The head of the US government’s AI testing institute, Chris Fall, has resigned about three months after taking charge of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), the federal organization responsible for evaluating advanced artificial intelligence models for safety and security.

Current National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Director Arvind Raman will serve as acting CAISI Director following Fall’s departure while continuing to oversee the Commerce Department office responsible for the institute, the Daily Signal reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

A Commerce Department spokesperson who spoke to the publication did not disclose a reason for the resignation.

Fall assumed leadership of CAISI in April after the Trump administration reorganized the former US AI Safety Institute under NIST. The institute develops methodologies for evaluating frontier AI models and works with AI developers on voluntary technical assessments covering areas such as cybersecurity, model misuse, reliability and other risks associated with increasingly capable AI systems.

The leadership change comes as governments and AI companies continue developing technical approaches for evaluating frontier AI models while enterprises expand deployments of generative AI and agentic AI across business operations.

In recent months, the Commerce Department has taken a more active role in AI policy involving advanced models, placing greater attention on how the federal government evaluates technologies with potential national security implications.

Continuity matters more than personalities

CAISI works with AI developers such as Anthropic, Google’s DeepMind and OpenAI on voluntary evaluations of frontier AI models and develops methodologies for testing model capabilities and risks. The institute does not regulate AI developers or certify commercial AI systems.

For enterprises, those evaluations are one source of technical information alongside vendors’ own testing, third-party security assessments and internal AI governance programs.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said enterprises should focus less on the individual leading the institute and more on whether its technical work continues with the same level of consistency and transparency.

“Leadership churn at CAISI weakens the signal long before it weakens the science,” Gogia said. “The testing has not stopped. Its authority simply does not travel as cleanly once the leadership does not.”

According to Gogia, the more important question for enterprises is not whether the institute’s evaluation work will continue but whether the processes supporting those evaluations remain stable.

“The instinct is to ask whether the pipeline is breaking,” he said. “The more useful question is where the pipeline now sits.”

Enterprises still carry the burden of AI governance

Gogia said organizations should continue treating government-led AI evaluations as one input into their governance processes rather than as evidence that a model is inherently safe for enterprise deployment.

“A government evaluation was always a signal, never a certificate,” he said. “A signal loses value the moment its issuer becomes unpredictable.”

He said enterprises should instead monitor whether CAISI maintains consistent evaluation methodologies, continues publishing technical findings and preserves continuity within its research teams under interim leadership.

“The name on the door is not the signal. The behaviour underneath it is,” Gogia said.

Gogia also cautioned against linking Fall’s resignation to recent Commerce Department actions involving AI policy or export controls, noting that there is no public evidence connecting the two.

“CAISI evaluates; it does not enforce export controls, because it holds no such power,” he said. “This is not a testing body reaching for enforcement. It is enforcement reaching past the testing body.”

With Raman assuming the role on an interim basis, the next significant milestone for enterprises will be the appointment of a permanent director, and whether the institute’s evaluation programs continue without disruption, the analyst said.

Gogia said the successor’s mandate may prove more important than the individual selected.

“A CAISI result is not a safe harbour,” he said. “It informs an obligation; it does not discharge one.” NIST did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As Apple gears up to anoint John Ternus the new company CEO in September (while current leader Tim Cook takes a seat on the board) the company appears to be firing on all cylinders ahead of the leadership transition. 

What’s going well

Just look at the evidence: 

• Apple is building market share across its entire product range; even memory-driven price inflation doesn’t seem to have dampened demand for its hardware yet.
• While Apple had to raise prices, the company’s MacBook Neo remains seriously popular. It’s sitting atop Amazon’s US best-selling chart, which currently includes six Macs in the top 10. The Neo has topped this chart since its introduction.
• Apple’s iPhone 17 series continues to sell well, with recent market data showing sustained growth. Both Counterpoint and IDC tell us that iPhone shipments continue to increase, even as other vendor shipments slide.
• IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo recently estimated that Apple’s upcoming foldable iPhone Ultra could grab 29.4% of global folding smartphone sales this year, rising to 34.9% in 2027.
• The company’s new 27 series of operating systems is attracting a great response as beta testers report that it is already solid, stable, and performing well.
• The AI narrative has really changed, with analysts no longer quite so starry-eyed at the prospects for the big frontier AI firms. Apple’s edge-AI-enabling approach is winning converts.

What’s coming up

The company’s newly-filed lawsuit against OpenAI may or may not succeed, but it will certainly help consolidate recognition of the importance of Apple’s designs and intellectual property in whatever hardware emerges from the AI firm. It also means both Apple and OpenAI are already competing in hardware, even though neither company yet offers anything that directly challenges the other. 

Apple has just set out its stall to brand-loyal fans in a big way and did so before OpenAI gets to woo the same set of customers with a wriggle of its Jony Ive-tinged talisman.

The stage is set for intense competition between the two. Though some say Apple’s needs to improve employee retention, if it does find proof of efforts to use recruitment to engage in industrial espionage, it’ll be easier to represent its own products as being the OG for new hardware. 

If nothing else, it means consumers will forever be asking, “If OpenAI’s designers are so good, why did it need to poach them from Apple?” Doubt is a weapon.

Managing perception

It doesn’t matter how the case goes, because there fight is already affecting consumer psychology. It also means that as Ternus prepares to take his seat atop the rainbow-colored Apple throne, we can already size him up. “A man is measured by his enemies,” Joe Abercrombie wrote in “The Trouble With Peace.”

Given the proximity of the leadership transition, it’s highly probable that Ternus signed-off on the litigation; in doing so he — and Apple — tell us to expect more of the same. 

Apple has, rightly or wrongly, decided that OpenAI will become its new existential bugbear, following in the footsteps of Microsoft Windows, Real Networks, Adobe Flash, Android, and Samsung, all of whom have been useful foils against which Apple has been able to build and maintain its identity.

Looking at that list, you’d be tempted to believe that nothing much is new. Apple has often defined itself by the enemies it sometimes keeps. What has been will be again, which in this case means even as OpenAI attempts to carve out an identity as a hardware manufacturer delivering solutions to compete with Apple and Google, Ternus’ team’s looks to drive a consensus-shaped wedge into the pro-LLM propaganda. 

That blow comes as Apple finally gets its act together around AI, and as the company prepares for a future in which the world’s most-used wearable device also becomes the wearable way to woo Siri AI.

My kingdom come

Rising market share, powerful solutions, an increasingly recognized and respected approach to AI, and an ideological crusade — these details constitute Apple’s place today and are Tim Cook’s coronation gift to Ternus. He’s passing along a strong and hyper-profitable baton that screams of timeliness and relevance even as the company gets set, ready, to go with a year or two of new product designs, new product families, and a 20^thanniversary iPhone.

This is Apple’s party. OpenAI’s name didn’t make the list. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

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

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

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

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

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday.com’s key market advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions for the near-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Just in time for the iPhone’s 20th anniversary, Apple is moving closer to becoming a service company. It is set to launch its new deal with Klarna next week and when it does, Apple enthusiasts in the US will effectively be able to subscribe to their favorite Apple hardware, with the cost spread across up to three years.

This matters because when combined with Apple One and Apple’s Creator Studio subscriptions, the Klarna arrangement brings Apple closer to offering a full subscription model for hardware, software, and services. The only thing you don’t get under the new arrangement is AppleCare, for which you’ll allegedly need to pay extra.

Moving closer to hardware-as-a-service

Apple has slowly been transitioning toward hardware-as-a-service for almost a decade. Back then, Forrester analyst Frank Gillet predicted the company would eventually offer bundles of services and products for a monthly, all-in, fee. 

This isn’t quite where we are yet; you still need at least three subscriptions to get close. But, after the better part of a decade, Apple has moved much nearer to the hardware-as-a-service idea.

There are some products reportedly excluded from the arrangement, including MacBook Neo, Apple Watch SE, the entry-level iPad, and iPhone 16. Clearly, Apple sees those products as sufficiently affordable. 

Easy payments for RAM-ageddon

The new Klarna arrangement comes as Apple is forced to increase product prices as AI-driven memory price inflation becomes widely felt across every economy. In theory, I assume, Apple hopes to make its products available to cash-strapped consumers who need new hardware, while also navigating a time of deep economic tumult and uncertainty. It’s thought the company has previously rejected these plans to protect normal hardware sales, but normality is a kingdom we no longer seem to possess. Interesting times. Probable inflation incoming.

“Apple Upgrade lands at precisely the moment Apple needs it,” IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo wrote in a note seen by Computerworld. “Having just pushed Mac and iPad prices up on the back of the memory shortage, with iPhone increases widely expected in September — as well as the new iPhone foldable expected at $2,500 — Apple’s real risk is that rising prices even further can impact the upgrade cycle.” 

New age, new shopping habits

The introduction of the scheme gives consumers a way to purchase the company’s popular high-end devices when they are introduced — no doubt,at higher cost — this fall. Plus, of course, if it’s good enough for GM, it’s good enough for Apple.

It’s all about attitude, too. From Apple’s perspective, it has done plenty of the groundwork required to convince its customers that subscription payments for things you value are no bad thing. 

Reluctance to embrace “Access Not Ownership’”purchasing models has dropped dramatically since Apple — and CEO Tim Cook — first began banging the drum for services income. Apple’s services stream has now become its second-biggest revenue driver after the iPhone. It has over 1 billion paid subscriptions, and an active hardware installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices globally.

A combination of changed customer habits and external threat means the stars are now aligned for hardware-as-a-service models. “Reframing a device as a low monthly payment protects that [upgrade] cadence and allows Apple to start marketing their products as device-as-a-service to consumers, which no other vendor was ever able to do,” Jeronimo wrote to me. 

There is a one-more-thing aspect to this: the products are effectively being leased, a new approach that will give Apple a stronger grip on EOL devices, helping it grab more of them for refurbishment, resale, and recycling. Over time, this will give the company a much stronger grip on the lucrative second-user market that exists around Apple equipment, even while for almost every consumer product we find the life we want is something we can rent, but probably can’t afford to own.

Managing future risk

The other solid reason to take a partnership approach is risk management. Apple had intended to develop its own buy-now, pay-later scheme via Apple Pay Later, but abandoned that plan as it became riskier with rising bank rates. “Also, by backing the program with Klarna rather than reviving the in-house subscription plan it shelved in 2024, Apple captures the demand upside without taking the credit risk onto its own balance sheet,” Jeronimo said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

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

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

The 5 layers of public-sector control

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

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

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

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

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

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

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

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

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

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

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven’t slept much in the past few weeks. Not because of some theoretical cyber risk that keeps many executives awake, but because reality just delivered a real wake-up call to our industry — a call that every executive must answer, now.

Imagine this: A major global enterprise, a company most of us interact with indirectly every single day, wakes up to find its entire digital environment obliterated. Thousands of employees in dozens of offices and remote locations are suddenly offline. Customers are cut off, supply chains grind to a halt and regulators are notified with a chilling admission: “We have no idea when we’ll be back.”

This wasn’t ransomware. There was no negotiation, no decryption key to buy, no easy way out. It was destruction — deliberate, coordinated and geopolitically motivated — not monetary.

As a chief customer officer who’s worked with countless customers on cyberattack risks, my perspective hits a bit differently than a CISO or a CTO. I see the aftermath, not just the attack surface. I see the faces behind the tickets, the operations team locked out of their own systems, the support agent answering panicked calls at dawn. And I ask: How many organizations have actually stress-tested their response to this scenario — not a hypothetical, but this very real, lights-out event? Here’s what every leader needs to confront today:

Recovery is not just a technical exercise

The first assumption to break during a real crisis is the belief that recovery is purely technical.

Many organizations have done tabletop exercises and have a backup and recovery playbook, so they feel prepared. They can point to backup windows, retention schedules and immutability controls. The moment a true blackout happens, a different reality surfaces. The people who own the recovery steps either do not know each other, lack the authority to make decisions without supervisor approval or need guidance from offline systems.

The reality is that technical infrastructure almost always holds up better than human infrastructure. Organizations have built their recovery strategy around the assumption that someone competent will be awake, available and empowered when a cyber event happens.

Still, backups are only as good as their independence. Let’s be blunt: If your recovery infrastructure shares identity, authentication or network trust with your Microsoft tenant (such as Azure, Microsoft 365 or Teams), you don’t actually have a recovery plan; you have a false sense of one — and a liability. A recent survey found that while 90% of organizations express confidence in their ability to recover from a cyber incident, fewer than one in three ransomware victims fully recovered their data.

True resilience means immutable, air-gapped backups, untouchable by the same compromise. Anything less is an illusion. I talk to customers about their recovery plans constantly. The customers who have rehearsed all scenarios sleep soundly. Those who haven’t? They’re rolling the dice.

Most business continuity plans ignore ‘total blackout’

I’ve reviewed hundreds of business continuity plans. Almost all assume partial failures — a region, an application, a data center. But what if every system, in every country, goes dark simultaneously? That’s an entirely different playbook. If your team hasn’t run a drill for a global, simultaneous outage, you’re not prepared. The probability is low, but the cost of being unready is existential.

Connected devices, OT systems, field hardware, partner integrations — they all plug into your enterprise network. When the core collapses, it’s not just IT at risk. It’s operational technology, physical safety systems and in regulated sectors, potentially human lives. Understanding and testing those interdependencies is non-negotiable.

This is also where boards need to change the conversation. A study found that only 5% of companies have cybersecurity experts on their board of directors. Recovery time objectives (RTOs) should not be buried in technical appendices. It’s all jargon to boards. That makes translation essential. RTOs must be explained in terms of business impact. “We can recover in four hours” is a technical statement. “Every hour of downtime costs us $2.3M and creates regulatory exposure in three jurisdictions” is a board statement.

That is the level of clarity leaders need.

The most prepared organizations do not wait for an incident to educate the board. They bring the conversation forward proactively. They frame recovery in business terms: revenue, regulatory standing, customer trust and brand reputation.

The most effective framing is often simple. Show the most critical systems. Show what happens if each one is down for one hour, four hours, 24 hours and 72 hours. Show the current recovery capability against each and then show the gap.

If your board is not demanding real answers, your business continuity strategy is likely underfunded and your business is exposed. This is a risk conversation worth forcing because the consequences do not stay inside IT. They can show up in customer churn or missed revenue and ruin an organization’s reputation.

Threat intelligence must be actionable, not archived

Geopolitical attacks, hacktivist campaigns and nation-state targeting aren’t abstract threats. They are active risks, and that intelligence cannot languish in the security team’s inbox. Executive leadership must be looped in — and immediately — so gaps can be closed before they’re exploited. Too often, intelligence enters the security operations function and never reaches the teams responsible for recovery infrastructure or executive decision-making.

If a threat actor is targeting a specific class of backup agents, the team responsible for those agents needs to know now, not two weeks from now. If intelligence suggests destructive activity against a sector, recovery owners need to validate isolation, access paths and restoration procedures immediately. If geopolitical tension increases the likelihood of targeting, executive leadership needs to understand what exposure exists and what actions are being taken. The organizations that survive aren’t just the best at incident response. They’re the ones who anticipated, rehearsed and invested before the attack.

Part of investing in a recovery strategy requires closing the loop between signal and action. The most prepared organizations have already mapped their critical recovery dependencies to specific threat categories. When intelligence touches one of those categories, there is a named owner and a clear set of actions. No guessing or forwarding emails into the void is needed because the distance between the warning and the employees’ ability to do something is shortened.

Looking ahead, the conversation will continue to evolve beyond traditional cyber response. Because in an AI-enabled enterprise, the new question is whether the data within those systems can still be trusted. When AI systems make decisions based on enterprise data, the attack surface becomes the data’s accuracy. A threat actor who quietly corrupts a dataset over 90 days before a recovery event has done more damage than just downtime. They can poison the inputs driving decisions across the business.

Regardless of how AI will change threat intelligence and cyber response, these principles remain the same. Know your problem, whether structural or technological. Ensure your human infrastructure keeps pace with your technical infrastructure, with clear cross-functional ownership and the tools and knowledge to act autonomously. Communicate with your boards often — and correctly.

Let’s not wait for the next headline to ask, “Are we ready?” Have those conversations now. Test your assumptions. Close your gaps. Because in today’s threat landscape, resilience isn’t IT’s job — it’s everyone’s mandate.

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?

Agentic AI has advanced from the promises-and-pilots phase of 2025 to reality and rollouts in 2026. In the process, agentic AI is transforming virtually every aspect of customer relationship management (CRM), the platform that manages sales, marketing, and customer service.

“Last year, everybody was dipping their toes into the water,” says Keith Kirkpatrick, research director at The Futurum Group. This year, agentic AI has built momentum from the boardroom down, with companies recognizing that having an AI strategy is imperative. “They feel like if they don’t embrace it now, their competitors will.”

Harry Datwani, a principal at Deloitte Digital, adds that enterprise CRM customers have transitioned from “proof of concept” to “scale and execution.”

“Across sales, service, marketing, even in the commerce space, enterprises are really using AI and agentic,” he says.

“CRM in 2026 is undergoing a structural shift, not just an incremental evolution,” says Forrester analyst Kate Leggett, noting that AI is becoming a core part of CRM infrastructure, not just a feature or an add-on. According to Forrester data, around 70% of companies are already using AI in their CRM systems, she says.

Here are the hot AI-driven trends in CRM this year.

CRM becomes an action hero

CRM platforms have traditionally served as passive, static systems of record. Now, agentic AI is transforming CRM into a powerful, real-time solution that can act autonomously.

“Organizations that rethink CRM as a real-time, AI-powered system of action — and embrace agentic AI to handle complex, unpredictable work — are better positioned to deliver exceptional customer experiences,” says IDC analyst Neil Ward-Dutton. “This approach not only enhances satisfaction and loyalty but also drives operational efficiency and business agility.”

Forrester’s Leggett says that AI-powered CRM platforms have advanced from simple data capture to real-time decision-making and execution. Standard capabilities include next-best action recommendations, call summaries, automated updates, generated emails, knowledge creation, predictive forecasting, and deal scoring.

She adds that AI agents can now execute workflows, such as routing cases, sending follow-ups, and updating records (with human oversight). They can also handle end-to-end service and sales tasks autonomously, including case resolutions and sales development activities.

Agentic drives workforce changes

AI use in CRM systems is also impacting workforce strategies.

“We used to hire for deep expertise,” says Constellation Research analyst Liz Miller. “AI has commoditized expertise because I can take all that data from my CRM and train my AI models to go deep, to know everything about any product I’ve ever sold, from what has worked, what hasn’t, every price, every sale.”

Now, instead of hiring candidates with deep expertise, organizations are looking for candidates who can go wide. “I can train a model to have deep expertise. What I can’t train for is experience, because experience is what happens when a person has gone broad across a lot of different scenarios and faced complexity across that broad scenario,” says Miller.

For example, AI systems can automate many aspects of marketing, Miller notes, but there’s no substitute for creativity: people who can interrogate the data and come up with innovative marketing campaigns that connect with customers.

Terence Chesire, group vice president of ServiceNow CRM and industry workflows, says that organizations are using agentic AI to free up team members from repetitive, lower-value activities. Those employees have now moved to higher-level roles “where they’re working on transformational deals rather than just building a spreadsheet.”

“That’s what we’re seeing as super-exciting as organizations not just free up people, but the speed and effort reduction and the friction reduction in what they can do,” he adds.

Data layer takes center stage

AI’s promise to deliver actionable customer and marketing intelligence has placed even greater emphasis on the importance on sound data management practices for CRM.

“The light bulb has flashed on very brightly for our clients,” says Deloitte’s Datwani. “Everyone is talking about AI agents, but your ability to really extract value is inextricably linked to the quality of your data and the ability to make that data accessible. What we’re finding is that despite large investments over time our clients still have fragmented data. And so, they are data rich and insight poor.”

The good news, says Datwani, is that AI agents themselves can help clean up and organize data. And vendors such as Snowflake and Databricks, along with the traditional CRM powerhouses, are offering powerful data analytics solutions. “Everyone is battling for that data layer,” Datwani says.

