Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.

Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.

The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.

“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.

Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”

In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.

“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.

The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.

Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”

“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”

A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.

Monday.com’s key market advantages

Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.

“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”

Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.

While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”

Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.

“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”

But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.

Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.

“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.

Actions for the near-term

Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.

“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.

Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.

During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”

Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”

“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Over the past few years, I have learned that basic prompts produce inconsistent, hallucination-prone results that no executive would trust in production. What turned the tide was my move to advanced prompting techniques. These weren’t theoretical experiments; they became a practical foundation for reliable, measurable outcomes. I want to share the techniques that consistently delivered the biggest gains in my projects, complete with real before-and-after examples, copy-paste templates, lessons from failures and guidance on when to evolve beyond prompting to agentic systems.

Why advanced prompting still matters in enterprise settings

Sophisticated prompting remains essential for control, reliability and compliance. If you “ask nicely” and hope for the best, you need deterministic behavior, auditable reasoning and minimal risk of hallucination. Here’s what worked for me.

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants: Unlocking step-by-step reasoning

The problem: Models would jump to conclusions on complex analysis tasks, especially involving data interpretation or multi-step logic.

What I did: I started explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” and show its reasoning.

Before (basic prompt): “Analyze last quarter’s sales data and recommend three actions.”

After (CoT prompt):

“You’re a senior business analyst. Analyze the following sales data step by step: [data]. First, identify the key trends. Second, calculate the rates and anomalies. Third, link findings to business context. Finally, recommend the three prioritized actions with expected impact. Explain your reasoning at each step.”  

Results: Accuracy and depth improved dramatically.

Variants that worked well: Self-consistency. I ran the same CoT prompt multiple times and took the majority consensus. This reduced variability significantly.

Template you can use:

You are [expert role]. Solve this problem by thinking step by step.

[Task or question]

For each step:

1. State your observation or calculation.

2. Explain the implication.

3. Proceed only when confident.

Final answer in this format: [structured output]

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT): Exploring multiple reasoning paths

For truly complex decisions such as resource allocation or risk assessment, linear CoT isn’t enough. Tree-of-Thoughts lets the model generate and evaluate multiple branches.

Example: I was helping a client evaluate three potential vendor platforms for an AI deployment. A standard prompt gave a superficial comparison. With ToT

Prompt Snippet:

Explore three different reasoning paths for selecting the best vendor platform:

Path 1: Focus on cost and scalability.

Path 2: Focus on security, compliance and integration.

Path 3: Focus on innovation and long-term roadmap.

For each path, evaluate pros/cons against our requirements [list].

Then, compare the paths and recommend the strongest overall option with justification.

Outcome: The model surfaced nuanced trade-offs (e.g., one vendor had superior security, but higher integration cost).

When to use: Strategic planning, troubleshooting or scenarios with high uncertainty and multiple viable approaches.

3. ReAct (Reason+ Act) and prompt chaining: Moving toward agentic behavior

One of the biggest leaps I have noticed comes from combining reasoning with tool use and chaining prompts.

ReAct example: (used in data analytics workflow)

You are an AI analyst with access to tools. For the query below:

1. Reason about what information you need.

2. Choose the appropriate tool or action.

3. Observe the result.

4. Repeat until you can answer confidently.

Query: [user request]

In practice, I chained this with retrieval tools. One automated quarterly compliance reporting; the system reasoned about required data, pulled relevant records, validated them, and generated the reports.

4. Meta-prompting and self-reflection: Letting the model improve itself

Use the model to refine its own prompt. This is a huge time-saver.

You are an expert prompt engineer. Improve the following prompt for clarity, structure and effectiveness with [target model]. Make it more precise while preserving intent.

Original prompt: [paste]

Provide the improved version and explain your changes.

Self-reflection loops (asking the model to critique its own output and revise) are a game-changer for content generation and code-review tasks.

5. Multimodal and structured output techniques

With vision-enabled models, I started combining text with images (e.g., uploading architecture diagrams or dashboards).

Tip from experience: Be extremely specific in describing what the models should focus on.

Best practices I learned the hard way

• Start simple, then layer complexity: Over-engineered prompts from Day One usually backfire.
• Model specific tuning: Some models respond better to XML delimiters; others to explicit reasoning.
• Evaluation and versioning: Treat prompts like code if you track versions and run automated evals.
• Security guardrails: Always include instructions against prompt injections and respect data boundaries.
• When to stop prompting: For repetitive, high-stakes workflows, move to full agents or an orchestration framework.

Final takeaways for technical leaders

Advanced prompt engineering has now become a core competency for anyone responsible for enterprise AI outcomes. Start by picking one technique and apply it rigorously to a real business problem. Document before/ after and you will notice why it’s worth mastering.

The field continues evolving towards more automated and agentic systems, but the ability to precisely direct AI reasoning remains foundational.

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?

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

Microsoft has released Visual Studio Code 1.130, an update to the code editor that brings several improvements to the Agents window, along with enhancements to the agent host and the terminal.

VS Code 1.130 was released on July 22, one week after VS Code 1.129. Developers can access the release for Windows, Linux, or Mac from code.visualstudio.com.

With the new release, the Agents window gets updates that make it easier to review changes and manage chats. File-level diff statistics help users assess the size of each file’s changes when scanning a multi-file diff. The window also gets a more compact multi-file diff that makes it easier to review changes, Microsoft said. The Agents window is a dedicated window in VS Code that lets users run and track multiple agent sessions in parallel across their projects, without opening each workspace in a separate window.

Also with VS Code 1.130, assisted permissions for agent tool calls are available in the agent host. With assisted permissions, the LLM evaluates the risk of each tool call and decides whether the tool can run or should require the user’s approval. The setting to enable assisted permissions is chat.assistedPermissions.enabled. In another agent host improvement, quick chats running on the agent host now use compact, single-line rows in the sessions list. Regular sessions retain a second line with change statistics, status, and timestamps.

VS Code users now can open file links from Git diff output in the terminal when Git’s diff.mnemonicPrefix option is enabled. VS Code recognizes prefixes such as i/ for the index and w/ for the working tree, and removes the prefix from the link target so the correct file opens. When mnemonic prefixes are enabled, VS Code also recognizes the numeric prefixes produced by git diff --no-index.

Timestamps for chat requests and responses now are displayed when users hover over the message toolbar. You can disable this through the chat.verbose setting.

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?

Over the past year, I had the same conversation with almost every team starting an AI initiative. Should we build on Semantic Kernel, AutoGen or Foundry?

At first it felt like the most important architectural decision we’d make. Each framework had its own philosophy, each promised to be the foundation for enterprise AI, and picking the wrong one felt like an expensive mistake. I spent a lot of time helping teams weigh the trade-offs.

Looking back, I think we were asking the wrong question. I certainly was.

I watched teams spend months debating SDKs while the decisions that actually decided whether their applications survived production went unexamined. Some built elaborate orchestration layers for workflows that a few deterministic functions would have handled. Others avoided agent frameworks entirely and later found they’d designed themselves into a corner.

Then Microsoft settled it for us. It introduced the unified Agent Framework, quietly moved Semantic Kernel and AutoGen into maintenance mode, and the debate I’d spent months refereeing was suddenly over. Turns out the answer to “which of the three” was “none of the three, here’s a fourth.” The framework hit version 1.0 and general availability in April 2026, stable across .NET and Python.

What surprised me wasn’t the decision. It was how fast a debate that had eaten so much of our attention stopped mattering. Microsoft changed the menu.

It didn’t change the meal.

The framework was never the hard part

Framework selection dominated almost every early conversation I had about enterprise agents. Which SDK do we standardize on? Which orchestration model gives us the most flexibility? Which one is Microsoft actually betting on?

Fair questions. But after a year of watching these projects play out, I’ve slowly come around to a different view. Those weren’t the questions that decided anything.

The first question I ask now is much smaller. Does this thing actually need an agent?

It sounds obvious, and I still get it wrong sometimes. But it’s the mistake I see most. On one project, a team spent weeks designing a multi-agent workflow for a process that ran the same four steps every time: read a document, validate it, call an API, send a notification. The diagrams looked great. The system in production didn’t. A few well-tested functions would have been easier to build, easier to maintain and a lot easier to trust.

Part of this is just that “agent” has become the word everyone reaches for. Sometimes it’s the right call. Sometimes it’s a workflow we already knew how to build, wearing a newer label. An agent earns its complexity when it genuinely has to decide things you can’t predetermine, choosing between tools, adapting to what it finds, working out its own next step. If you already know every step, you have a workflow, and a workflow is usually the better engineering choice. The consolidation didn’t change that. It just made it easier to see.

What building production agents actually taught me

Once I stopped fixating on frameworks, the same three problems kept showing up. None of them had anything to do with the SDK.

Context beats model choice

Early on I spent a lot of time comparing models, the way you’d agonize over a restaurant menu and then order what you always order. Now I spend most of it thinking about context, which is far less fun and far more useful.

I’ve watched good models fail because they were handed too much, not too little. One team I worked with gave the model access to nearly every internal document they had on the theory that more information meant better answers. It went the other way. Responses got slower, less consistent and sometimes skipped right past the thing that actually mattered. When we cut the context down to only what the task needed, the quality jumped almost immediately. I didn’t predict that. It taught me to be suspicious of “just give it everything.”

The best agent systems I’ve worked on weren’t the ones with the biggest context windows. They were the ones careful about what reached the model, and when. That’s not something the framework hands you.

Failure is where the real work is

Most agent demos look great because they’re built around the happy path. Production doesn’t extend that courtesy.

I remember a project where everything held up in testing. Then a downstream API timed out after the agent had already completed several earlier steps. We couldn’t just restart, because part of the business process had already gone through. We ended up spending far more time on recovery logic than we ever spent on prompts. That project changed how I think about this work. The hard part was never getting the model to make a decision. It was making sure the system didn’t fall apart when reality refused to follow the script.

Tool calls fail partway through. APIs return inconsistent data. Models call the same tool over and over because the last answer wasn’t what they wanted. That’s not the exception; that’s a normal Tuesday. Whether you retry, roll back, pause for a human or push on with partial results is a judgment call, and no framework is going to make it for you.

Identity is the real security boundary

This one surprised me most. The moment an agent stops being a chatbot and starts touching real business systems, identity matters more than orchestration.

Every project gets to the same question eventually. Who is this agent actually acting as? The developer’s credentials? A service account? The user who asked? Get it wrong and you’ve built something autonomous running with more access than any single person should have, which is exactly the kind of thing that looks fine until an audit. The Agent Framework, like most modern tooling, makes it easier to wire agents to tools through standards like the Model Context Protocol. That helps. But where human approval belongs, what needs extra authorization, how much rope to give the thing, those are still yours to decide.

The surprises weren’t technical

Here’s what I didn’t see coming. The hardest part of last year wasn’t technical at all. It was organizational. The moment a team heard “agent,” expectations shifted under everyone’s feet. Business stakeholders started expecting full autonomy. Developers assumed the thing could reason its way through anything. People started designing for flexibility before we’d even agreed on what problem we were solving. The word did damage before any code did. I found myself spending as much time resetting expectations as I did discussing architecture.

Build for change, not for today’s winner

I don’t think the teams that struggled last year picked the wrong framework. Semantic Kernel was reasonable. AutoGen was reasonable. Foundry made sense for plenty of cases. I’d have signed off on any of them.

The ones that got hurt put all their eggs in one framework, treating it as the foundation of the whole system instead of as one more dependency. Microsoft provided a migration path. But teams that had tightly coupled their applications to framework-specific abstractions discovered that migrating and rewriting are not the same thing. That wasn’t Microsoft’s doing. It was their own architecture’s. The teams that moved easily had kept their business logic, prompts and orchestration loose enough to evolve independently of any one SDK. For them, the change was a manageable project, not a teardown.

For what it’s worth, nobody I work with is treating this as an emergency. Most are moving the smaller workloads first, watching how they behave and leaving the production-critical systems alone until they actually understand the new abstractions. That’s the right instinct. And I doubt this is the last consolidation we’ll see, the ecosystem is still young, frameworks will keep absorbing each other and over time the differences between them will be operational more than architectural.

I don’t regret the framework debates, honestly. They were reasonable at the time. What changed wasn’t Microsoft’s roadmap.

It was mine. Watching these systems run in production taught me that the framework is the easiest piece to swap out. Recovery logic, context management, security boundaries, the business workflow itself, those stay with you long after today’s SDK gets replaced by tomorrow’s.

