PwC asked companies a simple question: who, inside your organisation, answers for AI risk? Executives point to the technical leadership, technical leaders point back to senior management, and the firm concludes there is a glaring need to finally designate an owner. The same day, Pearson buys Workera, whose business is to measure employees' real level of AI competence. Put these two facts together, add the "citizen developers" that the Journal du Net sees building applications with agents without going through the IT department, and a signal emerges. What is becoming scarce inside the organisation is no longer access to the models, now ordinary and cheap, but an honest map of who can actually do what with them.
As long as that map does not exist, two failures are in the making. You name an AI owner without knowing what the teams can do, and the post becomes a lightning rod with no grip on the ground. You buy a platform or a training plan calibrated on assumed skills, declared in an internal survey, never verified. Self-reporting always lies in the same direction: everyone thinks they are at ease with a tool they barely touch.
The move that sets a French company apart comes down to a measurement, not an org chart. Take fifteen real tasks from your lines of business, a contract to review, a customer reply to draft, a spreadsheet to analyse, and have a sample of employees handle them with and without AI. You get an observed skill, not a feeling. Then write it into the job descriptions, on the same footing as a language or a piece of software, so it is maintained and assessed. Governance will follow, because you only entrust a scope of actions to people whose level you know.
The wave of consumer agents from OpenAI and Meta will enter your walls through employees, whether a policy allows it or not. The company that has measured before deciding will keep control. The others will discover their skills on the day of an incident.
The Masteria editorial team.