Should Your Buy-Side Firm Hire a Head of AI?
Does your firm have a head of AI, VP of AI, or chief AI officer? If it doesn’t, not to worry. Maybe we are asking the wrong question. The better question is: What, specifically, are we trying to improve? In real estate, the adage is “location, location, location.” In AI transformation, it’s use case, use case, use case. Firms that begin with a high-impact use case tend to build momentum organically. Structure, governance, and titles come later.
In a May 2025 report, Gartner revealed that 70% of chief data and analytics officers (CDAO) are responsible for AI strategy and operating model.i In a more recent survey, 72% of corporate CEOs say they are main decision makers on driving AI strategy: Half of CEOs believe their job depends on getting AI right.ii
The industry is currently in the middle of an AI innovation in investment management hurricane, so no one understands the result of the storm yet, but everyone is searching for a way to proceed safely. Unquestionably, AI is revolutionizing business models for financial services, perhaps more than any sector. AI is rebuilding our software decision-making and automation, taking it from deterministic to probabilistic. Answering the question of how to navigate your firm’s strategy comes down to the size of the gap between enthusiasm and readiness, as well as your level of adoption capabilities and your appetite (and willingness) for investment.
What’s in a name? Street cred and branding?
Much of an investment firm’s decision on whether to hire a head of AI depends on the image it wants to project. The term itself, “artificial intelligence,” coined at Dartmouth in 1956,iii is wonderful branding, partially due to pop culture’s science-fiction fascination with the topic. Ironically, now that artificial intelligence is real, no one ever uses the entire term in favor of “AI.”
Job titles like head of AI have a certain level of cosmetic appeal. Make no mistake, in a tech-forward, fiercely competitive space like finance, AI bona fides are critical aspects of brand reputation. Our markets run on technology. For some firms, AI leadership credibility often functions as a marketing tool to demonstrate they are investing in R&D and not falling behind. However, you never want to let your street cred outrun the coverage — that is, you do not want to be called out for AI washing.
Your investment firm’s POV on AI
In our view, it is more important to have an authoritative point of view (POV) and clear plan for AI than to have a head of AI. Every buy-side firm is moving toward agentic AI and large language model (LLM) technology. And, in this technology-heavy business, clients, investors, job seekers, and partners all expect firms to be on the cutting edge. The baseline for any firm in 2026 is to have a strategic view on AI so they can answer client inquiries. However, that POV should be substantive, as substantive as their level of maturity. If a firm is a late adopter or a follower that sees AI’s potential but proceeds cautiously with small investments, its POV should reflect that sincerely. In today’s environment, investors may lose confidence in a fund if the manager cannot articulate a solid plan for AI initiatives.
Fear of missing out (FOMO) is rampant and can cause a pressure cooker environment in which one fund might have deployed AI agents in a sexy use case and suddenly competitors rush to do likewise. Or worse, a firm just wants to generate some kind of AI credibility and pressures middle management to come up with a use case without much holistic forethought. Even if a firm is a laggard in the AI race, if it has a POV and a future roadmap, it will be fine, especially in this early stage. Subsequently, when a meaningful use-case need arises that is solvable, the firm can throw some real dollars and talent at the rollout. At that point, somebody needs to take charge of AI transformation.
An AI steering committee: aligning investment, data, and technology teams
At Arcesium, we have a team of leaders from various departments who spearhead the planning and strategy for AI innovations. Firms that appoint an AI steering committee can leverage the existing roles that are already in place, like CTOs, chief information officers, and heads of data science. Further, a steering committee makes room for important input from the firm’s subject matter experts from operations, accounting, front office, and investor relations, who are already working on a particular problem or use case. Morgan Stanley has a “Firmwide AI team” working to unify the organization's efforts and steward the technology’s use in line with its core values.v
The steering committee can collaborate to decide how to allocate AI spending, govern AI risk, run change management, and communicate to stakeholders, among other things. Moreover, as WTW wrote, the AI leadership team will also need to “ensure the CEO, management team and workforce have the technological competence to execute the company’s AI agenda.”vi
Do I need to hire an AI prodigy?
While it is crucial that its technical leaders should have some degree of AI experience, firms can also rely on their network of partners, whether they are administrators, consultants, or solution providers. A good mix of vendor support and in-house R&D to drive the roadmap is sensible in terms of spending since the vendors absorb the cost of innovation. While vendors provide the technical engine, the firm’s internal lead must focus on understanding the business use case and how AI will augment specific operations.
McKinsey advises that firms use vendors while insourcing certain capabilities to “enhance execution speed and ensure access to key technologies.” But they should retain ownership of their technology roadmaps.vii
AI capabilities that endure, not just impress
AI is markedly different than previous shifts like the cloud. While cloud migration was about security and cost reduction, AI is perceived as a tool for survival and massive scaling, which can cause executives to force teams into use cases before they are ready. To avoid allowing the shiny new AI object gathering a patina of disappointment, buy-side firms should have a plan and POV on their AI implementation, an AI leadership group or steering committee to unfurl the roadmap, and helpful technology vendors with capital markets domain expertise. Ultimately, the goal of AI adoption should be to change the economics and trajectory of the business through thoughtful, use-case-driven strategies rather than technical hype.
Authored By
James DeAlto
As an Account Manager at Arcesium, James partners with leading firms across the investment management industry to optimize their data and operational strategies and generate long-term value. Leveraging his buy-side experience and deep understanding of the client perspective, he helps investment managers tackle today’s complex and rapidly evolving landscape with precision and confidence.
Share This post
[i] Gartner, May 12, 2025. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-05-12-gartner-survey-finds-seventy-percent-of-cdaos-are-responsible-for-artificial-intelligence-strategy-and-operating-model
[ii] BCG, January 15, 2026. https://www.bcg.com/press/15january2026-as-ai-investments-surge-ceos-take-lead
[iii] Dartmouth, 1956. https://home.dartmouth.edu/about/artificial-intelligence-ai-coined-dartmouth
[iv] CFA Institute, June 10, 2025. https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/reports/2025/ai-washing
[v] Morgan Stanley, 2026. https://www.morganstanley.com/about-us/technology/artificial-intelligence-firmwide-team
[vi] WTW, October 1, 2025. https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2025/10/lessons-in-implementing-board-level-ai-governance
[vii] McKinsey, July 16, 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/how-ai-could-reshape-the-economics-of-the-asset-management-industry