『The Board in the Machine』のカバーアート

The Board in the Machine

The Board in the Machine

著者： Mario Thomas
無料で聴く

The Board in the Machine is the audio version of Mario Thomas's articles published at mariothomas.com, written for Boards and executives navigating the governance and strategic implications of AI and emerging technology.© 2026 Mario Thomas マネジメント マネジメント・リーダーシップ 経済学
エピソード
  • The Deadline Moved: What the EU AI Act Deferral Reveals About Boards

    The Deadline Moved: What the EU AI Act Deferral Reveals About Boards
    2026/08/09
    On 2 August 2026, the EU AI Act's rules for standalone high-risk systems were supposed to take effect. They will not. Six days before the deadline, the EU brought an amendment into force deferring those obligations to December 2027, because the standards and implementation machinery needed to make them workable were not ready. In this episode of The Board in the Machine, Mario Thomas, Chartered Director and Fellow of the Institute of Directors, examines what the deferral reveals about any Board whose AI governance was built around a regulatory date. A governance programme that exists because a deadline was coming is a compliance project, and when the date moved, the discipline moved with it. The instability is global: a proposed standards body in the United States covers only the frontier laboratories, the United Kingdom has asked existing regulators to govern at the point of use, and China regulates piece by piece while drafting a comprehensive law. No regime on offer covers everything a Board might deploy. Mario sets out what never moved: the directors' duties that predate the AI Act, the obligations that still apply from 2 August, and Minimum Lovable Governance as the anchor that holds under any regulatory timetable. He closes with three questions for the next Board agenda: which deployments would count as high-risk, where the organisation's ethical bar sits and who set it, and which obligations remain live regardless of the deferral. This episode is for directors, chief executives, and Boards who deploy AI systems today under law that applies today. Accountability is a condition of deployment, not a product of regulation. Read the full article at mariothomas.com
    続きを読む 一部表示
    11 分
  • The Balancing Item: The AI Oversight Cost Your Business Case Never Priced

    The Balancing Item: The AI Oversight Cost Your Business Case Never Priced
    2026/07/26
    Every AI business case counts the hours saved. Almost none counts the hours added: the reviewing, correcting, and supervising that AI outputs demand before anyone can rely on them. That labour is real, and in most organisations it is absorbed silently by people on top of their existing roles. In this episode of The Board in the Machine, Mario Thomas, Chartered Director and Fellow of the Institute of Directors, examines the cost the True Investment Profile predicted and Boards have not priced. Research published in March 2026, surveying nearly one and a half thousand full-time workers at large American companies, gives the consequence a name: a distinct mental fatigue that attaches to heavy AI oversight loads, while workers using AI only to replace routine tasks report less burnout, not more. The burden is a work-design outcome, and work design is something Boards can govern. Mario sets out the governance response. Price the oversight in every business case. Design review into roles rather than on top of them. Set span-of-control expectations for human and AI working. Balance the portfolio between burnout-reducing replacement and fatigue-generating augmentation left unresourced. Watch the leading indicators of a control under strain: review backlogs, rubber-stamping rates, error escapes, and attrition in oversight-heavy roles. This episode is for directors, chief executives, and the Boards who attest to effective human oversight while the humans providing it are at cognitive capacity. The closing question is the one that matters: which of those attestations would survive an honest capacity audit? Read the full article at mariothomas.com
    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • Governing the Redeployment Dividend: Turning Saved Hours Into Value

    Governing the Redeployment Dividend: Turning Saved Hours Into Value
    2026/07/19
    Teams that deploy AI save the equivalent of five hours per person per week, and most of that time is then spent on non-value-added tasks. The saving is real. What happens to it next is the problem, and it is a problem that belongs to the Board. In this episode of The Board in the Machine, Mario Thomas, Chartered Director and Fellow of the Institute of Directors, returns to the Redeployment Dividend, the argument that AI's real prize is releasing intellectual capital from undifferentiated work rather than cutting headcount. The evidence now shows what happens when that dividend is left ungoverned. Surveys across HR and sales find freed hours reabsorbed by the low-value work that was already there, and a study of nearly six thousand executives across four countries finds that while most firms now use AI, roughly nine in ten report no measurable impact on productivity at their own firm. The explanation is an accountability gap. AI owns the execution of the work. Managers own the workflow it sits within. But in most organisations, nobody owns whether the freed capacity creates value. Mario sets out a single governance discipline to close that gap: change the success metric from headcount to redirection, give redeployment an owner, redesign the work to receive the recovered hours, measure the downstream outcomes rather than the time saved, and govern what the organisation deliberately stops doing. This episode is for directors, chief executives, and the Boards who can already quote the hours their AI tools recover but cannot yet say where those hours went. Time saved is an input, never the outcome. Read the full article at mariothomas.com
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません