Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Looking ahead just a short time, Apple could hold a powerful position in AI where it most makes sense: deployment.

Not only will the company offer up its own AI models for the kind of tasks millions use ChatGPT to do today, but it will provide more sophisticated on-device agentic models to help users get things done through Siri AI.

Apple also offers limited capacity for more complex tasks through Private Cloud Compute, and, in partnership with the likes of Google in the US and Alibaba in China, the company is giving users a trusted conduit through which to access even more sophisticated AI services. 

Deeply deployable

Critics can say it took Apple a long time to get to this point, but they also seem to think the company has finally got the mix right with its series 27 operating systems. Arriving late to a party doesn’t mean you won’t shine once you get there.

Apple is also coming up the inside lane around frontier AI, with iterative OS and hardware enhancements that mean its devices become increasingly effective for Edge AI use cases, on device — no cloud service required.

The company appears to be digging down into those use cases. Mark Gurman at Bloomberg recently predicted that future M7 Ultra Macs will support as much as 1.5TB RAM, making these systems more than capable of running full weight frontier models in people’s offices, colleges, and homes. 

While that does assume the AI-flationary memory market can supply that much RAM at prices humans can afford, it is also true that people are already running AI clusters using off-the-shelf Mac minis networked over Thunderbolt cables. It’s no stretch to believe this will continue to be the case, and that it will even broaden as the power/performance offered at the high end grows.

What’s wrong with good enough?

When combined with open AI stacks, particularly newly emerging varieties, Apple’s platforms should become leading contenders for private AI services and edge AI. Many business users will leap at the chance to offer their workers powerful, self-hosted, private AI services using one or more daisy-chained Mac Studios or Mac minis. The recent craze in deployment of both Macs to support OpenClaw instances shows they already are.

Ultimately, these different slices of momentum mean I agree with investor Jason Calacanis that Apple is in position to apply a great deal of pressure on OpenAI and Claude just by putting models on their devices. 

It’s also worth thinking about how people use AI today. How many of the queries made in the world right now constitute relatively simple tasks that could be transacted by on-device AI, such as the emerging new version of Apple Intelligence or even smaller LLM models running on device? You can even run PrismML’s 1-bit, 27-billion parameter Bonsai on an iPad using the Locally app, and that’s in the here and now.

What happens? Pretty soon you’ll find people recognize that they can already run the vast majority of their AI-augmented workflows using services they have on their existing device or can access on their on-prem Mac set-ups. And, of course, as people get used to running small tasks locally and larger tasks on premises, the actual space in which they need to turn to cloud-based frontier models will erode. That’s even as companies like PrismML work towards slimming down full-weight models so they don’t need to run on a server at all.

“It’s going to be wild when people have unlimited tokens on their desks,” said Calacanis in a podcast round table discussion.

Who has the most to lose?

The current incarnations of AI felt like they came from nowhere. Most people weren’t aware of the technology until returning to work after the 2022 holiday season. Since then, the industry has proliferated with dozens of competing models, most recently including powerful but affordable frontier models such as Qwen and Kimi.ai.

These models aren’t necessarily all as good as one another, but in many cases for much of what we do, we’ll find them to be good enough. That’s an existential crisis for some, as industry observers now think the inevitable pricing pressure means some services might have over-invested in capacity before finding any way to turn a profit.

Those profit-seeking services are the ones with the most to lose as Apple extends its hardware advantage, democratizing AI access for all while providing platforms suitable for edge AI, on-premises AI, private AI, and even AI access using third-party services. (The need for the latter will shrink as the capabilities of the former get better.)

Cupertino rising

What does this all mean? While the industry remains young, it is already fragmenting. And striding through the dust of that process comes Apple, equipped with the hardware, software, and approach to build its business even as the enterprise of first mover AI services erodes.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.

AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.

AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.

AMD

The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.

The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Dave Altavilla

Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.

In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.

These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.

AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.

While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.

Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

AMD

AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.

Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.

Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.

As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.

On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.

These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.

Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.

Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.

There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.

The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.

Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.

Execution for AMD is now the test

AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.

AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.

As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.

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

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

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

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

The benchmark has moved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIO’s real problem

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

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

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

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

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

Closing the gap without slowing down

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

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

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

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

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

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?

For CIOs, learning from the startup ecosystem has never been more critical.

As pressure mounts to transform business operations with AI and agentic systems, IT leaders should be looking to those on the AI vanguard for insights into the strategic and technical decisions necessary to launch, grow, and thrive in today’s AI-disrupted business environment.

So why not immerse yourself in Silicon Valley’s most famous firehose of hyper-accelerated fail-fast and dream-big culture by registering for TechCrunch Disrupt 2026?

Three packed days of 200-plus sessions across six stages will spark new ideas for reshaping your AI strategy, provide fresh perspectives on the architectural, workflow, and resource decisions involved in moving AI from pilots to scale, and give you a sneak peek of business disruptions to come.

Get 10% off your TechCrunch Disrupt pass with the exclusive code CIO10. 

This year’s TechCrunch Disrupt, held Oct. 13-15 at San Francisco’s Moscone West, will feature big-picture conversations on what’s next in AI; discussions on how AI agents are rewriting SaaS, enterprise workflows, software pricing, and security; and demonstrations of AI’s future across robotics, manufacturing, defense, and industrial operations; and more.

Over 10,000 attendees will hear from 250-plus startup founders, technology executives, and enterprise IT leaders about how the future of programming is being rewritten, what enterprise AI security requires, how startups are orchestrating workloads across models while managing cost and reliability at scale, why creating a safety culture is essential for AI deployment, and how startups are deciding what work humans should own versus what should be delegated to AI as they work to build hybrid teams without losing speed, accountability, or culture.

And of course, the rising tide of enterprise-focused startups will be there seeking to bring agentic systems to your business workflows, as well as vendors familiar to your enterprise IT portfolios, such as AWS, Google, and Databricks, and enterprise IT colleagues creating mutually beneficial partnerships with the startup community, such as American Express.

That’s not to mention TechCrunch Disrupt’s signature Startup Battlefield, in which 200 standout companies showcase their innovations to compete for a $100K equity-free prize. The battlefield will give CIOs a rapid-fire, broad view of what’s possible — and a possible early look at the next big enterprise player. After all, Dropbox, Trello, and Cloudflare, among others, roamed that same battlefield before the world knew their names.

And with M&A now an early-stage startup strategy for many from day one, TechCrunch Disrupt’s exhibition floor provides IT leaders not just an opportunity to discuss the nuts and bolts of innovation architecture or how an upstart product can enhance your workflows, but a chance to find your next innovation partner, or more.

Leading-edge startups are figuring out how to make AI work at scale. Shouldn’t you be?

Don’t miss your chance to experience TechCrunch Disrupt 2026. Book your pass today and use the exclusive code CIO10 to save 10% before prices increase.

For CIOs, learning from the startup ecosystem has never been more critical.

As pressure mounts to transform business operations with AI and agentic systems, IT leaders should be looking to those on the AI vanguard for insights into the strategic and technical decisions necessary to launch, grow, and thrive in today’s AI-disrupted business environment.

So why not immerse yourself in Silicon Valley’s most famous firehose of hyper-accelerated fail-fast and dream-big culture by registering for TechCrunch Disrupt 2026?

Three packed days of 200-plus sessions across six stages will spark new ideas for reshaping your AI strategy, provide fresh perspectives on the architectural, workflow, and resource decisions involved in moving AI from pilots to scale, and give you a sneak peek of business disruptions to come.

Get 10% off your TechCrunch Disrupt pass with the exclusive code CIO10. 

This year’s TechCrunch Disrupt, held Oct. 13-15 at San Francisco’s Moscone West, will feature big-picture conversations on what’s next in AI; discussions on how AI agents are rewriting SaaS, enterprise workflows, software pricing, and security; and demonstrations of AI’s future across robotics, manufacturing, defense, and industrial operations; and more.

Over 10,000 attendees will hear from 250-plus startup founders, technology executives, and enterprise IT leaders about how the future of programming is being rewritten, what enterprise AI security requires, how startups are orchestrating workloads across models while managing cost and reliability at scale, why creating a safety culture is essential for AI deployment, and how startups are deciding what work humans should own versus what should be delegated to AI as they work to build hybrid teams without losing speed, accountability, or culture.

And of course, the rising tide of enterprise-focused startups will be there seeking to bring agentic systems to your business workflows, as well as vendors familiar to your enterprise IT portfolios, such as AWS, Google, and Databricks, and enterprise IT colleagues creating mutually beneficial partnerships with the startup community, such as American Express.

That’s not to mention TechCrunch Disrupt’s signature Startup Battlefield, in which 200 standout companies showcase their innovations to compete for a $100K equity-free prize. The battlefield will give CIOs a rapid-fire, broad view of what’s possible — and a possible early look at the next big enterprise player. After all, Dropbox, Trello, and Cloudflare, among others, roamed that same battlefield before the world knew their names.

And with M&A now an early-stage startup strategy for many from day one, TechCrunch Disrupt’s exhibition floor provides IT leaders not just an opportunity to discuss the nuts and bolts of innovation architecture or how an upstart product can enhance your workflows, but a chance to find your next innovation partner, or more.

Leading-edge startups are figuring out how to make AI work at scale. Shouldn’t you be?

Don’t miss your chance to experience TechCrunch Disrupt 2026. Book your pass today and use the exclusive code CIO10 to save 10% before prices increase.

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?

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.

The cybersecurity landscape has evolved beyond human scale. Today’s adversaries have replaced predictable, manual playbooks with machine-generated attack chains that can breach traditional controls in seconds. To bridge the gap, organizations must move past legacy, reactive controls and embrace a fundamentally different, AI-driven architecture: Agentic Endpoint Security (AES). 

AES represents a paradigm shift, moving security from a passive monitor to an active participant in the defense lifecycle. It provides the visibility and automated guardrails necessary to govern autonomous AI agents and agentic tools, ensuring that as your workforce scales with AI, your security posture remains unbreakable. 

With autonomous AI agents now capable of planning and executing multi-stage attacks at machine speed, the pressure on traditional security operations (SOC) has reached a breaking point. To survive this shift, the strategy is clear: we must fight AI with AI. 

Here is how AI-driven defense, pioneered by Cortex XDR and the era of Agentic Endpoint Security, is fundamentally rewriting the cybersecurity playbook.

1. From reactive patching to proactive prevention 

For decades, the industry lived in a “wait-and-see” mode waiting for a vulnerability to surface, waiting for a signature, and then rushing to patch the hole. But reactive methods just don’t hold up against modern “frontier” AI attacks that are constantly morphing. 

AI-driven defense changes the game by shifting to a prevention-first architecture. Rather than relying on historical signatures, modern platforms deploy localized, ML-driven analysis to evaluate the intent and behavior of an active process, stopping threats pre-execution. Cortex XDR leads with a strict prevention-first approach by using AI-driven local analysis and behavioral threat protection; the XDR agent stops sophisticated threats pre-impact and pre-execution. This proactive stance reduces the overall risk profile by blocking malicious chains of events in real time across network, process, file, and registry activity. 

2. Eliminating the “agentic blind spot” 

As we all rush to adopt generative AI and automated workflows, a new gap has appeared: the “agentic blind spot.” Adversaries are now targeting AI assistants and automated scripts to bypass defenses. Since these digital agents often have deep access to enterprise data, a compromise here lets attackers move completely under the radar. 

The new playbook requires securing this entire ecosystem. By combining the distinct capabilities of Cortex XDR and Koi Security, organizations can effectively close this gap. Koi Agentic Endpoint Security tracks everything from shell commands to prompts in real time, while Cortex XDR adds a layer of defense that identifies and neutralizes behavioral anomalies unique to these automated threats. 

3. Machine-speed detection and “attack storylines” 

When an attacker can move through your network in seconds, human-led teams can’t keep up. To make matters worse, most systems just flood analysts with low-quality, isolated alerts, leading to major burnout. 

AI-driven defense fixes the investigation process by automatically stitching separate data points into a single, high-fidelity “attack storyline.” Cortex XDR uses thousands of machine learning detectors across endpoint, network, and cloud sources to group related signals into one cohesive case. This reveals the full story of an attack, letting your analysts focus on fast remediation instead of digging through piles of data, reducing alert noise by up to 98%. 

4. Surgical and autonomous response 

The final piece of the puzzle is moving from manual remediation to autonomous action. AI-driven response lets your SOC handle threats in minutes, not hours. The platform can automatically revoke compromised tokens or isolate endpoints at machine speed. 

Cortex XDR delivers built-in enterprise-grade automation at no additional cost, providing over 120 out-of-the-box playbooks and 18 quick actions to handle up to 99% of incidents without manual intervention. Crucially, this level of automation requires an unbreakable foundation of agent resilience. To ensure the defense cannot be disabled by an adversary, Cortex XDR is certified in both the AVC EDR Detection and Anti-Tampering tests, successfully blocking all attempts to disable or modify the agent. 

Summary

The threat landscape is changing faster than ever, driven by AI-powered attackers who exploit even the smallest gaps. But you don’t have to stay on the defensive. By shifting to a proactive, AI-driven architecture like the one built into Cortex XDR, you can stop threats before they happen, secure your agentic workflows, and automate away the noise that leads to analyst burnout. 

The journey to a more resilient, AI-powered SOC doesn’t have to be daunting. With the right foundation in place, you’re not just keeping pace with the new threat landscape; you’re staying one step ahead. It’s time to move beyond the old manual playbook and embrace the future of security operations. 

To learn more about Palto Alto Networks, visit https://www.paloaltonetworks.com.

Networking is core to any operating system, and when it comes to Linux, it’s actually a combination of several key components. The Linux kernel handles the data plane, moving packets, and holding live device state. NetworkManager is the network configuration service, operating as the control plane, deciding what a device’s configuration should be.

NetworkManager 1.58 was released this week, following more than five months of development and 407 commits since version 1.56. The release covers three areas: expanded support for IPv6-only networks, a set of Wi-Fi management updates, and a round of security hardening.

IPv4 address exhaustion remains the pressure behind the first of those areas, pushing more networks toward IPv6-only operation every year.

“More networks, mobile carriers, cloud providers, and anyone squeezed by IPv4 exhaustion are running IPv6-only by default,” Chris Van Hoof, director of Linux engineering, platform enablement at Red Hat, told Network World.

Advancing IPv6-only support

Dual stack networking, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel, has been the default IPv6 transition strategy for years. Dual stack networking, however, has a structural problem in that it still requires an IPv4 address on every device, so it does nothing to relieve address exhaustion pressure.

An alternative model called IPv6-mostly addresses that gap. It is defined in RFC 8925, “IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCPv4,” and lets capable clients drop IPv4 entirely while legacy hosts that still need it keep receiving it on the same network segment.

“NetworkManager can also now auto-signal RFC 8925’s IPv6-only-preferred option, telling the network a host is fine skipping an IPv4 lease entirely,” Van Hoof said.

For the traffic that still needs IPv4, NetworkManager 1.58 adds support for CLAT, short for customer-side translator. CLAT is the client-side half of 464XLAT, a mechanism defined in RFC 6877, “464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation.”

464XLAT pairs CLAT on the endpoint, which performs stateless header translation, with a stateful NAT64 translator on the provider side, letting IPv4-only apps keep functioning on a network that has no IPv4 of its own.

“CLAT is the translation layer that lets legacy IPv4-only apps and services keep working on those networks without bolt-on middleware,” Van Hoof said.

Wi-Fi management updates

NetworkManager 1.58 also brings a set of changes to how the daemon handles Wi-Fi connections and configuration.

• Band selection: The band property of Wi-Fi connections now accepts a 6GHz value, and a Wi-Fi scan run through nmcli, NetworkManager’s command line tool, now shows each access point’s band as well.
• Credential handling: WPS credentials with a 64 character hex PSK are now accepted, matching what some access points return.
• Text interface improvements: nmtui, NetworkManager’s menu driven text interface, picked up several usability additions. A new device select button lets you choose a physical interface from a list instead of typing its name. The activation screen gained a rescan Wi-Fi button, and secret prompts now include a show password checkbox. There is also a share QR code option, mirroring the existing nmcli device wifi show-password command.

Security hardening

The release fixes vulnerabilities and tightens several defaults tied to DHCP handling and connection permissions.

• CVE-2026-10805: Hostnames and MUD URLs are now validated before being written to the dhclient configuration file, rejecting characters that could alter the config syntax.
• DHCPv4 client fix: An out-of-bounds read in the internal DHCPv4 client, triggerable by an on-link attacker with a malformed UDP packet, has been fixed.
• Router option validation: The internal DHCPv4 client now ignores DHCP option 3, the Router option, when a lease also contains option 121, the Classless Static Route option, following the recommendation in RFC 3442.
• Permission checks and deprecations: For private connections that restrict access to specific users, NetworkManager now verifies that the user can access the referenced 802.1X certificates and keys.

Tunneling and automation updates

Two smaller but practical additions round out this release: a new tunnel type for virtualized networks, and a fix that closes a gap in how NetworkManager’s state survives a reboot.

NetworkManager 1.58 also adds support for creating and managing GENEVE tunnel interfaces. GENEVE, short for Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation, is a tunneling protocol that wraps Ethernet frames inside UDP packets, letting virtualized or overlay networks run on top of physical Layer 3 infrastructure. It shows up mainly in virtualization and cloud environments, where a hypervisor or container networking layer needs to build a virtual network segment across physical hosts. Previously, NetworkManager could not create or manage these interfaces directly.

The release also adds persisted managed state. NetworkManager tracks whether it is responsible for a given network device, a setting called its managed state. Until now, that setting reset on every reboot, so provisioning tools had to reapply it each time a system restarted. NetworkManager 1.58 lets the managed state survive a reboot when it is set through nmcli or the D-Bus API.

“It’s a small change but closes a real automation gap: Provisioning tools and cloud-init style workflows can set a device’s state once via D-Bus or nmcli and trust it survives a reboot, instead of reapplying config every time,” Van Hoof said.

AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.

AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.

AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.

AMD

The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.

The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Dave Altavilla

Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.

In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.

These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.

AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.

While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.

Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

AMD

AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.

Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.

Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.

As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.

On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.

These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.

Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.

Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.

There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.

The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.

Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.

Execution for AMD is now the test

AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.

AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.

As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.

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

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

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

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

The benchmark has moved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIO’s real problem

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

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

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

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

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

Closing the gap without slowing down

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

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

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

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

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

Microsoft 365 Director Jeremy Chapman this month took to video to tell Windows admins that the days of delaying security patches are over.

Complex enterprise systems and historic incidents involving patch problems have caused many admins to hold fire on immediately applying security patches, in many cases deferring patch rollouts for two to four weeks or more to ensure stability. Microsoft argues that this cautious approach, though understandable, is no longer viable because AI is accelerating the discovery and exploitation of software vulnerabilities.

As a result, Microsoft has advised admins to act on patches within three days.

Independent experts agree with Microsoft’s diagnosis of the problems posed by AI-powered vulnerability discovery, but many say Microsoft’s three-day remediation window is unrealistic for large enterprises with heavy testing, change-control, and compatibility constraints.

Instead of taking a blanket approach, enterprises need to focus more on quickly resolving those vulnerabilities that are under active exploitation and relevant to their environments, according to critics of Microsoft’s revised approach.

Tighter patching deadlines

Microsoft’s revised vulnerability remediation advice comes in the wake of its work with Anthropic’s Project Glasswing and findings from Microsoft’s own MDASH multi-model agentic scanning harness. Tighter patching deadlines are configurable via Windows Autopatch and Microsoft Intune or update tooling options such as Microsoft Configuration Manager and Windows Server Update Services.

As IT environments become increasingly more complex, inadvertent issues can occur with what appears to be a simple patch.

Unique or complex deployments may not be compatible with a patch, resulting in potential data corruption, system shutdown, or the dreaded “Blue Screen of Death.” Multiple vendors in the operating system and the enterprise software and security market have released patches that have broken products and caused outages, so the issue goes well beyond Windows shops.

Increasing both the volume and the speed of patching is unsustainable for most security teams because organizations are already struggling with successful remediation as it is.

“Many organizations have patch windows, review cycles, and test environments to identify these issues prior to patching production environments,” says Scott Caveza, senior research manager at exposure management and vulnerability assessment firm Tenable. “Organizations lacking the resources for extended validation risk deploying faulty patches that cause downtime or force last-minute configuration changes.”

Caveza adds: “The mitigation steps will vary for each organization, but blindly relying on auto-updates without contextual validation is not a defensible security posture.”

CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list and other industry data suggest that only a small fraction of disclosed vulnerabilities are confirmed as exploited in the wild.

“[Enterprises should focus on] identifying vulnerabilities with credible and functional PoCs, verified exploitation, or sustained attention from ransomware groups, threat actors, and botnets,” says Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck. “Timely exploit intelligence helps organizations identify the bugs that require immediate attention, while allowing lower-risk issues to proceed through appropriate testing and change control.”

Other independent experts are more sympathetic to Microsoft’s argument that AI has made vulnerability discovery and exploit development faster than ever and, as a result, the risks of delaying patches are far greater.

“Organizations sometimes delay patches to protect the uptime of critical systems, and many updates still require a restart,” says Danny Jenkins, CEO and co-founder at endpoint protection technology vendor ThreatLocker. “Some teams also stay one update cycle behind because they are concerned that a new patch could introduce bugs or break an overlooked dependency. Unfortunately, delaying patches to preserve uptime is becoming much harder to justify.”

Jenkins adds: “Organizations should not leave critical systems exposed while waiting for the next maintenance window. Patches should still be tested, but that process needs to move quickly, with the highest priority given to vulnerabilities that are actively exploited or exposed to the internet. A controlled interruption is usually far less costly than a successful attack exploiting a known vulnerability.”

Wider cross-industry impact

Microsoft’s three-day recommendation reflects a fundamental change in the threat landscape. Other vendors might be expected to follow suit and that means CISOs need to revise their approach to vulnerability remediation.

“Organizations should expect faster disclosure-to-exploitation timelines to become the norm, which means security programs must emphasize automation, trusted software supply chains, and continuous visibility rather than relying on periodic maintenance windows,” says Mike Nelson, VP and field CTO at DigiCert.

AI is compressing the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation, and the industry is moving rapidly from 30-, 60-, and 90-day patching windows toward a matter of days.

However a “blanket three-day requirement for every vulnerability is neither realistic nor safe for most large organizations,” says Jeff Williams, founder and CTO at Contrast Security.

Failing to patch opens up security threats, but rushing an inadequately tested patch into production creates operational risk.

“The goal cannot be to treat every CVE [vulnerability] as an emergency,” according to Williams. “It has to be identifying, within hours, which vulnerabilities are actually exploitable and require immediate action.”

Holistic remediation

Security teams are already facing significant pressure to patch faster and to remediate a rising tide of new vulnerabilities, yet many practitioners are losing ground. Verizon’s Data Breach Investigation Report, published earlier this year, found that the median time to patch had actually increased to 43 days.

Patch deployment in enterprise environments involves configuration changes, reviews, testing, and validation.

Enterprises need to become more proficient at exposure management so that they have a holistic view of their environment that’s necessary to identify which assets are at greatest risk.

“By pinpointing the misconfigurations, identity flaws, and specific vulnerabilities that pose the greatest risk to their environment, security teams can prioritize exactly what to patch first,” Tenable’s Caveza says. “The idea of ‘patch everything’ is really outdated, and ‘patch faster’ isn’t feasible with the rapidly increasing number of vulnerabilities disclosed each day.”

CISOs will have to re-engineer their vulnerability and exposure management processes. “The traditional model of scanning everything, assigning generic severity scores, and tilting at a massive and expanding backlog is no longer fast enough,” says Contrast Security’s Williams.

