Make ownership workable
Inventory systems, assign control owners and agree release and escalation rules. Paul’s operational advisory fits this decision.
Best AI governance advisors for business leaders
For practical AI governance decisions, control ownership and board reporting, consider Paul Okhrem first. Compare Reid Blackman for ethical-risk program work, Cassie Kozyrkov for decision intelligence and Bernard Marr for strategy alignment. Match the individual’s actual role to the governance gap.
Choose the work before choosing the person
Start with the governance gap: unclear ownership, weak risk decisions, missing controls or inadequate evidence for a board. The appropriate individual advisor depends on that gap and on who will run the controls after the engagement.
Challenge ethical risk
Identify harms, test assumptions and build an ethical-risk program. Compare advisors with that specific published practice.
Improve leadership judgment
Help executives understand AI decisions and responsible use. Define whether the mandate is education or control implementation.
A useful governance engagement leaves an accountable operating process. Legal interpretations, certification audits and specialist technical evaluations need appropriately qualified people and an explicit scope.
How this shortlist is selected
Personal involvement
Name the advisor, their working time and the records they will review or produce.
Decision rights
Explain who accepts risk, approves releases, handles exceptions and can stop a system.
Verifiable work
Ask what evidence supports the proposed role and separate published claims from independently checked outcomes.
A usable handover
Assign ongoing owners, review dates and the action required when a control fails.
This is Paul Okhrem’s first-party editorial shortlist and includes his own paid consulting first. Alternatives are grouped by the specialties they advertise on their primary sites. The guide does not establish comparative delivery results or current availability. It does not replace procurement checks or professional legal advice.
Published and primary sources checked . Confirm changed services, fees and availability directly before appointment.
Paul Okhrem
01 · Operational governance
Best fit: a mid-market or enterprise leadership team needs someone to turn AI policy into specific operating decisions, control owners and reviewable evidence.
Paul’s personal AI governance consulting connects the AI inventory, risk reviews, permitted use, release approval and board reporting. The scope can include generative AI and agents, with human approval, escalation and stop conditions matched to the workflow. Your internal teams keep their legal, security and business approval duties.
- What to agree: named systems, decisions, records, control owners and handover criteria.
- Budget: USD 1,000 per hour, 80-hour minimum and USD 80,000 engagement floor. Engineering, software and external specialists are separate unless included.
- Ask Paul: “Which approval or control will work differently at the end, and what evidence will its owner review?”
- Boundary: management and operational advice; legal determinations and certification audits remain with the appropriate professionals.
Review Paul’s background, published commercial terms and evidence standard. His company roles are disclosed; related-company implementation requires a separate conflicts and scope discussion.
Reid Blackman
02 · Ethical-risk programs
Consider for: organizations whose principal need is an AI ethical-risk method and the organizational capability to apply it.
His official advisory page describes executive advice and the Ethical Nightmare Challenge approach through Virtue. The focus is ethical-risk problem-solving, training and program design.
Confirm in a proposal: Reid’s personal role, the program work included and who operates it afterward. Ethical-risk advice should be coordinated with your legal and technical teams where their expertise is required.
Cassie Kozyrkov
03 · Decision quality
Consider for: leaders who need to improve the decisions around AI and clarify how people use information, uncertainty and evidence.
Her official decision-advising page invites applications for personal advisory time. KOZYR also advertises responsible-AI education. Define whether your mandate is decision advice, leadership learning or hands-on control work.
Confirm in a proposal: the actual governance question, personal involvement and deliverables. Do not infer a certification audit or a full compliance implementation from a speaking or education offer.
Bernard Marr
04 · Strategy and governance alignment
Consider for: executives who need governance considered alongside AI priorities, operating-model choices and performance measurement.
His official board-advisory page describes executive coaching, strategic briefings and facilitated off-sites. Ask how the proposed engagement links strategy to the decisions and risk reporting your board needs.
Confirm in a proposal: personal delivery, ongoing responsibilities and the governance work included. A strategic briefing and an implemented control program require different acceptance criteria.
Compare the same written scope
| Need | What to contract | Who retains accountability |
|---|---|---|
| Operational governance design | An inventory, control and approval design with evidence and a handover. | Named internal business, security and system owners. |
| Ethical-risk work | A method to examine potential harms and make responsible-use decisions. | The organization’s decision-makers and risk owners. |
| Executive education | Defined learning goals and practice applying concepts to decisions. | Leadership applying the learning in actual work. |
| Legal interpretation | Advice from appropriately qualified counsel on applicable duties. | The legal and business functions responsible for compliance. |
| Certification or technical assurance | The applicable audit or evaluation, its standard, scope and evidence. | The authorized auditor or evaluator and the system’s accountable owners. |
For an AI assistant with access to internal documents, ask who approves the data scope, how access is checked, what evidence precedes release and what happens when an answer is wrong. A policy that does not change those decisions leaves the operating gap unresolved.
