A strategy that makes choices
AI Strategy Document Template
Use a practical AI strategy template with reusable clauses for outcomes, priorities, exclusions, sourcing, authority, investment and review.
An AI strategy document should let a reader identify the choices the organisation has made and the commitments it has not made. This template is designed for that purpose. It provides sections, drafting clauses and decision questions that can be adapted to a Saudi business without turning the document into a product catalogue.
The continuous example is an illustrative engineering-design consultancy. It wants staff to find and assemble reliable project knowledge while retaining professional responsibility for design decisions. The examples are not Open for AI client work and should be replaced with the organisation’s own evidence and approved choices.
Set up the document before writing the narrative
Record the document owner, approving authority, version, approval date, review trigger and included business units. Separate approved choices from assumptions still being tested. If a section contains an unresolved decision, identify who must resolve it; do not smooth over disagreement with words such as “flexible” or “innovative”.
| Section | Decision it records |
|---|---|
| 1. Business purpose | Which outcome justifies attention and investment |
| 2. Strategic choices | Where the organisation will concentrate effort |
| 3. Scope and exclusions | What is included, deferred and prohibited by the approved strategy |
| 4. Evidence and assumptions | What supports the choices and what could invalidate them |
| 5. Sourcing and capability | What to retain internally and how to compare external options |
| 6. Authority and governance | Who can approve actions, changes and exceptions |
| 7. Investment principles | What evidence unlocks further commitment |
| 8. Outcomes and learning | How progress and unintended effects will be judged |
| 9. Delivery connection and review | How choices inform the roadmap and when they are reconsidered |
1. State the business purpose in operational terms
Adaptable clause: “Our initial AI investment will support a defined business outcome in the named operating process. The accountable business owner will maintain the baseline and confirm whether the intervention improves the complete task.” Replace the general terms with a process, outcome and named role before approval.
For the illustrative consultancy: “We will reduce avoidable effort spent locating approved project knowledge while preserving source traceability and professional review.” This is more actionable than “become an AI-powered organisation”. It identifies the work and the conditions under which an improvement counts. Do not claim a numerical target unless there is a baseline and a reason that target is credible.
2. Make the strategic choices visible
Explain why this opportunity takes priority over alternatives. The consultancy could choose internal project knowledge before customer-facing design advice because the internal boundary allows it to inspect evidence and learn about staff use without making new promises to clients. That is a proposed choice, not a universal rule for professional-services firms.
Adaptable clause: “We will prioritise opportunities that improve the chosen outcome, can be evaluated with available evidence and have an accountable process owner. We will compare process improvement, existing software and AI-enabled options before committing to a solution.” Use use-case discovery to support the selection, rather than inserting a list of fashionable applications.
3. Define scope, exclusions and conditions for reconsideration
State the users, information and actions included. In the example, the first scope is internal staff assistance using approved project references. Excluded activities include issuing final design advice, approving technical departures and presenting generated material as verified without professional review. The boundary should explain the business consequence, not simply name a model or platform.
Adaptable clause: “Activities outside the approved boundary require a separate decision that addresses their outcome, evidence, authority and operating responsibility. A successful internal trial does not authorise external use.” Add a defer list for plausible future opportunities and the evidence needed to reopen them. This gives a team room to learn without allowing scope to expand by implication.
4. Maintain an evidence and assumption register
Summarise the evidence supporting the priority: case observations, workload measures, user needs and constraints. Keep a short register of assumptions that could change the strategy. In the consultancy, one assumption is that staff can identify the authoritative version of a project reference. Another is that time released from searching will improve review preparation rather than simply move effort into checking AI output.
For each assumption, write the current evidence, confidence, owner and test. “We have extensive documents” does not prove those documents are current, accessible or suitable for this purpose. The strategy can authorise an investigation while acknowledging that uncertainty. Do not describe an assumption as a benefit already achieved.
5. Specify sourcing principles and retained capability
Describe how the organisation will choose between existing products, configured solutions and custom development. The choice should follow the required outcome and conditions. In the example, the consultancy retains ownership of professional acceptance, source stewardship and the intended user experience while evaluating external help for technical assessment and delivery.
Adaptable clause: “Supplier recommendations must show relevant alternatives, material limitations and continuing operating requirements. The organisation retains access to the decision evidence and the knowledge required to change supplier or approach.” This is a proposed commercial principle; its practical rights need to be reflected in the agreement. Avoid claiming supplier independence merely because the engagement is called consulting.
6. Connect authority to existing governance
Specify which roles approve investment, information access, operational release and changes to action authority. Refer to existing governance where it already works. The strategy should not create a new committee for every decision or imply that a technology lead can accept a professional judgement on behalf of the business.