Forrester’s Leggett adds that CRM platforms are converging with customer data platforms (CDPs), real-time event streams, and external data sources to create connected customer data networks. These real-time, connected data models can help organizations deliver hyper-personalization at scale.

Agentic ushers in pricing complexity

The shift from license- or subscription-based pricing to an outcome or consumption pricing model has the potential to help CIOs tie their CRM costs to specific business metrics, such as the number of customer service calls resolved per hour. But it has also introduced a new level of complexity when it comes to budgeting for CRM costs.

For example, Chesire says ServiceNow’s CRM pricing plan starts with a baseline subscription model, and on top of that, customers get a certain number of AI tokens per user and can buy additional tokens as AI usage ramps up.

Meanwhile, Salesforce has rolled out pay-per-resolution pricing with its recently unveiled AI Help Agent and last month acquired usage-based billing specialist m3ter. Oracle is also piloting outcome-based AI pricing.

All these approaches undercut the predictability of the subscription model, which will complicate CIOs’ cost calculus, Deloitte’s Datwani says. “Now, as you start to think about consumption and tokens, costs might look different. As folks are opening up the architecture with things like headless CRM, what will the cost model look like for API calls or MCP server calls? So, there’s many more variables,” he adds.

The rise of multi-agent orchestration

To act autonomously, agents need to access multiple data sets and software platforms seamlessly. As a result, the proliferation of agents, some embedded within specific vendor platforms and some created in-house, is going to require an orchestration layer, Futurum’s Kirkpatrick says.

He points out that organizations need to monitor and manage agents, enforcing the same type of policy-based access control that exists for people. Organizations also need to set limits on what domains a specific agent can get into, what types of data they can access, what lines can’t they cross.

Kirkpatrick predicts that a new class of orchestration tools will emerge, although it’s not clear whether that orchestration layer will be provided by the leading CRM vendors, hyperscalers, or third parties.

Datwani agrees. “The orchestration layer is an interesting area, where the traditional vendors are in on it, the hyperscalers are also offering it, and there are third parties. It’s my belief that there’s not going to be a clear winner.”

The interface becomes conversational

Enterprise users who have traditionally had to manually wrangle with CRM systems are likely to find the ability to employ voice commands using a natural language interface to be a game changer. For starters, a salesperson can say, “I have a meeting today with Customer X. Help me prepare.” The agent will collect relevant data, ingest it, and provide a summary with recommendations.

ServiceNow’s Chesire says voice-enabled CRM systems have an “almost magical” ability to record, transcribe, and understand the content of a call between a salesperson and a customer or potential customer. The system can then “build a quote” based on that conversation.

On the customer service side of the equation, AI-driven voice technology enables customers to speak to an AI agent, describe the problem using natural language, and get a response. The agent has the capability to, for example, solve a credit card dispute, order a replacement product, send out a service rep, or do whatever is needed to resolve the issue, says Chesire.

Beyond that, agentic technology is capable of understanding the underlying business process flaws that led to the product snafu, and make recommendations for ways to fix whatever led to the issue in the first place, he adds.

Agentic drives business process transformation

With the emergence of outcome-based pricing, organizations are taking a fresh look at how they measure the benefits of CRM systems. That conversation is leading to an even more important analysis of underlying business processes. Or, as Constellation’s Miller says, “The old adage of applying new technology to old processes only gets you more expensive old processes.”

“When we survey customers, we hear time and time again that the reason why they want to apply AI into their organizations is to foster exponential opportunity and exponential growth,” she says. “How do we get there with CRM has started to become the new conversation.”

According to Miller, AI systems breach the walls of siloed data and can take a fresh look at legacy workflows. They also don’t get sucked into turf wars between marketing and sales teams. As a result, they often recommend new actions that can lead to better processes. “I think it’s starting to happen. You’re starting to see applications where AI is beginning to accelerate decision-making and decision velocity,” she says.

“The next phase of maturity is going to be, how do we start to spread AI across our platforms so that we are seeing that holistic end-to-end relationship that we have always wanted to optimize. How do we thread that across platforms and across solutions. We’re starting to see organizations on the leading edge really start to pull those strategies together,” says Miller.

What is a business analyst?

Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.

BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.

The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that business analysis is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.

Impact of AI on business analyst role

As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.

AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.

Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.

Business analyst job description

BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.

According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.

Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  

The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.

Business analyst skills

The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.

Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.

According to the IIBA, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:

• Oral and written communication skills
• Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills
• Analytical thinking and problem solving
• Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy
• Knowledge of business structure
• Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis
• Processes modeling
• Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies

For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click here.

Business analyst salary

The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to data from PayScale. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.

Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:

For tips on boosting your salary, click here.

Business analyst certifications

Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:

• IIBA Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)
• IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)
• IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)
• IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)
• IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)
• IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)
• PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)
• Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)

For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click here.

Business analytics tools and software

BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.

Enterprises typically operate separate systems for internal and external DNS because the two serve different audiences. Public DNS resolves names for services meant to be reached from the internet. Private DNS resolves internal resources, such as databases and internal applications, that should never be visible outside the corporate network. 

While public DNS is usually a single system, private DNS is often scattered across on-premises appliances, cloud-native resolvers, and split-horizon setups, where the same hostname resolves to a different answer depending on whether the query comes from inside or outside the network. Coordinating those deployments across headquarters, branch offices, and multiple clouds means ongoing manual synchronization work for network teams. 

Private DNS itself is not a new concept. It is already available from hyperscalers and established enterprise DNS vendors, but it typically runs apart from public DNS, with its own console, control plane and policy engine.

Cloudflare’s answer is a product it calls Internal DNS.

“Many organizations already use Cloudflare for their public DNS,” Enrique Somoza, product, performance and infrastructure at Cloudflare, told Network World. “Internal DNS extends that same platform to private DNS, so public and private are managed from the same global network and control plane.” 

How it works

Query handling starts at the resolver, not at the zone. That consolidation extends to daily operations as well.

“Instead of operating two separate DNS systems, customers use one API, one audit trail, one dashboard, and one policy engine for every DNS query—whether it is for a public website or an internal application,” Somoza said.

Policy first. The resolver sits ahead of every lookup, not behind it. “Architecturally, Cloudflare Gateway becomes the resolver that customers connect to, and can use WARP, DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS, or traditional DNS,” Somoza said. “Gateway evaluates zero -trust policies first, then routes the query to the appropriate DNS view based on context, such as source IP, device posture, or network location.”

No public path in. Internal zones sit outside the public DNS hierarchy entirely. “Internal zones are never assigned public nameservers—they are only reachable through Gateway, so every query is evaluated before it is resolved,” Somoza said.

One hostname, multiple answers. Branch offices, data centers and cloud environments no longer each need their own resolver stack. “Operationally, this simplifies environments that span branch offices, data centers, and multiple clouds,” Somoza said. “The same internal hostname can return different answers depending on where the request originated without maintaining separate resolver infrastructure, conditional forwarders, or duplicate zone files.”

Somoza described the underlying objective in direct terms: “The goal is to make internal DNS behave like a single service instead of a collection of independent deployments,” he said.

View selection. The same hostname can resolve to different IP addresses depending on where the request comes from. Gateway makes that call using several client signals. 

“View selection is policy driven,” Somoza said. “Gateway resolver policies evaluate the context of each DNS query, including attributes like source IP, device identity, or network location and determine which DNS view should answer the request.”

A view is a container, not a separate infrastructure stack. Somoza explained that a view is simply a logical grouping of internal zones. For example, a company could have separate views for Europe and North America, or for corporate users and operational technology networks.

Latency and resilience. Internal DNS inherits its performance characteristics from Cloudflare’s existing public network. “Internal DNS runs on Cloudflare’s global network, so queries are answered by the nearest available Gateway location, helping keep latency low for connected users,” Somoza said. “Because Internal DNS runs on the same global infrastructure as Cloudflare’s public DNS, it benefits from the same anycast architecture, geographic distribution, and resilient network design.”

How this differs from split-horizon DNS

Internal DNS replaces the duplicate-zone model traditional split-horizon setups depend on.

“Before migrating, many organizations maintain multiple versions of the same internal DNS zones across headquarters, branch offices, and cloud environments,” Somoza explained. “Conditional forwarders determine which resolver answers each query, and keeping those environments synchronized becomes an ongoing operational task.”

Internal DNS collapses those duplicate zones into a single authoritative copy split across views instead. “With Internal DNS, that configuration becomes much simpler,” Somoza said. “A customer might create a single corp.internal zone in Cloudflare and define multiple DNS views.”

For example, users in headquarters could receive one internal IP address for wiki.corp.internal, while branch offices receive a different address. Somoza emphasized that the zone itself only exists once. “Instead of maintaining multiple copies of the same configuration, administrators manage a single source of truth,” he said.

Early use cases and migration challenges

Not surprisingly, Somoza noted that the first use case Cloudflare sees for Internal DNS is for split-horizon DNS consolidation. There is also interest from organizations that operate across multiple cloud providers that want one consistent internal DNS service instead of managing separate DNS platforms in each environment.

Another common use case is extending zero-trust policies to internal name resolution. “Customers already use Gateway to control access to internet traffic, and Internal DNS lets them apply similar policy decisions before internal names are resolved,” Somoza said.

When it comes to migration, the friction customers report during migration is procedural rather than architectural.

“Customers need to think through API permissions, connectivity, and how existing local DNS forwarding rules interact with Gateway,” Somoza said. “Those are all well understood migration steps and customers often run both environments in parallel before completing the transition.”

What is a business analyst?

Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.

BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.

The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that business analysis is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.

Impact of AI on business analyst role

As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.

AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.

Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.

Business analyst job description

BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.

According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.

Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  

The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.

Business analyst skills

The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.

Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.

According to the IIBA, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:

• Oral and written communication skills
• Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills
• Analytical thinking and problem solving
• Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy
• Knowledge of business structure
• Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis
• Processes modeling
• Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies

For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click here.

Business analyst salary

The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to data from PayScale. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.

Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:

For tips on boosting your salary, click here.

Business analyst certifications

Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:

• IIBA Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)
• IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)
• IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)
• IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)
• IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)
• IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)
• PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)
• Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)

For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click here.

Business analytics tools and software

BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.

EF Core is Microsoft’s flagship ORM (object-relational mapper), the software layer that allows .NET developers to work with relational databases. The DbContext class is the core component of the EF Core framework for managing database operations. However, the DbContext class in EF Core is not thread-safe. Hence, if you share DbContext instances between multiple threads, you will often encounter data corruption issues and the InvalidOperationException.

In this article, we’ll learn how we can execute queries in parallel in EF Core by handling thread-safety issues to avoid concurrency errors. To work with the code examples provided in this article, you should have Visual Studio 2026 installed in your system. You can download Visual Studio 2026 here.

Executing EF Core queries in parallel – the problem

When working in today’s data-driven applications, you will often need to fetch data from multiple unrelated datasets. In applications that use concurrency, thread-safety is critical to guaranteeing correct execution, avoiding data corruption and race conditions, and ensuring data consistency. Let’s understand this with an example.

Let’s say we want to populate a dashboard that displays all recently processed orders, metrics, logs, and traces, as well as your application’s performance metadata. We might write the following code.

public class Dashboard
{
    public List Orders { get; set; } = new();
    public Metrics Metrics { get; set; } = new();
    public List Logs { get; set; } = new();
    public List Traces { get; set; } = new();
}
public static async Task LoadDashboardAsync(ProductService productService)
{
    Task<List>    ordersTask  = productService.GetProcessedOrdersAsync();
    Task        metricsTask = productService.GetMetricsAsync();
    Task<List> logsTask    = productService.GetRecentLogsAsync();
    Task<List>    tracesTask  = productService.GetTracesAsync();
    await Task.WhenAll(ordersTask, metricsTask, logsTask, tracesTask);
    return new Dashboard
    {
        Orders  = await ordersTask,
        Metrics = await metricsTask,
        Logs    = await logsTask,
        Traces  = await tracesTask
    };
}

In the preceding code snippet, there are four read operations that are executed by four different Task instances. Our objective is to ensure that the database round trips run in parallel instead of in sequence. We can accomplish this by usingTask.WhenAll, which starts the four tasks, waits for every task to finish, then returns the data wrapped inside a new Dashboard instance.

If we executed these queries sequentially, the user would have to wait until each query completed its execution in turn—for a total wait time equal to the sum of the times for all four queries. However, by running these queries in parallel, we reduce the wait time considerably. The user will need to wait only as long as it takes for the slowest of the four queries to complete its execution.

However, there is a danger with the above approach. If you run multiple operations on the same DbContext instance, you will see an InvalidOperationException with the following message:

A second operation started in this context before the previous operation was completed. This is usually caused by multiple threads using the same DbContext instance; instance members are not guaranteed to be thread-safe.

Databases such as SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and Oracle Database follow a request-response communication model at the connection level: a single connection can process only one command at a time. Hence, you cannot run multiple queries concurrently using the connection. If you await several operations using the same connection, EF Core detects the overlapping use of a non-thread-safe context and throws an InvalidOperationException. To run queries in parallel, you must give each task its own connection or context.

Why DbContext isn’t thread-safe – and how to work around it

The DbContext class in EF Core is designed to manage a single unit of work. To be more precise, EF Core does not provide support for running multiple operations on the same DbContext instance. This design approach creates inherent challenges when you use the same DbContext instance across multiple threads. If DbContext were thread-safe, extensive locking would be required, which would degrade data access performance.

This stateful design of DbContext makes it unsuitable for concurrent access patterns that involve loading, modifying, or tracking different sets of data simultaneously, because it needs to maintain the internal representation of database state.

The change tracker is one of the most important components of DbContext in EF Core. It monitors all entities loaded into memory and detects any changes made to them after they have been loaded. It keeps track of the original, current, and changed values of the entities, thereby enabling the EF Core runtime to know the current state of these entities when you call the SaveChanges() method on the DbContext instance.

To implement thread-safety when working with DbContext, we must write our code to ensure that each concurrent operation gets its own copy of a short-lived instance. Now, we could accomplish this by wrapping a shared DbContext instance inside a thread-safe block using the lock keyword, so that all calls to the database take place using one and only one thread at a time. This approach is illustrated in the code snippet below.

using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;
public class Product
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; } = string.Empty;
    public decimal Price { get; set; }
    public int Quantity { get; set; }
}
public class AppDbContext : DbContext
{
    public AppDbContext(DbContextOptions options) : base(options) { }
    public DbSet Products => Set();
}

However, while the above approach gives us the thread-safety we need, it can degrade data access performance considerably. A better approach is to use IDbContextFactory , which creates fresh DbContext instances on demand. Calling its CreateDbContext() method is cheap and produces a fresh, isolated context every time.

The following code snippet shows how you can register an instance of type IDbContextFactory as a singleton. You can safely call this code from any thread.

builder.Services.AddDbContextFactory(options =>
    options.UseSqlServer(
        builder.Configuration.GetConnectionString("Default")));

Executing EF Core queries in parallel – the solution

Now let’s see how we can put IDbContextFactory to work. The following code illustrates a class named ProductService that uses a factory to create DbContext instances for each scope of work.

public class ProductService
{
    private readonly IDbContextFactory _factory;
    public ProductService(IDbContextFactory factory)
        => _factory = factory;
    public async Task GetByIdAsync(int id)
    {
        await using var context = await _factory.CreateDbContextAsync();
        return await context.Products.FindAsync(id);
    }
    public async Task UpdateStockQuantityAsync(int id, int updateQuantity)
    {
        await using var context = await _factory.CreateDbContextAsync();
        var product = await context.Products.FindAsync(id);
        if (product is null) return;
        product.Quantity += updateQuantity;
        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
    }
}

Note that ProductService has two methods, GetByIdAsync and UpdateStockQuantityAsync. An instance of the DbContext class is created locally in each of these methods. Now, suppose you have two threads, T1 and T2, that execute these methods concurrently. That is, thread T1 executes the GetByIdAsync method while thread T2 executes the UpdateStockQuantityAsync method. Because each of these methods is executed in isolation, they will have their own context, connection, and change-tracking information, and there will be no mutable state, so you don’t need to implement thread synchronization in either of these methods.

Consider the following code that executes a read operation and an update operation in two separate tasks.

public static async Task RunMethodsInParallelAsync(ProductService productService)
{
      Task readTask = productService.GetByIdAsync(1);
      Task updateTask = productService.UpdateStockQuantityAsync(3, 5);
      await Task.WhenAll(readTask, updateTask);
      Product? product = await readTask;
 }

The Task.WhenAll method runs the two tasks in parallel and waits until both have finished. The reason this approach is thread-safe, and will not create concurrency errors, is that each of these two methods creates its own DbContext instance internally. Therefore the read operation and the update operation use independent DbContext instances.

Use DbContext pooling to reduce allocation cost

Although creating DbContext instances is not that costly, you should consider using pooled contexts in applications that require high scalability and high performance. The following code snippet shows how you can register a pooled context.

builder.Services.AddPooledDbContextFactory(options =>
    options.UseSqlServer(connectionString));

A call to AddDbContext() will register a DbContext instance as scoped per HTTP request. Each request will run on a different thread and each will have its own context. However, keep in mind that the default scoped registration of the DbContext will not always suffice.

You will need a factory to create instances of DbContext when you’re using a background service, or performing some work inside a particular request, or running some business logic operation over multiple contexts.

Key takeaways

• If you use EF Core in the data access layer of your application, you must implement thread safety measures whenever you run your queries in parallel.
• You cannot execute multiple queries in parallel in EF Core using the same DbContext instance.
• The IDbContextFactory enables you to create a DbContext instance for each thread, thereby enabling you to work with these instances in isolation.
• Although using a DbContext pool involves a small allocation overhead, it becomes a non-issue if you need high throughput.

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?

Earlier this month, Nokia provided an AI-RAN platform update that brings an AI-native and programmable compute which is projected to double spectral efficiency by 2028. This increases speed, but more importantly, it can allow mobile operators to create some actual monetization beyond connectivity.

With this release, Nokia is introducing what it calls the industry’s first commercial AI-RAN platform, built on its AI‑native anyRAN software and Nvidia’s Aerial AI-RAN stack running on merchant GPU-based accelerated computing. The company is already seeing more than 20% gains in spectral efficiency from AI-driven radio algorithms, with a roadmap to reach 50% by 2027 and more than 100% by 2028, effectively doubling capacity on existing spectrum in dense cells.

Legacy RAN infrastructure enables connectivity but not much beyond that. The AI-RAN makes the network intelligent and extends AI into the physical world, enabling telcos to get more from their infrastructure investments, including providing a path to 6G. The partnership with Nvidia brings CUDA and AI into mobile environments.

For Network World readers, the headline isn’t just that Nokia got to market first with AI‑RAN—it’s that the company is using AI and GPUs to break the historical coupling between radio performance and custom silicon refresh cycles, and to turn the RAN into an application platform.

What AI-RAN actually is

At a technical level, Nokia’s AI‑RAN is a software‑defined baseband architecture that runs Layer 1/Layer 2 RAN functions and AI models on accelerated compute, primarily GPUs, instead of being locked into fixed‑function ASICs. Udayan Mukherjee, Nokia’s CTO for RAN and core, summarized the vision in the analyst briefing: “AI‑RAN is essentially a platform that turns the radio network into a true AI‑native programmable platform… one software detached from the hardware, defining flexible hardware deployment configurations, including part of the AI grid.”

