One in Three Firms Pouring Money Into AI With Minimal Oversight, IDC Finds

A new IDC survey of 800 technology leaders across APAC, Europe, and the US has found that roughly one in three companies investing in AI are doing so with little to no formal oversight — no dedicated AI ethics board, no regular model auditing, and no clear governance framework for how AI decisions are reviewed. The findings, reported by Singapore Business Review, highlight a growing gap between AI spending and AI governance that carries significant regulatory and reputational risk for firms operating in Singapore.

Singapore-based companies were well-represented in the survey pool, and the results echo concerns raised locally by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and IMDA about rapid AI adoption outpacing risk management. The MAS has issued several advisories in recent months urging financial institutions to establish clear accountability structures for AI-driven decisions, particularly in lending, insurance, and customer service. Yet the IDC data suggests that governance frameworks remain embryonic even among firms that have already deployed AI in production.

The survey also found that companies with formal AI governance structures reported higher ROI from their AI investments — a counterintuitive finding that challenges the narrative that oversight slows innovation. Respondents with ethics boards and regular audits said they were more confident deploying AI in high-stakes scenarios and reported fewer incidents of model drift, bias complaints, or regulatory pushback. This suggests governance is not a tax on AI spending but an enabler of safer, more ambitious deployment.

For Singapore, these findings carry weight because the city-state's regulatory model relies heavily on industry self-governance within framework guidelines. If a third of firms are investing without proper oversight, the so-called "comply or explain" approach may not be sufficient, and the authorities may need to consider more prescriptive rules — particularly in regulated sectors like finance and healthcare where AI errors have direct consumer impact.

Why it matters for Singapore: The IDC survey provides the first broad cross-market data point on the governance gap in AI spending. For Singapore's regulators, it validates concerns that voluntary frameworks alone aren't enough. For Singapore-based AI buyers and builders, it's a reminder that governance is becoming a competitive advantage — firms that can demonstrate responsible AI use will find it easier to win government contracts, bank partnerships, and enterprise deals in Singapore's increasingly discerning market.