AI Governance Board Lab
Everyone wants to use AI, and some already are — without a policy. Now the board has to govern it: do you ban it, allow it, or risk-tier it? Can this specific GenAI request go ahead given the data it touches? What is your stance on shadow AI, and who owns AI risk? Sit at the head of the AI governance body and make each call the way a regulator and an auditor would judge it — tier the use case, match the model to the data, meet demand with a sanctioned path, keep a human in the loop. Each decision shows you why.
Pair this drill with the free one-page Board AI Governance Policy — the document that records the stance you practise here. For the full, detailed artifact, see the paid AI Governance Policy Pack. Educational drill, not legal advice.
The real job. More noise, a tighter clock.
You chair the AI governance body for a company racing to adopt GenAI. Work 10 board-room decisions — set the stance a regulator, an auditor and a court would find defensible, then see why. You are graded on how many you get right against the clock.
What this lab is
- A free, browser-based decision drill on governing enterprise AI adoption: work ~14 board-room decisions about risk-tiering AI use cases, approving or denying a GenAI request, the shadow-AI stance, what data may go into which model, and who owns AI risk.
- The core move is risk-tiering — prohibited / high-risk / standard — not a blanket ban or a blanket allow; the model tier is matched to the data sensitivity, not to cost or habit.
- You practise the real traps: shadow AI (meet demand with a sanctioned path), data-in-prompts rules, human-in-the-loop on consequential decisions, vendor and model due diligence, and aligning to NIST AI RMF / ISO 42001 / EU AI Act without overclaiming compliance.
- Each decision reveals why the board-defensible answer is right, and you are graded S–D on how many you call correctly against the clock.
- A light board-decision drill — not legal or compliance advice. Pair it with the free one-page board AI governance policy, and go deeper with the paid AI Governance Policy Pack.
Frequently asked questions
What is the AI Governance Board Lab?
A free, in-browser decision simulation that puts you at the head of a company’s AI governance body as teams rush to adopt GenAI. You work through board-room decisions — risk-tier the use cases, approve or deny a specific request, set the shadow-AI stance and the data-in-prompts rules, decide who owns AI risk — and each one has a single board-defensible answer, revealed after you lock in your call.
Should a board ban GenAI, allow it, or something else?
Neither extreme. A blanket ban drives use underground as shadow AI and forfeits the upside; a blanket allow accepts uncontrolled risk. The defensible stance is to risk-tier use cases — prohibited, high-risk (approval plus controls) and standard — so most work proceeds while sensitive or consequential uses get scrutiny, with AI risk owned by a cross-functional body that reports to the board.
Is this legal or compliance advice?
No. The lab is an educational drill and the framework references (NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act) are summarised for orientation and can change. Aligning to a framework is not certification or compliance; confirm current requirements and apply them to your facts with qualified counsel.
Who is it for?
CISOs, general counsel, CTOs, chief data/AI officers, risk and compliance leaders and board directors — anyone who sits on or reports to an AI governance body and wants to rehearse the adoption-governance calls before they are real.