Several pillars stand out:

• AI‑native design: Algorithms move from traditional linear models to increasingly nonlinear techniques (e.g., advanced channel estimation, deep receivers/transmitters, RKHS-based methods), which demand tensor-heavy compute best delivered by GPUs.
• Software-defined RAN: The same anyRAN software stack runs across different hardware configurations—plug‑in cards, standalone AI‑RAN nodes, and COTS/cloud RAN—so innovation comes via software releases rather than baseband card swaps.
• Programmable “D‑apps” layer: Nokia is pushing a new real‑time E3 interface from Layer 1/2 into an application layer for distributed apps (D‑apps) that can tap IQ samples, channel estimation and scheduling data for use cases such as sensing and location services.
• Crucially, this isn’t meant to replace all custom silicon overnight. Mukherjee was explicit: “We are not dropping the purpose‑built product… but we want to also get to merchant silicon, because that’s the future as we want to develop bigger models and AI elements and value‑added services on top of it.” The result is a hybrid era where AI‑accelerated platforms coexist with existing basebands but begin to shoulder the most compute‑intensive workloads.

Why AI-RAN matters for operators

Nokia and its early operator partners are trying to solve three perennial problems: finite spectrum, changing traffic patterns, and the drag of hardware refresh cycles.

First, spectrum constraints. Aji Ed, Nokia’s head of AI‑RAN and cloud RAN, called spectrum “the first constraint everybody has,” noting that operators have paid “huge amount of money” for bands and now need to “get up to the 2x spectrum” in terms of usable capacity. By running more complex AI models for multi‑user MIMO pairing, channel estimation, carrier aggregation and deep receiver/transmitter functions on GPUs, Nokia believes it can unlock those gains where traditional platforms simply run out of compute headroom.

Second, traffic is shifting. Generative AI and distributed inference workloads are driving more uplink-heavy, latency‑sensitive patterns that current RANs weren’t designed for. AI‑RAN’s ability to adapt scheduling, beamforming and resource allocation dynamically via AI models deployed at the baseband is meant to keep up with this shift.

Third, innovation cadence. In Ed’s words, “hardware upgrades can’t keep up with the innovation… we can’t really have a silicon refresh cycle linked with every three‑year cycle.” Nokia’s subscription‑based software model is designed to deliver new AI algorithms, spectral‑efficiency improvements and network optimization features continuously, without requiring “forklift” hardware replacements.

For operators, the message is attractive: comparable TCO and power to existing basebands, “no hardware premium” for GPU adoption, but higher capacity and a path to new services. Nokia told analysts it has reached performance, price and energy efficiency parity between its custom GridShark silicon and GPU-based systems, while moving the baseband roadmap to merchant silicon.

Nokia’s differentiation strategy

Every major RAN vendor is talking about AI‑enhanced radio, but Nokia is drawing a line between incremental gains and what it claims is a platform shift. When asked why its 2x spectral efficiency ambition is so much higher than the ~20% numbers competitors discuss, Ed pointed to the underlying architecture: “We are able to bring much more complex algorithms into this compute infrastructure… all of these require much higher compute, which is exactly what is coming from the accelerated computing.”

Several differentiators emerge:

• Aggressive spectral roadmap: Nokia is targeting 1.5x by 2027 and 2x by 2028, across TDD massive MIMO and FDD scenarios, with a feature roadmap built jointly with Nvidia and other partners.
• Single code base, three deployment paths: The same anyRAN software stack runs on (1) a GPU‑powered AirScale capacity plug‑in card, (2) a high‑capacity standalone AI‑RAN node, and (3) GPU‑based COTS/cloud RAN servers. This lets operators modernize “at their own pace” and mix brownfield evolution with greenfield AI-native deployments.
• Open ecosystem with D‑apps: Nokia is leaning into ORAN compliance (front‑haul, O1/O2) and actively championing the E3 interface and D‑apps concept within ORAN and AI‑RAN alliances, with Bell Labs and at least two external partners already building sensing and location applications on the platform.
• Software subscription tied to value: The commercial model builds on existing software subscriptions but ties pricing more explicitly to delivered value, such as spectral efficiency improvements and new AI services, rather than pure license metrics.

Mukherjee emphasized the openness angle in the briefing: “We see a lot of third‑party applications, whether it’s improving spectral efficiency or location service or sensing, can be developed on this platform… any AI‑powered services from us in Nokia or from ecosystems can be actually developed on top of it.” For operators burned by closed optimization stacks, that’s a notable pivot.

How AI-RAN unlocks new revenue

Most operators will sign off on AI‑RAN if the capacity and TCO story holds, but the more strategic question is monetization beyond connectivity. Nokia’s spokespeople spent considerable time on this in the analyst call, pointing to several classes of services that are difficult or impossible to deliver without AI running in the RAN itself.

Examples include:

• Integrated sensing: Turning the RAN into a distributed sensor grid that can support applications such as 3D mapping, gesture recognition and environmental monitoring, using the same RF infrastructure. Mukherjee noted, “We have at least two to three partners developing sensing applications on top of it… as well as two other companies developing location services.”
• Physical AI and location services: For factories, logistics hubs and smart cities, AI‑RAN can provide high‑precision positioning and real‑time telemetry for robots, drones and autonomous systems by fusing radio data and AI models at the edge.
• Distributed AI infrastructure: Operators exploring “AI‑native cities” can use AI‑RAN nodes and COTS GPU servers as a distributed inference fabric for applications that need tight latency to endpoints—think AR/VR offload, real‑time video analytics or interactive generative AI experiences.
• Premium connectivity tiers: With fine‑grained, AI‑driven control over uplink/downlink scheduling and QoS, operators can create differentiated SLAs for enterprise slices, mission‑critical IoT and AI workloads, charging for guaranteed performance rather than best‑effort connectivity.

Ed framed the opportunity as a continuum: Superior connectivity from 2x spectral efficiency creates “space for new AI workloads and other use cases,” while the D‑apps ecosystem and subscription model provide a mechanism to package and sell those capabilities. In practice, that could look like:

• Industrial sensing-as-a-service, where Nokia and partners supply D‑apps for integrated sensing and positioning, and operators monetize them per site or per device.
• Network‑exposed APIs for inference, location and RF sensing, integrated into operators’ broader network API portfolios as they pursue “network-as-a-platform” strategies.
• Sector‑specific AI‑native services, such as stadium analytics, transportation corridor monitoring, or drone traffic management, built by ISVs on top of Nokia’s exposed E3 data.

For operators that already use Nokia’s MantaRay and SMO stacks for cross‑network optimization, AI‑RAN essentially becomes the local real‑time execution environment, while R‑apps/X‑apps continue to orchestrate macro-level behaviors. Mukherjee described this layered architecture as “DU and CU on the platform running D‑apps using E3, interfacing to X‑apps and R‑apps through E2SM and connecting to the overall management system/SMO for lifecycle management.”

Adoption path and reality check

Nokia is not promising instant transformation. AI‑RAN pilots are slated for late 2026, with commercial availability on card‑based systems in 2027 and AirScale-based systems around 2028, all driven from a single software stack that supports 4G, 5G and is upgradable to 6G. The company already has trials and collaborations underway with T‑Mobile US, SoftBank, Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison, BT, Elisa, Vodafone, Orange, NTT Docomo, Deutsche Telekom and others.

There are still open questions around 3GPP vs ORAN standardization of E3, the maturity of the D‑apps ecosystem, and how operators will digest yet another subscription layer tied to radio software. But Nokia’s move puts a stake in the ground: in the AI era, the RAN is not just a throughput engine; it’s a programmable AI computer that can be monetized.

For Network World readers evaluating vendor roadmaps, this launch suggests a clear directional change. If Nokia hits its targets, AI‑RAN could mark the point where baseband becomes less about hardware SKUs and more about an AI platform strategy—one where spectral efficiency and new services are rolled out at “software speed,” as Ed described it, rather than at the pace of the next card generation.

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.

Google’s AI offerings span its internal and cloud offerings. Its data centers are processing seven times more AI tokens compared to last year. To keep up, Google is upgrading its data-center hardware and software technologies at a faster clip. It plans to raise $80 billion to build new data centers. (See related story: Google transforms its data center architecture for agent era)

Network World spoke with Mark Lohmeyer, vice president and general manager of AI and computing at Google, about how the company’s infrastructure is keeping pace with AI demand.

Network World: What is the primary shift in infrastructure needs?

Mark Lohmeyer: We’ve seen the rise of agents and agentic use cases. Years ago, it was the chat phase: Ask a question, get an answer. Now we’re in the agentic era, where you express your intent, agents spin off multiple sub-agents, working in parallel, preserving state. This is a radical shift in what infrastructure needs to do; make them fast, cost effective, secure, reliable. We’re delivering infrastructure optimized for the age of agents.

NW: What’s the goal of the infrastructure buildout, and what should customers expect regarding costs?

ML: Ultimately, it’s about enabling customers with leading-edge capabilities and models at scale cost-effectively. With agents, inference transactions increase by 50x, 100x versus non-agentic workloads. We’re driving the cost per transaction down exponentially. In our latest platforms, we reduce the cost by almost 2x for the same work. Customers serve twice the number of users at the same cost, directly driving profitability.

NW: How are you addressing energy efficiency?

ML: Energy is a critical resource, and Google has optimized for years. We design data centers and compute [to drive] high PUE (power usage effectiveness). We introduced liquid cooling over five years ago, and these latest systems are all liquid cooled. For agentic workloads, CPUs come to the forefront… orchestrating agents, calling tools, doing evaluation loops in reinforcement learning. Our latest Axion-based CPU platform called N4A has energy efficiency and is significantly better than the prior generation and x86 comparables.

NW: How do you think about token efficiency as you build-out systems?

ML: Performance and efficiency gains are powered by co-design of the model and infrastructure. Gemini is trained on TPUs, primarily served on TPUs with high frontier model capability, in a token and cost-efficient way. This stems from co-design across the full stack.

NW: How do you project what infrastructure will be needed years in advance?

ML: Hardware cycles deliver a new next generation roughly every year, but design cycles are two years or more in advance. We work with DeepMind doing core research, to application teams taking models into production, to billions of users, to our team building infrastructure. We work upstream with DeepMind and application teams to understand what’s coming. Agents weren’t being broadly spoken of externally, but internally we had those insights around what they would need. That shows up in hardware design. We hit the timing right — these platforms are built for agents.

NW: What’s the eighth generation TPU platform?

ML: We deliver new platforms every year, and ones launched years ago are close to 100% utilized because demand for AI-optimized compute is high. The eighth-generation TPU platform is the first delivering two complete systems, from the chip all the way up to the network and storage and software, that are optimized.

TPU-8t is optimized for training, and TPU-8i is optimized for inference. For TPU-8i, we increased SRAM on the chip to 384MB — three times the prior generation — and increased the HBM by 50%.

NW: How are you approaching GPU and TPU compatibility?

ML: People in a single cluster do not commingle GPUs and TPUs. We offer both options based on specific workload needs. We’ve been investing on the TPU side in using software frameworks customers are comfortable with on GPUs and enabling those on TPUs. For example, PyTorch and vLLM. Customers could have a pool of GPUs and TPUs, running vLLM on top of that. Start with a workload on TPUs, but if the TPU pool is fully utilized, spill to GPUs or vice versa. This works because it’s all leveraging the same compatible software layer on top.

NW: How has the orchestration platform changed for agents?

ML: Kubernetes is becoming the orchestration platform of choice for AI. Google is transforming GKE [Google Kubernetes Engine] into an agent-native orchestration solution. When expressing intent to an agent and it spins up multiple sub-agents, compute needs to spin up rapidly — TPUs or GPUs — without long delays, then run and spin back down. We’re optimizing at every layer of the GKE stack: significantly improving node startup time and how rapidly we start and stop containers. Lovable demonstrates this with GKE, spinning up hundreds of sandboxes for live coding sessions on their platform in parallel, paying for infrastructure when needed.

NW: What is the role of the network and storage infrastructure?

ML: The network is critical for AI. This requires creating large-scale clusters of GPUs or TPUs and enabling them to talk to each other in a high-performance way. We created the Virgo network — a collapsed network architecture, non-blocking within a data center, where multiple pods or NVLink72 domains connect together.

In TPU8T, we can connect over a million TPUs together leveraging Virgo, creating large-scale, high-performance, reliable clusters that shrink innovation cycles. Storage is equally critical. In large-scale clusters, something is always failing. The ability to take snapshots and go back to a checkpoint is important.

We’ve introduced Managed Lustre 10T, with 10 terabytes per second of bandwidth, 18 petabytes of storage in single clusters. This is 10 times faster than last year and 20 times faster than competition. We have Rapid Bucket, low-latency storage backed by Google storage systems. Both are impactful in large-scale training environments.

NW: How does KV cache strategy differ between training and inference?

ML: For TPU-8i, we increased SRAM on the chip to 384 megabytes — three times the prior generation — and increased the HBM by 50%. Storing KV cache directly in chip memory allows responding to inference requests much more rapidly and cost-effectively than going to an external system. For inference workloads, storing as much KV cache as possible on-chip is critical.

We’re introducing a dedicated KV cache storage subsystem that works across GPUs and TPUs. As KV caches get larger, being able to fall back to this dedicated subsystem becomes critical. Loading model weights rapidly is important in dynamic inference environments where accelerators switch between models hour by hour.

I haven’t slept much in the past few weeks. Not because of some theoretical cyber risk that keeps many executives awake, but because reality just delivered a real wake-up call to our industry — a call that every executive must answer, now.

Imagine this: A major global enterprise, a company most of us interact with indirectly every single day, wakes up to find its entire digital environment obliterated. Thousands of employees in dozens of offices and remote locations are suddenly offline. Customers are cut off, supply chains grind to a halt and regulators are notified with a chilling admission: “We have no idea when we’ll be back.”

This wasn’t ransomware. There was no negotiation, no decryption key to buy, no easy way out. It was destruction — deliberate, coordinated and geopolitically motivated — not monetary.

As a chief customer officer who’s worked with countless customers on cyberattack risks, my perspective hits a bit differently than a CISO or a CTO. I see the aftermath, not just the attack surface. I see the faces behind the tickets, the operations team locked out of their own systems, the support agent answering panicked calls at dawn. And I ask: How many organizations have actually stress-tested their response to this scenario — not a hypothetical, but this very real, lights-out event? Here’s what every leader needs to confront today:

Recovery is not just a technical exercise

The first assumption to break during a real crisis is the belief that recovery is purely technical.

Many organizations have done tabletop exercises and have a backup and recovery playbook, so they feel prepared. They can point to backup windows, retention schedules and immutability controls. The moment a true blackout happens, a different reality surfaces. The people who own the recovery steps either do not know each other, lack the authority to make decisions without supervisor approval or need guidance from offline systems.

The reality is that technical infrastructure almost always holds up better than human infrastructure. Organizations have built their recovery strategy around the assumption that someone competent will be awake, available and empowered when a cyber event happens.

Still, backups are only as good as their independence. Let’s be blunt: If your recovery infrastructure shares identity, authentication or network trust with your Microsoft tenant (such as Azure, Microsoft 365 or Teams), you don’t actually have a recovery plan; you have a false sense of one — and a liability. A recent survey found that while 90% of organizations express confidence in their ability to recover from a cyber incident, fewer than one in three ransomware victims fully recovered their data.

True resilience means immutable, air-gapped backups, untouchable by the same compromise. Anything less is an illusion. I talk to customers about their recovery plans constantly. The customers who have rehearsed all scenarios sleep soundly. Those who haven’t? They’re rolling the dice.

Most business continuity plans ignore ‘total blackout’

I’ve reviewed hundreds of business continuity plans. Almost all assume partial failures — a region, an application, a data center. But what if every system, in every country, goes dark simultaneously? That’s an entirely different playbook. If your team hasn’t run a drill for a global, simultaneous outage, you’re not prepared. The probability is low, but the cost of being unready is existential.

Connected devices, OT systems, field hardware, partner integrations — they all plug into your enterprise network. When the core collapses, it’s not just IT at risk. It’s operational technology, physical safety systems and in regulated sectors, potentially human lives. Understanding and testing those interdependencies is non-negotiable.

This is also where boards need to change the conversation. A study found that only 5% of companies have cybersecurity experts on their board of directors. Recovery time objectives (RTOs) should not be buried in technical appendices. It’s all jargon to boards. That makes translation essential. RTOs must be explained in terms of business impact. “We can recover in four hours” is a technical statement. “Every hour of downtime costs us $2.3M and creates regulatory exposure in three jurisdictions” is a board statement.

That is the level of clarity leaders need.

The most prepared organizations do not wait for an incident to educate the board. They bring the conversation forward proactively. They frame recovery in business terms: revenue, regulatory standing, customer trust and brand reputation.

The most effective framing is often simple. Show the most critical systems. Show what happens if each one is down for one hour, four hours, 24 hours and 72 hours. Show the current recovery capability against each and then show the gap.

If your board is not demanding real answers, your business continuity strategy is likely underfunded and your business is exposed. This is a risk conversation worth forcing because the consequences do not stay inside IT. They can show up in customer churn or missed revenue and ruin an organization’s reputation.

Threat intelligence must be actionable, not archived

Geopolitical attacks, hacktivist campaigns and nation-state targeting aren’t abstract threats. They are active risks, and that intelligence cannot languish in the security team’s inbox. Executive leadership must be looped in — and immediately — so gaps can be closed before they’re exploited. Too often, intelligence enters the security operations function and never reaches the teams responsible for recovery infrastructure or executive decision-making.

If a threat actor is targeting a specific class of backup agents, the team responsible for those agents needs to know now, not two weeks from now. If intelligence suggests destructive activity against a sector, recovery owners need to validate isolation, access paths and restoration procedures immediately. If geopolitical tension increases the likelihood of targeting, executive leadership needs to understand what exposure exists and what actions are being taken. The organizations that survive aren’t just the best at incident response. They’re the ones who anticipated, rehearsed and invested before the attack.

Part of investing in a recovery strategy requires closing the loop between signal and action. The most prepared organizations have already mapped their critical recovery dependencies to specific threat categories. When intelligence touches one of those categories, there is a named owner and a clear set of actions. No guessing or forwarding emails into the void is needed because the distance between the warning and the employees’ ability to do something is shortened.

Looking ahead, the conversation will continue to evolve beyond traditional cyber response. Because in an AI-enabled enterprise, the new question is whether the data within those systems can still be trusted. When AI systems make decisions based on enterprise data, the attack surface becomes the data’s accuracy. A threat actor who quietly corrupts a dataset over 90 days before a recovery event has done more damage than just downtime. They can poison the inputs driving decisions across the business.

Regardless of how AI will change threat intelligence and cyber response, these principles remain the same. Know your problem, whether structural or technological. Ensure your human infrastructure keeps pace with your technical infrastructure, with clear cross-functional ownership and the tools and knowledge to act autonomously. Communicate with your boards often — and correctly.

Let’s not wait for the next headline to ask, “Are we ready?” Have those conversations now. Test your assumptions. Close your gaps. Because in today’s threat landscape, resilience isn’t IT’s job — it’s everyone’s mandate.

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

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

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

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

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

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

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

AI providers won’t fix this problem

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

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

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

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

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

Three required sources

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

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

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

Why agentic AI makes this urgent

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

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

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

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

What changes when the three sources come together

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

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

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

The build trap

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

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

It is a trap. Three reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

The 5 layers of public-sector control

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

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

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

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

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

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

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

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

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

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

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday.com’s key market advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions for the near-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

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

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

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

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

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday’s key market advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions for the near-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oracle is expanding its Cloud@Customer on-premises portfolio with a managed database offering that it says will enable enterprises to run databases, applications, and AI agents in their own data centers, helping CIOs modernize mid-sized workloads while meeting data residency, regulatory, and low-latency requirements.

The hybrid cloud offering, Base Database Cloud@Customer, combines existing database and infrastructure services such as the Base Database Service and Data Infrastructure Cloud@Customer X11 platform. It is designed for enterprises that do not need the scale of Exadata Cloud@Customer but still want their infrastructure and AI capabilities on-premises, managed by Oracle, the company said.

The Cloud@Customer X11 platform itself consists of two Oracle X11 compute servers and shared all-flash storage, offering up to 60 usable processor cores and 660 GB of memory per server, 47.2 TB of storage, and 10/25 GbE networking.

