Speed Up AI Safely: Governance That Enables Enterprise IT

The biggest mistake we see is treating AI governance like a legal check at the end. We moved it to the start and made it part of daily work. Every experiment begins with a one page use case card that explains the goal the data source the human reviewer and the risk of failure. When these four parts are clear the team can move fast and avoid confusion.

The review step that helped us most was assigning one clear owner for every AI output. It is not a team or a shared queue but one person who is responsible. This improved speed because decisions stopped moving back and forth between groups. Clear ownership helped us turn governance into progress instead of slowing things down.

We almost killed an AI project at Fulfill.com by over-governing it. My CTO wanted a 47-point checklist before any AI tool touched customer data. Sounds responsible, right? Wrong. Our team just started using ChatGPT on their personal accounts instead, which created way more risk than if we'd given them approved tools from day one.

Here's what actually worked: We created a two-tier system. Tier One is pre-approved AI tools that anyone can use immediately without asking permission. Think Grammarly, certain coding assistants, basic automation. We vetted these once, documented acceptable use, and got out of the way. Tier Two is anything that touches customer data, processes orders, or makes decisions affecting our 800-plus 3PL partners. Those need a quick review, but here's the key - we committed to a 48-hour turnaround maximum.

The policy that actually sped things up? We required teams to ship a working prototype BEFORE the formal review. Sounds backwards but it forced people to think through real implementation instead of theoretical risks. When our marketplace team wanted to use AI for matching brands with 3PLs, they built a sandbox version first. The review meeting took 20 minutes instead of three hours because we could see exactly what data flowed where and what could go wrong.

I learned this from scaling my fulfillment company - the businesses that moved fastest weren't the ones with no rules, they were the ones with really clear rules that people actually followed. When I was running warehouse operations, we had a one-page safety protocol that everyone memorized. Compare that to competitors with 60-page manuals nobody read.

The framework is simple: default to yes for tools that can't break anything important, default to fast review for everything else, and ban shadow AI entirely. You want people experimenting in your sandbox, not in some random chatbot where you have zero visibility. Speed comes from clarity, not from saying yes to everything or no to everything.

The biggest accelerator was not adding another review committee. It was defining a clear split between the teams that build AI agents and the teams that own the operational controls around them.

In many companies, those responsibilities are blurred. The builders are expected to decide not only how the agent works, but also what it should be allowed to do, when a human must intervene, and how decisions will be explained later. That creates delay, because every release turns into a governance negotiation.

We found that delivery moves faster when those roles are separated upfront. Builders can focus on improving the agent. Operations, risk, or compliance teams can own the guardrails: which actions are allowed, which require approval, and what evidence must be logged.

That structure does not slow experimentation. It does the opposite. It gives teams a safe operating model for moving quickly, especially in higher-risk workflows where speed without clear accountability usually collapses later.

Most AI governance systems break when regulation changes because compliance is hardcoded into workflows, forcing constant rewrites and redeployments.
We solved this by decoupling regulation from execution through a policy abstraction layer that converts laws into versioned control primitives resolved at runtime.
Models and agents don't encode regulations—they consume dynamic primitives like risk tiers, transparency rules, and human oversight triggers.
When the EU AI Act finalized its classifications, we didn't touch a single model; we updated the mapping layer, and every system aligned instantly.
This shifts governance from static enforcement to runtime resolution, eliminating end-of-cycle compliance bottlenecks.
We reinforced this with a two-phase model: a 48-hour ethical triage for early risk tagging, followed by a production audit that evolves with system maturity.
The impact was 35% faster deployments and 85% adoption because teams no longer waited on regulatory reinterpretation.
What we built is a regulatory-agnostic control plane where new laws update the policy engine, and every dependent system inherits compliance automatically.

I'm Runbo Li, Co-founder & CEO at Magic Hour.

Most companies get AI governance backwards. They build the bureaucracy first and the product second. That's how you end up with a 40-page AI usage policy that nobody reads and a team that's terrified to ship anything. The real unlock is treating governance like a product, not a legal document.

At Magic Hour, we operate as a two-person team serving millions of users, so we literally cannot afford slow governance. The one policy that actually sped up delivery was what I call "output-level review, not input-level permission." We don't gate what models people can experiment with or what prompts they can try. We gate what goes live to users. The review happens at the deployment layer, not the exploration layer.

Here's what that looks like in practice. When we're building a new video template, we test dozens of model configurations, prompt structures, and parameter combinations. No approval needed. The moment something is ready to be user-facing, it hits a structured check: Does the output meet our quality bar? Does it handle edge cases without producing harmful content? Can we explain to a user why it generated what it generated? That review takes hours, not weeks, because we've already done the creative work freely.

