---
id: "entity-openai-d7"
type: "entity"
entityType: "organization"
canonicalName: "OpenAI"
aliases: []
source_timestamps: ["§ Flaw #1: It's too slow to be effective.", "¶1"]
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2026/05/what-are-your-companys-ai-nightmares"
source_title: "What Are Your Company's AI Nightmares?"
tags: ["ai-developer", "agentic-ai"]
related: ["concept-agentic-ai-governance-gap"]
sources: ["governance"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-governance"
originDay: 7
articleStem: "hbr-cl-82-ai-nightmares"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/05/what-are-your-companys-ai-nightmares"
sourceTitle: "What Are Your Company’s AI Nightmares?"
---
# OpenAI

**Role in this source:** A concrete example — the *catalyst* — for the pace-of-change argument.

**Profile:** An AI research and deployment company developing frontier models and tools. In this article, OpenAI is cited as having rendered a **Fortune 500 CPG company's** newly approved, year-in-the-making AI risk policy **out of date** by introducing agentic AI just **five months after** the policy's implementation.

This anecdote is the evidentiary backbone of [[claim-standard-rai-too-slow]] and the lived form of [[concept-agentic-ai-governance-gap]].

**Enrichment note:** The specific five-month timing and client attribution are a **case example from Blackman's consulting practice**, not a publicly documented event — treat the anecdote as illustrative rather than independently verifiable. OpenAI's broader relevance (rapid, agent-like capability shifts outpacing corporate policy) is uncontroversial and echoed across AI-governance commentary.