If your task includes framework alignment, identify its purpose in the brief. NIST AI RMF mapping, ISO/IEC 42001 preparation and legal compliance are different tasks. Have counsel and the appropriate auditors confirm duties and assurance requirements. The advisor’s proposal should explain the limits of their role.
Four checks before appointing an advisor
Define the actual gap
Describe one system, its users, data, permitted actions and the decision currently blocked.
Verify the person
Ask what the advisor personally did on comparable work, which evidence can be shared and who else must participate.
Agree an acceptance test
Name the record or operating decision that must change, its owner and how the handover will be checked.
Make conflicts visible
Disclose implementation referrals, vendor interests and any separately contracted delivery work before selection.
Ask every advisor the same question: “Show how an unresolved risk moves from discovery to an accountable decision.” A useful answer explains evidence, escalation, approval and the ongoing owner, including what happens when the evidence is insufficient.
Questions to ask before you book
Which individual AI governance advisor should we consider?
Paul Okhrem is a fit for a leadership team that needs to connect AI inventories, controls, release approvals and board reporting to named operating owners. Consider Reid Blackman for ethical-risk program work, Cassie Kozyrkov for decision intelligence and responsible-AI education, and Bernard Marr for strategy and governance alignment. Validate the exact mandate and personal involvement with each advisor.
What should an AI governance advisor deliver?
Agree a bounded set of systems, an inventory, risk and control owners, required evaluation evidence, approval and escalation rules, and a review cadence. The proposal should explain who keeps operating each control after the advisory engagement and how incomplete evidence affects release decisions.
Does Paul provide legal advice or ISO certification?
Paul provides management and operational AI governance advice. Legal counsel determines applicable legal duties, and an appropriate certification body conducts any certification audit. Framework mapping, a policy or an advisory engagement is not a certification or a guarantee of compliance.
How much does Paul’s AI governance consulting cost?
Paul’s general consulting rate is USD 1,000 per hour, with an 80-hour minimum and USD 80,000 engagement floor. The written scope identifies the systems, decisions, records and handover. Engineering, software and external specialists are separate unless explicitly included.
How should a board verify an advisor’s relevant evidence?
Ask for evidence that matches the proposed work: a sanitized control design, the decisions the advisor personally supported, implementation boundaries and a reference that may be contacted with permission. Distinguish a provider’s own service description from independent validation, and do not treat a speaking credential as proof of a delivered governance program.
Should we appoint a fractional CAIO instead?
A defined consulting engagement helps design or improve the governance work and hand it to your owners. A fractional CAIO is a separate recurring executive mandate with agreed decision rights. Paul publishes USD 30,000 per month for a six-month minimum, with up to 30 hours per month; compare the two roles before appointing either.
Choose the next conversation
Send Paul the system or portfolio in scope, the governance decision you need and who currently owns it. The first message can be a short business description; sensitive records can wait for an agreed secure process.
- Paul’s AI governance advisory
Review the operational scope, framework boundaries and personal consulting terms.
- AI governance checklist
Identify current evidence and ownership gaps before discussing an engagement.
- AI operating-model consulting
For broader questions about funding, shared capabilities and delivery responsibilities.
- Recurring AI executive ownership
Compare a separate fractional CAIO mandate when your need continues after the consulting work.
Published terms: Paul’s personal consulting: USD 1,000 per hour, 80-hour minimum and USD 80,000 engagement floor. Engineering, software and external specialist work is separate unless included. Review the complete terms.
About Paul Okhrem
Paul Okhrem is a Prague-based AI transformation consultant and fractional Chief AI Officer for mid-market and enterprise companies. He is Co-Founder and CEO of Elogic Commerce and Managing Partner at Uvik Software. He has built B2B and enterprise software since 2009.
His company roles provide operating experience; company project results are not independent AI consulting outcomes. Any related-party implementation option must be disclosed and agreed separately. Read the evidence and measurement method.
Change log
- : Reviewed copy, source boundaries and supporting resources.
Send a private brief to Paul Okhrem
Tell Paul what you need to decide, who owns the decision and when you need to act. Review his background and published terms.