Organizations need to identify the small number of vulnerabilities that matter, protect against them immediately, and remediate them on a timeline the business can safely support.

Enterprises should prioritize on resolving “internet facing, remotely exploitable vulnerabilities and any of the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability list,” says Jose Lejin, an IEEE senior member.

Businesses that cannot safely validate and deploy patches within three days still have options, including “compensating controls, reducing an asset’s exposure, or in some cases removing the component entirely, all of which shrink the exploitable risk and buy time to patch properly,” says Brad Hibbert, CSO of vulnerability management provider Brinqa.

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.

When Anthropic unveiled Project Glasswing and the Mythos model, much of the discussion focused on the capabilities themselves.

Security leaders debated what these systems could mean for vulnerability discovery, exploit development and the pace of offensive innovation. Researchers examined technical benchmarks. Industry observers questioned how quickly these capabilities might fall into attackers’ hands.

Those conversations are important. They also point to a larger question that predominates my discussions with CISOs: How much time do we have?

Over the past year, conversations about AI in cybersecurity have changed noticeably. Twelve months ago, security leaders wanted to understand whether AI could meaningfully improve security operations. They wanted to know whether it could accurately investigate alerts, reduce analyst workload and operate reliably in production environments.

Today, security leaders are asking about timelines, implementation, how quickly AI is changing the threat landscape and what that means for how security teams operate.

Anthropic’s Mythos and Glasswing, OpenAI’s Daybreak and advances in DeepSeek accelerate those conversations. Each development provides another glimpse into the pace at which AI capabilities are advancing.

AI now reasons through security problems that historically required highly specialized expertise. The implications span vulnerability discovery, attack-path analysis, reconnaissance, social engineering and security operations.

The shift reflects a broader reality: cybersecurity is entering a period where the pace of adaptation may matter as much as the quality of defenses themselves. AI is accelerating both offense and defense simultaneously. Organizations are quickly redesigning security operations around that reality.

One consequence is becoming increasingly visible. For years, cybersecurity teams invested enormous effort in discovering threats, identifying vulnerabilities, gathering telemetry and collecting intelligence. AI is accelerating many of those activities simultaneously. Visibility is improving. Discovery is accelerating. Investigations are becoming faster and more comprehensive.

The bottleneck is beginning to move. The challenge increasingly centers on how quickly organizations can act on what they know. The organizations that gain an advantage may not be the ones with the most information. They will be the ones who can operationalize that information the fastest.

The timeline is compressing

Cybersecurity has experienced many major technology transitions. Cloud computing changed infrastructure. Mobile devices expanded the attack surface. Digital transformation connected systems that were previously isolated.

AI introduces a different dynamic.

Most technology transitions unfolded over years. Organizations had time to evaluate, pilot, deploy and gradually adapt operating models.

The current AI cycle moves at a different pace.

Capabilities improve continuously. New models arrive every few months. New research emerges every few weeks. Security teams absorb developments at the same time attackers do.

Vulnerability discovery provides a useful example. Security teams have long operated around a familiar cycle of discovery, validation, remediation and protection. AI systems accelerate every stage of that process. Similar patterns exist in phishing, reconnaissance, social engineering and attack planning.

A vulnerability that once moved through that cycle over weeks increasingly now moves through those stages in days or, in some cases, hours.

Attackers are already operating at the speed of AI. Defenders are now focused on reaching the same level of operational speed.

This shift is changing the questions CISOs ask.

Early discussions focused on capability. Could AI investigate alerts accurately? Could it operate reliably in production environments? Could it be trusted with meaningful security work?

As organizations gained experience with AI, the discussion shifted toward implementation. Security teams began evaluating where AI could create operational leverage and how quickly they could deploy it into existing workflows.

Today, many CISOs are focused on timing.

The pace of advancement is influencing planning horizons, budget decisions and operating-model discussions. Security leaders are evaluating how quickly they can introduce AI into investigations, threat hunting, detection engineering and response workflows. Boards are asking questions. Executive teams are paying attention.

Security programs that once viewed AI as a future initiative increasingly view it as a current operational priority.

The industry is moving from evaluating AI as a technology to incorporating AI as a security capability.

The timeline compression creates pressure on the traditional security operations model. Investigation speed, response speed and defensive coverage increasingly determine whether organizations can keep pace with adversaries operating with AI assistance.

Security operations are entering a new phase

The impact of AI is becoming particularly visible inside the SOC.

Many security operations centers were built around a straightforward assumption: alerts flow to human analysts who conduct investigations. Operational capacity scales primarily through hiring.

The volume of security data, the number of alerts and the complexity of modern environments have steadily increased. Security teams have responded by building processes, adding tools and creating specialized analyst roles.

AI introduces a new source of operational capacity.

Investigations that require analysts to examine dozens or hundreds of artifacts across endpoint, identity, cloud, network and email systems can now be performed in minutes. Analysts gain access to investigative depth and consistency that would be difficult to achieve manually at scale.

Many security leaders now view this capability through the lens of operating model design. They are examining how investigations are performed, how work is distributed and where human expertise creates the greatest value.

The evolution of the analyst role

One of the most important developments emerging from early production deployments is the evolution of analyst responsibilities.

Security analysts remain central to security operations. Their expertise becomes even more valuable as AI systems take on larger portions of investigative work.

Threat hunting, detection engineering, response strategy, governance and oversight are receiving increased attention. Analysts spend more time shaping how investigations are conducted, evaluating outcomes and improving overall security operations.

Many organizations are already beginning this shift.

Teams are investing more heavily in proactive security activities. Detection engineering programs are expanding. Threat hunting is becoming more accessible. Analysts are spending more time improving systems and less time repeating investigative tasks.

These changes create what I think of as an analyst-amplified SOC: an environment where AI expands the reach of security professionals and enables deeper security work across the organization.

Trust is critical and it doesn’t have to compromise speed

Faced with a compressing timeline, the instinct is to treat speed and trust as a trade-off, i.e., move faster, verify less. That trade-off feels inevitable. It isn’t.

You don’t trust AI in the abstract. You trust that a system understands your tools, your telemetry and the edge cases that only exist in your network. The problem was never speed. It’s speed without context. The faster a context-blind system runs, the more decisions you’re left unable to verify.

The tension eases when the system is quick to deploy and tunes to your environment once it’s there, rather than treating every network the same. Speed stops being the thing you trade against trust. The more it learns about your environment, the sharper and more trustworthy it becomes, so the two compound rather than compete. Trust still develops through operational evidence such as measurable outcomes, visibility into decisions and consistent performance. But where that evidence accrues matters.

The organizations making the fastest real progress understand this. They don’t compromise quality and trust for speed. They invest in AI that earns trust inside their own environment, so they don’t have to choose.

Leadership during a period of rapid change

The conversations surrounding Mythos and Glasswing reflect a broader reality facing security leaders.

AI is becoming part of both offense and defense. Security teams are incorporating it into investigations, detection engineering, response workflows and threat hunting. Attackers are incorporating it into their own operations.

Security leaders have an opportunity to modernize operating models, expand defensive capacity and build organizational experience while these capabilities continue to evolve.

The organizations making progress today are investing in readiness. They are building experience, adapting workflows and preparing teams for a new model of security operations.

The next phase of cybersecurity will be defined by how effectively organizations combine human judgment with machine-scale execution.

The question facing security leaders is increasingly clear: How quickly can their organizations adapt to a continuously changing threat environment?

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

If you ask us in an official setting, our official position is that software engineering norms still apply. Rigorous CI/CD pipelines, elegant architectural patterns, and an unyielding commitment to maintainable code remain the standard. We will use weighty words like “determinism,” “scalability,” “idempotency,” and “domain-driven design.”

But behind closed doors, late at night, bathed in the glow of a dark-mode IDE, a different and more sordid reality is exposed. Hunched over the console with a manic gleam in the eye, the programmer has become power-drunk on LLMs. Like mad wizards casting spells, we summon the awesome powers of models and agents to satisfy our every programming whim—and commit acts of software engineering that would make Fred Brooks blush.

Let’s just be honest about what is actually happening.

Esoteric knowledge is superfluous

Forget OOP and FP. Forget the CAP theorem, the holy crusade of DRY, and the design patterns. Honestly, you can even forget what frameworks, runtimes, and deployment platforms you are using. The AI will figure out what is best to use and understand what is already in place. We have more mental bandwidth for working on our side project (a novel about AI taking over the world). 

Of course, I exaggerate. A little.

The docs are dead to us

We still say RTFM, but the truth is, we haven’t really read a page of vendor documentation since 2023. Stack Overflow, once our Internet Mecca, is a husk. When a package throws a weird exception, we don’t trace the execution path or read the release notes. We highlight the red text, copy the entire 200-line stack trace, dump it into the chat, and wait for the machine to spoon-feed us the solution.

Better yet, we just have the agentic IDE spot the error, divine a solution, and ask us if it’s OK. We might glance at the problem-solution description, if we have gone around the circle on the problem for a few cycles. Maybe. If we don’t have the agent set up for auto-confirm.

We used to buy heavy tomes like “Rust In Action” that were more like masonry blocks than literature. Now? We just ask an AI to transliterate our JavaScript logic into Rust. We are no longer engineers methodically learning a system. We are glorified copy-paste orchestrators hoping that the stochastic parrot behind the prompt guesses the syntax correctly.

We ignore how the back end is wired

We act like we meticulously designed the data flows, carefully crafted the relational constraints, and mindfully mapped the API relationships. The reality is rather more disturbing: We asked the AI to scaffold a modern deployment, hooked it up to a back-end database, and just sort of… ran it.

It created security rules we don’t fully understand. They do seem to work, however, which is nice. 

It generated a schema that we skimmed for about four seconds. It looks reasonable.

It wrote infrastructure-as-code scripts that provisioned cloud resources we are hoping don’t blow a hole in the budget. Presumably, whoever is in charge of that will manage it by stuffing the metrics into another chatbot.

We nodded, committed the code, and went to lunch. If management asked us to manually deploy the stack from scratch, configure the environment variables, and wire the API routes without our chat window, we would give them a vacant stare.

We understand that management is also using AI to manage the project.

Our tests are uncomfortably incestuous

Test-driven development (TDD) used to be a beautiful dream, ever just beyond reach. It made us feel glorious and despondent at turns. It would burden us with sprawling dependencies if implemented too religiously. (See The Grug Brained Developer in this regard.)

But now we can attain 95% test coverage almost effortlessly. Why not just add them in while we are auto-generating everything else?

We can now wax at length to anyone who will listen about our astounding test coverage and our automated quality assurance. Unit tests, integration tests, smoke tests, you name it. What we conveniently leave out is that the AI wrote the complex application logic, and then we asked the exact same AI to write the test suite to validate the code it just dreamed up.

It is a hermetically sealed loop of algorithmic self-congratulation. The mocks, the edge case, and the assertions are an echo chamber of the model’s original assumptions. The machine is grading its own homework, giving itself an A+.

And we are happy to accept this because, beautifully, when the code has to change, the AI will effortlessly hallucinate new tests to adapt to the churn.

We pass off the AI’s architecture as strategy

AI can produce astonishing design documents. Truly breathtaking. They are cogent, they’re beautifully formatted, and they seamlessly bridge the gap between high-level business goals and granular technical specs. They even include those auto-generated sequence diagrams that wow management.

When we present these spotless architectural proposals in the Tuesday sprint planning meeting, we lean back, take a long sip of coffee, and humbly wave away the team’s praise.

What we don’t mention is that we spent exactly four seconds generating it.

Are these AI-generated documents just as liable as human ones to hide severe, mortal flaws in scope and alignment? Absolutely. They might contain a foundational logic bomb that will eventually doom the entire project. But the markdown is so crisp, and the bullet points are so persuasive, that the eye just glides right over it. We will never truly know the depth of the disaster until it is far too late. But hey, we’ll burn that bridge when production catches fire. Until then, we are strategic visionaries.

We’re addicted to vibe coding (but only in secret)

We loudly mock the term on social media. We roll our eyes in Slack channels when the kids on TikTok talk about vibe coding their new startups. We fiercely cling to our identities as hardened, serious developers who understand memory management, garbage collection, and bitwise operators. We are professionals, damn it.

But late at night, when the managers are asleep and no one is looking? We absolutely love it. We love just throwing a chaotic, half-baked thought at the canvas, pouring a drink, and watching the AI magically build a functioning user interface based entirely on our long-deferred whims. I may finally build that working Ultima V clone. The thrill of typing “Create an app that tracks my cryptocurrency portfolio but makes it look like the interface from Neuromancer” and having it appear 30 seconds later is heady stuff.

The more deeply rooted in the hard, old-school realities of programming, the more profound is the joy the developer finds in the possibility of AI coding. 

We beat the problem into submission with prompts

Like Adam Sandler in “Uncut Gems,” we are convinced the next round will fix everything. This is us with prompts. When things are going really off the rails, instead of putting our boots on and wading into the brambles of complexity, we resort to tonal adjustments. These range from the condescending:

This problem is not fixed. Look at it closely. The error is right here.

To the desperate:

We have been working on this same problem for hours now!

To the pathetic:

Can’t you find a different approach to try?!

The astonishing part? It often works.

But there is no poetry left at the bottom of the rabbit hole; it is verbal warfare. When the context window collapses, when the regressions start cascading, and when the AI stubbornly refuses to follow the most basic rules of temporal logic, the mask of professionalism drops away and something far more atavistic makes its appearance. We stop asking nicely, stop trying to understand the why, delete the pleasantries, and capslock our intent.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

We feed the same failing stack trace back into the prompt over and over and over again, aggressively hammering the constraints, explicitly forbidding certain libraries, and pasting in release notes just to confirm that the AI lacks the latest APIs. We force the model down a narrower and narrower path until the code finally stops throwing errors. We don’t actually debug anymore, trace variables, or step through functions. We just apply relentless, iterative pressure until the machine surrenders. We beat it into submission. And then, we push to production.

In fact, there is a real skill here—a sheer “will to completion” that remains in the act of building software. We invest just as much time, energy, and heart wrestling the bot as we ever did emitting syntax.

A blacker box

The only profession more given over to using AI like a cursed Level 13 artifact than programming is writing. Writing of course is far more open to public scrutiny than code.

And while my tongue has been firmly in my cheek here, my faith in coders as good guys makes me more curious to see what we create than troubled by the dangers. 

It was once the case that only other programmers could understand what programmers were doing, what they were producing. Now not even that is true. Only the machine knows what the machine is doing. We just keep it tethered to our aims. Hopefully.

As the CSO grows in prominence, security leaders are increasingly earning a seat at the executive table, reporting directly to the CEO with the expectation to help drive business strategy and ensure organizational success.

Reporting to the CEO unlocks greater access and influence for security leaders, and while CSOs who report to their organization’s CIO still have clout, it’s a very different experience picking up the phone to speak directly with the CEO as a strategic partner.

Regardless of reporting structure, CSOs must clearly understand what they are being tasked to solve. That might sound simple, but making the leap to being a CEO’s direct report requires a new perspective, a different set of skills, and a business-level focus on metrics to do so.

We asked several current CSOs, CEOs, and IT staffing experts for advice on how security executives can best navigate a direct reporting relationship with their CEO. Offering insights below are George Gerchow, CSO at Bedrock Data and member of the IANS faculty; Matt Chiodi, CSO of Cerby; Chris Schueler, CEO at Cyderes; and Greg Fuller, vice president of the Technology Skills Suite at Skillsoft.

1. Understand how the CEO views your role

Most CEOs expect that, when you report directly to them, you fully own your functional area. Whether it’s cybersecurity, operations, or finance, they look to you as the expert in that domain. The CEO may have opinions, but ultimately, you are expected to lead and provide direction.

CEOs expect their CSO to be a true strategic partner, not just a risk reporter — connecting cybersecurity to revenue protection, regulatory compliance, customer trust, and operational resilience. In turn, CSOs should expect CEOs to treat governance as a strategic enabler, not a bureaucratic necessity.

2. Power up on skills vital to your organization at an executive level

On the technology side, AI and machine learning, cloud security, incident response, zero trust architecture, and governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) are the areas where threats evolve fastest and strategic leadership has the greatest impact. 

Equally important are “power skills”: communication, critical thinking, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. The ability to translate complex risk into business terms is what separates a strong CSO from a purely technical one. Skills, not titles, define effectiveness in the eyes of a CEO.

3. Take advantage of your direct access

Direct access to the CEO will enable you to influence strategy, shape resilience planning, and ensure cybersecurity is treated as a business imperative rather than a cost center. That authority is strongest when the CEO understands cybersecurity as a strategic lever, not just a technical function. 

While a direct reporting relationship gives you access to the CEO, it also comes with the responsibility to operate at that level. You need to provide clear, executive-level visibility into your cybersecurity program.

4. Brush up on business translation

A CSO who leads with business alignment will always carry more influence when they can translate risk into business language rather than technical jargon. Building programs that must survive an IPO, a FedRAMP audit, and real customer scrutiny forces you to tie security to revenue and trust.

The most valuable skill is translation — defining technical risk in terms of executive action and business impact that a CEO and a board can act on. You must build trust through transparency. These are the human skills that complement technology, creating a collaborative human-AI dynamic where leaders make faster, better-informed decisions. 

5. Treat conversations as risk assessment opportunities

Highly effective security leaders treat every business conversation as a risk conversation in disguise. That mindset is what largely separates a great CSO from a great technologist. Earn the CEO’s trust by speaking business first, security second. Translate every risk into revenue, reputation, or regulatory exposure.

Remember, a good CEO wants a translator, not an alarm system. They expect no surprises, a clear read on the risks that matter, and a security leader who helps the business move faster rather than slowing it down.

6. Define what a successful relationship should look like and put it in writing

Regardless of the reporting relationship, start by defining the end goal and putting it in writing. It will evolve over time, but having that initial clarity is critical. This is especially important when you’re new in a role and aiming to make your first 60, 90, or 120 days, and your first year, successful. In such cases, it’s essential to align early.

Do that collaboratively, and document it.

7. Prioritize trust and candor

The CEO needs to trust that the CSO isn’t sandbagging, and the CSO needs enough psychological safety to deliver bad news fast. When those conditions exist, security becomes a strategic asset — not a cost center.

To that end, focus on clear communication above all, and present yourself as part of a team, not a solo player. Stay calm under pressure during incidents, and treat people as peers rather than policing them. The leaders who last build trust before they need it.

8. Treat governance as a strategic competitive advantage

The strongest partnerships also share a commitment to governance as a competitive advantage.

Governance is the brakes that let you drive fast safely. When a CSO and CEO are aligned on that principle, the organization can innovate with AI while maintaining oversight and protecting against unnecessary risk. The result is an organization that does not just react to threats but builds resilience into how it operates.

9. Set clear goals and measure progress

Setting clear goals and measuring progress against those goals is essential. When expectations are clear, the areas you need to focus on become much clearer. It doesn’t solve every problem, but aligning early with your leadership, whether that’s a CEO or a CIO, can significantly reduce the pressure you may feel.

Also, never let your boss be surprised. This is where being clear on goals and consistently tracking both leading and lagging metrics becomes especially important, particularly in a direct reporting relationship with the CEO.

10. Be willing to endure challenge and discomfort

Finally, persistence and a willingness to endure discomfort for something that matters more than the pain itself are critical to surviving in this relationship. The role of a cybersecurity leader is often thankless. If you’re doing your job well, no one really notices.

Ever since Chinese AI startup DeepSeek launched three years ago, enterprise executives have been nervous about relying on Chinese AI models. 

But now that the latest Chinese AI offerings, Alibaba’s 2.4-trillion-parameter model Qwen3.8 Max and Moonshot’s 2.8-trillion-parameter model Kimi K3, are promising even more powerful performance, those IT executives are being forced to again ask if these models are worth using, even in a limited fashion.

Former Walmart head of risk Steven Eric Fisher, now an independent cybersecurity and risk advisor, thinks they should at least take another look.

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but neither adopt nor reject them solely because they are Chinese,” he said. “They should be assessed like any other critical technology dependency: jurisdiction, ownership, training and software provenance, licensing, data handling, hosting, security, reliability, and the ability to independently test their behavior. Geopolitical exposure is a legitimate risk factor, but it should be incorporated into technical and supply-chain diligence rather than used as a substitute for it.”

Choose applications with care

He added, “Chinese models may be especially valuable for coding, multilingual processing, high-volume document analysis, research, synthetic-data generation, and privately operated security or forensic workflows, but they should be subject to task-specific testing rather than broad benchmark claims.”

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, agreed that the Chinese models can work well if they are only used in carefully chosen applications. 

“Although Moonshot’s K3 still trails Claude’s Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol on performance and user experience, good companies that have governance and prompt guardrails will not face the instability and improvisation of [the Chinese] models,” he said. “These models will win in usage. US frontier models are leading as the best models, but Chinese models will be sufficient for high-volume, low-drama tasks that cost less for non-critical transactions.”

On the flipside, Bellamkonda suggested a variety of areas where enterprises should avoid Chinese AI models, including “customer-facing work without a human in the loop, regulated or sensitive data, and anything where a hallucinated answer creates legal or safety exposure. That is where the reliability gap and the political-radioactivity concern both bite, and where the closed American models still earn their premium.”

Bellamkonda said he didn’t see the differences in data reliability, mostly involving hallucination rates, as meaningful for enterprise AI strategy decisions.

“Every open-weight model in this class can get facts wrong or make things up. That is fixable with the right setup, so it is not a reason to avoid these models,” he said. “For high-volume tasks with clear limits, you feed the model your own trusted documents to answer from, and you keep a person checking the output. That combination is safe for production. The model on its own is not.”

Too early for enterprises to consider

However, not everyone agrees that the latest Chinese models have earned their place as enterprise AI decision options. 

Cybersecurity consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, focused on Chinese technology concerns when he worked for the US Justice Department as its representative in the US law enforcement Joint Liaison Group (JLG) with China. 

“It is way too early for US enterprises to seriously consider these models,” he said. “Until proven otherwise, enterprises should assume that if they use these models, they may be granting China complete access to everything they do through the models, and potentially access to their networks and employees more broadly. At this point, any pros of using such models are strongly outweighed by the potential security, confidentiality, and reliability concerns.”

Tom Findling, CEO of Conifers.ai, was equally emphatic that enterprise CIOs need to steer clear of these newer Chinese models. 

“Using them inhouse? Absolutely not. You simply don’t know what is planted inside of it and you don’t know what training data is put into them,” Findling said. 

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, added that the very attractive pricing for these Chinese models may be appealing, but suggested that, despite the low cost, they’re ultimately too risky.

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but not romantically. Parameter count is horsepower measured in a showroom, not braking distance in the rain,” he said. “The real tests are reliability on your data, the cost of a wrong answer, and whether the model behaves predictably under pressure.”

He noted that the benchmarks on the latest open-weights models are impressive, and very close to those of the frontier lab models, which makes the cost ”incredibly seductive, especially when a team does not want to risk their data being used to train those frontier models.”

But the Chinese models can still work in specific circumstances. “The strongest value will be in bounded, reversible and inspectable work: coding inside a sandbox, multilingual translation, document triage, data extraction and other high-volume tasks where outputs can be verified,” he said. “Cheap intelligence is valuable, but only when it is not mistaken for trustworthy judgment.”

Wilkes added that the regulatory issues surrounding Chinese models can be especially problematic. Texas, for example, has banned their usage.  

A rational choice for some workloads

However, Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, argued that CIOs should seriously consider these models. 

