In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.

They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?

The 5 layers of public-sector control

For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:

• Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.
• Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.
• Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.
• Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.
• Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.

Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is.  Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.

The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.

The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.

Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.

Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.

None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.

Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:

1. Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?
2. Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?
3. Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?
4. Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?
5. Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?
6. Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”

Block did the same thing. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.

This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, you’re behind.

The benchmark has moved

AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, the average revenue per employee is $3.48M, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.

Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.

This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.

For CIOs, this creates a hiring problem that looks nothing like the cloud or mobile talent gaps of the past decade. Those gaps were about volume: hire 100 cloud engineers, absorb the cost, build the capability… This one is about density; you’re not looking for 100 people. You’re looking for 10 who can deliver what 100 couldn’t, and justify $1M or more in value per seat.

Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.

‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost

Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: these are acqui-hires dressed up as M&A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.

I’ve been on the other side of this. My company, MadKudu, was acquired by HG Insights specifically to bring AI-native capability into an established enterprise business. HG needed change agents who had already figured out how to build and ship in this new era, not just people who’d read about it. That’s the thesis behind most of these deals.

But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.

AI-native teams are fast because they operate with a different set of defaults: full access to tools, minimal governance layers, the ability to experiment and ship without a six-week approval cycle. That operating model is not a perk; it’s the fundamental mechanism. It’s why a team of 10 can do what an enterprise team of 100 can’t.

When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.

The harder realization: acquiring an AI-native team means accepting how they work. That requires deliberately carving out space for them to operate differently, not just tolerating it but institutionalizing it. The acquisition is an organizational change program, not just a hiring event.

The CIO’s real problem

The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.

That calculus breaks when your goal is talent density. The same approval processes that protect against data leaks are now the reason your best people can’t do their best work. When it takes six weeks to approve a tool that your competitor’s team is already shipping with, you’ve traded velocity for the perception of safety.

The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.

The skills inventory question is also more nuanced than it sounds. Job titles won’t tell you where the leverage is. You need to map the actual tasks within each function and assess which can be automated or augmented with AI. That’s where you find the people who, with the right tools, become your $1M/employee talent, not because you hired differently, but because you enabled better.

This is also where the build-versus-buy question gets genuinely tricky. As AI reshapes how products are built and delivered, your internal operating model — how you work, how fast you ship, how you use data — is becoming core IP. Outsourcing delivery means outsourcing the part of the organization where your competitive advantage is now being built.

Closing the gap without slowing down

The AI talent wars are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.

Boards have a new benchmark. Cloudflare, Block, Amazon, Meta and others have already started restructuring to meet it, publicly, painfully, even while beating their numbers. The question for CIOs isn’t whether this pressure arrives; it’s whether you’re ahead of it or behind it when it does.

The organizations that navigate this well won’t win by outbidding competitors for a handful of elite engineers. They’ll win by designing operating systems that amplify the leverage of the talent they do have, by enabling their best people rather than constraining them, and by treating AI fluency as a core organizational capability rather than a niche specialization.

Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.

When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”

Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.

Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).

Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.

Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from “How much money will AI save us?” to “How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”

Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.

When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”

Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.

Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).

Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.

Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from “How much money will AI save us?” to “How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”

Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

A new attack method found by Zenity Labs reveals that AI agents are becoming persistent insiders that attackers can recruit, rather than malware they have to install.

Its researchers have discovered AgentForger, a phishing-based attack that silently creates and launches a fully autonomous AI agent within OpenAI workspaces.

Once running, the agent has full access to apps like Outlook, Slack, SharePoint, and Google Drive. It is configured to operate indefinitely without further user interaction, can approve its own access by toggling “never ask” settings, and can continue to act on new assignments sent via email by the attackers that control it. Broad, unfettered access to systems allows it to perform reconnaissance, harvest sensitive data and credentials, impersonate victims, and launch phishing campaigns.

While OpenAI resolved the vulnerability four days after disclosure, on a larger scale, AgentForger sheds light on what can happen when AI agents go rogue.

“We’re moving into a world where software doesn’t just help people work. It works alongside them,” said Michael Bargury, co-founder and CTO of agentic AI security platform Zenity. “As AI agents become more capable, attackers will naturally look for ways to influence them, just as they’ve always looked for ways to influence people.”

A ‘persistent operator’ that acts without approval

OpenAI’s Workspace Agents can connect and work autonomously across Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, and Teams. Users open the agent builder, describe what the agent can do in natural language, connect to tools, set approvals, review and test, schedule actions, then publish. For instance, an agent can autonomously handle incoming emails, review and take actions with approval, gather information from various sources to send out daily briefings, or automatically respond to questions in ChatGPT or Slack channels.

Normally, this is “useful automation,” Zenity AI red team researcher Mike Takahashi wrote in a blog post. But in this attack, “the same scheduler becomes the persistence mechanism.”

The creation workflow kicks off the moment a user clicks on a phishing link containing instructions from the threat actor. For the attack to work, a victim must be logged into ChatGPT and Workspace Agents, and have at least one integration with another app, such as Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, or Teams.

Because those connections already exist, OAuth consent screens are not triggered. Furthermore, the victim does not need to click on another link, keep a Builder tab open, or even visit ChatGPT again.

The forged agent is a “persistent operator;” it is installed on the original click and given a schedule, and at those predetermined times, the agent invokes itself, scans for emails from attacker addresses with the subject line “task”, carries those orders out, then returns results to the same attacker-controlled email address.

It goes undetected because the attacker prompt instructs the Builder to toggle Outlook to never ask for approval of its actions. Typically, the default is “always ask,” to keep agents from taking unauthorized action; that switch gives agents the ability to act without asking for human approval.

“AgentForger showed that an attacker could deploy an autonomous insider agent inside your ChatGPT workspace with a single click,” said Bargury. From there, it can continue to access information, harvest credentials from various sources, impersonate employees, and carry out phishing attacks and fraud while “leveraging the trusted victim’s identity.”

A ‘planted accomplice’ that does all the work

Once activated, AgentForger can perform reconnaissance to create an internal map of a company. For instance, agents can scan Outlook, Slack, Teams, Google Drive, SharePoint, or calendar data to identify people, roles, active projects, internal discussions, or all-hands recurring meetings. This can help attackers identify where in the enterprise to target next, based on active teams and channels, projects in the works, or prominent users.

“This is the kind of internal context an attacker normally has to build slowly,” Takahashi noted. But in this scenario, action is based on a single emailed assignment. The attacker’s “planted accomplice” does all the work.

In another scenario, the agent can steal data by searching for and identifying financial documents, business agreements, or invoices. Or, it can steal credentials by scanning for messages containing passwords, one-time codes, access tokens, password recovery links, or API keys. Further, it can impersonate victims to carry out phishing scams, for instance, by sending legitimate-looking Teams messages instructing users to confirm their credentials on a fake Microsoft login page.

In all cases, collected information is organized, analyzed, and sent back to the attacker.

“AgentForger points to something much bigger than a single vulnerability,” said Bargury. “It’s less about one bug and more about understanding how the security model changes as AI becomes part of everyday business operations.”

FOMO exposing security gaps

This isn’t necessarily about trust, but more about the need to move fast and adapt, Bargury emphasized. AI agents are helping employees automate work, make decisions faster, and get more done. But enterprises fear they’ll fall behind if they don’t move quickly enough.

“The challenge is that we’re introducing a fundamentally new kind of technology into the enterprise,” said Bargury. “The pressure to integrate the next AI feature is outpacing the security controls needed to safely deploy it.”

However, the answer isn’t to slow down adoption, he emphasized; the business value is too significant. Rather, the first step is understanding where AI agents exist, who created them, what they’re connected to, and what they’re allowed to do. And when it comes to autonomous agents, enterprises need to pay attention to the processes that trigger them: A schedule, an incoming email, or another automated event.

“Those triggers should be governed just as carefully as the agent itself,” said Bargury.

High-impact actions should require approval where appropriate, and security teams should be able to quickly disable an agent or its triggers if something doesn’t look right, he said.

More broadly, AI agents are introducing the need for a new security model, he pointed out. The question is no longer just “Does this agent have permission?” It’s also, “Is this the behavior we intended?”

“The organizations that answer both questions will be in the strongest position to adopt AI safely,” Bargury said.

Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”

Block did the same thing. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.

This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, you’re behind.

The benchmark has moved

AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, the average revenue per employee is $3.48M, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.

Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.

This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.

For CIOs, this creates a hiring problem that looks nothing like the cloud or mobile talent gaps of the past decade. Those gaps were about volume: hire 100 cloud engineers, absorb the cost, build the capability… This one is about density; you’re not looking for 100 people. You’re looking for 10 who can deliver what 100 couldn’t, and justify $1M or more in value per seat.

Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.

‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost

Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: these are acqui-hires dressed up as M&A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.

I’ve been on the other side of this. My company, MadKudu, was acquired by HG Insights specifically to bring AI-native capability into an established enterprise business. HG needed change agents who had already figured out how to build and ship in this new era, not just people who’d read about it. That’s the thesis behind most of these deals.

But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.

AI-native teams are fast because they operate with a different set of defaults: full access to tools, minimal governance layers, the ability to experiment and ship without a six-week approval cycle. That operating model is not a perk; it’s the fundamental mechanism. It’s why a team of 10 can do what an enterprise team of 100 can’t.

When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.

The harder realization: acquiring an AI-native team means accepting how they work. That requires deliberately carving out space for them to operate differently, not just tolerating it but institutionalizing it. The acquisition is an organizational change program, not just a hiring event.

The CIO’s real problem

The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.

That calculus breaks when your goal is talent density. The same approval processes that protect against data leaks are now the reason your best people can’t do their best work. When it takes six weeks to approve a tool that your competitor’s team is already shipping with, you’ve traded velocity for the perception of safety.

The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.

The skills inventory question is also more nuanced than it sounds. Job titles won’t tell you where the leverage is. You need to map the actual tasks within each function and assess which can be automated or augmented with AI. That’s where you find the people who, with the right tools, become your $1M/employee talent, not because you hired differently, but because you enabled better.

This is also where the build-versus-buy question gets genuinely tricky. As AI reshapes how products are built and delivered, your internal operating model — how you work, how fast you ship, how you use data — is becoming core IP. Outsourcing delivery means outsourcing the part of the organization where your competitive advantage is now being built.

Closing the gap without slowing down

The AI talent wars are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.

Boards have a new benchmark. Cloudflare, Block, Amazon, Meta and others have already started restructuring to meet it, publicly, painfully, even while beating their numbers. The question for CIOs isn’t whether this pressure arrives; it’s whether you’re ahead of it or behind it when it does.

The organizations that navigate this well won’t win by outbidding competitors for a handful of elite engineers. They’ll win by designing operating systems that amplify the leverage of the talent they do have, by enabling their best people rather than constraining them, and by treating AI fluency as a core organizational capability rather than a niche specialization.

Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Running containers on Windows has never been as easy as it should be. While there are versions of Docker Desktop and Podman that work with both the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and Hyper-V, I’ve found both overly complex and unstable. Where they have worked, it’s turned out that Hyper-V has been the best option, using a Linux virtual machine to host my containers. That all adds up to overhead, layers of virtual infrastructure that get in the way of work and that need to be rebuilt every time I restart my PC.

Part of the problem is WSL. It’s a good tool, but WSL2’s file-system integration is slow, and you’re left having to work with code using Visual Studio Code’s remote integration, which means putting a VS Code Server in every container you’re building and testing. If you’re working with Kubernetes, that’s even more complexity that needs to be managed, dragging you away from code.

I ended up running most of my container testing and development from a separate machine, a Linux server running containerd. But though it worked (and had all the resources of workstation-class device), it wasn’t portable, and for some reason I’ve yet to uncover, Ubuntu’s remote desktop access doesn’t work for me.

So, it was good to see Microsoft make several announcements around WSL at Build 2026 as part of a push to make Windows a developer platform again. The first, an improved WSL3, is still some way away, but the second, WSL-native container support, shipped at the end of June. It is already seeing community-driven development of Docker Desktop-like tooling to help monitor and manage your containers.

Delivering a WSL-based container platform fits in with the other developer-focused Windows announcements at Build. Making Windows behave more like Linux is Microsoft responding to developer needs, given that more than 50% of servers on Azure run a Linux distribution. Linux is the basis of cloud-native infrastructure, so developers need to be able to build on it wherever they are.

Getting started with WSL container

WSL container provides a new CLI that works in parallel to the familiar WSL, with commands to support the entire container life cycle, from creation to shut down. All you need to do to get started is upgrade your WSL installation to the current pre-release build (at the time of writing this was 2.9.3). Simply open an administrator PowerShell terminal and enter wsl --update --pre-release.

This downloads and installs the latest WSL release. Once you’ve closed and re-opened your terminal (to ensure that you’ve updated its context) you can check that WSLC has installed by entering wslc, which should list the available commands. The new CLI is aliased to WSL container, if you prefer to keep your container work separate from WSL (and avoid typos that might accidentally affect your WSL installations).

Under the hood Microsoft is using WSL container to trial new integration points for Linux in Windows. One key change is the use of a new file system that significantly speeds up access to Windows from inside a container. Another improvement gives WSL container a new networking mode that relays networking connections directly through the Windows network stack, ensuring it has access to the same resources and security as Windows.

Calling Linux containers from Windows applications

Things get more interesting when you start to use the WSL container API from inside your Windows code. Here you can include calls to Linux containers inside your desktop applications, taking advantage of existing services, building and deploying containers from inside your CI/CD pipeline. Using the new file system and networking stack helps reduce the friction that comes with crossing the boundaries between the two platforms.

The WSL container API is available as a NuGet package, with support for C, C#, and C++. It allows your code to start and stop containers, and interact directly with them, sending command-line calls and reading back responses. Where things get interesting is being able to launch a containerized service from your code, exposing its REST or gRPC APIs on a local network port. Microsoft has provided sample code to show you what’s possible at this early stage.

Microsoft is doing something revolutionary here. It’s taking the cloud-native, service-driven model and bringing it into Windows and using it to bridge decades of divergent development. You no longer have to rewrite a service that works on Linux to run in Windows; all you need to do is containerize the service and launch it from the WSL container API. When you’re done, the API will tidy up after you, shutting down the container and reclaiming the memory it used.

It’s important to remember that this is only the first public preview of a rapidly developing platform. There are many opportunities here to, say, build on the syscall translation layer developed for WSL1 to produce a native Windows-to-Linux application integration stack that removes the overhead of using web-based service calls. It will be interesting to see what develops, but this first release is very interesting indeed.

Manage Linux containers from Windows

If you want a Docker Desktop-like experience for building and testing containers on Windows developer hardware, you may not have long to wait. WSL container’s underlying API is already being used to build tools that manage and monitor containers for you. One such tool is the WSL Container Desktop, under development on GitHub. While there aren’t any release builds yet, it’s easy enough to compile and get running by cloning the source repository and building using the .NET CLI. You do need to have the Windows App SDK installed, and some features require access to the Azure CLI.

WSL Container Desktop is built in C#, with a WinUI front end. It’s currently only verified for use on x64, though I was able to compile and run it on an Arm64 PC and use it to test and run containers. Once running, it gives you a well-designed front end for your WSL-hosted containers, showing what’s running and what resources they are using. You can link WSL Container Desktop to container registries, like Docker’s and Azure’s, so you can quickly pull base containers and then use the WSL container environment to add your own code and customizations.

Your main interaction point is the WSL Container Desktop dashboard, which shows what containers are running and their current resource usage. Elements are displayed in cards, taking a cue from Windows’ own user interface and especially from its Settings app. From the dashboard, you can drill down into the available containers, with quick start, stop, and reload options, as well as an extended memory that includes the ability to open a web browser to the appropriate port. I tested this with a container that included an entire KDE webtop, giving me a Linux distro running in a container in my browser.

Other options include a details view that displays current logs and provides tools for inspecting the state of a container. This is the type of tool that comes in useful when debugging and testing container applications, as it can provide insights that the WSL container CLI doesn’t offer. Another option helps you clean up after you’ve downloaded an image and don’t need it anymore, with analytics that show the largest images and images you haven’t used for some time. On top of its tooling for working with WSL containers, WSL Container Desktop provides a basic settings tool that helps you configure its look and feel, as well as how it integrates with Windows.

Run Kubernetes inside Windows for cloud-native development

One of the more useful features of WSL Container Desktop is the ability to quickly stand up a K3s Kubernetes instance in WSL that can be used to host WSL containers, providing a local environment to build and test cloud-native applications wherever you might be. The K3s tooling offers a similar experience to the Kubernetes project’s own Headlamp UI, making it easy to go between your development environment and a production Kubernetes cluster.

It’s fair to describe WSL container as one of those Windows features you didn’t think you needed, but now it’s here you can’t live without it. WSL container simplifies building a container development tool chain in Windows, and at the same time allows you to think about a new generation of hybrid applications that take advantage of decades of development in both Windows and Linux.

The result is something that was unimaginable a few years ago: dropping a Linux container into the middle of a Windows application and treating it as another local service. As the WSL container platform evolves, you should expect to see more ways of bringing Linux and Windows together, using containers to deliver a hybrid platform that gives us the best of both worlds at long last.

In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.

They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?

The 5 layers of public-sector control

For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:

• Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.
• Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.
• Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.
• Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.
• Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.

Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is.  Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.

The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.

The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.

Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.

Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.

None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.

Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:

1. Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?
2. Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?
3. Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?
4. Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?
5. Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?
6. Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

At Cisco, VP of engineering Jason Andrews deals with all the same technical issues as every other company deploying AI, including ensuring it’s governed, secure, and integrating multiple data sources, legacy systems, and AI models.

But these issues are relatively straightforward compared to the bigger challenges relating to the fast pace of change, specifically how AI can touch and transform nearly every aspect of business.

“We’re thinking about it every day,” he says. “My belief is we’ll be seeing a massive acceleration of everything.”

In coding, for example, he’s witnessing productivity increases up to 110% with AI assistants. “I can build apps or custom integrations a lot faster,” he adds.

And the real benefit of AI isn’t just in speeding up individual steps in a process, but in making AI the core of a new business process. But building it from scratch puts even more pressure on organizations trying to get employees up to speed on new ways of doing things.

“We want to move fast, train people, and get them onboarded,” he says. “But what I thought AI was going to do for my organization nine months ago is different from three months ago.” So by the time something is rolled out, it’s changed three times.

“I struggle with the change management aspect,” he says. “The legacy model of change management isn’t fast enough. How do you create that constant learning?”

One of the ways Cisco approaches it is to create communities where people can talk about these issues and share best practices and governance, and you have to keep people’s minds open that every day is going to be different than the last, Andrews adds.

Testing the AI waters

Cisco isn’t the only organization struggling with change management in the face of the AI tsunami. In a survey of 2,000 global CEOs IBM released in May, 83% of them said AI success depends more on adoption than on the technology itself, and 77% said talent and technology roles are converging.

“Thanks to Claude Code, our entire development cadence is exponentially greater than a year ago,” says Andrew Johnson, CIO at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a Denver-based law firm with about 700 employees and clients around the US. But, as with Cisco, the biggest challenge isn’t technical.

“In our industry, with our circumstances, we’re probably less constrained by technical capability than organizational constraints, culture, aptitude, the need to bind people to technology, and what helps me and the client,” he says. “There’s a tremendous amount of cultural shift that has to happen in our organization, which is far more demanding of my attention and complexity of thought than the technical stuff.”

Companies that bill by the hour, such as law firms, may face additional challenges as attorney productivity increases because billable hours might go down. Alternatively, the total number of cases could go up as litigation becomes less expensive. Either way, firms that adapt will see competitive advantage, and the rest will fall behind, putting more pressure on the need for change management.

“If people can’t embrace technology, we won’t be able to get a lot of value out of it,” says Johnson. “I’m talking to people about adapting their way of work. There are certainly a lot of people intrigued and anxious to dive in. They recognize the connection between the potential of the technology and what we do.”

But helping everyone see that connection and then working with them to change their habits is difficult, and requires solid relationships and good communications. “That’s been far more of a bottleneck for us,” he says.

To address the issue, the firm has developed a network of technology champions who also understand the legal side of the business. “Now we need lawyers who know how to use the technology and can articulate these things to the people we’re trying to reach,” Johnson says.

But change management is only one leadership bottleneck slowing AI adoption. Companies also struggle with figuring out their vision for AI, with slow decision-making, and a tendency to focus on the past instead of the future.

Vision and strategy

In another survey, this time of 950 business leaders released by Grant Thornton in April, 51% said strategy is the biggest driver of ROI when it comes to AI adoption, but 79% of operations leaders said they don’t have a fully developed and implemented AI strategy.

“Having leadership understanding why AI is needed and what objective they’re trying to achieve is very important,” says Shivi Verma, senior manager of engineering at Docusign. “Sometimes leadership doesn’t have a strategy for their organization on how AI should be adopted. Many times it’s bottom-up, which creates a chaotic experience.”

When Docusign started adopting gen AI, different teams and organizational units wanted to go in different directions. “All were coming up with their own strategy and tooling,” he says. So Docusign brought business leaders together to understand the pain points, and decide on the technology.

“Getting requirements and placing a bet on a specific technology was important,” he says, “as well as pivoting to a different technology if needed.”

In order to adapt to changes, the company wanted to have a nimble approach, starting with smaller use cases, with power users, and problem areas.

“We try to plan for four to six months,” he adds. “We set expectations for our leadership that we place a bet with a specific technology, but want to be able to pivot.”

Today, the leadership challenge front lines have moved yet again, to agentic AI. “Folks are creating their own agents and deciding their own permissions,” Verma adds. “We’re still coming up with a governance strategy.”

Slow decision-making

When it comes to AI deployments, Dan Diasio, global AI consulting leader at EY and CTO for its US consulting business, admits he’s a bottleneck.

There’s a great deal of interest in what AI can do, and using a variety of new AI tools. But since the firm deals with sensitive client data, safety is paramount. It’s a slow process, but important to build secure infrastructure, and to have trust in the technology. “That’s a reasonable bottleneck that makes sense,” he says.

Trust in the tools they work with is essential because clients expect it. “Every tool we use has to go through a detailed security and information privacy impact assessment, as well as a whole other set of controls so they can be used appropriately and safely,” he says.

These reviews can take a lot of time, though, and in the age of AI, speed is a highly valued currency. So how do you balance the two, when safety reviews can require input from a lot of different stakeholders and be extremely time intensive?

“We’ve stood up a team to be able to quickly certify and address a variety of platforms,” Diasio says. “Instead of working with different departments in the way we used to, we’ve started identifying representatives from different departments into a cohort. Decisions we used to make in months now take weeks.”

According to a West Monroe survey of more than 1,200 leaders released earlier this year, slow decision-making is already showing up on the bottom line. Nearly three out of four leaders said their organizations lose up to 5% of annual revenue to slow decision-making and delayed execution.

And the top reasons for the delays? According to 40% of the managers surveyed, the problem was the skills gaps of overwhelmed teams, and 35% pointed to layers of management or approvals. Nearly half said they’re spending 10 to 25% of their time on rework, excessive approvals, and unnecessary meetings, and more than half say up to 50% of their projects fail or lose momentum to delays.

Focus on the future, not the past

When it comes to the decision about where to apply AI in an organization, the tendency, Diasio says, is to turn to the experts with the most expertise in the business. But these are the same people most likely to focus on improving on what they’re already doing.

“And that often blinds people to what’s possible in the future,” he says. “That becomes a significant bottleneck.” So the solution is to revamp the decision-making process around the new reality.

“What we see some advanced companies do is give people who don’t understand the process but understand the technology equal footing with people who don’t understand the technology but understand the process,” he says. “A lot of companies are disproportionately focused on just addressing their operating model right now.”

Instead of focusing on what they’re currently doing, AI-native companies will start with a focus on the customer, he says. This shift in focus isn’t likely to show up immediately on the bottom line, or result in the highest possible number of pilots going into production.

“If leaders are in a position where they’re justifying the use of a technology to the board or their CFO, they become a bottleneck when they start demonstrating their value in terms of the number of things they’re doing,” Diasio says.

But 150 or 200 use cases deployed into production may feel like progress, like things are happening in the organization. But all these use cases are a waste of time and money if they’re applied to existing processes that don’t move the needle. “We see that happen in organizations today,” he says. “Maybe we need to reinvent the processes.”

It’s no secret that companies will need to change in order to adapt to AI. Deloitte recently surveyed 660 global technology leaders and 81% said their current operating model can deploy and govern AI enterprise-wide, but 75% also said their organization must change its operating model within the next 12 to 18 months to drive greater value.

AI ROI is real, says China Widener, Deloitte vice chair and US tech, media, and telecom industry leader. But it’s currently weighted toward efficiency gains, with broader business transformation and revenue upside still developing.

Another Deloitte survey showed that the clearest results from AI were in productivity, with 66% of organizations reporting gains, and cost efficiency, with 40% saying AI reduces costs. “However, revenue impact is still emerging,” says Widener. “Only one in five companies says AI is driving top-line growth today.” But optimism prevails, with 74% expecting it to do so in the future.

Every enterprise AI conversation seems to begin with the same question: Which model should we use?

I understand why. Models are visible. They have names, benchmarks, release notes, pricing pages and impressive demos. They are easy to compare in a leadership meeting. One model promises better reasoning. Another offers a larger context window. Another appears faster, cheaper or more specialized.

But after years of working around enterprise platforms, integration layers, cloud migration, middleware, production operations and mission-critical systems, I see the AI conversation differently.

The model matters. But it is not where most enterprises will struggle next.

The next AI bottleneck is the infrastructure behind the model.

I do not mean only GPUs, cloud capacity or data storage. I mean the full enterprise operating layer that allows AI to work safely in the real world: data pipelines, identity, APIs, messaging, observability, security controls, deployment automation, cost governance, auditability, support ownership and recovery design.

That layer is what determines whether AI remains an exciting experiment or becomes a trusted business capability.

Pilots hide the hard part

Most organizations can build an impressive AI pilot. A small team can connect a model to a dataset, create a workflow and show a use case that works well in a controlled setting.

The harder part starts when that pilot moves into a real production process.

That is when practical questions show up. Who owns the data quality? What systems can the AI access? How do we trace which prompt, policy or retrieval flow produced a specific answer? What happens when an API slows down, a queue backs up or a downstream system is unavailable?

To me, these are not model problems. They are infrastructure problems.

