AI STRATEGY
Operationalize AI Governance from Day One
Institutionalize Oversight for High-Risk Features
Forming a dedicated group to evaluate high-risk AI features gives your team structured oversight. It ensures consistent, cross-functional review and shared accountability.
Why it's Important
Catches ethical, safety, or usability issues early
Establishes standards for responsible AI deployment
Provides a venue for dissent, discussion, and risk-sharing
Encourages deliberate, transparent decision-making
Bridges gaps between engineering, design, legal, and business
How to Implement
Form a small group (e.g., CAIO, product, legal, UX, ethics lead)
Define criteria for what triggers review (e.g., user impact, data type)
Schedule monthly or sprint-based review cycles
Create a submission process and evaluation checklist
Log decisions and rationales in shared space
Review process outcomes during quarterly planning
Refine criteria based on feedback and outcomes
Available Workshops
Risk Trigger Brainstorm
Review Process Design Sprint
AI Governance Case Study Review
Evaluation Rubric Co-Creation
Reviewer Role Playing Session
Decision Communication Simulation
Deliverables
AI review charter and mandate
Trigger and submission guidelines
Review decision log
Evaluation rubric or checklist
Review summary reports for leadership
How to Measure
% of flagged features reviewed pre-launch
Time from submission to decision
Reviewer participation rate
% of changes made due to council feedback
Stakeholder satisfaction with governance process
Audit trail completeness and clarity
Pro Tips
Rotate facilitators for each review session
Align council cadence with roadmap milestones
Include qualitative and quantitative criteria in rubrics
Use review outcomes in retros and postmortems
Celebrate cases where governance changed direction
Get It Right
Keep council size small but diverse
Rotate members to avoid groupthink
Make reviews transparent, not performative
Share outcomes and decisions broadly
Treat review as collaboration, not judgment
Don't Make These Mistakes
Making reviews too slow or bureaucratic
Reviewing everything instead of the riskiest cases
Failing to document or explain decisions
Excluding user or ethical perspectives
Letting the council operate in isolation