The contrast matters. I've talked to teams at larger companies where engineers need three levels of approval just to spin up a new model for internal testing. By the time they get the green light, the model is outdated. They're governing curiosity instead of governing risk. Those are two very different things.

The principle is simple. Experimentation is free. Deployment is earned. When you separate those two, your team moves ten times faster because they're not asking permission to think. They're only asking permission to ship.

The biggest mistake I see IT leaders making is when they treat AI governance like a compliance exercise. They write a 40-page acceptable use policy, email it to everyone, and assume the problem is solved. Nobody reads it. Meanwhile, employees are already pasting customer data into whatever AI tool they use.

The best guardrails are the ones that help employees use the tools they want, but in a secure fashion. If the governed option is easier than going rogue, people will use it. If it's harder, they route around it. So, instead of blocking AI tools and hoping for compliance, give your teams AI tools that let them do what they want to do, with the security and data access rules already built in. The employee gets a better experience and IT gets full visibility. Nobody has to choose between productivity and governance.

The one review step that makes the biggest difference: Before any AI tool goes live, define what data it can access. It's not enough to write "sensitive data is off limits" in a policy doc. You must configure which database tables, which fields, which user roles can see what. When that's built into the tool itself, you don't need to trust that people read the policy. The guardrail is the product.

That's what lets experimentation move fast. Teams can spin up new AI use cases without a six-week security review every time, because the boundaries are already set at the platform level. IT approves the sandbox once, and teams build within it.

The governance step that actually accelerated our delivery at Dynaris was what we call "pre-approved pattern libraries." Instead of reviewing every AI use case from scratch, we documented approved patterns—specific model types, data access scopes, and output formats—that teams could deploy immediately without additional review. If your use case fits a pattern, you ship it. Only novel configurations go through a review cycle.

The guardrail side works through output classification rather than input restriction. We categorize AI outputs into three tiers: informational (no review needed), action-triggering (lightweight human-in-the-loop), and customer-facing with financial implications (full review). This structure lets engineers experiment freely in the lower tiers while protecting the areas that actually matter.

What slowed us down before was treating all AI as equally risky. A voice agent answering FAQ questions carries fundamentally different risk than one autonomously scheduling appointments or processing payments. Once we segmented risk by outcome rather than technology, we stopped applying enterprise-grade review processes to low-stakes experimentation.

The practical result: our time-to-deploy for new AI features in approved pattern categories dropped by roughly 60%. Engineers stopped self-censoring experiments out of fear they'd trigger lengthy reviews, and the governance team could focus its limited bandwidth on genuinely novel risks. Governance became an accelerant rather than a bottleneck because it gave teams a clear path to yes rather than an ambiguous path to maybe.

Enterprise Architecture principles need to be expanded for the "AI era." Beyond
AI guardrails, total cost of ownership (TCO) must be assessed upfront to avoid
spending months using AI to build something that ultimately fails — especially
when buying off-the-shelf or paying a subscription would be cheaper.

AI is neither risk-free nor cost-free, yet many organizations treat it as if
experimentation carries no financial consequences. The reality is different: LLM
API costs accumulate quickly, developer time spent on prompt engineering is
expensive, and failed AI projects leave technical debt. A three-month AI
initiative that produces unusable results can cost $50,000-200,000 in salaries, infrastructure, and API fees — far more than a $500/month SaaS subscription that solves the same problem.

I would add that TCO and options analysis (build vs. buy vs. subscribe) must be mandatory before implementation, unless you're experimenting purely to gather requirements. This analysis should include:

1. Direct costs: LLM API usage (token costs scale with volume), fine-tuning expenses, vector database hosting, GPU infrastructure if self-hosting models.

2. Indirect costs: Developer time for prompt engineering, system integration, ongoing model retraining, monitoring and observability tooling, security and compliance reviews specific to AI systems.

3. Opportunity cost: What could the team have built with the same time and
budget? If six months of AI development delivers 70% accuracy on a document extraction task, but a commercial API delivers 95% accuracy for $0.002 per page, the build decision destroyed value.

At WPP - when we were building the "WPP Open" platform - how at the very heart of the business strategy - established an Architecture Review Board "Fast track" process to review new AI tools with a 48 hour turnaround. We looked at the shrink-wrap terms, ownership, and other risks. It enabled people to experiment at speed without exposing us to Siemens or Deloitte type mistakes.

• BYO-LLM Without Data Leaks
• AI FinOps: Making GPU Costs Visible
• SBOM Automation That Drives Fast Remediation