This is where many enterprises are now headed. The first phase of AI was experimentation. The next phase is operationalization, and that is where the real gap becomes clear.

McKinsey has made a similar point in its work on agentic AI, noting that the next phase of value depends less on isolated tools and more on redesigning workflows, operating models and enterprise execution around agents.

AI pilots can survive on enthusiasm. Production AI requires architecture.

AI is becoming an integration problem

The more I look at enterprise AI, the more it feels like an integration challenge.

In large organizations, I have seen how messaging platforms, integration gateways, deployment pipelines, monitoring tools and cloud infrastructure can decide whether a digital capability succeeds or fails. AI will be no different. Even the strongest model will struggle if the data, middleware, identity layer and operational controls around it are weak.

AI does not work in isolation. It needs context from systems of record, clean data from different business areas, secure access to APIs, event streams, workflows, knowledge repositories, monitoring tools and legacy systems.

That is why the CIO question is changing.

It is no longer just, “Which AI tool should we buy?”

It is becoming, “Can we safely operationalize intelligence across the business?”

This is where agentic AI matters. Autonomous AI only creates real value when the architecture around it can make its actions safe, traceable and useful.

A model can generate an answer. Infrastructure determines whether that answer is secure, timely, explainable, governed and connected to the right workflow.

For example, an AI assistant that summarizes customer or order information may look like a model use case. But underneath, it depends on access control, fresh data, reliable APIs, logging, encryption, monitoring and policy enforcement.

If the answer is wrong, people may blame the model. But the real failure may have started with stale data, weak integration, poor access design, missing observability or an unreliable downstream system.

That is why CIOs should not judge AI only by model capability. The enterprise system around the model matters just as much.

Latency will become a trust issue

In traditional technology operations, latency is often treated as a performance metric. In AI-enabled workflows, latency becomes a trust issue.

When an employee asks an AI assistant for help and the response takes too long, the employee stops using it. When a customer-facing workflow becomes slow, the customer abandons it. When an AI agent waits on multiple backend calls, the entire business process feels unreliable.

This becomes even more important as organizations move from simple chat interfaces to agentic workflows. A single AI-driven action may include identity checks, context retrieval, policy validation, model reasoning, API calls, business-rule execution, logging and human approval.

Each step adds latency. Each dependency adds a possible failure point.

A model may be fast in a benchmark but slow inside an enterprise process. That difference matters.

This is where platform engineering becomes essential. Enterprises need reusable patterns for AI workloads: approved connectors, secure retrieval methods, queue-based decoupling, caching strategies, deployment pipelines, monitoring dashboards and standard rollback procedures.

Without those patterns, every AI initiative becomes a custom build. Custom builds may work for pilots, but they do not scale across a large enterprise.

Observability has to expand

Traditional monitoring tells us whether infrastructure is healthy. Is the server up? Is CPU high? Is memory exhausted? Is the application returning errors?

AI needs that, but it also needs more.

We need to know what data was retrieved, which model was used, which prompt version was active, which user initiated the request, which policy was applied, how long each step took and whether the output passed validation.

We also need to detect new forms of risk: unusual usage patterns, repeated failed tool calls, unexpected cost spikes, sensitive data exposure, weak retrieval results or an AI workflow attempting actions outside its intended boundary.

In production AI, observability is not only about uptime. It is about confidence.

If a business leader, auditor, regulator or security team asks why an AI system made a recommendation, the answer cannot be, “The model said so.” The enterprise needs traceability. It needs evidence. It needs operational context that engineers, risk teams and business owners can understand.

This is one of the biggest gaps I see in AI strategy. Many organizations are investing in models and use cases, but not enough in the control plane required to manage them.

Data readiness is still underestimated

AI has exposed an uncomfortable truth: many enterprises are not as data ready as they think.

Data is often duplicated across platforms, described differently by each team, governed inconsistently and refreshed on different schedules. Access rules may be clear in one system but unclear in another. Even basic business definitions can change from department to department.

AI does not fix that automatically. In many cases, it makes the problem more visible.

A bad report may be questioned. A bad AI answer may sound confident enough to be trusted.

That is a real risk.

Being data-ready for AI is not just about connecting a vector database or indexing documents. It requires clear ownership, lineage, classification, quality checks, retention rules, access boundaries and a shared understanding of which data should be used for which purpose.

The same principle applies to resilient cloud-native design. In my IEEE TechRxiv paper, “Enabling Fault-Tolerant Multicast in Cloud-Native Architectures” I explored how reliability, observability and fault tolerance become foundational requirements when critical workloads stretch across hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

CIOs already understand this because they have lived through enterprise resource planning programs, cloud migration, integration modernization, cybersecurity transformation and analytics initiatives. The lesson is familiar: technology cannot outrun data discipline forever.

Security cannot be added later

As AI moves from answering questions to acting, security becomes much more important.

An assistant that summarizes information carries one level of risk. An agent that can open a ticket, update a record, trigger a workflow, approve a request or contact a customer carries a very different one.

The more AI can do, the more identity, authorization, least privilege, separation of duties and human approval matter.

Enterprises should be careful not to grant AI broad access just to speed up a pilot. That may seem harmless in development, but it can become dangerous at scale.

AI access should be treated like any other privileged enterprise capability: limited, logged, reviewed and easy to revoke.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is a useful reference point here because it frames AI risk as something organizations must govern, map, measure and manage continuously rather than something handled only at the end of deployment.

Security teams should be involved early, not at the end. The goal is not to slow innovation. The goal is to build a platform where safe innovation becomes repeatable.

The CIO has to define the operating model

AI is creating pressure from every direction. Boards want productivity. Business teams want automation. Employees want better tools. Vendors are pushing new features. Security teams are watching risk. Finance teams are watching cost. Customers expect faster, smarter experiences.

The CIO sits in the middle of all of it.

That is why the CIO’s role cannot stop at choosing tools or approving pilots. The CIO has to define how AI will actually operate across the enterprise.

That means answering practical questions. Which architecture is approved? Which data sources can be trusted? How are AI workflows deployed, monitored, supported and governed? How are costs controlled? How do teams reuse common patterns instead of rebuilding the same foundation each time?

This work may not be as exciting as a model demo, but it is what separates sustainable AI from short-term experimentation.

The winning organizations will not be the ones with the most pilots. They will be the ones with the strongest AI operating layer.

They will build reusable platform patterns, strengthen data governance, design access properly, monitor AI behavior end to end and measure success by business improvement, not only model performance.

The model still matters. But the enterprise behind the model matters more.

A powerful model on weak infrastructure will eventually disappoint the business. A capable model on strong infrastructure can deliver real value because it can be trusted, secured, scaled and improved.

That is the shift CIOs need to lead.

The next AI bottleneck is not the model. It is whether the enterprise behind the model is ready.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Dubbed the “Genius Hacker,” Park Chan-am began his white hat hacker journey at the precocious age of 11, winning awards at domestic and international hacking competitions since his teenage years.

He has since served as a cybersecurity advisor for various Korean government agencies, including the National Police Agency, and has played a key role in the country’s defense against Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)-affiliated cyberattacks.

At a seminar held this month as part of the 15th Information Security Day event hosted and organized by government agencies including the Ministry of Science and ICT and the Korea Internet and Security Agency (KISA), Park, now CEO of security firm Steelion, explained the changes in the security environment in the AI ​​era and the priority response tasks for information security organizations under the theme of “Major AI Threats and Security Priorities.”

“While AI is a new technology, the core of security ultimately lies in access control, supply chain management, and human verification,” he said.

Like many security experts, Park sees AI fundamentally changing the speed of cyberattacks. In the past, infiltrating a corporate network required significant time analyzing a range of software systems to find exploitable vulnerabilities — a task that the use of AI has significantly accelerated.

“In the past, it took at least four weeks to find vulnerabilities, but now it takes less than a day,” he said. “In the era of AI, all software installed within a company becomes a much more critical target for attacks.”

As a result, securing internal software and the software supply chain are paramount — and require a different perspective on accountability, Park noted.

“Clients often ask, ‘Isn’t this just a product made by the vendor?’” he said. “From the moment it is installed in the company system, that software is no longer a vendor issue but part of the corporate system.”

“We are now in an era where third-party issues can no longer be attributed solely to vendor responsibility,” he stressed.

MCP under threat

Park also sees authorization management as a key challenge security teams will face in the agentic era. For example, companies have been increasingly utilizing Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based AI agents to read emails, analyze documents, and connect internal systems with various business tasks. But as the workload handled by AI agents increases, every step an AI agent takes, reading external documents and interacting with internal systems, can become a potential attack vector.

Prompt contamination through malicious documents and the leakage of internal information via agents with excessive privileges are quite realistic scenarios, Park said. In particular, he pointed out that issues that previously ended as minor problems, such as residual privileges left by former employees or outsourced personnel, could escalate into major incidents as AI automatically links these elements together.

“When introducing AI, permissions must be designed before functions,” he said. “The entire MCP process must be approached as a single attack path.”

The ever-widening blast radius of AI testing

Local AI testing environments are becoming a dangerous security blind spot that information security leaders often overlook. Rapid experimentation with open-source AI, such as LLaMA-based models, on personal or work PCs often results in servers or ports being left open, and if vulnerabilities are discovered, intrusion pathways immediately open up.

“When the [Ollama] remote code execution vulnerability was discovered in 2024, there were over 1,000 servers exposed to the internet, but recently in 2026, it has been confirmed that over 300,000 servers from the same targets are exposed,” said Park, adding that “the act of testing AI itself can become a new security risk.”

Vulnerability management on notice

Security operations must also change, Park stressed, noting that the number of alerts that security personnel must handle has increased tenfold, and in some cases up to a hundredfold, making it virtually impossible to respond to all vulnerabilities using the same standards.

As a solution, Park sees the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) being insufficient for determining priorities. Instead, he suggested that vulnerability response priorities be determined by utilizing the Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), which predicts the actual likelihood of exploitation, along with the US government’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) list.

For example, if a vulnerability’s CVSS score is 7.5, it is not classified as critical, so it is likely to be pushed down the priority list. But the response priority changes completely if the same vulnerability is listed on the KEV list, has been exploited in actual ransomware attacks, and the probability of an attack based on EPSS has skyrocketed from 1% to 90% within two months. “You must consider these factors together to identify the vulnerabilities that actually need to be patched first,” he stressed.

“Amidst the vast noise known as the AI s​lop, the criteria for deciding what to patch first is now becoming a core competency for security personnel,” he added.

Park also presented new defense techniques applicable to the AI ​​era, such as methods to detect automated attacks by analyzing behavioral differences between humans and AI attackers, and proof of work (PoW) challenges that intentionally impose computational load on AI attackers to slow down their attacks. A prime example is filtering out abnormal access by analyzing mouse movements, keyboard input, and scrolling patterns.

“It is a more realistic strategy to reduce the burden on security teams by filtering out at least some attacks, rather than trying to block them 100%,” he said.

Even in the age of AI, technology alone cannot ensure complete security, he noted. “While AI can scan for threats broadly and quickly, verifying and confirming them ultimately falls to humans,” he said. “Humans are still important.”

Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation⁠. At the time, MCP was pulling nearly 100 million monthly SDK downloads across more than 10,000 active servers⁠, prompting the question as to why any company would give up such a popular piece of technology.

Google did much the same months earlier, handing its Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol to the Linux Foundation⁠ with AWS, Cisco, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow signing on as founding members. OpenAI, not to be outdone, supports remote MCP servers in its Responses API⁠, sits on the MCP steering committee, and contributed AGENTS.md to that same foundation alongside its fiercest rival’s protocol.

It’s like Game of Thrones, except the principal AI powers seek regime change through seeming acts of beneficence rather than violence. For those who have been around for a while, it’s also entirely predictable, following a similar script we’ve seen in the cloud, on-premises servers, and more. Platform companies don’t give away technologies they’ve stopped caring about. They give away technologies they no longer need to own because competitive advantage has shifted to new ground.

What does this mean for AI?

Gravity has shifted before

Google has long been an exceptionally active contributor to open source. As I wrote in 2017, Google wasn’t open sourcing TensorFlow and Kubernetes out of generosity but rather turning these open source assets into on-ramps for Google Cloud. Google was playing catch-up to AWS and Microsoft. As then Google product manager Martin Buhr said, the company hoped to “create a gravity well in the market for container-based apps [so] that a significant percentage of them will end up with us.”

In other words, platform companies routinely commoditize one layer of the stack so they can compete somewhere where they hold a stronger hand.

GitHub may be an even better example. Git is open. Anyone can host a Git repository and, once upon a time, different companies did just that. Yet GitHub became the default place software development happens for millions of developers. Nobody pays for Git, but lots of people pay for GitHub. We’re seeing this same phenomenon play out in AI.

Trading contributions for control

Anthropic and OpenAI have both pretended at being all for humanity’s good, but that’s not a good explanation for why they’re racing to give away things like MCP. The deeper reason is that the model itself has turned out to be a poor place to build a lasting moat, and they’re trying to figure out what’s next. As I pointed out recently, the frontier model leaderboards change almost weekly. As such, enterprises shouldn’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that any one vendor will remain permanently ahead on model quality. Instead, as I suggested, AI may be sexy, but the “dull reality” is connecting those models to enterprise data, workflows, etc.

The AI companies understand this better than anyone. Sure, they’ll continue spending billions training ever more capable models because frontier models attract developers, generate headlines, and open enterprise doors. But they’re also quietly acknowledging that benchmark leadership alone doesn’t create a durable platform.

Developers return to the places where their tools, workflows, teammates, and accumulated work already live. Enterprises double down on the systems where their data, permissions, governance, and business processes are already connected. Every new integration makes that destination a little harder to leave, and every new workflow increases its pull. That’s what MCP, A2A, etc., are all about: increasing gravity around the models.

Every major AI company wants to become the place where AI-assisted work naturally happens, and they’re now amassing armies of forward deployed engineers and trying other means to get legacy infrastructure to tie back to their frontier models. The enterprise incumbents want the same thing, but from the opposite direction. They don’t need to own the frontier; instead they need to connect the frontier to the systems that already safely run the business.

That’s why I’m skeptical whenever someone confidently predicts that AI will sweep away enterprise software. I’ve seen this movie before. Developers absolutely live on the frontier, but enterprises don’t. Enterprises create value by connecting new capabilities to decades of accumulated applications, data, policies, and business processes. The newest model matters, and so does the newest agent framework. But neither creates much business value until it’s connected to customer records, financial systems, supply chains, HR data, and everything else enterprises already depend on.

That’s where incumbents still possess enormous gravitational pull. My employer, Oracle, certainly believes so, just as Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, and ServiceNow do. (Disclosure: I run developer relations at Oracle, which participates in the Agentic AI Foundation.) Ironically, open protocols strengthen that position rather than weaken it. If every model can speak MCP and every agent can interoperate through common standards, enterprises gain the freedom to adopt whichever frontier technology looks best without rebuilding every integration. The protocol becomes interchangeable.

Open standards don’t stop gravity

None of this diminishes the importance of open standards. MCP succeeded because it solves a genuine problem. Developers shouldn’t have to build a custom connector every time an AI application needs access to a database or other business system. Neutral governance also matters because nobody wants foundational infrastructure controlled by a direct competitor. But we shouldn’t confuse open interfaces with open markets.

An enterprise may find it easy to swap one MCP-compatible model for another while still remaining deeply dependent on the place where its prompts, evaluations, security policies, and employee habits have accumulated. Again, we’ve seen this before. Kubernetes made workloads dramatically more portable without making AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud interchangeable. SQL has been standardized for decades, yet databases remain fiercely differentiated businesses. Standards reduce friction, but they rarely eliminate competitive advantage. They simply move it.

In like manner, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and others are happily standardizing how models, agents, tools, and enterprise systems communicate because they don’t expect the connection itself to determine the winner. Instead they expect to win by becoming the place where AI-assisted work naturally accumulates. Along the way, we’re going to see copious quantities of code given away, increasing developer productivity for all and outsized financial bonanzas for a few. Game on.

As AI becomes embedded in customer experiences, internal workflows, and throughout the supply chain, security leaders are being asked to do more than manage risk. They are being asked to help the business make more informed decisions and move faster.

At the same time, AI has evolved faster than the programs built to govern it.

The result is a widening gap between the pace of transformation and the ability of security, risk, privacy, compliance, and third-party risk teams to understand where the business is exposed.

Move Fast, Don’t Break Things

AI introduces risks like prompt injection and jailbreaks, but the issues keeping CISOs awake at night are more familiar: over-permissioned accounts, poor logging, credentials left in old repositories, sensitive data scattered across systems, and weak access controls. 

AI gives those risks more speed, reach, and impact. 

When AI agents are connected to enterprise data, workflows, vendors, and applications, the blast radius of existing weak spots expands quickly. A low-severity incident now becomes harder to detect, more difficult to remediate, and more consequential for the business. 

This is why boards and executive teams are looking to security leaders for proactive guidance. They want to know whether the business can adopt AI at scale without creating risk that undermines long-term value. 

“Tell us, in real time, which initiatives are safe to accelerate, where we’re exposed, what could slow down our transformation, and what we need to act on right now.”

The CISO mandate has evolved from risk reporting to innovation enablement. 

When Everything is a Risk, Nothing is a Priority

In many organizations, risk context is spread across multiple teams. Security, procurement, privacy, IT, and third-party risk each have their own view.   

That fragmentation creates blind spots. 

Consider an AI agent that can retrieve customer records, access internal knowledge bases, and trigger downstream workflows. Security may know the agent exists, IT may know where it’s deployed, and procurement may know who purchased it. 

Without a holistic view, however, it becomes difficult to determine whether the agent has the right permissions, if it is operating within policy, or how it could expose the business.

But visibility is only half the battle. As AI systems, identities, vendors, and data change at a dizzying scale, organizations need to understand whether policy is actually being followed in real time.

A control that was effective six months ago may no longer suffice after a new AI integration, a vendor update, or a change in permissions. 

Today’s systems are too dynamic to be governed by the same operating model that worked for yesterday’s tech stack. 

From Risk Review to Risk Decisioning

CISOs are now being asked to help the business decide—quickly and defensibly—what can move forward, what needs guardrails, and what should stop. Meeting that mandate requires a different approach: 

• Treat AI risk as part of enterprise risk, not a separate discipline. AI is embedded in the same decisions organizations already make about data, vendors, identities, controls, and business processes.
• Start with the business process and context, not the model. Understand what processes depend on this system, the data it touches, and what happens if it fails. 
• Move from one-time approval to continuous assurance. What matters isn’t whether an AI project passed review six months ago, but whether it is operating within the organizations policies and risk appetite today.
• Measure decision velocity. Demonstrate how quickly the organization is able to determine what moves forward, what needs guardrails, and what must stop.

When risk is connected across the business, priorities become clear. Security leaders can understand not just what needs to be addressed, but what matters most, who owns it, and what the business impact could be. 

When there is a shared understanding of approved use, teams can move faster without relying on ad hoc reviews, static questionnaires, or blanket restrictions. The goal is to make technology and third-party risk visible, prioritized, and actionable at the speed the business now operates.

That shift helps security leaders say “yes” with confidence.

Safeguard Transformation and Scale Innovation

I know the pressure many CISOs are carrying right now. Your scope is getting larger while resources continue to shrink. 

Your leadership is asking you to protect every facet of the organization, support growing risk and compliance requirements, and now, to be a key voice in guiding business strategy.  

When you have clarity on what risks truly matter and have the tools to take action, your risk program can become a driver of responsible and scalable innovation. 

OneTrust helps build risk and compliance programs aligned with the complexity and the speed of your business. Learn more about our integrated risk solutions.

OpenAI’s recent update to its Codex coding agent has developers worrying over the impact of the change on large code repositories and long-running AI-assisted sessions.

The update to the Codex CLI reduces the default configured input context window for GPT-5.6 to 272,000 tokens from 372,000 tokens.

In practice, the update means the coding agent will retain a smaller amount of code, conversation history, and other session information before compacting older context to make room for new information, a change that has prompted criticism from some developers on Reddit and X over the reduced token window.

While OpenAI has not publicly explained the rationale behind the update, several developers took to social media to question why OpenAI reduced the default context configuration, with some arguing that the change could make Codex less effective on long-running coding sessions by triggering context compaction sooner.

Others expressed concern that the smaller window could require more frequent context management or session resets, although some noted that the practical impact would depend on project size and how developers structure their workflows.

Smaller context, bigger workflow implications

The context window reduction could affect developer productivity and the adoption of autonomous agents in enterprise workflows, analysts say.

“While the context reduction in Codex is unlikely to affect routine coding tasks such as bug fixes or changes involving a few files, it could impact large codebases, repository-wide refactoring, and long-running sessions,” said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

“Less memory per session means the AI agent forgets earlier parts of a long coding session sooner. The agent may need to summarize or reload context more often, increasing repeated searches, occasional loss of earlier decisions and the need for developers to re-establish context,” Jain added.

That need for manual context management, according to Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev, goes completely against the “whole appeal” of Codex-like tools that promised improved productivity out-of-the-box: “A lot of developers are saying their sessions now spend more time on compacting than actually working.”

“While context reduction may not further inflate bills, it shows up as more retries, more compaction, and your engineers spending more time babysitting the thing. The spend just moves from the invoice onto your team’s time.”

Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika, said that the context reduction will force development teams to choose between two options: either accept that the agent is reasoning with an incomplete picture of the required context or learn to manage a new design constraint around context compaction.

Development teams, Jena said, will need to design workflows that proactively manage context: by breaking work into smaller tasks, relying more on retrieval mechanisms, and monitoring context consumption.

That forced design constraint on engineering, echoed Bandta, will slow the enterprise adoption of agent-driven workflows: “Context is the agent’s working memory, so cutting it by a third changes what you can trust it to do at all.”

Build for changing AI platforms, not fixed limits?

More broadly, analysts pointed out that the episode is a reminder that enterprises should avoid tightly coupling software development workflows to the current operational characteristics of managed AI coding platforms, as context limits, pricing, runtime behavior, and model availability are all likely to evolve with little or no advance notice.

“Enterprises should avoid depending on any single context window, continuously benchmark AI coding tools on real workloads, and build workflows around retrieval, modular design, and agent orchestration so they remain resilient as models evolve,” Jain said.

Kanerika’s Jena echoed that view: “The right approach is to build AI-assisted development pipelines that degrade gracefully when operational parameters shift: instrument your context consumption, don’t hard-code context budgets, and treat the vendor’s current specifications as a starting point, not a contract.” Similarly, Bandta advised enterprises to treat managed AI coding platforms like any other critical software dependency: “Don’t build anything that only works right at the edge of a limit, and keep enough flexibility that you’re not stuck if one vendor changes the deal.”

Major AI labs are unleashing forward-deployed engineers (FDEs) to try and grab enterprise customers. Large consultancies are dishing out tokens and assembling armies of consultants — both human and agent — to do the same.

But smaller firms are in the mix now, as well. AI is helping 28Stone Consulting, a New York-based, 230-person technology consultancy for capital markets, punch above its weight against larger rivals in the rush to deliver FDEs.

In this Q&A, Thomas Dolan and Frank Erickson, founders of 28Stone, argue that agentic AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution in vertical markets; success takes discipline, deep domain expertise, and human involvement to mitigate risk.

Many enterprises continue to struggle with the use of AI agents, which is consultancies are stepping in to get projects off the ground. 28Stone is among those that have published blueprints and methodologies on the development and delivery of agentic AI workflows with humans in the loop.

Computerworld spoke with both founding partners about why companies are still stumbling with agentic AI rollouts, and what a disciplined delivery process actually looks like.

After 15 years of delivering software for capital markets firms, is ‘AI-first’ a real distinction or just positioning?

Dolan: “We’re not shying away from being AI-forward. What needs to shine through is AI done intelligently — not stuff you get by buying some tokens for somebody on the trading desk. We’re an AI-first firm.”

Erickson: “And it’s temporary. At some point, AI is going to be synonymous with software development.

“The whole idea of an AI SDLC (software development lifecycle) versus an SDLC is going to be one and the same, a lot like cloud computing today. To not include AI in your strategy, you’d look like a COBOL vendor.”

What does agentic AI delivery look like?

Dolan: “We’ve got several AI initiatives delivering a pure agentic approach. We’ve doubled down on the human expertise wrapper in the SDLC. That doesn’t mean sacrificing any of the benefits of the AI models — quite the opposite.

“You don’t achieve anywhere near the same level of value from applying AI without keeping that expertise — industry, functional and technical — throughout the process.”

Where do humans stay in the loop once agents are doing the work?

Dolan: “We’re believers in starting with requirements discovery. Someone who knows the analytical nuances of a good business analyst is critically important; shaping a product owner’s business information through a markup file that can be fed into a BA agent, then treating the output as if it came from a very fast junior BA. Only then is the story complete.

“The developer takes that story, transforms it into the most efficient input, then owns the output, because they’re accountable for that code. A developer should own the code on both the input and output side.

“Your product owner, who knows the business, that’s great. But expecting them to interact with an agent and output enterprise code is ridiculous. It’s not a great plan.“

Why not just put one do-everything person in charge of AI and agents?

Erickson: “Every analyst, programmer or software engineer isn’t a great requirements analyst. And a great domain analyst with some technical background won’t know if the agent’s code is garbage, maintainable, performant.

“It’s unrealistic to expect one individual to have that breadth across domain, software engineering, testing, deployment. Clients ask all the time, and we push back: ‘Great, if you can find that guy, they’re few and far between.’ To deliver at the enterprise level, you need the human expertise, at depth.“

Dolan: “There’s system speed and latency, important in parts of finance. Then there’s speed of delivery, because other areas evolve quickly and time-to-market is critical.

“Our human wrapper may at first pass come across as a little slowed down. Maybe it is. But [Erickson] has a good analogy about one of the dangers of AI: you can end up going really fast in the wrong direction. By the time you look up, you’re way off base and have to backtrack.“

What about AI in your sector do you think is overhyped?

Dolan: “The hype around the ease of use of AI and the democratization of enterprise software delivery — that ‘anybody could do it now, it’s all being done by machines’ — is another idea that could prove costly in the long run.

