Most boards still review artificial intelligence (AI) investments as a conventional line item, approving numbers once a year before turning their attention elsewhere. That standard approach creates a major blind spot because AI spending behaves unlike any other line on an enterprise budget. By the time overruns appear on quarterly reports, the capital has already left the building. For Bomsi Billimoria, Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of EvoXvantage, this disconnect means enterprise AI spend now requires direct board oversight rather than passive budget approval.
Why Decentralized Spending Slips Past Finance
Billimoria developed his perspective through decades of managing large-scale restructuring across major financial institutions. “I’ve spent more than 25 years running cost and process transformation inside Cantor Fitzgerald, Société Générale, GE Capital, and Natixis, delivering over $20 million in annual savings and a 30 percent reduction in operating costs,” he notes. “I’ve sat in the room where these decisions get made.” From that vantage point, he sees companies making familiar mistakes with new technology.
Unlike traditional enterprise tools that follow structured rollout plans, modern AI tools enter organizations through multiple uncoordinated doors. “Firstly, AI spend arrives from everywhere at once,” Billimoria explains. “It comes in through pilots, license add-ons, cloud consumption, and departmental cards.” Yet the total liability remains hidden from executive leadership, because so many teams can buy or test these tools independently.
The resulting lack of visibility stems directly from how different departments track their operations in isolation. “Procurement sees the contract. Finance sees the invoice. IT sees the usage,” Billimoria points out. “Each team holds one slice, and the gaps between them are where the money disappears. A single annual approval will never catch that.” Without an aligned view across these three functions, organizations end up footing bills without sufficient financial planning.
The Financial Shift To Consumption-Based Models
A major reason budgets break down is that the pricing structure behind AI differs fundamentally from older software. In traditional setups, companies pay per seat, making annual costs relatively easy to predict based on hiring projections. “Secondly, the cost moves with usage, not headcount,” Billimoria says. “Traditional software is predictable. AI is consumption-based, so spending climbs the moment adoption climbs.”
When employees find productive ways to use these tools, computational usage jumps, and the company’s financial obligations rise alongside it. Vendor contracts often include hidden clauses that trigger steep rate hikes once teams exceed standard activity thresholds. “Commitments, overage terms, and auto-renewals sit inside contracts that most boards have never read,” Billimoria says. “That belongs in front of directors, the same way credit exposure does.”
Corporate directors routinely evaluate credit risks and balance sheet exposures to protect capital from unexpected market swings. Billimoria argues that unmonitored software consumption carries similar financial volatility if left unchecked. Bringing these contractual details into the boardroom allows leadership to set firm boundaries before small experiments turn into major liabilities.
Three Questions Every Board Should Ask
Gaining control of this spend does not mean boards have to build new oversight systems from scratch. Directors already spend considerable time managing complex risks, counterparty exposures, and third-party vendor relationships. “Thirdly, boards already know how to govern this,” Billimoria points out. “You oversee risk, concentration, and vendor dependency every quarter.” To establish real control, directors should focus on practical questions that bring clarity to their organization’s technology commitments. “Ask for one shared view of contracts, invoices, and the general ledger,” Billimoria advises. “Ask who owns the renewal. Ask what happens if usage doubles.” These direct checks cut through technical jargon and quickly show whether management has a handle on ongoing expenses. Clear ownership stops vendors from quietly locking companies into expensive long-term agreements through automated renewal clauses. Modeling what happens if usage doubles gives executives a realistic view of their worst-case cost projections. As Billimoria puts it, “Those three questions will tell you more than any budget line.”
As companies embed automated systems deeper into daily operations, the financial stakes will only continue to rise. Leaving these expenses to standard annual reviews leaves leadership reacting to past numbers rather than steering future outlays. “AI is going to be one of your largest spend categories within two years,” Billimoria emphasizes. “Treat it like a governance question now, and you keep control of it.” Organizations that build unified oversight today can test and expand new technologies without putting their operating margins at risk. Those that wait risk leaking capital across dozens of disconnected departmental budgets. Establishing clear lines of accountability between IT, finance, and procurement ensures that adoption remains profitable. Directors and executives looking to reassess their oversight practices can begin by reviewing their current contractual exposures and reporting structures. “If your board is having this conversation, I’d welcome hearing how you’re approaching it,” Billimoria says.
Leaders interested in reviewing their operational spending strategy can arrange a conversation directly with Bomsi Billimoria through Calendly or check out his LinkedIn.