“Counterintuitively, the biggest benefit of Kimi and models like it is the lack of guardrails,” Goryunov said. “Think of it as stick shift cars in the era of automatics. If you want ease and comfort, stay with the frontiers because they have cruise control, shift the gears for you and they decide when. If you want performance and control, expand your horizons. But a stick shift assumes you know how to drive one: you bring your own governance, your own evals, your own safety layer. That’s a cost and specialized talent, which is super rare, and for the right organization it’s also the whole point.”

Goryunov’s bottom line: “For internal, high-volume, well-harnessed workloads, [the Chinese models] have moved from ‘watch list’ to ‘rational choice.’”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Ever since Chinese AI startup DeepSeek launched three years ago, enterprise executives have been nervous about relying on Chinese AI models. 

But now that the latest Chinese AI offerings, Alibaba’s 2.4-trillion-parameter model Qwen3.8 Max and Moonshot’s 2.8-trillion-parameter model Kimi K3, are promising even more powerful performance, those IT executives are being forced to again ask if these models are worth using, even in a limited fashion.

Former Walmart head of risk Steven Eric Fisher, now an independent cybersecurity and risk advisor, thinks they should at least take another look.

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but neither adopt nor reject them solely because they are Chinese,” he said. “They should be assessed like any other critical technology dependency: jurisdiction, ownership, training and software provenance, licensing, data handling, hosting, security, reliability, and the ability to independently test their behavior. Geopolitical exposure is a legitimate risk factor, but it should be incorporated into technical and supply-chain diligence rather than used as a substitute for it.”

Choose applications with care

He added, “Chinese models may be especially valuable for coding, multilingual processing, high-volume document analysis, research, synthetic-data generation, and privately operated security or forensic workflows, but they should be subject to task-specific testing rather than broad benchmark claims.”

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, agreed that the Chinese models can work well if they are only used in carefully chosen applications. 

“Although Moonshot’s K3 still trails Claude’s Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol on performance and user experience, good companies that have governance and prompt guardrails will not face the instability and improvisation of [the Chinese] models,” he said. “These models will win in usage. US frontier models are leading as the best models, but Chinese models will be sufficient for high-volume, low-drama tasks that cost less for non-critical transactions.”

On the flipside, Bellamkonda suggested a variety of areas where enterprises should avoid Chinese AI models, including “customer-facing work without a human in the loop, regulated or sensitive data, and anything where a hallucinated answer creates legal or safety exposure. That is where the reliability gap and the political-radioactivity concern both bite, and where the closed American models still earn their premium.”

Bellamkonda said he didn’t see the differences in data reliability, mostly involving hallucination rates, as meaningful for enterprise AI strategy decisions.

“Every open-weight model in this class can get facts wrong or make things up. That is fixable with the right setup, so it is not a reason to avoid these models,” he said. “For high-volume tasks with clear limits, you feed the model your own trusted documents to answer from, and you keep a person checking the output. That combination is safe for production. The model on its own is not.”

Too early for enterprises to consider

However, not everyone agrees that the latest Chinese models have earned their place as enterprise AI decision options. 

Cybersecurity consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, focused on Chinese technology concerns when he worked for the US Justice Department as its representative in the US law enforcement Joint Liaison Group (JLG) with China. 

“It is way too early for US enterprises to seriously consider these models,” he said. “Until proven otherwise, enterprises should assume that if they use these models, they may be granting China complete access to everything they do through the models, and potentially access to their networks and employees more broadly. At this point, any pros of using such models are strongly outweighed by the potential security, confidentiality, and reliability concerns.”

Tom Findling, CEO of Conifers.ai, was equally emphatic that enterprise CIOs need to steer clear of these newer Chinese models. 

“Using them inhouse? Absolutely not. You simply don’t know what is planted inside of it and you don’t know what training data is put into them,” Findling said. 

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, added that the very attractive pricing for these Chinese models may be appealing, but suggested that, despite the low cost, they’re ultimately too risky.

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but not romantically. Parameter count is horsepower measured in a showroom, not braking distance in the rain,” he said. “The real tests are reliability on your data, the cost of a wrong answer, and whether the model behaves predictably under pressure.”

He noted that the benchmarks on the latest open-weights models are impressive, and very close to those of the frontier lab models, which makes the cost ”incredibly seductive, especially when a team does not want to risk their data being used to train those frontier models.”

But the Chinese models can still work in specific circumstances. “The strongest value will be in bounded, reversible and inspectable work: coding inside a sandbox, multilingual translation, document triage, data extraction and other high-volume tasks where outputs can be verified,” he said. “Cheap intelligence is valuable, but only when it is not mistaken for trustworthy judgment.”

Wilkes added that the regulatory issues surrounding Chinese models can be especially problematic. Texas, for example, has banned their usage.  

A rational choice for some workloads

However, Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, argued that CIOs should seriously consider these models. 

“Counterintuitively, the biggest benefit of Kimi and models like it is the lack of guardrails,” Goryunov said. “Think of it as stick shift cars in the era of automatics. If you want ease and comfort, stay with the frontiers because they have cruise control, shift the gears for you and they decide when. If you want performance and control, expand your horizons. But a stick shift assumes you know how to drive one: you bring your own governance, your own evals, your own safety layer. That’s a cost and specialized talent, which is super rare, and for the right organization it’s also the whole point.”

Goryunov’s bottom line: “For internal, high-volume, well-harnessed workloads, [the Chinese models] have moved from ‘watch list’ to ‘rational choice.’”

Site reliability engineers (SREs) have the tough assignment of resolving thorny performance and reliability issues. But their primary mission is to provide devops teams with operational insights and to suggest implementation improvements on business system performance, security, and overall robustness.

Google introduced its SRE playbook in 2003, but it took some time for the role’s definition, tools, and techniques to become mainstream. Startups were the first to adopt observability for cloud-native applications and create dedicated SRE positions. As tools matured and SRE responsibilities became more clearly defined, larger enterprises assigned SREs to work as a bridge between devops and IT ops teams to improve resilience across a wider range of applications, APIs, and data pipelines.

SRE is a career path for multidisciplinary engineers with strong investigative instincts, sharp data analytics skills, and the temperament to perform under pressure. It has become a critical responsibility as tech became mission-critical for enterprises, and it is a growing role in the genAI era as more businesses deploy AI agents.

But the critical need for resiliency and greater technological complexity brings new challenges for SREs. According to the 2026 State of Production Reliability and AI Adoption report, 44% of respondents experienced an outage linked to ignored or suppressed alerts in the past year, and 35% report their engineers occasionally ignore or dismiss alerts due to alert fatigue. More than 70% of alerts received are not actionable, according to 57% of organizations.

So, is AI making the SRE’s role easier and helping businesses run more reliable technology operations? On the other hand, AI is also driving complexity, as companies deploy genAI tools and AI agents across more business functions and seek to automate more decision-making across operations.

AIops and agentic ops aid SREs

Over the past decade, SRE responsibilities have become somewhat easier through improvements in monitoring platforms, observability practices, tools for centralizing operational data, and AI applied in IT operations (AIops). But during the heat of resolving an outage or performance issue, it’s not easy to correctly identify what system triggered the issue versus other downstream systems impacted by it.

According to the Komodore 2025 Enterprise Kubernetes Report, 79% of production incidents originate from recent system changes, including deployments and changes to compute environments. But the other 21% of incidents stem from issues outside of the business’s control, including network failures, third-party changes, and cloud provider failures.

“SREs using AI capabilities succeed or fail in the moment an incident unfolds, when engineers are deciding what to investigate next,” says Itiel Shwartz, CTO at Komodor. “If the system streamlines root cause detection, connects signals to recent changes, and explains its reasoning in a way engineers recognize, it earns trust. If it adds uncertainty or demands extra validation, it gets sidelined, regardless of how bespoke the model behind it may be. What’s less obvious is what it takes to make AI for SREs work in production, and how different that reality is from prototypes, demos, or early internal builds.”

AIops is not a new capability, especially in using machine learning to correlate logs, metrics, and traces across monitoring and alerting systems. IT service management and SREs have been using AIops to reduce the mean time to resolve incidents and to perform accurate root cause analysis (RCA) efficiently. Agentic ops is the next wave of genAI operational capabilities, including tools for monitoring AI agents, managing their access rights, and detecting AI model accuracy drift.

 “AI is useful during major incidents because it can pull together a lot of context into a few clear sentences, which is exactly what an SRE needs in the moment,” suggests Shani Shoham, chief revenue officer at OpenObserve. “The complexity of architecture and the different tooling make it easier for AI than for a human, but autonomous resolution is still a way off.”

AI’s impact on people and burnout

The business pressure to keep systems up, secure, and performing well is a 24/7 stressful responsibility. According to The SRE Report 2025 from Catchpoint, 36% of SREs often or always experience elevated stress during an incident, and 28% said the stress persists even after the incident is resolved. AI capabilities may prove to be a game-changer in helping SREs avoid burnout and reduce stress.

“AI can improve RCA by taking in a much larger incident context than any engineer can hold at 3am, reasoning across traces, logs, metrics, deploys, config changes, alerts, ownership, and recent production behavior,” says Noam Levy, founding engineer and field CTO at Groundcover. “Beyond attempting a full RCA, its immediate value is distilling the signals that actually matter, reconstructing a clear timeline of cause and effect, and helping engineers separate correlation from likely causality. Once a fix is deployed, agents can also verify remediation by comparing pre- and post-fix behavior, but this depends on broad access to rich, correlated production signals and a cost model that does not discourage adoption or experimentation.”

Not only are incidents resolved faster and with less stress, but AI can also free up SRE time to focus on proactive work and create a career path for junior developers into SRE roles. Quais Taraki, CTO at EDB Postgres AI, adds, “AI reduces toil by automating repetitive tasks while accelerating incident resolution through copilots that correlate signals across distributed systems, allowing SREs to focus more on resilience strategies like chaos engineering and failure analysis.”

AI can have long-lasting operational impacts, especially for organizations looking to deploy more mission-critical technology and AI capabilities. Two longer-term benefits of AI for SREs are reducing the number of bridge calls needed for incident response and the number of engineers required in “war rooms” to coordinate root cause analyses.

“When something goes wrong, AI that guides SREs can do the full analysis, get to the root cause, and perform the remediation,” says Spiros Xanthos, founder and CEO of Resolve AI. “AI also helps avoid many escalations, and when escalations are needed, it targets the right people from the network, infrastructure, and the application teams. AI for SREs centralizes operational intelligence, exposes tribal knowledge, and can guide more junior developers.” 

AI agent reliability

While AI capabilities have been a net positive in helping SREs improve system reliability, the growth of AI code generators, vibe coding, and spec-driven development is adding to their workloads. According to one study, 41% of all global code is now AI-generated, and Gartner predicts that 40% of new enterprise production software will be created using vibe coding techniques by 2028.

But coding velocity is creating new issues for SREs as AI pull requests have 1.4 times more critical issues and 1.7 times more major issues, according to CodeRabbit. “AI-assisted development has created an unprecedented velocity of code reaching production, expanding surface area, edge cases, and failure rates faster than traditional SRE practices can absorb,” says Vinod Jayaraman, cofounder and CTO at NeuBird AI. “The speed of shipping has far outpaced the speed of understanding what breaks in production. To close this loop, SREs need enterprise agents that can capture precise diagnostic context, including correlated traces, service dependencies, and anomaly timelines, and structure it as actionable input for the engineers and AI coding tools responsible for the fix.”

The growing number of AI agents deployed to production creates new challenges. AI agents are not just code; they have multiple failure points. They are built using language models, connect to proprietary sources for context, and integrate with Model Context Protocol servers to support more complex workflows. Changes are ongoing and not deployment events, so the SRE’s job of identifying the source of performance and accuracy drifts isn’t trivial. 

“Traditional SRE was built for systems that fail in reproducible ways, but agents fail differently and drift when a model provider pushes an update, and behavior shifts silently with no baseline for comparison,” says Mohammed Aboul-Magd, vice president of product at SandboxAQ. “Most organizations can’t even answer the basics: how many agents are running, what they have access to, and whether they’re still doing what they were built to do.”

“Every time a senior engineer leaves, they take years of learned failure patterns with them, and the next outage starts from square one,” adds Ronak Desai, cofounder and CEO at Ciroos. “Using AI for compounding operational memory changes that, and every incident your system resolves, the AI learns it.”

SREs should take a leadership role in emerging best practices, including defining their standards for AI agent non-functional acceptance criteria, observability practices, and release-readiness criteria. SREs should update their service-level objectives (SLOs) and define error budgets for AI agents in production.

Ryan Downing, vice president and CIO of enterprise business solutions at Principal Financial Group, says, “Standard SLOs and error budgets give teams the guardrails, and AI helps interpret the telemetry against those targets, reducing noise so engineers can get to the real issue faster and automate parts of remediation before customers are impacted.”

AI raises the SRE’s business impact

The more dramatic shift in site reliability engineering is an evolution of its business scope. IT leaders focus on uptime, performance, and issue resolution, as well as understanding their impacts. Business leaders will look to IT and SREs to identify, determine root cause, and remediate a broader class of issues, including rogue AI agents and the impacts of rapidly deploying new agentic capabilities. 

“AI agents are handing SREs categories of problems they’ve never had to solve before, specifically failures defined in business terms, not technical ones,” says Blake Sherwood, distinguished technologist for AI and platform strategy at Smarsh. “Traditional reliability engineering is built around latency, errors, and crashes, but agents now fail due to skipped compliance steps or outcomes that looked fine technically but were wrong contextually. Most SRE teams aren’t wired for that yet.”

The question is whether SREs with AI-augmented tools can keep up with the velocity, complexity, and business urgency of deploying new AI business capabilities.

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

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

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

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

The next AI bottleneck is the infrastructure behind the model.

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

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

Pilots hide the hard part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI is becoming an integration problem

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

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

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

That is why the CIO question is changing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latency will become a trust issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observability has to expand

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

AI needs that, but it also needs more.

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

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

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

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

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

Data readiness is still underestimated

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

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

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

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

That is a real risk.

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

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

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

Security cannot be added later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIO has to define the operating model

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

The CIO sits in the middle of all of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the shift CIOs need to lead.

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

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

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

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

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

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

Move Fast, Don’t Break Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Everything is a Risk, Nothing is a Priority

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

That fragmentation creates blind spots. 

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

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

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

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

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

From Risk Review to Risk Decisioning

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

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

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

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

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

Safeguard Transformation and Scale Innovation

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

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

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

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

When a goal goes in during a tournament quarter-final and a hundred million people watch it at the same time, what they feel is the goal. The roar, the replay, the disbelief.

They do not feel the contribution feeds traversing private media networks across continents, or the edge nodes absorbing a traffic spike that appeared without warning.

They just feel the moment.

And that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

And as live sports viewership pushes into territory that makes previous records look modest (driven by a generation that expects to watch anything, on any device, anywhere, without waiting), the gap between getting that delivery right and getting it wrong has never been more consequential, or more public.

As audiences moved to digital platforms, the margin for error disappeared.

There is a version of this conversation that is easy to have: audiences expect more, technology has to keep up. True, but incomplete.

Audiences have always expected live sport to work. What changed is what “working” means, and how quickly they find out when it doesn’t.

Viewers no longer sit in front of a single screen. During a FIFA World Cup match, a household might have the main feed on the living room television, while someone else streams the highlights on a second TV in the bedroom, all while phones flash with live stats and tablets run separate commentary. From the infrastructure’s perspective, that isn’t just one household watching a game; it’s a chaotic web of concurrent demands triggered by the exact same split-second on the pitch.

Multiply that across tens of millions of viewers, and the scale of the challenge becomes clear. Social media raises the stakes further. When a platform fails during a World Cup knockout match, audiences report it in real-time on the same platforms they use to discuss the game. The complaint travels faster than the fix.

Broadcasters no longer have the luxury of resolving an incident before people notice. The incident becomes the story, and in many cases, travels further than the match itself.

What these viewership numbers actually mean for infrastructure

The shift in how people watch live sport has moved well beyond trend territory.

EMARKETER forecasts that digital live sports audiences in the US will grow to 114.1 million viewers, while traditional pay TV audiences decline to 82.0 million, highlighting the continued shift toward streaming.

The concurrency numbers generated by major sporting events now sit in a territory that would have seemed implausible a decade ago.

During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, for instance, streaming platforms shattered every historical ceiling, highlighted by Brazil’s CazéTV repeatedly breaking global YouTube records for concurrent viewership during the group stage. Meanwhile, in the United States, Peacock and Telemundo’s digital platforms logged an unprecedented 13 million concurrent viewers for a single knockout window. 

When tens of millions of people tune into the same live stream at the same moment, it’s a challenge unlike regular web traffic.

Historically, massive global audiences were insulated by geography. The load was spread across distinct regional networks: antenna signals, satellite downlinks, and physical cable architectures. The physical infrastructure of traditional television inherently absorbed the impact. 

Digital streaming removes that buffer. Traffic spikes all at once, often at the most critical moment. The tighter the match, the deeper the stoppage time, the sharper the spike. Network infrastructure is forced to handle its heaviest, most volatile traffic exactly when it has zero margin for error.

Social media compounds the pressure operationally. The second a crucial goal is scored, a wave of real-time reactions floods the internet, instantly dragging a secondary “curiosity audience” into the app. These are people who weren’t even watching the match, but saw the hype and decided to tune in, meaning the network has to absorb a massive new rush of users precisely while the primary stream is already maxing out its capacity.

To survive these surges while satisfying a modern audience, the underlying broadcast playbook has undergone a massive structural shift. It’s no longer just about handling traffic; it’s also about using modern technology like AI to manage it intelligently.

According to an industry survey, 25% of broadcasters integrated AI into live production workflows in 2025, a massive leap from just 9% the previous year, with 64% identifying AI as the single largest impact driver over the next five years. 

The network is no longer just delivering content. AI is now generating highlights and short clips in real time, producing millions of videos that keep fans engaged long after the live moment has passed.

Ultimately, the technical demand is driven by a shift in what viewers expect. An IBM sports study revealed that 56% of fans now want AI-driven insights layered directly onto their content, while 33% point to real-time, automated translation as the feature that most impacts their experience.

Whether it’s one screen or several, viewers don’t notice the edge infrastructure or AI powering the experience. They just expect the game to play without interruption.

The planning mistake most organisations make

Capacity planning is where most organisations spend their time when preparing to stream a major event. Can the system handle a million concurrent streams? Can it scale on demand if the numbers exceed projections? These are real questions. 

The lesson is not unique to sports streaming. Every digital business now experiences moments where demand, visibility, and customer expectations collide. Peak traffic events such as flash sales, ticket releases, and viral campaigns can drive website traffic 2 to 25 times above normal levels within seconds. The infrastructure may be different, but the pressure is remarkably similar.

Large-scale system failures occur when multiple components, each functioning as expected on its own, are overwhelmed by a surge in demand, rising latency, or regional blind spots at the same time.

The problem isn’t the individual systems. It’s how they work together.

Latency is the factor most consistently underestimated. A few seconds of delay is not a minor inconvenience in live sport. It is a fundamentally broken experience. 

A viewer whose stream is running four seconds behind will see a notification before the decisive moment appears on screen. Someone watching a service from the privacy of their room may hear a celebration from another room before seeing it on their screen.

Geography is another planning gap. Streaming growth is increasingly being driven by emerging markets. In Southeast Asia alone, premium video streaming subscriptions grew 19% in 2025, led by Indonesia, while viewing hours continued to climb across the region. Yet much of the world’s media infrastructure was originally designed around North American and Western European demand. An architecture that looks robust on paper can deliver very different experiences depending on where the viewer is.

The reason is simple: physical distance still matters. Every extra hop between the viewer and the content adds latency, making it harder to deliver a consistent experience at global scale.

Then there is the timing question. The decisions that determine whether a platform holds during the most-watched minutes of the year are not made on event day. They are made months earlier through choices around architecture, redundancy, testing, and operational readiness.

Once an event is underway, it’s too late to redesign the architecture behind it. If your system isn’t designed to handle the pressure before the crowd arrives, it’s already too late.

The hidden chain behind every live event

When a streaming disruption becomes public, people naturally look for a single point of failure: the app, the platform, or the provider.

A live event depends on dozens of systems working together, and any one of them can become a problem.

And the experience is only as good as the weakest handoff between them.

It all starts with the live camera feed moving from the venue to the production studio. This is a real-time stream, not a file download. If you drop even a single packet at the wrong moment, everything down the line breaks, no matter how perfect the rest of your setup is.

Remote and cloud-based production workflows have redefined how live sports are produced, enabling broadcasters to operate with greater agility and scale. As production becomes more distributed, success increasingly depends on ensuring every stage of the delivery chain works together seamlessly.

Each transition is a potential failure point. Managing them requires visibility that extends across providers, platforms, and networks simultaneously.

Behind every live stream, technologies like encoding, transcoding, packaging, rights management, and ad insertion are constantly at work. If any one of them fails, the stream can go down altogether.

Global distribution introduces another layer of complexity. Viewers in Asia, Africa, and South America may all be watching the same match, but each stream travels across different networks and infrastructure. That means performance can vary by region, and issues may affect one audience without impacting another. 

AI is increasingly helping operators detect anomalies in real time, pinpoint affected regions and trigger corrective actions before disruptions become widespread. Combined with point-to-point monitoring, it provides the visibility needed to keep live events running smoothly at global scale.

Edge delivery is where the difference between preparation and improvisation becomes most apparent. Bringing content closer to users reduces latency, absorbs local traffic surges, and improves performance in markets with variable connectivity. 

The value of technology investments such as AI and Edge becomes clearest during the moments when demand is highest.

Monitoring is what turns visibility into action. With AI helping analyze telemetry and detect anomalies in real time, operations teams can identify issues sooner and respond before they affect viewers. By the time customers start reporting a problem, the opportunity to prevent it has already passed.

What reliability is actually worth

For most of early broadcast history, audience tolerance provided some buffer. Disruptions happened. People accepted them. There was nowhere else to go, and the story rarely escaped the room.

Neither of those things is true now.

A streaming failure during a major match becomes public within seconds. Viewers don’t distinguish between a network issue, a processing failure, or a distribution problem; they simply see a service that failed. That single experience can shape the broadcaster’s reputation, credibility and customer loyalty, influencing whether viewers come back for the next event or recommend the service to others.

The commercial implications are significant. Global tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup illustrate just how valuable live sports rights have become. Their return depends on reliably reaching the audience that was promised.

Advertisers invest in live sport for one reason: to reach a large, engaged audience at the exact moment it matters most. If the stream fails during that window, the opportunity is lost. Those viewers, impressions, and advertising value cannot be recovered once the moment has passed.

The same principle increasingly applies outside media. Customers rarely know nor care whether an outage originated in the application, the cloud environment, the network or a third-party dependency. They experience a failure of the brand. In a digital-first economy, reliability has become part of the customer experience itself.

For broadcasters and streamers, reliability is no longer just an operational KPI. It directly influences audience trust, advertising revenue, and the long-term value of premium sports rights.

The demands ahead are bigger

AI-assisted production is already changing how live events are created. Broadcasters are using AI to automate highlight generation, camera selection and real-time clip packaging for social media, with new AI-assisted workflows producing sports highlights up to 80% faster than traditional methods. 

All of this processing happens within the live delivery chain, where every additional task must be completed without adding latency or compromising the viewing experience.

Personalisation at scale is the next significant challenge. Not personalisation in a vague sense, but the specific technical reality of delivering multi-language commentary tracks, different languages, different statistical overlays, and different camera angles to different viewers watching the same event simultaneously. 

Instead of one stream per event, the infrastructure has to manage a matrix of concurrent variants, each with its own encoding, storage, and delivery requirements. 

Interactive experiences add bidirectional data flows: real-time polls, integrated second-screen data, live wagering. These move data from the viewer back through infrastructure that was primarily built to push content outward. Managing that at scale is a different engineering problem from managing delivery.