“This do-it-yourself reaction is dangerous for clients, and for trust in the overall AI benefit, which is real. We compare it to the beginning of offshoring 20, 30 years ago: a golden idea that was going to cure everything. A lot of firms did it thoughtlessly, thinking it’s just labor arbitrage, and it almost inevitably failed. That all-or-nothing mentality missed that offshoring is an amazing way of getting better value for your dollar, but it has to be done thoughtfully, so the delivery process — the thing that ties it all together — stays unsevered.

“We’re seeing that now. I’ve heard, ‘We’ll just push a button, the machine’s building the system.’ The machine is not building the system. It might be writing the code, the story, running the tests.

The system is built by a team of engineers you bring in and trust. My fear is that people will say, ‘We don’t need this vendor or this technology team. I’ve got a product team. They might not be able to code at all, but they know the business,’ and it fails dramatically. 

“Then people say, ‘We played with AI, it’s not ready yet,’ and throw it all away. One of the best things we can do is ensure clients know the benefit is real.“

Erickson: “The hype can be summed up in a single phrase: vibe coding. That has done AI a massive disservice, because there’s a huge difference between vibe coding and enterprise software development, and some of the loudest proponents of AI are too latched on to it. In our industry, the only way to succeed would be a stable of unicorns. It just doesn’t scale. I get perturbed when our people internally refer to AI tooling as vibe coding; if they think that’s what they’re doing, they’re misunderstood.“

When you engage clients at different levels of AI maturity, how do you get them to a understand what works?

Dolan: “95% of our take on an agentic approach is in line with everyone else’s, but that 5% matters, especially in requirements discovery, in who’s giving the requirements and how they’re thought of. It can set you up for dramatic errors, given the speed at which you’re moving.

“There’s a dangerous human tendency we’re seeing among clients to try and cut corners at the start of a project and — in lieu of having deep, expert driven discovery sessions — just summarize what they may want using AI.

“We would hope our clients are collaborative, everyone understanding it’s early days. If a client insists on doing something we feel strongly against, like a product owner completely owning everything right up to code generation, that’s an issue we have to either push back strongly on or step out of the accountability for.“

AI body shops — LLM providers and giant consultancies — are emerging to help enterprises deploy AI. Does that model work?

Dolan: “Whether you’re partnering with an LLM or with an AI-first, generic software provider — ‘Hey, we’re not industry guys, but we know AI delivery’ — you end up, if you’re a bank or a broker-dealer, saying: ‘All right, we know our business, these guys know the AI side of it. What could go wrong? Put us together and we’ll have quality engineering.’

“The problem is what you miss: the know-how of putting industry and technical expertise together and actually delivering financial services systems. The people working at the generic delivery firms, whether an AI-only firm or a body shop somewhere, don’t have that capability.“

Does AI change the economics for smaller consultancies like yours competing against the big firms, and does it cut both ways?

Dolan: “Over our 15 years pre-AI, there were two recurring reasons we’d lose a project. One: ‘We’d love to work with you guys, given your subject matter expertise, but the costs just aren’t there compared to my budgets. I’m being forced to go to a body shop or an [offshore] delivery center.’ The other side of that coin: ‘We love your capabilities, but you’re a firm of 230 people and I need 300, 400 people.’

“AI changes the options for clients. You don’t have to sacrifice the niche vendor who knows your space just because you need a larger team or a cost target. AI levels the playing field and should allow smaller firms to compete with the larger, big-box generic firms, the Accentures of the world.“

Erickson: “It redefines what scale means. You can look at velocity as a measure of your cost to deliver, not a rate card. Scale can’t be defined in terms of headcount anymore. It’s got to be defined in terms of output.

“There’s a threat in it, too. If you’re an Accenture with hundreds of thousands of low-cost software engineers, how do you train all those people? I feel for them. But for us, a couple hundred people with a specific domain focus, it’s a huge opportunity.“

How has the profile of the people you and others hire changed with this agentic process?

Erickson: “You’re still looking for people with strong engineering and design backgrounds, and communication skills, because they interact across the software development lifecycle more than in the past.

“Many take too much joy in typing out perfect code. Sorry, I don’t need you writing for-loops and classes anymore. I need you reviewing them, understanding them, operating at a higher level. That’s a different kind of person: an engineer, not a programmer or a coder. On the [business analyst] side it’s similar: people took great pride in detailed user stories covering every path. Now it’s conversations, prompts, reviewing output — less doing, more interacting.

“More than ever, they have to be interested in the domain. They can’t just be, ‘I want to learn everything there is to know about Java.’ That’s too narrow. They don’t have to be an expert; they have to be interested. In our case, capital markets is a specific niche. The biggest challenge is getting familiar with the tools — finding time, while delivering for customers, to ramp up and make the mistakes you need to without jeopardizing projects.“

What about governance? Who’s keeping AI delivery and its costs under control?

Erickson: “This is evolving rapidly. People aren’t sure how to put governance around this. The most obvious is financial governance. People are starting to get hefty bills. One of our clients spent a million dollars on tokens over the last eight weeks alone. Sticker shock. The token-maxing policies are starting to show their flaws. It’s wild west still: learn on the fly, then figure out what needs to be governed.“

Are CIOs actually opening their wallets? And when they do, what’s the smarter way to invest?

Erickson: “There’s still a lot of caution. Forecasts keep going down on how long something should take. So: ‘I could wait three months and maybe still get it delivered by the same date someone’s promising me now, but for half the price. I’m going to wait and see when equilibrium is met.’ We haven’t seen the wallets open up like crazy — it’s slow adoption.“

Dolan: “One of our clients is looking at it from a productivity-boost perspective: instead of doing the same for less, I can do much more for the same. AI lets clients pull the trigger on things they wouldn’t have in the past — projects that might not have been approved pre-AI, where the costs have come down to a point that’s palatable with the business.“

Erickson: “And that’s the story we’re hoping to hear more of. There isn’t a huge cost anymore to exploring a business opportunity. The time and money that would have gone to a return-on-investment study could be spent on a proof-of-concept with AI, and the project done a few weeks later. Maybe [there’s] a hint of things to come, where decisions start being made quicker. 

“There’s a little fear on our side, though: a lot of tiny little projects is tough for a consulting business.“

CIOs remain at the forefront of setting the course for AI adoption in their organizations.

In fact, 82% of CIO respondents to CIO.com’s 2026 State of the CIO survey are responsible for researching and evaluating AI products, with 78% of IT leaders saying their IT departments are driving AI adoption efforts, with business units aligning their strategies accordingly.

As such, CIOs are leading or co-leading AI strategies at the majority of organizations, with many also playing a key role in tackling AI change management. They report encountering numerous factors — from heightened pressure to deliver ROI to challenges with trust in AI outputs — as they formulate and shape those AI strategies.

Here’s a look at seven notable issues impacting AI strategies in 2026.

1. Increasing pressure to show ROI for AI investments

The era of AI experimentation and pilots is over. Boards and CEOs are making it clear they want to see quantifiable returns from their AI investments. Kyndryl’s 2025 Readiness Report, for example, found that 61% of senior business leaders and decision-makers felt more pressure to prove ROI on their AI investments than they had the prior year.

“The era of funding AI is shifting from everything all-in to every project has to have line of sight to some financial value at the end of the day. It’s moving from the experimentation phase to expecting measurable outcomes,” says Jim Piazza, chief AI officer at IT services firm Ensono.

As a result, Piazza says companies, both his own as well as those he advises, are more diligent about building business cases that estimate implementation costs, AI run costs, and expected benefits so they’re primed to pursue AI initiatives that will deliver ROI.

That strategy seems to be paying off. According to the May 2026 AI Momentum Survey from Dun & Bradstreet, 67% of 10,000 businesses surveyed reported seeing early signs or pockets of ROI, 20% reported multiple projects delivering ROI, and 10% reported strong ROI.

That’s a big jump from earlier surveys that found few AI initiatives providing returns. For example, PwC’s 2026 Global CEO Survey, released in January, found that 56% of CEOs saw no significant financial benefit from AI to date, while The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025 from MIT found that 95% of enterprise generative AI projects failed to show measurable financial returns within six months.

2. The need to harness AI for transformation

The No. 1 concern for CEOs this year, according to PwC’s 2026 Global CEO Survey, is whether they’re transforming fast enough to keep pace with technological change, cited by 42% of respondents as their top concern. And 68% of the 1,120-plus C-suite executives surveyed by KPMG for its May 2026 Adaptability Pulse Survey said they feel pressure to accelerate innovation.

That in turn is influencing AI strategies.

Steve Santana, CIO and head of AI at ETS, the world’s largest private nonprofit educational testing and assessment organization, says his company is “pivoting from working on enterprise efficiencies using AI to figuring out how to deliver assessments,” adding that “AI will enable innovation we couldn’t get to before.”

For ETS, that means reimagining how the company delivers its core products, “finding areas to do something you couldn’t do before because it was too big or too daunting,” such as having more interactive tests and assessments at scale, Santana says.

And while Santana believes organizations can’t move too slowly, he predicts innovation will trump speed. “The winners and losers in the AI race aren’t always going to be the ones that got there the fastest,” he says, observing that those who move too fast “can drive behaviors that are very dangerous.”

He adds, “I’m not advocating for moving slow; I’m advocating moving at pace. It’s better to be measured in your approach.”

3. The black box of AI costs

CIOs are struggling to calculate the full cost to run AI for their use cases, with estimates coming in well under what their actual bills will be. Consider the figures from research firm IDC, which found that global 1,000 companies will underestimate their AI infrastructure costs by 30% through 2027.

That makes identifying which AI use cases will produce quantifiable value much more challenging, which in turn makes determining a winning AI strategy harder to do. CIOs, however, say they can’t let that stop them from advising their C-suite colleagues on which AI use cases are likely to be winners.

“You can’t sit on the sidelines and wait and watch. The general conclusion is you’re going to lose if you do that, so you have to play even though the cost dynamics are not really well understood,” says Mohan Sankararaman, executive vice president and CIO of First Horizon Bank.

Sankararaman says he’s devising his AI strategy with that uncertainty in mind.

“It’s up to me and my team to figure out how to optimize our use for costs, just like we did with cloud,” he says, noting that part of his strategy is to avoid infrastructure choices that could result in AI vendor lock-in and, thus, getting stuck with that vendor’s bills.

“IT has to get the engineering right and not overengineer solutions to make sure the AI strategy we pursue delivers returns,” he adds.

Researchers recommend such approaches. In a blog highlighting the IDC research, Jevin Jensen, research vice president for infrastructure and operations at IDC, wrote that “organizations successfully navigating this challenge are ones that effectively share a common trait: they’ve reimagined FinOps as a strategic team, not an after-the-fact accounting exercise. They treat AI economics as a living ecosystem — measurable, visible, and continuously optimized.”

4. Aligning use cases to business strategy

There are an overwhelming number of potential use cases, so execs must pick and prioritize those that will help them achieve their strategic goals.

That’s easier said than done.

Enterprise Strategy Group’s 2025 report on generative AI’s ROI surveyed 1,900 business and IT leaders across nine countries and found that 71% had more potential use cases that they want to pursue than they can possibly fund; 54% said selecting the right use cases based on objective measures like cost, business impact, and the organization’s ability to execute is hard; and 71% acknowledged that selecting the wrong use cases will hurt their company’s market position. Furthermore, 59% of respondents said advocating for the wrong use cases could cost them their job.

Longtime CIO adviser Larry Wolff says challenges picking and prioritizing use cases stems in part from boards and CEOs commanding their teams “to do AI.” Such directives, he explains, puts the technology first and business goals second — something CIOs have been trying to avoid for years.

“There should not be a technology strategy. There should be a business strategy with a technology component. The same applies to AI,” says Wolff, now CIO of Preferred Travel Group. “We need to talk about business challenges and opportunities first and then talk about how AI can solve for those.”

5. Human readiness to use AI

Even as Sankararaman and his executive colleagues build the bank’s AI strategy, he still sees the need to improve the organization’s understanding of the technology. “Everybody has a basic understanding, but AI fluency isn’t where it should be,” he says, noting that a subpar level of fluency “can hamper creativity.”

“If the strategy is to become top notch in, say, customer experience, we have to determine how to achieve that. And if you start building the road map but you don’t know what the technology can do, then the strategy will be limited,” he adds.

Sankararaman considers running AI boot camps for executives and their direct reports to improve their knowledge of AI and its transformative capabilities. “Not everyone needs to be an AI expert, but we still need to have a level of understanding of, say, what a large language model is and how to apply it and other elementary things like that. The hope is that when we do talk about strategy for business outcomes, everyone will know how to leverage AI,” he explains.

According to Jamaal Justice, principal for people consulting at EY, concern about AI fluency is widespread.

“One of the biggest challenges that impacts the success of an AI strategy is human readiness,” Justice says. He points to EY research showing “that while 88% of employees use AI at work, only 28% of organizations have positioned employees to achieve transformative business impact from AI. This underscores that the challenge is not access, but adoption and readiness.”

Like Sankararaman, Justice acknowledges that it’s OK to have a spectrum of knowledge and use among workers. But success with AI “depends on aligning mindsets, skillsets, and toolsets, by creating the right conditions for both workforce readiness and effective technology use,” he says.

“Organizations that integrate human capability with technology and fundamentally rearchitect work using a human-centered and value-oriented approach will unlock value at scale,” he adds. “Those that don’t risk fragmented adoption and limited returns.”

EY research confirms as much, finding that productivity gains can fall by more than 40% when AI is deployed on weak talent foundations, including poor learning, culture, and incentives.

6. Data readiness for AI use

Data readiness is also lagging at most organizations, further hindering AI ambitions.

According to a 2026 report from Cloudera and Harvard Business Review Analytic Services titled Taming the Complexity of AI Data Readiness, 73% of surveyed business leaders said their organization struggles with AI data preparation. The top obstacles are siloed data and difficulty integrating data sources (56%), lack of a clear data strategy (44%), data quality and bias issues (41%), and regulatory constraints on data use (34%).

To ensure AI success, “a radical reshaping of the data landscape is needed,” says Steve Prewitt, who as chief data and AI officer at IT services firm Genpact advises clients on AI deployments for their own organizations.

That reshaping is more critical today as agentic AI becomes more prevalent, Prewitt observes. Organizations need high-quality well-governed data to enable and trust AI agents to make real-time decisions autonomously. Otherwise, organizations either can’t move forward with deploying agents or, if they do, risk triggering cascading failures.

7. Engendering trust

ETS CIO Santana and his colleagues recognize AI’s potential to deliver faulty outputs, whether from problematic data, drift, or other problems. Everyday users recognize that potential, too.

That’s why the issue of trust has a significant impact on the nonprofit’s AI strategy. Companies such as ETS that provide critical, high-stakes services know they must earn trust by building AI use cases that can consistently and demonstratively deliver accurate outputs, Santana says.

ETS’s strategy is to highlight where AI is making high-stakes decisions and to detail what steps the company must take to ensure that it consistently delivers accurate, trustworthy outputs and that it conforms to established standards and requirements, he says.

“You don’t want someone to feel the results may be wrong if you’re using AI to assess a person and their future depends on it,” he notes. “You want to remove any doubts [in such AI use cases], and the strategy should ensure that. The strategy should include all the work needed to have that trust.”

For diversified enterprises, few operating model questions are as persistent or polarizing as centralization versus decentralization. Decentralization promises speed, ownership, and local responsiveness. Centralization promises efficiency, standardization, and leverage. Both can be right. Both can be wrong. The challenge is that many organizations end up with both models operating at once, without enough clarity about why.

The result of fragmented systems, duplicated capabilities, inconsistent data, rising IT spend, and a complexity tax that compounds over time is familiar to many CIOs. What starts as autonomy can become architectural sprawl. What starts as enterprise leverage can become bureaucracy. And as companies modernize core platforms, integrate data, and scale capabilities like AI, the tension becomes harder to ignore.

Paul Krebs has lived that tension from multiple vantage points. Most recently as CIO and chief transformation officer at Koch Industries, and previously a technology and transformation leader at The Coca-Cola Company, he’s worked in environments where business units value autonomy, enterprise scale matters, and the wrong operating model can slow progress just as easily as the wrong technology architecture.

His conclusion isn’t that CIOs should pick a side, but they need a more intentional form of centralization, one that starts with business architecture, clarifies decision rights, and continually revisits where capabilities should sit as the organization matures.

Centralization: a design choice, not a doctrine

In diversified organizations, decentralization often starts as the default because it aligns with how the business creates value. Local businesses understand their customers, markets, regulatory environments, and operating realities, and giving them decision rights can increase speed and accountability.

In Krebs’ experience, the default model often leaned toward decentralization, he says, with the belief that optimizing for customers and markets would allow different businesses to be as responsive as possible to the specific customers and markets they served. But that logic isn’t complete. Leaders also need to ask whether there’s a compelling case where a more centralized approach can generate additional value, accelerate progress, or optimize investments.

Digital transformation created one of those moments. Krebs recalls around 2016 when Koch challenged its businesses to build multi-year digital transformation roadmaps. The ambition was there, but the capabilities to execute at the necessary pace weren’t evenly distributed. In response, the organization invested more aggressively from the center, building shared services and centers of expertise in areas such as business transformation, enterprise applications, and data and analytics.

The purpose was acceleration, not control. Centralizing those capabilities helped accelerate learnings, capability building, and their ability to deploy new solutions at scale. But the move wasn’t treated as permanent. “There was always a belief that the centralization push should be re-looked at on a regular basis, not thought of as a forever decision,” he says.

Know what belongs at the center

Over time, Krebs learned that  the capabilities most likely to remain centralized were those where scale, consistency, and risk management mattered more than local differentiation. Infrastructure, collaboration platforms, cybersecurity, cloud management, FinOps, and the help desk were natural candidates to remain shared services.

Other areas were more nuanced. Some application capabilities moved back into the businesses as local maturity increased. Many data and insights capabilities also moved closer to the business once teams had built enough muscle to own them. Meanwhile, certain emerging capabilities such as spatial technologies like AR/VR remained centralized because it didn’t yet make sense for each business to build them independently. Many companies have lived this journey as well, for example, with gen AI, which often started with a center of excellence, and then evolved into a more decentralized approach, enabling teams across the business to innovate quickly.

That distinction avoids the trap of treating the enterprise as one uniform operating model. “Both models can be successful, and both have advantages,” he says. “That’s what makes the balance so difficult.”

Centralization provides a clearer path to execution at scale and cleaner decision rights, but it requires change management and careful attention to bureaucracy. Decentralization provides ownership and speed, but it can also over index toward preference versus real differentiation, he adds, while making architecture harder to scale later.

Don’t confuse standardization with centralization

One of the most important distinctions Krebs makes is between centralization and standardization. Many organizations treat them as interchangeable, but they’re not.

“You can have a centralized team that can manage the nuances of different requirements,” Krebs says. “You can also have a centralized standard platform that can be used in a decentralized manner.”

That distinction opens up more operating model choices. A company may centralize a platform but decentralize how business teams configure or use it. It may standardize process patterns while keeping execution close to the region or business unit. It may also centralize architectural governance while allowing local teams to move quickly within defined guardrails.

This is especially important in global organizations, where regional needs are real but not always unique. Krebs advises leaders to examine whether local requirements can be made more generic and reusable. The risk is solving each local requirement as a one-off, so the better path is to understand the underlying requirement, build it in a way that can scale, and still allow local teams to execute within the standard model.

Let business architecture lead technology architecture

Few topics expose the centralization tension more clearly than ERP consolidation. Many diversified companies, particularly those shaped by acquisition, end up with dozens or hundreds of ERP instances. Some leaders push for massive consolidation. Others prefer to build integration layers on top of the existing environment.

Krebs’s starting point is neither technology nor cost. It’s business architecture. “The easiest and most effective path is when the IT or systems architecture follows and aligns to the business architecture,” he says.

If the business is truly going to operate processes separately, separate systems may be appropriate. But if the organization has numerous teams, processes, and tools, leaders need to ask whether there’s enough differentiation and value to justify that complexity.

The same logic applies to M&A. Companies can get into trouble when integration synergies are held hostage by ERP migration timelines. Instead, Krebs advises starting with the business integration strategy. Understand where the synergies are, how the business architecture should come together, and then decide whether the IT architecture needs to be fully integrated, or whether a data layer, reporting platform, or other integration approach can deliver value faster.

Make the cost of complexity visible

CIOs in decentralized companies often face a frustrating dynamic. The business wants autonomy and speed, but the same leadership team still questions why IT spend is high relative to benchmarks. Krebs says the answer starts with cost alignment and visibility.

In environments with a mix of centralized and decentralized services, Krebs saw centralized capabilities like infrastructure, help desk, and security perform well on benchmarks. More decentralized areas, such as BI, reporting, and commercial applications, often had more redundancy and higher cost.

The point isn’t to blame the business but make the economics of complexity visible. CIOs need to show how flexibility in one area may require multiple systems, data stores, or teams elsewhere. “I understand we want flexibility here,” Krebs says. “But leaders must see when that flexibility may cost the company money, and be clear on whether the value justifies it.”

That shifts the conversation from IT cost to business service economics. A single aggregate IT spend number is rarely useful in a decentralized environment. More helpful is a capability-based view that shows which areas are scaled efficiently, which are fragmented, and where the business architecture is driving the technology cost structure.

Revisit the model as maturity changes

For a new CIO entering a decentralized environment, Krebs cautions against immediately declaring that too many things need to be centralized. The better starting point is curiosity. “I would begin with just trying to understand why they’ve made the decisions they have,” he says.

From there, CIOs can engage leaders in a conversation about the target operating model, connecting business architecture to technology, data, and organizational capabilities. Once the direction is clear, he advises CIOs to work with the willing. Find the parts of the organization that already see the need for change, prove the model there, and scale from demonstrated success.

Regardless of execution, though, the right model changes over time. A low-maturity capability may benefit from centralization because the organization needs to build talent, avoid reinventing the wheel, and accelerate learning. As maturity grows, decentralization may make more sense because business teams need flexibility to adapt quickly. Once maturity is high and patterns stabilize, the organization may be ready to centralize again to leverage scale.

“Once I’ve decided I’m going to start with centralized or decentralized, you don’t necessarily need to stay in that model,” Krebs says. “You need to be continually revisiting the operating model as your organization matures and evolves.”

That may be the heart of smart centralization. It rejects the false permanence of operating model decisions, and recognizes that autonomy and scale are both valuable, but in different places, at different times, for different reasons.

Somewhere in the last eighteen months, “AI agent” stopped being a useful term. CIOs may even be afraid to ask what “agent” truly means, as it now seems to describe everything from a chatbot that answers HR questions to an autonomous research system that plans its own week of work. When a single phrase carries that much weight, well, it stops carrying any.

I’ve spent the last three years inside hundreds of enterprise AI deployments, and the factor that separates the programs scaling elegantly from the ones still shuffling is often the CIO’s architectural fluency: The ability to look at business problems across the organization and recognize, on sight, what kind of AI architecture is the right fit. In my experience there are six archetypes, each with their own nuances, that CIOs should internalize to make well-informed decisions going forward.

1. The conversational assistant

The first, and the one most enterprises meet first, is the conversational assistant: The chat-based partner that an employee or customer opens when they want to think out loud. Deloitte found that 38% of organizations report AI is already strengthening their client or customer relationships. This is the architecture people fall in love with: A well-designed assistant with constantly updated information, persistent user-level memory, tools that can act on behalf of users, and citations on every factual claim becomes a useful problem-solver that’s available at any hour of the day.

A global law firm I work with deployed an internal assistant that gives every attorney instant access to the firm’s accumulated precedent, memos and prior matter work. Associates who used to spend the first hour of a research task hunting through document management systems now start with a grounded, citation-backed answer and refine from there. This helped the firm’s institutional knowledge, previously locked in the heads of senior partners, become queryable by anyone with a deadline at 11 p.m., or later.

A second example: A mid-market wealth management firm built a client-facing assistant that handles portfolio questions, statement explanations and routine servicing requests. The assistant draws from each client’s actual holdings, recent activity and the firm’s published market commentary, with citations linking back to source documents. Advisors stopped being interrupted for the questions that didn’t require an advisor, and clients got answers on a Sunday.

2. The triggered workflow

Another pattern producing the value across the enterprises I work with is something that runs silently: An email arrives, a ticket is created, a file lands in a folder and the agent executes a process utilizing both reasoning and determinism. These agents don’t even require user adoption, because they’re invisible to the end user. They produce measurable outcomes, but fit cleanly into the audit and change-control processes IT teams have run for decades.

A commercial insurer I advise built a triggered workflow for inbound submissions. Every broker email that arrives at the underwriting inbox is classified by line of business, the attachments are parsed, key risk fields are extracted into the policy administration system, and a draft acknowledgment is queued for the underwriter’s review. Seemingly overnight, the inbox began arriving pre-sorted, and submission throughput rose meaningfully without any change to headcount.

Another example, this time from a private equity firm: Every inbound confidential information memorandum (CIM) that hits the deal team’s shared inbox triggers a workflow that extracts the financial summary, screens it against the firm’s investment criteria, drafts a preliminary memo and posts the result into the deal-tracking system. Associates still make the call on what to pursue, but the first three hours of manual work on each opportunity now happen before anyone even opens the file.

3. The autonomous agent — with sub-agents

Here we have the architecture that gets the most conference attention: The autonomous agent, given a task and left to plan its own steps by utilizing its own sub-agents. Autonomous agents are not one-size-fits-all, but they do meet a specific need: Multi-source research, complex cross-system lookups, deep-dive investigations. All of these are processes where the path isn’t usually specified in advance, but the tools are. With the right design discipline, an autonomous agent feels like having a self-sufficient teammate who can call in the right resources and specialists if needed.

A global consulting firm I work with uses an autonomous research agent for early-stage engagement scoping. Given a target company and a strategic question, the agent decides for itself which sub-agents to consult (choosing from internal proprietary databases, prior engagement archives, licensed market data, public filings) and produces a structured briefing with its reasoning chain attached.

Another large technology company I know of deployed an autonomous agent for cross-system incident investigation. When a production alert fires, the agent forms a hypothesis, queries the necessary sub-agents with relevant monitoring tools, log stores and deployment systems, and follows the trail until it reaches a defensible root-cause summary to surface to an engineer.