So, Microsoft made one decision easier by turning three frameworks into one. Good. Five years from now we’ll be on different tools, and we’ll still be asking the same handful of questions.

Does this actually need an agent? Does it have the right context? Can it recover when something breaks, because something will? Is it acting as the right person?

Those questions outlast every rewrite. That’s where I’ve learned to put my effort.

Frameworks come and go. Good architecture has to survive all of them.

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

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

Microsoft has released Visual Studio Code 1.130, an update to the code editor that brings several improvements to the Agents window, along with enhancements to the agent host and the terminal.

VS Code 1.130 was released on July 22, one week after VS Code 1.129. Developers can access the release for Windows, Linux, or Mac from code.visualstudio.com.

With the new release, the Agents window gets updates that make it easier to review changes and manage chats. File-level diff statistics help users assess the size of each file’s changes when scanning a multi-file diff. The window also gets a more compact multi-file diff that makes it easier to review changes, Microsoft said. The Agents window is a dedicated window in VS Code that lets users run and track multiple agent sessions in parallel across their projects, without opening each workspace in a separate window.

Also with VS Code 1.130, assisted permissions for agent tool calls are available in the agent host. With assisted permissions, the LLM evaluates the risk of each tool call and decides whether the tool can run or should require the user’s approval. The setting to enable assisted permissions is chat.assistedPermissions.enabled. In another agent host improvement, quick chats running on the agent host now use compact, single-line rows in the sessions list. Regular sessions retain a second line with change statistics, status, and timestamps.

VS Code users now can open file links from Git diff output in the terminal when Git’s diff.mnemonicPrefix option is enabled. VS Code recognizes prefixes such as i/ for the index and w/ for the working tree, and removes the prefix from the link target so the correct file opens. When mnemonic prefixes are enabled, VS Code also recognizes the numeric prefixes produced by git diff --no-index.

Timestamps for chat requests and responses now are displayed when users hover over the message toolbar. You can disable this through the chat.verbose setting.

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.

A new version of Python’s native package management tool, pip, will remove a limitation that has frustrated Python developers for years. If you wanted to install the dependencies for a given package, but not install the package itself, you were stuck. Either you had to extract the dependency list from the package and install it by hand, or you had to build the whole package anyway.

Why was this a problem? Sometimes, you want only the dependencies for a package—for instance, as a way to create a separate environment for testing or another project. If you’re making source distributions via CI, some requirements might be needed to make the source distribution but aren’t actually included in it (e.g., Cython). You would need to install these requirements somewhere—apart from the project itself—to perform the build step.

A dependencies-only install mode for packages is a long-requested feature. Developer James O’Claire found many examples of such requests, along with various workarounds. Most of those involved third-party solutions of some sort.

Now, a new feature set to land in pip version 26.2 will fix this problem from the inside. The command pip install --only-deps will install only the dependencies for a given package. Note that it will not install build dependencies for the package, but only runtime dependencies.

Note that you can accomplish this with existing third-party tools. For instance, uv sync --no-install-project has the same behavior. But having this functionality right inside pip means you don’t have to turn to external tooling—or ugly hacks—to solve the problem. This may be an example of how third-party projects like uv (a superfast Python package installer) are inspiring native Python features where they make sense.

pip 26.2 is scheduled to be released by the end of July 2026.

Defense research agency DARPA made its largest quantum computing award ever this week, with a $125 million agreement announced on Wednesday. The same day, the White House announced an additional $5 billion for the Genesis Mission, which focuses on AI for science but also includes technology to accelerate quantum computing and quantum sensors.

“Taken together, these announcements signal that U.S. quantum strategy is shifting from supporting individual research projects to building the infrastructure needed for a quantum-enabled economy,” says Heather West, research manager in the infrastructure systems, platforms, and technology group at IDC.

None of the individual quantum announcements are surprising, she says. But the level of coordination is new. “Government investment is expanding beyond foundational research toward commercialization, manufacturing, and deployment,” she says.

“The US government has been signaling that quantum computing is a priority,” says David Mooter, an analyst at Forrester Research. Part of it is the desire for the US to be a leader in quantum, as it has been in other high-tech areas, he says. And part of it is because the government itself can take advantage of quantum computers.

“Spy agencies would love to use them to decrypt intercepted messages, including messages they intercepted years ago and saved,” he says. And other departments could use quantum computers or networks for energy-related research, for supply chain optimization, and for secure communications. 

Quantum computing is accelerating, he says. “I would not be surprised to see a general gate-based quantum computer that’s good enough to provide commercial value for limited use cases by 2030.”

DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative

DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiatives was launched in 2024, and 18 companies were selected in April of 2025 for Stage A of the project, with awards of up to $1 million each. The companies were to use the money to provide details of their concepts and show how they could lead to a functional, fault-tolerant quantum computer in under a decade.

Then, in November of 2025, DARPA chose 11 companies for Stage B of the project, with awards of up to $15 million for developing their research plans.

To date, only two companies have been chosen for Stage C: PsiQuantum and Microsoft. PsiQuantum announced $32 million of DARPA funding for testing and evaluation in September of last year. This week’s $125 million award will expand the scope and pacing of the validation and verification work. Stage C awards can go up to $300 million, according to DARPA.

This past May, PsiQuantum also announced $100 million from the Department of Commerce, part of the CHIPS and Science Act, to accelerate domestic manufacturing of critical quantum computing components.

Microsoft and PsiQuantum are both in Stage C, bypassing the sequential path that other companies are expected to follow, because they were both part of DARPA’s predecessor to QBI, the Underexplored Systems for Utility-Scale Quantum Computing program.

Genesis Mission

Genesis Mission was launched in late 2025 with the goal of using AI to accelerate scientific breakthroughs, and it now includes more than 15 government agencies.

As part of the Genesis Mission, quantum computing and sensing company Infleqtion announced three projects for the Department of Energy on Wednesday. The three projects focus on quantum circuit design for nuclear applications, atomic quantum sensing, and nuclear fusion energy research.

This announcement did not include the total monetary value of the projects, but, in May, the company announced a separate agreement with the Department of Commerce for $100 million to accelerate Infleqtion’s neutral-atom technology roadmap.

Other quantum-related Genesis Mission projects announced this week include $1.5 million for a BlueQubit quantum error correction project with Microsoft and other partners, a Stanford effort to model the behavior of electrons at quantum scale, an MIT quantum sensing project, Argonne National Laboratory projects on quantum circuit design and quantum sensors, Brookhaven Lab quantum sensor projects, and quantum computing projects at Northwestern University.

IBM, one of three dozen private companies that are part of the Genesis Mission Consortium, announced that it will be leading a project to support more effective quantum applications, and will contribute up to $50 million of quantum compute access for the Genesis Mission.

Enterprise priorities

This week’s quantum announcements aren’t a sign that enterprises need to run out and buy quantum computers, says IDC’s West. But they do need to start preparing for the quantum era — such as by identifying business areas where quantum computing could become a competitive differentiator over the next decade.

But the most immediate threat is that of adversaries using quantum computers to break current encryption standards. Organizations should be inventorying cryptographic assets and developing a roadmap for the migration to quantum-proof algorithms, West says.

The point of no return is closer than ever, and many major players in the encryption and communication space, including Google and Cloudflare, have been accelerating their timelines. In fact, this Wednesday was the federal deadline for naming their post-quantum cryptography migration leads under a June executive order.

“The preparation that needs to be done to prepare is to implement post-quantum cryptography yesterday,” says Forrester’s Mooter.

However, according to a survey released by DigiCert this morning, while 87% of organizations are planning, testing or implementing PQC initiatives, only 7% of organizations have deployed quantum-safe or hybrid cryptography across most of their digital certificates.

Over the past few years, I have learned that basic prompts produce inconsistent, hallucination-prone results that no executive would trust in production. What turned the tide was my move to advanced prompting techniques. These weren’t theoretical experiments; they became a practical foundation for reliable, measurable outcomes. I want to share the techniques that consistently delivered the biggest gains in my projects, complete with real before-and-after examples, copy-paste templates, lessons from failures and guidance on when to evolve beyond prompting to agentic systems.

Why advanced prompting still matters in enterprise settings

Sophisticated prompting remains essential for control, reliability and compliance. If you “ask nicely” and hope for the best, you need deterministic behavior, auditable reasoning and minimal risk of hallucination. Here’s what worked for me.

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants: Unlocking step-by-step reasoning

The problem: Models would jump to conclusions on complex analysis tasks, especially involving data interpretation or multi-step logic.

What I did: I started explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” and show its reasoning.

Before (basic prompt): “Analyze last quarter’s sales data and recommend three actions.”

After (CoT prompt):

“You’re a senior business analyst. Analyze the following sales data step by step: [data]. First, identify the key trends. Second, calculate the rates and anomalies. Third, link findings to business context. Finally, recommend the three prioritized actions with expected impact. Explain your reasoning at each step.”  

Results: Accuracy and depth improved dramatically.

Variants that worked well: Self-consistency. I ran the same CoT prompt multiple times and took the majority consensus. This reduced variability significantly.

Template you can use:

You are [expert role]. Solve this problem by thinking step by step.

[Task or question]

For each step:

1. State your observation or calculation.

2. Explain the implication.

3. Proceed only when confident.

Final answer in this format: [structured output]

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT): Exploring multiple reasoning paths

For truly complex decisions such as resource allocation or risk assessment, linear CoT isn’t enough. Tree-of-Thoughts lets the model generate and evaluate multiple branches.

Example: I was helping a client evaluate three potential vendor platforms for an AI deployment. A standard prompt gave a superficial comparison. With ToT

Prompt Snippet:

Explore three different reasoning paths for selecting the best vendor platform:

Path 1: Focus on cost and scalability.

Path 2: Focus on security, compliance and integration.

Path 3: Focus on innovation and long-term roadmap.

For each path, evaluate pros/cons against our requirements [list].

Then, compare the paths and recommend the strongest overall option with justification.

Outcome: The model surfaced nuanced trade-offs (e.g., one vendor had superior security, but higher integration cost).

When to use: Strategic planning, troubleshooting or scenarios with high uncertainty and multiple viable approaches.

3. ReAct (Reason+ Act) and prompt chaining: Moving toward agentic behavior

One of the biggest leaps I have noticed comes from combining reasoning with tool use and chaining prompts.

ReAct example: (used in data analytics workflow)

You are an AI analyst with access to tools. For the query below:

1. Reason about what information you need.

2. Choose the appropriate tool or action.

3. Observe the result.

4. Repeat until you can answer confidently.

Query: [user request]

In practice, I chained this with retrieval tools. One automated quarterly compliance reporting; the system reasoned about required data, pulled relevant records, validated them, and generated the reports.

4. Meta-prompting and self-reflection: Letting the model improve itself

Use the model to refine its own prompt. This is a huge time-saver.

You are an expert prompt engineer. Improve the following prompt for clarity, structure and effectiveness with [target model]. Make it more precise while preserving intent.

Original prompt: [paste]

Provide the improved version and explain your changes.

Self-reflection loops (asking the model to critique its own output and revise) are a game-changer for content generation and code-review tasks.

5. Multimodal and structured output techniques

With vision-enabled models, I started combining text with images (e.g., uploading architecture diagrams or dashboards).

Tip from experience: Be extremely specific in describing what the models should focus on.

Best practices I learned the hard way

• Start simple, then layer complexity: Over-engineered prompts from Day One usually backfire.
• Model specific tuning: Some models respond better to XML delimiters; others to explicit reasoning.
• Evaluation and versioning: Treat prompts like code if you track versions and run automated evals.
• Security guardrails: Always include instructions against prompt injections and respect data boundaries.
• When to stop prompting: For repetitive, high-stakes workflows, move to full agents or an orchestration framework.

Final takeaways for technical leaders

Advanced prompt engineering has now become a core competency for anyone responsible for enterprise AI outcomes. Start by picking one technique and apply it rigorously to a real business problem. Document before/ after and you will notice why it’s worth mastering.

The field continues evolving towards more automated and agentic systems, but the ability to precisely direct AI reasoning remains foundational.

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

Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.

Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?

Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data they have was never designed to produce that answer.

Applying lessons learned from managing cloud spend won’t be a fix for the AI and ROI quandary. True, cloud taught a generation of CFOs that billing without business context is noise. So to get cloud ROI, they stitched two data sources together: cost data plus business data. AWS reveals which account, which region, which tag, which resource. Merge in customer and product mappings on top and the ROI of the cloud spend comes into focus.

