As AI-assisted operations evolve, so too must corporate governance.
That is a major concern for Ken Washington, who serves as board chairman for i-GENTIC. The Palo Alto, California-based company is focused on agent-based governance across data, privacy, cybersecurity and AI-assisted operations.
Washington previously led consumer robotics at Amazon, oversaw research and advanced engineering programs at Ford, and most recently served as senior vice president and chief technology officer of Medtronic, the world’s largest publicly traded medtech company.
He spoke with CFO Leadership about the interplay between technology and governance, a board’s-eye view on the tools that organizations choose, and why companies sometimes stick with the “expensive and imperfect.”
What are some of the most pressing topics that your board is tackling these days?
At the board level, we are focused on issues that shape the company’s ability to raise capital, long term resilience, risk exposure, regulatory posture and readiness for new technology. Much of our discussion centers on how data-intensive operations and AI-assisted workflows alter the control environment in ways that traditional governance structures do not always capture. We look closely at whether teams have the information, processes and accountability needed to respond quickly when circumstances shift.
Across industries, boards are facing heightened scrutiny on cyber readiness, incident disclosure, artificial intelligence oversight and the reliability of reporting systems, so we factor those trends into our planning. Committees play an important role in surfacing early signals, particularly on cyber, compliance and audit.
We also evaluate whether our governance framework and the people on our team are fit for purpose, for moving quickly and smartly to be successful. The central question is how to sustain innovation without compromising safety, reliability or trust.
What are some of your company’s toughest challenges and how are you mitigating them?
Two challenges show up consistently.
First, there is organizational inertia in moving away from familiar compliance workflows. Many established companies know their current processes are expensive and imperfect, but they are predictable, with well-understood exception handling and remediation paths, and that predictability reduces unexpected exposure because the failure modes are familiar.
The risk in introducing new governance capability is creating uncertainty in how exceptions will be detected, escalated and resolved. We mitigate this with phased adoption and explicit exit criteria, validating new capabilities alongside existing processes, defining risk thresholds up front and transitioning only when leadership has confidence in control effectiveness, ownership and escalation readiness.
Second, companies often underestimate the internal operating model required to sustain governance and compliance capabilities. The issue is rarely the software alone—it is whether accountability is clear, skills are in place and escalation works when something falls outside standard handling. We mitigate this by pairing adoption with structured enablement and defined roles, so capability builds steadily while operational continuity remains intact and accountability is clear.
What’s new about how you recruit board members?
What is new in board recruitment is the level of rigor and forward planning required. Board recruitment for an AI-based company like i-GENTIC is challenging because the field of AI is moving extremely fast, and that brings new risks to the business at the same pace. This points to the need to recruit board directors who not only have the appropriate business and technical background, but also a learning mindset.
We perform a year-round view of emerging risks and the skills needed to govern them, tracking trends in cyber liability, AI oversight, regulatory expectations and capital market pressures. Another shift is the move toward directors with operational depth in heavily regulated environments, rather than relying primarily on former CEOs.
We are also seeing a greater emphasis on directors who can work with continuous information flows, since governance today operates on a faster clock with more real-time reporting and tighter transparency expectations.
Finally, boards are building more structured succession frameworks, reducing the chance that a disruption reveals a capability gap. These trends help ensure that the board is not only qualified for today’s environment but prepared for what the years ahead will demand.
How does your board keep up with the opportunities—and risks—of emerging technologies?
We approach emerging technology, including AI, as a core board responsibility. Management provides structured briefings that explain not just what the tools do, but how they change decision-making, data flows and exposure. These updates are complemented by outside experts who help the board challenge assumptions and place developments in a broader risk and regulatory context.
We ask specific questions about controls, monitoring and incident response, and expect clear links between technology investments and measurable business outcomes. We also formalize director education around AI, cybersecurity and data governance, since boards can only exercise sound judgment if their understanding keeps pace with the technology. This lets us see both the opportunity and the risk while ensuring that governance remains integrated from the outset.
What are your strategies to ensure your company remains resilient?
A resilient company is one that can absorb shocks without losing strategic direction. We work with management to maintain updated crisis playbooks and clear escalation paths for cyber incidents, regulatory actions, operational disruptions or supply chain challenges.
Leadership depth and succession planning are central because resilience requires capable decision-makers at multiple levels. Regular board evaluations help confirm that governance structures remain strong and that information reaches directors in a timely and transparent way.
We also monitor capital allocation and risk appetite to ensure growth initiatives do not undermine control rigor. These measures create a structure where the company can continue operating effectively even when conditions change rapidly.