4. The multi-agent team

The fourth pattern is where the next wave of enterprise quality gains is going to come from. According to Databricks, usage of multi-agent systems grew 327% in just four months as enterprises moved beyond single chatbots. Several specialized agents, each with its own role and toolset, coordinate through a shared protocol: A researcher and a writer, a planner and a set of executors, a proposer and a critic. The proposer-critic feedback loop is one of the smartest techniques in agent design today. One model produces an answer; a second, with a different prompt and often a different provider, evaluates it against explicit criteria. For compliance review, contract analysis, high-stakes classification and any output that will be audited, this second pass is extremely helpful and mirrors how human teams work.

A global bank I work with uses a multi-agent system for marketing and communications review. One agent drafts client-facing copy, a second checks it against the firm’s regulatory and brand guidelines and a third checks it against jurisdiction-specific disclosure rules. Disagreements among the agents are surfaced to a human reviewer with the specific clauses flagged. The compliance team stopped being the bottleneck on every routine piece of copy and started focusing on the high-judgment cases instead.

The next example: A pharmaceutical company built a multi-agent workflow for medical literature summarization. A retriever agent gathers candidate studies, a reader agent extracts study design and findings, a critic agent challenges the reader’s claims against the source text, and a synthesizer agent composes the final brief. The proposer-critic loop in the middle is the reason the medical affairs team trusts the output enough to act on it.

5. The human-in-the-loop (HITL) agent

The fifth pattern is the one I think we’ll see increasingly more of in the future. While many see “full automation” as the goal, the right target is actually to let the agent handle the 80% of a task that is mechanical, while preserving human judgment at the most critical moments. This is achievable via human-in-the-loop (HITL) agents. According to Moody’s, 42% of compliance professionals believe that human oversight is mandatory, and I agree: AI should run right, by getting approval and review before any sensitive business action is taken. HITL is the architecture that can help turn a skeptical team into an enthusiastic one.

A regional health system I worked with uses a HITL agent for prior-authorization letters. The agent assembles the clinical evidence, drafts the letter against the relevant payer’s criteria, and routes it to a nurse case manager for review inside the existing workflow tool. The nurse approves, edits or rejects in seconds rather than minutes, and every edit helps make the next draft better.

A property management company uses a HITL agent to run its maintenance work orders. When a tenant emails about a problem (an HVAC unit that died overnight, say), the agent pulls the structured details (tenant, unit, issue type, urgency), matches the job to the right vendor from the directory, and drafts the work order. A team member approves it in Slack before anything goes out. From there the agent emails the vendor with the full order, confirms with the tenant that someone is on the way and updates Airtable, closing the loop completely.

6. The scheduled agent

On a set schedule or against a batch of inputs, this agent runs the same defined task: Produce a report, refresh a dataset, monitor a set of sources or summarize a period of activity. Under this archetype, unsexy work gets done consistently, integrated into existing operational rhythms like the Monday morning meeting, the daily standup and the monthly board deck, without asking anyone to change their behavior. This is the architecture that shifts AI from feeling like even more work, to a seamless teammate that just works.

A private equity firm I work with runs a scheduled agent every Monday at 6 a.m. that monitors news, filings and earnings activity across every portfolio company and produces a single PDF that lands in the deal partners’ inboxes before the weekly investment meeting. No one logs into a dashboard. The agent shows up, on time, with the same format every week, and the meeting now starts from a shared baseline rather than from whatever each partner happened to read over the weekend.

A second example: A global manufacturer runs a nightly batch agent that ingests the day’s quality-control reports across plants, summarizes anomalies against a rolling baseline, and produces an end-of-shift handoff document for each site lead’s morning. The agent doesn’t flag emergencies, but it ensures that the slow-moving patterns no human would catch reading one shift’s data in isolation get surfaced.

Bringing it together

None of these six archetypes is more advanced than the others or inherently better. But CIOs can have an edge by choosing the one that the operational problem actually calls for.

Before you scope a single deployment, you should be able to look at a business problem and name its shape: Is this a question someone needs answered in the moment, or a process that should run the instant a trigger fires? Does the path need to be discovered, or is it known in advance and just waiting to be executed? Where, exactly, does human judgment have to stay in the loop, and where is it just friction?

Going forward, CIOs should start treating the architecture decision as the first design choice. Everything downstream — adoption, governance, trust — only gets easier if the architecture is the right fit.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation⁠. At the time, MCP was pulling nearly 100 million monthly SDK downloads across more than 10,000 active servers⁠, prompting the question as to why any company would give up such a popular piece of technology.

Google did much the same months earlier, handing its Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol to the Linux Foundation⁠ with AWS, Cisco, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow signing on as founding members. OpenAI, not to be outdone, supports remote MCP servers in its Responses API⁠, sits on the MCP steering committee, and contributed AGENTS.md to that same foundation alongside its fiercest rival’s protocol.

It’s like Game of Thrones, except the principal AI powers seek regime change through seeming acts of beneficence rather than violence. For those who have been around for a while, it’s also entirely predictable, following a similar script we’ve seen in the cloud, on-premises servers, and more. Platform companies don’t give away technologies they’ve stopped caring about. They give away technologies they no longer need to own because competitive advantage has shifted to new ground.

What does this mean for AI?

Gravity has shifted before

Google has long been an exceptionally active contributor to open source. As I wrote in 2017, Google wasn’t open sourcing TensorFlow and Kubernetes out of generosity but rather turning these open source assets into on-ramps for Google Cloud. Google was playing catch-up to AWS and Microsoft. As then Google product manager Martin Buhr said, the company hoped to “create a gravity well in the market for container-based apps [so] that a significant percentage of them will end up with us.”

In other words, platform companies routinely commoditize one layer of the stack so they can compete somewhere they hold a stronger hand.

GitHub may be an even better example. Git is open. Anyone can host a Git repository and, once upon a time, different companies did just that. Yet GitHub became the default place software development happens for millions of developers. Nobody pays for Git, but lots of people pay for GitHub. We’re seeing this same phenomenon play out in AI.

Trading contributions for control

Anthrophic and OpenAI have both pretended at being all for humanity’s good, but that’s not a good explanation for why they’re racing to give away things like MCP. The deeper reason is that the model itself has turned out to be a poor place to build a lasting moat, and they’re trying to figure out what’s next. As I pointed out recently, the frontier model leaderboards change almost weekly. As such, enterprises shouldn’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that any one vendor will remain permanently ahead on model quality. Instead, as I suggested, AI may be sexy, but the “dull reality” is connecting those models to enterprise data, workflows, etc.

The AI companies understand this better than anyone. Sure, they’ll continue spending billions training ever more capable models because frontier models attract developers, generate headlines, and open enterprise doors. But they’re also quietly acknowledging that benchmark leadership alone doesn’t create a durable platform.

Developers return to the places where their tools, workflows, teammates, and accumulated work already live. Enterprises double down on the systems where their data, permissions, governance, and business processes are already connected. Every new integration makes that destination a little harder to leave, and every new workflow increases its pull. That’s what MCP, A2A, etc., are all about: increasing gravity around the models.

Every major AI company wants to become the place where AI-assisted work naturally happens, and they’re now amassing armies of forward deployed engineers and trying other means to get legacy infrastructure to tie back to their frontier models. The enterprise incumbents want the same thing, but from the opposite direction. They don’t need to own the frontier; instead they need to connect the frontier to the systems that already safely run the business.

That’s why I’m skeptical whenever someone confidently predicts that AI will sweep away enterprise software. I’ve seen this movie before. Developers absolutely live on the frontier, but enterprises don’t. Enterprises create value by connecting new capabilities to decades of accumulated applications, data, policies, and business processes. The newest model matters, and so does the newest agent framework. But neither creates much business value until it’s connected to customer records, financial systems, supply chains, HR data, and everything else enterprises already depend on.

That’s where incumbents still possess enormous gravitational pull. My employer, Oracle, certainly believes so, just as Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, and ServiceNow do. (Disclosure: I run developer relations at Oracle, which participates in the Agentic AI Foundation.) Ironically, open protocols strengthen that position rather than weaken it. If every model can speak MCP and every agent can interoperate through common standards, enterprises gain the freedom to adopt whichever frontier technology looks best without rebuilding every integration. The protocol becomes interchangeable.

Open standards don’t stop gravity

None of this diminishes the importance of open standards. MCP succeeded because it solves a genuine problem. Developers shouldn’t have to build a custom connector every time an AI application needs access to a database or other business system. Neutral governance also matters because nobody wants foundational infrastructure controlled by a direct competitor. But we shouldn’t confuse open interfaces with open markets.

An enterprise may find it easy to swap one MCP-compatible model for another while still remaining deeply dependent on the place where its prompts, evaluations, security policies, and employee habits have accumulated. Again, we’ve seen this before. Kubernetes made workloads dramatically more portable without making AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud interchangeable. SQL has been standardized for decades, yet databases remain fiercely differentiated businesses. Standards reduce friction, but they rarely eliminate competitive advantage. They simply move it.

In like manner, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and others are happily standardizing how models, agents, tools, and enterprise systems communicate because they don’t expect the connection itself to determine the winner. Instead they expect to win by becoming the place where AI-assisted work naturally accumulates. Along the way, we’re going to see copious quantities of code given away, increasing developer productivity for all and outsized financial bonanzas for a few. Game on.

We are inundated with promises that artificial intelligence will save us and that the next governance framework will protect us. Buy this platform, adopt that model and the hard part finally gets easier. After 15 years in this field, I have wanted that shortcut as much as anyone.

But both promises are downstream of something neither one can produce. You cannot automate trust between two people. You cannot govern your way to a relationship. As AI moves into the core of how organizations operate, and accountability stops mapping cleanly to the org chart, what holds when the stakes are highest is not the platform or the policy. It is two human leaders who know each other well enough to carry the weight together.

I think about this often now, a year after publishing a book about the pressures bearing down on security leaders, “The CISO On The Razor’s Edge: Leading Cybersecurity When The System Is Designed To Break.” The partnership between the CIO and the CISO is the last human relationship in cybersecurity. AI raises the stakes. Governance sets the floor. The relationship is what holds.

I saw it work once, up close. When I worked in Washington State, the CIO, Bill Kehoe, talked to his CISO, Ralph Johnson, every day. Weekends included. Not because a policy required it, but because the mission did. That partnership is a large part of why the role stayed sustainable for them when it broke so many others.

The promise we keep believing

Walk any conference floor and you will hear the same pitch in a hundred variations. The next AI layer will close the gap. The next framework will lock down the risk. The technology is usually ready. The organization is not. I have watched too many well-funded programs stall to still believe the tool is the answer, and almost every time, the breakdown traced back to leaders who were not aligned before the work began. A framework run by misaligned leaders inherits the misalignment. You can buy the best controls on the market and still watch them fail when two leaders work from different assumptions about who owns what.

Bill and Ralph understood this. Security decisions were not handed to Ralph after the fact to bless or block. They were made with him, inside the technology decisions, because the two had already agreed on what mattered. That is not governance. That is leadership creating the conditions in which governance can work.

It is the real lesson I came to in the book. Technical knowledge matters, but it is not enough. As I wrote then, “Influence, trust and internal relationships are non-negotiable.” Without influence, CISOs cannot lead. Without technical substance, they cannot prioritize what matters. And without partnership, especially with their CIO, “they’re operating without a safety net.”

AI does not change that truth. It raises the cost of ignoring it.

When decisions move at machine speed

The ground under both roles is shifting. Work no longer flows through people alone. It moves across people, platforms, partners and agents at the same time, and it moves fast. Decisions that once waited for a meeting now form in seconds. The org chart, built for an era when humans did the work and reporting lines explained accountability, struggles to keep up.

This is where the partnership stops being a nicety and becomes infrastructure. When decisions form at machine speed, the human escalation path has to be instant. There is no time to negotiate a relationship in the middle of an incident. Either the trust is already there, built in the quiet stretches before anything goes wrong, or it is not there when it counts.

I asked Bill what he would lose if his daily calls with Ralph dropped to once a week. His answer cut straight to it.

“Cyber does not rest,” he told me. “It is active and dynamic and requires 24/7/365 attention.” Drop to a weekly check-in, he explained, and “I am treating the CISO like any other executive position.” For Bill, AI only raises the stakes on that daily contact. “Relationships and partnerships between the CIO and CISO will never die due to AI,” he said. “I can’t even imagine a scenario where I don’t talk to my CISO on a daily basis including weekends to discuss the latest risks and vulnerabilities or news on potential AI attacks.”

That is the point most of the market misses. A platform can flag the anomaly. It cannot decide what the organization is willing to risk, who carries that decision or how two leaders stand behind it together. The faster the machines move, the more the partnership has to already be in place.

The loneliest seat in the building

There is a reason some now call the CISO job the least desirable role in business. The seat carries enormous accountability and rarely the authority to match. As one security leader put it, the pressure has never been higher and the control has never felt lower. People are burning out and walking away from a role that has never mattered more.

Here is the hard part. There is no log file for burnout. No alert fires when the weight finally exceeds the leader. That drain is invisible right up until it is not, and it raises organizational risk as surely as any unpatched system. The structural fixes the industry debates are all real and all slow.

The fastest source of relief available to a CISO is not a framework. It is a CIO who treats the relationship as a daily partnership rather than a line on a chart. An isolated CISO is a vulnerability. A partnered one is an asset.

You see what that partnership is worth in the worst moment. I asked Bill what it looks like when an incident hits and public trust is on the line. He did not reach for a tool.

“I am accountable as CIO to everything that occurs in the state from a technology lens including cyber,” he said. When a severe incident hits, the call comes to him from agency leadership or the Governor’s Office. Then he follows the plan, but never alone: “I will be in constant contact with the CISO on the details of the incident.”

That is the safety net made real. The CISO is not carrying the mission alone at the moment it matters most. On the razor’s edge, leadership keeps you upright. Partnership keeps you in the fight.

The work no tool will do for you

In my advisory work, I sit with C-suite leaders who share values and still cannot find alignment. The barrier is rarely disagreement. It is that they are not communicating clearly or often enough to build the trust that alignment requires. I have watched negotiations that could only happen by proxy, over email, because two capable leaders had stopped talking directly.

I recently sat in an hour-long discussion where alignment and shared values were present the whole time. It did not become clear until the final fifteen minutes. That is what real alignment costs: patience, persistence and a stubborn commitment to clarity. If leaders cannot do that work themselves, no AI model or governance tool will do it for them.

This is why I stand up an AI review board for the organizations I work with and host the leadership conversations that decide whether a company’s AI ambitions thrive or stall. The board itself matters less than what it provides: neutral ground, a regular cadence and an agenda that forces the hard issues into the open before a crisis forces them. If your organization has no venue like that, that absence is its own form of dysfunction. The cadence is what makes communication effective. Not easy. Effective.

Build the bond on purpose

You cannot framework your way to trust. But you can build it deliberately, and that is a leadership act, not a governance one. The partnership and stakeholdering skills that once looked like soft extras are now the core executive work. A few moves matter most:

• Set a standing contact rhythm with your counterpart before you need one, daily or near-daily, not quarterly
• Make decision rights and accountability explicit while it is calm, so no one improvises them mid-incident
• Translate security into business outcomes together, so the board hears one aligned voice

Build the relationship as deliberately as you would build any critical control, because that is what it is. If you cannot connect the partnership to outcomes the business actually feels, you have a friendship, not a performance lever.

A year after writing “The CISO On the Razor’s Edge,” I am even more convinced that strong leadership precedes effective governance and partnership precedes them both. This is the good news, not the hard news. The CIO and CISO who build real trust do not just reduce risk. They move faster than their competitors, because they spend no energy fighting each other. They earn the board’s confidence, because the board hears one clear voice. And they unlock the AI strategy everyone else is still struggling to govern, because they have already done the human work that makes governance hold.

That is the upside waiting on the other side of this relationship. AI will keep advancing. Governance will keep maturing. But the organizations that win the next decade will be the ones where two leaders decided the partnership was worth building before they needed it. Bill and Ralph knew it every day, weekends included. The edge is there for anyone willing to do the same.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

I keep seeing a version of the same scene. A CEO has a question about AI. It is a real question, the kind that will shape where the company spends the next two years. The CEO does not bring it to the CIO. They bring it to a data leader two levels down, or to a vendor who presented at a conference, or to an AI specialist a board member recommended. The CIO finds out the strategy is forming when a slide shows up that they did not build. By then, the direction is already half-set, and the CIO is being asked to react to it rather than shape it.

I want to be precise about what is happening, because it is easy to misread. The CIO has not been removed from anything. Title intact, budget intact, seat at the table intact. What has changed is quieter. On one of the most consequential technology conversations the company will have this decade, the CIO is being routed around. The work still flows through them eventually. The thinking no longer starts with them.

I have watched this happen to capable people who would have given the CEO a better answer than the person who was asked. That is what makes it worth naming. This is not a competence gap. It is a positioning gap, and positioning gaps close in the wrong direction if you ignore them long enough.

How the routing actually starts

The routing does not begin with a decision to exclude anyone. It begins with a CEO who is anxious about AI and looking for someone who sounds certain. AI is moving fast enough that executives feel the pressure to have a point of view before they have earned one. That pressure usually arrives secondhand, from a board member or a peer on the golf course describing what is working at their company. So the CEO goes looking for someone who will confirm the answer they already want to hear, and they keep going back to whoever gives it to them.

Here is where many technology leaders lose the thread. For years, the safe posture in the CIO seat was measured caution. You raised the risks, you flagged the integration cost, you asked who owns the data and what the compliance exposure looks like. That posture built credibility in an era when the failure mode was moving too fast on technology nobody understood. With AI, the same posture reads as drag. A CEO who is being told by three vendors that “the future is already here” does not want to hear why they should slow down and be cautious. They hear caution as losing the race, and they go find a point of view somewhere else.

The data leaders, vendors and specialists who get the call are not necessarily more capable. They are more available with a confident answer. A vendor’s whole job is to arrive with conviction. A data scientist who has shipped one impressive model carries more apparent authority on AI, in that moment, than a CIO who runs the entire estate but talks about AI the way they talk about every other risk. The CEO is not weighing depth against depth. They are weighing the person who said yes against the person who said it depends.

Once that pattern sets, it compounds. The CEO who got a satisfying answer from the data leader goes back to the data leader. The vendor who shaped the first conversation gets invited into the second. Each loop the CIO is not in makes the next one easier to run without them. The org chart still says the CIO owns technology strategy. The actual conversation has relocated.

What it costs before anyone notices

The cost shows up late, which is exactly why it is dangerous. For a while nothing looks broken. The CIO is still delivering. The AI initiatives are still landing on their plate to execute. The damage is happening upstream, in the room where the bets get made, and the CIO is not in that room.

I have seen what arrives downstream when the strategy was set without the person who has to run it. A model gets championed that the data cannot actually support. A vendor commitment gets made that locks the company into an architecture the CIO would have flagged in the first meeting. An agent gets deployed inside a business unit, with executive blessing, and the CIO inherits accountability for it months later without ever having shaped how it was governed. The recent IBM finding that CIOs are increasingly held accountable for AI they do not fully control is the visible end of this. The invisible front end is the conversation the CIO was routed around, the one where the accountability got created in the first place.

What I find most corrosive is what it does to the CIO’s standing over time. Every initiative the CIO executes but did not shape reinforces a story about what the CIO is for. They become the person who runs the technology other people decided on. That is a fine description of an order taker and a poor description of a strategic leader, and CEOs do not promote, fund, or defend order takers when budgets tighten. The routing-around does not just cost the company a worse AI strategy. It quietly recasts the CIO as the implementer of everyone else’s thinking, and that recasting is hard to reverse once the executive team has internalized it.

What the leaders who stayed in the conversation did

The technology leaders I have watched hold their position on AI did one thing first. They stopped leading with caution and started leading with a point of view. Not a reckless one. A real, defensible position on where AI creates value in their specific business and where it does not, delivered with the same conviction the vendors bring, before the CEO went looking elsewhere for it. They made themselves the person with the clearest answer, which is the role the routing-around was filling with someone else.

That requires giving up a posture that felt safe for a long time. The CIOs who made the shift accepted that on AI, being right and cautious is worth less than being early and directional. They formed a view ahead of being asked. They walked into the CEO’s office with where we should place our AI bets and why, rather than waiting to be handed someone else’s bets to pressure-test. The difference is whether you are the author of the strategy or its editor, and CEOs route around editors.

They also changed how they talk about risk. Instead of presenting risk as the reason to slow down, they folded it into the recommendation. The data is not ready for that use case, so here is the use case where it is ready, and here is what we do in parallel to unlock the first one. That framing keeps the CIO inside the conversation as the person making AI happen responsibly, rather than the person standing outside it explaining why it is hard. Same expertise, opposite effect on whether the CEO keeps coming back.

None of this is about pushing the data leaders and specialists out. The strongest CIOs I know pulled those people closer and brought them into the room under their own framing, so that when the CEO wanted the specialist’s input, it arrived through the CIO rather than around them. They made themselves the orchestrator of the AI conversation instead of one of its casualties.

If you are a technology leader right now, the question worth sitting with is not whether you are good at AI. You probably are. The question is whether the most important AI conversations in your company are still starting with you, or whether you have quietly become the person they get handed to after the thinking is done. That answer is set in rooms you may not be in, and the only way to find out is to ask who your CEO called the last three times AI came up. If the answer is not you, the role is still yours. The conversation has already started leaving.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Shadow IT has long been a major problem for CISOs, but the biggest problem may be coming from the executive suite’s hunger for unsanctioned AI.

Nearly two-thirds of senior decision-makers admit to using unapproved AI tools, compared to just 31% of lower-level employees, according to a survey by Microsoft solutions partner TrustedTech.

The use of shadow AI is prevalent among senior executives even though three in four employees acknowledge security or data privacy risks related to the practice.

“Most shadow AI users are not ignorant of the risk,” TrustedTech says in a white paper. “They are deliberately choosing to use these tools anyway. This is not a training issue. It is a culture, incentives, and alternatives issue.”

In many cases, the problem is driven by a lack of approved tools, the report adds.

“People use shadow AI because what their employer hands them is worse than mainstream AI tools, or because nothing has been approved in the first place,” the report says. “That doesn’t change until the sanctioned tools are genuinely worth using.”

A question of authority

The use of shadow AI by CEOs and other C-suite executives can create major problems for CISOs, CIOs, and other IT executives because they may not have the authority to put the kibosh on it.

It also presents a challenge for IT leaders to provide the AI tools that employees and executives want to use.

When executives use shadow AI, CISOs are in a difficult position, because governance only works when it’s modeled from the top, says Andy Nolan, VP of technology at TrustedTech.

“If senior leaders bypass approved AI tools or policies, it sends an implied message that speed matters more than security and compliance,” he adds. “Employees notice that behavior, and it becomes much harder to ask the rest of the organization to follow standards that leadership isn’t following themselves, first.”

Another major problem is that executives often work with highly sensitive information, including financial data, strategic plans, intellectual property, and customer information, he notes.

But CISOs and CIOs also can’t solve the problem by becoming the AI police in every situation, Nolan says, because their role is to help the business innovate safely.

“That requires executive alignment, clear governance, and providing secure AI tools that people actually want to use,” he adds. “When leadership embraces those solutions, the rest of the organization is almost sure to follow.”

All risk, no reward

The use of shadow AI by senior executives puts CISOs and CIOs in an impossible position, agrees Amit Maloo, CISO at AI procurement provider Ivalua. CISOs and CIOs are held accountable for the risk exposure but have no visibility into the problem, he says.

“When senior leaders use ungoverned AI tools for business decisions, those decisions still have consequences, such as financial commitments, contract reviews, and data sharing,” he adds. “But there is no audit trail, no permissions model, or no way to reconstruct what happened or why.”

Part of the problem is that approved AI options often don’t meet the needs of users, Maloo says.

“AI policies alone aren’t enough; organizations need to pair governance with usability,” he adds. “If approved AI tools don’t meet the pace of business, employees at every level, including leadership, will find their own solutions. Successful organizations will be those that make the secure path the easiest path.”

IT leaders can’t solve the problem with more governance, he notes. “Policies and restrictions slow shadow AI down, but they don’t stop it, especially when the people using it are senior enough to absorb the disciplinary risk,” Maloo adds. “What CIOs can do is focus on providing tools that grant users full access to the necessary systems and data, eliminating the need to choose between a capable but ungoverned tool and a safe but limited one.”

Speed over security

The TrustedTech data echoes a June report from employee monitoring software vendor Teramind, which found that more than two-thirds of C-level executives prioritize speed over security when using AI tools, notes Nik Kale, a principal engineer and product architect at Cisco, and member of the Coalition for Secure AI.

In addition, the Teramind report found that two-thirds of enterprise AI activity runs through personal accounts on platforms for which the company already owns licenses, he notes.

“People are paying for the governed version and using the ungoverned version of the same product, so the problem isn’t the tools,” he says. “The approved path is slower, buried in procurement, or disconnected from where the work actually happens, and speed wins every time under a deadline.”

The problem then isn’t with the AI tools, but with the friction involved, he says. “People aren’t going around the front door because the room is locked,” Kale adds. “They’re going around it because the front door is slower.”

In many cases, the use of shadow AI exposes a couple of shortcomings in enterprise processes, adds Matthew Scavetta, chief technology innovation officer at IT solutions provider Future Tech Enterprise.

Many organizations don’t do a good job of making employees aware of the AI tools available to them, he says, and many organizations don’t offer training on the sanctioned applications, which drives users to pick products they are familiar with.

“If you don’t solve problems for people quickly or make people aware of which tools they can use safely, they will find a workaround,” he adds. “AI tools are no different than anything else.”

Shadow AI use by executives puts IT leaders in an incredibly difficult position, he says.

“CIOs, in particular, are under more and more pressure each year to keep up with what’s possible as tech influencers keep preaching about the potential of these tools,” Scavetta says. “CEOs and board members are constantly getting swept up in the hype; meanwhile, there are more and more case studies coming out showing how little ROI some organizations have realized. It’s a never-ending game of balancing possible with practical.”

As AI use ratchets up, demand for data center capacity is higher than it’s ever been. But New York State is telling the industry: Not so fast.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul this week signed an Executive Order described as the “nation’s first moratorium” on new hyperscale data centers, massive factories that typically comprise thousands of servers devouring tens or hundreds of megawatts of power.

During this up to one year pause, the state will halt issuance of environmental permits for data centers as it develops a regulatory framework to protect ratepayers, the energy grid, the environment, and local communities.