For regulated industries or restricted connectivity

Analysts see the new offering filling a gap for enterprises that want the operational and economic benefits of the cloud but cannot send their data to a public cloud because of legal restrictions or technology limitations.

These enterprises, according to Ashish Chaturvedi, executive research leader at HFS Research, are likely to be in regulated industries such as financial services, healthcare, government, and defense that must comply with data residency requirements, or needing low-latency access from remote sites to operational databases.

The offering could also appeal to enterprises modernizing mid-sized workloads at remote locations or within individual business units that could never justify the investment in a full Exadata rack, said Amit Chandak, chief analytics officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

In all cases, Chaturvedi said, the appeal of the offering is its managed nature, which takes away the burden of looking after the underlying infrastructure.

Deployment and maintenance becomes easier too, said Michael Leone, principal analyst at Moor Strategy and Insights: “They get automation that mid-size teams rarely have the staff to build. Clustering, patching, standby databases, and backups arrive configured instead of hand-assembled because the offering is managed.”

The economics are equally compelling, Chaturvedi said. The pay-as-you-go pricing model, combined with online compute scaling, helps enterprises avoid overprovisioning and paying license fees for idle cores, which is a “classic waste” of fixed on-premises systems, he said.

Private AI behind the firewall

Beyond the operational and economic benefits, the architecture of the new offering enables databases, applications, VMs, and AI agents to be collocated on the same platform, removing what Chaturvedi called “the single biggest blocker” to AI adoption in regulated environments: the need to keep private data behind the firewall.

“For a CIO in a regulated sector who wants to deploy AI agents but can’t let regulated data touch an external model API, that’s a real unlock,” Chaturvedi said.

More so because most AI offerings, at least in their present form and state, cannot guarantee sensitive data protection, said Igor Ikonnikov, advisory fellow at Info-Tech Research Group.

Even if Base Database Cloud@Customer turns out more expensive than fully cloud-based options, “It’s still attractive as it eliminates reputational and economic risk caused by possible AI-induced data leakage,” Ikonnikov said.

The offering’s consolidation of databases, applications, and AI agents will also simplify deployment of AI-based workflows, said Forrester principal analyst Noel Yuhanna. “It reduces stack complexity and helps accelerate development cycles, deliver real-time data, and eliminate data movement challenges.”

Despite those advantages, Chandak cautioned that the offering is unlikely to see broad adoption outside Oracle’s existing customer base: “If a company isn’t already on Oracle, the pull is weak. You don’t buy into Oracle’s database just to get this.”

Enterprises seeking similar hybrid cloud capabilities have no shortage of alternatives: AWS, Microsoft, Google Cloud, IBM, Dell Technologies, and HPE all offer combinations of on-premises infrastructure, cloud management, and AI services.

However, those alternatives typically require customers to integrate multiple software and hardware components rather than consume them as a single managed offering.

Oracle’s differentiation, although narrow, is hard to match, Chaturvedi said: “The vertical integration of database, engineered hardware, cloud management, high-availability architecture, and now private AI, all engineered together and delivered as a managed on-prem subscription should be genuinely convenient and attractive.”

The offering is compatible with Oracle AI Database 26ai and Oracle Database 19c in Enterprise Edition and Standard Edition configurations. It also supports Oracle Real Application Clusters, Oracle Data Guard, and Zero Data Loss Recovery Appliance through Oracle-managed cloud automation for high availability and disaster recovery, the company said.

Base Database Cloud@Customer is now generally available, Oracle said. It did not provide pricing.

This article first appeared on CIO.

Oracle is expanding its Cloud@Customer on-premises portfolio with a managed database offering that it says will enable enterprises to run databases, applications, and AI agents in their own data centers, helping CIOs modernize mid-sized workloads while meeting data residency, regulatory, and low-latency requirements.

The hybrid cloud offering, Base Database Cloud@Customer, combines existing database and infrastructure services such as the Base Database Service and Data Infrastructure Cloud@Customer X11 platform. It is designed for enterprises that do not need the scale of Exadata Cloud@Customer but still want their infrastructure and AI capabilities on-premises, managed by Oracle, the company said.

The Cloud@Customer X11 platform itself consists of two Oracle X11 compute servers and shared all-flash storage, offering up to 60 usable processor cores and 660 GB of memory per server, 47.2 TB of storage, and 10/25 GbE networking.

For regulated industries or restricted connectivity

Analysts see the new offering filling a gap for enterprises that want the operational and economic benefits of the cloud but cannot send their data to a public cloud because of legal restrictions or technology limitations.

These enterprises, according to Ashish Chaturvedi, executive research leader at HFS Research, are likely to be in regulated industries such as financial services, healthcare, government, and defense that must comply with data residency requirements, or needing low-latency access from remote sites to operational databases.

The offering could also appeal to enterprises modernizing mid-sized workloads at remote locations or within individual business units that could never justify the investment in a full Exadata rack, said Amit Chandak, chief analytics officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

In all cases, Chaturvedi said, the appeal of the offering is its managed nature, which takes away the burden of looking after the underlying infrastructure.

Deployment and maintenance becomes easier too, said Michael Leone, principal analyst at Moor Strategy and Insights: “They get automation that mid-size teams rarely have the staff to build. Clustering, patching, standby databases, and backups arrive configured instead of hand-assembled because the offering is managed.”

The economics are equally compelling, Chaturvedi said. The pay-as-you-go pricing model, combined with online compute scaling, helps enterprises avoid overprovisioning and paying license fees for idle cores, which is a “classic waste” of fixed on-premises systems, he said.

Private AI behind the firewall

Beyond the operational and economic benefits, the architecture of the new offering enables databases, applications, VMs, and AI agents to be collocated on the same platform, removing what Chaturvedi called “the single biggest blocker” to AI adoption in regulated environments: the need to keep private data behind the firewall.

“For a CIO in a regulated sector who wants to deploy AI agents but can’t let regulated data touch an external model API, that’s a real unlock,” Chaturvedi said.

More so because most AI offerings, at least in their present form and state, cannot guarantee sensitive data protection, said Igor Ikonnikov, advisory fellow at Info-Tech Research Group.

Even if Base Database Cloud@Customer turns out more expensive than fully cloud-based options, “It’s still attractive as it eliminates reputational and economic risk caused by possible AI-induced data leakage,” Ikonnikov said.

The offering’s consolidation of databases, applications, and AI agents will also simplify deployment of AI-based workflows, said Forrester principal analyst Noel Yuhanna. “It reduces stack complexity and helps accelerate development cycles, deliver real-time data, and eliminate data movement challenges.”

Despite those advantages, Chandak cautioned that the offering is unlikely to see broad adoption outside Oracle’s existing customer base: “If a company isn’t already on Oracle, the pull is weak. You don’t buy into Oracle’s database just to get this.”

Enterprises seeking similar hybrid cloud capabilities have no shortage of alternatives: AWS, Microsoft, Google Cloud, IBM, Dell Technologies, and HPE all offer combinations of on-premises infrastructure, cloud management, and AI services.

However, those alternatives typically require customers to integrate multiple software and hardware components rather than consume them as a single managed offering.

Oracle’s differentiation, although narrow, is hard to match, Chaturvedi said: “The vertical integration of database, engineered hardware, cloud management, high-availability architecture, and now private AI, all engineered together and delivered as a managed on-prem subscription should be genuinely convenient and attractive.”

The offering is compatible with Oracle AI Database 26ai and Oracle Database 19c in Enterprise Edition and Standard Edition configurations. It also supports Oracle Real Application Clusters, Oracle Data Guard, and Zero Data Loss Recovery Appliance through Oracle-managed cloud automation for high availability and disaster recovery, the company said.

Base Database Cloud@Customer is now generally available, Oracle said. It did not provide pricing.

This article first appeared on CIO.

Oracle is expanding its Cloud@Customer on-premises portfolio with a managed database offering that it says will enable enterprises to run databases, applications, and AI agents in their own data centers, helping CIOs modernize mid-sized workloads while meeting data residency, regulatory, and low-latency requirements.

The hybrid cloud offering, Base Database Cloud@Customer, combines existing database and infrastructure services such as the Base Database Service and Data Infrastructure Cloud@Customer X11 platform. It is designed for enterprises that do not need the scale of Exadata Cloud@Customer but still want their infrastructure and AI capabilities on-premises, managed by Oracle, the company said.

The Cloud@Customer X11 platform itself consists of two Oracle X11 compute servers and shared all-flash storage, offering up to 60 usable processor cores and 660 GB of memory per server, 47.2 TB of storage, and 10/25 GbE networking.

For regulated industries or restricted connectivity

Analysts see the new offering filling a gap for enterprises that want the operational and economic benefits of the cloud but cannot send their data to a public cloud because of legal restrictions or technology limitations.

These enterprises, according to Ashish Chaturvedi, executive research leader at HFS Research, are likely to be in regulated industries such as financial services, healthcare, government, and defense that must comply with data residency requirements, or needing low-latency access from remote sites to operational databases.

The offering could also appeal to enterprises modernizing mid-sized workloads at remote locations or within individual business units that could never justify the investment in a full Exadata rack, said Amit Chandak, chief analytics officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

In all cases, Chaturvedi said, the appeal of the offering is its managed nature, which takes away the burden of looking after the underlying infrastructure.

Deployment and maintenance becomes easier too, said Michael Leone, principal analyst at Moor Strategy and Insights: “They get automation that mid-size teams rarely have the staff to build. Clustering, patching, standby databases, and backups arrive configured instead of hand-assembled because the offering is managed.”

The economics are equally compelling, Chaturvedi said. The pay-as-you-go pricing model, combined with online compute scaling, helps enterprises avoid overprovisioning and paying license fees for idle cores, which is a “classic waste” of fixed on-premises systems, he said.

Private AI behind the firewall

Beyond the operational and economic benefits, the architecture of the new offering enables databases, applications, VMs, and AI agents to be collocated on the same platform, removing what Chaturvedi called “the single biggest blocker” to AI adoption in regulated environments: the need to keep private data behind the firewall.

“For a CIO in a regulated sector who wants to deploy AI agents but can’t let regulated data touch an external model API, that’s a real unlock,” Chaturvedi said.

More so because most AI offerings, at least in their present form and state, cannot guarantee sensitive data protection, said Igor Ikonnikov, advisory fellow at Info-Tech Research Group.

Even if Base Database Cloud@Customer turns out more expensive than fully cloud-based options, “It’s still attractive as it eliminates reputational and economic risk caused by possible AI-induced data leakage,” Ikonnikov said.

The offering’s consolidation of databases, applications, and AI agents will also simplify deployment of AI-based workflows, said Forrester principal analyst Noel Yuhanna. “It reduces stack complexity and helps accelerate development cycles, deliver real-time data, and eliminate data movement challenges.”

Despite those advantages, Chandak cautioned that the offering is unlikely to see broad adoption outside Oracle’s existing customer base: “If a company isn’t already on Oracle, the pull is weak. You don’t buy into Oracle’s database just to get this.”

Enterprises seeking similar hybrid cloud capabilities have no shortage of alternatives: AWS, Microsoft, Google Cloud, IBM, Dell Technologies, and HPE all offer combinations of on-premises infrastructure, cloud management, and AI services.

However, those alternatives typically require customers to integrate multiple software and hardware components rather than consume them as a single managed offering.

Oracle’s differentiation, although narrow, is hard to match, Chaturvedi said: “The vertical integration of database, engineered hardware, cloud management, high-availability architecture, and now private AI, all engineered together and delivered as a managed on-prem subscription should be genuinely convenient and attractive.”

The offering is compatible with Oracle AI Database 26ai and Oracle Database 19c in Enterprise Edition and Standard Edition configurations. It also supports Oracle Real Application Clusters, Oracle Data Guard, and Zero Data Loss Recovery Appliance through Oracle-managed cloud automation for high availability and disaster recovery, the company said.

Base Database Cloud@Customer is now generally available, Oracle said. It did not provide pricing.

Just in time for the iPhone’s 20th anniversary, Apple is moving closer to becoming a service company. It is set to launch its new deal with Klarna next week and when it does, Apple enthusiasts in the US will effectively be able to subscribe to their favorite Apple hardware, with the cost spread across up to three years.

This matters because when combined with Apple One and Apple’s Creator Studio subscriptions, the Klarna arrangement brings Apple closer to offering a full subscription model for hardware, software, and services. The only thing you don’t get under the new arrangement is AppleCare, for which you’ll allegedly need to pay extra.

Moving closer to hardware-as-a-service

Apple has slowly been transitioning toward hardware-as-a-service for almost a decade. Back then, Forrester analyst Frank Gillet predicted the company would eventually offer bundles of services and products for a monthly, all-in, fee. 

This isn’t quite where we are yet; you still need at least three subscriptions to get close. But, after the better part of a decade, Apple has moved much nearer to the hardware-as-a-service idea.

There are some products reportedly excluded from the arrangement, including MacBook Neo, Apple Watch SE, the entry-level iPad, and iPhone 16. Clearly, Apple sees those products as sufficiently affordable. 

Easy payments for RAM-ageddon

The new Klarna arrangement comes as Apple is forced to increase product prices as AI-driven memory price inflation becomes widely felt across every economy. In theory, I assume, Apple hopes to make its products available to cash-strapped consumers who need new hardware, while also navigating a time of deep economic tumult and uncertainty. It’s thought the company has previously rejected these plans to protect normal hardware sales, but normality is a kingdom we no longer seem to possess. Interesting times. Probable inflation incoming.

“Apple Upgrade lands at precisely the moment Apple needs it,” IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo wrote in a note seen by Computerworld. “Having just pushed Mac and iPad prices up on the back of the memory shortage, with iPhone increases widely expected in September — as well as the new iPhone foldable expected at $2,500 — Apple’s real risk is that rising prices even further can impact the upgrade cycle.” 

New age, new shopping habits

The introduction of the scheme gives consumers a way to purchase the company’s popular high-end devices when they are introduced — no doubt,at higher cost — this fall. Plus, of course, if it’s good enough for GM, it’s good enough for Apple.

It’s all about attitude, too. From Apple’s perspective, it has done plenty of the groundwork required to convince its customers that subscription payments for things you value are no bad thing. 

Reluctance to embrace “Access Not Ownership’”purchasing models has dropped dramatically since Apple — and CEO Tim Cook — first began banging the drum for services income. Apple’s services stream has now become its second-biggest revenue driver after the iPhone. It has over 1 billion paid subscriptions, and an active hardware installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices globally.

A combination of changed customer habits and external threat means the stars are now aligned for hardware-as-a-service models. “Reframing a device as a low monthly payment protects that [upgrade] cadence and allows Apple to start marketing their products as device-as-a-service to consumers, which no other vendor was ever able to do,” Jeronimo wrote to me. 

There is a one-more-thing aspect to this: the products are effectively being leased, a new approach that will give Apple a stronger grip on EOL devices, helping it grab more of them for refurbishment, resale, and recycling. Over time, this will give the company a much stronger grip on the lucrative second-user market that exists around Apple equipment, even while for almost every consumer product we find the life we want is something we can rent, but probably can’t afford to own.

Managing future risk

The other solid reason to take a partnership approach is risk management. Apple had intended to develop its own buy-now, pay-later scheme via Apple Pay Later, but abandoned that plan as it became riskier with rising bank rates. “Also, by backing the program with Klarna rather than reviving the in-house subscription plan it shelved in 2024, Apple captures the demand upside without taking the credit risk onto its own balance sheet,” Jeronimo said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

AI agents can turn a clear description into working software, the engineer’s judgement is what makes the difference: deciding what to build, catching the tradeoff the agent didn’t know to weigh, and owning the call on whether the result is right.

That judgement has always been the hard part of engineering. It just used to be bundled into the act of writing code, where a skilled engineer did it while typing. As agents take on more of the typing, that judgement separates out and becomes the clear center of the role. Leaders who adapt early will get their metrics, their talent pipelines, and their delivery models working with this shift rather than against it.

Judgement is defining, constraining, and deciding

Judgement is all about defining the problem precisely enough that an agent builds the right thing. It’s setting the constraints the agent won’t infer on its own. It’s spotting the tradeoff buried three layers down that only shows up if you understand the system. And it’s looking at a finished implementation and knowing whether it’s genuinely good enough to ship.

This is the harder part of the job and the real driver of quality. It was easy to underrate when it lived inside day-to-day coding. Now it’s what separates a strong team from an average one.

The shift changes where time, growth, and metrics go

If the high-value activity is intent, review, and judgement rather than raw output, a few assumptions are worth revisiting.

Where engineers spend their time. Less of the day goes to producing boilerplate and mechanical implementation, and more goes to the reasoning that used to get squeezed to the edges: framing the problem and owning the judgement calls that determine quality.

How teams grow their people. Defining problems well, spotting risk, and critically evaluating work you didn’t write yourself have always been senior skills. When agents handle more of the mechanical work, those skills become learnable earlier. That puts the emphasis on leaders to teach the reasoning: why a choice gets made and how to weigh the tradeoffs that come with it.

What you measure. Lines shipped, tickets closed, and velocity charts all measured throughput of the old scarce resource. They say very little about the new one. The teams that adapt will start measuring the quality of intent going in and the reliability of judgement coming out, because that’s where the results now live.

Reinvest the time you get back

The tempting response is to treat the freed-up capacity as pure speed: same work, same tooling, just faster. That captures the easy win and misses the real one. If engineers spend their reclaimed time reviewing a rising volume of agent output with no better context than before, review quietly becomes the new constraint, and you’ve moved the problem rather than solved it.

The organizations that get ahead will invest the reclaimed capacity into the judgement layer: creating stronger specs and acceptance criteria before work starts, building review practices that test agent output against intent, and capturing the reasoning behind decisions where the next person can find it, so it doesn’t have to be reconstructed every time. That’s how the shift becomes an advantage for your team.

The through-line for leaders

The engineering job is moving up a level, from executing the work to directing and validating it. That’s a more strategic role, and it rewards clarity of thought over speed of output. Leaders who see the shift early can help their engineers grow into the work that’s now most valuable.

See how leading engineering organizations are operationalizing this shift at jira.dev.

For many engineering teams, AI adoption means individual engineers write code faster while overall team velocity remains stagnant. Individual speed and team speed are produced by different things, and AI has mostly accelerated the first but not the second.

The step from individual AI adoption to team advantage is one many organizations haven’t taken yet, but it’s the step where real ROI lives. Make the leap and every individual gain starts compounding into something the whole team feels.

Faster individuals, but the same team pace

A developer with a good AI assistant can produce more and produce faster, but ten developers all doing that, each in their own way, with their own tools and their own context, don’t add up to a team that is ten times better. More often they add up to a team moving faster in ten different directions.

The speed stays with the person who created it. The reasoning, context, and decisions that the rest of the team would need to build on that speed gets lost.

These three structural problems explain why:

Problem #1: Context evaporates at scale

An engineer spends an hour with an AI agent working through a hard design decision. They land somewhere good. The code ships. But the reasoning, the alternatives they ruled out, and the constraints they discovered stay in a chat history nobody else will ever open. Six weeks later a teammate touches the same system, has no idea any of that thinking happened, and starts over.

You can’t prompt your way out of a context vacuum. Agents and teammates alike are only as good as the context they start with, and right now most of that context is being generated and immediately lost. The teams that pull ahead will be the ones that treat the reasoning around the work as something worth capturing.

Problem #2: Misalignment creates duplicative work

When individuals move fast in parallel without a shared source of truth, they start stepping on each other’s toes. Two people solve the same problem two different ways. An agent generates a change against a spec that quietly went stale last week. A confidently written pull request follows the wrong internal standard because the standard lived in someone’s head, not in the workflow.

This problem gets worse as more of the work becomes agent-driven. Agents overwrite each other. Specs drift out of date faster than anyone updates them. The faster the individual pieces move, the more expensive the collisions become.

