AI is not a technology decision, it’s a business decision

LH
Lewis Heeks Data, AI and Platform Search Partner
June 2026
3 min read

I’ve been recruiting data leaders in Australia long before AI dominated every executive agenda. A clear pattern is emerging: the businesses getting the most from AI are the ones who get the data foundation right first.

That distinction is shaping how the best hires are being made, and it’s where the opportunity lies.

Most briefs right now are written as if the AI capability is the hard part and the data infrastructure will sort itself out. From where I sit, it’s the other way round. The foundational data layer underneath the AI matters just as much as the AI itself, and the organisations that treat it that way are the ones building something that lasts.

The data layer is where AI value gets built

AI models are commoditising quickly. The ones a business runs today probably won’t be the ones it runs in two years, and the person who selected them won’t be the source of long-term value.

What holds its value is the layer underneath. The architecture, the governance, the data quality, the infrastructure. That’s what determines whether an AI investment pays back, and it’s what takes years to get right.

The leaders best placed to build this have usually spent a decade or more thinking about how data moves through a business, where the weak points are, and what good looks like at the foundation level. The AI piece layers on top of that. It doesn’t replace it.

That said, the best people landing Head of AI and Chief AI Officer roles right now aren’t purely technical. They’re the ones who can sit with a CFO or CEO and translate what the data and AI function is doing into commercial outcomes. Revenue protected, costs reduced, decisions made faster and with more confidence. That ability to extract and articulate business value is what separates the leaders who get traction at board level from the ones who don’t.

What the strongest candidates look like

A few things that consistently show up in the people who deliver.

They’ve built something from scratch. There’s a difference between someone who joined a mature data team and someone who stood one up from nothing. Most Australian businesses hiring need the latter, and it’s a much shorter list.

They bring a network. The hire is one decision; the team build is twenty more. The leaders who move quickly are the ones who already know who’s good across engineering, governance and platform. That depth takes years to develop and you can’t fake it at interview.

They own the platform layer. The data leaders who create lasting value don’t treat infrastructure as someone else’s problem. They understand it well enough to make good calls about it, and they push for platform investment early rather than scrambling for it later.

What a good brief looks like

The most useful starting question isn’t “what AI capability do we need?” It’s “what’s the state of our data, and who do we need to lead it?” Once that’s answered honestly, the AI piece tends to follow.

The businesses that come out of this period well will be the ones that hired for that foundation first. That opportunity is still there for the organisations ready to approach it clearly.

Frequently asked questions

In most cases I’d start with the data leadership question, not the AI one. A CDO with the right background will cover the AI lane in this market. A standalone Head of AI without a data leader above or alongside them tends to struggle, because the underlying data problems land on their desk and they aren’t set up to solve them. There are exceptions, but the default I’d push back on is hiring AI before data.
I look at the time depth. What were they doing five and ten years ago, not two. Have they built a function, or joined one. Can they talk credibly about governance, architecture and platform, or does the conversation drift back to model selection. I think the rebranding pattern is harmless at the engineer level, but at leadership level it shows up quickly under proper reference checks and a structured technical conversation.
It depends on what the business is actually trying to do. If the AI work is core to product or revenue, a direct line into the CEO or COO usually serves the business better. If it’s infrastructural, sitting under a CTO or CDO is often the cleaner structure. The reporting line is one of the strongest signals the business sends candidates about how seriously it takes the function. Senior data and AI leaders read it carefully.
LH
Lewis Heeks
Co-Founder & Data, AI and Platform Search Partner, Innova Search
Lewis places data, AI and platform leaders into PE-backed and ASX-listed businesses navigating complex transformation programmes.

Starting a technology leadership search?

The brief is where it begins. Let's get it right.

Start a conversation