As organizations scale artificial intelligence across the enterprise, finance leaders are being asked to approve increasingly significant investments while managing costs that can be volatile, difficult to forecast and challenging to control. New findings indicate that many organizations could benefit from greater real-time visibility, advanced AI-specific controls, and rapid-response capabilities to manage spending effectively once these technologies go live. For chief financial officers, the challenge is no longer simply deciding what to fund; it is building the cost governance and discipline important to scaling AI responsibly.

These insights come from Deloitte’s third-quarter 2026 CFO Signals Survey, which polls 200 CFOs from North American organizations with annual revenues of at least $1 billion each quarter. The survey findings align with the Deloitte Finance Trends 2027 research, which found that many finance leaders are taking on expanded responsibilities for AI trust, capital allocation and cost management. With leaders in the Trends report anticipating greater cost and complexity through 2027, finance organizations may need to increase the sophistication of their approaches to AI cost governance.

AI cost volatility can undermine CFO coordination

Nearly 80% of respondents to the CFO Signals Survey indicate that finance has a formal role in their organizations’ AI-related decisions, with 38% defining or administering the evaluation framework and 41% serving as required approvers. That compares with 20% who provide just cost, budget, or accounting guidance but do not shape the decision. For many, these are relatively new responsibilities. The Finance Trends research found that more than two-thirds of leaders who oversee AI trust, capital allocation, or cost management took on an owner or approver role within the past three years.

The criticality of AI cost governance and controls is clear. For decades, organizations operated in a seat-based software world built around purchasing licenses, deploying tools, and measuring adoption. Higher usage typically signaled success because costs remained relatively predictable regardless of how often employees used the technology.

Now, however, commercial AI providers are more commonly charging per token rather than per user seat or at flat rates, and AI bills can spike quickly due to large context windows or long conversation loops. As a result, finance organizations often find themselves under pressure to justify the business value of token use. Given the potential for variable billing and rapidly increasing costs, a strong case can be made for greater investment discipline with “tokenomics”—the financial practice of measuring, pricing, and optimizing the consumption of tokens.

AI cost volatility

Survey results indicate that many organizations tend to evaluate AI spending reactively instead of proactively. When the cost of using AI technologies and services are reviewed, a little over half of survey respondents (53%) say their organizations’ primary practice is to review AI usage costs retrospectively through vendor bills, periodic reports, dashboards, or manual analysis. Fewer respondents (47%) monitor AI usage costs in or close to real time and actively manage deviations using alerts, dashboards, spending anomaly reviews, or budget forecasts.

When asked to indicate how their organizations manage AI consumption costs, including model usage, cloud infrastructure, data processing, and licensing, most surveyed CFOs (80%) report that their organizations’ use less advanced controls: More than half (56%) use only basic AI-specific controls, such as usage guardrails, team-level budgets, or AI cost attribution, while 24% rely only on general controls, such as existing IT financial operations and budgeting processes. In contrast, only 20% use advanced AI-specific controls, such as token- or workload-level attribution, AI gateways, or caching.

The full report can be found here.