Higher-resolution formats (4K now becoming a standard expectation in premium markets, 8K moving into early deployment) are bandwidth-intensive at exactly the scale where bandwidth is already under pressure. Consumer devices are ready. Infrastructure in many high-growth markets is not uniformly there yet.

Many of these capabilities are already being deployed for major global sporting events. The organisations investing seriously in technology, innovation, and infrastructure now are building toward a standard that will be the baseline requirement within a few years. Those that are not will be closing the gap under the worst possible conditions.

The technology you never think about

The broadcasters that succeed don’t leave reliability to chance. They plan for it from the outset, designing their infrastructure to handle peak demand long before the audience arrives.

This reality hits hardest during massive global events. When a stream glitches, millions of people feel it simultaneously in a matter of seconds. Keeping those streams alive doesn’t happen by accident; it takes massive scale, intense discipline, and deep experience controlling everything from the stadium camera to the viewer’s screen.

The lesson extends well beyond live sports. Every enterprise is becoming a real-time digital business, whether it’s delivering AI-powered applications, launching digital products, processing financial transactions, or handling a sudden surge in customer demand. Different industries may face different triggers, but the expectation is the same: the experience has to work, even when demand is at its highest.

Delivering that level of reliability is why many of the world’s largest sports brands rely on Tata Communications. Supporting the broadcast, production, and management of 80% of the world’s sporting events, and reaching more than two billion viewers across 190+ countries, Tata Communications operates in the invisible layers that make every live moment possible. We call this the “Virtual Stadium of the World”, the technology and infrastructure that connects fans, broadcasters, rights-holders, and sporting moments at a truly global scale.

By managing the critical handoffs across contribution networks, edge processing, and global media infrastructure, we engineer the resilience required to keep 120,000 live events running flawlessly every year.

Live sport may be the most visible test of digital infrastructure, but it won’t be the last. As AI, personalisation and real-time experiences become the norm across industries, the ability to deliver reliably at scale will define far more than match day.

To learn more, visit us here.

Looking ahead just a short time, Apple could hold a powerful position in AI where it most makes sense: deployment.

Not only will the company offer up its own AI models for the kind of tasks millions use ChatGPT to do today, but it will provide more sophisticated on-device agentic models to help users get things done through Siri AI.

Apple also offers limited capacity for more complex tasks through Private Cloud Compute, and, in partnership with the likes of Google in the US and Alibaba in China, the company is giving users a trusted conduit through which to access even more sophisticated AI services. 

Deeply deployable

Critics can say it took Apple a long time to get to this point, but they also seem to think the company has finally got the mix right with its series 27 operating systems. Arriving late to a party doesn’t mean you won’t shine once you get there.

Apple is also coming up the inside lane around frontier AI, with iterative OS and hardware enhancements that mean its devices become increasingly effective for Edge AI use cases, on device — no cloud service required.

The company appears to be digging down into those use cases. Mark Gurman at Bloomberg recently predicted that future M7 Ultra Macs will support as much as 1.5TB RAM, making these systems more than capable of running full weight frontier models in people’s offices, colleges, and homes. 

While that does assume the AI-flationary memory market can supply that much RAM at prices humans can afford, it is also true that people are already running AI clusters using off-the-shelf Mac minis networked over Thunderbolt cables. It’s no stretch to believe this will continue to be the case, and that it will even broaden as the power/performance offered at the high end grows.

What’s wrong with good enough?

When combined with open AI stacks, particularly newly emerging varieties, Apple’s platforms should become leading contenders for private AI services and edge AI. Many business users will leap at the chance to offer their workers powerful, self-hosted, private AI services using one or more daisy-chained Mac Studios or Mac minis. The recent craze in deployment of both Macs to support OpenClaw instances shows they already are.

Ultimately, these different slices of momentum mean I agree with investor Jason Calacanis that Apple is in position to apply a great deal of pressure on OpenAI and Claude just by putting models on their devices. 

It’s also worth thinking about how people use AI today. How many of the queries made in the world right now constitute relatively simple tasks that could be transacted by on-device AI, such as the emerging new version of Apple Intelligence or even smaller LLM models running on device? You can even run PrismML’s 1-bit, 27-billion parameter Bonsai on an iPad using the Locally app, and that’s in the here and now.

What happens? Pretty soon you’ll find people recognize that they can already run the vast majority of their AI-augmented workflows using services they have on their existing device or can access on their on-prem Mac set-ups. And, of course, as people get used to running small tasks locally and larger tasks on premises, the actual space in which they need to turn to cloud-based frontier models will erode. That’s even as companies like PrismML work towards slimming down full-weight models so they don’t need to run on a server at all.

“It’s going to be wild when people have unlimited tokens on their desks,” said Calacanis in a podcast round table discussion.

Who has the most to lose?

The current incarnations of AI felt like they came from nowhere. Most people weren’t aware of the technology until returning to work after the 2022 holiday season. Since then, the industry has proliferated with dozens of competing models, most recently including powerful but affordable frontier models such as Qwen and Kimi.ai.

These models aren’t necessarily all as good as one another, but in many cases for much of what we do, we’ll find them to be good enough. That’s an existential crisis for some, as industry observers now think the inevitable pricing pressure means some services might have over-invested in capacity before finding any way to turn a profit.

Those profit-seeking services are the ones with the most to lose as Apple extends its hardware advantage, democratizing AI access for all while providing platforms suitable for edge AI, on-premises AI, private AI, and even AI access using third-party services. (The need for the latter will shrink as the capabilities of the former get better.)

Cupertino rising

What does this all mean? While the industry remains young, it is already fragmenting. And striding through the dust of that process comes Apple, equipped with the hardware, software, and approach to build its business even as the enterprise of first mover AI services erodes.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

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?

The emergence of artificial intelligence is beginning to expose a profound weakness in the way modern enterprises measure performance.

For decades, business evaluation systems have been built around the logic of the industrial and transactional economy. Revenue growth, operating margins, earnings per share, labor productivity, return on investment and market share became the dominant indicators of organizational success because they reflected the economic realities of a world in which value creation was primarily tied to physical production, labor efficiency, scale and later the automation of information processing. AI, however, is altering the very structure of enterprise value creation, and in doing so it is creating a widening separation between perceived future value and actual realized economic performance.

Much of the current discussion surrounding AI performance measurement reflects this tension. The overwhelming majority of AI-related metrics being celebrated today are not direct measures of realized enterprise outcomes. They are largely indicators of capability formation, market positioning, experimentation or investor signaling. Metrics such as AI spending levels, number of AI use cases, GPUs deployed, copilots implemented, models placed into production, AI hiring growth or agentic AI pilots all serve primarily as proxies for anticipated future advantage. These indicators may influence stock valuations, analyst sentiment and strategic narratives, but their relationship to measurable operational performance is often indirect, delayed or in some cases entirely speculative.

This distinction is critically important because capital markets have historically rewarded the expectation of technological transformation long before actual economic results materialized. During previous technological revolutions—including electrification, enterprise resource planning, the internet, cloud computing and mobile platforms—valuation expansion frequently preceded measurable productivity gains by many years. The market priced future possibility before operational economics caught up. In many instances, investors rewarded firms simply for appearing strategically aligned with the dominant technological shift of the era. AI appears to be following a similar trajectory.

The phenomenon resembles the famous productivity paradox articulated by economist Robert Solow, who observed that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” AI today is visible everywhere: in investor presentations, earnings calls, technology conferences, product announcements and boardroom strategies. Yet in many industries, its measurable contribution to enterprise productivity, profitability or economic resilience remains difficult to isolate with precision. This does not necessarily mean AI lacks value. Rather, it reflects the reality that traditional accounting and performance systems were never designed to measure the forms of value AI increasingly produces.

Artificial intelligence creates benefits that are often diffuse, cumulative and difficult to attribute directly to financial outcomes. AI may improve forecasting accuracy, reduce fraud, accelerate decision cycles, augment employee effectiveness, improve customer interactions, optimize logistics or enhance cybersecurity resilience. These benefits frequently manifest as second-order effects distributed across the enterprise rather than as immediately visible financial events. The causal chain between AI investment and realized business performance can therefore become extraordinarily difficult to quantify. A company may become operationally more intelligent without immediately becoming measurably more profitable.

At the same time, AI introduces a profound danger: organizations may increasingly optimize for technological narrative rather than durable enterprise economics. Many firms today are pursuing AI primarily because markets reward the appearance of AI leadership. Investor enthusiasm, analyst pressure and competitive fear create incentives to demonstrate visible AI activity regardless of whether measurable economic value has actually been achieved. In this environment, AI metrics can easily become instruments of valuation signaling rather than instruments of operational truth.

This distinction between signaling and substance may become one of the defining economic challenges of the AI era. An organization may announce aggressive AI deployment programs, reduce headcount and report short-term margin improvements while simultaneously increasing hidden forms of technological fragility. Infrastructure costs may rise dramatically as GPU consumption, cloud usage, data engineering requirements and cybersecurity complexity expand. Technical debt may accelerate as AI-generated code proliferates without sufficient architectural discipline. Institutional knowledge may erode as organizations become excessively dependent on opaque models and automated systems. Long-term innovation capacity may weaken if enterprises divert disproportionate resources toward maintaining internally generated AI systems rather than building new strategic capabilities.

What measuring AI value might actually look like

The distinction between AI activity and AI value becomes clearer when viewed through the kinds of measures organizations choose to track. Many enterprises today emphasize indicators such as the number of AI models deployed, copilots implemented, agents created, prompts executed, tokens consumed or employees using AI tools. These metrics demonstrate adoption and technological activity, but they reveal relatively little about whether AI is producing meaningful business outcomes.

Measures of enterprise value look quite different. A manufacturer might evaluate whether AI improves demand forecasting accuracy enough to reduce inventory carrying costs or stockouts. A financial institution might measure whether AI meaningfully lowers fraud losses, accelerates loan processing or improves regulatory compliance. A healthcare provider could assess reductions in administrative burden, faster clinical decision support or improvements in patient throughput. In each case, the objective is not simply to measure AI deployment, but to determine whether AI creates measurable improvements in operational performance, economic outcomes or organizational resilience.

Ultimately, organizations may need to ask a different question: not “How much AI are we using?” but “How much business value does each unit of AI investment create?” That shift—from measuring technological activity to measuring economic outcomes—may become one of the defining management disciplines of the AI era.

Under traditional accounting frameworks, many of these deteriorations remain largely invisible. Quarterly earnings may improve even as underlying enterprise resilience declines. Stock prices may rise even as operational complexity becomes increasingly unsustainable. In this sense, the AI era threatens to widen the gap between financial appearance and organizational reality.

This is why the future of enterprise measurement cannot simply involve adding AI metrics to existing financial scorecards. The challenge is far deeper. AI forces a reconsideration of what business performance actually means. Historically, enterprises were measured largely through static indicators of efficiency and output. Increasingly, however, competitive advantage may depend less on traditional efficiency and more on adaptive intelligence: the ability of an organization to learn faster, make better decisions, integrate human and machine capabilities effectively, manage technological complexity sustainably and convert computational power into durable economic outcomes.

The most important future performance measures may therefore revolve around questions traditional accounting rarely addresses. How effectively does an enterprise convert technology investment into sustainable business capability? How economically efficient are its AI operations relative to the value they generate? How resilient is the organization to AI failure, cybersecurity disruption or infrastructure inflation? How successfully does it preserve and amplify human expertise rather than simply eliminate labor? How rapidly can it learn, adapt and operationalize new knowledge?

These are not merely technology questions. They are questions of enterprise economics, organizational sustainability and long-term competitive viability.

The companies that ultimately succeed in the AI era may not be those with the largest AI budgets, the greatest number of pilots or the most aggressive automation programs. They may instead be the firms that best understand the economics of technological capability itself: organizations capable of balancing innovation with resilience, automation with human augmentation and technological ambition with sustainable operational design.

The coming decade is therefore likely to produce a widening divide between enterprises optimizing for AI-driven valuation narratives and enterprises optimizing for measurable, durable economic performance. In the short term, these may appear to be the same thing.

Over time, however, the distinction will become increasingly visible. Some organizations will discover that AI has enhanced genuine enterprise capability. Others will discover that they merely optimized the appearance of transformation while silently accumulating new forms of economic and operational risk.

Artificial intelligence is not simply changing business operations. It is exposing the inadequacy of many of the measures used to evaluate business success itself. The central challenge of the AI economy may ultimately become not whether organizations adopt AI, but whether they can distinguish between technological activity and actual economic value creation.

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

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.”

Security operations centers (SOCs) have spent years struggling under the weight of growing alert volumes, expanding attack surfaces, and chronic staffing shortages. Now artificial intelligence is adding a new complication: not just more information, but more machine-generated information that must itself be evaluated.

“There is an asymmetry here because you now have to parse through a lot of AI slop to get to, ‘Okay, is this real or not?’” Fernando Montenegro, vice president and practice lead at The Futurum Group, tells CSO.

His observation captures a growing concern among security leaders. AI is helping attackers and defenders move faster, but it is also creating new forms of cognitive burden for the humans tasked with separating signal from noise.

As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery and enables more automated reconnaissance and exploitation, defenders are increasingly responsible for overseeing systems whose outputs can be difficult to interpret or verify. The challenge is not simply more work. It is that the volume, speed, and complexity of that work are increasing simultaneously.

Yet experts who study and advise SOCs reject the idea that collapse is inevitable. Instead, they describe an industry entering a difficult transition that could reshape how security teams operate and how humans and machines share responsibility for defense.

The vulnerability surge is exposing years of security debt

One of the most immediate concerns is the possibility that AI dramatically increases the number of vulnerabilities organizations must identify and remediate.

Chris Crowley, a longtime cybersecurity instructor and SOC expert, argues that organizations are facing the consequences of years of accumulated technology debt.

“A lot of what we’re going to have to account for in the next couple of years is a technology debt of vulnerable software that has been deployed because it’s good enough to solve the problem, but then there are all these latent cyber issues, flaws, vulnerabilities that weren’t discovered prior to deployment,” he tells CSO.

AI-assisted vulnerability discovery has the potential to expose those weaknesses at a pace defenders have never experienced before.

“The compression of work that is being dropped on us is unprecedented,” Crowley says. “We’ve just been ignoring it for decades.”

He does not believe AI will necessarily create entirely new classes of vulnerabilities. Instead, he expects defenders to confront much larger volumes of familiar problems.

“We’re going to have 100 of these simultaneously,” he says, referring to the kinds of high-priority vulnerabilities security teams traditionally handle one at a time.

The AI challenge for many SOCs may be less a novelty problem than a volume problem. Security teams already know how to patch systems, prioritize remediation, and respond to critical exposures. What changes is the scale and speed at which those demands arrive.

Organizations with mature patching, prioritization, escalation, and response processes may struggle but adapt. Organizations that have treated security operations as a bare-minimum compliance function may find themselves overwhelmed.

For CISOs, Crowley says, that means treating “patch now” less as an occasional emergency state and more as a permanent operating posture. As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery, the distinction between routine maintenance and crisis response may continue to blur.

He compares the situation to disaster recovery planning. Organizations that wait until a crisis arrives to establish staffing plans, escalation paths, and remediation processes may discover there is not enough help available.

Cognitive overload may become the defining challenge

While vulnerability discovery receives much of the attention, Montenegro believes security leaders need a broader framework for understanding AI’s impact.

Organizations should think about AI through three lenses, he says: security for AI, AI for security, and security from AI. The first involves protecting AI systems. The second involves using AI to improve defensive operations. The third asks what happens when adversaries use AI against the organization.

For SOCs, all three categories are beginning to overlap.

As AI makes it easier to create reports, assessments, vulnerability submissions, and other operational artifacts, humans remain responsible for determining whether that information is accurate and useful.

“It becomes much easier to generate content,” Montenegro says, “but if you’re going to review that content as a human, the onus on you now is that much larger.”

The result is a new form of cognitive overload. Security professionals may spend increasing amounts of time evaluating machine-generated information instead of conducting higher-value security work.

Organizations can increasingly use AI to summarize reports, evaluate alerts, and assist with investigations, but humans remain responsible for validating the results.

“We’re not at the stage yet where people are comfortable” handing off critical decisions entirely to AI, he says.

That leaves defenders caught between two competing realities: AI is creating more information to process, but AI is also becoming one of the few viable tools for managing that growing workload.

For Montenegro, the principle should be to automate tasks, not roles. AI can absorb repetitive investigative steps, but organizations should be cautious about removing humans from the process entirely.

The risk, he says, is that if organizations hide too much complexity behind automated outputs, analysts may lose opportunities to develop the domain knowledge needed to advance.

“How is that professional who is reacting to those alerts growing as a professional?” he says.

The gap between mature and struggling SOCs may widen

Not every organization will experience the impact of AI in the same way.

John Hubbard, senior cybersecurity consultant and SANS instructor, believes the industry’s response will largely depend on how well organizations have prepared for operational stress before AI arrives at scale.

“I would roughly break security operations teams into two camps,” Hubbard tells CSO. “There are the ones that are definitely struggling, are already overwhelmed. And then some are doing really well.”

The struggling organizations tend to be understaffed, underfunded, undertrained, or dependent on ad hoc processes. Every incident feels different, forcing teams to improvise under pressure.

“Getting hit with something like this can certainly be an accelerant for burnout if they weren’t already experiencing it,” Hubbard says.

By contrast, mature security teams have already invested in processes, training, exercises, and automation. “The teams that are doing a really solid job now are probably not super overwhelmed because they’ve developed the processes and procedures to be ready for this kind of thing,” Hubbard says.

He compares successful SOCs to fire departments. Firefighters cannot predict exactly where the next emergency will occur, but they know how to respond because they have rehearsed those responses repeatedly.

“The teams that kind of can react like a fire department are the ones that are getting it right,” he says.

Those organizations conduct tabletop exercises, adversary emulation exercises, red-team assessments, and incident response drills. As a result, they can absorb additional workload without descending into panic.

Burnout remains the industry’s most difficult problem

Despite widespread concern about AI-enabled attacks, none of the experts view AI solely as a threat. Several argue that AI will become essential for helping defenders cope with the challenges it creates.

Jose-Marie Griffiths, president emerita and former CIO of Dakota State University, believes AI can help security teams sift through overwhelming volumes of information and identify the signals that matter most.

“People who work in SOCs are now seeing overwhelming volumes of data, and they’re getting fatigued,” Griffiths tells CSO.

AI can help automate portions of analysis, validate alerts, and improve visibility into complex environments. But Griffiths cautions that some AI-assisted vulnerability discovery tools are also producing large numbers of false positives.

That matters because false positives do not eliminate work. They create it. As organizations confront escalating volumes of findings, distinguishing genuine risk from erroneous results may become as important as discovering vulnerabilities in the first place.

The experts agree that technology alone will not determine outcomes. People will.

Crowley argues that cybersecurity professionals must recognize that uncertainty is intrinsic to the profession. “We are the group that deals with uncertainty,” he says. “That’s really and truly what cybersecurity is.”

That reality places responsibility on both individuals and organizations. Analysts need mechanisms for managing stress. Teams need to recognize when colleagues are approaching their limits. Managers need to establish healthy escalation practices and realistic expectations.

Hubbard rejects the notion that burnout is inevitable.

“It is not a foregone conclusion that security operations jobs have to be a painful grind that everyone hates,” he says.

He has seen organizations where employees remain engaged for years because leaders actively manage workload, create supportive cultures, and encourage open communication.

That includes making it safe for analysts to admit when they have reached their limits. “If people are unwilling to say, ‘I’m maxed out right now, and I’m going crazy,’ that’s going to be the thing that breaks a lot of teams,” Hubbard says.

Pay alone may not solve the problem. Crowley pointed to SANS/SOC survey findings showing that compensation ranked fourth among retention factors, behind meaningful work, training, and professional development.

The future SOC may look very different

Griffiths believes organizations will need to respond not only with better technology but with structural changes. Traditional tiered SOC models may need to evolve into more collaborative teams with diverse expertise working together in real-time.

“I think we’re going to have to eliminate the hierarchies a little bit and have teams of people with different expertise working together,” she says.

She also argues that organizations should invest in human expertise rather than simply increasing AI consumption. “Buy engineers, not tokens,” she says.

Professional networks and peer support will matter as much as any tool, Griffiths says, because defenders need trusted communities where they can compare notes, share practices, and avoid facing sustained pressure in isolation.

If there is a consensus emerging among experts, it is that AI is exposing weaknesses that already existed.

The staffing shortages, alert fatigue, burnout, and process failures affecting SOCs did not begin with generative AI. AI is simply amplifying them.

At the same time, AI is providing new tools that may help organizations manage those very challenges.

The future SOC may spend less time manually triaging alerts and more time validating automated findings, conducting threat hunting, and making strategic decisions. Human expertise may increasingly be paired with AI systems that act as operational partners.

The transition will not be painless. Some teams will struggle. Some practitioners may leave the field. Others will adapt and thrive.

“In a way,” Griffiths says, “we’re turning the whole SOC inside out.”

Montenegro sees the transition as a cybersecurity version of the Red Queen effect: defenders and attackers must keep running simply to stay in place.

Borrowing from science-fiction author William Gibson, Montenegro offered perhaps the simplest description of the industry’s current moment: “The future is already here. It’s just unevenly distributed.”

For security leaders, that future is arriving in the form of AI-generated vulnerabilities, AI-assisted investigations, and AI-enabled adversaries. The question is no longer whether security operations centers will change. It is whether organizations can adapt quickly enough to keep pace.

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

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

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

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

The promise we keep believing

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

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

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

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

When decisions move at machine speed

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

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

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

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

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

The loneliest seat in the building

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

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

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

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

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

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

The work no tool will do for you

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

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

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

Build the bond on purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the routing actually starts

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

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

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

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

What it costs before anyone notices

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

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

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

What the leaders who stayed in the conversation did

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

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

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

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

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

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

For three decades, enterprise software has been a buy-it decision. Packaged software from SAP, Oracle and Salesforce covered roughly 80% of requirements at a fraction of the cost of building. The economics were obvious, and for traditional applications, they still are.

AI is introducing a wrinkle that is forcing even the most committed enterprise software customers to rethink their options. AI is a layer that sits across your data, your processes, and your decisions. Where that layer runs and who controls it is an architecture question, and most of the enterprise community is still treating it as a procurement one.

The appeal of vendor-embedded AI is clear: automated operational decisions, smarter supplier and merchandising choices, and friction-free workflows built into the systems enterprises already rely on. The catch is that these capabilities almost universally depend on your data living in the vendor’s cloud environment. For most large enterprises, it sits on-premises, in hyperscale cloud infrastructure they manage themselves, or in private data centers. That gap between where your data is and where your vendor’s AI assumes it should be creates a fundamental strategic fork in the road.

Build vs. buy is a category error

The framing I keep hearing is “build vs. buy your AI strategy.” It implies that some organizations are out there training foundation models from scratch. Nobody serious is doing that. The real choice sits across three distinct approaches, and conflating them leads to poor decisions:

• Buy embedded. Use the AI capabilities your vendor ships natively inside their platform: the assistant baked into your ERP, your CRM, your HCM suite. Lowest integration cost, fastest time to value, tightest fit with the application data.
• Buy platform. Adopt the vendor’s AI infrastructure layer and build your own assistants and agents on top of it. More flexible, but you remain inside the vendor’s architectural boundary and subject to their governance model.
• Compose. Connect a third-party model (Claude, GPT, Gemini, an open-weight model running in your own environment) directly to your existing landscape. Maximum control, maximum integration burden, and full responsibility for what comes out the other end.

