An organisation is defining the concept of cross-functional collaboration within its AI governance programme. Which statement best captures why such collaboration is treated as a structural requirement rather than an optional courtesy between teams?
- ACross-functional collaboration exists primarily to speed up product delivery, so governance committees should defer to engineering timelines whenever a release deadline is at stake.
- BIt is needed because data protection law requires every AI project to be approved unanimously by all departments before any development work may begin.
- CIt mainly allows the executive sponsor to delegate accountability for AI outcomes across the participating functions, so that responsibility is shared and no individual carries it.
- DAI systems raise risks spanning legal, technical, ethical and business domains, so no single function holds all the expertise needed to govern them, making coordinated input across functions essential. Correct
Why A is wrong: This is tempting because collaboration can reduce friction, but subordinating governance to delivery deadlines inverts its purpose; the point is to surface risk across functions, not to clear the path for faster shipping.
Why B is wrong: This is plausible because data protection regimes such as the GDPR do impose assessment duties, but no framework mandates unanimous all-department approval before development; the claim overstates a real obligation into an invented one.
Why C is wrong: This is tempting because committees do distribute work, but collaboration does not dissolve accountability; sound governance keeps a single accountable owner even when many functions contribute, so diffusing answerability is wrong.
Why D is correct: This is correct because the risks of AI systems cut across data protection, security, fairness, engineering and commercial concerns, and effective governance requires the relevant functions to contribute and align rather than acting in isolation.