Artificial intelligence (AI) solutions continue to capture both the attention and the budgets of many organizations. As we have previously explained, a critical factor to the success of your organization’s AI initiatives is the readiness of your content, data, and other knowledge assets. When correctly executed, this preparation will ensure your knowledge assets are of the appropriate quality and semantic structure for AI solutions to leverage with context and inference, while identifying and exposing only the appropriate assets to the right people through entitlements.
This, of course, is an ongoing challenge, rather than a moment in time initiative. To ensure the important work you’ve done to get your content, data, and other assets AI-ready is not lost, you need governance as well as an operating model to guide it. Indeed, well before any AI readiness initiative, governance and the organization must be top of mind.
Governance is not a new term within the field. Historically, we’ve identified four core components to governance in the context of content or data:
- Business Case and Measurable Success Criteria: Defining the value of the solution and the governance model itself, as well as what success looks like for both.
- Roles and Responsibilities: Defining the individuals and groups necessary for governance, as well as the specific authorities and expectations of their roles.
- Policies and Procedures: Detailing the timelines, steps, definitions, and actions for the associated roles to play.
- Communications and Training: Laying out the approach to two-way communications between the associated governance roles/groups and the various stakeholders.
These traditional components of governance all have held up, tried and true, over the quarter-century since we first defined them. In the context of AI, however, it is important to go deeper and consider the unique aspects that artificial intelligence brings into the conversation. Virtually every expert in the field agrees that AI governance should be a priority for any organization, but that must be detailed further in order to be meaningful.
In the context of AI readiness for knowledge assets, we focus AI governance, and more broadly its supporting operating model, on five key elements for success:
- Coordination and Enablement Over Execution
- Connection Instead of Migration
- Filling Gaps to Address the Unanswerable Questions
- Acting on “Hallucinations”
- Embedding Automation (Where It Makes Sense)
There is, of course, more to AI governance than these five elements, but in the context of AI readiness for knowledge assets, our experience shows that these are the areas where organizations should be focusing and shifting away from traditional models.
1) Coordination and Enablement Over Execution
In traditional governance models (i.e. content governance, data governance, etc.), most of the work was done in the context of a single system. Content would be in a content management system and have a content governance model. Data would be in a data management solution and have a data governance model. The shift is that today’s AI governance solutions shouldn’t care what types of assets you have or where they are housed. This presents an amazing opportunity to remove artificial silos within an organization, but brings a marked challenge.
If you were previously defining a content governance model, you most likely possessed some level of control or ownership over your content and document management systems. Likewise, if you were in charge of data governance, you likely “own” some or all of the major data solutions like master data management or a data warehouse within your organization. With AI, however, an enormous benefit of a correctly architected enterprise AI solution that leverages a semantic layer is that you likely don’t own these source systems. The system housing the content, data, and other knowledge assets is likely, at least partly, managed by other parts of your organization. In other words, in an AI world, you have less control over the sources of the knowledge assets, and thereby over the knowledge assets themselves. This may well change as organizations evolve in the “Age of AI,” but for now, the role and responsibility for AI governance becomes more about coordination and less about execution or enforcement.
In practice, this means an AI Governance for Knowledge Asset Readiness group must coordinate with the owners of the various source systems for knowledge assets, providing additive guidance to define what it means to have AI-ready assets as well as training and communications to enable and engage system and asset owners to understand what they must do to have their content, data, and other assets included within the AI models. The word “must” in the previous sentence is purposeful. You alone may not possess the authority of an information system owner to define standards for their assets, but you should have the authority to choose not to include those assets within the enterprise AI solution set.
How do you apply that authority? As the lines continue to blur between the purview of KM, Data, and AI teams, this AI Governance for Knowledge Asset Readiness group should comprise representatives from each of these once siloed teams to co-own outcomes as new AI use cases, features, and capabilities are developed. The AI governance group should be responsible for delineating key interaction points and expected outcomes across teams and business functions to build alignment, facilitate planning and coordination, and establish expectations for business and technical stakeholders alike as AI solutions evolve. Further, this group should define what it means (and what is required) for an asset to be AI-ready. We cover this in detail in previous articles, but in short, this boils down to semantic structure, quality, and entitlements as the three core pillars to AI readiness for knowledge assets.
2) Connection Instead of Migration
The idea of connections over migration aligns with the previous point. Past monolithic efforts in your organization would commonly have included massive migrations and consolidations of systems and solutions. The roadmaps of past MDMs, data warehouses, and enterprise content management initiatives are littered with failed migrations. Again, part of the value of an enterprise AI initiative that leverages a semantic layer, or at least a knowledge graph, is that you don’t need to absorb the cost, complexity, and probable failure of a massive migration.
