Australian CIOs gain workforce redesign role as AI spreads

Thoughtworks has published research showing Australian Chief Information Officers are taking on greater responsibility for workforce redesign as artificial intelligence spreads through organisations.

The survey also found no dominant model for AI leadership or budget control in Australia.

Among Australian respondents, 87% said they are now more responsible for redesigning workforce workflows and labour models than for managing core IT infrastructure. Based on a survey of 3,200 CIOs across 10 countries, the study points to a broader shift in the role from traditional technology oversight to organisational design, governance and shared decision-making.

It also found that 90% of Australian CIOs believe AI adoption is moving faster than governance structures can adapt. At the same time, 35% said they feel personally accountable for workforce disruption linked to AI adoption.

Preparedness levels were mixed rather than weak. In Australia, 44% of CIOs said their organisation was very prepared to govern AI consistently across business functions, while 54% said it was somewhat prepared.

Rachel Laycock, Chief Technology Officer, Thoughtworks, said the governance challenge extends beyond technical controls.

"AI governance is also a workforce design issue," said Rachel Laycock, Chief Technology Officer, Thoughtworks.

"As AI changes how work gets done, organisations need to rethink roles, workflows and decision rights so people know where human judgment is still essential and where AI can take on more of the work. Training matters, but it's only one part of building an organisation that can use AI effectively at scale."

Distributed control

The data suggests AI decision-making in Australia is spread across several parts of the business. Central IT or technology leadership was the most commonly cited source of influence at 20%, followed by the Chief Executive Officer at 16% and the executive leadership team at 14%.

Budget ownership showed a similar pattern. Some 22% of Australian respondents said AI budgets are managed centrally by IT, another 22% said business units control them independently, 20% said responsibility is shared between IT and the business, 18% said budgets are managed at executive or board level, and 18% said the model is still evolving.

The spread reflects a broader lack of agreement on who should direct enterprise AI, even as spending and deployment expand. It also raises questions about whether responsibility for risk is aligned with decision-making authority.

"AI governance can't sit apart from data governance or from the economics of AI use," said Shayan Mohanty, Chief Data and AI Officer, Thoughtworks. "The person accountable for the data may not own the AI systems using it, while the people choosing those systems increasingly sit across the business. As adoption scales, organisations need the visibility and governance to understand where AI is creating value and where cost and risk are accumulating."

Accountability gap

The survey found strong concern among CIOs that accountability still rests with central technology teams even when purchasing and deployment decisions are made elsewhere. In Australia, 89% agreed that central IT would ultimately still be held responsible for security breaches or compliance failures caused by AI tools bought independently by business units.

Respondents also said they feel accountable for a range of risks beyond their direct authority. In Australia, 38% cited security incidents involving AI systems, 37% cited data privacy breaches, and 35% cited workforce disruption from AI adoption as outcomes for which they feel personally accountable without full authority to influence them.

The findings also point to changes in leadership structures. In Australia, 71% said their organisation has already hired a Chief AI Officer, and 22% said they are looking to hire one.

Among those describing the relationship between the roles, 36% said the Chief AI Officer acts as an extension of CIO or CTO strategy. A further 34% said the role operates independently with equal or greater enterprise influence, while 29% said the relationship creates friction or unclear boundaries.

Xia Jie Jessie, CIO, Thoughtworks, said, "At Thoughtworks, our experience has been that AI transformation is a team sport, from defining enterprise AI strategy and architecture to embedding AI into internal platforms and day-to-day operations. The question isn't who owns AI, but how leadership collaborates to create business value responsibly and at scale."

Planned responses

Australian organisations are pursuing several responses to these pressures. The most common planned move was embedding a dedicated technology lead within each business unit, cited by 55% of respondents. Another 48% said they plan to establish a formal AI governance and operating model, while 38% said they intend to standardise software and digital transformation across business units.

These figures suggest many organisations are trying to bring AI decision-making closer to business teams while also creating more formal governance and accountability structures. That combination reflects the central tension in the findings: authority over AI is becoming more distributed, while the risks attached to AI remain highly visible and often centrally assigned.

"Authority over AI is distributed, but accountability hasn't always moved with it," said Mike Sutcliff, Chief Executive Officer, Thoughtworks. "The answer isn't to pull every decision back into central IT or put one executive in charge and assume the problem is solved. Organisations need clearer decision rights, and people need the skills and information to make good decisions as AI becomes part of how the business runs."