Dr. George Dagliyan on Building an Effective AI Governance Committee
Good AI governance needs a home. Dr. George Dagliyan describes how to structure a committee that builds trust without slowing the organization down.
Why governance needs a structure
Dr. George Dagliyan argues that AI governance fails when it is everyone's responsibility and therefore no one's. A clear committee gives governance a home, an owner, and a cadence.
Structure turns good intentions into consistent practice.
Composition and mandate
An effective committee, in Dr. Dagliyan's view, brings together business, technical, legal, and risk perspectives so that decisions reflect the full range of facilitators and inhibitors. Its mandate should be explicit: what it decides, what it advises on, and what it escalates.
Ambiguity about mandate is itself an inhibitor, because it slows every decision the committee touches.
Governance that keeps pace
To avoid becoming a bottleneck, Dr. Dagliyan recommends tiering decisions by risk so that routine, low-risk uses move quickly while high-stakes decisions get fuller scrutiny. Governance then accelerates adoption instead of obstructing it.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should an AI governance committee be structured according to Dr. George Dagliyan?
He recommends a committee with a clear owner and cadence, blending business, technical, legal, and risk perspectives, with an explicit mandate and risk-tiered decisions so routine uses move fast while high-stakes ones get fuller scrutiny.