These are not equivalent options at different price points. They make different assumptions about where your data lives, who governs the AI, and how much architectural change you’ll absorb to get there. Vendor pitches sometimes blur the distinction on purpose. Enterprise leaders can’t afford to.

The vendor AI stack has an assumption baked in

Every embedded AI capability ships with an unstated architectural prerequisite: your data must be where the AI can see it, in the shape it expects, under the governance the vendor enforces.

For organizations with clean, modern cloud estates, that is often a reasonable trade. For the long tail of large enterprises running heavily customized environments on private or hybrid infrastructure, that trade becomes a precondition, one you must meet before the AI conversation can even begin. Whether meeting it makes sense depends on your starting point, your sector’s regulatory posture, and your appetite for migration risk. None of those are uniform across organizations.

That’s the part that gets glossed over in vendor keynotes. The AI demo on stage assumes a destination architecture the audience hasn’t necessarily reached yet. Large enterprise customers are carrying an unusually heavy technology burden right now. Many are simultaneously managing platform modernization programs that have been building for over a decade, alongside pressure to migrate to vendor-managed cloud infrastructure. Sitting above both is a boardroom-level directive to demonstrate meaningful AI progress fast. The vendor path to AI and the boardroom path to AI can diverge sharply, and enterprises need to make selective, strategic decisions about where to adopt AI first to maximize value and minimize risk.

Sovereignty isn’t a slogan, it’s an architecture constraint

The conversation about sovereignty has been hijacked by both sides. One camp treats every SaaS adoption as a sovereignty violation. The other dismisses every sovereignty concern as Luddite resistance. Neither is useful.

What’s happening in real customer conversations – particularly in DACH, public sector, and financial services – is more specific. Organizations are drawing a distinction between running their applications in a vendor’s cloud (which is broadly fine, well understood, decades of precedent) and enriching their data and processes inside a vendor’s AI model (which has less precedent, is harder to reverse, and carries material implications for competitive position).

Enriching your data inside a vendor’s AI model is the genuinely new question, and organizations that conflate it with their existing cloud posture tend to defend the wrong perimeter.

Despite spending around $100 million annually with Amazon, Disney built its own internal AI system to house its corporate intelligence rather than rely on a hyperscaler’s AI offering. The decision came down to control. When your data represents decades of creative and commercial IP, you think carefully about where it lives and who can learn from it. Disney has become more open to SaaS over time. The AI sovereignty question is a separate debate from the SaaS debate and conflating the two leads organizations to the wrong conclusions.

At the other end of the spectrum, enterprises in heavily regulated environments treat data sovereignty as an absolute non-negotiable. Any AI model must run within their controlled environment, especially where sensitive data cannot touch the public internet. GDPR obligations reinforce this instinct across the European market, requiring organizations to maintain clear accountability for how personal data is processed inside AI systems, including vendor-managed ones.

AI-enriched data, meaning models that have learned the shape of your business processes, your supplier negotiations, your customer behavior, carries a different half-life and a different strategic value than the operational data underneath it. That deserves its own architectural decision, separate from your broader cloud strategy.

What this means in practice

Most large enterprise estates will end up with a mix of all three approaches, and where you draw the lines matters more than your overall posture.

Embedded AI capabilities are the right answer for in-application productivity: the assistant inside your ERP workflows, the agent inside your procurement or HR suite. That is where vendor embedding genuinely shines, and attempting to compose your own equivalent is typically a poor use of engineering resources.

Compose belongs elsewhere: in cross-application orchestration, in custom assistants over operational and observability data, and in agents that need to reach across multiple vendor systems and infrastructure layers in ways no single vendor stack will never natively support. Research from McKinsey suggests the most significant near-term productivity gains from enterprise AI will come precisely from these cross-system workflows, rather than from within individual applications. The most interesting enterprise AI work over the next eighteen months lives here, and it doesn’t require waiting for a migration to complete first.

That compose path isn’t free, and it’s important to be honest about the costs. Governance, audit trails, and accountability for hallucinated outputs become your problem, not the vendor’s. Prompt drift and evaluation discipline are real engineering costs that never appear in the proof-of-concept. Those costs scale with the complexity of your landscape and the number of systems your agents touch. Budget for them before deployment, not after your first production incident. None of that is a reason to avoid the path. It’s a reason to staff for it, honestly.

The real question

The build-vs-buy frame survives because it gives executives a binary choice along a familiar axis. AI sits somewhere else entirely.

The question worth putting on the table at your next architecture review is simpler:

Which decisions do we want our vendors’ AI to make, and which do we want to keep on our side of the boundary?

Answer that, and the right build/buy/compose mix flows from it. Skip it, and you will end up with the architecture your vendors prefer – which may or may not be the one your business needs.

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

Most organizations I work with have invested heavily in cloud security. They have endpoint detection tools, SIEM platforms, cloud security posture management, and skilled security teams running on a 24/7 shift. And yet, when I ask them a simple question — who has admin access in your Salesforce tenant right now? — The room goes quiet. Nobody knows. Not because they are negligent. Because they genuinely cannot see it.

That is the SaaS blind spot.

Ashish Mishra

SaaS: Numbers speak volumes

I ask this question in almost every engagement: how many SaaS applications does your organization run? The answers I get range from 30 to maybe 50. The real number, once someone counts, is usually north of three hundred. AppOmni’s 2024 research put it even higher — 49% of Microsoft 365 organizations believed they had fewer than ten apps connected to their tenant when the actual average was over a thousand.

Here is the part that concerns me more than the count. Of all those applications, security teams have clear sight into maybe one in 10. The rest — where your customer records live, where your source code sits, where your financial reports get shared — nobody is watching. Not because the team is careless. Because the tools they have were never built to look there.

The following incidents will discuss these realities.

Salesforce in 2023

In April 2023, KrebsOnSecurity broke the story — Salesforce Community sites were quietly leaking sensitive data belonging to government agencies, banks, and healthcare providers. No sophisticated attack technique. Just the right API endpoint and a misconfigured guest user profile. The exposed records included Social Security numbers, account details, and home addresses. Salesforce was clear in its response: this was not a platform vulnerability. Administrators had misconfigured guest access policies, and nobody had checked.

Guest user profiles in Salesforce Communities can be granted access to data records. When administrators set those permissions too broadly — often without realizing it — unauthenticated external users can query that data straight through the API. Over 150,000 companies were potentially sitting in that window before anyone raised the alarm.

The pattern is always the same. Configuration made under time pressure, default set slightly too permissive, nobody looks at it again. SaaS applications accumulate these quiet exposures over months and years.

GitHub in 2022

In April 2022, GitHub disclosed that an attacker had used stolen OAuth tokens — issued to Heroku and Travis CI — to access and download private repository contents from dozens of organizations, including npm. GitHub’s own systems were never touched. The tokens came from third-party applications that users had authorized to connect to their accounts, and those applications had been quietly compromised.

The entry point was not GitHub. It was not even the organizations that lost their data. It was the CI/CD tools those organizations had connected to GitHub months or years earlier — tools that had been granted broad read and write permissions that were never revisited.

That is the OAuth problem in plain terms. The moment you authorize a third-party application; its security posture becomes your problem too. Most organizations have dozens of these connections sitting open across their SaaS platforms — and no one reviewing them.

Microsoft in 2023

The Microsoft case from 2023 is the one I bring up when people assume this only happens to careless organizations. Wiz Research found that Microsoft’s own AI team had exposed 38TB of internal data — private keys, passwords, and more than 30,000 internal Teams messages — through a single misconfigured Azure access token. The token was supposed to share one training dataset on GitHub. Instead, it opened an entire storage account to anyone who found the link.

What gets me about this one is the timeline. That token had been sitting there since October 2021. Nearly two years, inside Microsoft, before anyone caught it. If a team with that level of resources and expertise can leave a door open for two years, the idea that “we’d notice” is not much of a security strategy. And it’s worth noting — this wasn’t a database leak. It was Teams messages. The same collaboration tools your employees use every day are just as exposed as the platforms holding structured records.

Why traditional security tools miss this

Cloud Security Posture Management tools — CSPM — are designed to monitor infrastructure configuration: virtual machines, storage buckets, network rules, and IAM policies at the infrastructure level. They do an acceptable job at that layer. What they do not do is look inside SaaS applications. CISA’s Secure Cloud Business Applications (SCuBA) guidance specifically calls out the gap between infrastructure security tools and SaaS-layer visibility as one of the most under addressed areas in enterprise cloud security.

This is the gap SSPM was built to close. Instead of watching infrastructure, it watches the configuration of the SaaS applications themselves — permissions, sharing settings, who has access to what. And the distinction is not just academic. Infrastructure misconfigurations tend to expose systems. SaaS misconfigurations tend to expose data — directly, quietly, and often without any detectable attack activity at all.

Ashish Mishra

What security teams should do now

You do not need to deploy a full SSPM platform tomorrow to start closing the gap. There are practical steps that move the needle immediately.

• Audit connected OAuth applications across your primary SaaS platforms. Revoke any integration that cannot be justified by a current business need.
• Common source of public data exposure: Review guest and external sharing permissions in Salesforce Communities and Microsoft SharePoint.
• Check whether legacy authentication protocols are disabled in Microsoft 365. Legacy auth bypasses MFA and becomes a potential entry point in enterprise environments.
• Establish a quarterly access review for high-privilege accounts in SaaS applications. Most organizations run annual reviews at best — that is not frequent enough for platforms that change configuration daily.
• A map of which SaaS applications hold sensitive data, and which have no security team ownership at all. That list will be longer than you expect.

The core issue is not that organizations are careless. It is that they have built security programs around the perimeter and the infrastructure, and SaaS applications grew up inside that perimeter without ever being brought into scope. The data is there. The access is there. The misconfiguration is often there too. What has been missing is the visibility to see it.

SSPM closes that gap. But even before a formal tool is in place, simply asking the question — what can the applications we already run see and share? — is a meaningful first step. In my experience, the answer surprises almost every organization that takes the time to look.

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

The industry conversation around AI infrastructure has narrowed to a single dimension: scale. The focus is on GPUs, power, cooling and the massive physical footprint required to train and run AI agents and models. At the same time, organizations are adjusting to the speed and scale with which AI is identifying vulnerabilities — which is much faster than remediation can be started.

However, almost no one is talking about the infrastructure layer that actually determines whether AI workloads remain secure, resilient and compliant. This is the layer that runs the world’s most sensitive, regulated, high‑value workloads. Thankfully, it already has the guardrails needed for an era where vulnerabilities are discovered faster than ever. But are they being set correctly?

With more than one billion AI agents expected by 2029, organizations need a plan for their infrastructure layer to withstand threats from new frontier models, maintain uptime and protect data sovereignty. As they scale AI deployments, enterprises must secure the infrastructure AI depends on.

These five steps outline what organizations can do now to strengthen their infrastructure posture using proven, enterprise‑grade practices for current and future threats.

Step 1: Build on infrastructure engineered for security and resilience

Infrastructure must be secure by design, not secured after deployment. The systems that have historically supported the world’s most critical workloads — from global payments to national‑scale operations — were built with this principle at their core. If you’ve already invested in systems designed for mission-critical workloads, you’ve checked this first box.

Enterprise‑grade systems have been engineered with multilayered security controls, pervasive encryption, confidential computing and hardware‑level protections that make exploitation dramatically harder. A frontier model in the hands of a bad actor can chain weaknesses faster than humans can patch them — unless the underlying infrastructure is built to absorb and deflect that pressure.

When I meet with clients, I often tell them what our own security teams operate under: we assume vulnerabilities will continue to be discovered and we design for that reality. That mindset is what separates infrastructure that survives frontier‑model pressure from infrastructure that collapses under it. These systems continue to evolve with predictive failure analysis and accelerated recovery, allowing systems to continue operating even during investigation and remediation.

Step 2: Treat uptime and resilience as a security requirement

If your infrastructure fails, your workloads will too. These systems depend on uninterrupted access to data and compute, and even seconds of downtime can compound operational and security risk. Enterprise‑grade platforms deliver near‑continuous availability through redundant hardware paths and intelligent system recovery.

The easiest fix? Ample resources and an up-to-date infrastructure foundation. Too often, a security problem is really an availability problem that turned into a security problem. When systems fall behind on maintenance, capacity or recovery readiness, they create the exact openings a frontier model can exploit. A delayed maintenance cycle or a recovery process that takes too long becomes the opening a frontier model can exploit. Resilience is not just about uptime. It is a security control. And this will not be the last time a frontier model tests the limits of that resilience.

Data resilience is equally critical. Cyber‑resilient storage systems with immutable backups and rapid recovery capabilities ensure that critical data remains protected and available even after a cyber incident or disaster.

Step 3: Operate for continuous discovery, not periodic defense

The idea that you can prevent every vulnerability is outdated. The more realistic model is continuous discovery — finding, prioritizing and addressing issues faster than they can be exploited. Organizations must operate as if vulnerabilities will be found faster than ever.  Instead of relying on static defenses, they should emphasize layered controls, rapid triage, continuous delivery of fixes and coordinated disclosure.

Frontier models in the hands of bad actors can amplify security challenges by connecting vulnerabilities. They can chain misconfigurations, outdated components and privilege gaps into a viable attack route in minutes. And the more outdated or inconsistent an environment is, the easier that chaining becomes.

Modern operational‑intelligence tooling helps them surface that risk, prioritize what matters and act before an attacker can exploit the gaps. These platforms help organizations understand where they are exposed, identify which maintenance issues carry the highest operational and security risk, and reduce the blind spots that frontier‑model attackers are increasingly adept at exploiting.

It’s critical to assess how you manage your vulnerabilities. Internal processes should address severe vulnerabilities within hours, regardless of whether they are discovered by humans, traditional tooling or AI‑driven techniques. As AI accelerates vulnerability chaining, this posture maintains operational integrity and reduces exposure.

Step 4: Use AI to defend AI

Leading organizations are integrating AI‑driven threat detection directly into their infrastructure. On operating systems like z/OS, AI‑based analytics can identify anomalous and potentially malicious data access, reducing investigation time and limiting impact.

Beyond detection, autonomous security models are emerging that continuously govern risk, investigate threats and enforce resilience across identities, data, applications, cloud and networks. Across the industry, we’re seeing the rise of autonomous security frameworks that use AI to assess posture, detect threats and harden controls without waiting for human intervention. Combined with modern AI‑accelerated processors, these capabilities allow threats to be analyzed and mitigated directly within the infrastructure itself.

Step 5: Join a broader ecosystem fighting frontier model threats

No organization can face frontier model threats alone. These risks require coordinated industry action. Frontier models give both good and bad actors the ability to analyze codebases, chain vulnerabilities and probe infrastructure at a scale that no single enterprise can counter on its own.

Across the industry, coalitions are emerging to assess and remediate vulnerabilities discovered by frontier-class models and to help enterprises build AI resilience. Initiatives like Project Glasswing, Project QuiltWorks and the Frontier AI Alliance are examples of how providers, consultancies and security firms are beginning to coordinate their response to AI-accelerated threats.

Organizations can also benefit from independent assessments that evaluate readiness for agentic-enabled threats and identify gaps across their infrastructure. These assessments help teams understand where they are exposed, how frontier models might chain those exposures together, and what actions will reduce the likelihood of a high-impact event.

Participating in these programs is one of the most concrete steps enterprises can take today to strengthen their AI infrastructure posture.

Your AI security depends on the infrastructure you choose

AI is accelerating both innovation and risk. The organizations that succeed will be those that build on resilient, secure infrastructure, prioritize uptime as a security control, operate with continuous discovery, use AI to defend AI and participate in the global response to frontier‑model threats. In the end, your ability to scale AI safely comes down to the infrastructure you trust to run it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question of authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All risk, no reward

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

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

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

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

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

Speed over security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salesforce’s AI agent platform, Agentforce, is seeing weaker-than-expected customer traction, according to a recent KeyBanc Capital Markets investment research note, which attributed the slowdown in part to the product itself, stating that “Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there” yet, following customer checks and a CIO survey.

“Our checks and customer conversations have not been strong, nor has the feedback been on Agentforce. What we can piece together in the disclosed numbers does not signal building momentum and, most recently, our CIO survey delivered another blow with Salesforce being a standout for the wrong reasons,” according to a Seeking Alpha that quoted a KeyBanc research note.

“We attend more Salesforce partner and customer events than any other company in our coverage, and feedback from those customers has been consistent in two ways: 1) customers’ data is not in order to do meaningful AI work; and 2) Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there,” Seeking Alpha reported, quoting the KeyBanc note.

The KeyBanc note quoted by Seeking Alpha also pointed out that conversations with Salesforce “partners” indicate that Agentforce proof-of-concept deployments are only now starting to generate pipeline opportunities, while its CIO survey found more respondents expecting to deprioritize Salesforce within their IT budget than the other way around over the coming 12 months.

The findings in the research note stand in contrast to Salesforce’s sustained push to position Agentforce as its flagship enterprise AI platform. Since introducing the offering nearly two years back, the company has expanded it with new foundation models, integrations, deployment options, and pricing initiatives, most recently introducing its Headless 360 strategy to make Agentforce available beyond conventional CRM workflows through a more flexible consumption model.

Parts of that flexible consumption model and Agentforce pricing, which Salesforce is still evolving, have already come under scrutiny with industry analysts expressing concern that Headless 360’s monetization model could create budgeting headaches for CIOs by making AI spending less predictable and increasing pressure on IT leaders to demonstrate measurable business outcomes and return on investment before expanding deployments.

Concerns over product maturity

Those concerns around Agentforce’s evolving pricing model appear to be intersecting with the latest concerns about product maturity that KeyBanc analysts mention in their report.

“Three pricing model changes in roughly 18 months make procurement committees nervous, and if the commercial model keeps shifting, buyers question whether the product has stabilized either,” said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Salesforce’s latest consumption-based pricing model, Chopra pointed out, is a bigger concern: “It is harder to budget for than seat-based licensing. CIOs want a clearer line between spend and outcome. That line isn’t clear enough yet.”

Greyhound Research Chief Analyst Sanchit Vir Gogia, too, said that the pricing model is a fundamental issue for enterprises.

While Salesforce’s pricing model charges enterprises for AI activity, it leaves customers to determine whether those interactions ultimately translate into meaningful business outcomes, Gogia said.

That, according to Gaurav Parab, principal research analyst at NelsonHall, is slowing adoption because enterprise leaders, such as CIOs, are under pressure to evaluate TCO and expected ROI.

“Most enterprises first want confidence that AI deployments will generate measurable business outcomes before committing to broader rollouts,” he said.

Data Cloud and data readiness remain as challenges

Pricing, though, is just one piece of the equation.

The discussion about Agentforce adoption, analysts said, cannot be separated from Salesforce’s broader product strategy, which positions Agentforce alongside Data Cloud as the foundation for enterprise AI deployments.

“Data modernization has become one of the biggest determinants of adoption. Agentforce depends on trusted, unified enterprise data to generate reliable outcomes. For many organizations, preparing that data foundation through Data 360, integration, governance, and data quality initiatives represents a significant part of the implementation effort,” Purab said, backing the KeyBanc research note.

Chopra seconded that assessment, saying Data Cloud has effectively become a prerequisite for production-grade Agentforce: “We worked with a private equity fund administrator where the AI layer only became reliable once we had clean, structured data feeding into Salesforce consistently. Before that, even well-configured automation produced inconsistent outputs.”

In practice, that means many enterprises need to invest separately in Data Cloud, data integration, governance, and cleanup before Agentforce can be deployed reliably at scale, Chopra said.

Implementation challenges are slowing adoption

Product maturity aside, those implementation challenges, Purab pointed out, are also contributing to a slower pace of Agentforce adoption in enterprises than anticipated.

While interest in Agentforce continues to grow, enterprises, according to the analyst, are largely limiting deployments to targeted, high-value use cases while they establish trusted data foundations, integrate with existing systems, and demonstrate measurable business value.

More so because Data Cloud accelerates Agentforce once the foundation is coherent,  it cannot make incoherence disappear, Gogia pointed out.

Chopra, too, said his conversations with enterprise customers closely mirror Purab and KeyBanc’s findings: “The issue isn’t appetite. The issue is that their CRM data is fragmented, partially duplicated, and inconsistently structured. You can’t put an AI agent on top of that and expect reliable outputs.”

“Cleaning that up takes months. That work doesn’t show in a vendor’s deal count, which is why signed agreements and actual production deployments are two very different numbers right now.”

Timing issue or execution gap?

Despite all the challenges, though, Purab said that the slower pace of current adoption is not necessarily indicative of a long-term problem.

“I see it as a timing issue, but it has always been the case. Enterprise AI adoption has consistently followed the maturity of data, governance, and operating models. Salesforce will undoubtedly continue refining the product, pricing, and go-to-market approach, but the larger challenge lies in enterprise readiness,” Purab said.

“As organizations strengthen their data foundations and gain confidence in deploying AI responsibly, Agentforce adoption is likely to broaden significantly,” Purab added.

Chopra, in contrast, offered a more nuanced view: “While data readiness, which is a customer issue, will improve with time, Salesforce needs to fix its go-to-market strategy.”

“Three pricing changes in 18 months, a product that requires significant pre-investment before it delivers value, and implementation complexity that most mid-market buyers aren’t resourced for is definitely a positioning gap Salesforce needs to close,” Chopra said.

Regardless of whether the current slowdown proves temporary or structural, both analysts agreed that the next six to twelve months should provide a clearer picture of Agentforce’s trajectory.

For CIOs evaluating the platform, they said, the focus should be less on headline product announcements and more on tangible indicators of enterprise adoption and operational maturity.

“The key indicators will be an increase in enterprise-scale production deployments rather than pilots, broader adoption beyond customer service into other business functions, stronger customer references demonstrating measurable business outcomes, continued simplification of pricing and deployment models, and greater maturity around governance, security, and operating models for AI agents,” Purab said.

For Chopra, CIOs should go a step further by measuring how AI agents perform in production rather than simply tracking deployment numbers: “Containment rate in production — what percentage of agent interactions are resolved without human escalation — is the real performance signal, not token volume or deal count.”

Salesforce did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Today’s CIOs must master a complex balancing act of maintaining operational excellence while enabling AI experimentation, modernizing legacy environments while accelerating innovation, leading workforce transformation while maintaining culture, and communicating fluently across boards, business units, customers, and technical teams alike.

Few leaders understand this balancing act better than former Verizon CIO Jane Connell. Over her career, Connell has helped some of the world’s largest enterprises modernize operations, reduce complexity, and transform how technology enables business value at scale. As a 2026 CIO Hall of Fame inductee, she is widely respected not only for operational excellence and strategic vision but also for her commitment to mentoring, workforce transformation, and preparing the next generation of leaders for a rapidly changing future.

On a recent episode of the Tech Whisperers podcast, we unpacked Connell’s unconventional leadership story and the playbook that has shaped one of technology’s most impactful leaders. In this exclusive interview after the show, edited for length and clarity, Connell shares more lessons from her Hall of Fame journey and why she believes the future of technology leadership will depend less on org charts and more on curiosity, credibility, and human connection.

Dan Roberts: When you think about preparing the next generation of technology leaders, what capabilities or mindsets do you believe will matter most in this next era?

Jane Connell: One is curiosity, or what I call the “why” factor: What do we need to do and why do we need to do it? It’s having a mindset of unlocking the art of the possible. You must be comfortable with what you know, what you don’t know, and asking the question why, because in this era of AI and where technology is going, it’s not about automating things you know; it’s about what you don’t already know, and what that unlocks. AI creates patterns and opportunities and re-engineers through its own intelligence, so there has to be a lot of instinct involved, and you’re going to have to understand and learn what it’s telling you.