But AI is harder. It requires three data sources: cost, business, and telemetry—the automatic collection of data from disparate sources that helps to clarify the whole picture of what happened and why. An executive or engineering lead can have AI invoices and customer revenue. But they have no way to connect them to business value. The token count on the OpenAI invoice does not specify which customer triggered which call, which feature it served, or whether the prompt produced a business outcome. That data does not exist in the provider’s billing.

AI providers won’t fix this problem

The situation is not likely to change anytime soon because AI providers are not in the business of attributing an enterprise’s costs to that enterprise’s customers. Instead, AI providers are in the business of selling tokens. The granularity they expose is the granularity their billing systems require, not the granularity a CFO requires.

Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.

AWS billing exposes resource IDs, account hierarchies, region, SKU, tag metadata, usage by the minute. Every dollar can be attributed to a workload, a team, a customer segment if it was tagged correctly. The data is rich enough that mature FinOps teams built unit economics on top of it years ago.

An AI provider invoice gives you tokens consumed by model, with optional grouping by API key. That is the resolution. No request-level attribution. No customer ID. No feature mapping. No prompt outcome. No retry identification. Multi-step agent workflows collapse into a token count. Imagine a large bank receives a multi-million dollar AI invoice each month. But it has no visibility into what parts of the business were responsible for what parts of the cost so cannot allocate them.

If an enterprise wants to know what AI cost drove which customer or feature, it has to capture that data itself, inside an application, before the call leaves it. 

Three required sources

Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.

1. Cost data, normalized across providers. Every AI provider delivers cost differently. OpenAI invoices in one taxonomy, Anthropic in another, fine-tuning vendors and inference platforms each in their own. Cloud GPU costs sit in AWS or Azure billing. Vector database costs land in Pinecone or Snowflake invoices. None interoperate by default. Normalization is necessary but not sufficient. It will put all your AI costs in one schema. It does not tell you what they produced.
2. Application-layer telemetry. This is the source most organizations are missing, and the one that makes AI ROI structurally different from cloud ROI. It requires instrumenting AI calls inside your application across six categories: request-level tracing tied to a customer or session ID; feature attribution tied to the product surface that triggered the call; agent-step capture for multi-step workflows; retry and fallback identification so recovery costs don’t get attributed to primary calls; model selection logging that records which model was chosen and why; and outcome capture that ties each call to whether it produced business value. None of this data exists in the provider’s billing. All of it has to be captured at the moment the call is made and stored in a system that can be stitched to the cost data.
3. Business data. Revenue, customer segments, product hierarchies, and feature usage. The same business data already feeding your CRM and analytics stack, mapped to the customers and features the telemetry layer attributes calls to.

Stitched together, the three sources produce the unit economics every AI investment decision now requires: cost per customer interaction, margin per feature, profitability per agent workflow, ROI per model choice. None of these can be calculated from billing data alone. None can be calculated from telemetry alone. They require all three sources, modeled together in a way that maps cost to outcome.

Why agentic AI makes this urgent

Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.

Agentic workflows are different. An agent decomposes a task into multiple steps. Each step calls a model. Some steps fall back to a different model when the first fails. Some steps retry on a poor result. Some steps invoke external tools that themselves cost money. A single user request can produce dozens of inference calls across multiple providers, with the cost compounding in ways the provider invoice cannot disaggregate.

If telemetry does not capture agent-step granularity, no one will know which steps are profitable. Aggregate costs will show up three weeks later in the invoice. By then, the workflow has been running at scale, customers are onboarded, and unprofitable paths have been retried thousands of times.

When agents make the calls, the volume of cost-generating events without business context attached grows by an order of magnitude. The window for instrumenting this before it becomes unmanageable is closing.

What changes when the three sources come together

Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.

Five different ways to build the same AI capability stop looking equivalent. They converge on adoption metrics and diverge by 10x on cost. The team picks the approach that delivers a similar business outcome at one-fifth the cost, because the team can finally see the difference. Product teams design features with margin awareness from the architecture phase, not from the post-launch budget review. Engineering teams choose model architectures with cost-per-outcome data alongside latency and quality. Leadership evaluates AI initiatives the way they evaluate any other capital allocation: on unit economics, not on the engagement chart. Aggregated invoices track the cost per customer interaction. Engagement metrics reveal margin per feature. Gut-instinct model selection is checked against real cost-per-outcome model selection results. 

Within seconds, everyone can see which AI features are profitable, which should scale, and which should be killed. This is the insight everyone is looking for and companies that achieve it will optimize the benefits of AI.

The build trap

AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.

The temptation to build it anyway has never been sharper. AI coding tools have changed what a small engineering team can ship in a quarter. The instrumentation layer looks tractable. The cost normalization looks like a weekend project. The semantic model feels like something a senior engineer could draft over a sprint.

It is a trap. Three reasons.

Volume is the first. A production AI footprint generates millions of telemetry events per hour, and that volume scales with agentic adoption. Real-time ingestion, correlation, and attribution at that scale is not the same problem as vibe coding a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.

The vendor landscape is the second. Cost data arrives in delayed billing windows from providers with non-interoperable schemas. Schemas change without notice. New AI providers enter the landscape monthly, each with its own taxonomy and metering. The system is not built once. It is maintained against a moving target that moves faster than most internal release cycles.

The third is what the first two add up to: this is business-critical infrastructure. The CFO and the board are going to make capital allocation decisions on the data this system produces. When schema drift goes unnoticed for two weeks, when an agent telemetry stream stops correlating to a vendor that quietly changed its billing API, the cost of being wrong is not a sprint of cleanup. It is a quarter of misallocated capital.

The build-vs.-buy question for engineering leaders has changed. It’s not “can we build this?” The honest answer is yes. The real question is whether the marginal hour of your strongest engineers is best spent stitching cost data to telemetry to business outcomes, or building the AI products that produce the revenue the cost data is measuring.

The capability is reproducible in weeks. The choice is whether to spend the next 18 months building it, or the next 18 months acting on it.

—

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.

Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.

Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.

The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.

“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.

Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”

In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.

“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.

The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.

Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”

“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”

A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.

Monday.com’s key market advantages

Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.

“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”

Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.

While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”

Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.

“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”

But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.

Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.

“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.

Actions for the near-term

Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.

“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.

Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.

During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”

Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”

“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.

Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.

The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.

“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.

Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”

In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.

“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.

The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.

Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”

“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”

A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.

Monday’s key market advantages

Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.

“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”

Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.

While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”

Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.

“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”

But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.

Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.

“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.

Actions for the near-term

Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.

“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.

Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.

During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”

Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”

“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”

A global law enforcement crackdown has seized infrastructure serving the massive phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) group Kratos, as well resulting in the arrest of an unnamed Kratos “developer and technical administrator” in Indonesia. 

The effort was managed by German law enforcement and involved agencies from the US, Indonesia and other countries.

Although a German statement claimed that the Kratos infrastructure “has been completely disabled” and that “Kratos-supported phishing campaigns can no longer be carried out,” cybersecurity analysts and consultants question how much of a dent in enterprise phishing activity will result, and how long it will last.

“A server seizure and a single arrest overseas remove infrastructure, not the intellectual property,” said Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC. “PhaaS kits get cloned, forked and resold routinely, and the 1,800 Kratos customers didn’t vanish. They just lost a vendor in a market where vendors get replaced fast.”

He added, “seizing 200-plus servers and arresting the developer pulls a major supplier out of that specific niche. It doesn’t touch the broader phishing economy. For every roach that you squish, there are a hundred that you do not see.”

Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520, takes an even more pessimistic view, arguing that there might not even be that much of a short-term phishing slowdown. 

“What makes this different from a botnet or ransomware takedown is that the people running the attacks were never part of the organization. Kratos was just a vendor,” Kenney said. “The 1,800 customers who bought it still have their target lists, their sending infrastructure and whatever access they had already established. The tooling went dark, but the people phishing your employees last week are still working, shopping for a replacement that already exists. Enterprises should not read this as a drop in (likely) threat volume.”

One thing that the security community seems to agree on is that Kratos was a major player in the lucrative PhaaS space. But precisely determining the percentage of PhaaS activity controlled by Kratos is impossible, given that Kratos sold their kits to others. Security researchers even disagree on what they should call Kratos kits.

“Microsoft tracks this kit as SneakyLog, others tie it to Sneaky 2FA, and KnowBe4 disputes the lineage entirely. When the security industry cannot agree on what a kit is to be called, that is because renaming and reselling is continuous rather than something that happens after a raid,” Kenney said. “What actually changed this time is the arrest and the [shutdown of the] servers. Standing up new hosting is only a weekend of work, but replacing a developer who understood how to keep an adversary in the middle proxy stable and evasive at scale is harder.”

IDC’s Dickson added that the biggest value from the takedown is in the information gleaned from the seized servers. 

“Kratos operated in the adversary-in-the-middle category, generating convincing fake Microsoft 365 login pages that harvest session tokens and step past MFA, the exact technique behind a lot of the business email compromise activity of the past two years,” he said. “I would love to see what law enforcement does with the customer list. That, my friend, is gold.”

Regardless, Assaf Morag, a cybersecurity researcher at Flare, dubbed the German crackdown “symbolic,” given Kratos’ reach within phishing circles. 

He argued that the very nature of software makes it all but impossible to shut down in a meaningful way.

“Although this is malicious infrastructure, it is still software, and modern development and deployment practices make it relatively quick to rebuild or replicate,” he said. “Demand is likely to shift to competing providers, allowing the ecosystem to recover even if this particular operation has been disrupted.”

Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, agreed that the crackdown is disruptive but not definitive. 

“This appears to be more than a routine website seizure. The reporting points to a PhaaS platform with centralized infrastructure, subscription-style customers, and Microsoft 365 session theft / MFA-bypass tooling, so taking down the backend likely hurts many downstream affiliates at once. In that sense, it is a meaningful disruption to the phishing ecosystem, not just one campaign,” Arntz said.

But, he added, “a rebrand or partial re-emergence is plausible, which is the historical pattern for PhaaS operations. Even if the core infrastructure is gone, the code, customer lists, and operator tradecraft can survive.”

This means that customers and affiliates can shift to other phishing kits, he said, so it’s likely that the takedown will create a temporary decline in Kratos-specific activity, but probably not a lasting reduction in phishing overall.

Flavio Villanustre, CISO for the LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group, also concluded that the impact of this crackdown will be short-lived. 

“For each criminal organization that is dismantled, ten new ones pop out of nowhere. Unless there is a coordinated international effort by more than a few countries, this is a whack-a-mole exercise,” he said. “These are all loosely connected individuals and akin to a lernaean hydra, with two heads growing whenever you chop off one. Their leadership emerges from their lines organically without a real center of control. This makes it almost impossible to completely eliminate these criminal organizations.”

You are one of the six billion people (75% of the world population) online today, and every click you make is routed through the data center. Data centers, whether knowingly or unknowingly, play a very critical role in your daily online activities. With an increasing population, increasing usage of online presence, and now omniscient AI, the demand for data centers has increased manyfold, and the trend seems similar to the year 2000, when telephone towers were built to accommodate increased digital presence.

To win the AI race, Hyperscalers (Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba, Oracle, IBM, Tencent) are spending huge amounts of money on data center development. In the USA, the hyperscalers are planning to spend $650 billion in 2026, which is around 70% higher than 2025 spending, according to Yahoo Finance.

As per McKinsey research, by 2030, companies will invest around $7 trillion in Capex on data center infrastructure globally. More than $4 trillion will go towards computing hardware investment. More than 40% of this spending will be invested in the United States.

Demand growth in data centers

McKinsey analysis shows that global demand for data center capacity can more than triple by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 22 per cent. In the USA, data center demand could grow by 20-25 per cent at the same time.  

The data center industry is currently undergoing a violent transition. We are moving away from the era of “bespoke projects” — where every facility was a unique architectural feat — into an era of industrialized infrastructure. With global capital expenditure in the sector projected to hit $3 trillion by 2028, the “bottleneck” has shifted. It is no longer about securing the capital; it is about the physics of the supply chain.

During my tenure at Vantage, managing the intersection of data center construction management (DCCM) and infrastructure management (DCIM), I saw firsthand that the most successful players aren’t those with the deepest pockets, but those with the most integrated data threads. If your construction data in Procore doesn’t talk to your financial reality in Yardi, or your operational capacity in DCIM, you aren’t building a data center — you’re managing a $500 million blind spot.