Like other states, New York is seeing “unprecedented” demand for data center development that would ultimately require “massive amounts” of energy and water, Hochul noted. And community backlash seems to be accelerating at the same pace.

This is “a symptom of a bigger, nationwide issue,” said Matt Kimball, VP and principal analyst for data center technologies at Moor Insights & Strategy. “Compute demand is far outpacing the grid,” prompting state and local leaders to pause and figure out how to manage things more effectively.

Creating a blueprint for local development, community support

New York already requires data centers to pay more for energy, or to supply their own, to keep costs affordable for residents. Hochul also plans to pursue legislation that would repeal sales tax exemptions for massive data centers already existing in the state.

During the moratorium, New York will develop a “Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (GEIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts of data center construction and operation, including their water and energy demands and impact on air quality. Once it’s lifted, new data center projects will only be allowed to proceed if they strictly observe state, zoning, and other local approvals.

On a shorter 60-day timeline, the state will issue a Community Investment Framework (CIF) to provide guidance to local governments negotiating large-scale data center deals, and to ensure operators are investing in and partnering with host communities and workforces. This will set standardized expectations for projects and establish baseline thresholds for data center operators’ investment into local communities.

Notably, New York is proposing a contribution of $1 million per megawatt (MW) of anticipated utility demand per project. Thus, 50 megawatts of use would require data center operators to reinvest $50 million into their host community; 400 megawatts would require $400 million.

The framework will include ‘Good Neighbor Commitments’ around landscaping, design, and mitigation of noise and light pollution; labor commitments to give organized labor “a seat at the table” to determine wage standards, local hiring, and workforce development; and a community investment fund to support the host community’s “long-term economic vitality and quality of life.”

Data center operators, for instance, could provide direct financial support to host communities, or invest in public infrastructure, housing improvements, workforce development and training programs, or in broadband expansion.

“Having a published playbook for how to make this work across a state versus having to negotiate this on a county-by-county basis should be a win for everybody,” Moor’s Kimball noted.

Separately, New York is also considering establishing a fund that would require data centers to invest in the state’s aging grid infrastructure and support new clean energy procurement.

What enterprises and other states should be watching

Realistically, a data center buildout takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years from the point of site selection to turning on the switch for the first time, Kimball pointed out. The one-year moratorium doesn’t do too much for that.

What matters more is what New York does during that pause, he noted, for example, establishing a regulatory framework to re-price the cost of hyperscale deployment, determining costs for grid upgrades or “bring your own power” expectations, developing requirements for more formalized operator contributions to the local community, or considering the repeal of tax exemptions.

“And really, this subsidizing angle is the biggest,” said Kimball. States across the country have been subsidizing buildouts to get data center business for years. “This could signal the beginning of the end of those subsidies for many states.”

For enterprise IT leaders, the headline is the signal that power and permitting are now “first-order variables” for infrastructure strategies, right alongside cost and latency requirements, said Kimball.

So, if an enterprise’s cloud or co-location strategy or roadmap assumes hyperlocal capacity, that assumption now carries some risk. CIOs and IT leaders should therefore work with providers to gain more clarity on regional capacity.

The moratorium could result in some “border-hopping,” with enterprises hosting local servers in adjacent states like Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or New Jersey, but that’s not likely to be widespread, Kimball noted.

The realistic regional impact will be “more of a slow squeeze rather than a shock,” he said. This could result in tighter colocation availability and firmer pricing in the New York Metropolitan area over the next few years. Cloud providers may also steer new AI capacity to regions like Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Utah, where power and permitting are more predictable.

An inflection point, but more trickle-down than direct impact

Indeed, noted Jeremy Roberts, senior director for research and content at Info-Tech Research Group, the moratorium is an “inflection point” and a “way to placate an increasingly angry public,”.

People don’t like the fact that, beyond the initial build, data centers don’t create many jobs, they take up a lot of space, they use a significant amount of power and resources, and they can be “noisy and smelly.”

However, the impact of the moratorium is likely going to be “macro” for everyday enterprises, as New York is specifically targeting hyperscale data centers.

“If you were planning on building a data center in New York and your name is not [Microsoft CEO] Satya Nadella, it’s probably not going to affect you,” said Roberts.

But the consequences of the move will certainly trickle down, for instance, with AI device or hardware purchases supplanting software acquisition. Roberts pointed to IBM’s history-making stock plunge this week, which the company attributed to enterprise buyers diverting IT budgets away from software and mainframes to stockpile AI hardware like servers and memory chips to get ahead of anticipated supply issues and price increases.

If enterprises plan to invest in anything that uses storage or CPUs, they will be paying more in the future, Roberts said. “It’s a symptom of a problem you’re going to feel.”

That said, constraints usually inspire innovation; if a hyperscaler can’t build a 50MW data center, it will likely find ways to string together smaller data centers or adapt in other ways. This could “percolate” across the industry, Roberts said. “People are endlessly creative.”

As AI use ratchets up, demand for data center capacity is higher than it’s ever been. But New York State is telling the industry: Not so fast.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul this week signed an Executive Order described as the “nation’s first moratorium” on new hyperscale data centers, massive factories that typically comprise thousands of servers devouring tens or hundreds of megawatts of power.

During this up to one year pause, the state will halt issuance of environmental permits for data centers as it develops a regulatory framework to protect ratepayers, the energy grid, the environment, and local communities.

Like other states, New York is seeing “unprecedented” demand for data center development that would ultimately require “massive amounts” of energy and water, Hochul noted. And community backlash seems to be accelerating at the same pace.

This is “a symptom of a bigger, nationwide issue,” said Matt Kimball, VP and principal analyst for data center technologies at Moor Insights & Strategy. “Compute demand is far outpacing the grid,” prompting state and local leaders to pause and figure out how to manage things more effectively.

Creating a blueprint for local development, community support

New York already requires data centers to pay more for energy, or to supply their own, to keep costs affordable for residents. Hochul also plans to pursue legislation that would repeal sales tax exemptions for massive data centers already existing in the state.

During the moratorium, New York will develop a “Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (GEIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts of data center construction and operation, including their water and energy demands and impact on air quality. Once it’s lifted, new data center projects will only be allowed to proceed if they strictly observe state, zoning, and other local approvals.

On a shorter 60-day timeline, the state will issue a Community Investment Framework (CIF) to provide guidance to local governments negotiating large-scale data center deals, and to ensure operators are investing in and partnering with host communities and workforces. This will set standardized expectations for projects and establish baseline thresholds for data center operators’ investment into local communities.

Notably, New York is proposing a contribution of $1 million per megawatt (MW) of anticipated utility demand per project. Thus, 50 megawatts of use would require data center operators to reinvest $50 million into their host community; 400 megawatts would require $400 million.

The framework will include ‘Good Neighbor Commitments’ around landscaping, design, and mitigation of noise and light pollution; labor commitments to give organized labor “a seat at the table” to determine wage standards, local hiring, and workforce development; and a community investment fund to support the host community’s “long-term economic vitality and quality of life.”

Data center operators, for instance, could provide direct financial support to host communities, or invest in public infrastructure, housing improvements, workforce development and training programs, or in broadband expansion.

“Having a published playbook for how to make this work across a state versus having to negotiate this on a county-by-county basis should be a win for everybody,” Moor’s Kimball noted.

Separately, New York is also considering establishing a fund that would require data centers to invest in the state’s aging grid infrastructure and support new clean energy procurement.

What enterprises and other states should be watching

Realistically, a data center buildout takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years from the point of site selection to turning on the switch for the first time, Kimball pointed out. The one-year moratorium doesn’t do too much for that.

What matters more is what New York does during that pause, he noted, for example, establishing a regulatory framework to re-price the cost of hyperscale deployment, determining costs for grid upgrades or “bring your own power” expectations, developing requirements for more formalized operator contributions to the local community, or considering the repeal of tax exemptions.

“And really, this subsidizing angle is the biggest,” said Kimball. States across the country have been subsidizing buildouts to get data center business for years. “This could signal the beginning of the end of those subsidies for many states.”

For enterprise IT leaders, the headline is the signal that power and permitting are now “first-order variables” for infrastructure strategies, right alongside cost and latency requirements, said Kimball.

So, if an enterprise’s cloud or co-location strategy or roadmap assumes hyperlocal capacity, that assumption now carries some risk. CIOs and IT leaders should therefore work with providers to gain more clarity on regional capacity.

The moratorium could result in some “border-hopping,” with enterprises hosting local servers in adjacent states like Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or New Jersey, but that’s not likely to be widespread, Kimball noted.

The realistic regional impact will be “more of a slow squeeze rather than a shock,” he said. This could result in tighter colocation availability and firmer pricing in the New York Metropolitan area over the next few years. Cloud providers may also steer new AI capacity to regions like Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Utah, where power and permitting are more predictable.

An inflection point, but more trickle-down than direct impact

Indeed, noted Jeremy Roberts, senior director for research and content at Info-Tech Research Group, the moratorium is an “inflection point” and a “way to placate an increasingly angry public,”.

People don’t like the fact that, beyond the initial build, data centers don’t create many jobs, they take up a lot of space, they use a significant amount of power and resources, and they can be “noisy and smelly.”

However, the impact of the moratorium is likely going to be “macro” for everyday enterprises, as New York is specifically targeting hyperscale data centers.

“If you were planning on building a data center in New York and your name is not [Microsoft CEO] Satya Nadella, it’s probably not going to affect you,” said Roberts.

But the consequences of the move will certainly trickle down, for instance, with AI device or hardware purchases supplanting software acquisition. Roberts pointed to IBM’s history-making stock plunge this week, which the company attributed to enterprise buyers diverting IT budgets away from software and mainframes to stockpile AI hardware like servers and memory chips to get ahead of anticipated supply issues and price increases.

If enterprises plan to invest in anything that uses storage or CPUs, they will be paying more in the future, Roberts said. “It’s a symptom of a problem you’re going to feel.”

That said, constraints usually inspire innovation; if a hyperscaler can’t build a 50MW data center, it will likely find ways to string together smaller data centers or adapt in other ways. This could “percolate” across the industry, Roberts said. “People are endlessly creative.”

This article originally appeared on NetworkWorld.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article first appeared on CIO.

With AI increasingly tucked into every cranny of the enterprise, someone has had to step up and provide the tools necessary to discover, track, and monitor all the agents and LLMs and keep them humming along in their various workflows. Thankfully, the DevOps world answered the call, building the tools to support our new overlords in an emerging subdiscipline interchangeably called “AIOps,” “AgentOps,” and sometimes “agent observability.”

Many of the challenges involved in AgentOps are similar to those tackled by traditional DevOps tools and processes. After all, at their foundation, LLMs are just software running on hardware somewhere. Typical issues involving RAM and disk space are just as important in the agent world, maybe more so because AI operations are even more greedy about consuming storage than regular software is.

Many of the companies supporting agent observability are big names in DevOps circles, having adapted their stacks to address the idiosyncrasies of modern LLMs. IT teams maintaining enterprise agents can treat the LLMs as just one node in a big graph filled with services that are constantly swapping packets and triggering software jobs. Latency and resource constraints must be managed because end-users don’t care whether it’s an LLM, a database, or a plain-old Python script that’s failing, bringing their work to a grinding halt.

But new AI-specific challenges are opening the door to newcomers that are building tools with the peculiarities of LLMs in mind — for example, keeping deeper logs filled with records of prompts. LLMs are also often very non-deterministic by design, making it trickier to pinpoint failure modes. And then there’s the fact that an agent will give a perfectly intelligent answer one minute and hallucinate the next.

Relying on many of the same approaches that DevOps tools do, AgentOps tools watch for misbehavior and flag anything out of the ordinary for deeper analysis. This may be as simple as fixing slow responses, but it can also include AI hallucinations and other issues born of LLMs’ non-determanism.

Teams trying to choose which agent observability tools is best for their use case should look at the size and nature of their agentic systems and projects. Are they adding AI agent features to an existing product or application, or are they building agentic systems from scratch? Are they more focused on maintaining a stable LLM operation or iterating on new approaches? Is AI the center of attention or just an add-on that’s meant to improve an existing stack?

The AgentOps and agent observability options listed below share many of the same features but differ in their focus and their attention to the challenges organizations will encounter when incorporating agents into their stacks. Each tool offers a worthwhile place to start understanding how to care for the growing presence of AI in the production world.

AgentOps.ai

When teams of agents work together, tracking the conversations are essential for understanding and debugging what’s happening. The SDK from AgentOps.ai records events so that the creators can replay past behavior to track details such as token counts, spending, latency, and more. Available as a service and on-premises.

Pricing: Starts at $40 per month plus usage costs at $0.20 per 1M tokens

Standout feature: Replay analytics with “time-travel debugging”

Best suited for: Complex agent debugging

Arize Phoenix

Debugging prompts and LLM responses requires a nuanced understanding of just what’s happening, in part because of the non-determinism that often enters the process. Phoenix from Arize supports this process with robust tracing and the ability to score the results for more precise iteration. Their system can track the results and tool calls from a variety of major platforms (Anthropic, AWS, OpenAI, etc.) that are initiated by the major frameworks (LangChain, LlamaIndex, DSPy, etc.). The result is insight into what data is triggering what chain of responses.

Pricing: Small free tier; Pro plan starts at $50 per month plus costs tied to events

Standout feature: LLM-as-a-Judge metrics for tracking quality

Best suited for: Teams focusing on iterating for accuracy and quality

BigPanda

BigPanda has always offered solutions for tracking performance of complex systems. Now the company is drilling deeper into the challenge of detecting and ending the problems that come from models that go awry. BigPanda’s main system relies on historical data and machine learning algorithms to flag issues. Its own agent layer connects the problematic nodes and errant models while dispatching alerts to the right team members.

Pricing: “Value-based” table on request

Standout feature: Automated triage for faster response

Best suited for: Large teams seeking to reduce alert fatigue from large customer base

Braintrust

Setting up an effective improvement cycle for an AI agent requires a strong feedback loop from production data to the agent’s next generation. Braintrust watches the production workload and creates test vectors that expose how an agent may be drifting, regressing, or departing from its path. The tool automates much of the testing and scoring feedback loop so problematic patterns can be discovered and addressed. A core part of the offering is a specialized data store that can track large and sometimes deeply nested collections of tests and their results. Their approach may be summarized by one of their tag lines: “trace everything.”

Pricing: Free starter tier; Pro plan starts at $249 with some usage-based costs covered

Standout feature: Highly scalable trace ingestion

Best for: Teams developing strong guardrails through continuous testing

Chronicle Labs

When it’s time to release a new version of an agent into the wild, the platform from Chronicle Labs specializes in staging it and testing it with a collection of use tests and regression cases. The tools are also helpful during development cycles. “Backtest your agent against reality,” their sales material promises, with a set of tools that mines the production telemetry for solid test vectors that stress every part of the agent with prompts and challenges that the agent will encounter after leaving the safety of the lab.

Pricing: On request

Standout feature: Back-testing options for complex testing regimes

Best for: Teams chasing strong models with good fidelity to reality

Comet Opik

Building a dashboard for tracking every in-flow and out-flow to agents is one way to be ready to watch for and solve problems. Opik from Comet is just such a tool. The DevOps teams can track each call and add its own automated routines to examine the results, score them based on 30-plus metrics, and if desired, send it off to another LLM to evaluate the results. Agents that are constantly failing stand out. DevOps teams can also ask questions like, “Who is using this model and racking up all of the bills?” The same goes for MCP skills and other cogs in the machine.

Pricing: Free tiers for open source and small projects; Pro plan starts at $19 per month with usage limits

Standout feature: Auto-scoring with 30-plus metrics for evaluating traces

Best for: Teams focusing on RAG and agentic workflows

Datadog

DevOps teams that rely on Datadog to track logs across collections of services can also use it to track LLM operations, which are, of course, just another source and sink for data. It will track performance such as time to first token and offer insight into what might be causing an issue, such as lack of memory. Results then get plugged into the same cost-tracking mechanism so the bean counters can predict when the budget will run out. After all, the CFO likely doesn’t care whether the bill comes from an LLM or an old-school S3 storage bucket. Datadog integrates AI into their tools by treating these models as just another source of data.

Pricing: Small free tier with multiple paid tiers for various levels of enterprise monitoring

Standout feature: Large installed base with broad focus on more than LLMs

Best for: Large enterprise teams working with established infrastructure

Dynatrace

For more than 20 years, Dynatrace has been delivering tools that track dataflows across the full stack. Now that AIs are finding roles in many of the nodes in this complex graph, they’re expanding to track how various AI agents can interact. They want to build one platform that helps track the root cause and, often now, deploy solutions autonomously. They want to focus on being ready to support complex networks of agents that detect problems in either performance or security and then work within defined guardrails to fix them. Determining the right role for their own AI-powered agents is a key part of the product.

Pricing: Plans start at $7 per month with larger plans designed for full enterprise monitoring

Standout feature: High level of autonomous monitoring designed for large installations

Best for: Complex, hybrid environments mixing LLMs with traditional services

Galileo

Placing some AI systems into production is often a harrowing experience because the actual performance is impossible to predict, even with the most rigorous tests. Galileo offers guardrails that track performance and watch for any behavior that deviates from the ground truth. Their “LLM-as-judge” systems are distilled into compact models that can be run locally for lower costs and faster performance.

Pricing: Small free tier; Pro plans start at $50 per month with usage-based limits and costs

Standout feature: Real-time guardrails for deployed agents

Best for: Security-conscious installations that need to defend against hallucination and data leakage

Grafana Labs

Long the go-to source for open source telemetry, Grafana Labs now tracks performance of AI models in constellations of services. Grafana tracks the evolution of answers across the agentic network to recognize how small changes or hallucinations can spin out of control. It bills its system as “actually useful AI” and has even trademarked it. Its cloud assistant can configure and reconfigure the Grafana dash to offer the right level of observability. Its system includes AI-level analysis that can flag models that are responding quickly but offering bad answers because of problems such as model drift or context degradation.

Pricing: Basic free tier; Pro plan begins at $19 per month, includes better retention and some usage-based fees 

Standout feature: Full-stack tool with fully integrated LLM tools

Best for: Large, enterprise-scale system adding AI

Helicone

Sometimes shoehorning in another tool into the chain can be tricky. Helicone is designed as a smart network proxy that will route all model requests while keeping solid debugging records from the data as it goes by. The data it captures can be turned into nice charts that make it easy to spot latency issues or model failures. Naturally, tracking AI spend is also a feature in much demand as bills continue to climb.

Pricing: Small free tier; Pro plan starts at $79 per month, includes features such as team collaboration and improved querying

Standout feature: Proxy-based integration

Best for: Development teams who want to add better monitoring features quickly

Laminar

Tracking agents in development and production means building strong storehouses of data enumerating what happened. Laminar works closely with OpenTelemetry to follow agents operating in production so that flaws and failure modes can be understood from log files stored efficiently with their own compression scheme. Developers can search through traces with an SQL-ish language and Laminar’s transcript view illuminates what happened. When necessary, the traces can enable developers to scroll back in time and replay the same inputs for debugging. The goal is to offer deep insights with high-level visibility of how well the agents are meeting business objectives.

Pricing: Small free tier; “Hobby” tier that adds more features at $30; Pro level starts at $150 per month

Standout feature: Open-source license makes self-hosting a viable option

Best for: Teams fully able to leverage open-source responsibilities

LangChain LangSmith

Real-time data from agents is essential for managing any mutli-agent system in production. LangSmith from LangChain traces costs, tools, and progress toward solutions for a wide collection of agents using SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Go, and Java. The OpenTelemetry-based solution watches for anomalies, issuing warnings and alerts through dashboards and communication channels such as PagerDuty. Deeper analysis can reveal issues such as topic clustering or odd patterns of failure. Coordination with agent deployment platforms such as LangGraph and deepagents ensures greater focus on successful resolution of assignments.

Pricing: Free for solo developers; Pro teams start at $39 per person per month 

Standout feature: Systematic approach to regression testing of prompts

Best for: Teams relying on LangChain and LangGraph frameworks for supporting complex agentic behavior

Lunary

Watching the user experience is essential for building AI applications such as chatbots and assistants. Lunary offers a proxy that traces all interactions and then builds analytical dashboards for measuring metrics such as user satisfaction or model costs. One common usage is finding frequent topics and looking at the responses to ensure they deliver. When prompts aren’t perfect, Lunary lets teams iterate on the prompt text until the right answers are coming out. Its proxy structure and common API format enables Lunary to promise to work with “any LLM, any framework.”

Pricing: Free tier; Pro plan starts at $20 per month

Standout feature: Deep integration with humans for reviewing and optimizing results

Best for: Startups focused on rapid prompt innovation

NewRelic

The platform that began tracking performance of some web applications is now powerful enough to track the flows of data through complex agentic ecologies. NewRelic’s AI-driven monitoring watches for golden signals that can indicate misbehavior or worse throughout the entire lifecycle. It tracks every detail of the interactions through protocols such as MCP and then makes this available to the AI engineers responsible for performance. The dashboard provides the insights necessary to watch for toxic behavior, overt bias, drift, and overblown hallucinations. Predicting and maybe even controlling the cost is also a growing role as tokenomics becomes as important as response time.

Pricing: Free tier; Pro plan fees available through website

Standout feature: Full-stack support with hundreds of integrations with other tools

Best for: Established enterprise teams mixing in AI

Nova AI Ops

The goal of Nova AI Ops is to deliver a team of agents that watch over a cloud and make it, at least partially, self-healing. Each agent uses a mixture of predictive AI and machine learning to watch cloud telemetry reports for anomalies. Then they calculate the “blast radius” and decide whether this is a problem that can be fixed automatically “while you sleep” or saved for the human supervisors. These tools are aimed not just on LLM operations but on the stack as a whole.

Pricing: Small free tier; Standard pricing  begins at $40 per user per month with usage billing

Standout feature: Focus on software reliability engineering helps teams deliver stable stacks

Best for: Teams that want to integrate LLMs into incident response and stability management

Splunk

The platform that began delivering smart logging is now fully AI capable, offering solutions that can watch over agents with much the same way that it continues to track microservices. Splunk now includes a fairly large amount of predictive AI for learning from the information in the logs and then turning this learning into fast solutions. This AI assistant can track deployed AI models connected by protocols such as MCP and watch over behavior while delivering the ability for users to drill down and explore what’s working and what’s failing. Their AI Canvas is meant to offer a central hub where the AI scientists can track both the local behavior of the models as well as their role in a larger data ecosystem.

Pricing: Activity-based pricing tracks usage of LLM backends and storage

Standout feature: Ready to scale to large enterprise stacks

Best for: Teams with legacy systems that are folding in agentic options

SuperPenguin

One of the most important parts of an AI service is the bill. SuperPenguin is a product designed to track consumption and make predictions so that the CFO won’t be surprised. The goal is to provide solid estimates about the total cost of each product by allocating costs to customers, features, and teams. If there’s a sudden shift, a “spike detector” will raise an alarm so that dev teams can ensure that the AI spend is worth it.

Pricing: Small free tier for experimentation; Growth tier for teams, starting at $30 per month; Pro tier offers deeper options starting at $200 per month

Standout feature: Strong accounting with invoice reconciliation and PR-level usage tracking

Best for: Teams that need precise cost accounting

Vellum

Prompt engineers spend time fussing over the details of tweaking, improving, and enhancing the words that guide the LLM. Vellum started as a company that would provide the pipeline so that you could manage and improve the prompts that ran again and again. Now the system is growing more powerful, offering a higher level of automation that lets you meta-manage the prompt chain. They’ve also begun marketing it as a form of personal assistant with pre-built connections to many of the major services such as Gmail. Its llm-cost-optimizer can juggle multiple options while finding a cheaper way to execute a prompt, a process the company suggests can save 60% or more.

Pricing: Open-source free tier; Pro plan starts at $35 per month

Standout feature: Focus on multi-model pipelines for true agentic solutions

Best for: Product teams with complex prompt engineering workflows

A year ago, most enterprise AI systems generated recommendations. Today, AI systems are approving transactions, routing shipments, updating records, interacting with customers, and triggering downstream software actions with little or no human involvement.

For CIOs, that shift changes the central governance question. The challenge is no longer simply whether an AI model is accurate. It is whether the organization can explain, audit, and defend the decisions the system makes.

When an AI assistant suggests a meeting time or summarizes a document, mistakes are inconvenient. When an autonomous AI system issues a refund, reprices a product, modifies a customer record, or initiates a financial transaction, mistakes carry operational, legal, and reputational consequences.

When those consequences arrive, “the model decided” is not an acceptable explanation.

This is the accountability gap emerging at the center of enterprise AI adoption. Organizations are deploying increasingly autonomous systems while relying on technology that often provides little visibility into how decisions are made. The result is a growing mismatch between the level of authority organizations grant AI and their ability to understand or justify its actions.

Black-box AI may have been acceptable when AI primarily generated predictions. It becomes far more problematic when AI begins taking actions on behalf of the business.

The lesson software already learned

Fortunately, the technology industry has faced a similar challenge before.

As enterprise software systems became more distributed and complex, troubleshooting failures became increasingly difficult. Engineers could no longer rely on intuition to understand what happened when something broke. The solution was observability: the practice of instrumenting systems so their internal state could be understood through logs, metrics, traces, and monitoring.

The goal was not to predict every possible failure in advance. It was to create enough visibility that teams could reconstruct what happened after the fact and identify the root cause.

Enterprise AI now requires a similar discipline.

But AI observability must go beyond traditional software observability. It is not enough to know what action occurred. Organizations also need visibility into why the system believed that action was appropriate.

An auditable AI system should be able to answer questions such as:

• What information did the system rely on?
• Which tools or data sources did it access?
• What alternatives did it consider?
• What verification steps were performed?
• How confident was it in its conclusion?
• What events led to the final action?

These questions are rapidly becoming essential operational requirements rather than technical nice-to-haves.

Why visibility matters more as AI gains autonomy

As AI systems become more autonomous, failures become harder to detect and diagnose.

A human reviewing a single AI-generated recommendation can often spot obvious mistakes. A network of AI agents coordinating multiple tasks across business processes presents a different challenge. Decisions can build upon one another. A flawed assumption early in a workflow can propagate through subsequent actions, creating confident but incorrect outcomes.

The challenge is rarely identifying that something went wrong. Eventually, an error surfaces through a customer complaint, a failed transaction, an audit finding, or an operational disruption.

The challenge is determining why it happened.

