Director level AI strategy, advisory

The work

Decides what a business should and should not build with AI, and in what order.

A standing second opinion. Small commitments, and the ones where being right matters most because nobody is checking your work.

The bar

You have carried the decision at a level where being wrong was expensive, and you can describe a time you were.

Why this one is hard to judge. Everyone can talk about strategy. The tell is whether they have killed a project that was already funded.

What we ask to see

• A plan you wrote that a business acted on, and what it decided not to build as a result
• A funded project you argued should stop, and what happened
• A named referee who was in the room for both

One solid item beats five vague ones. A referee we can actually call beats a link to a landing page.

What gets an application declined

• The only evidence offered is a certification, a course, or a job title
• Every piece of evidence is under an NDA and no sanitised version or referee is offered
• The work described is entirely a demonstration, a proof of concept, or a hackathon
• More than six disciplines are claimed, which we read as a signal that none has been assessed

If we decline you, the reason is written down and sent to you. The software refuses a decline without one.

What it pays

Nothing is published for this discipline in the UK advertised market, so there is no figure to give you and we are not going to invent one.

Nothing is published for this work as its own title. Strategy is advertised as a director or head-of role rather than a discipline, and those advertisements almost never quote a figure. Anyone who gives you a day rate for AI strategy is quoting their own book.