The death of “sticks and bricks”

Traditionally, data center construction was treated as civil engineering. But for the modern CIO, a data center is a complex product assembly.

The challenges are systemic. We are facing 50-to-80-week lead times for critical “long-pole” items: extra-high-voltage transformers, switchgear, and the liquid cooling manifolds required for the next generation of AI chips. In this environment, the traditional reactive supply chain model is a liability.

To survive the $3 trillion inflow, we must adopt a hybrid-agile SCOR (supply chain operations reference) model. This means applying continuous flow logic to standardized components (like modular power skids) while maintaining agile responsiveness for the volatile IT layer.

The digital bridge: Construction management software  to ERP

The most significant opportunity for CIOs lies in financial-operational integration. In many organizations, there is a data chasm between the construction site and the corporate office. Construction teams live in the construction management software tracking tasks, trades, RFIs and payment submittals. Finance teams operate corporate offices with project management tools (worth remembering that email is a key tool besides spreadsheets and phone calls) tracking capex schedule, commissioning timeline, capital drawdowns and asset lifecycle management.

These systems are siloed; the CIO loses visibility into the total cost to serve. By integrating construction management into the financial system, we create real-time financial visibility of the build. We can see exactly how a three-week delay in a chiller delivery impacts the internal rate of return (IRR) of the entire asset. This isn’t just accounting; it’s strategic telemetry.

From BIM to DCIM: The lifecycle thread

The second bridge is the handoff from construction (BIM) to operations (DCIM). Historically, this handoff was a nightmare of PDFs and Excel sheets. By the time the operations team took the keys, the “as-built” design information was already out of date.

The opportunity today is to maintain a continuous data thread. The sensor data and asset tags established during the “make” phase in our SCOR model should flow directly into the DCIM. This allows us to perform virtual commissioning. Before a single server is racked, we should already have a digital replica of the airflow, power distribution, and cooling capacity.

The scientific inference: AI in the supply chain

As someone who has led data and AI initiatives, I’ve seen the hype. But in the supply chain, the application of AI must be pragmatic, not generative. We don’t need AI to write poems; we need it for predictive procurement. Most organizations manage their procurement in ERP or a mix of a few tools to manage the source-to-settle business flow. Adopting a system workflow improves data collection and the state of the procurement cycle, which in turn provides AI with the context to draw inferences for possible delays and anomalies in original specifications and change orders.

By applying machine learning to global logistics data, we can move from just-in-time to just-in-case modeling. AI can analyze geopolitical risks, shipping lane congestion, and raw material pricing to tell a CIO: “Order your switchgear 14 months early, or your Q3 2027 ‘Power On’ date is at risk.”

Bringing it all together: AI in the supply chain and finance

Why it matters: Approximately 70% of the capex is on this workflow and making timely decisions that directly impact the ready-for-service dates. The current challenge of reactionary adjustment in design to procurement to local fit-out is a significant drain on capex efficiency and cost of capital. Because single-project delivery delays have become so volatile, a massive structural shift is occurring in how digital infrastructure is funded. Single-project debt (special purpose vehicles or SPVs) is facing severe friction. To insulate themselves from RFS shocks, the largest institutional players are moving toward permanent platform capital — aggregating exposure across dozens of global assets simultaneously.

Navigating these complex multi-billion-dollar engineering projects distributed over a large geography is simply unmanageable without rethinking and re-engineering existing tools and processes.

The roadmap for the modern CIO

To lead this transformation, CIOs must move beyond the IT shop mentality and become master orchestrators of the supply chain. Here is the 1500-word reality condensed into three mandates:

1. Standardize the product: Stop designing bespoke facilities. Move toward DFMA (design for manufacturing and assembly). If 70% of your data center can be built in a factory and shipped as modules, you bypass the unpredictability of on-site labor.
2. Integrate the financial stack: If your construction management software and your ERP aren’t sharing a heartbeat, your data is lying to you. Force the integration between Procore and Yardi.
3. Own the long poles: Don’t leave the procurement of transformers and cooling units to general contractors. Use your balance sheet to secure these items years in advance. In 2026, inventory is the new currency.

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.

In the client-server era, the penalty for inefficient programming, such as unoptimized database calls, was largely confined to application responsiveness. Today, in the AI era, code, architectural, and platform inefficiencies are no longer just a performance issue, they’re a financial and environmental liability. Left unchecked, poor code cascades into soaring token costs and spikes data center power consumption, directly undermining both cloud budgets and corporate sustainability goals.

AI’s impact on sustainability

By 2029, IDC projects that the number of actively deployed AI agents will exceed 1 billion worldwide, which is 40 times more than in 2025. And these agents will perform 217 billion actions per day.

To deliver on this demand, AI data centers are being built out at an unprecedented rate, with Gartner forecasting that global spending on data centers over the next three years will increase 31.7% to surpass $650 billion, driven primarily by hyperscaler cloud providers building out AI foundations, and optimizing servers for heavy AI workloads.

All this presents a significant strain on the energy grid as well as environmental sustainability, including:

• The power double-down: The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that global data center electricity consumption will more than double from about 415 to 945 TWh by 2030, primarily fueled by energy-intensive accelerated computing for AI.
• The inference premium: AI workloads are vastly more demanding than standard web activities. A gen AI query consumes roughly 10 times the electricity of a conventional keyword search, or roughly 2.9 watt-hours as opposed to 0.3 watt-hours.
• Water consumption: Cooling these dense clusters is highly resource intensive. Global AI-related water demand is expected to reach 4.2 to 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027.

The good news, however, is it’s not all out of the control of end user organizations and CIOs. Just as in the client-server era, through careful planning and execution, CIOs have the potential to significantly improve the performance, costs, and sustainability impacts of their AI application portfolio.

Here are four recommendations to maximize value as you look across your AI applications and infrastructure estate.

Revisit business objectives in light of AI

AI applications and platforms bring several new headaches for CIOs and CFOs in terms of FinOps. The variable nature of AI vendor billing due to variable monthly token costs is just one well-known example. To avoid unpleasant surprises, be sure to carefully review vendor contracts to decipher pricing models. Look for what’s included in seat-based license fees and what’s added as variable charges for agentic AI usage.

In addition, explore new metrics and KPIs such as intelligence per watt to help make sense of your return on AI. Just as miles per gallon helps us evaluate new car purchases, IPW can help to measure the computational efficiency of a system. It quantifies how much intelligence — typically measured in AI inferences, tokens processed, or model training iterations — a processor can deliver for every watt of electrical power it consumes.

According to Max Romanenko, chief engineering officer at relational database platform EDB, cost per query tells you almost nothing in an agentic world where autonomous systems are spinning up databases, pipelines, and queries around the clock. “The metric that matters is intelligence per watt, how much useful AI you get for every unit of energy you spend,” he says. “It isn’t just an environmental number, it’s also a performance indicator.”

With the measurements in place, you can then start to manage and optimize each layer in the AI stack from the infrastructure, or hyperscaler, layer to your own data and application layers.

It’s important to bear in mind that high token usage isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the net value delivered by each AI application and use case. Managing and optimizing the AI stack is important, but you’ll also want to measure the business value being delivered by each of these applications so you can measure your return.

Take a sovereign AI approach when evaluating hyperscalers

As you work with hyperscalers like Amazon, Google and Microsoft, it’s important to understand how they charge and how much, but also their environmental footprints. For example, by reading their sustainability reports, you can find out their annual water consumption across their global data centers and compare them with other providers.

In 2025, Amazon’s global data center operations used 0.12 liters of water per kilowatt-hour, which amounts to 2.5 billion gallons, or 5% of the annual water consumed by the metro Seattle area. The company has been able to operate more than seven times better than the industry average and have improved their water efficiency by 52% since 2021.

As demand for cloud computing and AI grows, water efficiency is another important metric for CIOs to monitor within hyperscaler ESG reports. While not at the same level of regulation as scope 2 and 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting, enterprises need to pay increasing attention to water use efficiency (WUE) with water scarcity becoming a growing risk for hyperscalers.

The key requisite at the infrastructure layer, though, is to ensure sovereign AI. This doesn’t mean you need to own everything, but you need control over your AI-driven operations when conditions change. With 71% of global executives stating that switching their primary AI vendor or model would be difficult if required today, it’s important to understand AI dependencies and be able to avoid vendor lock-in. 

Control efficiency at the data layer

The AI energy conversation has fixated on models and GPUs, but every agent, model, and inference call runs on the data layer beneath them, and that’s the one place a CIO can actually move the numbers.

“You can’t control consumption at the model layer,” says Romanenko. “Agents consume what they consume. But you can control efficiency at the data layer, and for most enterprises that’s the only real lever they have. Optimize search, retrieval, and vector indexing where the work actually happens and you cut compute, cost, and carbon at the same time. Ignore it, and it’s like running the heat with every window open.”

Ann Dunkin, distinguished professor of the practice at Georgia Tech, adds that CIOs who bring models in house and run them in their own infrastructure, or in the cloud infrastructure of their choosing, can have more control over the sustainability of inference, as well as of their costs and how their data is used.

Fine tune the application layer

When balancing a mix of commercial AI packages and custom-built code, costs can quickly spiral due to inefficient design and orchestration, redundant APIs, and unoptimized model routing.

With inference calls costing approximately 10 times that of conventional web queries, for custom AI applications, it’s important to design them to only use probabilistic code where necessary. Since many custom applications utilize a combination of both probabilistic and deterministic code, this is exactly where software developers need to make smart choices in their designs.

Other techniques to fine tune the application layer include semantic caching, intelligent model routing, and internal AI capability registries. “CIOs can implement intelligent routing solutions to select the most cost-efficient model for every prompt,” says Dunkin. “The most flexible routing solutions can drop into a user’s existing environment and orchestrate the actions of the company’s existing models.”

For CIOs looking to maximize the business value of every AI application in their portfolio, these new considerations, including new metrics, tools and approaches from the infrastructure layer all the way up to the application layer, should be an essential part of the equation.

I use a very cool and relatively new web framework called Astro. The keen insight that the Astro team had was that most websites are made up of static content, so they made it really easy to add content to a website. To add a blog post to my personal website, all I have to do is create a Markdown file with some front matter, deploy it, and the blog post automatically appears. If I need to reach deeper for more dynamic functionality, I can easily do that with TypeScript, React, or almost any other framework. It’s really cool.

And these days, I really don’t write any code. Claude Code does most (all?) of the work. Since Astro is an open-source project and has excellent documentation, Claude knows all about how Astro works. It has no trouble at all managing my site and making the improvements I ask for.  

And that got me thinking, how does Astro get built? Is the Astro team building with agentic coding? Astro itself has many dependencies, including big projects like Vite and Node. And of course, Vite and Node have dependencies, too. Are those dependencies being developed by hand, or are those development teams also using AI agents to code?

My curiosity got the best of me, and I asked Claude to dig deeper. It turns out that the Astro repository has an AGENTS.md file, and some of the commits even have commit message trailers indicating that they were at least co-authored by Claude and GitHub Copilot. Further down, there is a .agents/skills directory with skills covering development, merging, triage, and more. I poked around for a look, and someone has done a great job building agentic support.

Now my interest is really piqued, and further investigation reveals quite a bit of interesting stuff. About a year ago, documentation started appearing about how to build Astro sites with coding agents.  Around that same time, the docs team released an MCP server that gives developers coding agents deeper, easier access to the Astro documentation.  

And there are small steps in the Astro codebase that indicate it is “agentic ready.” For instance, the command-line development server can tell when it is being started by an agent, and the application itself can tell if it is being driven by an agent. Small things, but steps in the direction of embracing Astro developers who use coding agents. 

Okay, that was a fun spelunking trip. But so what?

The “so what” is that code is going to be commoditized. As an Astro developer I am using AI agents pretty much all of the time. The Astro development team is starting to use AI agents more and more. The folks building the Astro dependencies are using AI agents. Shoot, the people building Claude Code and the agents themselves are “eating their own dogfood” and using their own tools to build the next frontier model. Before we know it, it will be turtles all the way down. 

No one says “who generated that electricity?” or “who wove the fabric in that shirt?” any more. And it won’t be long before no one says “Who wrote the code for that app?” because it won’t matter. Just as we don’t look at the assembly code written by our compilers, we’ll stop looking at the “regular” code written by our agents. I’m not even sure anyone is writing assembly code anymore. Soon we’ll be saying that about TypeScript, Python, and C++.

A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idle capacity every month. Their plan was simple: resell it to someone else. Except they couldn’t.