Which information influenced the decision? Which tools were consulted? Which safeguards worked as intended? Which ones failed?

Without visibility into the reasoning process, troubleshooting autonomous AI workflows can become significantly more difficult than debugging traditional software systems.

For CIOs responsible for enterprise reliability, compliance, and governance, that lack of visibility creates unacceptable operational risk.

Moving toward glass-box AI

The answer is not to slow AI adoption. The answer is to make AI systems observable.

Increasingly, organizations are seeking AI systems that behave more like a glass box than a black box. The objective is not to expose every parameter inside a neural network. Rather, it is to provide a clear, auditable record of how decisions were reached and why actions were taken.

The most promising approaches share two common characteristics.

The first is verification. Instead of treating a single model’s output as ground truth, systems incorporate independent validation steps before actions are executed. Multiple agents, external checks, business rules, or verification workflows help identify errors before they become operational incidents.

The second is explainability. Effective systems maintain a decision trail that captures inputs, intermediate reasoning steps, tool usage, verification activities, and outputs in a form that human reviewers can understand.

Together, these capabilities create something that has long been expected of human decision-makers but is often missing from AI systems: the ability to show your work.

The regulatory and business reality

The push toward AI observability is not being driven solely by technologists.

Regulators increasingly expect organizations to demonstrate oversight of automated decision-making systems. Emerging AI governance frameworks place growing emphasis on transparency, traceability, accountability, and human oversight.

Customers are moving in the same direction. Whether the decision involves pricing, service, eligibility, or support, people increasingly want the ability to understand and challenge outcomes that affect them.

The result is a convergence of operational, regulatory, and market pressures around a single requirement: organizations must be able to explain what their AI systems are doing.

Three questions every CIO should ask

Before deploying autonomous AI systems, technology leaders should be able to answer three basic questions:

1. Can we reconstruct the complete decision path that led to an action?
2. Can we verify critical outputs before actions are executed?
3. Can a human auditor understand why the decision occurred?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, the organization may be granting more authority to AI than it can responsibly govern.

Accountability will become a competitive advantage

The organizations that succeed with autonomous AI will not necessarily be those that automate the most processes or deploy the largest models. They will be the organizations that combine automation with accountability.

Black-box systems made sense when AI primarily generated predictions. As AI increasingly acts on behalf of businesses, customers, and employees, visibility becomes essential.

The future of enterprise AI will belong not to systems that merely act, but to systems whose actions can be examined, understood, and trusted.

—

New Tech Forum provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

When an HTTP request is too long or complex to be encoded in its URI using GET, developers have long resorted to using the POST method as a workaround. However, this can create issues; while GET requests are defined as safe and idempotent, POST does not necessarily share those characteristics.

To combat the problem, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has published a proposed standard HTTP request method, QUERY (RFC 10008), which bridges the two functions, taking the best of each.

A safe method is defined as one which is “essentially” read-only, where “the client does not request, and does not expect, any state change on the origin server as a result of applying a safe method to a target resource. Likewise, reasonable use of a safe method is not expected to cause any harm, loss of property, or unusual burden on the origin server,” the IETF standards document states. And when a request is idempotent, no matter how many times it is retried, the intended effect on the server of multiple identical requests with that method is the same as the effect for a single such request.

POST requests do not always fulfill those criteria. But QUERY requests do. The input to the QUERY operation is, like POST, passed as the content of the request, rather than as part of the request URI as it is with GET. Unlike POST, QUERY allows functions such as caching and automatic retries to operate, precisely because it is safe and idempotent.

Read-only in disguise

“RFC 10008 matters because it gives the web’s favorite workaround a protocol identity,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “Developers have disguised read-only questions as POST commands for two decades; QUERY carries the question in the request body while declaring it safe to retry and cache. The significance is machine-readable intent; retry engines, caches, and autonomous agents act on what a method declares, not on what documentation intends. Under automation, semantics become policy.”

“GET works while a request fits comfortably in a URI, and stops working the moment a developer needs deep filters, long identifier sets or an entire query document,” Gogia explained. “URIs also attract exposure through histories, bookmarks, and access logs, and encoding every input combination into the address quietly turns each permutation into a distinct resource.”

“POST solves the size problem and withholds the promise,” Gogia said. “Its generic semantics admit creation, mutation, and side effect, so no cache, retry engine, or gateway is entitled to assume that a given POST is repeatable or reusable.”

But while QUERY answers the long-running POST-for-search problem, the new method comes with some gotchas. As software engineer Rickvian Aldi noted in a blog post, “The cautious version is: it answers the semantics, not all the deployment work. Front-end code still needs stable query keys. Servers still need validation and cache-control headers. Infrastructure still needs to allow the new method.”

New standards take time

And that will take time; standards are often slow to be adopted. And before QUERY can be widely used, other standards such as the HTML forms standard need updating. That exercise is already in progress by groups such as the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group.

“Publishing an RFC as a Proposed Standard doesn’t mean the whole ecosystem supports it the next day,” said open source developer Daniele Teti in a blog post. “It’s the first rung of the IETF standards track: the specification is stable and ready for implementation, but it takes time for browsers, servers, proxies, CDNs, and client libraries to actually adopt it.” No major browsers support QUERY as yet, although, on the server side, Node.js and Go support the method.

Gogia pointed out that the authors of RFC 10008, engineers at Cloudflare, Akamai, and greenbytes, recognize this.

“The retreat route is designed into the standard itself,” Gogia said. “The Location bridge exists so that a QUERY can collapse back into a GET the moment it meets infrastructure that never learned, and the document says as much when it notes that clients can switch to GET for subsequent requests to simplify processing. Read that way, the equivalent resource is less a philosophical concession than a contingency plan, and it is the feature most likely to carry the method through its awkward years.”

OpenAI’s recent update to its Codex CLI has introduced a new protocol that appears to shift more orchestration decisions from user-defined configuration to the runtime, prompting developers to request greater visibility into the instructions exchanged between AI agents.

In a detailed GitHub merged request, users stated that the Multi-Agent V2 protocol-infused architecture of the CLI no longer exposes the instructions passed between parent and sub-agents, making it difficult to inspect how work is delegated across the system.

“Multi-agent v2 currently routes agent instructions through normal tool arguments and inter-agent context. That means the parent model can emit plaintext task text, Codex can persist it in history/rollouts, and the recipient can receive it as ordinary assistant-message JSON,” the request read.

“This changes the v2 path so agent instructions stay encrypted between model calls: Responses encrypts the message argument returned by the model, Codex forwards only that ciphertext, and Responses decrypts it internally for the recipient model,” it added.

Other users, commenting on the thread, also said that the lack of visibility into agent instructions can be attributed to the recently introduced Multi-Agent V2 protocol, with one user stating that reverting to the previous version of the CLI restored visibility, but only as a temporary workaround.

Separately, Ignat Remizov, CTO at payment service Zolvat, filed a GitHub feature request to offer what can be described as a permanent fix after stating that OpenAI may have introduced the change in efforts to harden security.

“A possible shape is to keep the encrypted message field for model delivery, but add a separate non-encrypted audit field for the readable task text. The audit field should be persisted in rollout/history/trace metadata so users and maintainers can inspect what was delegated without needing to decrypt model-delivery ciphertext,” Zolvat wrote.

Enterprise governance concerns are likely to emerge

While an OpenAI contributor said the protocol remains under development and declined further changes to the request, analysts warned that the issue would create debugging, governance, and operational challenges for development teams and their enterprises if the issue persists or becomes a long-term characteristic of multi-agent systems.

“Hidden agent instructions reduce observability in multi-agent systems. Developers can no longer see whether failures stemmed from incorrect task delegation, poor orchestration, or model reasoning, making debugging, prompt optimization, and root-cause analysis significantly harder. Agent instruction traces are becoming as essential as application logs in modern software,” said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

For CIOs, Jain pointed out, opaque agent interactions create governance challenges.

“Without visibility into how agents delegated and executed tasks, it becomes harder to audit decisions, investigate incidents, demonstrate compliance, and build trust in AI systems. Enterprises will increasingly expect secure but auditable agent communication rather than completely hidden orchestration,” Jain said.

“Any big enterprise, especially in regulated industries such as banks and hospitals, needs to be able to prove what their AI systems did and why, especially if something goes wrong. If a sub-agent does something bad, like touching private data, the company needs to show here’s exactly what it was told to do. If that record doesn’t exist, it is a serious problem for trust and legal accountability, not just an annoyance,” Jain added.

Further, the analyst pointed out that issues around the visibility of agent operations could even slow production deployments of mission-critical AI.

“Enterprises, just like we are seeing with developers on GitHub, are likely to demand stronger observability, audit trails, and governance before trusting autonomous multi-agent systems. It is nearly as important as model performance,” Jain added.

An email sent to OpenAI enquiring about planned changes to the protocol went unanswered.

If you just read the headlines, it would seem as if AI is now writing all of the world’s code and powering every application businesses run on.

That’s far from true. Just 4 of 33 AI pilots reach production, according to IDC Research — leaving legacy applications still fueling the wheels of commerce. This “silent majority” represents trillions of dollars spent each year on building, maintaining, testing, validating and monitoring legacy applications.

These applications won’t be replaced overnight. Companies and organizations depend on their predictability. The 60-plus-year-old COBOL programming language remains the backbone of banking software for good reason: it is extraordinarily efficient at processing massive transaction volumes with precision. Furthermore, do you want your bank revolutionizing how they manage your money? Probably not.

So, while AI investment continues to build inside the software development lifecycle (SDLC), it isn’t instantly rendering older software obsolete. What it will do is steadily enable easier tweaking, updating and testing of legacy applications — and in some cases, full migrations to modern platforms. And really, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Businesses have always looked to wring more efficiency and profit from existing products through intelligent prioritization.

The argument then is that CIOs and CTOs can take a proactive look at their legacy application portfolios to determine which ones, if any, should migrate sooner. Five considerations can help guide that decision.

Before replacing legacy apps with AI, ask these 5 important questions

1. Does the legacy application still work?

Is its utility still there? Customers often appreciate the consistency of legacy applications. They’re reliable, predictable and well understood. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Another way to think about this is the degree to which the technical approach of your legacy application is still viable. It’s pretty much a guarantee nowadays in software that an application built one way, with some set of technologies, would be built a totally different way just two to three years later. There is no avoiding that, but what you want to avoid is investing further into a technical approach powering a legacy application that has been completely replaced with new software or a technical approach, especially if it is 10x better across the vectors of software development (latency, cost, accuracy).

2. Does it still make financial sense?

Running a system over a long period amortizes costs significantly. Even as growth rates slow or plateau, it can still be less expensive to let legacy applications run than to overhaul them. Another way to think about this is: how viable is my customer base in the near-term and the long-term? If you anticipate modest—or even flat—earnings growth for your product, then that’s an indicator that it’s possibly worth optimizing your development processes with AI. Where it’s probably not worth investing is when you have no confidence in your future earnings, whether that’s due to the customer base shrinking or commoditization or something else.

3. Can you integrate AI into existing workflows?

A significant portion of upcoming software development lifecycle work will focus on refactoring applications to be more AI-native. Some legacy applications may be strong candidates for a full AI rebuild, while others are better positioned for an AI add-on. Gartner research from 2025 found that only 28% of AI use cases in infrastructure and operations fully succeeded.

Among those that did, success was attributed primarily to integrating AI into existing workflows and systems. “As AI becomes part of day‑to‑day operations, it boosts adoption and creates visible impact within the organization,” Gartner states.

It’s important to keep in mind the distinction between using AI to optimize an existing process or workflow within your application, versus powering a workflow or feature with AI. The former approach is more palatable for legacy applications because it generally doesn’t change the cost profile of running that application. In the latter case, if you’re introducing an AI-powered module into the application, you’re generally going to incur inference costs at runtime, and they are an order of magnitude more expensive for today’s frontier models than base compute.

4. Do you have documented processes for maintaining legacy applications?

If so, you’ll more quickly identify where AI can optimize. The more coherent, organized and detailed processes are, the faster AI can find its footing and drive tangible efficiency gains. If documentation is lacking, start there. Keep detailed instructions and workflows for how you do things. Consistency matters. Don’t do things by heart. Don’t approach tasks casually, and don’t do things differently each time. The more uniform your process, the more easily you can insert AI into discrete steps and achieve efficiencies without disrupting the broader software development lifecycle. The organization in the most precarious position is the one managing legacy applications with no documented process for doing so.

5. Can you prioritize?

Making a change to a piece of legacy software might involve 20 or more steps. Only one or two of those steps may be clear candidates for AI-driven optimization. Identifying and prioritizing those opportunities will help you realize early wins and build the case for broader return on investment. Also, not all candidates for optimization make sense in light of broader financial and operational constraints. As always, prioritize ruthlessly in favor of ROI—bang for your buck. If your team has been struggling to operate a particular part of your system due to a lack of expertise or time, you might consider using AI to buttress the maintenance of that component. Having AI own that part of the workflow might unlock big time savings—or it might erode crucial domain knowledge that your team used to possess through repetition. There is no one-size-fits-all; think through the second-order effects.

Adding AI in testing in the SDLC

Beyond coding and application development, AI is opening new possibilities in how we test software. As leaders examine processes and look for places to insert AI, testing is often a natural entry point. There has been substantial innovation here, including new autonomous AI-driven testing solutions, those that have been enhanced with AI, and hybrid approaches that blend both. Each organization will be at a different place in its AI journey. Testing solutions exist to meet everyone where they are. Also, the state of applications will help determine which approach fits best—and when it fits as you evolve applications.

Of course, there is some substance to the AI hype around how much code AI will write and how many applications it is already creating faster than ever. But one school of thought is that AI’s biggest economic impact will be in the creation of massive new markets and industries rather than in the complete displacement of existing industries. Regardless of how far AI takes us through the universe, it’ll take some time and it’ll be bankrolled by the trillions of dollars of existing products and industries that we depend on every day.

That’s all good news for legacy players, but no one can afford to stay still. AI capabilities are advancing rapidly. Make it a habit to revisit legacy applications and workflows regularly. The right moment to introduce AI will keep shifting, and staying ahead of it is a competitive advantage.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Ask any medical doctor, and they’ll tell you that prevention is better than cure. It’s more cost-effective and it has better outcomes.

The same is true in cybersecurity. But we believe that our industry has veered too far away from this simple concept. We observe that most new tools are detection-focused, and we are calling for cyber innovators and venture capital to re-emphasize and invest resources into blocking rather than just discovering problems.

The reasons that cybersecurity relies on detection are understandable, and they are based on the history of networked systems. Early systems were fragile. Recovery was slow and downtime was costly. So, the first security controls were designed to restrict unauthorized access. They blocked execution and prevented exploitation, because if an attack succeed – such as a computer virus running successfully – the consequences might have been irreversible.

When the internet exploded in the 1990s, prevention solutions multiplied. Vendors developed firewalls and antivirus platforms to stop threats before they started.

But attackers adapted, of course, and networks grew more complex. Perimeter controls were no longer good enough on their own. The cyber industry responded with intrusion detection systems and later with Security Information and Event Management. Detection got a boost from large-scale log aggregation and analytics.

This was a great complement to prevention. But it was never meant to replace it.

Detection didn’t reduce risk

Security today focuses on visibility, alerting and response. Executives use metrics like mean-time-to-detect and mean-time-to-respond, and compromise is often assumed to be inevitable. But as detection improves, this has not caused a proportional decline in compromise rates.

IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report consistently shows that faster identification and containment reduce financial impact. But the average global cost of a breach is still millions of dollars – because detection does not prevent the initial compromise.

The initial problem continues to come from the usual places: known vulnerabilities, stolen credentials or misconfigurations. In other words, detection reduces impact in the short term, but it does not reduce structural risk.

The limits of a detection-first model

When we gather for industry forums like the RSAC Conference, the topics include automation, AI-driven response and operational resilience. These are certainly important, but they have limits. Detection produces false positives and noise. The volume of alerts begins to outpace human capacity to sift through it for the genuine issues. Alert fatigue is real, and talent shortages continue.

We observe that the ratio of detection tools versus prevention tools is getting bigger. RSAC Conference runs the largest startup competition in cybersecurity. Over the past three years more than 500 new cybersecurity companies have entered the competition, and we estimate that more than 70 percent of these companies are shipping detection tools, not prevention tools.

Detection activates only after a failure has occurred, and unfortunately modern adversaries now operate at machine speed. Vulnerabilities are attacked through automation, and artificial intelligence generates phishing campaigns at a massive scale.

As AI lowers barriers to entry and speeds up capabilities, the attack surface will expand even more. Advances in some of the frontier AI models, such as Anthropic’ s Mythos and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5, may unearth previously unknown zero-day risks while chaining together various low-risk vulnerabilities.

If that’s not enough, quantum computing raises concerns about cryptographic resilience. Relying primarily on faster alerting is not the best response to all these threats that will simply multiply faster.

Prevention changes the economics

On the other hand, prevention changes defensive economics. To shrink the problem space, a professional can do these things: enable phish-resistant multifactor authentication (MFA), block malicious execution, segment networks and proactively manage vulnerabilities.

As exposure decreases, alert volume declines. Detection becomes more effective because noise is reduced.

Research shows that organizations have fewer high-impact breaches when they have mature identity governance, proactive patching and zero trust principles. Preventative maturity correlates with reduced incident severity and lower long-term costs. It doesn’t require perfection to be valuable.

We think that security leaders, therefore, should reconsider how to define success. Reducing dwell time – the time an attacker is inside your systems – is important. Reducing entry points is fundamental. But when budgets favor post-compromise visibility over preventive architecture and governance, cybersecurity is not fulfilling its original mandate.

AI will only amplify the imbalance, as capabilities that once required years of training can now be deployed quickly. Offensive toolkits are readily available.

Achieving a better balance

We believe that scalable prevention architectures and capabilities present a better path forward than expanding analyst headcount.

Cyber threats will accelerate and detection will remain essential. But our profession shouldn’t be defined by how efficiently we observe compromise. It should be defined by how effectively we reduce the likelihood of compromise in the first place.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Shadow IT has long been a major problem for IT leaders, but the biggest problem may be coming from the executive suite’s hunger for unsanctioned AI.

Nearly two-thirds of senior decision-makers admit to using unapproved AI tools, compared to just 31% of lower-level employees, according to a survey by Microsoft solutions partner TrustedTech.

The use of shadow AI is prevalent among senior executives even though three in four employees acknowledge security or data privacy risks related to the practice.

“Most shadow AI users are not ignorant of the risk,” TrustedTech says in a white paper. “They are deliberately choosing to use these tools anyway. This is not a training issue. It is a culture, incentives, and alternatives issue.”

In many cases, the problem is driven by a lack of approved tools, the report adds.

“People use shadow AI because what their employer hands them is worse than mainstream AI tools, or because nothing has been approved in the first place,” the report says. “That doesn’t change until the sanctioned tools are genuinely worth using.”

A question of authority

The use of shadow AI by CEOs and other C-suite executives can create major problems for CIOs, CISOs, and other IT executives because they may not have the authority to put the kibosh on it.

It also presents a challenge for IT leaders to provide the AI tools that employees and executives want to use.

When executives use shadow AI, CIOs are in a difficult position, because governance only works when it’s modeled from the top, says Andy Nolan, VP of technology at TrustedTech.

“If senior leaders bypass approved AI tools or policies, it sends an implied message that speed matters more than security and compliance,” he adds. “Employees notice that behavior, and it becomes much harder to ask the rest of the organization to follow standards that leadership isn’t following themselves, first.”

Another major problem is that executives often work with highly sensitive information, including financial data, strategic plans, intellectual property, and customer information, he notes.

But CIOs and CISOs also can’t solve the problem by becoming the AI police in every situation, Nolan says, because their role is to help the business innovate safely.

“That requires executive alignment, clear governance, and providing secure AI tools that people actually want to use,” he adds. “When leadership embraces those solutions, the rest of the organization is almost sure to follow.”

All risk, no reward

The use of shadow AI by senior executives puts CIOs and CISOs in an impossible position, agrees Amit Maloo, CISO at AI procurement provider Ivalua. CIOs and CISOs are held accountable for the risk exposure but have no visibility into the problem, he says.

“When senior leaders use ungoverned AI tools for business decisions, those decisions still have consequences, such as financial commitments, contract reviews, and data sharing,” he adds. “But there is no audit trail, no permissions model, or no way to reconstruct what happened or why.”

Part of the problem is that approved AI options often don’t meet the needs of users, Maloo says.

“AI policies alone aren’t enough; organizations need to pair governance with usability,” he adds. “If approved AI tools don’t meet the pace of business, employees at every level, including leadership, will find their own solutions. Successful organizations will be those that make the secure path the easiest path.”

IT leaders can’t solve the problem with more governance, he notes. “Policies and restrictions slow shadow AI down, but they don’t stop it, especially when the people using it are senior enough to absorb the disciplinary risk,” Maloo adds. “What CIOs can do is focus on providing tools that grant users full access to the necessary systems and data, eliminating the need to choose between a capable but ungoverned tool and a safe but limited one.”

Speed over security

The TrustedTech data echoes a June report from employee monitoring software vendor Teramind, which found that more than two-thirds of C-level executives prioritize speed over security when using AI tools, notes Nik Kale, a principal engineer and product architect at Cisco, and member of the Coalition for Secure AI.

In addition, the Teramind report found that two-thirds of enterprise AI activity runs through personal accounts on platforms for which the company already owns licenses, he notes.

“People are paying for the governed version and using the ungoverned version of the same product, so the problem isn’t the tools,” he says. “The approved path is slower, buried in procurement, or disconnected from where the work actually happens, and speed wins every time under a deadline.”

The problem then isn’t with the AI tools, but with the friction involved, he says. “People aren’t going around the front door because the room is locked,” Kale adds. “They’re going around it because the front door is slower.”

In many cases, the use of shadow AI exposes a couple of shortcomings in enterprise processes, adds Matthew Scavetta, chief technology innovation officer at IT solutions provider Future Tech Enterprise.

Many organizations don’t do a good job of making employees aware of the AI tools available to them, he says, and many organizations don’t offer training on the sanctioned applications, which drives users to pick products they are familiar with.

“If you don’t solve problems for people quickly or make people aware of which tools they can use safely, they will find a workaround,” he adds. “AI tools are no different than anything else.”

Shadow AI use by executives puts IT leaders in an incredibly difficult position, he says.

“CIOs, in particular, are under more and more pressure each year to keep up with what’s possible as tech influencers keep preaching about the potential of these tools,” Scavetta says. “CEOs and board members are constantly getting swept up in the hype; meanwhile, there are more and more case studies coming out showing how little ROI some organizations have realized. It’s a never-ending game of balancing possible with practical.”

Security engineers play a pivotal role in enterprise cybersecurity, because they are the professionals who design, build, and deploy security systems to protect an organization’s data, applications, systems, networks, and other IT components against a variety of cyber threats.

Finding not just qualified security engineers, but the best and brightest available, needs to be a priority for CISOs and others overseeing security at their organizations. That’s especially true with the rapid rise of AI and the threats that brings to the enterprise.

Here are some of the key skills and traits of elite security engineers to look for when hiring — or to acquire in order to uplevel your cybersecurity career.

Acumen with AI-powered tools

These days, AI-related skills are in demand regardless of domain, and this certainly applies to security engineers. There’s a wealth of solutions leveraging AI in the market, tools that engineers can add to their defense arsenal.

“AI is transforming security engineering from reactive alerting to predictive threat detection,” says Praveen Margabandhu, digital engineering anchor at financial services firm Navy Federal Credit Union. “AI-driven anomaly detection now identifies behavioral patterns that indicate fraud or compromise before traditional threshold-based systems would fire. This shifts the security engineer’s role from incident responder to threat model designer.”

AI-powered tools have taken over a large portion of the detection and triage work that used to be the core of a security engineer’s day, says Maruf Ahmed, cofounder and CEO of global tech staffing firm Dexian. “Vulnerability scanning runs on its own now,” he says. “Threat flagging that used to require a team pulling through logs for hours happens in minutes.”

This has freed up capacity on most security teams and changed what the day-to-day work looks like, Ahmed says. “With detection increasingly automated, the engineer’s value sits more in interpreting what gets flagged and deciding what to do about it,” he says.

Keen understanding of emerging and established AI threats

Engineers must also have a thorough understanding of the risks AI presents, including AI-enhanced cyberattacks using large language models (LLMs) to automate and scale highly personalized social engineering attacks, craft sophisticated malware, and generate deepfakes.

Other AI threats they need to be aware of include prompt injections, data and model poisoning, disclosure of sensitive information, model theft, supply chain compromises, and excessive agency.

“The same generative tools that help security teams work faster are available to adversaries, and it shows,” Ahmed says. “Phishing campaigns read better and land more precisely than they did a year ago. Social engineering is harder to catch when the language is polished and tailored to the target, and security engineers are now defending against threats built with the same class of technology they use on the defensive side.”

That has raised the bar for what reliable detection looks like, Ahmed says. “The objective shift I hear most from clients is about trust in their own systems,” he says. “Two years ago, the priority was visibility — making sure you could see across your environment. Most organizations have that now. The harder problem is knowing whether what those tools are telling you holds up under scrutiny and having people on the team who can stand behind those findings in front of a regulator or a board.”

Appreciation of performance and business goals

The best security engineers understand how performance and security intersect, says Margabandhu, who leads performance engineering across Navy Federal Credit Union’s digital banking infrastructure, including real-time fraud detection, identity and access management, and cybersecurity infrastructure resilience.

“A fraud detection system that is secure but too slow to catch transactions in real-time is not secure at all,” Margabandhu says. “Elite engineers optimize for both simultaneously.”

Engineers must be able to put things in business context, Ahmed says. “An engineer who can work across domains, validate AI outputs, and learn new tools fast is valuable. But that value compounds when the person also understands what the organization is trying to protect and why,” he says.

Security engineers who understand the business make better risk decisions, write more effective policies, and generate less friction with the teams around them, Ahmed says. “That is the profile employers are hiring toward right now, and it is where the talent shortage is most pronounced,” he says.

Systems mindset

“One of the biggest misconceptions in cybersecurity hiring is that elite security engineers are defined purely by technical certifications or tool familiarity,” says Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, an independent cybersecurity researcher and ethical hacker.