Problem #3: Trust doesn’t scale

The quiet tax on AI-assisted work is review. If an individual developer can’t see how a piece of work was produced, what the intent was, what the agent was told, what standards it was working against, then they can’t confidently build on it. So, they re-check it, or rewrite it, or route around it. The individual saved an hour. The team spent two earning back the trust.

Trust transfers when intent is legible. When a teammate or a reviewer can see what was meant, what was decided, and what guardrails applied, they can accept the work and move on. When they can’t, every handoff becomes a re-litigation.

Turning adoption into advantage

The through-line across all three problems is the same. The value of AI at the team level does not live in the code any single person or agent produces. It lives in whether the intent and context around that work is captured, shared, and reusable by everyone else, human and agent.

That reframes the leadership job. It’s not about driving more adoption, because your teams already handled that. It’s about building the connective layer that turns individual output into team capability.

The window is now

This matters more every month, because the individual productivity story is about to become an agent orchestration story. The organizations that turn individual adoption into team advantage now, while the habits are still forming, will be the ones whose agents actually compound.

See how engineering leaders are building the connective layer between individual AI adoption and team-level compound returns at jira.dev.

Across industries, a version of the same conversation is playing out in technology leadership meetings. Enterprises have deployed AI broadly, and foundation models keep getting more capable. Yet the outputs still feel generic, shaped by industry patterns rather than by the organization producing them.

McKinsey’s AI Trust Maturity Survey found that while overall AI maturity scores have improved, only about a third of organizations have reached a mature level of strategy and governance. Technical capability is advancing faster than organizational alignment. In my view, the gap is not a model problem. It is a context problem. Enterprises are feeding generic inputs into powerful models because sharing organizational context seamlessly with AI is neither easy nor intuitive today.

Building the analytical and creative capabilities to scale AI, something I explored in a recent piece on the left-brain and right-brain approach to enterprise AI, is necessary but not sufficient. Before either can function effectively, the enterprise needs something more fundamental. AI that actually understands the contextual fabric of the organization it is operating in. A frontier model has processed everything written about your sector, your competitors and your regulatory landscape. It cannot access the reasoning embedded in years of delivery decisions, the patterns encoded in how your teams scope and deliver work over time. That knowledge is organizational memory, and frontier models can’t get that easily. It exists inside every enterprise but has never been structured, connected or made available to any AI system. Without it, even the most capable model answers a generic version of your question.

The next competitive advantage in enterprise AI will not come from a better model. It will come from a better organizational context.

One global technology enterprise set out to solve this across its own operations, building a modular ecosystem of domain-specific agents grounded in its own data across contracting, talent and vendor management workflows. What emerged was not just operational efficiency but a shared intelligence layer connecting decisions across functions for the first time.

Competitive differentiation was never about the tools

Consider what actually separates high-performing enterprises from the rest. In a regulated industry like financial services or healthcare, organizations cannot meaningfully differentiate on product. A bank cannot offer substantially different products or services. A health system uses the same clinical protocols and the same electronic health record (EHR) platforms as its peers. What varies is everything underneath: the rigor of processes, the coherence of cross-functional decisions and the people who carry years of accumulated organizational judgment in how they make those decisions.

An organization with a proper context layer in place can say with precision that for this type of engagement, in this sector, with this risk profile, our institutional history tells us exactly where we stand. That level of specificity is what most enterprises have never made available to AI.

The enterprise AI brain that every organization has but has never assembled

Every enterprise already possesses what I think of as an enterprise AI brain. The problem is that it has never been assembled in one place. The data exists across contracts, project documentation, talent records, delivery metrics and the operational communications of daily execution — the informal reasoning that rarely makes it into formal systems.

None of the standard enterprise platforms were designed to connect this. A customer relationship management (CRM) system captures customer interactions. An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system captures transactions. A project management tool captures tasks and timelines. None of them captures the reasoning behind decisions and none of them surfaces a coherent picture of how the organization actually thinks and operates.

BCG’s study across hundreds of companies found that only 10% of AI value comes from the algorithms and another 20% from the technology that implements them, meaning the remaining 70% depends on people, processes and organizational change. The organizations extracting real value are those that have made their institutional knowledge available to AI in a structured, governed way.

Building a contextual AI fabric

A Contextual AI Fabric is the technical and organizational layer that makes the Enterprise AI Brain usable. It brings together unstructured data ingestion, semantic structuring, retrieval pipelines and governed model access to give AI systems the organizational context they need to produce outputs that are genuinely specific to your enterprise rather than generically accurate about your industry. It rests on three pillars. Core is the secure, governed and interoperable foundation that AI operations run on. Context is reliable, traceable access to the organization’s data, processes, knowledge and history. Coordination connects people, agents, applications and systems into process-driven workflows with clear controls and accountability, so the organization acts as one rather than a set of disconnected functions.

The data layer is where most organizations underestimate the work. Contracts, project reports, talent assessments and operational communications require extraction, chunking, embedding and indexing before a model can retrieve and reason over them meaningfully.

The semantic layer is what makes retrieval meaningful. Even well-ingested data fails if functions use different terminology for the same concepts. What legal calls a contract, delivery calls a scope. Without a shared ontology, AI systems remain precise about the wrong thing. And retrieval alone, however well-structured, only takes an organization so far. Retrieval surfaces the right information at the moment of a query, but it does not give a model genuine memory of the organization. The real source of unique, organization-level relevance comes from training domain-specific small language models on this context directly, models that carry organizational memory forward rather than fetching it fresh every time. That is what ultimately separates a Contextual AI Fabric from a well-organized database.

The governance layer is not an add-on. Access controls, data lineage, approval thresholds and human checkpoints need to be designed in before any agent goes into production. Security is not a layer you add afterward. It is the condition under which organizational AI is worth building. If the institutional intelligence that makes your enterprise distinct gets absorbed into a frontier model’s training data, it becomes everyone’s baseline. That is an architectural decision made, or avoided, at the point of deployment.

Proprietary by design

The institutional knowledge that makes up a contextual AI fabric — delivery history, commercial patterns, talent intelligence and operating culture — is proprietary in ways no external model can replicate. This is as much a security imperative as it is a competitive one. Organizational context, once exposed, cannot be unexposed.

Most enterprises are using AI to automate existing processes rather than questioning whether those processes should be redesigned entirely. The organizations extracting the most value are those willing to ask whether their current operating model, built before GenAI existed, is the one they would build today. That question is harder than any technology decision, and it is also the most consequential one.

From context to coordinated action

Context alone is not enough. When a delivery risk surfaces in project data, the talent function needs to respond. When a commercial signal changes in contract data, operations need to recalibrate. This kind of cross-functional coordination, driven by shared organizational intelligence rather than siloed data, is where the real value of enterprise AI shows up and where the absence of a shared context layer becomes most visible.

A global leader in digital payments and business services found its AI deployments across payroll, HR and risk compliance, each running in isolation, with no shared governance or common data foundation. Once the organization established a unified governance backbone connecting its operational data through a shared retrieval layer, business users could query across domains in plain language and new use cases across fraud analytics, forecasting and policy extraction became extensible without rebuilding infrastructure for each one. The shift was not in the models. It was in the shared foundation underneath them.

The leadership question behind the technology question

The enterprises pulling ahead in AI are not winning on model quality but on organizational memory. The ones that have done the hard work of structuring their institutional knowledge into a governed, secure Contextual AI Fabric are giving their AI something no competitor can replicate: the accumulated intelligence of how the business actually operates.

For CIOs, the question is no longer which model to deploy. It is whether the organization has built the foundation that would make any model worth deploying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing the AI waters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision and strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slow decision-making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus on the future, not the past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outsourcing worked – until it didn’t.

After Akirolabs achieved early market validation and onboarded its first enterprise customers, outsourcing began to create strategic limitations around scalability, intellectual property (IP) ownership, security and delivery execution.

The challenges started after the first enterprise customers confirmed product-market fit. At that point, delivery speed became directly tied to business growth. Product quality expectations increased. Infrastructure and security requirements became stricter. Investors started asking difficult but fair questions about IP ownership, operational dependencies and long-term scalability.

Most importantly, engineering execution was no longer just an operational function – it became part of the company’s strategic advantage. That was the moment when the founders decided the company needed dedicated technology leadership to address these challenges. This is how I joined the company at the beginning of 2023. As VP of Engineering and a bit later as CTO, I led the transformation (usually known as insourcing, repatriating or backsourcing) from an outsourced model to an internal engineering organization while maintaining product delivery continuity and preparing the company for the next growth stage. The process took roughly a year and involved not only technical migration, but also organizational design, hiring, process development, infrastructure modernization and cultural transformation – everything from the ground up.

Building an internal engineering organization while still delivering

One of the biggest misconceptions about insourcing is that it is primarily a technical project. It is a leadership and execution challenge.

When I joined the company, there was effectively no internal engineering structure, limited visibility into the existing system and no clear long-term technical strategy. My first months were dedicated to understanding reality and I began with a comprehensive assessment of the codebase, operational risks, documentation quality and knowledge dependencies to determine the most viable transition strategy.

Very early in the process, I faced a critical strategic decision: whether to gradually assume ownership of the existing platform or rebuild it internally. To make that decision, I evaluated four distinct transition models ranging from limited management insourcing to a complete internal rebuild.

After assessing the technical, operational and long-term business implications of each approach, I selected the most demanding option: rebuilding the product internally while maintaining uninterrupted delivery for existing customers. Although riskier in the short term, a full rebuild offered the clearest route to complete IP ownership, architectural flexibility and long-term scalability.

At the time, this decision ran counter to the approach typically taken by startups in similar situations. Most organizations gradually assume ownership of an existing codebase to minimize short-term risk and preserve delivery capacity. My assessment was that the accumulated architectural debt, fragmented knowledge distribution and long-term maintenance risks would ultimately make a phased takeover more expensive and less scalable than a controlled rebuild. The strategy required significantly higher execution discipline, but it allowed us to establish complete ownership of the platform, eliminate inherited constraints and create an architecture capable of supporting enterprise-scale growth.

The next challenge was hiring.

In Germany, hiring can easily take four to six months – mostly due to a typical 3-month notice period, which is incompatible with startup timelines. We solved this by building a hybrid organization structure early: a lean internal core team combined with carefully selected contractors. Instead of hiring only narrow specialists, we prioritized experienced generalists capable of operating across architecture, infrastructure, security and compliance discussions. Later, we evolved toward a product engineering model, where engineers owned broader product outcomes rather than narrowly defined technical functions.

During the first three months, we established a core engineering team of four senior engineers. Over the following nine months, the organization expanded to roughly fifteen engineers while I strategically designed and executed the transformation of the platform’s architecture to meet the rigorous deployment and compliance standards of our first enterprise clients, including Raiffeisen Bank International and Bertelsmann. This structural overhaul allowed the company to meet the deployment, security and compliance requirements of enterprise customers that had previously been inaccessible under the outsourced model. At that point, we had already achieved complete coverage across backend, frontend, DevOps, QA and security.

I also intentionally kept processes lightweight during the transition. Instead of introducing heavyweight frameworks, we focused on clarity of priorities, fast decision-making and execution discipline. We used Kanban over Scrum, eliminated unnecessary meetings, shortened the remaining ones and emphasized engineering culture over process overhead.

Another major challenge was project estimation. Because dual-track development was unavoidable until the in-house platform reached production readiness, estimation accuracy had a direct impact on budget efficiency. Despite all challenges, my initial estimate ultimately proved remarkably close to the final delivery date, differing by only about a week. Accurate forecasting under conditions of parallel development streams, ongoing customer commitments and active team formation became a critical leadership challenge. Maintaining this level of predictability throughout the transition helped align engineering execution with business planning, hiring decisions and investor expectations.

The engineering transformation enabled capabilities that contributed to Akirolabs being recognized as an IDC Innovator in Procurement in 2023, named amongst the Top 27 AI Startups in Germany in 2024, Sifted’s 100 Fastest-Growing Startups in DACH & CEE 2025 and inclusion in 2024-2026 in ProcureTech100 annual recognition of procurement technology providers shaping the future of digital procurement.

Managing risk without slowing down the business

The hardest part of insourcing is not writing code, selecting the technology stack, designing architecture or configuring infrastructure. It is avoiding disruption while the company is changing underneath the product. I successfully orchestrated the concurrent overhaul of product architecture, cross-functional engineering recruitment, infrastructure modernization and live customer operations under exceptionally tight margins.

To reduce delivery risk, we approached the transition in layers.

First, we focused on infrastructure reliability and operational readiness before feature expansion. Cloud architecture, recovery testing, permission segregation and incident management processes were implemented early, not after launch. We also introduced multiple testing stages and dedicated QA functions after learning the hard way that a “developers-only” quality control approach does not scale for complex web platforms and business domains.

Second, we established a structured knowledge-transfer process to rapidly onboard engineers and reduce external dependencies.

Third, we became extremely disciplined about scope management. One of the most common reasons insourcing initiatives fail is uncontrolled change during the rebuild phase. Every new feature request increases uncertainty non-linearly. We learned to separate strategic improvements from distractions and protect the core delivery roadmap aggressively. Throughout the transition, we successfully maintained uninterrupted customer operations by utilizing planned maintenance windows, achieved a near-zero-downtime migration and permanently doubled product velocity immediately following the migration.

Beyond the technical migration itself, the transition established a repeatable operating model for scaling technology organizations beyond the product-market-fit stage. The framework combined organizational redesign, controlled knowledge repatriation, architecture modernization and enterprise-grade operational practices while maintaining uninterrupted customer delivery throughout the transformation. While the implementation was specific to Akirolabs, the underlying principles are broadly applicable to organizations seeking to transition from outsourced development to internal product ownership without disrupting business operations.

By the time the new platform reached production readiness, I had established not only a functioning engineering organization, but also a stable operational model: internal ownership, production-grade infrastructure, security processes, scalable hiring practices and clear technology and product roadmaps.

A positive side effect of the transition was the creation of internal UI/UX and Data Science capabilities, which later became strategically important for AI product initiatives and created a foundation for the third version of the product, which we released in mid-2025.

My technical restructuring and migration to a secure proprietary platform reduced architectural risk, established full in-house ownership and helped strengthen investor confidence during the company’s successful €5M fundraising round in 2024.

The transition created a stronger foundation for scale and supported the company’s continued expansion among enterprise organizations operating at Fortune 500 scale, including Ahold Delhaize, Workday, IFF, Deutsche Bahn and others.

Lessons learned for CTOs considering insourcing

Looking back, several decisions made the transition successful, and several mistakes made it harder than necessary.

The first lesson is simple: decisiveness in strategic transition is paramount to maintaining business momentum. Rapidly evaluating insourcing frameworks and defining clear boundaries with the external partner allowed us to mitigate operational downtime and execute a highly efficient migration ahead of critical market deadlines.

Second, hire more senior people and do it as early as possible. Strong technical leaders multiply execution capacity far beyond their individual contribution. In our case, the quality of the first hires influenced architecture quality, hiring standards, delivery discipline and engineering culture for the entire organization.

Finally, culture matters more than frameworks. Processes can be added later. Ownership mentality cannot.

The biggest long-term advantage of bringing development in-house was not simply faster execution, not better code quality or operational cost optimization by over 30% after the transition which we also achieved. It was an alignment. Product strategy, engineering decisions, customer priorities and business goals became part of the same conversation instead of being separated by organizational boundaries. For technology companies operating in highly competitive markets, that alignment becomes a compounding advantage over time.

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

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?

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.

Arista Networks is looking to simplify data protection at the edge of enterprise networks with a new security package that combines branch office security with SD-WAN connectivity in a single platform.

The company announced AI-driven Edge Threat Management (ETM) for VeloCloud SD-WAN, a platform that links typically separate products and capabilities including Arista’s next-generation firewall, IP reputation, external blocklists, intrusion prevention, URL filtering, application classification, geo-IP filtering, network address translation, deep packet inspection, and zone-based segmentation.

ETM provides perimeter protection at the WAN edge and is a software upgrade option to VeloCloud SD-WAN, according to Arista. It can help simplify branch operations with a common operating system, a uniform enforcement engine, and common end-to-end security policies, the vendor stated. The new ETM solution also leverages Arista’s AVA (Autonomous Virtual Assist) for AI-driven policy intelligence.

“Multi-vendor branch complexity creates the ultimate blind spot, and your adversaries are actively hiding in it,” wrote Brendan Gibbs, Arista’s vice president, AI, routing, and switching platforms, in a blog post about the new platform.

Sprawling multi-vendor infrastructure creates operational headaches and increases security risks, according to Gibbs. “When you have four or five different point solutions from different vendors stacked on top of each other, configuring them becomes a manual, disjointed process. In fact, industry data shows that up to 95% of network changes are still performed manually, which inevitably leads to configuration mistakes, the single biggest driver of network downtime and security policy gaps,” he wrote. 

“When security policies are decoupled from local network routing, critical blind spots emerge. An attacker doesn’t need to break your cloud-delivered SASE firewall; they just need to target the unmonitored local traffic gaps between your Wi-Fi AP, your LAN switch, and your SD-WAN edge router,” Gibbs wrote.

ETM is integrated into VeloCloud Orchestrator as a dedicated enterprise application. “This enables security operators to configure policies that build on the same source of shared network configuration while maintaining a dedicated management console for security policy configuration, provisioning, and reporting,” Arista stated.

ETM security policies are managed in VeloCloud Orchestrator. “Admins can build and assign reusable policies consisting of predefined objects and templates. This design makes updating security policies possible by a few simple clicks, while the associated changes are propagated throughout the network within minutes,” Arista stated.

VeloCloud Orchestrator is the central management, configuration, and monitoring hub for VeloCloud SD-WAN and SASE networks.

In addition, VeloCloud edge routers collect threat intelligence data from a variety of sources to determine in real-time the trustworthiness and identity of hosts inside and outside the network. Through integration with Arista Network Detection and Response and other web-based dynamic lists, administrators can identify suspicious hosts and build policies to block potentially harmful activities, the vendor stated.

Integration with Arista’s AVA policy assistant is aimed at simplifying management of branch security policies. AVA continuously analyzes configuration states and translates complex, multi-site security rules into plain English, Gibbs explained. For example, NetOps administrators can use AI with Ask AVA to predict “how specific traffic will be handled before committing to a deployment, preventing manual configuration errors that leave branches exposed,” Gibbs wrote.

Arista also touted support for network-wide segmentation policies. “The flexible security policy configuration within the Edge Threat Management policy management extends the security coverage from the data center to the branch,” the vendor stated. “Security operations administrators can build access policies that are enforced across a distributed network. The centralized design enables admins to configure and deploy consistent zone based policies across the entire distributed network.”

ETM is a significant addition to the Arista VeloCloud portfolio. Arista bought the VeloCloud SD-WAN platform from Broadcom a year ago and has been promising new technologies that expand the platform. ETM also could further the vendor’s stated plans to expand beyond its data center networking roots and compete more broadly with enterprise networking vendors such as Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, and Fortinet.

In the SASE and SD-WAN world, vendors such as Cisco, Palo Alto, Fortinet, Cato Networks, and Versa Networks are among the most balanced suppliers, with both SD-WAN and SSE contributing meaningful revenue streams, according to a recently published report from Dell’Oro Group.

“We forecast that SASE will remain on a double-digit growth path in 2026, with SSE-first rollouts remaining the most common entry point, and SD-WAN supported by branch modernization, software attach, and branch security refresh,” Dell Oro stated.

“AI is changing the SASE discussion from access and inspection to governance, data protection, and control over agents and machine traffic,” Mauricio Sanchez, senior director, enterprise security and networking at Dell’Oro Group, stated in the report. “A 21 percent Y/Y quarter shows that SASE is not waiting for a future AI refresh cycle; it is already absorbing the early security and networking requirements created by AI adoption,” Sanchez added.

ETM for VeloCloud SD-WAN will be available in Q4 of 2026 and will be available for all current VeloCloud hardware and virtual edge platforms.