I have been doing cloud consulting for a long time, and this situation once had a straightforward solution. You went to the marketplace, listed your unused reservations, and found a buyer. The process was a bit clunky, but it worked. These days, the answer is far more complicated, and my client learned this the hard way.

AI has made this problem increasingly common. Companies initially committed to compute capacity based on ambitious training plans. Prototype projects were expected to scale, and inference workloads were projected to grow substantially. Then reality hit. Some projects did not materialize. Some models trained faster than expected. Some inference patterns were lighter than anticipated.

Many organizations now hold reserved capacity they can’t use, discard, or share without a complex, increasingly restricted process. This reality is something every company with significant cloud spend needs to clearly understand.

The history of cloud resale

There was once a functioning resale market for cloud reserved instances. AWS, for example, maintained a Reserved Instances Marketplace where companies that had purchased reserved capacity could sell those reservations to other AWS customers. This was a legitimate, AWS-sanctioned process. Companies would register as sellers, list their unused reservations with pricing and terms, and if a buyer appeared, the marketplace would facilitate the transaction.

The resale market was useful for companies that had overestimated their needs or whose business changes reduced their cloud consumption. Instead of simply absorbing the cost of unused commitments, they could recoup some of that investment by selling to other organizations with unmet demand. It created a secondary market that added liquidity to what was otherwise a rigid financial arrangement.

My client had some experience with this resale market a few years ago and assumed they could use it again. They were unpleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed.

AWS changes the rules

In January 2024, AWS implemented a significant policy change that effectively shut down the resale of EC2 Reserved Instances on its platform. AWS stopped allowing companies to resell their unused reserved capacity through the Reserved Instance Marketplace or any other official channel. If you have a reserved instance commitment with AWS, you are essentially stuck with it unless you can use it yourself or modify your reservation.

This change had a real impact on companies that had relied on resale as part of their cloud financial management strategy. It reduced flexibility and increased the risk of long-term reserved commitments. When I explained this AWS policy change to my client’s representatives, I could hear the frustration in their voices. They had made their commitment in good faith, carefully modeled their expected AI workloads, and now faced the reality that there was no easy exit.

The reasoning behind this change is not entirely clear, but AWS likely viewed capacity resales as something that complicated their billing and commitment models without providing enough benefit to the overall ecosystem. Regardless of the company’s reasons, the primary resale path for the largest cloud provider has been effectively closed.

What options still exist?

What can companies do now when they find themselves with reserved capacity they no longer need? The first possibility is to work directly with the cloud provider to modify or exchange the reservation if it is convertible. Some reservation types allow modifications, such as changing the instance type, region, or tenancy. This will not eliminate the commitment, but it may help companies better align their reservations with actual workload needs.

The second option is to use third-party brokers and marketplaces that operate independently of the cloud providers. Although AWS has shut down its official resale channel, brokers and marketplaces still facilitate resale arrangements for other cloud providers and for some AWS scenarios. These arrangements can be more complex and carry more risk, but they remain a possibility for companies determined to move unused capacity.

The third alternative is to optimize usage. Companies can invest in better utilization monitoring, workload placement, and automation to ensure that reserved capacity is used as efficiently as possible. This does not recover the money already spent, but it reduces future waste.

My client explored all three alternatives and found that each had significant limitations. Modifications were possible, but only within a narrow range. Third-party brokers were interested, but the process was opaque and uncertain. Optimization helped, but it could not eliminate the fundamental overcommitment they had already made.

The broader implications

Cloud commitments are more rigid than many enterprises initially realize because they lack a liquid market and because providers control modifications, transfers, or cancellations. Right now, I see this pattern most often in the AI space. Companies commit to massive amounts of compute for training and inference based on projections that rarely reflect the actual workloads. Then they are surprised to find themselves locked into payments. The AI boom has led to significant overcommitment because enterprises remain unaware that the resale mechanisms that once existed have been largely shut down.

This is why cloud financial management has become such an important discipline. Companies need to be far more thoughtful about how they commit to cloud resources, how they model their future consumption, and how they build flexibility into their cloud strategies. The days of assuming you can always resell your way out of an overcommitment are effectively over, at least with AWS.

For Azure and Google Cloud, the resale landscape is slightly different, but the same general principles apply. These providers have their own capacity transfer policies and, like AWS, those policies can change at any time. Companies should understand their options before making large, committed purchases and build contingency plans in case their actual usage diverges from their projections—or if resale policies change.

The bottom line is that reselling unused reserved cloud instances is far more complicated than it sounds. The market is not as open as it once was, the options are limited, and the providers themselves hold most of the cards. My client got burned, and I doubt they will be the only one. Companies that want to optimize their cloud spending should focus on accurate forecasting, thoughtful commitment sizing, and ongoing optimization rather than relying on resale as a safety valve. That approach worked at one point, but those days are largely gone.

Many enterprises are investing tens of millions in modernizing their SAP landscapes, but are often underestimating a crucial factor for success, the training of their own developers, according to the German-Speaking SAP User Group, DSAG.

The user association urges CIOs to treat the continuing education of SAP developers not as a voluntary training measure but as a strategic investment program in a new report on upskilling [PDF, in German]. Well-trained developers are essential for building stable, maintainable in-house projects without accumulating technical debt, but without continuing education during the upgrade to S/4HANA, the potential of the new technologies will remain untapped, it warned.

Outdated expertise becomes a project risk

As the authors explain, while many ABAP developers have decades of experience with SAP R/3 or ECC and possess extensive process knowledge, development paradigms have fundamentally changed with S/4HANA, Clean Core, and ABAP Cloud.

In the long term, this threatens to lead to poor architectural decisions, time-consuming workarounds, and in-house developments that will need to be maintained with every release, according to DSAG. Many business consultants, too, are still relying too heavily on classic GUI transactions and not taking modern Fiori technologies sufficiently into account.

The result is what the SAP user group refers to as “skills debt.” This debt remains invisible at first but later becomes apparent in the form of longer projects, rising maintenance costs, and a growing dependence on external service providers.

Skill building must start before the project

The DSAG authors view the timing of training as particularly critical. Those who wait until an ongoing S/4HANA migration project is underway to begin building expertise significantly increase the project risk. A lack of knowledge about CDS, RAP, or Fiori leads to architectural decisions that must later be corrected at great expense. At the same time, the necessary learning effort can hardly be managed alongside day-to-day business operations.

But even after the migration is complete, SAP developers must continue their training, according to DSAG. The authors warn that anyone who continues to work as they did on ECC will miss out on the opportunities offered by current SAP technologies — even if everything still works technically. At the same time, they can immediately apply what they’ve learned, which helps solidify their new knowledge.

AI no replacement for developer expertise

While AI tools can generate and explain code, this requires that developers be able to evaluate the results from a technical perspective, and according to DSAG the same applies to development in the SAP environment: “Only those who understand what constitutes good SAP code can use AI as an accelerator,” the authors write. Otherwise, AI acts as a risk amplifier and, in the worst case, merely accelerates the accumulation of technical debt.

The prerequisites for successful AI deployment are solid software engineering knowledge, automated testing, and an understanding of modern SAP development.

DSAG’s five recommendations

DSAG recommends that CIOs firmly integrate continuing education into their transformation strategy with five measures:

• defining mandatory learning paths for different roles, such as ABAP, CAP, or integration developers, as well as business consultants,
• providing suitable sandbox and test environments,
• mandatorily including training time in capacity planning,
• coordinating training schedules with migration and modernization projects, and
• using existing DSAG guidelines as a reference framework for development.

AI-powered professional services automation provider Certinia has acquired Moonnox, an AI-native automation platform created for the sector. It extends Certinia’s system of action, Veda, offering a new suite of AI agents that automate administration, project management and project deliverables, the company said.

The acquisition will add real-time native context capture across applications such as Salesforce, G-Suite, Microsoft 365, Jira, Confluence, Zoom and others, and, unlike point agents, it “spans the full arc from proposal to delivery to renewal, so nothing has to be rebuilt, re-mapped, or re-trusted as work moves from sales to delivery to customer success,” Certinia said.

New capabilities in Veda include automatic creation of proposal responses and statements of work, conversion of high-level business requirements into actionable blueprints, providing an on-demand virtual assistant to manage day-to-day tasks, performing scope scans and otherwise monitoring projects to proactively manage risk, and organizing delivery data and lessons learned into a searchable knowledge base for later use.

“What excites me most is the combination,” Robert Ong, co-founder and CEO of Moonnox, now part of Certinia, said in a statement. “Moonnox’s ability to capture what happens in the room, paired with Certinia’s system of record and agentic capabilities for services operations, closes a gap neither of us could close alone. Together, we give services firms the foundation to capture that value, deliver with confidence, and navigate shifting their operating models into the future.”

Thomas Randall, research director at Info-Tech Research Group, said it’s a smart move for Certinia to acquire Moonnox. “The current solution is quite complex to use. What Moonnox offers for Certinia is a way for non-technical staff to navigate their system of record across unstructured data silos. I expect to see an increase in satisfaction for the user experience.”

However, Jason Andersen, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, still has questions.

“While this acquisition might increase service planning and delivery efficiencies in the short term, the real question will be how this combination will help firms with the fundamental shift AI and agents have thrust upon the services industry,” he pointed out. ”Unfortunately for services firms, agentic technologies have already reset client perceptions on internal work capacity, velocity, and cost. So, the proof point I’d like to see is beyond margin improvement and towards business transformation.”

In a single month, one enterprise reportedly spent half a billion dollars on AI. A consultant told Axios that the client had handed its workforce AI licenses, set no usage limits and let the meter run until finance noticed. The figure is spectacular, and it is the wrong thing to fear. That half-billion-dollar accident is only the visible part of a quieter, far larger failure. Worldwide AI spending is forecast to reach $2.52 trillion in 2026, more than any technology category in a generation, and by the most cited measure, roughly 95 percent of it returns nothing. Boards read that as proof that the technology does not work. The evidence points somewhere less comfortable, and it is not a technology problem at all. Most boards cannot see it because they are reading the wrong number: They track failure when the number that matters is allocation. The discipline that separates the winners is not technical. It is how they allocate capital across time, and how willing they are to stop. The hardest discipline in the AI era is not adopting faster. It is allocating honestly and refusing to judge a three-year bet on a six-month cycle.

The number everyone quotes, and no one acts on

The headline statistic is now familiar. MIT’s Project NANDA, in its 2025 study The GenAI Divide, found that about 95 percent of enterprise generative AI pilots produced no measurable impact on the P&L, while roughly 5 percent captured nearly all the value. S&P Global Market Intelligence found that the share of companies abandoning most of their AI initiatives jumped from 17 percent to 42 percent in a single year, with the average organization scrapping 46 percent of its proofs-of-concept before production. Gartner expects more than 40 percent of agentic AI projects to be canceled by the end of 2027, citing escalating costs, unclear business value and inadequate risk controls. And the pattern predates generative AI: RAND found that more than 80 percent of AI projects fail, roughly twice the rate of comparable work that does not involve AI.

Read as a technology story, these numbers say AI does not work. Read correctly, they say something more useful. MIT’s own authors located the cause not in model quality but in a learning and integration gap. The winners were not running better models. They picked one problem, executed and worked well together. Purchased solutions reached production about 67 percent of the time, while internal builds succeeded roughly a third as often. Gartner’s own spending forecast notes the same pivot, with CIOs scaling back ambitious internal builds in favor of commercial solutions that promise more predictable value. None of that is a verdict on the technology. It is a verdict on allocation: What gets funded, for how long and against which yardstick. The popular prescription, heard in every boardroom this year, is to measure harder and prove value sooner. That advice quietly repeats the mistake, because forcing a three-year bet to prove itself sooner is precisely how you kill it. The fix is not more measurement. It is measuring each bet against the right clock and subtracting the ones that miss.

The six-month cycle problem

Return to that 95 percent, because the way it is measured is the whole argument. Much of the reported failure is judged on a short clock, with a pilot counted as a failure if it has not shown a measurable financial return within roughly six months. The single most quoted number in enterprise AI is therefore a six-month yardstick applied to every initiative, including the bets designed to pay back in three years. The headline failure rate is not only a measure of AI. It is a measure of impatience.

