“We Or Me” Choices Key AI Rollouts, Executive Survey Finds

“PICNIC error” — problem in chair, not in computer – is a longstanding code word deployed by IT leaders and technicians to coyly, cleverly and calmly characterize common tech user foibles. It also applies aptly to organizational woes — especially as companies openly grapple with AI awareness, strategy, rollouts and utilization.

A recent KPMG survey of executives at enterprises with over $1 billion in revenue spotlights an intriguing c-suite dynamic that will likely define and determine AI prospects. While 92% of respondents describe their CIO-CFO relationship as collaborative (with 58% “very collaborative”), a closer look reveals a far more complex reality for most and portends troubles for c-suites with delicate frenemy tensions or outright palace strife.

A central finding that should top board and executive agendas is an untenable AI leadership rhetoric-reality gap. Despite espousing unified vision, tech and finance chiefs stake nearly identical claims to AI plans. Specifically, 59% of CFOs and 61% of CIOs assert they’re in charge — with only about a third of each group characterizing rollouts as shared.

“Transformation only works when the CFO and CIOs are working together and steering the technology to meet the business needs,” KPMG U.S. Advisory head of markets Sanjay Sehgal observed. Such AI-era synergy requires courageous candor and real accountability about business strategy, budgets, talent and legacy workplace processes.

Spend Smart

Budget battles best crystallize whether leaders view spending as a cost or value.

That’s particularly true when connecting AI with broader business strategic aims. Nearly twice as many CFOs (31%) consider innovation budgets “excessive” compared to CIOs (16%). The reverse holds true as well, with 29% of CIOs viewing these investments as “insufficient” versus just 12% of CFOs. That’s a fundamentally different perspective on technology’s value and potential and of business renewal odds.

“CFOs and CIOs, 39% and 49% respectively, found the definition of technology ROI a contentious area. Developing a unified vision and setting clear goals for AI investments helps align these different perspectives. Regular communication and feedback from both CIOs and CFOs can clear up misunderstandings,” Sehgal explained.

“Ultimately, focusing on business outcomes — like how AI can boost operational efficiencies and drive revenue growth — can help bridge the gap between the financial and tech viewpoints,” he advised.

Narrowing that wedge begins with a well-informed, engaged and curious board and c-suite that can credibly explore and articulate AI strategy. Assertive leaders address AI uncertainties with intention. Conversely, the entrenched defer decisions, erode credibility and jeopardize competitive position.

Comfortably Uncomfortable

The survey further highlights that while almost all executives instinctively agree on AI’s importance, they diverge on implementation. While 93% agree that AI integration increases CIO-CFO collaboration, most (71% of CFOs and 61% of CIOs) envision their roles remaining separate rather than becoming more integrated.

Other key findings show:

• Differing priorities and goals (39%), levels of technical knowledge (39%) and insufficient data or insights (35%) as the top challenges hampering effective CFO-CIO partnerships. That’s worrisome as AI needs accelerate.
• Poor collaboration threatens innovation spending. A third of CFOs say the innovation budget is excessive, while 29% of CIOs call it inadequate.
• Executive views on data authority widen the chasm. Most CFOs (51%) believe AI has shifted more data and analytics responsibilities to them, while only 31% of CIOs agree. Similarly, 51% of CFOs assert that real-time financial reporting accelerates AI integration — 73% of CIOs disagree.
• Long-held tech-finance frictions only exacerbate these tensions. CIOs cite disconnects on technology ROI assessment (49% of CIOs vs. 39% of CFOs), while CFOs feel friction in understanding technology capabilities (49% of CFOs vs. 33% of CIOs).
• GenAI has further reshaped executive relationships, with 37% saying it has enhanced strategic alignment and shared goals, 35% reporting new joint initiatives and 33% noting increased need for regular communication. Notably, CIOs (41%) are more than twice as likely as CFOs (20%) to say generative AI is better at integrating planning and budgeting processes.

All Aboard

When asked for advice to help organizations keep the CIO-CFO relationship more collaborative than contentious, Sehgal emphasized the criticality and urgency of AI investments and implementation and suggested three ways to foster better alignment.

1. Leveraging complementary strengths: “Both the CFO and CIO bring unique strengths. CIOs bring tech know-how and innovation, while CFOs handle the financial side and risk management. When you combine these skills, you’ve got a recipe for success,” he highlighted.

2. Clear role definition: “Clarify who’s responsible for what, so there’s no confusion or overlap,” Sehgal advises. “Working together to craft a unified vision and strategy helps set clear goals and priorities, making sure everyone’s working toward the same goals. It’s important to split responsibilities, such as budget and purchase approval, from implementation. This helps clarify roles and desired contributions to AI initiatives.”

3. Joint, but differentiated, ownership: Encouraging joint ownership means both functions are equally invested in AI success. Clear definitions and meaningful metrics can prevent fiefdom conflicts and encourage everyone to work toward the common goals while knowing their specific roles. Regular check-ins and alignment meetings on AI strategies can keep the collaboration strong, honest and vibrant.

The results are clear — successful AI integration depends as much on resolving “we or me” leadership questions as tech choices. Executives can’t simultaneously claim to work together while competing for control. Organizations that foster authentic collaboration stand best ready to tap AI initiatives’ transformative potential — or risk watching futures and fortunes dissolve. Who’s pulling together or apart?