The relay race nobody is winning

Think of a relay race. Every runner is fast. The handoffs are planned. The team is committed.

But if nobody is certain who holds the baton at any given moment, the race is lost — not because of capability, but because of clarity.

That's the state of AI ownership in most enterprises today.

A title without a playbook

The Chief AI Officer role is becoming standard across large enterprises. Analyst firms have been predicting it would be ubiquitous across Fortune 100 companies by 2026, and the trend is real.

But a title doesn't solve the underlying problem. A CAIO can architect the technology. Only the business can own the outcome. Confuse those two responsibilities and the baton gets dropped — politely, professionally, with excellent slide decks explaining why.

"AI is being treated as a technology initiative. It is not. It is a business initiative — run on technology. Misclassify it and the business becomes a passenger. Passengers don't transform. They commute."

The root cause: misclassification

Nobody calls the power company when a factory misses its production target. Infrastructure enables the outcome. The business owns it.

AI is no different. The moment an enterprise classifies AI as a technology programme — something IT runs, delivers, and is accountable for — the business becomes a consumer rather than an owner. It waits for capability to be handed to it, uses what arrives, and has somewhere to point when results don't materialise.

That dynamic is the single most reliable predictor of AI programmes that generate activity without generating transformation.

Three shifts to get ownership right

Shift 1 — AI outcomes are business outcomes

Every AI initiative must be owned by the function it serves. Not co-owned. Not governed by a committee. Owned — with accountability that matches what that function would have for any other business result.

Sales owns the AI improving win rates. Supply chain owns the AI reducing delivery delays. Service owns the AI resolving customer issues faster. IT owns the technology moat — architecture, infrastructure, data pipelines, security.

IT is the strategic enabler. Business is the accountable owner. That line needs to be explicit, not implied.

Shift 2 — The central AI team is the coach, not the player

A central AI function has an essential role: setting standards, building guardrails, developing capability, ensuring coherence across the enterprise.

The moment it starts running initiatives on behalf of business functions, the dynamic inverts. Functions become dependent. Dependent teams don't transform — they wait for the next delivery from the central team and call that progress.

The coach builds the players' capability. The coach doesn't play the match.

Shift 3 — The CEO holds the baton first

Every enterprise making real progress on AI shares one characteristic: the CEO owns the mandate. Not as a technology programme being monitored. As a business priority being driven.

Without that signal — visible, repeated, and tied to outcomes rather than initiatives — the organisational immune system wins. Functions protect existing workflows. Budgets go elsewhere. The AI transformation becomes a side project.

The race doesn't start until the person at the top picks up the baton.

What we did at Vishleshan

We asked ourselves the same question and ended up making every function own its AI outcomes directly.

Delivery owns the AI embedded in our product development process. Marketing and sales owns the AI supporting pipeline, outreach, and demand generation. Leadership owns the strategy and guardrails.

No AI department. No committee. Standards at the centre, accountability at the edges. Every team moves without waiting for a central function to move first.

It's a small company example — but the principle scales. Ownership without a bottleneck compounds faster than ownership through a centralised function.

Deepak's Take

The question isn't just who owns AI. It's whether your organisation holds AI outcomes to the same standard as revenue outcomes — clear ownership, clear accountability, no ambiguity about where the baton is.

No title solves that. No org chart solves that. What solves it is treating AI the way every other business outcome gets treated: someone's name is on it, and that person is accountable for the number.

Until that's true, the race is being run by very capable people with no agreed finishing line.

Deepak Choithramani is Co-Founder of Vishleshan AI Solutions. He writes about enterprise AI, agentic systems, and what it actually takes to go from pilot to production.
Follow Deepak on LinkedIn