The most expensive mistake in enterprise AI is a timing error. Enterprises have been spending heavily on AI for more than two years, and 2026 is the year boards are demanding returns. The multi-year bets funded during the 2024 and 2025 scale-up are only now far enough along to be judged. When a board reviews an initiative, it applies the yardstick it knows, which is quarterly return. That yardstick is correct for an efficiency project and ruinous for a capability bet. A workflow automation that should pay back in two quarters and a foundational data and agent capability that pays back in three years are not the same instrument, yet they are reviewed in the same meeting against the same metric.

This is the heart of the divide. The 5 percent did not simply pick better projects. They judged each project against its own horizon. McKinsey’s enduring Three Horizons model made this discipline standard in corporate strategy a generation ago: near-term, emerging and long-term bets are funded and measured differently. AI erased that discipline because the hype compressed every timeline into the current quarter. The result is two failure modes that appear opposite yet share a common root. Organizations kill three-year bets at month six because they miss a metric the bet was never designed to hit. And they keep funding six-month theater for years because it is visible, safe and never asked to prove a return. Both are allocation failures. Neither is a technology failure.

Subtraction is a strategy

There is a second discipline, the 5 percent share, and it is the one boards find hardest. They subtract. Every credible study of the failure rate describes the same chaotic pattern underneath it: Initiatives are abandoned late, without criteria, after the money is spent and the credibility is gone. Disciplined organizations do the opposite. They decide the conditions for stopping before they start, and they stop on schedule. Subtraction is not the absence of strategy. It is the strategy. Capital removed from a failing bet is capital available for a surviving one, and the survivors are where the entire return lives.

This reframes the 42 percent abandonment figure. Abandonment is not the problem. Undisciplined abandonment is. An organization that liquidates a position the moment it breaches a pre-agreed kill line is practicing portfolio hygiene. An organization that lets a doomed pilot run until someone loses patience is paying full price for a lesson it could have bought at a discount. The 5 percent who won were not smarter. They were patient in the right places and ruthless in the wrong ones.

The HALT framework: Horizon, Allocation, Liquidation, Tracking

Treating AI as a portfolio rather than a pile of pilots requires four disciplines, and the organizations that execute well put all four in place before the next funding cycle, not after the next failure. The name is deliberate. The discipline most enterprises lack is the willingness to halt the wrong bets in time to fund the right ones.

Component 1: Horizon. Classify every AI initiative by its true payoff horizon before it is funded. Horizon 1 covers efficiency plays that should return value within two quarters. Horizon 2 covers capability bets, data foundations, agent platforms and integration work that pays back in roughly 6 to 18 months. Horizon 3 covers transformation bets that take eighteen months to three years or longer. Each horizon carries its own success metric, set at funding time. A Horizon 1 yardstick never judges a Horizon 3 bet. This single rule prevents the most common and most expensive error in the portfolio.

Component 2: Allocation. Decide the split across horizons deliberately, as a board-level capital decision, not as the accidental sum of whatever pilots happened to win approval. A practical reference point, borrowed from decades of innovation-portfolio practice, is roughly 70% to near-term value, 20% to capability, and 10% to transformation. The exact ratio is yours; the discipline is to choose and defend it. The failure mode is an unmanaged portfolio: 90 percent scattered across disconnected Horizon 1 experiments, with nothing compounding into the Horizon 2 capability that the buy-and-integrate winners actually built.

Component 3: Liquidation. Attach a kill line to every initiative at the moment it is funded: A named milestone, a date and an owner empowered to stop it. If a bet misses its horizon-appropriate milestone, it is liquidated, and capital is reallocated on schedule without debate over sunk costs. The absence of a pre-agreed kill line is not patience. It is an unpriced liability that the board has almost certainly not been shown.

Component 4: Tracking. Report the portfolio to the board on a fixed cadence using a single instrument: The AI Portfolio Scorecard. Not a deck of project updates, but a single view of allocation by horizon, burn against milestone, liquidation decisions taken and capital reallocated to survivors. The cadence is the control. A portfolio reviewed once a year is a portfolio managed by hope.

THE AI PORTFOLIO SCORECARD: SCORE EVERY INITIATIVE BEFORE IT IS FUNDED

Score each criterion: 0 = not present, 1 = partially documented, 2 = fully verified. Total out of 12. Bands: 0 to 4 = DO NOT FUND  |  5 to 8 = CONDITIONAL  |  9 to 12 = FUND.

THE LIQUIDATION GATE: RUN AT EVERY BOARD REVIEW BEFORE CONTINUING FUNDING

Any unresolved FAIL = stop funding, liquidate the position, reallocate the capital to a survivor and record the decision on the scorecard.

The cost of the timing error

The financial case follows the pattern and is consistent. Consider two organizations that funded the same class of Horizon 3 bet: A domain-specific agent platform meant to compound over three years. The first review was conducted at month six against a quarterly return test, found no payback and killed it, booking the write-off as a lesson about AI being overhyped. Its competitor classified the same work as Horizon 3, set an 18-month capability milestone, protected funding through two review cycles and shipped to production within the window the work actually required. One organization spent its money to learn that it lacks allocation discipline. The other spent comparable money and now owns a capability its rival has abandoned and cannot quickly rebuild. The dollars on the two income statements are similar. The competitive positions are not.

The governance return the board has been waiting for

Allocation discipline does two things at once. It stops the bleed by liquidating failures on a schedule rather than at the point of exhaustion. And it concentrates capital where the entire return lives, in the small number of bets that survive their horizon. The 5 percent figure is not a ceiling imposed by the technology. It is the current yield of an industry allocated by hype. An organization that classifies by horizon, allocates on purpose, liquidates on a line and tracks on a cadence is not trying to beat the technology. It is trying to beat its own indiscipline, and that is a far more winnable contest.

The board conversation about AI returns is coming for every organization, and it arrives the moment the spending outpaces the story. When it does, the CIO will be asked a simple question: Where did the money go? The leaders who can answer will not show a pile of pilots. They will show a portfolio: What was funded, against which horizon, what was liquidated and when, and what the survivors are now worth. Subtraction is a strategy. The only question is whether you are practicing it on purpose or about to learn it by accident.

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

Military strategists know that asymmetric wars are lost not at the point of attack but at the seams between defensive units, where no single commander owns the territory and information moves slower than the threat. In January 2024, a finance employee at Arup’s Hong Kong office learned this lesson for $25 million, joining a video call with what appeared to be the engineering firm’s chief financial officer and several colleagues, receiving instructions to wire funds to a designated account, and complying. Every face on the screen was a deepfake, cloned from publicly available footage of the actual executives. The attackers conducted the entire meeting in real time and vanished before anyone in the organization realized the CFO had never logged on.

The incident would be remarkable enough as a one-off, but it represents a pattern accelerating well beyond isolated cases. Global payment fraud reached $33.4 billion in 2024 according to the Nilson Report, and the US absorbed a disproportionate 42% of those losses despite processing only 25% of global card transactions. The latest FBI Internet Crime report identifies more than one million complaints and nearly $21 billion in cyber-enabled crime losses in 2025 (up from $16 million in 2023), while Deloitte projects AI-enabled fraud in the US will hit $40 billion by 2027. This increasingly includes crypto-related fraud, not just credit card or traditional banking fraud.

For anyone who oversees financial operations, risk or payment technology infrastructure, these numbers are not forecasts of a future “regional conflict.” Instead, they are the current cost of a war most institutions have not yet recognized they are fighting.

Reconnaissance at scale: How AI redraws the attacker’s map

The conventional narrative around AI-powered fraud emphasizes speed: Faster phishing, faster credential stuffing, faster social engineering. Jason Kikta, CTO of Automox, sees the shift differently. “The main threat from AI misuse isn’t faster execution, as automation has been leveraged for years,” Kikta says. “The true dangers are lower barriers to entry and faster adaptation, giving attackers the ability to pivot techniques in near real-time.”

The distinction means that execution is a quantitative improvement, the kind existing defenses can absorb by scaling up. Lower barriers to entry and real-time adaptation are qualitative: A force multiplier that turns every amateur into an equipped operator with a coach that learns from each failed attempt. Deepfake-as-a-service platforms now produce voice clones from three seconds of audio. AI-driven vulnerability scanning maps an institution’s unpatched endpoints while the security team is still scheduling the review meeting. In 2024, 269 million stolen credit card records appeared on dark web platforms, giving AI-equipped attackers what military intelligence analysts would call an order of battle: A detailed map of the defender’s exposed positions, ready to be mined for patterns, tested against live systems and exploited at machine speed.

The result is a combined arms threat, one that operates across domains simultaneously the way a competent military force coordinates air, ground and intelligence rather than running them as independent campaigns. The same AI that crafts a convincing business email compromise can probe unpatched point-of-sale systems to install digital skimmers. The same synthetic identity that opens a fraudulent credit card account can exploit a payment authorization vulnerability discovered through automated scanning. Card-not-present fraud now accounts for 71% of all US card fraud losses, and the attack surface keeps expanding as digital wallets and e-commerce push more transactions into channels where physical card verification is impossible.

Attackers treat endpoint management gaps and transaction monitoring gaps as a single attack surface, while most defenders continue to patrol them as separate territories.

Fragmented command: The structural vulnerability AI exploits

Consider how most financial institutions, crypto platforms and digital asset intermediaries actually organize their defenses: A cybersecurity team focused on identity compromise, endpoint protection and infrastructure threats; a fraud team focused on account takeover, mule networks and scam typologies; an AML or financial crimes team focused on wallet screening, sanctions exposure and suspicious activity reporting; and an AI risk or digital trust team, if one exists at all, focused on synthetic media, model abuse and impersonation. Each function has its own tooling, budget, reporting line and intelligence feeds. In crypto markets, where value can move irreversibly across wallets, chains, mixers, exchanges and OTC brokers in minutes, those silos create exploitable gaps between detection, attribution, interdiction and recovery.

A pig-butchering scam that begins on a dating app, migrates to WhatsApp, directs a victim to a fake crypto investment platform, and then launders proceeds through nested services and cross-chain bridges is not just a fraud event. It is also a cybersecurity event, a financial crimes event, an identity event, a platform abuse event and, increasingly, an AI-enabled social engineering event. Chainalysis reported that high-yield investment scams and pig-butchering schemes were among the most successful crypto scam types in 2024, while also noting growing use of AI in fraud and scams.

Research published by the University of California, Davis found that these schemes follow a staged lifecycle: Trust-building, fabricated investment returns, escalating deposits, withdrawal obstruction and re-targeting of victims after the initial loss. When each part of that lifecycle is monitored by a different team, the institution sees fragments of the attack rather than the economic system of the crime.

“Fraud no longer happens in isolated channels,” observes Jeff Li, Global Product & Designer Lead at Binance. “AI-powered scams move seamlessly across platforms, and payment systems, making fragmented defenses increasingly ineffective.” He believes that the future of security depends on unified intelligence — combining AI, real-time monitoring, secure infrastructure and cross-functional response mechanisms into a single coordinated defense system.

“We’ve invested heavily in AI-driven risk detection, real-time scam warnings and infrastructure to stay ahead of evolving threats, continues Li, claiming that from Q1 2025 to Q1 2026, these efforts helped Binance prevent over $10 billion in potential user losses and protected more than 5 million users globally. As AI continues to reshape both fraud and fraud prevention, the focus remains on building systems that can protect users, not just at scale, but in real time.

Unified command: From org chart to battle plan

Kikta’s assessment contains a contrarian detail worth teasing apart: “The good news is that a strong compliance program prioritizing depth of coverage and speed of enforcement will hold up against AI-enabled fraud,” he says. In a landscape saturated with predictions that existing defenses are obsolete, Kikta argues that the fundamentals of patch management, endpoint hygiene and compliance rigor still hold, provided the clock speed at which those fundamentals execute keeps pace with the adversary.

That clock speed is the operational link between cybersecurity and card fraud prevention. An unpatched point-of-sale terminal or payment gateway exposed for 30 days represents 30 days of reconnaissance opportunity for an AI scanner probing for places to install a digital skimmer or intercept card data in transit. A compliance gap in identity verification is an open invitation for synthetic identities to open accounts and run fraudulent transactions. Endpoint management data and transaction monitoring data describe the same attack surface from different angles, and fusing those streams into a single operational picture, the financial equivalent of a military intelligence fusion center, gives defenders something the current siloed structure cannot: Visibility into an attack developing across domains before it reaches the payment layer.

The value of that convergence extends beyond defense. A unified data layer across cyber, fraud and payments creates consolidated threat intelligence that can inform underwriting decisions, merchant risk scoring and product design. Organizations that treat converged security data as a business intelligence asset (not merely an operational feed) will find they have built something with commercial utility well beyond the security operations center.