As Apple gears up to anoint John Ternus the new company CEO in September (while current leader Tim Cook takes a seat on the board) the company appears to be firing on all cylinders ahead of the leadership transition. 

What’s going well

Just look at the evidence: 

• Apple is building market share across its entire product range; even memory-driven price inflation doesn’t seem to have dampened demand for its hardware yet.
• While Apple had to raise prices, the company’s MacBook Neo remains seriously popular. It’s sitting atop Amazon’s US best-selling chart, which currently includes six Macs in the top 10. The Neo has topped this chart since its introduction.
• Apple’s iPhone 17 series continues to sell well, with recent market data showing sustained growth. Both Counterpoint and IDC tell us that iPhone shipments continue to increase, even as other vendor shipments slide.
• IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo recently estimated that Apple’s upcoming foldable iPhone Ultra could grab 29.4% of global folding smartphone sales this year, rising to 34.9% in 2027.
• The company’s new 27 series of operating systems is attracting a great response as beta testers report that it is already solid, stable, and performing well.
• The AI narrative has really changed, with analysts no longer quite so starry-eyed at the prospects for the big frontier AI firms. Apple’s edge-AI-enabling approach is winning converts.

What’s coming up

The company’s newly-filed lawsuit against OpenAI may or may not succeed, but it will certainly help consolidate recognition of the importance of Apple’s designs and intellectual property in whatever hardware emerges from the AI firm. It also means both Apple and OpenAI are already competing in hardware, even though neither company yet offers anything that directly challenges the other. 

Apple has just set out its stall to brand-loyal fans in a big way and did so before OpenAI gets to woo the same set of customers with a wriggle of its Jony Ive-tinged talisman.

The stage is set for intense competition between the two. Though some say Apple’s needs to improve employee retention, if it does find proof of efforts to use recruitment to engage in industrial espionage, it’ll be easier to represent its own products as being the OG for new hardware. 

If nothing else, it means consumers will forever be asking, “If OpenAI’s designers are so good, why did it need to poach them from Apple?” Doubt is a weapon.

Managing perception

It doesn’t matter how the case goes, because there fight is already affecting consumer psychology. It also means that as Ternus prepares to take his seat atop the rainbow-colored Apple throne, we can already size him up. “A man is measured by his enemies,” Joe Abercrombie wrote in “The Trouble With Peace.”

Given the proximity of the leadership transition, it’s highly probable that Ternus signed-off on the litigation; in doing so he — and Apple — tell us to expect more of the same. 

Apple has, rightly or wrongly, decided that OpenAI will become its new existential bugbear, following in the footsteps of Microsoft Windows, Real Networks, Adobe Flash, Android, and Samsung, all of whom have been useful foils against which Apple has been able to build and maintain its identity.

Looking at that list, you’d be tempted to believe that nothing much is new. Apple has often defined itself by the enemies it sometimes keeps. What has been will be again, which in this case means even as OpenAI attempts to carve out an identity as a hardware manufacturer delivering solutions to compete with Apple and Google, Ternus’ team’s looks to drive a consensus-shaped wedge into the pro-LLM propaganda. 

That blow comes as Apple finally gets its act together around AI, and as the company prepares for a future in which the world’s most-used wearable device also becomes the wearable way to woo Siri AI.

My kingdom come

Rising market share, powerful solutions, an increasingly recognized and respected approach to AI, and an ideological crusade — these details constitute Apple’s place today and are Tim Cook’s coronation gift to Ternus. He’s passing along a strong and hyper-profitable baton that screams of timeliness and relevance even as the company gets set, ready, to go with a year or two of new product designs, new product families, and a 20^thanniversary iPhone.

This is Apple’s party. OpenAI’s name didn’t make the list. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

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

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

Outdated expertise becomes a project risk

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

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

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

Skill building must start before the project

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

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

AI no replacement for developer expertise

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

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

DSAG’s five recommendations

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

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

The head of the US government’s AI testing institute, Chris Fall, has resigned about three months after taking charge of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), the federal organization responsible for evaluating advanced artificial intelligence models for safety and security.

Current National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Director Arvind Raman will serve as acting CAISI Director following Fall’s departure while continuing to oversee the Commerce Department office responsible for the institute, the Daily Signal reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

A Commerce Department spokesperson who spoke to the publication did not disclose a reason for the resignation.

Fall assumed leadership of CAISI in April after the Trump administration reorganized the former US AI Safety Institute under NIST. The institute develops methodologies for evaluating frontier AI models and works with AI developers on voluntary technical assessments covering areas such as cybersecurity, model misuse, reliability and other risks associated with increasingly capable AI systems.

The leadership change comes as governments and AI companies continue developing technical approaches for evaluating frontier AI models while enterprises expand deployments of generative AI and agentic AI across business operations.

In recent months, the Commerce Department has taken a more active role in AI policy involving advanced models, placing greater attention on how the federal government evaluates technologies with potential national security implications.

Continuity matters more than personalities

CAISI works with AI developers such as Anthropic, Google’s DeepMind and OpenAI on voluntary evaluations of frontier AI models and develops methodologies for testing model capabilities and risks. The institute does not regulate AI developers or certify commercial AI systems.

For enterprises, those evaluations are one source of technical information alongside vendors’ own testing, third-party security assessments and internal AI governance programs.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said enterprises should focus less on the individual leading the institute and more on whether its technical work continues with the same level of consistency and transparency.

“Leadership churn at CAISI weakens the signal long before it weakens the science,” Gogia said. “The testing has not stopped. Its authority simply does not travel as cleanly once the leadership does not.”

According to Gogia, the more important question for enterprises is not whether the institute’s evaluation work will continue but whether the processes supporting those evaluations remain stable.

“The instinct is to ask whether the pipeline is breaking,” he said. “The more useful question is where the pipeline now sits.”

Enterprises still carry the burden of AI governance

Gogia said organizations should continue treating government-led AI evaluations as one input into their governance processes rather than as evidence that a model is inherently safe for enterprise deployment.

“A government evaluation was always a signal, never a certificate,” he said. “A signal loses value the moment its issuer becomes unpredictable.”

He said enterprises should instead monitor whether CAISI maintains consistent evaluation methodologies, continues publishing technical findings and preserves continuity within its research teams under interim leadership.

“The name on the door is not the signal. The behaviour underneath it is,” Gogia said.

Gogia also cautioned against linking Fall’s resignation to recent Commerce Department actions involving AI policy or export controls, noting that there is no public evidence connecting the two.

“CAISI evaluates; it does not enforce export controls, because it holds no such power,” he said. “This is not a testing body reaching for enforcement. It is enforcement reaching past the testing body.”

With Raman assuming the role on an interim basis, the next significant milestone for enterprises will be the appointment of a permanent director, and whether the institute’s evaluation programs continue without disruption, the analyst said.

Gogia said the successor’s mandate may prove more important than the individual selected.

“A CAISI result is not a safe harbour,” he said. “It informs an obligation; it does not discharge one.” NIST did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What if the next breakthrough in Enterprise AI doesn’t come from computer science alone?

What if it comes from applying principles that physicists have understood for more than a century?

According to Gartner, rising token-driven AI spend is straining budgets and challenging cost justification. As organizations race to deploy generative AI and agentic systems, token consumption dominates nearly every executive discussion: How many tokens did we use? How much did inference cost? Can we reduce our AI bill?

These are important operational questions. But they are not the strategic questions.

I believe the economics of enterprise AI can be viewed through the lens of three well-established principles from thermodynamics: the conservation of energy, entropy, and exergy.

While these principles describe physical systems — not AI —they offer a useful way to think about how organizations should measure AI success.

Principle 1: Value is created through transformation

The 1^st Law of Thermodynamics tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.

Enterprise AI presents a similar management lesson: Tokens are not valuable because they are consumed; they become valuable only when they are transformed into business outcomes: A faster loan application decision. A better customer experience. Faster and more accurate software. Reduced fraud. Higher employee productivity. A new product. A strategic insight.

The executive question therefore is not, “How many tokens did we consume?” It is: “How much business value did those tokens create?”

This leads to a new executive metric: return on tokens (ROT).

Just as organizations measure return on investment, they should begin measuring the business value generated for every million AI tokens consumed.

The organizations that win will not necessarily consume fewer tokens. They will generate more value from every token they use.

Principle 2: Every transformation creates waste

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that every energy transformation introduces inefficiencies.

Some energy inevitably becomes less useful for doing work.

The same pattern appears in enterprise AI: Not every token contributes equally to business outcomes.

Some are spent on:

• Repeated prompts
• Oversized context windows
• Redundant reasoning
• Hallucinations requiring correction
• Multiple agents performing the same work
• Expensive models solving simple problems

Those tokens are not “lost.” They simply produce very little business value.

I think of this as token entropy. Every enterprise deploying AI will experience it. The goal is not to eliminate token entropy completely — that would be unrealistic. The goal is to continuously identify it, measure it and reduce it. Because every unnecessary token represents an opportunity to improve both cost and business performance.

Principle 3: Useful work matters more than energy consumed

Thermodynamics introduces another important idea: Exergy.

Unlike energy, exergy measures how much energy can actually be converted into useful work. Two systems may consume the same amount of energy while producing dramatically different results.

The same is true for enterprise AI.

Imagine two companies each consuming one billion tokens. One produces meeting summaries. The other transforms claims operations, accelerates software delivery, detects fraud, improves customer retention, and creates new revenue opportunities. Both consumed the same number of tokens. Only one extracted significantly more business value.

Borrowing this concept as a management analogy, I call this token exergy.

Token exergy represents an organization’s ability to convert AI intelligence into meaningful business outcomes:

• High token exergy means AI is solving important business problems.
• Low token exergy means AI is generating activity without creating proportional enterprise value.

The distinction matters, because activity is not the same as impact.

A new responsibility for CIOs

For years, CIOs have monitored infrastructure: Cloud costs, storage, network utilization, GPU consumption.

These metrics remain important, but they tell only part of the story.

Token usage needs to be measured, planned, optimized and governed with the same discipline as any other cloud resource. This means that the next generation of CIO dashboards should answer different questions:

• What is our return on tokens?
• Where is token entropy reducing our effectiveness?
• How much token exergy are we generating?
• Which AI initiatives produce the greatest business value?
• Which use cases create the strongest competitive advantage?

These are no longer technology metrics. They are business metrics.

The next generation of CIOs will not simply deploy AI. They will manage an economy of intelligence.

Their role will resemble that of a portfolio manager — allocating AI capacity where it creates the greatest enterprise value, reducing waste and continuously improving the productivity of every autonomous workflow.

That responsibility cannot be fulfilled by dashboards alone.

It requires an intelligent layer capable of observing, learning and optimizing the entire AI  ecosystem. Three-layer enterprise agentic architecture Will enable this.

The next competitive advantage

Every major technology revolution eventually shifts from measuring inputs to measuring outcomes:

• Factories stopped measuring coal consumption and began measuring productivity.
• Cloud computing evolved beyond server utilization to business agility.
• Digital businesses measured customer acquisition costs and lifetime value.

Enterprise AI is approaching the same inflection point. Organizations that focus only on token costs will optimize for efficiency. Organizations that measure return on tokens, minimize token entropy and maximize token exergy will optimize for business transformation.

That is a fundamentally different objective. And I believe it will separate AI leaders from AI followers.

Because in the end, the future of enterprise AI will not be determined by how many tokens an organization consumes. It will be determined by how effectively those tokens are transformed into lasting business value. The AI adoption spending spree is over. Time to focus on value.

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

For the past three years, the AI conversation has been dominated by scale. Bigger models, bigger compute clusters, bigger headlines. But the next wave of competitive advantage won’t come from who can rent the biggest model; it will come from who can build the smallest one that knows their business.

That model is the small language model (SLM): Compact, purpose-built, trained on an organization’s own data and run under that organization’s own governance. And it is about to become one of the most consequential strategic assets available to both the private and public sector.

The problem with renting intelligence

Right now, most organizations consume AI the way they once consumed electricity from a single utility by plugging into a handful of frontier models built by a small number of global vendors. These models are extraordinary generalists. They are also, by design, generic. They are tuned to be safe, broad and useful to everyone, which means they are optimised for no one in particular.

That’s a problem for any organization trying to build genuine differentiation. If every competitor in your sector is calling the same foundation model with the same prompts, the model itself is not your edge. Your edge is what only you know, your proprietary data, your institutional judgement, your operating history. A generic model can’t see any of that unless you keep feeding it to them, turn after turn, at cost, with no lasting memory and no guarantee of where that data ends up.

An SLM flips that equation. Trained on an organization’s own document libraries, case histories, policy archives, transaction data and operational know-how, it becomes a model that thinks the way your organization thinks, because it was built from your organization’s accumulated judgement. It doesn’t need to be the smartest model in the world. It needs to be the most useful one for you.

I’ve seen this play out directly. At one of Australia’s largest integrated tourism and cruise businesses, simultaneously a B2C retailer, a B2B distributor to thousands of agency and wholesale clients globally, an aggregator marketplace for more than 1,800 independent tourism operators, and a cruise operator with offshore shared services spanning finance, customer contact and content management. The constraint wasn’t a lack of access to large general-purpose models. It was that none of them understood the business: 1,800 different operator catalogues, each with its own pricing logic, inventory quirks and content conventions; years of customer contact history with its own vocabulary and escalation patterns; a marketplace search experience that needed to reason over the business’s own product taxonomy, not the open web’s.

Models trained and tuned on that proprietary data, operator listings, historical tickets, booking and pricing data delivered results a generic model never could. Domain-tuned content drafting cut operator listing time by 70% and eliminated a 23-day onboarding backlog outright, taking new-operator time-to-live from 23 days to three. A semantic search model trained on the marketplace’s own product catalogue lifted booking conversion by 24%. AI-driven triage trained on the business’s own contact history cut Tier 1 escalations by 34%. None of this came from a smarter foundation model. It came from a smaller, more specific one that knew the business.

Why “small” is the strategic choice, not the compromise

There’s a temptation to treat SLMs as the budget option, what you build when you can’t afford a frontier model. That’s the wrong frame. The evidence is already compelling: Microsoft’s Phi-4 family of small models, released in early 2025, demonstrated that a 14-billion-parameter model can match or exceed the performance of models many times its size on complex reasoning and domain-specific tasks while running at a fraction of the compute cost and on-premise, entirely within an organization’s own infrastructure. Smaller, domain-trained models are increasingly outperforming general-purpose giants on narrow, high-value tasks, with far tighter control over data residency, security and explainability.

For a CIO or CTO, that combination of lower cost, tighter governance, higher task-specific accuracy is rare enough to demand attention on its own. But the deeper value sits one layer up, at the operating model. An SLM trained on your service history can sit inside claims processing, citizen services, clinical triage, asset maintenance scheduling or M&A due diligence quietly compounding institutional knowledge into a reusable asset rather than letting it walk out the door every time someone retires or resigns.

That is the real shift: AI capability stops being a subscription and starts being a balance-sheet asset. It can be valued, protected, audited and improved because it belongs to you.

The public sector’s hidden advantage

Nowhere is this more obvious than in government. The public sector sits on some of the richest, least-exploited data and institutional knowledge in the country: Decades of policy outcomes, service delivery history, regulatory precedent, infrastructure records and frontline expertise. Most of it has never been put to systematic use because no commercially available model was ever trusted to touch it, and rightly so.

A small, sovereign, purpose-built model changes that calculus. Trained, hosted and governed entirely within government infrastructure, an SLM doesn’t require sensitive citizen or policy data to leave a secure perimeter. The Australian Government has already recognised this direction: The APS AI Plan, released in November 2025, commits to expanding the GovAI platform to provide all public servants with secure, sovereign AI tools operating entirely within Australian Government infrastructure. SLMs tuned to individual agency mandates are the logical next step and a more powerful one than any generic government-wide tool can deliver.

Rather than each agency independently negotiating with the same handful of overseas vendors, a coordinated approach of common standards for model governance, shared security architecture, common evaluation frameworks and pooled infrastructure investment would let agencies build and reuse SLM capability horizontally, the way shared services and common ICT platforms have been built before. Each agency gets a model genuinely tuned to its mandate, but the security model, audit trail and assurance framework are consistent, government-backed and independently verifiable.

Done well, this isn’t just an efficiency play. It’s a sovereignty play. As GovTech Review has noted, large language models hosted offshore create data flows that extend beyond Australia’s borders in ways that are rarely transparent, a risk that is simply untenable for government. Sovereign, purpose-built models keep Australian public data, public knowledge and the resulting capability uplift inside Australian hands, rather than exporting both the data and the long-term value to offshore platforms.

Why this belongs in the innovation budget, not the IT budget

The instinct in many organizations is to treat AI spend as an IT line item, something to be minimised, benchmarked and squeezed for cost efficiency. SLMs deserve a different treatment. They are closer to R&D than infrastructure: An investment in converting accumulated institutional knowledge into a durable, defensible capability.

That argument holds in the private sector too. A PE-backed portfolio company, a regulated financial services firm, a healthcare provider — each has years of proprietary operating data sitting idle in case files, transaction logs and service records. An SLM built on that data is a way of turning a sunk cost, decades of operational history, into a forward-looking asset that compounds with every additional case it processes.

Boards and executive committees that are still asking “what is our AI strategy?” as a single, undifferentiated question are asking the wrong thing. The better question is: Which parts of our operation are rich enough in proprietary data and judgement to justify owning the model outright, rather than renting someone else’s?

The opportunity in front of us

The first wave of enterprise AI adoption was about access: Getting a capable model into people’s hands quickly. The next wave will be about ownership: Who controls the model, who controls the data it was built on, and who captures the long-term value of the institutional knowledge it encodes.

Australia, with a public sector rich in data and a private sector with deep vertical expertise in financial services, resources, healthcare and logistics, is well placed to lead on this if it treats small, sovereign models as a genuine national capability question, not a procurement footnote. The organizations, and the country, that move early will not just save money. They will own something their competitors can’t easily replicate: An AI that knows them.

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

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

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

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

The moat was never the product

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

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

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

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

The SaaS that survives

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

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

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

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

Software sells features. Platforms sell accountability.

The prototype trap

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

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

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

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

Build vs. partner: a sharper frame

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

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

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

The true value of software

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

The next AI bottleneck is the infrastructure behind the model.

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

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

Pilots hide the hard part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI is becoming an integration problem

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

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

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

That is why the CIO question is changing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latency will become a trust issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observability has to expand

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

AI needs that, but it also needs more.

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

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

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

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

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

Data readiness is still underestimated

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

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

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

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

That is a real risk.

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

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

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

Security cannot be added later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIO has to define the operating model

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

The CIO sits in the middle of all of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the shift CIOs need to lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MCP under threat

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

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

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

The ever-widening blast radius of AI testing

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

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

Vulnerability management on notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology executives from across the New York metropolitan area gathered July 16 at Convene, One Liberty Plaza, for CIO 100 Leadership Live New York, a full day of roundtables and panel discussions on enterprise AI investment, governance, and organizational change.

Several key areas of consensus emerged throughout this highly interactive event. Infrastructure fragmentation continues to block the path to securing returns on AI investments prompting leaders to understand rising cloud spend attributed to large language model utilization. This has caused a growing number of organizations to refocus on on-premises and hybrid options in C-suite and board-level capital planning conversations. Speakers, along with comments from the audience, described a shift from project thinking to product thinking, with smaller multidisciplinary teams moving faster than legacy structures.

Several participants repeatedly warned that automating broken processes just amplifies dysfunction. Governance and measurement remain unresolved, with usage metrics still getting mistaken for business value. One of the panels explored how CIOs may benefit from applying venture capital-style scrutiny to enterprise bets, weighing team execution as heavily as the technology itself. The throughline was a redefinition of the CIO role, from technology executor to business strategist fluent in revenue, board engagement, and transformation ownership.

