Most AI transformations will fail for a familiar reason. Not because the strategy is wrong, but because organisations misread how change actually happens. The recent BCG analysis makes this explicit: leaders assume alignment, but employees experience change as something imposed, not chosen. The gap matters. For IP‑intensive businesses, this is more than a cultural issue—it is a strategic risk. If the teams responsible for generating, protecting, managing and exploiting intellectual property are not genuinely engaged, the result is predictable: underutilised portfolios, weak invention pipelines, and missed opportunities to anchor competitive advantage around new capabilities. IP does not scale through announcements. It scales through behaviour—how people choose to buy in to IP processes and build, disclose, protect, and commercialise.
Treat IP as part of the transformation system, not an output of it. That means building real ownership around IP creation and use—clear incentives to capture AI‑driven inventions, disciplined processes to translate technical advances into defensible rights, and active governance to ensure portfolios align with evolving business models.
BCG’s point about the “messy middle” is particularly relevant here: this is where IP strategy either compounds value or quietly stalls. Signals such as silence, superficial alignment, or inconsistent execution often appear first in how teams handle IP decisions—what gets filed, what gets ignored, and what is allowed to drift. Leaders who design for agency, not compliance, will see stronger portfolios and clearer competitive positioning.
IP strategy must be embedded early, owned broadly, and executed consistently. That is how intangible assets become commercial outcomes.
Read the article here: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2026/ceos-are-betting-big-on-ai-transformations