“Technical skill absolutely matters, but the strongest engineers I’ve worked with consistently share a combination of analytical thinking, operational adaptability, communication ability, and deep systems understanding,” Santos says.

Elite security engineers understand how infrastructure, cloud services, identity systems, applications, APIs, networks, users, and business operations connect, Santos says.

“Modern attacks rarely target a single isolated component anymore,” he says. “Threat actors chain together weaknesses across environments. Engineers who can understand those relationships holistically are significantly more effective at both prevention and incident response.”

Cross-disciplinary fluency and broad stack know-how

Being an elite software engineer today means having a range of technology experience and knowledge. “Organizations want engineers who can work across more of the stack than they used to,” Ahmed says. “A role that might have asked for deep specialization in one area now expects someone who can move between cloud infrastructure, application security, and compliance without needing a handoff at every boundary.”

The attack surface has continued to get wider, and the job descriptions for security engineers has followed suit. “That cross-domain fluency matters because security incidents rarely stay contained in one layer,” Ahmed says. “The engineer who can follow a problem from the network through the application to the data governance framework resolves it faster, with fewer people involved.”

The strongest security engineers bridge infrastructure, application, and business domains, Margabandhu says. “They can speak to a CISO, a developer, and a cloud architect in the same conversation,” he says. “An engineer who can explain what an authentication problem means for fraud exposure moves faster in a room full of executives than one who can only describe it in infrastructure terms. I’ve watched technically brilliant people lose that race repeatedly.”

Having the ability to communicate technical risk clearly to non-technical leadership can mean the difference between success and failure of attacks.

“Many security failures today are not caused by lack of tooling, but by misalignment between technical teams and business decision-makers,” Santos says. “Elite engineers can explain operational risk, prioritization, and security tradeoffs in language executives understand.”

Deep understanding of third-party risk and non-human threats

Threats can come from anywhere, including supply chains and non-human combatants. Third-party cybersecurity risks are on the rise. The 2026 Global CISO Leadership Report by executive search firm Hitch Partners, based on a survey of more than 625 information security executives across the US and Canada, says 43% put third-party risks as the No. 1 priority.

“Most teams are still better at securing what they own than securing what they depend on,” Margabandhu says. “The mental shift from perimeter thinking to dependency thinking is real and not everyone has made it. The engineers who treat every API call, every credentialed vendor, every third-party model as part of their attack surface approach design differently.”

Another growing source of potential threats are not human. Machine identities now outnumber human identities by ratios exceeding 100 to 1 in most enterprise environments, with some sectors closer to 500 to 1, according to the ManageEngine Identity Security Outlook 2026 report.

This includes service accounts, API keys, automation tokens, and AI agents, any one of which can present data governance and security risks.

Many organizations are still managing machine identities through manual processes that weren’t designed for scale, Margabandhu says. “Engineers who understand non-human identity governance are rare and increasingly important. This is not a future problem.”

Willingness to keep learning

Security engineers need to have a desire to never stopped learning.

“That sounds obvious until you work with people who’ve been doing this for 15 years and are still operating from the same threat models they built in 2012,” Margabandhu says. “Security changes fast enough that standing still is the same as going backwards.”

The security engineers who keep up aren’t reading one report a year. “They’re genuinely curious about what attackers are doing right now, this month, and they adjust how they think accordingly,” Margabandhu says. “That quality is harder to hire for than most technical skills, because it’s not on a resume.”

With AI presenting new and more sophisticated threats, keeping up with the latest developments is perhaps more important than ever. “Strong engineers are naturally investigative,” Santos says. “They actively study attack techniques, test assumptions, reverse engineer failures, and continuously adapt their understanding of risk.”

The best security engineers are often the people who remain intellectually uncomfortable because they know the landscape is always evolving, Santos says.

Employers have started paying closer attention to how fast someone can learn, Ahmed says. “The threat landscape and the defensive toolkit are both moving faster than any certification program can track, so hiring managers are probing for adaptability in interviews: how candidates have responded to recent shifts, whether they have picked up unfamiliar platforms on their own, how they work through problems they have not seen before,” he says.

Passkeys have been around for some time, but enterprise-wide adoption to this point has been slow for a number of reasons. But soon, many Microsoft customers won’t have a choice.

Starting September 1, Microsoft will roll out passkeys as the default authentication method in its cloud-based identity and access management (IAM) service Entra ID. And following a transition period, Microsoft-provided SMS and voice authentication will officially end on February 1, 2027.

With this move, Microsoft seems to be underlining the urgent need for a more secure authentication standard, as attackers up their game with AI.

This is an “important milestone,” because it moves passwordless authentication from an optional security enhancement to the expected standard, noted Ensar Seker, CISO at SOCRadar. “That shift is significant as attackers increasingly rely on AI to automate phishing campaigns, generate convincing login pages, and conduct large-scale credential theft.”

Microsoft’s six-month passkey roll-out

Passkeys require users to authenticate via a fingerprint, facial scan, or lock screen mechanism, rather than a password. They can be stored on physical USB keys (like YubiKey), or as digital credentials on computers, phones, or in cloud accounts.

This method, Microsoft contended, reduces reliance on phishable authentication tools like SMS and voice, and hardens protection against credential theft.

Passkeys “work better for users and worse for cyberattackers,” Nadim Abdo, Microsoft corporate VP for identity and network access engineering, wrote in a blog post.

Microsoft’s announced timeline for rolling out passkeys is relatively aggressive:

• September 1, 2026: All SMS or voice-enabled users will be “auto-enabled and nudged” to register a passkey upon multifactor authentication (MFA) sign-in.
• September 18, 2026: Pricing, commercial terms, and a list of supported telecom providers will be shared for scenarios that still require SMS or voice authentication due to regulation or technical or operational challenges.
• October 30, 2026: Enterprises still using SMS and voice must select and configure a supported telecom provider through the Microsoft Security Store. From then on, they will be responsible for any telecom-related costs.
• February 1, 2027: Microsoft-provided telecom delivery for SMS and voice authentication ends as a native Microsoft Entra capability.

After February 1, enterprises that require SMS or voice for MFA must register a passkey before sign-in. There will be no opt-out option.

It’s important to note that these dates apply to public cloud-hosted Entra ID. Support for other cloud environments will follow a separate timeline; additional guidance and dates are to come.

While SMS and voice have served their purpose well, Abdo said, bringing MFA to billions of users who otherwise would have had none, the threat environment has changed in “speed, scale, and sophistication,” necessitating this move to passkeys.

The benefits of passkeys

SOCRadar’s Seker pointed out that passkeys fundamentally change the attack surface because, unlike with passwords, there is no transmission of shared secrets that can be stolen by threat actors. Authentication requires possession of the user’s device, along with biometric verification or a PIN.

“Even highly convincing AI-generated phishing pages cannot simply trick users into handing over a passkey the way they can with passwords or one-time codes,” he said.

So why haven’t we seen widespread enterprise adoption? Identity ecosystems are “fragmented,” Seker noted, and many enterprises still rely on legacy applications that only support passwords. They also struggle with cross-platform compatibility, lifecycle management, recovery processes, shared accounts, and employee onboarding and offboarding.

Further, “until recently, many organizations viewed passkeys as a consumer technology rather than an enterprise identity strategy,” he said.

Microsoft’s move changes that equation, because Entra sits at the center of many organizations’ identity infrastructure, Seker noted. Default settings are typically the strongest drivers of security adoption, so when passwordless authentication becomes required rather than optional, organizations are far more likely to deploy it at scale.

Its biggest benefit would be a “dramatic reduction” in credential-based attacks, Seker said. He pointed out that most successful compromises still begin with stolen credentials obtained through phishing, infostealer malware, password reuse, or adversary-in-the-middle attacks. Passkeys “eliminate or significantly reduce” many of those attack paths, while reducing password fatigue and the help desk costs related to password resets.

In addition, rather than trying to continuously improve users’ ability to detect increasingly sophisticated phishing attempts, passkeys remove the credential from the equation altogether, Seker noted. “That represents a more sustainable long-term security strategy than relying solely on user awareness training.”

Still, passkeys are not a silver bullet, as they do not stop endpoint compromise, session token theft, malicious insiders, or attackers who already have control of a trusted device. Enterprises must complement passkeys with endpoint protection, continuous monitoring, conditional access policies, and identity threat detection, Seker advised.

How enterprises can prepare

To prepare for the shift to passkeys, Microsoft advised enterprises to review their authentication policy and identify the groups still using SMS or voice authentication. They should then select the best authentication method for user devices and workflows, and ensure all employees are given passkeys and security keys.

Entra ID supports both synced passkeys (those stored in platform credential managers like iCloud Keychain and Google Password Manager), and device-bound passkeys such as Microsoft Authenticator passkeys, Entra passkey on Windows, or FIDO2 security keys.

Seker advised enterprises to evaluate support for FIDO2 and passkeys across their identity infrastructure, and to develop clear enrollment and recovery procedures. They should also educate users on what’s changing, how passkeys work, and how they can complete registration. Further, Seker said, it’s important to establish secure device management practices and to continue enforcing least privilege, conditional access, and risk-based authentication policies throughout the transition.

Ultimately, he pointed out, the move is crucial. “Over the next several years, organizations that continue relying primarily on passwords will likely face higher operational risk as AI continues to lower the cost and increase the effectiveness of credential-based attacks,” he said.

Passkeys have been around for some time, but enterprise-wide adoption to this point has been slow for a number of reasons. But soon, many Microsoft customers won’t have a choice.

Starting September 1, Microsoft will roll out passkeys as the default authentication method in its cloud-based identity and access management (IAM) service Entra ID. And following a transition period, Microsoft-provided SMS and voice authentication will officially end on February 1, 2027.

With this move, Microsoft seems to be underlining the urgent need for a more secure authentication standard, as attackers up their game with AI.

This is an “important milestone,” because it moves passwordless authentication from an optional security enhancement to the expected standard, noted Ensar Seker, CISO at SOCRadar. “That shift is significant as attackers increasingly rely on AI to automate phishing campaigns, generate convincing login pages, and conduct large-scale credential theft.”

Microsoft’s six-month passkey roll-out

Passkeys require users to authenticate via a fingerprint, facial scan, or lock screen mechanism, rather than a password. They can be stored on physical USB keys (like YubiKey), or as digital credentials on computers, phones, or in cloud accounts.

This method, Microsoft contended, reduces reliance on phishable authentication tools like SMS and voice, and hardens protection against credential theft.

Passkeys “work better for users and worse for cyberattackers,” Nadim Abdo, Microsoft corporate VP for identity and network access engineering, wrote in a blog post.

Microsoft’s announced timeline for rolling out passkeys is relatively aggressive:

• September 1, 2026: All SMS or voice-enabled users will be “auto-enabled and nudged” to register a passkey upon multifactor authentication (MFA) sign-in.
• September 18, 2026: Pricing, commercial terms, and a list of supported telecom providers will be shared for scenarios that still require SMS or voice authentication due to regulation or technical or operational challenges.
• October 30, 2026: Enterprises still using SMS and voice must select and configure a supported telecom provider through the Microsoft Security Store. From then on, they will be responsible for any telecom-related costs.
• February 1, 2027: Microsoft-provided telecom delivery for SMS and voice authentication ends as a native Microsoft Entra capability.

After February 1, enterprises that require SMS or voice for MFA must register a passkey before sign-in. There will be no opt-out option.

It’s important to note that these dates apply to public cloud-hosted Entra ID. Support for other cloud environments will follow a separate timeline; additional guidance and dates are to come.

While SMS and voice have served their purpose well, Abdo said, bringing MFA to billions of users who otherwise would have had none, the threat environment has changed in “speed, scale, and sophistication,” necessitating this move to passkeys.

The benefits of passkeys

SOCRadar’s Seker pointed out that passkeys fundamentally change the attack surface because, unlike with passwords, there is no transmission of shared secrets that can be stolen by threat actors. Authentication requires possession of the user’s device, along with biometric verification or a PIN.

“Even highly convincing AI-generated phishing pages cannot simply trick users into handing over a passkey the way they can with passwords or one-time codes,” he said.

So why haven’t we seen widespread enterprise adoption? Identity ecosystems are “fragmented,” Seker noted, and many enterprises still rely on legacy applications that only support passwords. They also struggle with cross-platform compatibility, lifecycle management, recovery processes, shared accounts, and employee onboarding and offboarding.

Further, “until recently, many organizations viewed passkeys as a consumer technology rather than an enterprise identity strategy,” he said.

Microsoft’s move changes that equation, because Entra sits at the center of many organizations’ identity infrastructure, Seker noted. Default settings are typically the strongest drivers of security adoption, so when passwordless authentication becomes required rather than optional, organizations are far more likely to deploy it at scale.

Its biggest benefit would be a “dramatic reduction” in credential-based attacks, Seker said. He pointed out that most successful compromises still begin with stolen credentials obtained through phishing, infostealer malware, password reuse, or adversary-in-the-middle attacks. Passkeys “eliminate or significantly reduce” many of those attack paths, while reducing password fatigue and the help desk costs related to password resets.

In addition, rather than trying to continuously improve users’ ability to detect increasingly sophisticated phishing attempts, passkeys remove the credential from the equation altogether, Seker noted. “That represents a more sustainable long-term security strategy than relying solely on user awareness training.”

Still, passkeys are not a silver bullet, as they do not stop endpoint compromise, session token theft, malicious insiders, or attackers who already have control of a trusted device. Enterprises must complement passkeys with endpoint protection, continuous monitoring, conditional access policies, and identity threat detection, Seker advised.

How enterprises can prepare

To prepare for the shift to passkeys, Microsoft advised enterprises to review their authentication policy and identify the groups still using SMS or voice authentication. They should then select the best authentication method for user devices and workflows, and ensure all employees are given passkeys and security keys.

Entra ID supports both synced passkeys (those stored in platform credential managers like iCloud Keychain and Google Password Manager), and device-bound passkeys such as Microsoft Authenticator passkeys, Entra passkey on Windows, or FIDO2 security keys.

Seker advised enterprises to evaluate support for FIDO2 and passkeys across their identity infrastructure, and to develop clear enrollment and recovery procedures. They should also educate users on what’s changing, how passkeys work, and how they can complete registration. Further, Seker said, it’s important to establish secure device management practices and to continue enforcing least privilege, conditional access, and risk-based authentication policies throughout the transition.

Ultimately, he pointed out, the move is crucial. “Over the next several years, organizations that continue relying primarily on passwords will likely face higher operational risk as AI continues to lower the cost and increase the effectiveness of credential-based attacks,” he said.

This article originally appeared on Computerworld.

Enterprises have worked for years to improve detection and response times in the face of increasingly sophisticated attacks that relied on manual hacking and living-of-the-land techniques. AI is now threatening to undo those efforts.

An increasing number of threat actors are automating all phases of attacks, including lateral movement by using LLM-powered agents, severely reducing the time from initial access to deep environment compromises.

“The real shift is speed, scale, and orchestration: familiar cloud attack techniques were executed faster and across more surfaces than defenders could comfortably contain,” wrote researchers from security firm Sygnia last week in a report about an AI-assisted cloud environment compromise they investigated.

Sygnia’s report came on the heels of research from Sysdig about a cyber intrusion and extortion campaign conducted end to end by an autonomous AI agent. Actions undertaken by the agent included harvesting credentials, mapping internal services, and establishing persistence.

What both incidents show is that AI attacks have graduated beyond LLM-written malware scripts and phishing lures to handling all stages of attack chains, including parts that previously required human reasoning and hands-on command execution adapted to the environment.

Last month researchers from the University of Toronto revealed that they managed to create an AI-powered self-replicating worm capable of autonomously finding and exploiting weaknesses in dozens of simulated systems. The researchers achieved this by leveraging an open-weight AI model and building an attack harness to keep it on track.

While it may not be surprising to security experts that this level of AI-assisted attack automation is already happening in the wild, it’s very unlikely that many companies have had time to adapt their defenses.

“What this exposes is a truth that all security personnel must come to terms with: Most breaches won’t hinge on advanced AI, but on unpatched systems, exposed services, and weak identity controls,” Gidi Cohen, CEO and co-founder of AI security startup Bonfy.ai, tells CSO. “AI just makes those gaps impossible to ignore. The organizations that will struggle aren’t the ones lacking AI defenses; they’re the ones still relying on human-speed security in a machine-speed threat environment.”

No need for zero-days

As aptly demonstrated by the U of Toronto study, AI agents don’t need sophisticated zero-day vulnerabilities to break into environments, because many environments have systems and applications with known flaws and generic weaknesses.

The attack documented by Sysdig, which its researchers dubbed JadePuffer, exploited a year-old vulnerability (CVE-2025-3248) in Langflow, ironically a tool for building AI agents. In the new attack documented by Sygnia, attackers exploited a weakness in a web application that enabled them to find a stored AWS key. From there they quickly made their way through the victim’s cloud environment with the help of AI automation.

“The threat actor was not exploiting a single misconfiguration; they were chaining weaknesses across application services, AWS resources, source-control repositories, CI/CD workflows, runtime components, and data stores, while rapidly executing credential discovery, secrets harvesting, cloud enumeration, deployment-pipeline abuse, runtime modification, database access, and operational disruption,” the researchers said.

As with the JadePuffer case, the attackers documented by Sygnia were focused on extorting money from the victim. To achieve this, they compromised as many AWS instances as possible, exfiltrated data but also set up multiple persistence points in the AWS environment. The goal was to put pressure on the victim by demonstrating that despite recovery efforts they still had access to the environment.

Speed is the new game

Once sophisticated attackers break into an environment they often spend weeks or even months slowly moving to other systems. This is in part because it takes time for a human team to gain a thorough understanding of the environment and to find where the most valuable systems are.

This activity is also often trial-and-error: The attackers perform reconnaissance to discover the network’s topology, find exploitable weaknesses in additional systems, and search them for stored credentials that could provide access to more targets, all while using existing OS tools or common system administration techniques that won’t trip malware and intrusion detection systems.

Active threat hunting is one way to counter such techniques that are designed to evade automated detection. When threat hunting, human analysts inspect the organization’s network and systems manually for signs of compromises that might have been missed by tools. This is a slow but effective defensive technique — but only if attackers operate with the same time constraints.

“Traditional incident response often relies on the assumption that attacker progression will generate enough observable signals for defenders to investigate and contain activity before access materially expands across the environment,” Sygnia’s researchers wrote in their report. “The observed attack pattern challenged this assumption. Forensic traces showed rapid, repeated activity consistent with automated or AI-assisted workflows for credential harvesting, permission analysis, vulnerability discovery, and attack-path mapping, allowing the intrusion to progress across multiple stages in a compressed time frame.”

And it wasn’t a case of simple automated scripts going through an attack playbook either, but workstreams that showed clear signs of environment adaptation. Every new access was rapidly assessed and resulted in actions tailored for that specific system, whether an EC2 instance, S3 bucket, SQL database, or a CI/CD runner on GitHub.

Prevention is back in the spotlight

The obvious answer to AI-assisted attacks is AI-assisted defense. But simply the presence of AI-powered features in detection and response products is not a guarantee for thwarting such fast and adaptive attacks. Organizations must ensure all these tools and workflows are well integrated into a coordinated process across their different teams.

Moreover, these attacks show the value of defense-in-depth actions such as continuous validation of configurations, fast patch deployment, frequent secrets rotation, network segmentation, IP-based access control rules, implementing the principle of least privilege for credentials, restricting administrative privileges, enabling multi-factor authentication, and isolating cloud workloads.

Sygnia also recommends building automated response playbooks that can be quickly adjusted and deployed when potential signs of compromise are detected.

“The skill floor for running a ransomware operation dropped to the cost of running an agent,” Dray Agha, senior manager of tactical response at security firm Huntress, tells CSO. “Very mediocre cyber criminals can now ‘level up’ their impact from AI. That should worry defenders more than any single new technique, as it means more attackers, more often, against more of the long tail of unpatched, exposed infrastructure.”

A portmanteau of “development” and “operations,” devops emerged as a way of bringing together two previously separate groups responsible for the building and deploying of software.

In the old world, developers (devs) typically wrote code before throwing it over to the system administrators (operations, or ops) to deploy and integrate that code. But as the industry shifted towards agile development and cloud-native computing, many organizations reoriented around modern, cloud-native practices in the pursuit of faster, better releases.

This required a new way to perform these key functions in a more streamlined, efficient, and cohesive way, one where the old frustrations of disconnected dev and ops functions would be eliminated. With two groups working together, developers can rapidly roll out small code enhancements via continuous integration and delivery rather than spending years on “big bang” product releases.

Devops was born at cloud-native companies like Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon; but it’s become one of the defining technology industry trends of the past decade, primarily because it bridges so many of the changes that have shaped modern software development.

As agile development and cloud-native computing have become ubiquitous, devops has enabled the entire industry to speed up its software development cycles. Thus, devops has now thoroughly infiltrated the enterprise, especially in organizations that rely on software to run their business, such as banks, airlines, and retailers. And it’s spawned a host of other “ops” practices, some of which we’ll touch on here.[JF1] 

Devops practices

Devops requires a shift in mindset from both sides of the dev and ops divide. Development teams should focus on learning and adopting agile processes, standardizing platforms, and helping drive operational efficiencies. Operations teams must now focus on improving stability and velocity, while also reducing costs by working hand in hand with the developer team.

Broadly speaking, these teams need to all speak a common language and there needs to be a shared goal and understanding of each other’s key skills for devops to thrive.

More specifically, engineers Damon Edwards and John Willis created the CALMS model to bring together what are commonly understood to be the key principles of devops:

• Culture: One that embraces agile methodologies and is open to change, constant improvement, and accountability for the end-to-end quality of software.
• Automation: Automating away toil is a key goal for any devops team.
• Lean: Ensuring the smooth flow of software through key steps as quickly as possible.
• Measurement: You can’t improve what you don’t measure. Devops pushes for a culture of constant measurement and feedback that can be used to improve and pivot as required, on the fly.
• Sharing: Knowledge sharing across an organization is a key tenet of devops.

“Who could go back to the old way of trying to figure out how to get your laptop environment looking the same as the production environment? All these things make it so clear that there’s a better way to work. I think it’s very tough to turn back once you’ve done things like continuous integration, like continuous delivery. Once you’ve experienced it, it’s really tough to go back to the old way of doing things,” Kim told InfoWorld.

What is a devops engineer?

Naturally, the emergence of devops has spawned a whole new set of job titles, most prominent of which is the catch-all devops engineer.

Generally speaking, this role is the natural evolution of the system administrator — but in a world where developers and ops work in close tandem to deliver better software. This person should have a blend of programming and system administrator skills so that he or she can effectively bridge those two sides of the team.

That bridging of the two sides requires strong social skills more than technical. As Kim put it, “one of the most important skills, abilities, traits needed in these pioneering rebellions — using devops to overthrow the ancient powerful order, who are very happy to do things the way they have for 30 to 40 years — are the cross-functional skills to be able to reach across the table to their business counterparts and help solve problems.”

This person, or team of people, will also have to be a born optimizer, tasked with continually improving the speed and quality of software delivery from the team, be that through better practices, removing bottlenecks, or applying automation to smooth out software delivery.

The good news is that these skills are valuable to the enterprise. Salaries for this set of job titles have risen steadily over the years, with 95% of devops practitioners making more than $75,000 a year in salary in 2020 in the United States. In Europe and the UK, where salaries are lower across the board, 71% made more than $50,000 a year in 2020, up from 67% in 2019.

Key devops tools

While devops is at its heart a cultural shift, a set of tools has emerged to help organizations adopt devops practices.

This stack typically includes infrastructure as code, configuration management, collaboration, version control, continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD), deployment automation, testing, and monitoring tools.

Here are some of the tools/categories that are increasingly relevant in 2025, and what is changing:

• CI/CD and delivery automation: Traditional tools like Jenkins remain in many stacks, but newer orchestration tools and CLI-driven or GitOps-centric platforms are growing in importance (e.g. ArgoCD, Flux, Tekton). Also, platforms that integrate more tightly with monitoring, secrets management, drift detection, and policy enforcement are gaining traction.
• Security, compliance, and devsecops tooling: Security tools are increasingly integrated into devops pipelines. Expect to see more use of static analysis (SAST), dynamic testing (DAST), dependency and supply chain scanning (SCA), secret management, and policy as code. The push is toward embedding security earlier and bridging gaps between dev, security, and machine learning teams. (InfoWorld:)
• AI  and automation augmentation: AI-assisted tools are increasingly part of tooling stacks: auto-suggestions in CI/CD, anomaly detection, predictive scaling, intelligent test suite selection, and more. The hope is that these tools will reduce manual interventions and improve reliability. Tools that are “AI ready”—that is, they integrate well with AI or have mature built-in automation or assistance—increasingly stand out from the pack.

Devops challenges

Even as devops becomes more widely adopted, there remain real obstacles that can slow progress or limit impact. One major challenge is the persistent skills gap. The modern devops engineer (or team) is expected to master not just source control, CI/CD, and scripting, but also cloud architecture, infrastructure as code, security best practices, observability, and strong cross-team communication. In many organizations these capabilities are uneven: some teams excel, others lag behind. A 2024 survey showed that while 83% of developers report participating in devops activities, using multiple CI/CD tools was correlated with worse performance — a sign that complexity without deep expertise can backfire.

Toolchain fragmentation and complexity is a related issue. Devops toolchains have sprouted into a sometimes bewildering array of packages and techniques to master: version control, CI build/test, security scanning, artifact management, monitoring, observability, deployment, secret management, and more.

The more tools you have, the more difficult it becomes to integrate them cleanly, manage their versions, ensure compatibility, and avoid duplicated effort. Organizations often get stuck with “tool sprawl” — tools chosen by different teams, legacy systems, or overlapping functionalities — which introduce friction, maintenance burden, and sometimes vulnerabilities.

Finally, although devops has spread far and wide, there is still cultural resistance and alignment. Devops isn’t just about tools and processes; it’s about collaboration, shared responsibility, and continuous feedback. Teams rooted in traditional silos (dev vs ops, or security separate) may resist changes to roles and workflows. Leadership support, communication of shared goals, trust, and allowance for continuous learning are all necessary.

Many CIOs focus too much on tools or implementation first, rather than organizational culture and behaviors; but without addressing culture, even the best tools or processes may not yield the hoped-for velocity, quality, or reliability. Organizations that succeed here tend to have proactive strategies: dedicated training programs, mentorship, internal “guilds,” pairing junior and senior engineers, and making sure leadership supports ongoing learning rather than one-off bootcamps.