Morning roundtable tackles AI infrastructure

The day opened with an invitation-only executive breakfast roundtable, “Beyond the Pilot, Building the Infrastructure for Real AI Returns,” co-hosted by Unisys and Dell Technologies. Over a dozen executives representing major public and private sector organizations across the New York metropolitan area joined Steve Hollander, senior director of Americas global alliances at Dell Technologies, and Matt Marshall, CIO at Unisys for a workshop-style discussion.

The session explored the strategic, operational, financial, and technological issues that must be mastered to optimize infrastructure decisions and separate organizations that are experimenting with AI from those competing on it. Discussion questions probed how CIOs measure whether AI investment is translating into business results, how they can break the cycle of fragmented and siloed AI deployments, how boards are beginning to scrutinize seven-figure token spend and whether on-premises or hybrid infrastructure can rein in costs.

The take-home point: the organizations pulling ahead are the ones that stopped treating AI as four separate problems, strategic, operational, financial, technological, owned by four separate functions, and started running it as one coordinated decision. Fragmentation is the actual cost center here, not the token spend itself. A CIO who solves the infrastructure question in isolation from the governance question, or the cost question in isolation from the talent question, ends up optimizing one silo while the other three keep bleeding value. Competing on AI, instead of just experimenting with it, means the finance, operations, technology and business sides are reasoning from the same picture of what’s being built and why, so the tradeoffs get made once, together, instead of getting re-litigated at every handoff.

Forum sessions open with a mandate for growth

Following breakfast, the main forum program began with “The New CIO Mandate, Delivering Growth, Not Just Technology.” In a moderated conversation, Laksh Nathan, chief information officer at Paramount Skydance, drew on his experience with mergers, enterprise transformation and AI-enabled development to describe a shift from project and application management toward a product-centric operating model. Nathan addressed how smaller, multidisciplinary teams are changing expectations on both the business and technology sides of the enterprise, and what mindset changes CIOs must lead to turn AI into an engine of growth rather than a cost center.

PwC followed with a session on “Designing the Intelligent Enterprise, From AI Investment to Evolving Operations.” Darren O’Meara, principal and chief technology officer for managed services, and Meghna Shah, principal for engineering and AI, examined why fragmented outcomes persist even after heavy investment in technology and transformation.

The intelligent enterprise, they posited, is less about working toward achieving specific technology outcomes and more about creating operating models that integrate strategy, technology, operations, and governance into one system. This, they explained, requires linking AI, data, and decisions across the business and will leave an indelible mark on how decision rights are redesigned, funding models are developed, and accountability is enforced to accommodate the speed of the agentic economy.

Talent, tradeoffs, and the cost of getting it wrong

The session “Return on Transformation: Time, Talent, and Tradeoffs” — with Prashant Hinge, chief information and transformation officer at MSIG USA; Joseph Gimigliano, chief technology officer at Northwell Health; and Eduard de Vries Sands, AI executive advisor at PatientPoint — examined why transformation initiatives so often lose their way.

The main culprit, even today in 2026, continues to revolve around a persistent instinct for technology implementations to become the objective rather than the means to a measurable business outcome. The panelists made the case for doing the incredibly difficult work of re-engineering (if not entirely re-imagining) existing processes before automating them and then placing smaller bets inside that bigger vision.

Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, took the stage to present “Smaller, Smarter, Safer, The Enterprise AI Architecture Most Leaders Get Backwards,” arguing that constrained, context-rich architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems.

A round of Hot Topic Discussion Groups and a networking lunch followed, including the Next CIO Luncheon featuring Robert Half Regional Director Jason Deneu.

Afternoon sessions turn to security, scale, and investment signals

CSO and CIO Contributor Joan Goodchild moderated “Securing Trust in the Agentic Economy,” a discussion with Marlowe Cochran, CISO at the New York State Education Department, and Gee Rittenhouse, vice president of security services at AWS, on how organizations are balancing speed, innovation and security as AI agents move from experimentation into productization at scale.

Rittenhouse framed agentic risk as closer to human risk than traditional software risk, describing how an independent agent acting in a non-deterministic way really does look like a potential insider threat, pushing CISOs toward behavioral monitoring over static workload protection. He tied this to a structural shift in defense, noting it’s hard to do agentic security if you’re not observing it, putting observability at the center of agentic risk management.

Cochran concurred, adding that many of the key tools that are needed to move into the agentic economy already exist, but must be implemented more aggressively, comprehensively and even more creatively. CISOs don’t need to invent an entirely new security discipline for the agentic era so much as extend identity management, access control and monitoring frameworks they already run to cover a new class of non-human actor — agents.

A session on “AI, From Experimentation to Enterprise Impact” brought together Meagan Gentry, national AI practice manager and distinguished technologist at Insight and Yuri Gubin, chief technology officer at DataArt, for a candid look at why pilots stall before reaching scaled production and what operating capabilities, governance, cost visibility, continuous education, must be in place to sustain AI once a proof of concept works.

During the session’s Q&A segment, a discussion emerged around how proof-of-concept success can result in a false signal, raising questions about whether pilots should be considered successful before the intended outcomes have had time to materialize, and drawing a distinction between measuring usage and adoption versus measuring business value.

The panelists explored how CIOs can identify the small number of transformational AI opportunities worth pursuing rather than managing hundreds of incremental use cases, and even challenged whether prioritization is the CIO’s job at all. The discussion closed on a sequencing question with real strategic weight, whether AI-first strategies are putting the technology ahead of the business problem CIOs are trying to solve, and what role CIOs should play with boards in defining the outcomes AI is expected to support.

A shift in perspectives

The “Think Like a VC, Investment Shifts Towards Focused AI Applications” session featured three venture investors, Aaron Darr, partner at Lead Edge; Isabelle Phelps, partner at Lerer Hippeau; and Marshall Porter, general partner at AlleyCorp. The panel explored how investors evaluate risk and talent in a market where products and competitive positions can shift within months, and what separates a focused AI application with durable enterprise value from an AI wrapper built to chase a trend.

The panel challenged the enterprise instinct to seek certainty in a market moving this fast, questioning whether CIOs should stop looking for technologies that will future-proof the enterprise and instead grow more comfortable continuously reassessing their bets. Investors framed this as a deliberate departure from the traditional low-tolerance-for-failure posture that has long governed enterprise technology purchasing, arguing that the search for certainty has itself become a risk in a market where products and business models can shift within months. The discussion pressed CIOs to weigh how they can adopt a more dynamic investment mindset without compromising the enterprise security, governance and accountability their organizations still depend on.

A Lightning Insights followed, featuring five-minute briefings from Insight, Platform9 and Console, followed by Keystone Senior Principal Ellora Sarkar’s talk on why most enterprise AI investment fails to produce measurable value and what separates the small share of firms capturing real return on investment from the majority still stuck in pilots.

Closing the day

The forum closed with “What’s Next for the CIO, Preparing for the Next 12 to 24 Months,” a fireside conversation with Leif Maiorini, CIO for corporate services at Omnicom. Maiorini discussed why business processes need to be redesigned for agentic speed rather than automated around existing human workflows, how organizational structures may shift as autonomous agents reshape visibility and decision support, and where sustainable differentiation will come from once AI capability itself becomes widely accessible.

Maiorini encouraged the industry to clearly distinguish between nondifferentiated services that should be made as efficient as possible and the differentiated capabilities that actually influence why customers choose to do business with an organization, once the major efficiency gains from optimization and AI have been captured.

He was candid about the governance gap agentic systems open up, noting that agents lack the professional reputation, personal accountability and inherent constraints that shape human behavior, which creates new risk when autonomous decisions occur at machine speed. That combination, reinvesting efficiency gains into genuine differentiation while building governance models suited to non-human decision-makers, framed his closing case for why human creativity and judgment remain the enterprise’s most durable asset even as the underlying technology becomes commoditized.

Join the CIO 100 Awards & Conference Aug 17–19, 2026 at Omni PGA Frisco Resort & Spa, Frisco, TX — where top IT leaders celebrate innovation and connect.  Learn more to attend or partner.

A sandbox security hole that could lead to remote code execution (RCE), patched last week by ServiceNow, is being actively exploited in the wild, according to a report from threat intel firm Defused. 

The report, posted on X, said the firm is “observing in-the-wild exploitation of the ServiceNow pre-auth sandbox-escape RCE (CVE-2026-6875).”

Defused CEO Simo Kohonen, in an interview with CSO Online, noted that it appeared that the attacker has changed its tactics from those documented in an earlier proof of concept (PoC) from researchers at Searchlight Cyber, in response to ServiceNow patches and defenses. The company had implemented five different mitigations in its code base, which “neutered” the initial attack methodology, he said, adding that, overall, his team is seeing more attack method tweaks than it used to see. 

“We are seeing a lot of [attack] variations, much more so than a year ago, for the same vulnerability,” Kohonen said. Attackers “now have more tools to build their own stuff.”

However, he admitted that his team has thus far only observed this exploit an in the wild exploitation “once, by one actor.” 

In response to the report, ServiceNow issued a statement saying that it has not yet directly seen any such exploitations. 

“ServiceNow is aware of a cybersecurity company’s recent publication regarding exploitation activity associated with a previously disclosed security vulnerability, identified as CVE-2026-6875. Based on our investigation to date, we have not observed evidence that this activity is related to instances that ServiceNow hosts,” the emailed statement said. “We have provided updates and patches designed to address this issue, and we encourage our self-hosted and ServiceNow-hosted customers to apply the relevant patches if they have not already done so.”

A ‘repeatable failure point’

Analysts and consultants said the bigger concern with this hole is that it focuses on the lack of protections in the sandbox, which many security and IT teams have relied on for years. 

“The vulnerability lets an attacker bypass ServiceNow’s scripting sandbox entirely, and researchers are now seeing exploitation using a different technique than the one originally published, which means signature-based defenses built on the first proof of concept are unlikely to catch every variant,” said Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC.

“A compromise that starts in the cloud tenant can end up inside the corporate network, turning a SaaS incident into an on-premises one,” he pointed out. “And because ServiceNow frequently houses HR records, CMDB asset data, and the ticketing system itself, an attacker sitting inside it may have visibility into how the incident response team is tracking the incident.”

Dickson added that this incident is further proof that both IT and security teams need to reevaluate their patching methodologies. 

“Enterprises outsource patching for platforms like ServiceNow to the vendor, but keep the risk that comes from what those platforms touch: HR records, CMDB inventories, and now on-premises systems through MID Server integration. Control sits with the vendor, liability sits with the enterprise, and that mismatch argues for treating core SaaS platforms as part of the internal attack surface, not externalized vendor risk,” he said, noting that as vendors embed more AI-driven scripting into their platforms, the sandbox boundary becomes “a repeatable failure point.”

Because of this, he advised, “CISOs should start asking every AI-enabled SaaS vendor how that boundary is architected and tested, before the next version of this story breaks elsewhere.”

Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520, said the sandbox escape is the more disturbing element of the issue. 

“The significance is not that ServiceNow had a critical bug, so much as the fact that the bug is a sandbox escape in the AI Platform, which means the containment layer specifically built to run untrusted AI-driven code safely is the thing that failed,” he said. “CISOs have been told repeatedly that the sandbox is what makes enterprise AI safe to deploy, but we’re now seeing the sandbox breaking and that should reframe how CISOs think about every feature sitting behind a similar wall.”

Addition of AI increases blast radius

This is yet another example where AI is fundamentally changing just about every IT and security rule, he pointed out.

“Enterprises are bolting AI onto their most privileged systems of record faster than anyone is updating the threat models for those systems, and the AI layer is becoming the softest part of the hardest targets,” Kenney said. “The real question for a CISO is how many of your critical platforms shipped an AI feature in the past year, and whether a single person in your organization can tell you what that did to the pre-auth attack surface. Most cannot, and that is the actual exposure.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, agreed.

“A vulnerability that gives an attacker a foothold in the ServiceNow instance is now also a vulnerability that gives them access to whatever AI agents are running inside that instance, along with any capability tokens, service accounts, or delegated permissions those agents hold,” Mahapatra said. “The blast radius of a ServiceNow compromise in 2026 is meaningfully larger than the same compromise would have been in 2023, and most enterprise security programs have not caught up to that shift.”

Defused’s Kohonen said that he did not disagree with the sandbox concerns, but he stressed that enterprise CISOs have long ago abandoned the belief that sandboxes are secure. 

“Nothing is foolproof, and having a sandbox is better than not having one,” he said. “But the belief that a sandbox removes all of the risk is incredibly dumb,” especially in the reality of today’s threat landscape, which contains “an endless conveyor belt of exploits.”

A sandbox security hole that could lead to remote code execution (RCE), patched last week by ServiceNow, is being actively exploited in the wild, according to a report from threat intel firm Defused. 

The report, posted on X, said the firm is “observing in-the-wild exploitation of the ServiceNow pre-auth sandbox-escape RCE (CVE-2026-6875).”

Defused CEO Simo Kohonen noted in an interview that it appeared that the attacker has changed its tactics from those documented in an earlier proof of concept (PoC) from researchers at Searchlight Cyber, in response to ServiceNow patches and defenses. The company had implemented five different mitigations in its code base, which “neutered” the initial attack methodology, he said, adding that, overall, his team is seeing more attack method tweaks than it used to see. 

“We are seeing a lot of [attack] variations, much more so than a year ago, for the same vulnerability,” Kohonen said. Attackers “now have more tools to build their own stuff.”

However, he admitted that his team has thus far only observed this exploit an in the wild exploitation “once, by one actor.” 

In response to the report, ServiceNow issued a statement saying that it has not yet directly seen any such exploitations. 

“ServiceNow is aware of a cybersecurity company’s recent publication regarding exploitation activity associated with a previously disclosed security vulnerability, identified as CVE-2026-6875. Based on our investigation to date, we have not observed evidence that this activity is related to instances that ServiceNow hosts,” the emailed statement said. “We have provided updates and patches designed to address this issue, and we encourage our self-hosted and ServiceNow-hosted customers to apply the relevant patches if they have not already done so.”

A ‘repeatable failure point’

Analysts and consultants said the bigger concern with this hole is that it focuses on the lack of protections in the sandbox, which many security and IT teams have relied on for years. 

“The vulnerability lets an attacker bypass ServiceNow’s scripting sandbox entirely, and researchers are now seeing exploitation using a different technique than the one originally published, which means signature-based defenses built on the first proof of concept are unlikely to catch every variant,” said Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC.

“A compromise that starts in the cloud tenant can end up inside the corporate network, turning a SaaS incident into an on-premises one,” he pointed out. “And because ServiceNow frequently houses HR records, CMDB asset data, and the ticketing system itself, an attacker sitting inside it may have visibility into how the incident response team is tracking the incident.”

Dickson added that this incident is further proof that both IT and security teams need to reevaluate their patching methodologies. 

“Enterprises outsource patching for platforms like ServiceNow to the vendor, but keep the risk that comes from what those platforms touch: HR records, CMDB inventories, and now on-premises systems through MID Server integration. Control sits with the vendor, liability sits with the enterprise, and that mismatch argues for treating core SaaS platforms as part of the internal attack surface, not externalized vendor risk,” he said, noting that as vendors embed more AI-driven scripting into their platforms, the sandbox boundary becomes “a repeatable failure point.”

Because of this, he advised, “CISOs should start asking every AI-enabled SaaS vendor how that boundary is architected and tested, before the next version of this story breaks elsewhere.”

Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520, said the sandbox escape is the more disturbing element of the issue. 

“The significance is not that ServiceNow had a critical bug, so much as the fact that the bug is a sandbox escape in the AI Platform, which means the containment layer specifically built to run untrusted AI-driven code safely is the thing that failed,” he said. “CISOs have been told repeatedly that the sandbox is what makes enterprise AI safe to deploy, but we’re now seeing the sandbox breaking and that should reframe how CISOs think about every feature sitting behind a similar wall.”

Addition of AI increases blast radius

This is yet another example where AI is fundamentally changing just about every IT and security rule, he pointed out.

“Enterprises are bolting AI onto their most privileged systems of record faster than anyone is updating the threat models for those systems, and the AI layer is becoming the softest part of the hardest targets,” Kenney said. “The real question for a CISO is how many of your critical platforms shipped an AI feature in the past year, and whether a single person in your organization can tell you what that did to the pre-auth attack surface. Most cannot, and that is the actual exposure.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, agreed.

“A vulnerability that gives an attacker a foothold in the ServiceNow instance is now also a vulnerability that gives them access to whatever AI agents are running inside that instance, along with any capability tokens, service accounts, or delegated permissions those agents hold,” Mahapatra said. “The blast radius of a ServiceNow compromise in 2026 is meaningfully larger than the same compromise would have been in 2023, and most enterprise security programs have not caught up to that shift.”

Defused’s Kohonen said that he did not disagree with the sandbox concerns, but he stressed that enterprise CISOs have long ago abandoned the belief that sandboxes are secure. 

“Nothing is foolproof, and having a sandbox is better than not having one,” he said. “But the belief that a sandbox removes all of the risk is incredibly dumb,” especially in the reality of today’s threat landscape, which contains “an endless conveyor belt of exploits.”

This article originally appeared on CSOonline.

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

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

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

What does this mean for AI?

Gravity has shifted before

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

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

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

Trading contributions for control

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open standards don’t stop gravity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move Fast, Don’t Break Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Everything is a Risk, Nothing is a Priority

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

That fragmentation creates blind spots. 

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

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

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

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

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

From Risk Review to Risk Decisioning

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

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

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

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

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

Safeguard Transformation and Scale Innovation

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Enterprise AI is entering a new phase. While the first wave of generative AI focused on human productivity and content creation, the next wave — agentic AI — will fundamentally change how organizations operate. Agentic AI systems are capable of reasoning, planning, making decisions and executing actions across applications, workflows and business processes with minimal human intervention.

As organizations move toward agentic frameworks that can independently resolve customer issues, optimize supply chains, manage infrastructure, coordinate workflows and even operate IT environments, one reality becomes clear: The network becomes the nervous system of the autonomous enterprise.

The infrastructure requirements of agentic AI differ dramatically from those of traditional applications. These systems are highly distributed, continuously exchanging information, interacting with APIs, accessing multiple data sources and making decisions in real time. The performance, security, visibility and adaptability of the network will directly determine the effectiveness of AI agents. Organizations that view AI readiness solely as a compute or data challenge risk overlooking one of the most critical enablers of future success — the network itself.

From AI-ready networks to autonomous networks

The long-term destination is the autonomous network: A network capable of self-monitoring, self-optimizing, self-healing and self-securing through the use of AI and automation. However, autonomous networking will not emerge overnight. The investments enterprises make today to support agentic AI are the same foundational building blocks required for tomorrow’s autonomous operations.

In many ways, agentic AI serves as both the driver and beneficiary of network transformation. AI agents require networks that can dynamically adapt to changing demands, while autonomous networks will increasingly rely on AI agents to manage and optimize themselves. The result is a reinforcing cycle where AI and networking evolve together.

The core characteristics of the network of the future

One of the most critical requirements for AI-ready networks is real-time observability and telemetry. Agentic AI thrives on context, and AI agents must continuously gather information from users, applications, devices, clouds, security systems and operational platforms. Future-ready networks must provide end-to-end visibility across campus, branch, cloud and data center environments. High-fidelity telemetry streams, real-time performance monitoring, application-aware analytics, AI-aware analytics and unified operational visibility are essential. Without comprehensive visibility, AI agents operate with incomplete information, limiting their effectiveness and increasing operational risk.

Another cornerstone is intent-based automation. Traditional networks are configured manually, often requiring administrators to define thousands of individual settings. In contrast, autonomous networks operate according to business intent. Enterprises increasingly need to define desired outcomes — such as maintaining application performance, optimizing user experience or automatically isolating compromised devices — rather than micromanaging configurations. The network continuously adjusts itself to achieve those objectives, providing the foundation upon which AI agents can make decisions safely and consistently.