Mascaro frames the prescription in terms that belong in a boardroom, not a SOC. “The real competitive advantage in fraud isn’t your AI stack,” he says. “It’s leadership’s clarity to unify risk disciplines that everyone else keeps in separate departments.”

Field manual: What winning institutions do differently

The institutions gaining ground in this new form of asymmetric conflict share a common operational posture: They treat endpoint management as card fraud prevention rather than IT maintenance, and they feed cyber, fraud and payments intelligence into a single picture rather than three separate briefings. The defensive AI advantage, such as it is, comes from that integration, not from any single model’s sophistication.

Adversaries have already unified their operations. Yet, payment processors and financial institutions that keep running separate campaigns on separate fronts, with separate intelligence, will keep conducting after-action reviews of battles they have already lost.

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

Something interesting happened during an internal evaluation of AI meeting transcription tools at Tungsten Automation. The products worked. They weren’t bad. But sitting across from the pricing, we kept asking the same question: what exactly are we paying for?

We already had a secure enterprise AI environment. Building a meeting summary workflow took days, not months. We customized the outputs, injected our own internal context, and controlled security our way instead of working around someone else’s roadmap. We built it. It works better. We own it.

That’s not a knock on those vendors. It’s a signal of something more fundamental happening across enterprise software.

The moat was never the product

For two decades, SaaS rode a favorable asymmetry: building internal tools was hard, integrations were messy, and even modest automation required developers and long timelines. Buying was faster and cheaper than building. That asymmetry fueled the explosion of SaaS into every corner of the enterprise stack.

AI is collapsing that asymmetry. Large language models and agentic workflows can orchestrate APIs, move data between systems, generate interfaces, and automate business logic with a fraction of the engineering effort required even two years ago. The integration friction that once protected entire product categories is evaporating.

The vendors most exposed are not the deeply embedded enterprise platforms. They’re the lightweight workflow layers, the products that essentially put a polished interface on top of accessible data and relatively straightforward processes. Reporting dashboards. Meeting tools. Narrow productivity applications. These products created value by simplifying implementation. That rationale is getting harder to sustain when implementation is no longer the real barrier.

Here’s the part most analyses miss: it’s not just that AI makes development faster. It’s that agents change the integration model entirely. For 30 years, enterprise software was built for humans navigating UIs. Agentic systems don’t use UIs. They call APIs, read from multiple sources simultaneously, and move data freely across systems. The switching costs that once made incumbent software sticky are collapsing, because an agent doesn’t care which UI it used last quarter.

The SaaS that survives

The question isn’t whether SaaS survives. It’s which SaaS survives.

The companies with durable positions are not the ones with the cleanest interface. They’re the ones that transfer operational risk customers genuinely cannot absorb themselves. Compliance. Regulatory certification. Accumulated domain expertise. Liability.

Think about compliant invoicing across 140 countries. That’s not a workflow someone builds in a sprint. The certifications alone take years. A single regulatory change in one jurisdiction can break an AP process for a global enterprise overnight. Customers don’t pay for that capability because it’s technically complex. They pay because they cannot afford to own the risk of getting it wrong.

That’s the distinction that matters: AI lowers the cost of building software. It does not lower the cost of absorbing risk. The vendors who understand this are building durable businesses. The ones who don’t are quietly subsidizing their customers’ internal build programs.

Software sells features. Platforms sell accountability.

The prototype trap

The danger for enterprise buyers right now is overcorrection. Every successful prototype looks like a cost-saving opportunity. Very few survive the jump to production.

Building a workflow with generative AI is becoming straightforward. Maintaining it is not. Models evolve. Outputs drift. Governance requirements tighten. What worked cleanly in a controlled environment behaves differently at scale, and the failure mode is worse than traditional software. Rule-based automation, when it fails, fails obviously. Agents fail silently, confidently, at scale, often with a completely reasonable-sounding explanation.

Engineering teams that take on AI-powered systems need to solve for observability, model drift, access controls, audit trails, and long-term maintenance ownership. In regulated industries, they need to demonstrate exactly how the system reached every decision. That’s not a weekend project. That’s an ongoing operational commitment that compounds over time as models change and regulatory requirements evolve.

Before a team decides to replace an external platform with internal AI tooling, the honest question isn’t, “Can we build this?” The real question is, “Are we prepared to own this in production, for years, as the underlying models change beneath us?” Sometimes the answer is yes. Often the answer is no, and the true cost only becomes visible after the vendor contract is canceled.

Build vs. partner: a sharper frame

The build vs. buy framing has always been too binary. The right question is build vs. partner.

Partner for the capabilities where risk transfer, regulatory complexity, and domain expertise create genuine value your team cannot replicate. Build for the capabilities that actually differentiate your business from your competitors. Don’t burn your best engineers rebuilding compliant invoice processing or production-grade document extraction. Those aren’t competitive advantages. They’re table stakes, and someone else has already paid the cost, across decades, to make them reliable.

The organizations getting this right are honest about where they create unique value. They focus development there, and partner for everything else. The ones getting it wrong are vibe-coding solutions to non-differentiating problems while their actual competitive moat goes unattended.

The true value of software

We’re not watching the death of SaaS. We’re watching the end of the friction-based value proposition: the idea that software is worth renewing because integration used to be painful. That rationale is largely gone.

What survives is software that does something customers cannot reasonably replicate internally: absorb risk, maintain regulatory compliance, deliver operational reliability at scale, and bring genuine domain expertise into a production-grade system that someone else already stress-tested for years.

The vendors who recognize this are already repositioning around accountability, governance, and outcomes. The ones who haven’t will find the next renewal conversation noticeably harder.

Software sells features. Platforms sell accountability. That distinction is about to separate a lot of winners from a lot of cautionary tales.

—

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.

The biggest and loudest prediction about AI is that it will eliminate millions of jobs. It is dramatic and easy to repeat. But from what I’ve seen, inside most enterprises the more immediate problem has turned out to be something else entirely: a growing mass of tools, agents, models and usage costs spreading faster than most organizations can govern or connect to real business value, also known as AI sprawl.

None of that invalidates the initial fear. Indeed, AI can clear backlogs, speed up analysis, draft usable content and reduce time spent on repetitive work. In my opinion, what goes wrong is the assumption that those gains will scale seamlessly, and that more AI will automatically produce more value.

What really matters is not only how much AI a company can deploy, but whether its use fits inside a growth strategy, an operating model and an organization that can use it well.

The early results of AI use made the logical progression feel obvious, even a foregone conclusion. If it could already improve output in narrow use cases, then broader deployment should produce broader gains. Simple! Better models were expected to deliver better results. More agents were expected to drive more automation. For many companies, this logic held for long enough to encourage overexpansion.

But this logic has started to break down as usage continues to scale. I’ve seen returns diminish much quicker than expected. To illustrate, one industry analysis found that developers who used AI most heavily produced about twice the output of moderate users, but consumed roughly ten times the compute.  

At a certain point, more AI does not create proportionally more value – it simply becomes more expensive. But where, exactly?

From experimentation to sprawl

Experimentation played a key role in this downturn, but it’s not the culprit. As AI continues to sprawl, the problem continues that AI is spreading faster than most companies can coordinate. Teams often solve the same problem in parallel, paying for overlapping capabilities and layering new tools atop existing ones without any clear inventory of what ‘s already in place. What can appear as momentum is really turning into redundancy.

I’ve seen versions of this play out repeatedly. At one financial firm, several business units were pursuing AI projects aimed at automating research and reporting. Each team moved independently; selecting their own tools, building their own workflows and creating separate data pipelines, with little to no coordination between teams. In some cases, different groups were developing nearly identical capabilities without realizing it, solving the same problems twice without any shared visibility into each other’s work.

Individually, the projects showed real promise. Collectively, the projects created duplication, fragmented data and inconsistent standards business and enterprise wide.

By the time leadership stepped back to assess, the company found itself paying for overlapping capabilities, maintaining multiple versions of the same underlying data, and struggling to determine which solutions were actually delivering value versus which were simply consuming budget and eating at engineering time.

Perhaps most troubling: nobody at the enterprise level had a complete view of what was being built, by whom or why. What began as healthy, well-intentioned experimentation had, without anyone deciding it should, evolved into full-blown AI sprawl, creating a patchwork of disconnected initiatives that was difficult to govern, harder to secure and far more expensive than a coordinated approach could and should be.

Early wins encourage a still wider rollout, but many organizations expand usage before they put real controls in place. Experimentation becomes sprawl. Budgets grow quickly, and few leaders have a reliable view of who is using what or why.

AI strategy cannot sit beside growth strategy

This is where I see many companies still get the issue wrong. They treat AI and growth strategy as two separate efforts, then wonder how adoption gets so messy. A business cannot drop AI into its operations and expect momentum to take over. The technology has to support a clear path to growth, whether that means improving margin, speed, service, capacity or decision-making. At the same time, growth plans cannot assume AI changes nothing about delivery, design or operating leverage. The real challenge is in ensuring the two work together.

Personally, I’ve seen better results when AI initiatives are tied to a specific business objective from the beginning, rather than launched as broad, abstract or transformative effort. One mattress retailer I’ve worked with took this approach, starting with a single, focused and well-defined use case rather than trying to transform or overhaul the entire organization at once. The company introduced an AI-powered training platform for store associates, giving employees a low-pressure way to practice sales conversations and product recommendations before applying them to external situations with customers on the floor.

Because employees experienced immediate and tangible value from the tool, adoption spread quickly across locations, with minimal need for top-down mandates. Early, visible success helped to build internal credibility and generate momentum, which leadership then leveraged to expand into more complex AI initiatives across areas such as inventory management, demand forecasting and replenishment planning.

Ultimately, the technology succeeded not because it was innovative for its own sake, but because it was connected to a larger growth strategy: improving sales effectiveness on the floor, driving operational efficiency behind the scenes and strengthening workforce capability at entry level. A major lesson we walked away with here was that starting small and specific, with a clear throughline to business value creates a strong foundation for sustainable and scalable AI use.

What implementation actually takes

All this takes more than a few easy guardrails. It takes strategy. Leaders need a real inventory of the tools, agents and assistants already in use across the business, who owns them, what data they can access and everything that they support.

They also need financial controls that match the economics of token-based usage, including role-based access, thresholds and review processes that make spend visible before it becomes a surprise. Similarly, they need metrics that go beyond mere activity. More prompts do not mean more value. If a deployment cannot be tied to throughput, margin, quality, cycle time or another tangible result, it is still unfinished.

This is also why blunt shutdowns rarely work. If leaders clamp down too hard, employees often move to unsanctioned tools and create a larger shadow AI problem, or the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence tools, models or chatbots by employees, without the knowledge or approval of IT and security teams, with even less visibility and more risk. The better answer is disciplined adoption: clear ownership, rules, metrics and enough flexibility for teams to use AI where it works.

That matters for the people as much as it does for the budget. Those that modernize well end up with better work – not just less of it.

The story of the moment isn’t about AI replacing people – or even AI in general. It’s about whether companies know their own businesses well enough to keep incorporating powerful new tools without mistaking activity for progress. As technological capabilities continue to appear, the winners will be the organizations that understand where it belongs, what it can improve and how to turn each new wave into something permanent.

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

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.”

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?

In one ransomware response I observed, the master operational dashboard remained green while the underlying environment told a very different story. It was a classic example of what we in the IT audit profession call the “watermelon effect”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Beneath that dashboard sat an unmapped web of legacy technical debt, undocumented service accounts and shadow cloud instances. For years, presenting a green dashboard to the audit committee could give technology leaders a false sense of comfort. If a catastrophic breach occurred, it was generally treated as an unpredictable operational tragedy, managed via cyber insurance, a carefully calibrated public relations pivot and perhaps a quiet executive transition.

Today, that corporate shield is thinner than many technology leaders assume. For technology leaders in regulated or public-company environments, executive exposure is no longer only a theoretical debate. The regulatory environment has made plausible deniability much harder to sustain.

The erosion of the corporate shield

With the application of the European Union’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) for financial entities, alongside the broader NIS2 Directive for essential and important entities, cybersecurity governance has become harder to separate from board-level oversight. DORA places ultimate responsibility for ICT risk management on the management body of financial entities, while NIS2 requires management bodies to approve and oversee cybersecurity risk-management measures. In the United States, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s cybersecurity disclosure rules require public companies to disclose material cyber incidents and describe their cyber risk management, strategy and governance in annual filings. The new burden is not simply to operate controls; it is to show, after the fact, that leadership decisions matched the risk evidence available at the time.