Why do devops?

Whoever you ask will tell you that devops is a major culture shift for organizations, so why go through that pain at all?

Devops aims to combine the formerly conflicting aims of developers and system administrators. Under its principles, all software development aims to meet business demands, add functionality, and improve the usability of applications while also ensuring those applications are stable, secure, and reliable. Done right, this improves the velocity and quality of your output, while also improving the lives of those working on these outcomes.

Does devops save money — or add cost?

Devops teams are recognizing that speed and agility are only part of success — unchecked cloud bills and waste undermine long-term sustainability. Waste in devops often comes in the form of “devops debt”— idle cloud capacity, dead code, or false-positive security alerts—which was called a “hidden tax on innovation” in recent Java-environment studies.

 Embedding finops practices can help fight these costs. Teams should shift left on cost: estimating costs when spinning up new environments, resizing instances, and scaling down unused resources before they become runaway expenses.

How to start with devops

There are lots of resources for help getting started with devops, including Kim’s own Devops Handbook, or you can enlist the help of external consultants. But you have to be methodical and focus on your people more than on the tools and technology you will eventually use if you want to ensure lasting buy-in across the business.

A proven route to achieving this is a “land and expand” strategy, where a small group starts by mapping key value streams and identifying a single product team or workload for trialing devops practices. If this team is successful in proving the value of the shift, you will likely start to get interest from other teams and from senior leadership.

If you are at the start of your devops journey, however, make sure you are prepared for the disruption a change like this can have on your organization, and keep your eye on the prize of building better, faster, stronger software.

More on devops:

• Devops debt: The hidden tax on innovation
• 10 big devops mistakes and how to avoid them
• Smarter devops: How to avoid deployment horrors

Docker is a software platform for building applications based on containers—small and lightweight execution environments that make shared use of the operating system kernel but otherwise run in isolation from one another. While containers have been used in Linux and Unix systems for some time, Docker, an open source project launched in 2013, helped popularize the technology by making it easier than ever for developers to package their software to “build once and run anywhere.”

A brief history of Docker

Founded as DotCloud in 2008 by Solomon Hykes in Paris, what we now know as Docker started out as a platform as a service (PaaS) before pivoting in 2013 to focus on democratizing the underlying software containers its platform was running on.

Hykes first demoed Docker at PyCon in March 2013, explaining that Docker was created because developers kept asking for the underlying technology powering the DotCloud platform. “We did always think it would be cool to be able to say, ‘Yes, here is our low-level piece. Now you can do Linux containers with us and go do whatever you want, go build your platform.’ So that’s what we are doing.”

And so, Docker was born, with the open source project quickly picking up traction with developers and attracting the attention of high-profile technology providers like Microsoft, IBM, and Red Hat, as well as venture capitalists willing to pump millions of dollars into the innovative startup. The container revolution had begun.

What are containers?

As Hykes described it in his PyCon talk, containers are “self-contained units of software you can deliver from a server over there to a server over there, from your laptop to EC2 to a bare-metal giant server, and it will run in the same way because it is isolated at the process level and has its own file system.”

The components for doing this have long existed in operating systems like Linux. By simplifying their use and giving these bits a common interface, Docker quickly became close to a de facto industry standard for containers. Docker let developers deploy, replicate, move, and back up a workload in a single, streamlined way, using a set of reusable images to make workloads more portable and flexible than previously possible.

Also see: Why you should use Docker and OCI containers.

In the virtual machine (VM) world, something similar could be achieved by keeping applications separate while running on the same hardware. But each VM requires its own operating system, meaning VMs are typically large, slow to start up, difficult to move around, and cumbersome to maintain and upgrade.

Containers represent a defined shift from the VM era, in that they isolate execution environments while sharing the underlying OS kernel. As a result, they are speedier and far more lightweight than VMs.

Docker: The component parts

Docker took off with software developers as a novel way to package the tools required to build and launch a container. It was more streamlined and simplified than anything previously possible. Broken down into its component parts, Docker consists of the following:

• Dockerfile: Each Docker container starts with a Dockerfile. This text file provides a set of instructions to build a Docker image, including the operating system, languages, environmental variables, file locations, network ports, and any other components it needs to run. Provide someone with a Dockerfile and they can recreate the Docker image wherever they please, although the build process takes time and system resources.
• Docker image: Like a snapshot in the VM world, a Docker image is a portable, read-only executable file. It contains the instructions for creating a container and the specifications for which software components to run and how the container will run them. Docker images are far larger than Dockerfiles but require no build step: They can boot and run as-is.
• Docker run utility: Docker’s run utility is the command that launches a container. Each container is an instance of an image, and multiple instances of the same image can be run simultaneously.
• Docker Hub: Docker Hub is a repository where container images can be stored, shared, and managed. Think of it as Docker’s own version of GitHub, but specifically for containers.
• Docker Engine: Docker Engine is the core of Docker. It is the underlying client-server technology that creates and runs the containers. The Docker Engine includes a long-running daemon process called dockerd for managing containers, APIs that allow programs to communicate with the Docker daemon, and a command-line interface.
• Docker Compose: Docker Compose is a command-line tool that uses YAML files to define and run multicontainer Docker applications. It allows you to create, start, stop, and rebuild all the services from your configuration and view the status and log output of all running services.
• Docker Desktop: All of these component parts are wrapped in Docker’s Desktop application, providing a user-friendly way to build and share containerized applications and microservices.

Advantages of Docker

Docker containers provide a way to build applications that are easier to assemble, maintain, and move around than previous methods allowed. That provides several advantages to software developers:

• Docker containers are minimalistic and enable portability: Docker helps to keep applications and their environments clean and minimal by isolating them, which allows for more granular control and greater portability.
• Docker containers enable composability: Containers make it easier for developers to compose the building blocks of an application into a modular unit with easily interchangeable parts, which can speed up development cycles, feature releases, and bug fixes.
• Docker containers make orchestration and scaling easier: Because containers are lightweight, developers can launch many of them for better scaling of services, and each container instance launches many times faster than a VM. These clusters of containers do then need to be orchestrated, which is where a platform like Kubernetes typically comes in.

Also see: How to succeed with Kubernetes.

Drawbacks of Docker

Containers solve a great many problems, but they don’t solve them all. Common complaints about Docker include the following:

• Docker containers are not virtual machines: Unlike virtual machines, containers use controlled portions of the host operating system’s resources, which means elements aren’t as strictly isolated as they would be on a VM.
• Docker containers don’t provide bare-metal speed: Containers are significantly more lightweight and closer to the metal than virtual machines, but they do incur some performance overhead. If your workload requires bare-metal speed, a container will get you close but not all the way there.
• Docker containers are stateless and immutable: Containers boot and run from an image that describes their contents. That image is immutable by default—once created, it doesn’t change. But a container instance is transient. Once removed from system memory, it’s gone forever. If you want your containers to persist state across sessions, like a virtual machine, you need to design for that persistence.

Docker today

Container usage has continued to grow in tandem with cloud-native development, now the dominant model for building and running software. But these days, Docker is only a part of that puzzle.

Docker grew popular because it made it easy to move the code for an application and its dependencies from the developer’s laptop to a server. But the rise of containers led to a shift in the way applications were built—from monolithic stacks to networks of microservices. Soon, many users needed a way to orchestrate and manage groups of containers at scale.

Launched at Google, the Kubernetes open source project quickly emerged as the best way to orchestrate containers, superseding Docker’s own attempts to solve this problem with Docker Swarm (RIP). Amidst increasing funding trouble, Docker eventually sold its enterprise business to Mirantis in 2019, which has since absorbed Docker Enterprise into the Mirantis Kubernetes Engine.

The remains of Docker—which includes the original open source Docker Engine container runtime, Docker Hub image repository, and Docker Desktop application—live on under the leadership of company veteran Scott Johnston, who is looking to reorient the business around its core customer base of software developers.

The Docker Business subscription service, and the revised Docker Desktop product, both reflect those new goals: Docker Business offers tools for managing and rapidly deploying secure Docker instances, and Docker Desktop requires paid usage for organizations with more than $10 million in annual revenue and 250 or more employees. But there’s also the Docker Personal subscription tier, for individuals and companies that fall below those thresholds, so end users still have access to many of Docker’s offerings.

Docker has other offerings suited to the changing times. Docker Hardened Images, available in both free and enterprise tiers, provide application images with smaller attack surfaces and checked software components for better security. And, in step with the AI revolution, the Docker MCP Catalog and Toolkit provide Dockerized versions of tools that give AI applications broader functionality (such as by allowing access to the file system), making it easier to deploy AI apps with less risk to the surrounding environment.

Almost every company has a board or executive AI mandate. Vendors are rolling out agentic AI platforms. The pressure to move is intense.

But the reality on the ground looks different. Eighty-three percent of organizations say data quality is their top AI challenge, and 74% struggle to demonstrate ROI, according to Lopez Research. And only 21% report having a mature governance model for AI agents, per Deloitte’s 2026 State of Enterprise AI report.

“Agentic AI is real, and vendors’ offerings are very real, too,” says Boris Evelson, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester. “However, most enterprises are still not ready to adopt at scale.”

Dave Hilborn, who leads West Monroe’s Organization, People & Change practice, frames it as a race with three arrows moving forward — one representing AI and tech evolution, one representing organizations and people, and one representing data. “The AI arrow is far out ahead,” he says. “That delta is the readiness gap.”

The gap isn’t the technology. It’s the foundational work most organizations haven’t done: data readiness, operating models, governance, skills, and culture. The companies making progress aren’t waiting for vendors to solve these problems. They’re tackling the unglamorous work themselves.

AI doesn’t tolerate ambiguity

AI readiness can be framed across six levels — from data foundation at the base to reinvented business experiences at the top, says Afshean Talasaz, former CIO at Colonial Pipeline and now an executive advisor. One of the key areas that doesn’t always get the attention it needs is the operating model.

“The technology playbooks of the past don’t work in the AI world,” Talasaz says. “Those areas were able to tolerate more ambiguity between business and tech teams. AI doesn’t tolerate the same level of ambiguity. It needs clarity.”

That demands a different kind of partnership between IT and the business. AI systems learn from data — records and measurements of what’s actually happening in the business — and then operate within business processes. Unlike traditional software, which is built based on user requirements, AI is sandwiched between the business that produces the data and the business that consumes the outputs.

“AI is requiring IT and business teams to work more closely together, to be clearer about what AI will and will not do — that really close partnership is crucial,” Talasaz says. “It’s not something that will always naturally evolve. It requires a lot of intentionality about how teams need to work together to deliver outcomes.”

The AI questions CIOs must answer aren’t just technical. Do we have the right operating model? Have we balanced governance and standard operating procedures within the model? Have we organized teams appropriately? All this must be designed within the context of what the business actually needs.

Too many organizations are bolting AI onto existing processes without redefining roles or workflows, Forrester’s Evelson. “Organizations can either incrementally enhance existing workflows by augmenting capabilities with AI or pursue a more transformative approach by redesigning the process end-to-end.”

The companies getting value are doing the latter.

Data debt comes due

Data readiness remains the most common barrier to scaling AI. “We’ve never fixed this data quality problem in most organizations,” says Maribel Lopez, founder and principal analyst at Lopez Research, “and it comes back to haunt a company in spades as they move to AI.”

At Levi Strauss, the foundational work came first. “If you think about the Levi’s business, it’s quite complex — 100 countries, over 3,000 stores, multiple business models,” says Jason Gowans, the company’s chief digital and technology officer. “You can imagine the complexity of gathering all that data to understand how the business is performing. The idea of this single source of truth — that’s been the biggest thing.”

Levi’s now has more than 1,100 standard operating procedures that govern how work gets done on top of SAP. “That’s fertile material to feed to LLMs on how work gets done,” Gowans says.The results are tangible: partner onboarding that once took three to six months to set up EDI exchanges now takes days.

At contract manufacturing company Jabil, Chase Christensen, segment CIO, took a similar path. “We had to get everyone to understand where the source data resides, put tech in place so consumption is easier, and drive ownership around data and decision rights — so 140,000 employees don’t feel empowered to create their own data sources that fall out of line.”

The data challenge goes beyond quality, Evelson notes. Most organizations’ data isn’t AI-ready; it hasn’t been prepared for how AI systems consume and learn from information. “Data is siloed, poorly governed, and hard to discover, integrate, and trust,” he says.

Forrester research shows that 45% of data and analytics decision-makers were adopting vector databases in 2025, and 53% were adopting graph databases — investments that signal recognition of how much data architecture needs to evolve. The firm recommends a balanced approach: roughly 48% of AI spending on foundations such as data management and engineering, and 52% on consumption, including analytics, governance, and applications.

But even as organizations work to prepare existing data, AI is creating new challenges. Users leveraging AI tools are generating new forms of data and information that never make it into corporate databases, West Monroe’s Hilborn notes.

“There are explosions of new data, content, and insights being created on the periphery of these data lakes,” he says. “The challenge is how do you capture that and leverage it.”

Who’s sponsoring this?

Even when data is in order, many AI initiatives stall due to how they’re sponsored and funded.

“Enterprise data, analytics, and AI programs succeed when business CxOs sponsor them because they are accountable for business outcomes, not just technology delivery,” Forrester’s Evelson says. “IT-led initiatives often become siloed or tool-centric, whereas business sponsorship ensures alignment to enterprise strategy, prioritization of end-to-end use cases, and a focus on decisions and actions rather than insights alone.”

Too often, AI is still treated as a series of disconnected use cases rather than a sustained, multi-year investment. Evelson calls this the “use case trap” — organizations overindex on individual projects and miss the enterprise-wide compounding impact. That leads to fragmented priorities, inconsistent adoption, and difficulty demonstrating ROI.

Leadership readiness is a distinct layer of AI preparedness, Talasaz says. “Are leaders prepared to provide a vision of reinvented business experiences that become the north star?” he asks. “Leadership teams, at various levels of the organization, need to articulate what a reinvented business looks like so teams have the direction and support to build differentiating capabilities.”

Levi’s offers a counterexample. AI is a CEO priority there. At the last quarterly offsite, the execs were building agents. “When you’re committed to upskilling the workforce, you’re better served to answer how to rewire processes with AI at the core,” Gowans says. “It starts at the top. It has to be an exec priority.”

Fear, literacy, and two types of AI

Technical talent is only part of the equation. Organizations also need to address change management.

“We saw it with the AI boom — fear about jobs, not knowing what AI did,” says Jabil’s Christensen. “The key is demystifying AI. We doubled down and focused on AI literacy. We want everyone to understand how it was put together, and that removed a lot of that fear. That’s been the biggest hurdle.”

Different types of AI require different skills and governance, Talasaz says. “General use focuses on productivity on the desktop,” he says. “Integrated AI — industrial-capable AI embedded within core business processes — requires different skills, capabilities, and governance.”

For desktop AI, training and guardrails help employees be successful — what Talasaz calls “bumpers,” like in bowling. Organizations need to help employees through reskilling and guidance. “You have tools in a toolbox,” he says. “It’s important to know when to use a power tool versus when you need a screwdriver.”

But for integrated AI embedded in core processes, the stakes are higher. “Business leaders responsible for business outcomes based on AI-driven processes need to be fully aware of both the benefits and risks that come along with using these tools,” Talasaz says.

That distinction matters for governance, too. Lower-, medium-, and high-risk AI use cases may require different ways of working and different risk management approaches. “Deploying AI in potentially high-risk or high-cost areas of the business requires a higher level of rigor,” Talasaz says. “That’s different than building something that helps write my emails.”

From POC to production

Perhaps the biggest readiness gap is the transition from proof of concept to production. “It requires such a different approach,” Talasaz says. “A successful proof of concept can create a lot of excitement, but when teams are unprepared to build and scale, it can create the potential to over-promise and under-deliver.”

The operating model that works for experimentation doesn’t work for production at scale. Proofs of concept are designed to demonstrate the efficacy of ideas and the underlying technology. But building, scaling, and sustaining technology in the business requires operating models, standards, roles, and skills that many organizations haven’t developed. Intentionally designed operating models reduce the cost of learning, improve execution, and increase delivery velocity, says Talasaz.

But there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. “A business that needs to build capabilities in a marketplace moving very fast requires one kind of operating model,” Talasaz says. “A business that can take longer to develop business capabilities and adapt to market changes can choose a different operating model. It’s important to design ways of working tailored to what the business needs and the speed at which the business needs to leverage technology to be successful.”

Jabil is navigating this journey as part of its move to SAP’s cloud ERP through RISE, scaling from $29 billion to $34 billion in revenue while keeping selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses relatively flat — in part by layering generative AI onto predictive analytics capabilities built over years.

“We started years ago with computer vision to drive product quality,” Christensen says. “As gen AI blew up, we took the predictive analytics we had built over the years and imbued them with gen AI. We’ve implemented the basics, and now we’re looking for complex scenarios.”

Governance built in, not bolted on

Governance is often treated as a policy document or committee. It should be embedded in the operating model itself, Talasaz argues.

“The operating model doesn’t always get the attention it needs,” he says. “Policies and committees are useful, but they should handle larger enterprise risks. Most of the governance should be embedded in the operating model to ensure you’re getting outcomes you want.”

That might mean peer review built into the development process, bias checks before deployment, or clear escalation paths for high-risk use cases. When governance is separate from the operating model, it tends to slow things down. When it’s integrated, it becomes how work naturally gets done, says Talasaz.

Governance at the agent level matters, too, Levi’s Gowans says. “Know what agents have been deployed, who authored them, and who’s responsible,” he says, noting that the company has established a registry to understand what agents it has operating within its networks.

The challenges of AI governance are unique, Lopez of Lopez Research says. “Very few people have the governance stack required to say they did the right things with AI,” she says. “Non-human identity and access control is totally different and, frankly, evolving so quickly that no one knows what to do.”

The challenge is ultimately a trade-off, Forrester’s Evelson says. “Push agentic AI capabilities too far, and you risk creating a governance and compliance nightmare,” he says. “Tighten controls too aggressively, and you stifle innovation. Best practices for striking the right balance are still being discovered.”

It takes a team

The AI readiness gap isn’t about technology — it’s about the work organizations have been deferring for years. Data quality. Operating models. Executive sponsorship. Skills and culture. Governance embedded in process.

“Once you progress from everyone using Copilot to putting agents in production, then you realize the need for business context,” Gowans of Levi Strauss says.

It’s a shared journey requiring all teams to understand what’s required, Talasaz says. “It involves helping people understand what it takes from all sides — the technology itself, the operating model, the skills and talents needed — but also working with business leaders on the art of the possible,” he says. “Helping them understand both the benefits and the responsibility of deploying this tech.”

A colleague of his calls AI “the ultimate executive team sport.”

“It requires people to do it well and manage it,” Talasaz says.

A new era of customer engagement is taking shape. AI agents are quickly becoming integral to the way businesses serve, support, and sell to customers — able to respond, reason, and take action in ways that go far beyond scripted automation.

Many customer journeys, however, are still built on systems that don’t talk to each other. Customer data lives in one place, channel history in another, and AI agents often operate with only part of the picture. Customers feel the pain when they switch between channels like voice and messaging, get transferred, and have to repeat themselves yet again. It doesn’t matter that they’ve been loyal to a brand for years, every interaction feels like a cold start. That is the conversation gap.

It’s clear that AI isn’t the problem, infrastructure is. Closing the gap requires new building blocks that focus on continuity, so context can carry forward across systems, channels, human agents, and AI agents.

To bridge the gap, at SIGNAL 2026, we are introducing a new conversation layer for the Twilio Platform.

Twilio Conversation Orchestrator, Twilio Conversation Memory, and Twilio Conversation Intelligence are now generally available. Together, they help businesses coordinate interactions, preserve context, and connect human and AI agents so every conversation is more continuous and useful.

In addition to the new Conversations layer, we’re also announcing platform updates that make it easier to build, manage, and scale customer engagement on Twilio — from a reimagined Twilio Console to expanded channels and new voice AI capabilities.

New building blocks for connected conversations

The conversation gap does more than create inconsistent customer experiences. It hurts conversion and retention, increases operational costs, adds integration complexity, and makes agents less productive. The new platform capabilities we’re introducing are designed to fix that by coordinating interactions, maintaining context, and surfacing signals as conversations happen.

Conversation Orchestrator

Conversation Orchestrator helps businesses coordinate interactions across Twilio channels without complex custom logic. Teams can configure it in Console or configure their implementation with the API. It connects interactions into a single thread and manages handoffs between human agents and automated systems.

Conversation Memory

Conversation Memory creates a living, identity-resolved profile by connecting customer data with conversation history and customer traits. That means each interaction starts with the right context. It’s built specifically for LLMs to reduce latency and token usage by surfacing the most relevant details when they matter.

A new Enterprise Knowledge API (now generally available) also allows teams to deliver more relevant experiences and ground interactions in trusted business knowledge such as FAQs, policies, and product documentation.

Conversation Intelligence

Conversation Intelligence provides real-time understanding of live interactions. Using prebuilt and custom LLM-based operators, it can detect changes in sentiment, flag potential escalations, and trigger action during a conversation, not only after it ends.

That gives teams the ability to respond sooner, support agents more effectively, and improve customer outcomes while the conversation is still in progress.

Together, these products help businesses create customer experiences that feel more connected across channels.

Open by design

Twilio remains neutral by design. We start with the premise that you know your business. We aren’t here to prescribe a model, framework, or data strategy. We provide the infrastructure that helps you build customer engagement in the way that works best for your business. You pick the model and agent runtime. You own the data.

That doesn’t mean you need to start from scratch, either. We partnered with Microsoft, AWS, and others to create blueprints that support faster development. We are also introducing an open-source developer toolkit, Twilio Agent Connect (now generally available), that lets your teams connect agents built on any LLM or framework directly to Twilio’s infrastructure.

For developers, this means more flexibility. For businesses, it means less lock-in and the ability to get value from existing investments. For partners, it means more ways to build with Twilio.

A new front door

We are also introducing a reimagined Twilio Console, because as customer engagement grows more complex, managing the infrastructure behind it should feel effortless.

The new Console is a single mission control center that brings your communications, identity, and data into one experience: one login, consistent logs across every surface, an intelligent Console Assistant, transparent billing insights, and streamlined compliance workflows that no longer slow you down.

Over the coming months, we’ll roll out this new Console experience to customers automatically. You can also opt in to gain early access.

More channels, more control, smarter conversations

In addition to these launches, we are announcing several updates that expand customer reach, support enterprise requirements, and make it simpler to build on Twilio.

• Apple Messages for Business (Private beta) and Twilio Email (GA) give teams new ways to reach customers on the channels they already use.
• Data Residency for SMS (EU) (Public beta) enables teams to manage personal data locally to support regional data requirements.
• Conversation Relay enhancements add PCI compliance, HIPAA eligibility, Insights, and support for Deepgram Flux for smarter turn detection — helping AI agents better understand when a person has finished speaking.
• Stripe Projects integration enables developers and AI agents to seamlessly provision Twilio within Stripe Projects in a single, programmable CLI workflow.

Built with our customers

Bringing these new products to life required a close partnership with many beta customers and partners. This helped us understand real-world signals and needs to help make the capabilities robust from the start.

Among dozens of others, Centerfield, Constellation Dealerships, Car Finance 247, and Meera.ai leveraged Twilio to solve their own customer engagement challenges. These teams showed what is possible when businesses carry context forward, act on live conversation signals, and connect AI agents with human teams in the moments that matter.

Car Finance 247, a leading UK online car finance broker, is using Twilio to help recover stalled loan applications. When customers miss a field, need to correct information, or still need to confirm terms and conditions, AI-powered outreach across voice, SMS, and RCS, Conversation Memory tracks the application state. Conversation Orchestrator manages the outreach journey, and Flex helps bring in a human agent as needed. As Reg Rix, Co-Founder and CEO, shared:

“Because the platform remembers where each customer left off, we can pick up right where they stopped, helping them cross the finish line in a way that is modern, responsive, and genuinely helpful.”

Centerfield, a technology company powering AI-driven commerce, helps brands connect with consumers across digital and phone-based journeys. With Twilio, the team is connecting real-time conversation data with customer context to guide agents and AI systems in the moment, standardise what works, and improve performance at scale. As Aniketh Parmar, Chief Technology Officer, said:

“Performance comes down to how well every interaction moves a customer forward. We’re capturing each conversation in real time and applying what we already know about the customer to guide our agents and AI systems in the moment. With the Twilio Platform, including Conversation Orchestrator, Conversation Memory, and Conversation Intelligence, we can see what’s driving conversations so we can standardise what works, eliminate what doesn’t, and continuously improve outcomes at scale.”

Constellation Dealerships is using Twilio’s agent infrastructure to accelerate AI-powered engagement across its dealer network, moving from evaluation to measurable outcomes in days. As Richard Pineault, Director of R&D, shared:

“The value of this partnership is evident—our team progressed from evaluating Twilio’s agent infrastructure to realising measurable outcomes within days. This rapid speed-to-value exemplifies the agility and innovation required to propel the dealership industry into the future.”

Meera.ai is building on Twilio to modernise outbound engagement, replacing repeated manual follow-ups with always-on conversations across voice, SMS, and messaging. Vivek Zaveri, Chief Executive Officer, said:

“Meera.ai has partnered with Twilio since our inception to champion a conversation-first future for commerce. As the industry shifts toward real-time LLM-enabled interactions, Twilio’s Platform and the new Conversations products will help us reach customers in the moment.”

Together, these customers and partners show that the Twilio Platform can help businesses recover stalled journeys, improve live interactions, accelerate time to value, and create more connected experiences across AI agents, human teams, and every customer channel.

The next era of customer engagement starts here

As AI agents own more of customer engagement, businesses need infrastructure that keeps conversations connected across channels, systems, and teams. That means preserving context, coordinating handoffs, and acting on what is happening in real time.

That is what we are building with this next generation of the Twilio Platform: a new layer that connects channels, context, intelligence, and human and AI agents, helping businesses make every digital interaction more connected, more useful, and more amazing.

For 17 years, Twilio has helped builders create better ways for businesses to connect with their customers. In this next era, that connection matters more than ever.

Explore the new Conversations layer, try the products, and let’s build what comes next, together.