Hello Wei,
Thank you for the opportunity to share the architectural thinking we started at the recent dinner. This microsite represents my vision for IHG's agentic enterprise architecture and how I would build it as VP reporting to you. The video is the overview, and the details are in this microsite in the tabs.
Looking at the competitive field, Marriott is spending $1.1B on an "agentic mesh" pilot at six properties while Hilton is running 41 disconnected use cases. IHG's path is different and already articulated: Jolie has named the strategy Invisible AI, and you are building the organization to deliver it. The VP, AI Platform & Engineering role is the execution force that turns both into reality.
The operating mode I want to bring is the one you described: intensely competitive about impact, genuinely optimistic about what's possible, urgency and hope running in parallel.
I'm looking forward to making this a reality with you.
From what my research tells me, although gaps remain, IHG has done the initial work and made platform commitments rather than just buying technology. GCP has been your cloud since 2022, BigQuery anchors the data layer, Vertex AI and Gemini are already live in production through the travel planner, Salesforce Einstein 1 powers loyalty, the new AI-driven RMS has rolled across the eligible estate, Oracle OPERA Cloud is the approved next-generation PMS, and IHG Concerto still runs reservations underneath. The infrastructure foundation is in place.
The constraint that defines every architectural choice from here, however, is one that you have named publicly: IHG operates a 70%-franchised network, which means AI adoption cannot be mandated top-down. The strategy has to turn operators, franchisees, and employees into AI creators rather than just users.
The platform that wins is the one that treats them as customers rather than delivery targets, and that's the platform I propose to build.
My read is that the ingredients are already assembled: GCP as the foundation, One Rewards as the fuel, and the franchisee network as the constraint that shapes every architectural decision. What's missing is the layer that turns those ingredients into durable advantage: AI built on IHG's own logic, scars, and foresight rather than a generic stack.
From what I've seen working across hospitality and other regulated industries, AI for a 7,000-hotel company falls into three categories, and most operators only build the first two well.
Domain 1 makes the team faster, Domain 2 reimagines the guest experience, and Domain 3 (the back-of-house magic) is where margin compounds quietly over time. The third is the category Jolie has named "Invisible AI": AI that makes the employee more effective so the guest experience feels more human.
Done right, all three domains run on one platform and share one governance layer. Below I propose representative use cases in each domain that show where the platform compounds first.
My intent is that these three domains aren't separate programs, they're one platform expressed three ways. Domain 1 makes the team faster, Domain 2 reimagines what the guest experiences, and Domain 3 (the back-of-house work the guest never sees) is where margin compounds quietly over time. Most operators only do the first two well. Domain 3 is where IHG can build the kind of operational leverage that compounds quietly and is hard to replicate.
Most enterprise AI is a collection of point tools that don't reinforce each other. The platform I propose is a unified, GCP-native system where each layer makes the next one more useful: data feeds models, models drive agents, agents produce outcomes that come back as better data. Governance is built in from day one, so engineers spend their time building rather than assembling.
The platform spans architecture, governance, and the adoption culture that makes it work. It serves three masters: the business units who need AI use cases shipped fast, the risk function that needs every model accountable and auditable, and the colleagues and franchisees who need to adopt it. Good platform design makes all three allies.
This is the platform that runs underneath those three domains, and each layer below is sized to what AI for the Team, AI for the Guest, and AI for the Operation demand. The compounding only works because all three share one platform and one governance layer.
Beyond the layers above, your role spans architecture and AI together; the & in your title is doing real work. The biggest question I'm hearing inside other enterprises right now is what happens to traditional Enterprise Architecture when AI agents become first-class citizens of the operating model. My read is that EA doesn't get replaced; it pivots. Capability maps stay valuable, reference patterns stay valuable, the Architecture Review Board stays valuable. What changes is the artifacts those practices produce, the cadence at which they're versioned, and the audience they serve. Here is how I see the shift.
The pivot keeps everything an EA team already knows how to do and points it at faster cadences, more directly measurable outcomes, and machine-readable artifacts. The EA practice survives the AI era when it leans into the rigor it already has and updates the artifacts to match the new substrate. The discipline becomes EAIA: Enterprise AI Architecture, where the same governance, standards, and pattern thinking apply to a world where some of the actors running on the platform are not human.
This view is the conversation starter and it isn't supposed to be exhaustive, it's indicative of where my thinking is going and what I see as the priorities right now. We'll add to this as we go, and we'll add a lot.
In my experience, the AI transformations that fail are the ones that started with the slide deck and never arrived at the reality, and most plans I review look like Gantt charts.
What I propose instead is grounded in Retire, Reinvent, Build: retire what no longer earns its place, reinvent what's structurally sound but procedurally stuck, and build the orchestration layer that turns IHG's existing stack (GCP, BigQuery, Vertex AI + Gemini, OPERA Cloud, the new AI-driven RMS, and the Salesforce Einstein 1 loyalty backbone) into a single working platform.
What follows is the milestone sequence: each step earns the right to the next, and none of them skip the hard parts.
Across the regulated enterprises I've worked with, the AI program that scales is the one whose governance was designed for scale on day one, not retrofitted in year two. The pattern that works in practice: a single intake, risk-tiered review, value-realization tracking, and an executive portfolio view, all running from the first use case forward. Below is how that spine matures across the four milestones, so governance becomes the connective tissue rather than the brake.
Most enterprises treat governance as a stage gate after the platform is built, which is how you get the bottleneck this section is designed to avoid. The spine model runs governance and platform in parallel from day one, with each phase earning the right to the next. The four phases above borrow from a transformation pattern I've seen succeed at a major regulated enterprise: centralized intake, risk-tiered review, cross-functional orchestration, and value tracking, all designed for scale on day one rather than retrofitted in year two.
My experience is that the milestone sequence matters more than any single milestone. The retirements come first because unlearning is harder than building. The reinvents follow because they piggyback on infrastructure IHG already owns. The builds earn their place at the end rather than dictating the start. By M4 there are no "AI initiatives" anymore. There's an operating system, and the work shifts from launching it to scaling it.
The team I propose is built for end-to-end accountability.
VP, AI Platform & Engineering, reporting to you, owns both the platform engine and the AI solutions delivery org as one system. Every AI capability that ships at IHG runs on this shared platform, under shared strategy, governance, and standards.
Platform and delivery move at the same speed, because they are the same system.
My read is that the structure is the strategy. Keeping platform thinking and delivery thinking moving as one system, under shared strategy, governance, and standards, is what makes the operating model work. The team this produces is small, embedded, agent-multiplied, and focused. Not a department, an operating model.
To recap, I don't take the rarity of this role lightly.
I've done the public research, combined it with my opinions and experience, laid out the thinking across this microsite and had a lot of fun doing so. Every architectural decision I have ever done has been pressure-tested in production over the last many years across hospitality, financial services, life sciences, and high tech. I expect you will now pressure-test this document as well.
What I intend to bring is an open mind, flexibility, and the engineering depth to build the platform, the executive fluency to defend it, and the operating-model conviction you also mentioned: the hard part isn't the architecture, it's the delivery.
I am ready to begin.