Published November 24, 2025 | Version Version: 1.0 (Final DOI Edition)
Report Open

The AI Navigation Gap: A Cross-Domain Analysis of Why Modern Organizations Cannot Form a Unified Future Logic

Authors/Creators

Contributors

Rights holder:

Description

Despite unprecedented investments in artificial intelligence, digital transformation and regulatory compliance, modern organizations are losing their ability to produce a unified, future-oriented strategic outlook. Global research shows that 70% of digital transformation programs underperform, up to 85% of AI initiatives fail to scale, and leadership teams lose hundreds of thousands of managerial hours due to contradictory futures and fragmented decision-making.

This paper introduces the concept of the AI Navigation Gap: a systemic governance failure in which organizational functions operate on divergent Future Logics — conflicting interpretations of future constraints, risks, incentives and timelines in AI-driven environments. Drawing on systems theory, institutional logics, decision science and cross-sector empirical evidence, the study shows how the absence of a structural integrator leads to contradiction cycles, strategic paralysis and AI adoption failures.

The paper proposes the Navigation Layer as a new governance function capable of integrating cross-domain futures into a unified 24–36 month strategic outlook, reducing fragmentation, supporting regulatory alignment and enabling AI-era strategic coherence.

Files

The AI Navigation Gap .pdf

Files (2.3 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:688b9e462f8d4d470c23080224b58ee7
2.3 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works

References
Report: 10.2139/ssrn.5374312 (DOI)
Report: 10.2139/ssrn.5561078 (DOI)
Report: 10.2139/ssrn.5543162 (DOI)
Report: 10.2139/ssrn.5489746 (DOI)

References

  • Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.
  • Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208.
  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
  • Institutional Logics & Organizational Sociology
  • Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Wiley.
  • Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.
  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). Institutional logics: A theory of social orders. Oxford University Press.
  • Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Viking.
  • Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Little, Brown Spark.
  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. Wiley.
  • Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76.
  • Accenture. (2024). State of AI adoption report.
  • BCG. (2022). Global digital transformation progress study.
  • Gartner. (2023). Why 85% of AI projects fail. Gartner Research.
  • IBM. (2024). Shadow IT and unapproved AI tools report.
  • McKinsey. (2023). The state of AI in 2023.
  • MIT Sloan. (2024). Generative AI: Enterprise value impact report.
  • OECD. (2023). OECD framework for classifying AI systems.
  • Stanford HAI. (2024). AI index report.
  • World Economic Forum. (2024). Future of jobs report.
  • Delinea. (2024). Shadow IT & unapproved AI usage study.
  • ENISA. (2023). AI cybersecurity threat landscape report.
  • IBM Security. (2023). AI and data exposure risk report.
  • EBA, ESMA, & EIOPA. (2023). AI governance & model risk guidelines.
  • European Commission. (2023). NIS2 Directive.
  • European Data Protection Board. (2024). Guidelines on GDPR & AI models.
  • European Union. (2023). Data Act.
  • European Union. (2024). AI Act (Artificial Intelligence Regulation).
  • ISO/IEC. (2024). ISO/IEC 42001: AI management system standard.
  • NIST. (2023). AI risk management framework.
  • BCG. (2020). Flipping the odds in digital transformation.
  • McKinsey. (2021). The case for reinventing the company.
  • MIT Center for Information Systems Research. (2023). Why digital transformations fail.
  • Upmann, P. (2025). AIGN OS – The operating system for responsible AI governance. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5374312
  • Upmann, P. (2025). AIGN OS – Trust infrastructure: Certification, licensing, and market enforcement for responsible AI. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5561078
  • Upmann, P. (2025). AIGN OS – AI agents: The AI governance stack as a new regulatory infrastructure. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5543162
  • Upmann, P. (2025). AIGN systemic AI governance stress test. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5489746