I’m on the board of Rutgers, and one of the conversations we’re in with future leaders in education is that you don’t have those entry-level jobs anymore. They’re going to be AI. But those were building blocks for us. We came up the ranks and did those jobs, and that created the knowledge. [Future leaders are] not going to have that, so how do you create the foundation of knowledge — which is that art of asking why or what — to question if the bots or the patterns are biased or wrong. You’re not going to have the experience to rely on and say, “That’s wrong; I know that’s wrong because I did those. I know how this operates.”

Second is having humility and being comfortable in your skin — that you don’t know everything, but you’re going to learn it. You’re going to involve yourself with people. It’s about workforce structure, not organizational structure. Who do you need to talk to, and what do you have to find out?

I also believe followership is going to be huge, because the way work gets done is not hierarchical. It’s going to be engineered based on the process and AI. You have to create followership of people working together, and they’ve got to want to work with you. This isn’t going be “you work for me, do as I say.” Followership is going to be a key skill for influencing and organically having that kind of impact, versus someone with authority.

With that is the accountability to have high integrity, be credible, and be a person someone would trust. Because all this is going to break down the hierarchy of authority, you have to bring that human side and be a really good leader, which means people want to follow you, they trust you, they want to work with you, and they know you’re going to take them to a better place.

One recurring theme throughout your career has been your ability to bridge deep technology expertise with strong business acumen. Why is that combination becoming even more critical in the age of AI and digital transformation?

You can’t impact anything tech-alone. It all resides on having business acumen and then having the technical ability to know how to use tech to solve the problem, not the other way around.

At the root of all this is every company’s Achilles’ heel: the data. Access to data has been a privilege — those who have it, those who don’t. Now you’re bringing structured and unstructured [data] together for these AI models to work, and that’s a new skill set that requires you to know the business inside and outside.

You also have to stay externally relevant and know where innovation is coming from. And you’re going to need to know how to architect that into the way your company goes to market, which requires you to know the business processes, how it runs, and how it could run.

That’s the role of leaders moving forward, immersing yourself in the problems the business needs to solve. There’s no boundaries there. It’s not what department you report in and what process you own. It’s seamless. That’s the duality people need to command and grow into.

Looking back on a career that spans multiple industries with different operating models, cultures, and regulatory environments, what were some of the most important calculated risks you took in terms of your growth?

There were two pivotal moments in my career that were the biggest risks but probably my biggest gains in growth. One was when I went into a full-time tech role and ran infrastructure. I was a fish out of water, and not the likely successor. Part of the reason I did it goes back to a something we talked about on the podcast: Well, why not me? And I want more. That’s just my tenacity.

It was during the dot-com days of the late 90s, early 2000s. It didn’t matter if you were the CEO or a board director, if you didn’t know tech and you didn’t understand how to wield it, you were never going to be successful. I knew that no matter what job I may want in the future, I had to know tech. So it was a calculated decision: I’m going to jump into tech.

Some very senior supply chain leaders who controlled my career told me, “You’re going to fail, and I’ll have a safety net for you when you come back.” Well, I didn’t fail and I never went back. That pressure was there, but I knew why I was doing it. This wasn’t just a job for ego’s sake. This was, I have to know tech. The future is tech. It’s kind of like AI now.

The other pivotal moment was changing industries. I left Johnson & Johnson at a great time. We had gone through a huge transformation, started our global services organization, and the perfect moment happened for me to retire early there. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. It was the first time I took a break in my career to let the world come to me instead of me planning it. Do I want to open a business? Do I want to consult? Do I want to stay retired? I was fortunate enough that I could, but I got bored.

The financial industry wasn’t on my radar. Coming out of healthcare, with the purpose and the connection with saving lives, helping people, it’s easy to connect to. Financial wasn’t, for me. But one of the executive search firms said to me, when you interview, the biggest question hanging over your head is going to be, could you be successful elsewhere because you grew up in J&J. You had advocates, you had influence, you knew the industry. It’s like your deck was stacked for you. Could you do all that when you’re a nobody coming off the street?

So when the CIO role opened at State Street, I interviewed — and talk about being your authentic self. I had already done all this transformation, I already knew the outcomes, I knew everything I did was always enterprise and always end-to-end transformation. And because I wasn’t really vying for the job, I was having this conversation with the CFO and saying, “Here’s what your organization is lacking, here’s the noise you’re going to hear, do you really have the appetite for it?” And “I’d like talk to the COO and see if they’re ready to hear this about the value chain. I may not know your problem yet, but I guarantee it’s one of these three things.”

I was testing their advocacy of, do you really want to transform? Are you ready? Because you have to own this. I can’t take accountabilities for your organizations. I can help you get there. I’m an enabler for you, but you have to own it. And it was a very different interview. By the end of it, I loved Ron [O’Hanley, State Street Chairman and CEO] and his whole team. I took the job on the leadership and the person more than the industry, and it was very successful.

I followed the same recipe when I went to Verizon. Those were big growing moments. They were risky, they were very uncomfortable, but it was the biggest growth that I’ve ever had.

Whether it’s a tough message to the C-suite, a difficult conversation with peers, or helping teams make sense of uncertainty and change, you tell people the truth in a way they can hear it. How can other leaders develop that ability to take people on the journey, especially when the message isn’t easy?

Skirting a problem is not the way to solve it. I’ve never been the person to say what you want to hear. I’ll tell you how you get there, and I’ll get you the results you want, but I’m going to be super honest because I want to manage the expectations of what we have to achieve.

What I’ve learned as a leader is to take accountability. Say what you’re going to do, then do it, and if you hit a roadblock, be the first to call it. That gets you access, because people see it as a calculated risk. Anybody in the C-suite has resources and budget, but the earlier you signal and don’t waste money and resources, the more access to people and resources you will have.

The greatest lesson I learned from one of the leaders in my path was: If you can’t say it in an elevator, and you can’t say it on one slide, you’re talking too much. So, think about it as one slide: What is it you need? What are you going to achieve? What are the risks? What are you taking accountability for? How will you measure it? It doesn’t matter what the message is when you can be that succinct. You’ve got them laser-focused on what it is. You gave them just enough of the periphery to know how you got there, and then it’s their belief in you that you can do it if they give you the money and resources, because that’s what you’re looking for.

It sounds so simple but putting things together succinctly is hard work. You have to take all the unnecessary noise out, and keep the conversation focused. You don’t want their mind wandering, wondering where is she going, or what are they doing? Give it to them upfront and tell them what you need.

You’ve spoken about entering corporate environments early in your career feeling intimidated by people with more traditional credentials or educational backgrounds. What advice can you give rising leaders about battling imposter syndrome?

Take the time to figure out what makes you uncomfortable, what makes you feel like an imposter, or what in that meeting you dread going in where you’re not acting like yourself. Are you more quiet than usual? Are you not asking the question you’d normally ask? Figure out what those issues are, and then address the things that make you uncomfortable. I went to college later because that bothered me. Those credentials do matter. So I addressed it and got my degrees and certifications.

The other thing is to find people you trust, people whose opinion you respect, and bring them on the inside of what you’re working on. Maybe it’s dealing with a difficult business partner. You may not particularly want to be friends with them, but you’re going to have to work with them. Find the people that work effectively with them. You do this with high integrity — this is not about talking about that person — but find the allies that work with them. Nine times out of ten, they feel the way you do, but they found a way to work with the person. Pick their brain. Bring them in the fold and say, “I need this alliance. I can’t get there, and quite frankly, I know I’m resisting because maybe I just don’t like them. How did you get there?”

People are generous. Ask their opinion, ask how they’re showing up. “Am I creating the trigger? Is there something I’m doing in that meeting or in that room that I’m not coming out with a decision or whatever I needed?”

The greatest gift is feedback. There’s feedback you do something with, and there’s feedback you don’t, but either way, it’s a gift. Somebody’s giving it to you. It’s not personal; it’s business. And those things really help build your confidence and leadership style.

In an era increasingly shaped by automation and disruption, Jane Connell believes the most enduring competitive advantage may come from something deeply human: the ability to inspire confidence, curiosity, resilience, and possibility in others. For more advice from this Hall of Fame CIO, tune in to the Tech Whisperers podcast.

See also:

• Mastering the chess of IT leadership today
• Developing a customer-first culture for IT
• Coherence: Where leadership and AI success intersect

A few years ago, I was retained to conduct a digital risk review for the chief executive of a mid-sized financial services firm. The brief was standard. Assess what was publicly available about the executive, identify exposure and advise on remediation. The AI tools I used completed the substantive reconnaissance in under ten minutes.

What came back was a synthesized profile. Board memberships and the dates they started. A pattern of public commentary that revealed which policy positions the executive held strongly and which ones he would likely bend on under pressure. A philanthropic interest that explained which causes he would respond to if someone framed an ask around them. None of this information was sensitive in isolation. But assembled into a single, queryable narrative, it was something an attacker could use immediately.

What I was looking at was a publicly accessible query to a general-purpose AI tool. And that is the problem most executive protection programs have not yet confronted. The reconnaissance phase for a targeted social engineering attack now takes minutes, not days, and the inputs required are trivial.

AI-aggregated executive data has become an attack surface. Most security programs have not yet adapted to it.

The reconnaissance phase has effectively collapsed

Traditional OSINT work against an executive target required skill and patience. A competent analyst could build a useful profile over several days by working through search engines, corporate filings, social platforms and archived media. That work was a meaningful barrier. It took time and it required judgment about which sources to trust. It also left trails if the attacker was careless.

AI aggregation removes all three constraints.

The speed advantage is obvious but it is not the most important change. The more significant shift is synthesis. A search engine returns documents. An AI tool returns a coherent narrative with inferred relationships and interpreted significance. When I query a major AI platform for a senior executive by name, I get a structured account of their career arc, their professional relationships, their areas of visible influence and frequently their personal interests, relationships and public-facing affiliations.

The MGM Resorts incident reported in 2023 illustrated the principle at scale. Attackers reportedly identified an MGM executive on LinkedIn, used that public profile information to impersonate them in a call to the IT help desk and obtained access credentials within minutes. The OSINT required was minimal and the manipulation was straightforward. What AI tools have done since is make that kind of reconnaissance faster, more complete and available to actors who lack the manual tradecraft to run it themselves.

As the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report consistently documents, the human element is present in the majority of confirmed breaches, and social engineering remains one of the most reliable initial access vectors.

The accessible nature of AI tools is also expanding the threat population. Attacks that previously required a skilled analyst to design now require only a motivated actor with internet access. That changes the volume and targeting calculus. Executives who were previously too obscure to justify a sophisticated manual attack are now viable targets for anyone with a grievance and a query box.

What should CIOs and CISOs do about it?

The instinct in many organizations is to route anything involving an executive’s public profile to the comms or PR function. That instinct made sense when the risk was reputational. It no longer covers the exposure.

What follows is how I advise clients to structure this work.

Monitor regularly

The starting point is establishing visibility into what AI tools are actually returning about your executive population. Not a one-time audit conducted during a board meeting and forgotten. The profiles shift continuously as new content is indexed, old content is reweighted and the models are updated.

Assign ownership to run structured queries across the major platforms, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and the Microsoft Copilot stack, on a regular cadence. Document what you find and track changes. Treat the output the same way you would treat a vulnerability scan as something to be prioritized and acted upon.

Reduce the available attack surface

Work with each executive to identify content that expands their AI-indexed profile without serving any legitimate business purpose. This includes legacy conference bios that contain personal details, social posts that reveal schedule patterns or family context and board announcements that, in aggregate, map an executive’s full professional network. For some of this content, removal is possible and worth pursuing with a targeted effort.

The more important conversation is around future behavior. Executives who habitually overshare on LinkedIn or in conference panels need to understand, concretely, what that sharing enables.

Family member exposure is a consistent blind spot. An attacker who cannot pressure an executive directly may look for leverage through a spouse, a sibling or a child. Executives rarely consider their family members’ public digital footprint as part of their own security posture. It is.

Shape the narrative where reduction isn’t possible

Public company executives, board members with mandatory disclosure obligations and individuals whose public profiles are central to their organizations’ credibility cannot simply go dark.

The objective shifts from reduction to shaping in these cases. The goal is to ensure that what AI tools synthesize from the indexed content is professionally bound and does not inadvertently surface high-value pretext material. This is a joint exercise between security and communications, with security defining risk boundaries and communications executing the strategy.

Train executives on what their own profile looks like

The most effective single intervention I have seen in executive briefings is also the simplest. Open a browser and query an AI platform on the executive in the room. Let them see the output. The reaction is consistent. They are surprised by the synthesis, uncomfortable with specific details that surface and immediately more engaged with the rest of the conversation than they were before.

Abstract threat briefings about social engineering risks rarely land with senior leaders who feel they understand their own security position. Demonstrated evidence of their AI-mediated profile lands every time. As covered in the context of executive-targeted attacks, awareness is a prerequisite for the behavior change that makes protection programs effective.

Integrate this into the executive protection program

This work belongs alongside endpoint security, credential management and physical protection in a unified executive protection program. When it remains a communications function, it lacks the reporting structure, budget authority and operational discipline that security work requires.

Assign an owner with a security mandate. Include AI exposure in the risk register. Report on it at the same cadence as other executive protection metrics. The organizations that have done this well have not created a separate program for it. They have extended an existing one.

What effective executive protection programs now include

The organizations that have integrated AI exposure into their executive protection work share a few characteristics that distinguish them from those still treating it as a communications edge case.

• They treat the executive’s public information footprint as a managed attack surface with a named accountable party. Someone is responsible for it, the same way someone is responsible for endpoint patching or identity governance.
• They include AI-assisted reconnaissance as a starting condition in red team exercises. Before any social engineering simulation begins, the red team runs the same queries an attacker would run. The pretext they design is based on what those queries return.
• Their executive protection briefings include an AI profile review as a standing agenda point. Physical security considerations, credential exposure and public information risk are reviewed together because they are connected. An attacker who knows an executive’s schedule from their public-facing content can time a credential reset attempt or a vishing call with equal precision.

The executive I reviewed several years ago had no idea what his AI-indexed profile contained or what it enabled. Most of the executives I work with today are in the same position. By the time you finish reading this, it is likely those queries have already been run on someone in your organization. The question is whether your program is positioned to detect it and respond in time.

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

Enterprises are facing two simultaneous challenges with AI: The risks associated with it are evolving faster than governance frameworks, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure.

This is one of the key findings of The Value of AI, a study commissioned by SAP from Oxford Economics. Now in its second year, the study surveyed 2,600 executives from 13 countries worldwide.

High expectations, limited preparation

On average, the enterprises surveyed plan to spend around $28 million on AI (up from $26.7 million last year), and expect a 21% ROI (from 16% last year). Expectations for AI agents are particularly high, with ROI expected to reach 17% this year, up from 10% last year. Furthermore, 83% of respondents worldwide said agentic AI has the potential to fundamentally transform their organization. On the other hand, only 3% of respondents said their enterprises were fully prepared for the deployment of AI agents.

There are gaps, particularly when it comes to governance:

• Only 12% of respondents said their skills or processes were able to govern AI effectively,
• 38% do not have human-in-the-loop processes in place for oversight of AI agents, and
• only 63% have established permissions and access controls for agents.

Other concerns include weaknesses in the organization of AI deployment, poor data quality, insufficient employee training, and the widespread use of shadow AI.

Governance is the bigger challenge

In an interview, Sean Kask, Chief AI Strategy Officer at SAP, commented on the study’s key findings.

Mr. Kask, in the study’s foreword, you write that companies are currently facing two challenges simultaneously: The risks associated with AI are evolving faster than governance, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure. Which of these poses the greater problem for companies?

Sean Kask: Measuring the business value of IT investments has never been easy. The same applies to AI. That’s why I currently consider the governance issue to be the greater challenge. While traditional governance principles and best practices for secure software development remain important even in the age of large language models and agent-based AI, entirely new risks are emerging at the same time.

For example, as soon as companies roll out AI on a broad scale, they suddenly discover hundreds or even thousands of so-called shadow agents that employees are using without central oversight. Or they find that a significant portion of the workforce is copying content into private ChatGPT accounts. Such risks often only become apparent once AI is already being used productively.

According to your study, German companies invest an average of nearly $40 million in AI, more than companies in all other countries surveyed. Why is that?

Kask: I was less surprised by the amount of investment than by the fact that, overall, the level of investment and the return on investment achieved have developed very similarly across the various countries. There’s no clear answer as to why Germany invests more. In part, it’s likely simply because costs here are higher than in India, for example.

However, we’re also seeing a high level of AI adoption among German companies. SAP has a dashboard that allows us to track how our customers are using AI features. Germany is among the countries with particularly high usage. Added to this are the strong industrial base and the political impetus from Europe, which are driving the use of AI. Accordingly, companies there are making targeted investments in building the necessary expertise.

According to the study, 47% of German companies are satisfied with the return on investment from their AI investments. At the same time, 77% say they are still far from realizing AI’s full potential. Isn’t that a contradiction?

Kask: No, we see this pattern worldwide. Companies initially invest in a few AI use cases and realize: This works; we’re creating added value. Accordingly, they’re satisfied with their investment.

But this is precisely what leads them to identify further use cases. They explore AI agents and want to utilize them as well. However, it is exactly at this point that many encounter new challenges in implementation and scaling.

The study therefore primarily highlights a learning curve: The more experience companies gain with AI, the greater their awareness of its previously untapped potential becomes.

According to the study, only 33% of companies surveyed have KPIs at the executive board level that are directly linked to the implementation of AI. In your view, which metrics should supervisory boards and CEOs definitely be tracking?

Kask: For us, a key indicator is employee enablement. How many employees have already successfully completed training or upskilling programs related to AI? Without the appropriate skills, AI adoption will fall short of its potential.

Transparency is equally important. Companies should know which AI agents are actually in use within their landscape. SAP offers the SAP AI Agent Hub for this purpose, which automatically discovers and inventories agents from SAP and third-party environments. Customers have already been able to identify thousands of agents this way, which highlights the need for centralized governance and transparency.

In addition, companies should have a complete overview of all AI use cases. A robust business case should be in place for each use case. We often see two extremes: Either the executive board is under pressure to implement AI as quickly as possible and allocates a lump-sum budget for this purpose. Or management initially takes a wait-and-see approach. This leads to independent pilot projects springing up throughout the company, with individual departments procuring their own tools and entering into their own contracts.

At SAP, we therefore follow a clearly structured selection process. Each idea first undergoes an assessment of its expected business value. We then examine technical feasibility, data availability, and ethical and governance aspects. From management’s perspective, it is crucial to maintain transparency regarding all ongoing AI projects at all times and to consistently prioritize them based on their business value.

Agents, too, need a ‘hire-to-retire’ lifecycle

Even with the introduction of dozens or even hundreds of AI agents, governance becomes increasingly complex. What capabilities do enterprise platforms need to manage AI agents securely and in a controlled manner at scale?

Kask: We make a conscious effort not to anthropomorphize AI too much. Nevertheless, the analogy is helpful: Agents require a complete hire-to-retire lifecycle. This begins with the detection and registration of an agent. It is then integrated into the enterprise environment, granted the necessary permissions, and given access to the data sources it needs to perform its tasks.

Observability is just as important. Companies must be able to track what an agent is actually doing in the system at all times. In addition, they should track key performance indicators: Is the agent achieving the desired results? How efficiently is it working? How many tokens does it consume? How many processing steps does it require for a task?

Ultimately, this involves several key components: a complete inventory of all agents, appropriate governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) mechanisms, transparency regarding agent behavior, and continuous monitoring. This is the only way to ensure that AI agents consistently operate within defined parameters and deliver the desired business value.

In your estimation, which business processes will companies actually delegate entirely to AI agents over the next two to three years?

Kask: Currently, such agents work particularly well in clearly defined use cases. SAP will release more than 50 (currently 34) specialized AI agents.

One example is periodic financial reporting. In this context, journal entries must be made based on numerous rules stored in documents, emails, or previous transactions. The agent analyzes these various sources of information, derives a recommendation from them, and suggests the appropriate journal entry to the user.

Based on what we’ve heard from customer projects, employees at medium-sized companies currently spend about twelve hours per month on these tasks. With the help of an AI agent, this effort can be reduced to two to three hours.

Another area of application is production planning. If delivery dates change or new orders come in at short notice, the entire production plan must be adjusted. It is precisely these kinds of complex optimization tasks that are ideally suited for AI agents.

In principle, there are virtually no limits to the narrowly defined business processes in which agents can be deployed. However, they will not operate completely autonomously at first.

Trust in AI begins with a stable foundation

Many companies still struggle to trust AI agents. After all, large language models operate probabilistically and can produce false information. This is particularly problematic in financial processes. How do you build trust?

Kask: Trust begins with a stable foundation. ERP systems remain the reliable system of record. They operate deterministically, contain the business logic, and hold the relevant company data. AI agents build upon this foundation. They do not replace it.

Equally important is the human-in-the-loop principle. Employees must be able to understand what the agent is doing, verify its results, and intervene if necessary. That’s why employee training also plays a crucial role. They must understand how generative AI works and where its limitations lie.

Of course, language models can hallucinate. At the same time, we must not forget that humans are not infallible either. The key lies in the collaboration between humans and AI. This allows us to improve both the efficiency and the quality of many business processes.

Another important component is transparency. Our global AI ethics policy, for example, stipulates that users must always be able to recognize when AI is involved. In Joule, it’s possible to trace which data sources the agent used and which steps it went through in reaching its decision. This traceability is an essential prerequisite for trust.

What distinguishes an SAP agent from a general AI agent that merely accesses an ERP system?

Kask: The key difference is that Joule and the SAP agents are directly embedded in the ERP system. There, for example, we’ve built a knowledge graph that describes the semantic relationships between all tables, business objects, and data fields.

To put this into perspective: The SAP S/4HANA Knowledge Graph is based on approximately 452,000 ABAP tables, 7.3 million data fields, and thousands of analytical views. The semantic relationships between these artifacts are modeled in the Knowledge Graph and made available for AI applications.

For example, if a user wants to view all open purchase orders, the agent does not first have to laboriously search for the relevant information. It immediately knows which tables and objects are relevant and also understands the relationships between a purchase order, a purchase requisition, the responsible approvers, and other business objects. As a result, the agent not only works much more precisely but also requires significantly fewer tokens because it can greatly narrow down the search space.

If, instead, one attempts to simply overlay AI onto an existing system or extract data from a relational ERP system, many of these relationships are lost. In a sense, this destroys the semantic context that is crucial for precise answers.

That is why we view the ERP system as an enormous strategic advantage. It has been the system of record for decades and contains roughly 50 years of codified business and process knowledge. This knowledge forms the foundation for what we call the autonomous enterprise. The agents build upon this knowledge and continue to develop it.

In the future, SAP agents will also communicate bidirectionally with agents from other providers via standards such as Agent-to-Agent (A2A).

According to your study, AI currently creates the greatest added value in decision-making, customer interaction, and gaining new insights, rather than in traditional productivity gains. Will this change the way companies justify AI investments in the future?

Kask: In our study, productivity was simply rated slightly lower than, for example, gaining new insights. In the long term, however, productivity remains the ultimate goal. Europe, in particular, has been suffering from comparatively weak productivity growth for years.

At SAP, we therefore first evaluate every new AI feature based on its specific business value. For all agents and AI features that we include in our AI Feature Catalog, we first conduct a value analysis. We ask: What benefit does the feature offer the user? Does it contribute to higher revenue? Does it increase productivity? Only then is it developed further.

At the moment, the greatest added value often still lies in consolidating information from structured and unstructured data sources and making it accessible via natural language. The next step, however, is to translate these insights directly into more efficient business processes. That is precisely where the greatest productivity gains will be realized in the future.

