Dataanalyse
Talere der omdanner komplekse data til klar strategi og hjælper organisationer med at træffe beslutninger baseret på evidens i stedet for intuition
Speakers Associates represents 52 speakers on Dataanalyse, including Limor Ziv, Daniel Trabucchi & Tommaso Buganza, Dr Sidney Shapiro, Theresa Payton, Dr Karen Nelson-Field PhD, Timandra Harkness, Karen Eber, Kieran Gilmurray, Joerg Niessing og Didem Ün Ateş.
Most organisations are spending heavily on AI without a clear view of which decisions the technology is actually supposed to improve. Models get shipped, dashboards proliferate, and senior leaders still cannot tell whether any of it is changing the quality of the choices the business makes. The missing layer is not more data or better algorithms, it is a disciplined way to connect AI outputs to the decisions a company is trying to get right.
Every organisation now sits on more customer signal than it can read. The question is no longer whether to listen to social and behavioural data, but how to turn it into a decision a marketing director, a customer service lead, or a board can actually act on. The gap between “we have the data” and “we changed what we do because of it” is where most programmes stall.
Established companies are being disrupted by platform businesses built on assets those companies already own. Legacy structures, customer relationships, and proprietary data are competitive advantages, but only if the organisation knows how to activate them as platforms. Most do not.
Most organisations sit on more data than ever and communicate less clearly than they used to. Boards, customers, and employees are drowning in dashboards, decks, and statistics that fail to land. The gap is not analytical capacity. It is the discipline of turning numbers into a story people actually act on.
Data presented without its uncertainty is a form of misrepresentation – and most organisations do it routinely. When leaders strip out confidence intervals or present probabilistic forecasts as settled conclusions, they create the appearance of clarity while compounding real risk. Boards that cannot interrogate the evidence behind a risk figure are making high-stakes decisions on grounds that have been quietly misrepresented.
Most organisations have committed to an AI strategy. Very few have built the governance architecture to make that strategy accountable at scale. The gap between an approved AI roadmap and actual enterprise-wide adoption is where initiatives stall, risk accumulates, and boards are left approving decisions they cannot yet evaluate. Closing that gap requires a different kind of expertise – one built inside organisations, not just around them.
Marketing budgets are getting bigger while the proof that any of it works is getting weaker. Viewability metrics inherited from a decade ago tell buyers an ad was technically on screen; they say nothing about whether a human noticed it. The gap between paid impressions and commercial outcome is now the single largest unmanaged risk on the marketing P&L.
Most boards have approved an AI strategy. Far fewer can explain how their models make decisions, where the bias sits, or what they will say to a regulator when one of those decisions is challenged. The gap between procurement and accountability is widening, and the answer is not another tooling vendor.
Most organisations have already run AI pilots. The harder question is what happens after the proof of concept ends. Procurement standards stay unclear, accountability for AI-assisted decisions is unassigned, and the governance frameworks people quote in slides do not survive contact with real workflows. Leadership teams cannot say with confidence which decisions AI should be trusted with and which it should not.
Most technology leaders are asked to deliver speed, resilience and measurable performance with a flat budget and a shrinking error tolerance. The leadership conversation has moved past digital transformation as a project and now sits inside the operating model itself. What executives want is a working picture of how IT, data and AI compound into competitive advantage when decisions are made in seconds and failure is public.
Most organisations deploying AI have optimised for capability, not accountability. Algorithms now shape hiring, lending, clinical diagnosis, and criminal justice at scale – but the governance structures to challenge them barely exist. The gap between what a model optimises for and what an organisation is actually accountable for is where the real risk lives.
Most large organisations have run AI pilots. Few have turned them into operating advantage at scale. The hard problem sits between proof-of-concept and production: legacy estate, unclear governance, talent gaps, and a board that wants commercial outcomes rather than experiments.