The consultancy’s example boundary retains final technical acceptance with the responsible professional role. Questions about applicable obligations go to the relevant legal, security or sector specialist. Develop the detailed control framework through AI governance for Saudi businesses and ongoing accountability through the operating model. The strategy records the direction and delegation; it does not replace those instruments.
7. Set investment principles rather than an unsupported return promise
Adaptable clause: “Funding will be released for defined stages. Each stage will state its expected learning or operational output, cost boundary, owner and conditions for further commitment. The business case will distinguish cash effects, capacity and non-financial outcomes.” The business-case guide develops the financial comparison.
Include the alternative to continuing. If the evidence does not justify further work, the organisation may narrow, change or stop the initiative. Make that a valid management outcome. A strategy that promises expansion regardless of evidence is an investment commitment disguised as learning.
8. Define outcomes and the evidence of learning
Measure the complete task and the conditions that protect its quality. For the example, management could examine time spent assembling review material, whether sources are traceable, corrections required and whether staff use the result in actual work. These are candidate measures; their definitions and baselines must be agreed before target setting.
Ask what decision each measure informs. Tool logins may indicate access, but they do not show better project preparation. A low correction count may reflect good output or weak checking. Include qualitative review where it explains the numbers, and retain a route for staff to report unexpected problems.
9. Connect the roadmap and define review triggers
Name the roadmap owner and require every funded work package to trace back to a strategic choice. Keep the sequence, dependencies and delivery dates in the roadmap. Strategy versus roadmap explains the separation. Microsoft’s adoption guidance similarly connects leadership direction with business outcomes; the template here is an independent drafting aid.
Review the strategy when a central premise changes, an approved boundary needs expansion or evidence challenges the value of the selected outcome. Routine schedule changes need not reopen every strategic choice. Record what changed, why, who approved it and which roadmap items are affected.
Run a contradiction review before approval
Read the document as a set of commitments. Does it promise rapid autonomy while retaining approval capacity that does not exist? Does it require supplier portability without funding the knowledge needed to operate an alternative? Does it claim an enterprise scope while the evidence covers only one team? Resolve these contradictions explicitly.
Ask a process owner, finance reviewer and relevant control specialist to explain the strategy back in their own words. If they disagree about what is authorised, revise the document. Use the board presentation guide when converting it into an approval discussion.
For support drafting the choices and connected roadmap, explore Open for AI’s agentic AI consulting. Discuss an AI strategy document enquiry with your current priorities, a redacted workflow and the decisions the document must settle. Agree the drafting, evidence and review responsibilities as part of the scope.
FAQ
Your questions, answered.
How long should an AI strategy document be?
Long enough to make the important choices, assumptions and responsibilities unambiguous, and short enough for decision makers to use. Keep detailed inventories, assessment evidence and technical designs in supporting material. The document should not gain pages merely because the technology is complex. A reader should be able to identify the purpose, exclusions, next commitment and review triggers without searching through appendices.
Can we use this AI strategy template before choosing a platform?
Yes. It is intended to define the outcome, boundaries and selection principles before a platform is chosen. Describe required capabilities and operating conditions without pretending to know the final architecture. If an existing platform is a genuine constraint, record why and compare what can be achieved within it with the cost and consequences of changing it.
What should we write when the business baseline is missing?
State that the baseline is unresolved, name its owner and define the investigation that will establish it. The strategy can approve that investigation without promising a quantified benefit. Explain which later funding or scope decisions depend on the result. Avoid filling the gap with an industry percentage or a supplier demonstration that does not represent your process.
How should we manage versions of an AI strategy?
Keep an approved version, an assumption register and a change record explaining the decision, approver and affected commitments. Distinguish editorial clarification from a substantive change to scope, authority or investment. Do not silently overwrite a strategic boundary after a project starts. Teams should be able to identify which version authorised their current work and which assumptions remain under review.
Should the strategy include detailed AI policies?
Include the governing principles and decision responsibilities, then reference the relevant policies and operating procedures. Repeating the full policy set inside the strategy creates maintenance problems and can leave conflicting versions. The strategy must still be specific about its own authority boundaries; referring generally to governance is insufficient when the proposed activity could change who makes a consequential decision.
What makes an AI strategy document ready for approval?
The appropriate reviewers can explain the same choices, the evidence is distinguishable from assumptions, the next commitment is clear and ownership is accepted. Material contradictions must be resolved or explicitly escalated. Approval should record what has been authorised and what remains conditional. A polished document is not ready merely because all sections contain text or the presentation looks complete.