Our Approach
A 15-Dimension AI Governance Framework built for commercial decisions, not academic compliance.
We assess AI decisions through a framework developed from real-world board discussions, regulatory scrutiny, and profit/loss accountability.
Why Governance Frameworks Matter
Without a structured approach, AI decisions become reactive responses to vendor pitches, competitive pressure, or regulatory panic.
The Problem
Most organisations assess AI opportunities through disconnected lenses: technology teams focus on capability, legal teams focus on compliance, finance focuses on ROI. No single perspective addresses board accountability for decisions that create both profit opportunity and enterprise risk.
The Solution
A governance framework that integrates commercial opportunity, regulatory requirements, operational risk, and board accountability into a single decision assessment. This allows leadership to make defensible choices rather than reactive compromises.
The Outcome
Decisions that can be explained to regulators, justified to shareholders, and defended to boards. Not perfect decisions—defensible ones that balance opportunity against accountable risk management.
The 15-Dimension AI Governance Framework
Every AI decision gets assessed across 15 dimensions that integrate commercial, technical, legal, and governance considerations.
The framework is structured around four core areas:
Commercial Reality
Profit opportunity, cost implications, competitive positioning, and market timing. AI decisions must create defendable commercial value, not just technological capability.
Regulatory Environment
Compliance requirements, regulatory trajectory, jurisdiction-specific constraints, and enforcement risk. Governance must anticipate regulatory evolution, not just current requirements.
Operational Risk
Technical feasibility, integration complexity, data dependencies, and failure scenarios. AI systems create operational dependencies that must be managed at board level.
Board Accountability
Reputational exposure, stakeholder expectations, ethical considerations, and governance documentation. Boards are accountable for AI decisions whether they understand them or not.
Framework Access
The complete 15-Dimension AI Governance Framework, including specific assessment criteria and decision matrices, is provided to advisory clients as part of engagement deliverables. It remains confidential to protect its strategic value.
This isn't gatekeeping—it's recognising that frameworks developed through board-level experience and regulatory scrutiny have commercial value beyond generic checklists.
How We Apply the Framework
The framework isn't a scorecard. It's a structured conversation about trade-offs.
Decision Context
We start by understanding the specific decision you're facing: build vs. buy, implementation timing, vendor selection, regulatory response, or strategic direction. The framework adapts to your decision context, not the other way around.
Dimension Assessment
Each of the 15 dimensions gets assessed against your specific situation. Some dimensions will be critical (e.g., regulatory compliance for financial services AI), others less relevant (e.g., competitive positioning for internal efficiency tools). The framework identifies which dimensions matter most for your decision.
Trade-Off Analysis
AI decisions rarely have "right" answers—they have trade-offs. The framework makes these trade-offs explicit: faster implementation vs. better governance, cost reduction vs. regulatory risk, competitive advantage vs. reputational exposure. You decide which trade-offs are acceptable; we ensure you see them clearly.
Defensible Recommendation
The output isn't "do this" or "don't do this." It's a documented assessment that explains why a decision makes sense given your governance requirements, commercial context, and risk appetite. This documentation becomes your board briefing, regulatory response, or stakeholder communication.
What Makes This Different
vs. Traditional Consulting
- • Built from governance experience, not methodology manuals
- • Focused on defensible decisions, not implementation projects
- • Recognises profit/risk trade-offs rather than promising optimal outcomes
- • No vendor commissions or technology partnerships
vs. Compliance Checklists
- • Integrates commercial opportunity with regulatory requirements
- • Anticipates regulatory evolution rather than tracking current rules
- • Designed for board accountability, not audit completion
- • Addresses reputational and operational risk alongside legal compliance
vs. Academic Frameworks
- • Developed through real governance decisions, not theoretical research
- • Accepts commercial constraints rather than pursuing ethical ideals
- • Produces board-ready documentation, not academic papers
- • Evolves with regulatory reality rather than citation frequency
vs. Vendor Guidance
- • Independent assessment without implementation revenue incentive
- • Challenges vendor claims rather than validating them
- • Includes "don't do this" recommendations when appropriate
- • Addresses governance gaps vendors prefer to ignore
See How the Framework Applies
If you're facing an AI decision that requires governance oversight, we can show you how the 15-Dimension AI Governance Framework applies to your specific situation.
Next Steps