News: 1771329674

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

CIOs told: Prove your AI pays off – or pay the price

(2026/02/17)


The clock is ticking for AI projects to either prove their worth or face the chopping block.

Or so says data management and machine learning biz Dataiku, which commissioned research conducted online by the Harris Poll to get a snapshot of the views from 600 Chief information officers (CIOs) across the US, UK, France, Germany, UAE, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.

The report, " [1]The 7 Career-Making AI Decisions for CIOs in 2026 ," claims AI is facing corporate accountability in 2026 after several years of investment into research and pilot projects. CIOs are worried their careers are on the line if the tech's effectiveness falls short of expectations.

[2]

Money continues to be pumped into AI as the next great thing in business, but a growing number of studies have found that [3]adopting AI tools hasn't helped the bottom line , and enterprises are seeing [4]neither increased revenue nor decreased costs from their AI projects.

[5]

[6]

In the past, the CIO could argue that a new tech was in its early development, evolving, or "still being optimized," Dataiku's report notes, but regulators are looking for traceability, corporate boards are asking for performance, and investors want to see quicker value generation.

Perhaps not surprisingly, almost all respondents (98 percent) said pressure from the board to demonstrate measurable return on investment (ROI) is increasing, and retaining budgets may depend on whether they can prove a measurable return.

[7]

Time is running out, the report claims. Some 71 percent of the CIOs surveyed believe their AI budget will likely face cuts or a freeze if targets are not met by the end of the first half of 2026. And the consequences won't just stop at funding: 85 percent of CIOs believe their employers will tie their compensation to measurable AI outcomes, and many say the same applies to their chief exec.

CIOs also fret about the explainability of their AI systems, with some (29 percent) indicating they were asked multiple times over the past year to justify an AI outcome they could not fully explain.

Dataiku says this issue is about to harden into formal requirements, with 70 percent of CIOs expecting AI audit or explainability requirements to arrive within the next 12 months.

[8]

When it comes to the latest buzzword, "agentic AI" or AI agents with the power to carry out actions, the CIOs say these are no longer a lab concept and are already working inside corporate networks. Some 62 percent of CIOs indicate agents are embedded in some business-critical workflows, while a worrying 25 percent say agents have become the operational backbone of many critical workflows.

Worrying because the report reveals three-quarters of CIOs admit to not having full real-time visibility into AI agents running in production systems, even though they have the ability to implement actions.

[9]AI to make call center agents 'superheroes,' not unemployed, says industry CEO

[10]UK names Barnsley as first Tech Town to see whether AI can fix... well, anything

[11]Experiment suggests AI chatbot would save insurance agents a whopping 3 minutes a day

[12]AI may be everywhere, but it's nowhere in recent productivity statistics

The majority of CIOs (82 percent) admit their employees are creating AI agents and apps faster than the IT department is able to govern them. The same number indicate they are concerned worker-built AI could expose sensitive company data.

The fear is not only that employees will build the wrong thing – it's that they will build the right thing in the wrong place, with the wrong data, under the wrong controls, the report states.

Many CIOs are also owning up to a certain level of buyer's remorse when it comes to some of the decisions made regarding their organization's AI stack. 74 percent say they regret at least one major AI vendor or platform selection made in the past 18 months.

And while the execs in charge of the tech megacorps pushing AI are adamant the [13]craze is most definitely not a bubble – except for [14]OpenAI CEO Sam Altman , of course – the corporate CIOs in the survey are not so sure, and most are fearful of what will happen if it bursts.

Some 73 percent suspect their company would experience major disruption, with more than half (57 percent) saying their company's very survival might be at stake. Oh, and 60 percent feared they may lose their job should the big pop ever happen.

Sleep tight all. ®

Get our [15]Tech Resources



[1] https://pages.dataiku.com/cio-ai-decisions

[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aZSetDZQTyVFmzUcgkx8SAAAAwE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[3] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/deloitte_enterprises_adopting_ai_revenue_lift/

[4] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/20/pwc_ai_ceo_survey/

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZSetDZQTyVFmzUcgkx8SAAAAwE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZSetDZQTyVFmzUcgkx8SAAAAwE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZSetDZQTyVFmzUcgkx8SAAAAwE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZSetDZQTyVFmzUcgkx8SAAAAwE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/13/call_center_ai_superheroes/

[10] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/03/barnsley_ai_town/

[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/16/axlerod_ai_saves_insurance_agents_time/

[12] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/15/forrester_ai_jobs_impact/

[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/05/ai_is_not_a_bubble/

[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/boy_riding_bubble_realizes_what/

[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



neither increased revenue nor decreased costs

Neil Barnes

Well well well. Who'da thunk it?

Re: neither increased revenue nor decreased costs

Doctor Syntax

Except for those AI-washing lay-offs.

Value what you can measure or measure what you value

Pete 2

> AI projects to either prove their worth or face the chopping block

The same could be asked of many other business intangibles. Such as security measures, non-discriminatory hiring policies, working at home, ecological awareness, honesty, or staff training.

But quantifying the benefit of most / all enlightened practices is very difficult. Even if you don't consider AI driven work to be "enlightened", it still falls into the category of being difficult to measure any benefits, especially within a quarterly business reporting cycle.

Re: Value what you can measure or measure what you value

Anonymous Coward

It's not the same. AI was specifically marketed as a way to improve productivity on a short timescale. If it hasn't, then it's failed.

After that there are quantifiable costs- e.g. those laid off may need to be replaced, incurring hiring costs and lost productivity.

Re: Value what you can measure or measure what you value

Pete 2

> AI was specifically marketed as a way to improve productivity on a short timescale.

Maybe some them were, to some organisations. But we all know that pretty much any marketing claim (and that is all they were) for any product - but particularly in IT - doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Re: Value what you can measure or measure what you value

Doctor Syntax

" But we all know that pretty much any marketing claim (and that is all they were) for any product - but particularly in IT - doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

I think in this case "we" doesn't include C-suite execs. To them it's all wonderful, magical even, and cannot possibly fail because marketing told them and they come from marketing themselves and hence are devoid of any cognitive dissonance.

WTF is a CIO anyway?

m4r35n357

To put it another way - what are they paid to do?

"three-quarters of CIOs admit to not having full real-time visibility into AI agents running in production systems"

Re: WTF is a CIO anyway?

elsergiovolador

At recent outfit, the company literally had a casting on CIO (they of course called it interview).

They of course been asking technical questions, but the winning factors were the looks (haircut, teeth, skin condition, brand of the suit, whether custom tailored, if colour matched company branding and vibe, size of network, whether they could make people in the room genuinely laugh).

The role was to come to office when there was board meeting or investor meeting, not saying stupid things and making sure everyone feels good when questions about IT are asked.

Re: WTF is a CIO anyway?

Tom Chiverton 1

Law firm ?

Re: WTF is a CIO anyway?

elsergiovolador

Telecoms

Substitute 'magician' or 'priest' for AI.

Tron

Then you can work out how screwed you already are, never mind how screwed you will be, if you sacked competent staff and replaced them with third rate tech that someone else can turn off when the free money runs out.

Re: Substitute 'magician' or 'priest' for AI.

TimMaher

@Tron… you have been ex-communicated.

Few - if any companies

JimmyPage

Have the faintest idea how they make money.

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked a simple question ("What impact did COVID have on productivity ?") to be met with a blank "How the hell would we know ?" from "management".

This is strategic, by the way. If you can't delve into the metrics, you can't prove the management wrong.

Stop ahead.