Instead, the role of the AI Governance for Knowledge Asset Readiness group is one of connections. Once the group has set the expectation for AI-ready knowledge assets, the next step is to ensure the systems that house those assets are connected and available, ready for the enterprise AI solutions to be ingested and understood. This can be a highly iterative process, not to be rushed, as the sanctity of the assets ingested by AI is more important than their depth. Said differently, you have few chances to deliver wrong answers—your end users will lose trust quickly in a solution that delivers inaccurate information that they know is unmistakably incorrect; but if they receive an incomplete answer instead, they will be more likely to raise this and continue to engage. The role of this AI governance group is to ensure the right systems and their assets are reliably available for the AI solution(s) at the right time, after your knowledge assets have passed through the appropriate requirements.
3) Filling Gaps to Address the Unanswerable Questions
As the AI solutions are deployed, the shift for AI governance moves from being proactive to reactive. There is a great opportunity associated with this that bears a particular focus. In the history of knowledge management, and more broadly the fields of content management, data management, and information management, there’s always been a creeping concern that an organization “doesn’t know what it doesn’t know.” What are the gaps in knowledge? What are the organizational blind spots? These questions have been nearly impossible to answer at the enterprise level. However, with enterprise-level AI solutions implemented, the ability to have this awareness is suddenly a possibility.
Even before deploying AI solutions, a well-designed semantic layer can help pinpoint organizational gaps in knowledge by finding taxonomy elements lacking in applied knowledge assets. However, this potential is magnified once the AI solution is fully defined. Today’s mature AI solutions are “smart” enough to know when they can’t answer a question and highlight that unanswerable question to the AI governance group. Imagine possessing the organizational intelligence to know what your colleagues are seeking to understand, having insights into that which they are trying to learn or answer, but are currently unable to.
In this way, once an AI solution is deployed, the primary role of the AI governance group should be to diagnose and then respond to these automatically identified knowledge gaps, using their standards to fill them. It may be that the information does, in fact, exist within the enterprise, but that the AI solution wasn’t connected to those knowledge assets. Alternatively, it may be that the right semantic structure wasn’t placed on the assets, resulting in a missed connection and a false gap from the AI. However, it may also be that the answer to the “unanswerable” question only exists as tacit knowledge in the heads of the organization’s experts, or doesn’t exist at all. This is the most core and true value of the field of knowledge management, and has never been so possible.
4) Acting on “Hallucinations”
Aligned with the idea of filling gaps, a similar role for the AI governance group should be to address hallucinations or failures for AI to deliver an accurate, consistent, and complete “answer.” For organizations attempting to implement enterprise AI, a hallucination is little more than a cute word for an error, and should be treated as such by the AI governance group. There are many reasons for these errors, ranging from poor quality (i.e., wrong, outdated, near-duplicate, or conflicting) knowledge assets, insufficient semantic structure (e.g., taxonomy, ontology, or a business glossary), or poor logic built into the model itself. Any of these issues should be treated with immediate action. Your organization’s end users will quickly lose trust in an AI solution that delivers inaccurate results. Your governance model and associated organizational structure must be equipped to act quickly, first to leverage communications and feedback channels to ensure your end users are telling you when they believe something is inaccurate or incomplete, and moreover, to diagnose and address it.
As a note, for the most mature organizations, this action won’t be entirely reactive. For the most mature, organizational subject matter experts will be involved in perpetuity, especially right before and after enterprise AI deployment, to hunt for errors in these systems. Commonly, you can consider this governance function as the “Hallucination Killers” within your organization, likely to be one of the most critical actions as AI continues to expand.
5) Embedding Automation (Where It Makes Sense)
Finally, one of the most important roles of an AI governance group will be to use AI to make AI better. Almost everything we’ve described above can be automated. AI can and should be used to automate identification of knowledge gaps as well as solve the issue of those knowledge gaps by pinpointing organizational subject matter experts and targeting them to deliver their learning and experience at the right moments. It can also play a major role in helping to apply the appropriate semantic structure to knowledge, through tagging of taxonomy terms as metadata or identification of potential terms for inclusion in a business glossary. Central to all of this automation, however, is to ensure the ‘human is in the loop’, or rather, the AI governance group plays an advisory and oversight role throughout these automations, to ensure the design doesn’t fall out of alignment. This element further facilitates AI governance coordination across the organization by supporting stakeholders and knowledge asset stewards through technical enablement.
All of this presents a world of possibility. Governance was historically one of the drier and more esoteric concepts within the field, often where good projects went bad. We have the opportunity to do governance better by leveraging AI in the areas where humans historically fell short, while maintaining the important role of human experts with the right authority to ensure organizational alignment and value.
If your AI efforts aren’t yet yielding the results you expected, or you’re seeking to get things started right from the beginning, contact EK to help you.