‘Digital Me’, the idea that an individual’s knowledge, judgement and way of thinking can be captured and deployed digitally, is already being positioned as the next frontier of AI.

It’s gaining traction quickly, not just because of the technology itself, but because organizations are starting to recognize what it might mean for how work is delivered.

But the conversation is already drifting in the wrong direction. We are focusing on the technology, when the real issue sits somewhere else entirely.

Because this isn’t about tools. It’s about value.

For the first time, an individual’s capability can exist independently of their time. What someone knows, how they think, how they make decisions…all of it can now be captured, scaled and reused. That changes the nature of work in a way that most organizations haven’t yet fully processed.

If we’re honest, businesses have never really paid for time. They’ve paid for capability, for how people solve problems, make decisions and create value. Time was simply the most convenient way of measuring it, but it was always a proxy.

What’s changed is that the proxy has already broken, we just haven’t redesigned the system that replaces it.

Because when someone leaves an organization, their value no longer has to leave with them. It can remain embedded within systems, continuing to generate output long after the employment relationship has ended. In that moment, the nature of that relationship fundamentally shifts.

We are no longer dealing with a straightforward exchange of time for income. We are dealing with something much closer to an asset.

And that is where the real questions begin.

Ownership will be decided, with or without HR

If a Digital Me is trained on an individual’s knowledge, experience and decision-making, the question of ownership becomes unavoidable.

Does it sit with the individual? The organization? Or somewhere in between? These are not abstract questions, they move quickly into contracts, commercial models, and how organizations define value itself.

Historically, organizations have protected value through restrictive covenants, intellectual property clauses and employment terms, all built on one assumption: that value leaves with the individual.

That assumption no longer holds.

Capability can now exist in two forms, the human and their digital counterpart, and each can operate independently. That raises a more fundamental question: what exactly is the organization employing?

Is it a person, with a digital extension of their role? Is it two forms of value under one agreement? Or are we moving towards hybrid models, where part of the relationship sits within employment and part sits outside it, more akin to service provision?

Each of those scenarios leads to a different outcome. And right now, most organizations are not equipped to answer them, but many will default to answering them anyway.

What’s striking is how quickly the debate is beginning to divide. There are already voices suggesting that any form of ‘Digital Twin’ should sit firmly with the organization. It’s a position that feels commercially convenient, particularly for businesses trying to secure long-term value.

It’s also fundamentally flawed.

Capturing someone’s capability in digital form does not suddenly make it organizational property. If anything, it makes the question of ownership more important, not less. Because without clear boundaries, the line between enabling value and absorbing it doesn’t just blur, it disappears.

And that has real consequences.

If individuals are contributing their intelligence into systems that outlive their employment, without ongoing control, recognition or participation in the value created, we are no longer talking about workforce transformation.

We are talking about extraction.

This is where HR sits, whether it has fully engaged with it yet or not.

Because this is not just a legal or technical question. It is a question of how work is defined, how value is recognized, and who gets to participate in it. And those are fundamentally HR questions.

The challenge is that most HR functions are still operating within an industrial model, one built around roles, time, and employment as the primary boundary. That model doesn’t hold in a world where capability can exist independently of presence or hours worked.

Which means HR may feel it still has a choice – but, in reality, that choice is already being made.

HR can step into this space and begin to define how employees’ ‘Digital Me’ are owned, governed and valued, working alongside legal, policy and commercial teams to shape what this becomes.

Or it can allow those decisions to be made elsewhere, in contracts, in procurement, and increasingly in policy.

Because this is not just an organizational issue. It is already beginning to surface in wider regulatory conversations around data, AI and employment. And once those positions are set, they will be far harder to unwind.

The shift itself is already underway.

The question is not whether Digital Me becomes part of how work is structured. It is who defines the terms on which it happens.

That definition cannot be left to drift.

Because the legal and organizational risks are already starting to emerge.

If Digital Me is trained on employee capability without clear ownership frameworks, organizations risk entering contested intellectual property territory.

If outputs continue to be generated after an individual leaves, questions of control, liability, and ongoing rights become unavoidable.

And where individuals contribute to systems that generate value beyond their employment, without clarity on participation, organizations move into ethically and commercially unstable ground.

These are not future risks. They are current structural gaps.

And they will not be resolved by default in favour of fairness or clarity. They will be resolved by whoever defines them first, through contracts, policy, and operating design.

This is where HR must step in, not as a support function, but as a defining force.

That starts with taking a clear position on ownership, what constitutes individual capability, what constitutes organizational asset, and where the boundary sits when the two become intertwined.

It requires separating human contribution from digital output in contracts and policy, rather than treating them as a single unit.

And it demands active collaboration with legal, procurement, and technology functions to ensure that Digital Me is governed intentionally, not inherited accidentally.

Because once these structures are set, they will be difficult to reverse.

The organizations that move early will define how value is captured and distributed. The ones that hesitate will inherit decisions that were never designed with them, or their people, in mind.

The individual is no longer just part of the system.

They are becoming a system in their own right.

And if HR does not step in now, it will not just lose influence over the future of work. It will lose its position within it.