A CIO, a CTO, and a CAIO walk into a conference room…

When managed service provider Ensono began building its DiagnoseNow tool, an internal AI-assistant for handling root-cause analysis and remediation of IT incidents, the company’s tech leaders divvied up the responsibilities.

The AI-powered service desk tool pulls data associated with a ServiceNow case number, summarizes the incident, and suggests resolutions.

This chain of actions requires a chain of command. The CIO handles security of the data in the data lake, the CTO manages ServiceNow concerns and the client-facing portal, and the chief AI officer (CAIO) writes the tool’s first version and logic.

This is just one example of how CAIOs are helping accelerate companies’ automation efforts. Interested in embracing AI as fast as possible, more organizations are seeking out executives with this specialized knowledge: an IBM survey found that a little over three in four (76%) global CEOs have a chief AI officer in 2026—up from 26% in 2025.

But the executive lounge can get crowded, and uncomfortable, if roles and duties aren’t firmly established. For example, a CAIO could develop issues with a CTO who sees AI as ultimately their responsibility.

Ensono’s trio has what they call a “three musketeers” approach that clearly defines responsibilities for each member.

Role call. Here’s how Ensono defines each member’s responsibility:

• CAIO Jim Piazza decides where and how the company should use AI, making sure in-house ideas are “turned up, executed on, and deliver the value expected.”
• CIO Savio Lobo manages business systems like Salesforce, Workday, and Microsoft 365, along with data warehousing services.
• CTO Tim Beerman is responsible for the core operational platforms like the ServiceNow implementation. With input from the other musketeers, Beerman evaluates when it’s time to use a vendor’s embedded AI capabilities or try a different option; he also ensures that every associate at the company has the ability to try out AI tools, according to Lobo.

This creation of task and priority boundaries stemmed from a mandate by the company’s executive team to incorporate AI and accelerate the development of services; the team made Piazza chief AI officer in October 2025, and the three musketeers established their specific swim lanes shortly thereafter.

Sometimes the three are talking “every minute,” according to Piazza, in addition to their weekly meeting to discuss any roadblocks on core initiatives.

“Where are we stuck? Where are we blocked?…They’re generally more strategic discussions, not tactical, in the weeds,” Piazza said. “We each have our own distinct responsibilities, but we also have a shared accountability to the business to drive innovation forward, and part of that innovation story is AI.”

But you have to draw the line somewhere. “Ownership of systems and projects…in my mind, that’s the biggest clarifying line,” Lobo said.

Big data. Sebastian Wernicke, partner at finance and economic consultancy Oxera, defined common responsibilities for today’s executives, particularly those focused on IT:

• The CIO is tasked with security and enterprise efficiency.
• The CTO builds competitive, scalable, revenue-driving products.
• The CAIO must transform the business by injecting AI capabilities into operations and products.

“All of these mandates rely on the same foundational technology, which is where their responsibilities heavily overlap, including infrastructure, compute budgets, and deployment pipelines,” Wernicke wrote to us.

IBM defines a CAIO’s responsibility as providing strategic leadership, technology oversight, team management, and education throughout an organization’s AI adoption—similar responsibilities, at a high level at least, to tactical CTOs and CIOs. (CAIOs are still figuring out those swim lanes, as IT Brew reported recently.)

Wernicke recommends that companies avoid steering committees (those dilute accountability, he said) and align decision-making with ownership. For example, if the goal is to automate customer support, one executive should own that mission from inception to production. “The other leaders do not get a veto over the project, but act as internal platform providers setting the boundaries (like security guardrails or budget limits) within which the owner has the absolute freedom to operate,” he wrote to us.

Another useful principle, according to Wernicke: assign ownership based on the primary business outcome. A CTO could manage market-facing problems impacting the end customer, the CIO perhaps owns enterprise-facing problems, and the CAIO handles net-new capabilities that don’t “fit neatly into existing product or IT lines,” Wernicke suggested.