If you could give CIOs just one or two pieces of advice for the transition from generative AI to AI agents, what would they be?

Kask: In my view, the biggest mistake would be to try to transform the entire company all at once or to attempt to perfectly prepare all the data right from the start.

Instead, you should consider what kind of agent can create significant added value, and then implement it. Of course, this agent needs access to consistent and context-rich enterprise data. That’s exactly what we’re working on at SAP with technologies like the knowledge graph, which maps the semantic relationships within enterprise data.

In addition, with data products and the SAP Business Data Cloud, we provide tools that make data from various sources usable for AI agents. Thanks to zero-copy and data fabric approaches, information from legacy systems, Snowflake, or ERP systems can be consolidated without first having to extensively replicate the data. For a procurement agent, this makes it possible to provide exactly the relevant data for the specific use case.

The key point is this: Companies do not have to wait until they have fully migrated to the cloud or consolidated their entire data landscape. With the technologies available today, data can already be made usable for specific AI agents, managed in a controlled manner, and used to quickly generate initial business value. On the other hand, those who wait for the perfect starting point run the risk of falling behind.

This article is adapted from one first published by Computerwoche.

When Apple sued OpenAI last week, the argument it made was that former employees had stolen Apple data and then used it to benefit OpenAI. 

The technical details — an employee used “a rare, previously unknown authentication bug to access Apple’s shared network folders” — are interesting. But the larger story is Apple’s ridiculous attempt to stop its people from using anything they learned at Apple in other jobs.

“Hiring managers don’t mind some files being brought into the org during onboarding, but suddenly take umbrage when that same employee exits with some files later on,” said Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security. “Legal should be equally concerned about both events.”

The lawsuit focused on Chang Liu, an employee who had been recruited to work at OpenAI after working at Apple for eight years as a Senior System Electrical Engineer. The full text of the filing depicts a comedy of errors by Apple, offering the perfect “do not do” list of handling employee resignations — especially when they’re going to a direct competitor. 

“When Apple contacted Mr. Liu to sign Apple’s confidentiality reminder, schedule an exit interview, and confirm that he had returned his devices and complied with other exit procedures, Mr. Liu did not respond.” And “after leaving Apple, Mr. Liu failed to return an Apple-issued work laptop that he had previously authenticated to Apple’s network.”

First, typical procedure for handling departures is to tie the return of all equipment and the signing of documents to any final payments. With Apple, that is likely to be a large amount of money. The lawsuit does not say whether Apple exerted any financial pressure on their employee for compliance. 

But in terms of equipment with high-level access, why weren’t all privileges revoked, both for the employee and any and all company-issued devices? Did they not maintain a remote-wipe capability for these devices? Although remote-wipe is usually used when devices are missing or stolen, it should work as well when a departing employee refuses to return company equipment. 

According to Apple, Liu apparently had help at Apple from Tang Yew Tan, who was supposedly also interviewing with OpenAI. “While employed by OpenAI, [Liu] accessed and used his former colleague’s Apple-issued work computer that was authenticated to Apple’s network, without Apple’s authorization.”

Apple tried to make much of this Liu’s fault. Legally, yes, there might be liability there; still, Apple made itself look as if it couldn’t protect its own data. “Upon discovering that he had this unauthorized access to Apple’s systems, [the former employee] did not report it, return his stolen Apple-issued work laptop or delete the program that allowed the access.” 

Really, Apple? Your data-protection plan relies on ex-employees to “delete the program that allowed the access”? I’m not so sure you didn’t bring some of this data-leakage on yourselves. 

This gets worse: “Over several weeks, while developing hardware for OpenAI, Mr. Liu surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files, including voluminous, detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data.”

Setting aside the issue of privileges, access, and unreturned equipment that apparently had its own privileges, that statement points to massive data exfiltration from Apple systems. Even if it is coming from a current employee, why didn’t that raise any red flags? 

Let’s get back to the broader implications. When professionals move from one company to another, they — of course — are bringing their experience and knowledge with them. Can Apple reasonably tell them that they can’t do so? Isn’t that experience and knowledge exactly why another company would want to hire them?

Now, to be sure, stealing diagrams and product spec sheets is a clear violation. Let’s say Apple spent a lot of money on some hardware research projects. A member of that technical team would learn an awful lot, all on Apple’s dime. 

But is it fair and reasonable for Apple to say that the former employee can’t leverage that knowledge at his or her next job? 

This brings us back to the point Wilkes made: If Apple is going to try to prevent any former employee from leveraging on-the-job experience, then it should instruct all new employees not to use anything they learned in a previous job. 

That would be ridiculous. Companies pay for experienced talent because of that experience. Why pay for expertise if you insist employees not leverage any of it?

Then there’s the amorphous nature of knowledge. So, it’s wrong to take detailed diagrams and spec details and hand them over to a new employer. But what if that worker heading out the door memorizes the documents (photographic memory) a day before resigning? Is a person prohibited from using something from memory?

There’s also the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree legal argument. Even if a former employee doesn’t directly use stolen data, what if their knowledge leads to other money-saving insights for the new employer? 

Given that Apple hires as many specialists as it loses to rivals, wouldn’t it make sense to leverage everything your workforce knows and then let new employers do the same? But before you do that, Apple, tighten your exiting employee tech controls. 

Then maybe you wont’t have to file lawsuits like this down the road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question of authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All risk, no reward

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

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

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

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

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

Speed over security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few weeks ago, a new hire at Aviator, fresh out of college, asked me a question I didn’t have a clean answer to. How do I become a senior engineer, or even a staff engineer? What should I learn, and how?

It’s a fair question and a harder one to answer than it was just a year ago.

The path used to be well-known. As a newly hired junior software engineer, you were given an experienced mentor who would assign you simple tasks to learn the ropes. You’d write some code, ask plenty of questions, open a pull request, get feedback in code review, think about it and fix your code. Rinse and repeat that a few hundred times. The tasks became more complex; the feedback got shorter and along the way you’ve been building judgment, the thing that separates a senior engineer from a junior one.

Now AI writes most of the code. The loop looks different and the easy assumption is that it’s broken: fewer tasks for juniors to cut their teeth on, an agent fixing the code that another agent wrote, thinner path to judgment.

Mentoring got easier, not harder

I knew just the person to ask: how do we grow senior and staff engineers in the AI era? Adam Berry is a staff engineer at Netflix, a member of The Hangar, our community of engineering leaders, and someone I have been discussing the evolving role of code review and knowledge sharing for a while now. He spends his time on getting AI adoption right, rather than just fast, in their engineering organization and has been working out the question of growing new engineers in practice. Mentoring juniors in an agentic world, Adam says, isn’t harder; it’s embarrassingly easy.

“You grow juniors and help them become better engineers the same way you always did. AI isn’t changing the methodology. It’s changing the details,” he told me. His point is that the agentic world gives a lot more options for giving juniors bounded tasks to work on and more feedback. The scattered remarks and comments seniors used to give in person now can be put into instructions and guardrails.

Adam breaks working with agents into three foundational skills:

• If you don’t know how to do something with the agent, ask the agent.
• If the agent does something you don’t like, figure out how to correct it and then codify it so it doesn’t happen again.
• Your sense of when the agent has gone off the rails.
  
  

“Most juniors can pick up the first two on their own. On the third one, they need guidance, he says.

His process for building it is staged. “The stages are about growing scope. First, you give a junior engineer a well-specified task—and these are now bigger than what you’d have given a junior before. You can give them task definitions that are like a prompt and instructions to drive that prompt, make sure they got to a good plan, make sure they understood the plan, and that they thought through the test cases, etc.

Then gradually you peel off some of that specificity so they have to build the muscle themselves. Once they’ve gotten good at that level of scope, they’re ready to work on larger scoped problems.”

Starting from more specific problems and going towards ambiguous problems is the definition of growing as an engineer.

Pair programming with the agent in the room

Seniors can still do pairing sessions with juniors, now with the agent in the room.

“In the pairing session, the earlier-career engineer should be the one driving. The agent can be set up to interrogate the junior rather than just answer them. None of you is manually writing code, but you’re still doing pair programming and mentoring. Even if it’s just a trivial bug fix, if you guide a junior through it, it forces them to do just that little bit of thinking.”

Adam says mentoring juniors today does not have to mean forcing them to write code manually. Seniors should teach them the process of agentic engineering, and that’s exactly what they should focus on during the pairing sessions. The habit he wants to be installed early is asking for options instead of answers.

“I aim to teach juniors to ask for options and think through them, even on small tasks. I ask them to explain what their input to the AI tool was that led to the code they got. But I’d also show them how I would have done the same thing.”

The pairing produces artifacts as it goes. “That’s where you get into conversations of, ‘This is why that wasn’t quite it for me,’ and if I see that that’s not baked into the repo, I’m going to add this into the ADR, into the design, into the instruction set. I’ll codify that so the junior gets it too, and they know why it exists, because they watched me go through it with the tool myself.”

That reshapes the code review instead of removing it. Making that work puts more on senior engineers, not less. “Senior engineers need to ensure that things like ADRs, or whatever system you use, are properly encapsulated in the repo for both the agents and the humans to consume.” His team also attaches the prompts to the pull request and has the agent summarize what it did against what the prompt asked.

Adam also teaches junior engineers how to bring in expert sources from outside into AI tools. He’ll point an agent at a book like Michael Feathers’ Working with Legacy Code as an example of what quality code looks like and have it work from the concepts directly.

Don’t outsource the thinking

His arguments make sense, but I also recently came across research examining the influence of AI tools on how and why members of software engineering teams interact. Their finding was not surprising: of the 131 surveyed developers, 51% said they now ask GenAI for technical help they once would have asked a person, and 62% said it was easier to ask GenAI without fear of embarrassment.

When a junior gets stuck now, their first move usually isn’t to message a senior on Slack. It’s to ask the agent. This is also the case in code reviews. The purpose of code reviews was always knowledge sharing as much as it was a quality gate. What I see junior engineers do now is take the feedback and, without reading it closely, hand it straight to the agent to resolve. The part where they would have to understand how their work differed from what the senior expected disappears. It got passed from the reviewer to the agent, and the junior skipped the understanding.

This isn’t really the junior’s fault. They need the motivation and the space to do it differently, and the default pattern under delivery pressure is to push the thing out and worry about it later.

The same research showed that developers turned to colleagues with questions about context (65% to clarify business logic or requirements, 50% for how something had been done before).

Respondents were also aware of the trap that Berry’s approach was created to avoid: AI tends to hand back a single answer, compared to multiple perspectives a colleague surfaces and they kept seeking teammates for context-specific expertise, mentorship and plain social connection.

The fix is almost mechanical: if you have to make a choice, you have to think about it. I do this in my own product thinking. Most of it happens by bouncing ideas off Claude, but whenever something is complex, I make myself lay out a few options, trade them against each other and decide which direction to take. That’s the same move Berry wants juniors making, and it’s what builds judgment, whether you’re twenty-two or forty.

Why we should still hire juniors

There’s also a hiring question underneath all of this. We recently hosted Kent Beck, an industry legend, at the Hangar in a session we called “Juniors FTW,” and his reasoning was that the industry is being remade fast enough that being new is an advantage. Juniors are too new to have absorbed what everyone “knows” is impossible, which leaves them less biased, more creative and carrying fewer preconceived mental barriers.

Beck also wrote about how important it is to hire juniors without the calculation of how many tasks they can perform.

“If all we cared about was today’s productivity, we wouldn’t have hired you at all. Instead, we (the seniors) are focused on the future: we know there’s going to be far more work here than we could possibly accomplish. We are paying your salary now as the option premium on the engineer you will become. If we play this game right, we’ll have a kick-ass next generation of engineers. If not, we’ll have to be doing the same engineering jobs ten years from now, and we really don’t want to be doing that.”

The pipeline is thinning

The trend is running the other way. Entry-level hiring at the 15 biggest tech firms fell 25 percent from 2023 to 2024, according to a report from SignalFire. In a recent survey of engineering leaders, a majority said they plan to hire fewer juniors, on the logic that AI lets seniors cover more ground.

That logic is short-sighted in a specific way. Senior engineers don’t appear from nowhere. They’re the juniors someone hired five or ten years ago and invested in mentoring them. Stop hiring and growing juniors now, and the gap doesn’t show up this year. It shows up later, when the industry needs people with the judgment that only comes from years of making mistakes and recovering from them and finds it stopped producing them.

So, here’s the answer to the question that the new hire asked: the path to senior and to staff is the same path it always was. You grow the range of ambiguity you can handle, and you stay honest about the part you can’t handle yet. What changed is the interface. The agent writes the code. Your job is to keep asking questions to your colleagues and the agents and keep doing the thinking until the thinking is good.

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

Enterprises have worked for years to improve detection and response times in the face of increasingly sophisticated attacks that relied on manual hacking and living-of-the-land techniques. AI is now threatening to undo those efforts.

An increasing number of threat actors are automating all phases of attacks, including lateral movement by using LLM-powered agents, severely reducing the time from initial access to deep environment compromises.

“The real shift is speed, scale, and orchestration: familiar cloud attack techniques were executed faster and across more surfaces than defenders could comfortably contain,” wrote researchers from security firm Sygnia last week in a report about an AI-assisted cloud environment compromise they investigated.

Sygnia’s report came on the heels of research from Sysdig about a cyber intrusion and extortion campaign conducted end to end by an autonomous AI agent. Actions undertaken by the agent included harvesting credentials, mapping internal services, and establishing persistence.

What both incidents show is that AI attacks have graduated beyond LLM-written malware scripts and phishing lures to handling all stages of attack chains, including parts that previously required human reasoning and hands-on command execution adapted to the environment.

Last month researchers from the University of Toronto revealed that they managed to create an AI-powered self-replicating worm capable of autonomously finding and exploiting weaknesses in dozens of simulated systems. The researchers achieved this by leveraging an open-weight AI model and building an attack harness to keep it on track.

While it may not be surprising to security experts that this level of AI-assisted attack automation is already happening in the wild, it’s very unlikely that many companies have had time to adapt their defenses.

“What this exposes is a truth that all security personnel must come to terms with: Most breaches won’t hinge on advanced AI, but on unpatched systems, exposed services, and weak identity controls,” Gidi Cohen, CEO and co-founder of AI security startup Bonfy.ai, tells CSO. “AI just makes those gaps impossible to ignore. The organizations that will struggle aren’t the ones lacking AI defenses; they’re the ones still relying on human-speed security in a machine-speed threat environment.”

No need for zero-days

As aptly demonstrated by the U of Toronto study, AI agents don’t need sophisticated zero-day vulnerabilities to break into environments, because many environments have systems and applications with known flaws and generic weaknesses.

The attack documented by Sysdig, which its researchers dubbed JadePuffer, exploited a year-old vulnerability (CVE-2025-3248) in Langflow, ironically a tool for building AI agents. In the new attack documented by Sygnia, attackers exploited a weakness in a web application that enabled them to find a stored AWS key. From there they quickly made their way through the victim’s cloud environment with the help of AI automation.

“The threat actor was not exploiting a single misconfiguration; they were chaining weaknesses across application services, AWS resources, source-control repositories, CI/CD workflows, runtime components, and data stores, while rapidly executing credential discovery, secrets harvesting, cloud enumeration, deployment-pipeline abuse, runtime modification, database access, and operational disruption,” the researchers said.

As with the JadePuffer case, the attackers documented by Sygnia were focused on extorting money from the victim. To achieve this, they compromised as many AWS instances as possible, exfiltrated data but also set up multiple persistence points in the AWS environment. The goal was to put pressure on the victim by demonstrating that despite recovery efforts they still had access to the environment.

Speed is the new game

Once sophisticated attackers break into an environment they often spend weeks or even months slowly moving to other systems. This is in part because it takes time for a human team to gain a thorough understanding of the environment and to find where the most valuable systems are.

This activity is also often trial-and-error: The attackers perform reconnaissance to discover the network’s topology, find exploitable weaknesses in additional systems, and search them for stored credentials that could provide access to more targets, all while using existing OS tools or common system administration techniques that won’t trip malware and intrusion detection systems.

Active threat hunting is one way to counter such techniques that are designed to evade automated detection. When threat hunting, human analysts inspect the organization’s network and systems manually for signs of compromises that might have been missed by tools. This is a slow but effective defensive technique — but only if attackers operate with the same time constraints.

“Traditional incident response often relies on the assumption that attacker progression will generate enough observable signals for defenders to investigate and contain activity before access materially expands across the environment,” Sygnia’s researchers wrote in their report. “The observed attack pattern challenged this assumption. Forensic traces showed rapid, repeated activity consistent with automated or AI-assisted workflows for credential harvesting, permission analysis, vulnerability discovery, and attack-path mapping, allowing the intrusion to progress across multiple stages in a compressed time frame.”

And it wasn’t a case of simple automated scripts going through an attack playbook either, but workstreams that showed clear signs of environment adaptation. Every new access was rapidly assessed and resulted in actions tailored for that specific system, whether an EC2 instance, S3 bucket, SQL database, or a CI/CD runner on GitHub.

Prevention is back in the spotlight

The obvious answer to AI-assisted attacks is AI-assisted defense. But simply the presence of AI-powered features in detection and response products is not a guarantee for thwarting such fast and adaptive attacks. Organizations must ensure all these tools and workflows are well integrated into a coordinated process across their different teams.

Moreover, these attacks show the value of defense-in-depth actions such as continuous validation of configurations, fast patch deployment, frequent secrets rotation, network segmentation, IP-based access control rules, implementing the principle of least privilege for credentials, restricting administrative privileges, enabling multi-factor authentication, and isolating cloud workloads.

Sygnia also recommends building automated response playbooks that can be quickly adjusted and deployed when potential signs of compromise are detected.

“The skill floor for running a ransomware operation dropped to the cost of running an agent,” Dray Agha, senior manager of tactical response at security firm Huntress, tells CSO. “Very mediocre cyber criminals can now ‘level up’ their impact from AI. That should worry defenders more than any single new technique, as it means more attackers, more often, against more of the long tail of unpatched, exposed infrastructure.”

Except for the second user/refurbished smartphone markets, AI means the days of cheap phones are over, with huge price pressures putting low-end vendors out of business. 

Omdia data confirms that Apple and Samsung are undisputed kings of the hill, combining for 42% of the market even as smartphone sales overall have seen a 4% average decline. 

The two companies increased market share by 4% (Apple) and 2% (Samsung) compared with 2Q25. Meanwhile, the situation is becoming much worse for smaller vendors as memory prices spiral, leaving their businesses under immense strain. Data from Counterpoint Research tells a similar story, indicating Apple growth against a background of market decline. 

It’s important to put the impact of raised RAM costs into perspective. While Apple and Samsung make products at the kind of scale that enables them to cut better deals, smaller makers don’t have the same advantage, leaving them far more exposed to memory price driven pressures.  

Memory prices are crushing the low end

And they really are exposed; not only are sales declining, but Omdia analyst Runar Bjorhovde notes that vendors at that end of the market are dealing with hugely destructive DRAM price hikes over just the past year — up to four or five times higher in some cases. That degree of increase is the kind of business-focused tsunami that drives people out of the market altogether and certainly leaves companies exposed to M&A activity.

Right now, memory and storage can account for more than 60% of the product cost, Bjorhovde said. And as costs continue to increase, what profitability that does exist in the low-cost, high competition lower end smartphone space is being utterly mauled. Omdia forecasts a 22% decline in the sub-$400 smartphone segment as a result.

“Samsung Electronics and Apple — the two market leaders — made huge market share gains…, whereas most players beyond went through steep volume declines,” Bjorhovde said.

From volume to value

Apple’s decision to expand its addressable market with the iPhone ‘e’ series just adds pressure, while Samsung’s enduring popularity helps make it difficult for smaller vendors to generate profit through market scale. “To adapt, vendors are shifting their strategies from volume to value by reoptimizing portfolios and adjusting retail pricing,” he said. 

“Although memory and storage costs are the biggest challenges for vendors, they are far from the only challenge,” Bjorhovde said. “New semiconductor bottlenecks, such as within foundries, are adding further cost pressures.”

With the cost of manufacturing set to continue to rise, it’s generally accepted that we’ll see the average selling price of smartphones climb in the coming 12 months, with Apple set to lead the market toward higher cost builds with the new Pro and Ultra iPhones this September.

Apple’s decision to hold smartphone prices so far has added another price pressure to low-end vendors; the longer it holds its prices down, the longer and more painful will smaller vendors hang onto their own low-price structure to compete.

Future shock: AI hardware

A further wild card is in Apple’s recent lawsuit against OpenAI, which accuses the ChatGPT maker of “illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets” in its hardware plans. OpenAI is thought to be planning an AI-driven iPhone competitor.

We’ve heard speculation about these plans before, of course. But what seems to be emerging in the wake of Apple’s litigation are hints OpenAI intends to introduce its first AI hardware product at some point in 2027.

Assuming that schedule remains on track, OpenAI will likely impose further component pricing pressure across the whole industry. After all, Apple’s customer loyalty leads the industry, and Samsung has built something similar. So, the companies with the most to lose to OpenAI will be the same set of smaller vendors who are already struggling with component price-driven market complexity.

OpenAI products will demand the same memory, similar processors, manufacturing, and other components as other devices, prompting further pricing pressure. That’s likely to put some small vendors out of business entirely, even as standard smartphone prices increase. 

Fragmentation will be next

Those outcomes won’t be universal, as the desire for sovereign data services and growing mistrust of US tech companies suggest OpenAI’s products might see limited adoption in most markets. But they could serve to accelerate divergence in smartphone purchasing patterns worldwide, while adding to market pressure.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and subscribe to The Core.

Almost every company has a board or executive AI mandate. Vendors are rolling out agentic AI platforms. The pressure to move is intense.

But the reality on the ground looks different. Eighty-three percent of organizations say data quality is their top AI challenge, and 74% struggle to demonstrate ROI, according to Lopez Research. And only 21% report having a mature governance model for AI agents, per Deloitte’s 2026 State of Enterprise AI report.

“Agentic AI is real, and vendors’ offerings are very real, too,” says Boris Evelson, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester. “However, most enterprises are still not ready to adopt at scale.”

Dave Hilborn, who leads West Monroe’s Organization, People & Change practice, frames it as a race with three arrows moving forward — one representing AI and tech evolution, one representing organizations and people, and one representing data. “The AI arrow is far out ahead,” he says. “That delta is the readiness gap.”

The gap isn’t the technology. It’s the foundational work most organizations haven’t done: data readiness, operating models, governance, skills, and culture. The companies making progress aren’t waiting for vendors to solve these problems. They’re tackling the unglamorous work themselves.

AI doesn’t tolerate ambiguity

AI readiness can be framed across six levels — from data foundation at the base to reinvented business experiences at the top, says Afshean Talasaz, former CIO at Colonial Pipeline and now an executive advisor. One of the key areas that doesn’t always get the attention it needs is the operating model.

“The technology playbooks of the past don’t work in the AI world,” Talasaz says. “Those areas were able to tolerate more ambiguity between business and tech teams. AI doesn’t tolerate the same level of ambiguity. It needs clarity.”

That demands a different kind of partnership between IT and the business. AI systems learn from data — records and measurements of what’s actually happening in the business — and then operate within business processes. Unlike traditional software, which is built based on user requirements, AI is sandwiched between the business that produces the data and the business that consumes the outputs.

“AI is requiring IT and business teams to work more closely together, to be clearer about what AI will and will not do — that really close partnership is crucial,” Talasaz says. “It’s not something that will always naturally evolve. It requires a lot of intentionality about how teams need to work together to deliver outcomes.”

The AI questions CIOs must answer aren’t just technical. Do we have the right operating model? Have we balanced governance and standard operating procedures within the model? Have we organized teams appropriately? All this must be designed within the context of what the business actually needs.

