Sydney, Australia – Almost nine in ten chief information officers (CIOs) now say they are more responsible for redesigning workforce workflows and labour models than for managing core IT infrastructure, according to new global research from Thoughtworks.
The study surveyed 3,200 CIOs across 10 countries and found that 89% share that view. In Australia, 87% of CIOs agree.
Governance is struggling to keep pace with this widening remit. Some 88% of CIOs report that AI adoption in their organisation is moving faster than governance structures can adapt, while 35% feel personally accountable for AI-driven workforce disruption despite being unable to fully influence the outcome.
Australian respondents reported a similar picture, with 90% citing the governance gap and 35% reporting personal accountability for workforce disruption.
Meanwhile, 44% of CIOs describe their organisation as very prepared to govern AI consistently across business functions, and a further 54% say they are somewhat prepared.
“AI governance is also a workforce design issue,” said Rachel Laycock, Chief Technology Officer at Thoughtworks.
“As AI changes how work gets done, organisations need to rethink roles, workflows and decision rights so people know where human judgment is still essential and where AI can take on more of the work. Training matters, but it’s only one part of building an organisation that can use AI effectively at scale,” Laycock added.
The survey also found that influence over AI decisions is spread across the business. Globally, 23% of respondents name the CEO as the most influential figure, followed by central IT or technology leadership (21%), the executive leadership team (11%) and dedicated AI roles (10%).
Australia differs slightly, with central IT or technology leadership cited most often at 20%. The CEO follows at 16%, and the executive leadership team at 14%.
Budget ownership shows the same fragmentation, with no single model dominating. Globally, 22% say IT manages AI budgets centrally and another 22% say IT and the business share responsibility, while 20% report that business units control budgets independently. A further 19% say budgets sit at executive or board level, and 17% say the model is still evolving.
In Australia, 22% report central IT management and 22% independent control by business units. Shared responsibility between IT and the business stands at 20%, executive or board-level management at 18%, and an evolving model at 18%.
“AI governance can’t sit apart from data governance or from the economics of AI use,” said Shayan Mohanty, Chief Data and AI Officer at Thoughtworks.
“The person accountable for the data may not own the AI systems using it, while the people choosing those systems increasingly sit across the business. As adoption scales, organisations need the visibility and governance to understand where AI is creating value and where cost and risk are accumulating,” Mohanty continued.
This spread of decision-making also creates accountability tensions. Nine in 10 CIOs (90%) believe central IT would still ultimately be held responsible for security breaches or compliance failures caused by AI tools that business units buy independently, a view shared by 89% of Australian respondents.
CIOs also say they feel personally accountable for outcomes they cannot fully influence. Globally, 37% cite security incidents involving AI systems, 35% cite data privacy breaches and 34% cite brand or reputational damage from AI misuse.
In Australia, 38% cite security incidents involving AI systems, 37% name data privacy breaches and 35% point to workforce disruption from AI adoption.
Leadership structures remain equally unsettled. Some 70% of surveyed organisations have already hired a Chief AI Officer (CAIO), and a further 26% plan to do so.
However, no consensus has emerged on how the role should work alongside the CIO. While 36% say the CAIO extends the CIO’s centralised strategy, 35% say the role operates independently with equal or greater enterprise influence, and 29% describe the relationship as a source of friction or unclear boundaries.
In Australia, 71% of organisations have hired a CAIO and 22% are looking to do so. Among those describing the relationship, 36% say the CAIO extends CIO or CTO strategy, 34% say the role operates independently, and 29% cite friction or unclear boundaries.
“At Thoughtworks, our experience has been that AI transformation is a team sport, from defining enterprise AI strategy and architecture to embedding AI into internal platforms and day-to-day operations,” said Xia Jie Jessie, CIO of Thoughtworks. “The question isn’t who owns AI, but how leadership collaborates to create business value responsibly and at scale.”
Taken together, the findings show workforce design, distributed AI decision-making and enterprise governance increasingly overlapping. Organisations, in turn, are taking different approaches to dividing leadership responsibility.
Australian organisations plan to respond in several ways. They intend to embed a dedicated technology lead within each business unit (55%), establish a formal AI governance and operating model (48%) and standardise software and digital transformation across business units (38%), the highest country-level figure in the survey.
“Authority over AI is distributed, but accountability hasn’t always moved with it,” said Mike Sutcliff, CEO of Thoughtworks. “The answer isn’t to pull every decision back into central IT or put one executive in charge and assume the problem is solved. Organisations need clearer decision rights, and people need the skills and information to make good decisions as AI becomes part of how the business runs.”