Agentic AI also introduces entirely new traffic patterns that require AI-optimized connectivity. Large language models, retrieval systems, vector databases, cloud AI services, edge inference platforms and multi-agent orchestration frameworks create significant east-west and cloud-bound traffic. Future networks must provide low-latency connectivity, high-capacity fabrics, dynamic traffic engineering, edge-to-cloud optimization and policies that identify and prioritize AI workloads. The organizations that can move data efficiently will gain a competitive advantage in AI execution speed and responsiveness.

Security is another non-negotiable element. Agentic AI expands the enterprise attack surface because AI agents increasingly access sensitive systems, interact with APIs, consume proprietary data and execute actions across business environments. Future-ready networks must embed zero trust security into their architecture, with continuous identity verification, fine-grained access controls, microsegmentation, policy-driven authorization and continuous risk assessment. Security can no longer be bolted onto the network; it must be integral to its design and AI agents need to adhere to their own identity rules.

Finally, distributed intelligence across edge and cloud environments is essential. Many AI use cases require decisions to occur close to the source of data. Manufacturing systems, healthcare environments, retail operations, transportation networks and smart facilities often cannot tolerate the latency associated with centralized processing. Future networks must support edge AI deployment, distributed processing architectures, local inference, hybrid cloud operations and intelligent workload placement. The ability to move intelligence closer to users, devices and operational environments will become increasingly important as agentic AI expands across the enterprise.

Human expertise remains essential

Despite rapid advances in AI, the future will not eliminate the need for human expertise. In fact, it may increase its importance. One of the most significant misconceptions surrounding AI is that automation eliminates the need for skilled professionals. The reality is that autonomous systems require expert oversight, governance, validation and continuous optimization.

As AI systems become more capable, enterprises will need professionals who understand network architecture, security policy, AI governance, operational risk management, data quality, regulatory compliance and human-in-the-loop decision frameworks. The challenge is compounded by the unprecedented pace of AI innovation. New models, architectures, orchestration frameworks, security concerns and governance requirements emerge almost monthly. Most enterprise IT teams cannot be expected to independently evaluate every development while simultaneously modernizing infrastructure and maintaining day-to-day operations.

Organizations need access to experts who continuously track technology evolution, understand emerging best practices and can help translate innovation into practical deployment strategies. These experts provide not only implementation support but also ongoing operational guidance, helping enterprises maintain appropriate human oversight as AI capabilities expand. The future is not fully autonomous decision-making without people; it is intelligent automation operating under expert human governance.

5 actions enterprises should take now

Organizations should be preparing for the autonomous future right now. The following investments deliver immediate value while laying the groundwork for long-term AI transformation:

1. Modernize network observability. Establish comprehensive visibility across users, applications, devices, clouds and infrastructure. Rich telemetry and operational data will become the fuel that powers both Agentic AI and autonomous network operations.
2. Build an automation-first operating model. Identify repetitive operational processes and begin automating them. Automation maturity is a prerequisite for autonomous networking and creates the operational foundation AI agents will eventually leverage.
3. Adopt zero-trust principles across the enterprise. Implement identity-centric security controls, segmentation and continuous policy enforcement. As AI agents gain access to enterprise systems, security architectures must evolve to leverage the same identity controls.
4. Design for edge-to-cloud AI workloads. Evaluate network architectures for latency, bandwidth and resiliency requirements associated with distributed AI. Future AI deployments will span data centers, public clouds, branch locations and edge environments.
5. Invest in skills and strategic partnerships. Develop internal expertise while leveraging partners that possess deep networking, automation, security and AI knowledge. Human expertise remains one of the most important success factors in building AI-ready and autonomous infrastructures.

The road ahead

Agentic AI is poised to transform enterprise operations in much the same way cloud computing transformed infrastructure and the internet transformed business itself. But AI agents cannot operate effectively without a modern network foundation. The enterprises that succeed will recognize that AI readiness extends beyond models and data. It requires networks that are observable, automated, secure, intelligent and increasingly autonomous. The investments made today in AI-ready networking are not merely infrastructure upgrades — they are strategic building blocks toward the autonomous enterprise of the future, where AI agents and autonomous networks work together under human guidance to deliver unprecedented levels of agility, efficiency, and innovation.

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.”

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

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

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

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

Centralization: a design choice, not a doctrine

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

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

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

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

Know what belongs at the center

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

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

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

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

Don’t confuse standardization with centralization

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

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

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

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

Let business architecture lead technology architecture

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

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

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

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

Make the cost of complexity visible

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

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

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

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

Revisit the model as maturity changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The conversational assistant

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

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

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

2. The triggered workflow

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

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

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

3. The autonomous agent — with sub-agents

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

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

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

4. The multi-agent team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The scheduled agent

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

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

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

Bringing it together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this mean for AI?

Gravity has shifted before

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

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

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

Trading contributions for control

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open standards don’t stop gravity

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

AI observability emerges as a key differentiator

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

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

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

Cost management becomes a top priority

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

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

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

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

OpenTelemetry is table stakes as consolidation continues

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

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

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

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

The rise of operational intelligence

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

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

Dozens of former Apple employees now working at OpenAI have been put on notice after Apple reportedly sent legal letters ordering them to preserve documents and communications relevant to its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI. 

The Financial Times reports that “around 40” employees have been targeted with these letters, which repeat Apple’s claim that its confidential information might have been exfiltrated, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.”  The letters also require them to arrange to meet with Apple’s lawyers.

The underlying lawsuit

This comes on the heels of Apple’s explosive lawsuit against OpenAI in which Apple accused the AI company (and former Apple Vice President Tang Tan) of extensive coordinated data theft. Tan was at Apple for 24 years and is now Chief Hardware Officer at OpenAI. 

Apple’s lawsuit is defined by claims OpenAI took a range of steps to pry confidential Apple data from existing Apple employees, including using information such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge during interviews. The company says the evidence it has presented so far is only the “tip of the iceberg” concerning OpenAI’s approach.

The lawsuit requests that OpenAI be prevented from using any Apple information during the development of its hardware. Apple is also seeking damages and suing two former employees for breach of contract for violating their employment agreements.

The letters are significant. They represent formal directives that require former Apple staff to preserve documents, messages, emails, and other communications that could be relevant to the case. The demand reflects Apple’s belief that the alleged misuse of confidential information could be more widespread across the competing company. What’s critical is that orders of this kind override any standard data destruction policy and deletion of the requested information becomes a legal offense. 

Why this matters beyond the protagonists

In making its move, Apple shows this is not a dispute about just one or two hires, but an attempt to constrain the movement of intellectual property between the two firms. With AI hardware emerging as the next major battleground in tech, the case could become a defining one; whatever resolution is eventually reached could define the extent to which former employees can carry experience and knowledge between competing firms. The case might also define what the line is between experience and knowledge and the sharing of trade secrets.

This is important, because modern hardware development relies on far more than just finished designs. Product design leans into supplier relationships, manufacturing assumptions, physics, extensive prototyping, and product-roadmap priorities. If courts treat those accumulated insights as protectable secrets, hiring between major technology companies could become far more legally sensitive.

The Jony Ive question

The case comes as Apple prepares to combat OpenAI in hardware. Its competitor is now working with legendary former Apple designer Jony Ive. Ive is not named in the litigation, but Apple will be keen to find out whether confidential product knowledge, design processes, or supply-chain insights have travelled with former staff into OpenAI’s device work.

Ultimately, for Apple, it’s about protecting its many blueprints for whatever hardware the company expects will come after the iPhone.

For its part, OpenAI has refuted Apple’s lawsuit, arguing that it is “not aware of any evidence” that the lawsuit has merit. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” The company’s lawyers also claim it did respond to Apple’s initial inquiries on the matter.

What’s at stake

The significance of Apple’s newly-shared communication preservation orders is that if discovery uncovers evidence supporting Apple’s claims, the case could complicate OpenAI’s hardware plans and create unwelcome scrutiny ahead of any future public offering.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

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?

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?

Organizations usually face the same questions concerning XLAs: What should we measure, who owns the data, how should incentives work, and how will this change provider behavior after signature.

There are no easy answers either, but after advising clients in MSP relationships with major providers, I’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. Successful XLA programs rarely start with massive transformation, nor rely on perfection before adding experience accountability to the contract.

Start with the right metrics

The first concern I hear is what to measure. MSPs often steer that discussion toward metrics already in their reporting stack. That’s a trap.

Unlike SLAs, which measure operational outputs, XLAs should focus on employee experience and business outcomes. The strongest programs start with three to five high-signal metrics tied to the employee journeys creating the most friction. More than that and the program loses focus before it gains traction.

I typically recommend starting with employee satisfaction scores, perceived lost productivity time, repeat incident rates, task completion success, and ease of getting support. Then focus early measurement on common employee experiences like service desk interactions, employee onboarding, application reliability, and device performance.

Trying to measure everything is understandable, but it’s also one of the fastest ways to stall an XLA program.

Precisely define roles and responsibilities

This is the part of XLA contract design where I spend the most time with clients, and it’s the part that major MSPs are most likely to leave vague if you let them. Accenture and TCS both have mature commercial teams skilled at agreeing to things in principle while avoiding specific accountability in writing. Don’t let that happen here.

Employee experience isn’t solely the vendor’s responsibility. It’s genuinely shared, which is a more productive framing than pure vendor accountability, but only if the split is clearly spelled out. This is what I’ve found works in practice.

Customer responsibilities

• Selecting tools and platforms
• Managing data infrastructure
• Sharing experience data openly with the provider
• Supporting internal improvement initiatives that the provider flags

Vendor responsibilities

• Running the measurement cadence
• Delivering monthly experience reporting
• Identifying and surfacing improvement opportunities from the data
• Executing operational improvements within agreed timelines

Without this level of specificity, XLA programs almost always become reporting exercises. The data gets collected, the scorecard gets presented, and nothing actually changes.

Build flexible targets

One of the biggest mistakes in XLA design is treating experience targets like traditional SLAs,  setting once at contract signing and left unchanged for years. Employee expectations, workforce patterns, and technology environments, after all, evolve constantly. A target that feels ambitious in year one may become meaningless by year three.

The strongest XLA contracts include formal reviews every three to six months to recalibrate targets, align with business priorities, and raise expectations as experience improves. This prevents providers from locking in easy wins and coasting. When providers resist review cycles, it’s often a sign they believe the targets can be met on autopilot, a red flag in any XLA program.

Use the right scoring method

One overlooked XLA best practice is how experience scores are calculated. Point-in-time scores can be distorted by outages, isolated incidents, or low survey participation, and providers sometimes exploit that volatility.

I advise clients to calculate official XLA scores using rolling two-month averages instead of snapshots. It creates a more stable and accurate view of experience trends, and makes operational timing games much harder. Most importantly, define the scoring methodology explicitly in the contract. Don’t leave it to be worked out operationally after signing.

Structure incentives carefully

Relying on penalty-only incentives is one of the most expensive XLA mistakes. On paper, the model is simple: miss the target, pay the penalty. In practice, it drives the wrong behavior. Providers focus on protecting themselves instead of improving employee experience, optimizing survey timing, and managing averages rather than solving problems collaboratively.

I’ve seen this repeatedly in Infosys, HCL, and TCS relationships. The strongest XLA structures combine risk and reward where providers earn meaningful upside for exceeding targets, innovating, and improving outcomes. Penalties still matter, especially in mature programs, but they can’t be the only lever otherwise the contract becomes another SLA model with better branding.

Define escalation processes

When experience scores fall below threshold, the contract needs to specify what happens next. This sounds obvious, but I’ve reviewed many service delivery measurement frameworks in clients’ incumbent MPS contracts that specify financial consequences without defining any collaborative process to address the underlying problem.

The escalation language I push clients to include specifies:

• a joint review process triggered when scores fall below threshold.
• root cause analysis expectations and timelines.
• remediation planning requirements with named owners on both sides.
• timelines for corrective action and progress reporting.

The framing matters as much as the mechanics. Escalation should be positioned as collaborative problem-solving, not blame assignment. Contracts that turn every missed score into a commercial dispute damage the relationship when provider engagement matters most. The best MSPs treat escalation as a shared diagnostic exercise, not a contractual confrontation.

Establish an operating rhythm

Signing the contract is the beginning, not the end. In my experience, the organizations that get the most out of XLA programs are those that build a disciplined operating cadence and stick to it. The ones that treat XLAs as a reporting exercise almost never see meaningful improvement.

This is the cadence I recommend:

Daily: Both parties maintain live dashboards showing experience trends, application performance, regional issues, and persona-specific insights to catch emerging issues.

Weekly: Customer and vendor teams hold focused working sessions to determine what improved experience this week, what hurt it, which remediation actions were completed, and what’s the priority for next week.

Monthly: Formal governance meetings to review experience scores, improvement actions, root cause discussions, and cross-functional issues that need escalation.

Biannually: Leadership steering meetings to assess overall experience performance, recalibrate targets, and align the XLA program with evolving business priorities to honestly evaluate whether or not the program is driving the outcomes the organization actually cares about.

Common mistakes organizations make

After working through XLA design and implementation with clients across their MSP relationships, the failure modes are predictable. Here’s what to watch for.

Setting targets before establishing a baseline
Rushing into targets before understanding your current state is one of the fastest ways to create disputes. Spend the first three to six months gathering baseline data, then negotiate targets based on evidence rather than guesswork.

Measuring too much
More metrics don’t create more insight. Frameworks with 20 data points rarely survive operational reality. Start focused and expand gradually.

Hiding the data
Transparency is foundational to XLAs. Providers who obscure poor scores, especially when controlling the measurement platform, undermine the entire model. Clients who weaponize the data create the same problem. Build mutual transparency obligations into the contract.

Over-relying on penalties
Penalty-only structures recreate legacy SLA behaviors. Balanced incentives drive better long-term outcomes.

Treating XLAs as static
Employee expectations, technology, and business priorities evolve constantly. Without formal review cycles, XLA programs quickly become irrelevant.

Start smaller than you think you need to

The organizations that get XLAs right are rarely the ones with the most sophisticated tooling. They’re the ones that stopped waiting for a perfect program and introduced real accountability into the contract with what they had.

The most effective starting points are often simple: agree on a focused set of experience metrics, establish a six-month review cycle, commit to shared visibility and data transparency, and create joint accountability for continuous improvement.

From there, maturity develops over time. Governance builds trust, data becomes more actionable, and targets evolve alongside business priorities. The relationship shifts from compliance management to outcome-driven partnership.

In my experience, the organizations that succeed are the ones that stopped accepting green scorecards at face value and demanded something more meaningful.

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?

Meta is reportedly planning a cloud business that would sell access to AI computing power and models, extending its internal infrastructure into a commercial service for outside developers and enterprises. Reuters, citing Bloomberg’s reporting, noted that the planned offering would allow customers to access AI models hosted on Meta’s infrastructure and pay based on usage, effectively positioning the company in the infrastructure-as-a-service and AI platform markets. On the surface, this seems like a logical next step. If you are already spending enormous amounts of money to build AI infrastructure, there is a natural temptation to ask whether some of that investment can be monetized beyond your own internal use.

I have seen this pattern before. A company builds sophisticated internal systems, recognizes their value, and then begins to imagine that becoming a cloud provider is simply a matter of exposing those capabilities to external customers. It sounds straightforward, especially given the excitement around AI and the demand for high-performance infrastructure. But cloud computing is not just another distribution model. It is not simply a matter of offering on-demand multitenant services and charging a fee. It is a deeply operational, trust-based business in a market that punishes companies that do not fully understand what enterprise customers require.

A crowded neocloud market

The first problem Meta faces is that this is not an open opportunity. The neocloud space, meaning purpose-built AI infrastructure delivered as a service, is already crowded and increasingly difficult to enter. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google dominate the conversation for obvious reasons. They have years of cloud operating experience, broad service portfolios, global reach, mature ecosystems, and deeply established enterprise relationships. Oracle remains a serious player as well, especially in enterprise applications, data platforms, and performance-sensitive workloads. IBM still matters in hybrid cloud, operations, and industries where governance and regulatory rigor remain central.

That list alone should give Meta pause. These companies are not just infrastructure vendors. They are experienced cloud operators. They have spent years building not only the underlying platforms, but also the native capabilities enterprises now expect by default. Those capabilities include security, governance, identity management, observability, support, compliance, billing controls, resilience planning, and integration with the broader enterprise technology estate. These are not secondary features. They are part of the core value proposition.

This is why late entry into the cloud market is so hard. A new provider is not just competing on price or capacity. It is competing against accumulated trust. Enterprises are not casual buyers. They are selecting long-term operating environments for applications, data, AI models, and business-critical processes. They want confidence that the provider understands how these services will be consumed, governed, and supported over time. Meta is entering a market where the incumbents already have a major head start on all of those fronts.

Harder than it looks

Over the years, I have had many technology companies come to me and say they wanted to reposition their technology in the cloud space, either as software as a service or infrastructure as a service. In the beginning, enthusiasm is always high. The technology is impressive. The market size looks attractive. The revenue models appear compelling. Investors love the story. Then we begin to walk through what it really means to operate as a cloud provider, and the optimism usually fades fast.

The questions become very practical and very uncomfortable. How will tenants be isolated? How will identity and access controls work across different kinds of customers? What governance models will be built in natively? How will workloads be monitored, optimized, and secured? What does support look like 24 hours a day, across regions, across industries, across compliance boundaries? How will outages be handled, communicated, and remediated? How will the platform integrate with existing customer tools for operations, policy management, and security response? How much investment will it take just to become credible before you even begin to differentiate?

Once companies fully understand the complexities, market dynamics, and the capital and execution required to compete even with secondary players, many of them back off. They realize that cloud technology is not a packaging exercise. It is a transformation in how a company designs, operates, supports, sells, and evolves technology. That is why I remain skeptical when any company assumes it can translate internal infrastructure excellence into external cloud success without a very long, disciplined commitment.

Meta’s market readiness

Of course, Meta is not lacking in financial resources. If any company can afford to spend aggressively in this space, it is Meta. The company has the capital to build infrastructure, absorb losses, hire experienced talent, and stay in the market long enough to make a serious attempt. I would never argue that Meta is too small or too poor to try. Quite the opposite. If there is any non-traditional entrant with the financial scale to force itself into the conversation, Meta would be high on the list.

But money does not erase complexity. It only gives you the chance to confront it. The real question is not whether Meta can afford to become a cloud provider. The question is whether Meta has what it takes to become an excellent cloud provider. Those are two very different things. Enterprises are not going to move meaningful workloads to a new platform simply because the company behind it is wealthy or technically famous. They are going to ask whether the provider understands enterprise consumption patterns, enterprise risk, enterprise governance, and enterprise operations.

That is where the challenge becomes much more serious. Meta has extensive experience running infrastructure for itself. That is valuable, but internal operating excellence is not the same thing as external service maturity. Running systems for your own workloads allows a high degree of control over architecture, standards, priorities, and operating assumptions. Running systems for paying customers requires flexibility, consistency, transparency, and support across a wide range of use cases that you do not control. Those are very different disciplines, and companies often underestimate the gap between them.

What exactly is Meta?

Another concern here is strategic clarity. Meta already has a complicated market identity. It is a social media company, an advertising platform company, a hardware company, an AI company, and still, in the minds of many, the company that spent billions pursuing the metaverse. If it now wants to be viewed as a serious cloud infrastructure provider, it will need to explain not only what it is offering, but why customers should believe this is a durable long-term commitment and not just another adjacent experiment.

That uncertainty can be damaging. Customers want stable providers with clear strategic intent. They do not want to architect important systems around a platform if they suspect the provider may lose interest, shift direction, or reframe the business after a few years of uneven results. Cloud computing requires patience, consistency, and deep customer orientation. It is not a market where strategic ambiguity helps.

This could become confusing for Meta internally as well. Building a true cloud business demands focus. It demands years of investment in areas that may not be glamorous but are absolutely necessary, such as governance, operations, controls, support frameworks, partner programs, and enterprise sales alignment. If the company is not willing to make those sacrifices fully and for the long term, the initiative will struggle.

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.