to scope quickly.