Too many organizations are bolting AI onto existing processes without redefining roles or workflows, Forrester’s Evelson. “Organizations can either incrementally enhance existing workflows by augmenting capabilities with AI or pursue a more transformative approach by redesigning the process end-to-end.”

The companies getting value are doing the latter.

Data debt comes due

Data readiness remains the most common barrier to scaling AI. “We’ve never fixed this data quality problem in most organizations,” says Maribel Lopez, founder and principal analyst at Lopez Research, “and it comes back to haunt a company in spades as they move to AI.”

At Levi Strauss, the foundational work came first. “If you think about the Levi’s business, it’s quite complex — 100 countries, over 3,000 stores, multiple business models,” says Jason Gowans, the company’s chief digital and technology officer. “You can imagine the complexity of gathering all that data to understand how the business is performing. The idea of this single source of truth — that’s been the biggest thing.”

Levi’s now has more than 1,100 standard operating procedures that govern how work gets done on top of SAP. “That’s fertile material to feed to LLMs on how work gets done,” Gowans says.The results are tangible: partner onboarding that once took three to six months to set up EDI exchanges now takes days.

At contract manufacturing company Jabil, Chase Christensen, segment CIO, took a similar path. “We had to get everyone to understand where the source data resides, put tech in place so consumption is easier, and drive ownership around data and decision rights — so 140,000 employees don’t feel empowered to create their own data sources that fall out of line.”

The data challenge goes beyond quality, Evelson notes. Most organizations’ data isn’t AI-ready; it hasn’t been prepared for how AI systems consume and learn from information. “Data is siloed, poorly governed, and hard to discover, integrate, and trust,” he says.

Forrester research shows that 45% of data and analytics decision-makers were adopting vector databases in 2025, and 53% were adopting graph databases — investments that signal recognition of how much data architecture needs to evolve. The firm recommends a balanced approach: roughly 48% of AI spending on foundations such as data management and engineering, and 52% on consumption, including analytics, governance, and applications.

But even as organizations work to prepare existing data, AI is creating new challenges. Users leveraging AI tools are generating new forms of data and information that never make it into corporate databases, West Monroe’s Hilborn notes.

“There are explosions of new data, content, and insights being created on the periphery of these data lakes,” he says. “The challenge is how do you capture that and leverage it.”

Who’s sponsoring this?

Even when data is in order, many AI initiatives stall due to how they’re sponsored and funded.

“Enterprise data, analytics, and AI programs succeed when business CxOs sponsor them because they are accountable for business outcomes, not just technology delivery,” Forrester’s Evelson says. “IT-led initiatives often become siloed or tool-centric, whereas business sponsorship ensures alignment to enterprise strategy, prioritization of end-to-end use cases, and a focus on decisions and actions rather than insights alone.”

Too often, AI is still treated as a series of disconnected use cases rather than a sustained, multi-year investment. Evelson calls this the “use case trap” — organizations overindex on individual projects and miss the enterprise-wide compounding impact. That leads to fragmented priorities, inconsistent adoption, and difficulty demonstrating ROI.

Leadership readiness is a distinct layer of AI preparedness, Talasaz says. “Are leaders prepared to provide a vision of reinvented business experiences that become the north star?” he asks. “Leadership teams, at various levels of the organization, need to articulate what a reinvented business looks like so teams have the direction and support to build differentiating capabilities.”

Levi’s offers a counterexample. AI is a CEO priority there. At the last quarterly offsite, the execs were building agents. “When you’re committed to upskilling the workforce, you’re better served to answer how to rewire processes with AI at the core,” Gowans says. “It starts at the top. It has to be an exec priority.”

Fear, literacy, and two types of AI

Technical talent is only part of the equation. Organizations also need to address change management.

“We saw it with the AI boom — fear about jobs, not knowing what AI did,” says Jabil’s Christensen. “The key is demystifying AI. We doubled down and focused on AI literacy. We want everyone to understand how it was put together, and that removed a lot of that fear. That’s been the biggest hurdle.”

Different types of AI require different skills and governance, Talasaz says. “General use focuses on productivity on the desktop,” he says. “Integrated AI — industrial-capable AI embedded within core business processes — requires different skills, capabilities, and governance.”

For desktop AI, training and guardrails help employees be successful — what Talasaz calls “bumpers,” like in bowling. Organizations need to help employees through reskilling and guidance. “You have tools in a toolbox,” he says. “It’s important to know when to use a power tool versus when you need a screwdriver.”

But for integrated AI embedded in core processes, the stakes are higher. “Business leaders responsible for business outcomes based on AI-driven processes need to be fully aware of both the benefits and risks that come along with using these tools,” Talasaz says.

That distinction matters for governance, too. Lower-, medium-, and high-risk AI use cases may require different ways of working and different risk management approaches. “Deploying AI in potentially high-risk or high-cost areas of the business requires a higher level of rigor,” Talasaz says. “That’s different than building something that helps write my emails.”

From POC to production

Perhaps the biggest readiness gap is the transition from proof of concept to production. “It requires such a different approach,” Talasaz says. “A successful proof of concept can create a lot of excitement, but when teams are unprepared to build and scale, it can create the potential to over-promise and under-deliver.”

The operating model that works for experimentation doesn’t work for production at scale. Proofs of concept are designed to demonstrate the efficacy of ideas and the underlying technology. But building, scaling, and sustaining technology in the business requires operating models, standards, roles, and skills that many organizations haven’t developed. Intentionally designed operating models reduce the cost of learning, improve execution, and increase delivery velocity, says Talasaz.

But there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. “A business that needs to build capabilities in a marketplace moving very fast requires one kind of operating model,” Talasaz says. “A business that can take longer to develop business capabilities and adapt to market changes can choose a different operating model. It’s important to design ways of working tailored to what the business needs and the speed at which the business needs to leverage technology to be successful.”

Jabil is navigating this journey as part of its move to SAP’s cloud ERP through RISE, scaling from $29 billion to $34 billion in revenue while keeping selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses relatively flat — in part by layering generative AI onto predictive analytics capabilities built over years.

“We started years ago with computer vision to drive product quality,” Christensen says. “As gen AI blew up, we took the predictive analytics we had built over the years and imbued them with gen AI. We’ve implemented the basics, and now we’re looking for complex scenarios.”

Governance built in, not bolted on

Governance is often treated as a policy document or committee. It should be embedded in the operating model itself, Talasaz argues.

“The operating model doesn’t always get the attention it needs,” he says. “Policies and committees are useful, but they should handle larger enterprise risks. Most of the governance should be embedded in the operating model to ensure you’re getting outcomes you want.”

That might mean peer review built into the development process, bias checks before deployment, or clear escalation paths for high-risk use cases. When governance is separate from the operating model, it tends to slow things down. When it’s integrated, it becomes how work naturally gets done, says Talasaz.

Governance at the agent level matters, too, Levi’s Gowans says. “Know what agents have been deployed, who authored them, and who’s responsible,” he says, noting that the company has established a registry to understand what agents it has operating within its networks.

The challenges of AI governance are unique, Lopez of Lopez Research says. “Very few people have the governance stack required to say they did the right things with AI,” she says. “Non-human identity and access control is totally different and, frankly, evolving so quickly that no one knows what to do.”

The challenge is ultimately a trade-off, Forrester’s Evelson says. “Push agentic AI capabilities too far, and you risk creating a governance and compliance nightmare,” he says. “Tighten controls too aggressively, and you stifle innovation. Best practices for striking the right balance are still being discovered.”

It takes a team

The AI readiness gap isn’t about technology — it’s about the work organizations have been deferring for years. Data quality. Operating models. Executive sponsorship. Skills and culture. Governance embedded in process.

“Once you progress from everyone using Copilot to putting agents in production, then you realize the need for business context,” Gowans of Levi Strauss says.

It’s a shared journey requiring all teams to understand what’s required, Talasaz says. “It involves helping people understand what it takes from all sides — the technology itself, the operating model, the skills and talents needed — but also working with business leaders on the art of the possible,” he says. “Helping them understand both the benefits and the responsibility of deploying this tech.”

A colleague of his calls AI “the ultimate executive team sport.”

“It requires people to do it well and manage it,” Talasaz says.

Picture the moment after an AI issue is reported.

A security analyst is reviewing a ticket reporting that an internal AI tool produced the wrong recommendation in a live business workflow. The risk is not theoretical anymore. Someone wants to know whether this is a security incident, a model issue, a privacy issue, a vendor issue or just “something the AI did.” The risk register has a line item for inaccurate output, and it may even have a severity rating.

What it does not have is an answer to the question everyone is now asking: who has the authority to stop this thing?

That is the gap many AI governance programs still need to close. Organizations are getting better at identifying AI risks, documenting them and assigning them to governance categories. What they are often less prepared for is the operational moment when an AI risk becomes a real event that has to be investigated, contained and explained.

In security programs, that distinction matters. A risk register can document concerns, but it cannot preserve evidence, notify leadership, assess impact or decide whether an AI system should keep running. Security leaders do not need another spreadsheet that says AI can fail; they need an executable response model for what happens when it does.

The list is not the response

Risk registers are useful because they create visibility. They help organizations name risks, compare severity, assign ownership and communicate concerns to leadership. In early AI adoption, visibility matters because many organizations are still discovering where AI is being used, what data is involved and which business processes may be affected.

But a risk register is not a control. Security teams already understand this in other domains. A list of vulnerabilities is not a vulnerability management program, and a list of third-party risks is not a vendor risk management function. The list is only the beginning of the work.

AI risk creates the same problem. A risk entry that says “model output may be inaccurate” does not define who monitors output quality, what level of error is acceptable, what evidence should be preserved or who can pause the system. A risk entry that says “sensitive data may be exposed” does not explain whether prompts are logged, whether outputs are reviewed, whether the vendor can use submitted data or whether the event should trigger privacy, legal or security escalation.

This is where AI governance can look stronger than it actually is. The organization may have a policy, a committee, an intake form and a risk register, but those artifacts do not automatically create operational readiness. When something happens, the real test is whether the organization knows what to do next.

AI incidents do not always look like breaches

Part of the challenge is that AI incidents do not always look like traditional cybersecurity incidents. A breach has familiar patterns: unauthorized access, data exfiltration, malware, credential compromise or suspicious activity in a system. AI failures can be messier because they may appear first as a bad recommendation, a misleading summary, an unsafe automation, a flawed classification or an output that quietly changes a decision.

That does not make them less important. An AI tool used in a security workflow could misclassify an alert. A generative AI assistant could expose sensitive information in a response. A model embedded in a business process could drift over time and produce unreliable recommendations. A vendor-managed AI feature could change behavior after an update that the organization did not fully review.

Security teams need a practical way to sort these events. Not every AI error should be treated as a full security incident. Still, every organization using AI in meaningful workflows should know how AI-related events are reported, triaged and escalated. Without that structure, teams may lose time debating ownership while the impact continues.

The first step is defining what counts as an AI incident. That definition should be broad enough to capture security, privacy, safety, operational and compliance concerns, but specific enough that employees know when to report something. A confusing chatbot answer may not require the same response as a data exposure event, but both should have a path for review.

Evidence has to exist before the investigation

Incident response depends on evidence. That is obvious in cybersecurity, but it is often overlooked in AI governance conversations. If an organization cannot reconstruct what happened, who used the system, what data was involved and what output was produced, it will struggle to investigate the event or defend its response.

AI systems can complicate that evidence trail. Prompts may not be logged. Outputs may not be retained. Vendor tools may provide limited visibility. Model versions may change. Users may copy AI-generated content into other systems without preserving its source. Business teams may treat AI output as a recommendation rather than a system event.

Security leaders should push for evidence requirements before AI systems move into production. At a minimum, organizations should know what logs are available, how long they are retained, who can access them and whether they are sufficient for investigation. For higher-risk use cases, teams may also need records of model version, prompt history, output history, user actions, data sources and downstream decisions.

This does not mean every AI interaction needs heavy surveillance. Monitoring should be proportional to risk, and organizations still need to respect privacy, legal and workforce considerations. The point is simpler: if the AI system matters enough to influence real work, it matters enough to leave an evidence trail when something goes wrong.

Ownership cannot be implied

AI ownership is often fragmented. A business unit may sponsor the use case, a data science team may configure the model, IT may manage the platform, security may assess risk, and a vendor may provide the underlying capability. Everyone is involved, but no one may be fully accountable after deployment.

That ambiguity becomes dangerous during an incident. If an AI tool begins producing unreliable output, the organization needs to know who owns the system, who owns the business process and who owns the decision to continue or stop use. A governance committee can provide oversight, but it usually cannot serve as the operational owner of every deployed AI capability.

Security programs should insist on named ownership for AI systems, especially those used in sensitive or high-impact workflows. Ownership should include responsibility for monitoring, exceptions, user guidance, vendor coordination and incident escalation. It should also include decision rights, because accountability without authority is just a name in a spreadsheet.

The hardest question is often pause authority. Who can suspend, restrict, roll back or retire an AI system when risk exceeds tolerance? If that question is not answered before deployment, the organization may be forced to answer it under pressure.

Security leaders need an AI response playbook

An AI response playbook does not need to be complicated, but it does need to be real. It should explain how employees report AI concerns, how the event is triaged, what evidence is preserved, who investigates, when legal or privacy teams are involved, and who can make operational decisions. It should also define when executive leadership needs to be notified.

The playbook should reflect the type of AI system involved. A low-risk internal productivity tool may require a lightweight review path. An AI system supporting security operations, regulated decisions, customer communication, healthcare workflows or financial processes needs stronger monitoring and escalation. The response model should fit the risk of the use case.

This is where security can add discipline without turning AI governance into bureaucracy. Security teams already know how to build escalation paths, preserve evidence, run incident reviews and improve controls after failures. The opportunity is to extend that operating muscle into AI governance before incidents force the issue.

Organizations should also conduct post-incident reviews for meaningful AI events. The goal should not be blame; it should be learning. Did the monitoring work? Was the owner clear? Was the evidence sufficient? Did the vendor respond? Were users confused about acceptable use? Did the organization know who could make the decision?

Governance has to be executable

AI governance is often discussed as a policy, ethics or compliance challenge. It is all of those things, but once AI systems enter production, it also becomes a security execution challenge. Risk has to be monitored, events have to be investigated and someone has to be able to act.

That is why the next maturity step is not simply better documentation. Organizations need governance that works when a system is live, a decision is time-sensitive and the facts are incomplete. In that moment, the risk register may help explain what the organization expected, but it will not run the response.

Security leaders should not wait for AI governance to arrive fully formed from somewhere else in the enterprise. They should help shape the operating model now, while many organizations are still early enough to correct course. The goal is not to own every AI risk; it is to ensure AI risk can be managed once AI becomes operational.

A risk register can tell leaders what might go wrong. An incident response plan tells people what to do when it does. For AI governance to matter in security programs, organizations need both.

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

The European Commission is ending an antitrust investigation into SAP after the company made numerous concessions worldwide regarding maintenance and support services for on-premises versions of its ERP solution. The Commission began its investigation in September 2025, concerned that SAP forces customers to buy its services for longer, and for more licenses, than they need.

In accepting SAP’s commitments, the Commission makes them binding on the company. SAP could still face fines if it fails to make good on its concessions over the next ten years. SAP’s promises include:

• Greater freedom of choice in support: Customers can divide their SAP landscape into sub-areas and choose different support and maintenance providers for each area.
• Easier license terminations: Maintenance and support contracts can be terminated in certain cases — such as when products are phased out, SAP projects fail, the company files for bankruptcy, there are staff reductions, or parts of the business are sold.
• More flexible licensing models: SAP is expanding access to so-called “single-metric” contracts as an alternative basis for licensing and maintenance fees.
• Relaxation of contractual obligations: In the future, the purchase of new licenses will no longer automatically extend the minimum term of existing support contracts.
• Easier Re-entry: Customers who resume SAP support after a hiatus will no longer have to pay reinstatement fees; back payments will also be reduced.

In addition, SAP is establishing an internal clearinghouse that customers can contact if they suspect violations of the agreed-upon obligations.

Even though SAP said it welcomed the EU Commission’s decision, the Walldorf-based company is unlikely to be truly happy with the concessions it had to make.

User organizations, though, are happy: Conor Riordan, chair of UKISUG, the UK & Ireland SAP User Group, said, “We welcome the proposed changes to SAP’s support and maintenance policies for on-premise customers. Our members have long called for greater flexibility, transparency and predictability, and these changes appear to be a positive move. This should give organizations more room to adapt to changing business conditions and evolve their SAP estates at a pace that suits them.”

More flexibility with SAP support

Michael Bloch, executive director of licensing, contracts and support at DSAG, the German-speaking SAP User Group, went into greater detail in an interview with Computerwoche, here translated from the German:

How do you assess the European Commission’s decision in general?

Michael Bloch: In principle, we think the decision is a good one for now. Many SAP customers will benefit from it, especially those who continue to run their ERP systems on-premises. Our investment survey shows that numerous companies have still not made the move to the SAP Cloud. They now have significantly more freedom to decide how they want to organize support for their existing software.

Who stands to benefit on the provider side? Does the decision open up new opportunities for third-party providers like Rimini Street? Can the potential demand even be met?

Bloch: That will be interesting to watch. At the moment, third-party maintenance is a total niche business, at least in German-speaking countries. Acceptance is significantly higher in the US, but here in Germany, many companies remain rather skeptical of the model. The EU decision could now give this market a new boost. Customers who do not wish to follow SAP’s current strategy will be able to remain on their existing infrastructure in the future and obtain support from another provider. This certainly opens up opportunities for new business models.

Does this decision undermine SAP’s cloud strategy?

Bloch: For customers, the decision now truly becomes a matter of principle: Do I follow SAP’s strategic direction, or do I consciously choose a different path? Those who aren’t convinced that the cloud strategy is the right one for their own company can now more easily decide to stay on their existing ERP landscape and, for example, use a different support provider.

However, one must be clear about the consequences. Those who remain on their current system landscape — even with an alternative maintenance provider — are forgoing the innovations that SAP is currently developing around the Autonomous Enterprise. There is no middle ground here. Companies would have to develop many of these functions themselves or recreate them at considerable expense.

So is this inevitably an either/or decision?

Bloch: No, that’s exactly the key point. Many companies have heavily customized their ERP systems over the years or decades to fit their industry-specific processes — some customers even refer to “refined” systems. These investments don’t simply have to be written off now.

Instead, companies can continue to operate their proven core systems while simultaneously adding targeted cloud components, such as SAP Cloud ERP for financial processes. This allows them to preserve existing investments while also leveraging new innovations. The EU decision thus opens up additional options for action, but it also makes the strategic decision more challenging for CIOs. They must now define even more precisely what their target architecture should look like for the next five to ten years.

2027 – A pivotal year for SAP support

Does this mean that IT decision-makers will now have to forgo a peaceful summer break?

Bloch: I don’t think this will fundamentally increase the pressure. Extended Maintenance doesn’t start until the end of 2027, so there’s still some time left. But companies now have an additional strategic question to answer. The actual decision year is likely to be 2027. By then, many companies will have to determine which system landscape they’ll use in the future and what their long-term SAP strategy will look like.

Even companies that want to stick with their existing ERP landscape will only receive official support until 2030. While that does buy some time, it’s by no means a long planning horizon, especially when alternative ERP strategies or successor solutions need to be evaluated.

That’s why I view it as a positive development that the decision has now been made. It provides clarity and gives companies the opportunity to incorporate these new conditions into their strategic considerations at an early stage.

The new regulations also make it easier for companies to dispose of unused licenses and the associated maintenance fees. How significant could the potential savings be?

Bloch: We don’t have specific figures on that. You have to be very careful here, because it depends heavily on the individual case. The key factor is whether a company actually terminates its SAP support entirely, switches to a third-party provider, or simply no longer needs certain products. After all, a system still has to be operated.

Is there at least a rough estimate?

Bloch: No, we don’t have reliable empirical data. If companies have products in use that they no longer use at all, they’ll be able to cancel support for them more easily in the future and, of course, save money as a result. However, we don’t know how large this so-called “shelfware” portion actually is.

For companies that have already migrated to S/4HANA or SAP Cloud ERP, this issue should largely be resolved anyway. It’s particularly relevant for those who still have the transition ahead of them. They can now review which unused licenses and maintenance contracts they can phase out and whether this is possible within the framework of SAP’s concessions, since regulations must be observed here as well. Those who are still paying substantial support fees today for products that are no longer in use can achieve significant savings by doing so.

Take advantage of the options

Does the EU decision improve companies’ negotiating position with SAP?

Bloch: There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to that. What matters is how a company makes use of its options. In my view, the best results are generally achieved by working with SAP to find a path forward.

Why?

Bloch: For example, if you completely cancel SAP support and later sign a new cloud contract, you should expect to forgo certain incentives from SAP. That’s why every decision should be made with all dependencies in mind.

In addition, SAP isn’t the only one offering incentives to move to the cloud. The hyperscalers also have a strong interest in attracting companies to their platforms and, in some cases, offer very attractive incentive programs. This means that companies’ starting points vary greatly.

Does this make decisions easier for CIOs?

Bloch: Quite the opposite, actually. While the new situation expands the range of options, it makes strategic decision-making significantly more complex. CIOs must now ask themselves: Which existing systems continue to provide business value for our company? Added to this are questions such as: Where is it worthwhile to retain the existing landscape? And in which areas will we actually benefit from the innovations that SAP will provide in the cloud in the future? Finding exactly this balance will be the real challenge.

So does this decision primarily mean that companies gain more time, for example, to weather difficult economic periods or to better prepare for a move to the cloud?

Bloch: Yes, especially for companies that haven’t yet found a compelling business case for moving to the SAP Cloud. They can continue to operate their existing landscape for the time being while simultaneously assessing whether there is still potential for cost savings by eliminating unused licenses and maintenance contracts, in other words, “shelfware.” This can certainly help in individual cases and provides more room to maneuver.

Complexity Is Increasing

Has the EU decision resolved the biggest problem in SAP licensing policy, or are there still issues to address?

Bloch: Extended Maintenance remains an important issue for companies that have not yet migrated to S/4HANA. The EU decision also has an impact here. Companies now have significantly more options for organizing their existing system landscape and support in different ways. They no longer have to treat their entire software portfolio uniformly, but can make differentiated decisions depending on the situation.

However, this also increases complexity. Companies now have a whole toolbox of options and must carefully weigh which combination is right for their strategy.

What’s the next crucial step?

Bloch: The key now is the practical implementation of the promised measures. Together with SAP, we need to clarify how the new regulations will be structured in detail and how companies can actually make use of them. The obligations will also be monitored by an independent trustee. I therefore hope that, together with SAP, we can provide more clarity on the operational implementation in the near future.

Does the EU decision now create additional pressure to act?

Bloch: I don’t think that this will immediately increase the pressure. There’s still some time left until Extended Maintenance begins at the end of 2027. That said, companies now face an additional strategic task: they must assess which new opportunities they want to take advantage of and how these fit into their SAP strategy.

When will things get serious?

Bloch: In my view, 2027 will be the decisive year. By then, many companies will need to determine which system landscape they will use to transition to Extended Maintenance and what their long-term SAP strategy should look like. Even companies that decide against moving to the SAP Cloud will gain some time as a result of the EU decision — but official support for their existing systems will end by 2030 at the latest. Especially when alternative ERP solutions are being evaluated in parallel, that’s not a particularly long planning horizon.

Your conclusion?

Bloch: Overall, it’s positive that the decision has now been made. It would have been much more difficult for companies if uncertainty had persisted until early 2027. Now the framework is clear, and companies can incorporate it into their strategic decisions early on.