The serious risk to a modern CIO is not simply the occurrence of a sophisticated security incident. The true danger is the inability to reconcile what leadership presented externally to investors, regulators and the board with what the internal evidence showed inside the environment.

When a serious crisis breaks, you may find yourself surrounded by corporate defense counsel, regulatory investigators and outside forensic lawyers all asking variations of the same uncomfortable questions: What did you know, when did you discover it and what specific actions did you take next?

When those questions are asked, a slide deck asserting that your security posture is “aligned with industry best practices” will not be enough. A post-incident review may recognize that sophisticated attacks occur. What creates greater exposure is evidence that known risks were ignored, understated or left outside structured governance. To survive that level of post-incident review, one of your strongest assets is a disciplined, independent evidence trail showing that risks were identified, challenged, escalated and acted on before the first indicator of compromise appeared.

Why point-in-time comfort letters fail regulatory scrutiny

The reality we face is that legacy compliance evidence often falls short under regulatory scrutiny. For years, the annual SOC 2 Type II report or a standardized ISO 27001 certification was brandished by technology teams as the definitive proof of a functional control environment. I have sat in dozens of scoping meetings where an engineering director pointed to a freshly minted compliance report as if it were a complete defense against scrutiny.

But a compliance report is a historical artifact—a retrospective evaluation of how specific controls operated during a defined window of time months in the past. It tells an investigator that on a random afternoon in Q2, your production change-management approvals conformed to a baseline policy. It says absolutely nothing about the configuration drift, unauthorized API keys or emergency patch bypasses that developers introduced the following weekend to hit a product release deadline.

Modern regulators, boards and investors are no longer satisfied by historical comfort letters alone. Under contemporary frameworks, especially regimes focused on operational resilience, static compliance evidence is no longer enough. The expectation of due care has shifted from a passive state of compliance to an active state of continuous challenge. Increasingly, post-incident reviews look for evidence that leadership identified system vulnerabilities, formally escalated material deficiencies, evaluated systemic risk to the business and tracked remediation progress with measurable rigor.

When an architecture fails, post-incident reviews often focus quickly on ownership, escalation and whether known risks were acted upon. If your defensive documentation consists entirely of static policy documents and green dashboards, you leave an evidentiary vacuum that can invite difficult questions about executive oversight. Post-incident reviews rarely turn on perfection. They turn on whether the organization can show a traceable chain of governance.

5 non-negotiable artifacts for your executive evidence engine

This reality requires a complete reframing of your relationship with your IT audit department. Historically, this dynamic has been defined by friction. Technology leaders frequently view my peers and me as compliance traffic cops—bureaucrats who interrupt core engineering sprints to demand evidence samples, user access reviews and system configurations.

It is time to view IT audit through a pragmatic lens: we are your independent evidence engine. We are one of the few corporate functions tasked with independently challenging your control environment, documenting where exceptions were escalated and showing how management responded. When an auditor identifies a control gap and partners with you to draft a management action plan, they are not creating a bureaucratic roadblock. They are helping you construct an evidence trail that can show risk was identified, escalated and acted upon.

To transform your IT audit function into an effective executive shield, you must shift focus away from superficial check-the-box exercises and collaborate on specific artifacts. The most effective exercise you can run with your audit leadership is to flip the timeline completely and ask: if this program were reviewed six months from now, which evidence would show we governed the risk before it failed?

1. Board-facing risk registers with escalation history: A risk register that sits unreviewed on an intranet page for 12 months is not a management tool; to an investigator, it can look like evidence that known risks were not actively governed. Your material technology, cybersecurity and dependency risks must be centrally logged. More importantly, this artifact must contain a clear, chronological escalation history showing exactly when the risk was presented to leadership committees and the board, along with related minutes, decisions or follow-up actions.
2. Granular risk acceptance records: You cannot remediate every vulnerability instantly. Business continuity, legacy software limitations and budgetary boundaries require you to accept certain operational exposures. When this occurs, ensure your risk acceptance records are airtight. A defensible record must document the specific technical variance, the precise financial or operational rationale for the delay, a definitive expiration date, explicit executive sign-off and the active compensating controls deployed to reduce the blast radius in the interim.
3. Tabletop and operational simulation records: Independent frameworks such as ISACA’s Digital Trust Ecosystem Framework can help structure this evidence, but boards and regulators will still look for proof that the testing actually happened. Your audit trail should contain comprehensive records of cyber incident, disaster recovery and third-party dependency simulations. These records must detail the scenario tested, the executive participants, the control failures identified during the drill and a formalized tracking schedule showing when those gaps were closed.
4. AI governance inventories and data-flow mappings: The rapid deployment of generative AI tools across enterprise operations has created a massive blind spot for technology executives. In one audit, we found developers using an unapproved public large language model to accelerate debugging with sensitive internal code. To protect yourself, work with your audit team to build an active enterprise AI inventory that maps data lineage, identifies model business owners, documents risk classification approvals and demonstrates active technical monitoring for unauthorized data exfiltration.
5. Synchronized disclosure-control handoffs: When a material security incident or system outage occurs, the clock begins ticking for regulatory reporting. Your incident response playbook must be technically linked to your corporate disclosure controls. The audit trail should show that a documented, synchronized handoff occurred between your technical response leaders, general counsel, chief financial officer and corporate communications team. This evidence helps show that your external statements match internal technical realities.

In the modern corporate ecosystem, technology leadership is no longer just an engineering challenge; it is an exercise in rigorous, evidence-based governance. The regulatory landscape has changed, and the expectation of continuous traceability cannot be avoided.

Open and direct collaboration with your IT audit team will not prevent a zero-day exploit, an unexpected cloud outage or a critical third-party vendor failure. That is not the purpose of enterprise risk management.

The true value is far more practical: when a serious incident puts your program under review, you will not be forced to defend your reputation with a feeling, an unverified assumption or a misleadingly green dashboard. Instead, you will have an independent record showing that risk was actively seen, appropriately challenged, properly escalated and responsibly managed. In today’s regulatory environment, that disciplined trail of evidence may be the difference between a failure that can be explained and one that begins to look negligent.

.

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

Observability platforms are evolving beyond traditional monitoring as vendors add AI capabilities and cost-management features aimed at helping enterprise organizations better manage increasingly complex IT environments.

Vendors are investing heavily in AI observability, autonomous investigations, cost optimization, and operational intelligence as they try to evolve their platforms into systems that help IT teams understand problems, identify root causes, and determine the best course of action, according to Gartner, which just published its latest Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms.

Gartner defines the observability category as technologies that help organizations understand and optimize the health, performance, and behavior of applications, infrastructure, services, AI agents, and user experiences by collecting and analyzing telemetry data, such as logs, metrics, events, and traces.

There are 19 vendors that made the cut for Gartner’s new report. Its Leaders quadrant includes (alphabetically) Chronosphere, Coralogix, Datadog, Dynatrace, Elastic, Grafana Labs, IBM, and New Relic. The Challengers are Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, LogicMonitor, Microsoft, and Splunk. The two Visionaries are BMC Helix and Honeycomb. Those dubbed Niche Players are Apica, HPE, ScienceLogic, and SolarWinds. (For specific vendor strengths and cautions, check out the full Gartner report. Some vendors offer free versions of the report with registration.)

Looking beyond quadrant placement, Gartner advises organizations to evaluate vendors based on their ability to deliver full-stack observability and their “roadmap credibility” in key areas such as AI observability, OpenTelemetry interoperability, and the ability to observe and govern AI agents.

AI observability emerges as a key differentiator

Organizations are increasingly looking for visibility into AI workloads, including token consumption, model latency, response quality, hallucination rates, and other AI-specific performance metrics, according to the report. Gartner identifies AI observability as an emerging requirement, driven by growing enterprise interest in large language models (LLMs), genAI applications, and agentic AI systems.

The report recognizes a growing number of vendors introducing AI-focused monitoring, autonomous investigations, AI agents, and specialized observability capabilities designed to help organizations monitor and govern AI-powered applications and workflows. At the same time, Gartner clarifies that many claims surrounding autonomous operations remain ahead of reality.

“The transition from generative AI assistants to autonomous agents is more complex than vendor marketing suggests,” the report states.

Cost management becomes a top priority

While AI may dominate vendor messaging, Gartner states that telemetry cost management remains one of the top concerns for enterprise buyers.

As organizations collect larger amounts of logs, traces, metrics, and events, observability spending is increasingly attracting attention from finance and procurement teams. Gartner notes that 5% of its clients now spend more than $10 million annually with a single observability provider.

Gartner describes pipeline management as a strategic layer that is becoming central to observability deployments. Vendors that fail to address these cost concerns risk losing customers to vendor-agnostic alternatives focused on telemetry optimization. Organizations increasingly want platforms that can provide cost attribution, utilization insights, and financial metrics that help justify observability investments, according to Gartner.

Gartner projects the observability market will reach $14.3 billion by 2028, driven increasingly by organizations’ need to manage growing telemetry volumes.

OpenTelemetry is table stakes as consolidation continues

The growing impact of open standards is a major shift for observability, Gartner notes.

The widespread adoption of OpenTelemetry and eBPF-based instrumentation has lowered barriers to switching observability providers and made telemetry collection increasingly commoditized, the research firm explains. Gartner says many enterprise buyers now consider OpenTelemetry support a baseline requirement rather than a differentiator.

As a result, vendors are now trying to differentiate themselves through analytics, automation, AI capabilities, and user experience rather than proprietary data collection approaches. That shift is forcing vendors to demonstrate value beyond monitoring and visibility, as buyers seek platforms capable of accelerating troubleshooting, automating investigations, and improving operational outcomes, according to Gartner.

Gartner says market consolidation continues to favor platform-oriented vendors that combine full-stack observability with integrated AI capabilities. Organizations are increasingly looking for unified platforms that can monitor applications, infrastructure, digital experiences, and AI workloads from a single environment.

The rise of operational intelligence

As enterprises modernize applications and expand AI initiatives, organizations want platforms that can not only identify problems but also explain causes, prioritize actions, and potentially automate remediation. Vendors are expanding observability platforms with AI-driven analytics, automation, and governance capabilities that span applications, infrastructure, cloud services, and AI workloads.

For enterprise buyers, the next phase of observability may be defined less by telemetry collection and more by how effectively vendors can transform data into intelligence, automation, and measurable business outcomes.

Linus Torvalds has a complicated relationship with AI, seeing both its good and bad points. But his latest remarks on the usefulness of AI may have raised a few eyebrows in open-source circles.

Just a few weeks after the Linux founder complained that a “continued flood” of AI-generated vulnerability reports had made the Linux kernel security mailing list “almost entirely unmanageable”, he has come to see the advantages of the technology.

“Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects,” Torvalds wrote in an email response to Linux Kernel senior engineer Roman Gushchin, archived at Kernel.org.

“It can also be a somewhat painful tool, both for maintainer workloads and just from a ‘it keeps finding embarrassing bugs’ standpoint,” he said of the use of AI in security scanning. “The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain.”

Developers should be free to choose whether they use AI, he said. “We’re not forcing anybody to use it, but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it.”

Torvalds’ measured support for AI does not come completely out of the blue: Around the same time that he was complaining about AI distorting security maintenance, he also spoke about its usefulness, claiming that it could improve programmer productivity by a factor of 10.

Linus Torvalds has a complicated relationship with AI, seeing both its good and bad points. But his latest remarks on the usefulness of AI may have raised a few eyebrows in open-source circles.

Just a few weeks after the Linux founder complained that a “continued flood” of AI-generated vulnerability reports had made the Linux kernel security mailing list “almost entirely unmanageable”, he has come to see the advantages of the technology.

“Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects,” Torvalds wrote in an email response to Linux Kernel senior engineer Roman Gushchin, archived at Kernel.org.

“It can also be a somewhat painful tool, both for maintainer workloads and just from a ‘it keeps finding embarrassing bugs’ standpoint,” he said of the use of AI in security scanning. “The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain.”

Developers should be free to choose whether they use AI, he said. “We’re not forcing anybody to use it, but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it.”

Torvalds’ measured support for AI does not come completely out of the blue: Around the same time that he was complaining about AI distorting security maintenance, he also spoke about its usefulness, claiming that it could improve programmer productivity by a factor of 10.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

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.”