Enterprise leaders are pressing ahead with artificial intelligence, even as some early results remain uneven. Reporting from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters shows that most CEOs expect AI spending to keep rising through 2026, despite difficulty tying those investments to clear, enterprise-wide returns.
The tension highlights where many organisations now sit in their AI journey. The technology has moved beyond trials and proofs of concept, but it has yet to settle into a reliable source of value. Companies are operating in an in-between phase, where ambition, execution, and expectations are all under strain at the same time.
Spending continues, even as returns lag
AI budgets have climbed steadily in large enterprises over the past two years. Competitive pressure, board oversight, and fear of being left behind have all played a role. At the same time, executives are more open about the limits they are seeing. Gains often show up in pockets rather than in the business, pilots fail to spread, and the cost of connecting AI systems to existing tools keeps rising.
A Wall Street Journal survey of senior executives found that most CEOs see AI as central to long-term competitiveness, even if short-term benefits are hard to measure. For many, AI no longer feels optional. It is treated as a capability that must be developed over time, rather than a project that can be paused if results disappoint.
That view helps explain why spending remains steady. Leaders worry that cutting back now could weaken their position later, especially as rivals improve how they use the technology.
Why pilots struggle to scale
One of the main barriers to stronger returns is the jump from experimentation to day-to-day use. Many organisations have launched AI pilots in different teams, often without shared rules or coordination. While these efforts can generate insight and interest, few translate into changes that affect the wider business.
Reuters has reported that companies trying to scale AI frequently run into issues with data quality, system links, security controls, and regulatory requirements. The problems are not only technical, but reflect how work is organised. Responsibility is often split in teams, ownership is unclear, and decisions slow down once projects touch legal, risk, and IT functions.
The result is a pattern of heavy spending on trials, with limited progress toward systems that are embedded in core operations.
Infrastructure costs reshape the equation
The cost of infrastructure is also weighing on AI returns. Training and running models demands large amounts of computing power, storage, and energy. Cloud bills can rise quickly as use grows, while building on-site systems requires upfront investment and long planning cycles. Executives cited by Reuters have warned that infrastructure costs can outpace the benefits delivered by AI tools, particularly in the early stages. This has led to tough choices: whether to centralise AI resources or leave teams to experiment on their own; whether to build in-house systems or rely on vendors; and how much waste is acceptable while capabilities are still forming.
In practice, these decisions are shaping AI strategy as much as model performance or use-case selection.
AI governance moves to the centre of CEO decision-making
As AI spending increases, so does scrutiny. Boards, regulators, and internal audit teams are asking harder questions. In response, many organisations are tightening control. Decision rights are shifting toward central teams, AI councils are becoming more common, and projects are being linked more closely to business priorities.
The Wall Street Journal reports that companies are moving away from loosely connected experiments toward clearer goals, measures, and timelines. This can slow progress, but it reflects a growing belief that AI should be managed with the same discipline as other major investments.
The shift marks a change in how AI is treated. It is no longer a side effort or a curiosity but is being brought into existing operating and risk structures.
Expectations are being reset, not abandoned
Importantly, the persistence of AI spending does not signal blind optimism. Instead, it reflects a reset in expectations. CEOs are learning that AI rarely delivers immediate, sweeping returns. Value tends to emerge gradually, as organisations adjust workflows, retrain staff, and refine data foundations.
Rather than abandoning AI initiatives, many enterprises are narrowing their focus. They are prioritising fewer use cases, demanding clearer ownership, and aligning projects more closely with business outcomes. The re-calibration may reduce short-term excitement, but it improves the likelihood of sustainable returns.
What CEO AI strategy signals for 2026 planning
For organisations shaping their plans for 2026, the message for every CEO is not to retreat from AI, but to pursue it with more care as AI strategies mature. Ownership, governance, and realistic timelines matter more than headline spending levels or bold claims.
Those most likely to benefit are treating AI as a long-term shift in how the organisation works, not a quick route to growth. In the next phase, advantage will depend less on how much is spent and more on how well AI fits into everyday operations.
(Photo by Ambre Estève)
Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and co-located with other leading technology events. Click here for more information.
AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.
