The argument that AI will replace directors misses the point entirely.
Directors are not information processors. They are not compliance engines. Directors are something AI cannot be - accountable!
The value a director brings to a board is not solely the ability to read and understand a document. It is the ability to weigh it. To challenge the assumptions behind it. To ask the question nobody else in the room will ask. To exercise independent judgement in the interests of the organisation and its stakeholders.
That is irreplaceable. And nobody serious is suggesting otherwise.
Earlier this year, the IoD published its landmark review, NEDs Reimagined, the most significant examination of the non-executive director role since the Higgs Review in 2003.
Its findings are noteworthy...
It found that the best NEDs are defined not by their independence on paper, but by their curiosity in practice. By their willingness to engage deeply. By their commitment to being genuinely prepared.
It also made something clear that the governance community has been slow to say out loud: NEDs need access to their own independent resources and sources of insight. And NEDs should adopt relevant tools, including AI, to enhance their effectiveness and informed decision-making.
Not to replace their judgement. To protect the conditions in which good judgement is possible.
Because here is what gets lost in the AI debate: The threat to director judgement has never been artificial intelligence. It has been - Too little time. Too much paper. Too few tools.
The IoD is right. Directors need better tools. Not to think for them. But to give them back the time and clarity to think for themselves.
That is the only judgement that matters.
And it should never be the casualty of a system that asks too much and provides too little.
That is what MyDirector was built to change.