The highest use of operating a technology yourself is the no
Jesper E. Thomsen · 5 October 2026
At board level, secondhand understanding of a fast-moving technology is a governance gap rather than a sensible delegation. The judgement that hands-on use buys is mostly negative: seeing early which technologies will not scale or do not fit the problem. It only arrives when the technology and the industry are understood at the same time.
Most boards treat technology the way they treat audit: a specialist area, delegated to someone who understands it, reported up in summary. For most of what a company runs on, that works. For the technology reshaping the business faster than the summary can be written, it is a governance gap.
The same gap ran through the PC, the internet and the smartphone; AI is the instance where the lag stopped being tolerable, because the time it takes to acquire capability has collapsed.
Why a briefing does not work
You cannot ask a qualified question about something you have only had summarised, any more than you could have understood the internet from a briefing. The summary carries the conclusions and not the feel for what the thing does easily and where it breaks, which is where the question comes from.
If two years of experience now takes twenty minutes, which is roughly what it takes to open a terminal and not be afraid of Python, then a board two years behind on the fastest-moving thing in the business is not governing it.
The no
Operating the technology is easy to mistake for a route to enthusiasm. The highest use of it is the no.
Everything is interesting at the start. The hard, valuable judgement is seeing which technologies will not scale, or do not fit the actual problem, before the organisation spends two years and its credibility finding out. Close up, you can see what the technology needs to deliver its value, and ask whether the business, or the industry, can provide it.
That is two pieces of understanding held at the same time: what the technology requires, and what the industry's trust structure can supply. Hands-on use gives you the first only. Feel on its own produces the enthusiast, who has used the thing and holds half the judgement.
TradeLens
The nearest example is TradeLens, the blockchain shipping platform Maersk built with IBM, launched in 2018 and wound down by early 2023.
A blockchain network delivers its value through broad, neutral, shared adoption. A network half-owned by Maersk, in 2018 the largest container carrier, could not get neutral adoption from the carriers it competed with. After a change in governance, several of the largest carriers joined in 2019 and 2020. Maersk's stated reason for closing it, announced in November 2022, was that full industry collaboration had not been achieved. The governance change did not close the gap between what the technology required and what the industry's trust structure could provide.
The people who built TradeLens had the technology side, from years of operating it on real work. Their yes is the evidence that hands-on use is half the judgement. The industry side was available at a distance to anyone in container shipping. The judgement that saves the most money is the two held together, before the spend.
What this means for a board
On any technology fast and material to the business, my view is that at least one person at the table should have operated it on real work rather than a demo, and know the industry well enough to hold the other half. Whether one is enough is the board's call. If the capability costs twenty minutes, the case for stopping at one is weak, and one director who has used it is still, for the rest of the table, a description. On AI-native boards I apply it to myself: if I do not understand this, I have no role there.
None of this makes the director the expert. You should rely on people more intelligent than you, and the technical questions are theirs. Whether the business or the industry can supply what the technology needs is the director's question, and someone proud to say "I am not an IT expert" cannot ask it.
Where this does not hold
Not every technology is fast, material and yours to govern, and not every director must code. What the rule asks is that you operate the specific technologies reshaping your specific business well enough to ask a qualified question, see the link to the business, and tell the ones that will scale from the ones that will not.
It also does not hold where the industry is not yours. Contact with a technology in an industry whose trust structure you do not know buys a qualified question, and not the no.