Dear CEO – Most AI roadmaps are just expensive wish lists

Dear CEO – Most AI roadmaps are just expensive wish lists

May 27, 2026

Boardrooms love grand visions.

But vision without financial discipline becomes a liability.

I have seen too many transformation programs collapse because they tried to boil the ocean in a single fiscal year.

They spent the budget on licenses before they solved for data hygiene.

To build a roadmap that actually scales without draining your reserves, you must change the logic:

First, stop chasing the Big Bang.

Identify three high-yield, low-complexity wins.

These should be projects that solve a specific pain point in 90 days.

Second, implement a value-capture mechanism.

If you cannot measure a tangible cost saving or revenue gain in Q1, you do not fund the Q3 initiatives.

The roadmap must self-fund through efficiency gains.

Third, prioritize data architecture over tool acquisition.

A sophisticated LLM running on dirty data is simply an expensive way to be wrong.

Clean the pipes before you turn on the faucet.

The Executive Action Plan:
1. Audit your current data readiness (not your tool list).

2. Map three "quick wins" that reduce OpEx immediately.

3. Link every subsequent milestone to a proven ROI metric from the previous phase.

Are you building a strategic roadmap for transformation, or are you just buying a collection of expensive tools?

Let's discuss and if you need assistance reach out.

#DigitalTransformation #AIStrategy #CanadianBusiness #CorporateGovernance #OperationalExcellence #CEO

 

Dear CEO – From résumé hacks to board recruitment scams – my latest lessons

Dear CEO – From résumé hacks to board recruitment scams – my latest lessons

May 26, 2026

In the last year of my VP‑Tech role, I spent five minutes at every all staff meeting offering quick cyber security tips to keep everyone safe.

It appears I need to offer the same advice on LinkedIn.

I am seeing a major uptick in scams related to job offers.

A month ago, a recruiter emailed me an offer for a $900 k AI strategy role that required a fee to “polish” my résumé.

I had a sophisticated scam play out a couple of months ago for Board Recruitment.

In this scam, I had to pay for myname.com (which I already own) and for them to build a website to promote my skills to potential organizations.

The entire thing fell apart because I already own the rodschatz.com domain and i just had to rebrand the site.

The this week alone, I have received two unique emails for an executive‑level “confidential search” where the recruiter uses a Gmail address.

The content was oddly generic, yet the tone felt personal.

Three lessons emerged from these play‑outs:
1. Skepticism beats convenience
A recruiter who asks for money or a custom domain is not a legitimate channel.

2. Domain ownership is a double‑edged sword
Owning your own domain can give scammers leverage to rebrand you online, but it also lets you spot inconsistencies quickly.

3. The email provider matters
A Gmail address for an executive offer should be the first red flag; legitimate firms use their corporate domains.

Scammers are not just guessing—they’re engineering every interaction to feel authentic.

Action for executives:
Verify any unsolicited job offer through the company’s official domain and LinkedIn profile.

Treat a request for money or a custom résumé build as a phishing test.

If an email lands in Gmail, flag it immediately.

Have you ever fallen into a job‑scam play‑out?

What was the first hint that something was off?

Stay safe out there!

#CyberSecurity #ExecutiveRecruiting #AI #ScamAwareness #Leadership

The Great AI Blind Spot – Why Western Boards are Ignoring the Chinese Engine

The Great AI Blind Spot – Why Western Boards are Ignoring the Chinese Engine

May 23, 2026

In North American boardrooms, the AI conversation is a monologue about Silicon Valley.

We debate OpenAI versus Anthropic and track Microsoft’s capex, operating under the dangerous delusion that China is merely playing catch-up.

The reality?
While the West obsessed over the chatbot, China obsessed over the ecosystem.

We viewed GenAI as a productivity tool; they integrated it as an engine for industrial sovereignty.

The Scale of Dominance
For any Canadian executive managing strategic risk, these figures are a wake-up call:

- Intellectual Property: China holds ~60% of global AI patents, defining the technical boundaries of the future.

- Economic Output: Their core AI industry generated roughly $175B USD last year.

- Industrial Density: 6,200+ active AI firms creating an iterative speed the West cannot match.

- Global Reach: Domestic open-source LLMs have surpassed 10B downloads worldwide.

The Pivot: From Leasing to Owning
The critical insight isn't the number of patents, but the philosophy of deployment.

The West has leaned into "Closed Models"—paying subscriptions to access intelligence hosted on someone else’s server.

China is pivoting toward AI Sovereignty.

By championing open-source models, they allow industries such as forestry, energy, banking to build proprietary applications from scratch.
They have realized the model is a commodity; the true moat is the proprietary industry data and the specific business process it solves.

Why the Silence?
We ignore this for three reasons:

1. The Filter: Breakthroughs are documented in Mandarin within closed ecosystems.

2. Narrative Bias: It is easier to dismiss their progress as "state-sponsored" than admit they have built a superior industrial machine.

3. The Divide: The West is fascinated by AI that can write a poem; China is focused on AI that optimizes power grids and automates ports at scale.

The Executive Takeaway
This isn't about geopolitical rivalry; it’s about strategic architecture.

Whether the innovation comes from Beijing or Palo Alto, the risk is the same: Dependency.

If your AI strategy is a series of subscriptions to closed-source providers, you aren't building a competitive advantage.

You are paying for a utility.

The winners will treat AI as an infrastructure project—owning their data, tuning their models, and securing their own sovereignty.

The question for your next board meeting: Are we buying intelligence, or are we building it?