Enabling agent-first process redesign

Unlike static, rules-based systems, AI agents can learn, adapt, and optimize processes dynamically. As they interact with data, systems, people, and other agents in real time, AI agents can execute entire workflows autonomously.

But unlocking their potential requires redesigning processes around agents rather than bolting them onto fragmented legacy workflows using traditional optimization methods. Companies must become agent first.

In an agent-first enterprise, AI systems operate processes while humans set goals, define policy constraints, and handle exceptions.

“You need to shift the operating model to humans as governors and agents as operators,” says Scott Rodgers, global chief architect and U.S. CTO of the Deloitte Microsoft Technology Practice.

The agent-first imperative

With technology budgets for AI expected to increase more than 70% over the next two years, AI agents, powered by generative AI, are poised to fundamentally transform organizations and achieve results beyond traditional automation. These initiatives have the potential to produce significant performance gains, while shifting humans toward higher value work.

AI is advancing so quickly that static approaches to task automation will likely only produce incremental gains. Because legacy processes aren’t built for autonomous systems, AI agents require machine-readable process definitions, explicit policy constraints, and structured data flows, according to Rodgers.

Further complicating matters, many organizations don’t understand the full economic drivers of their business, such as cost to serve and per-transaction costs. As a result, they have trouble prioritizing agents that can create the most value and instead focus on flashy pilots. To achieve structural change, executives should think differently.

Companies must instead orchestrate outcomes faster than competitors. “The real risk isn’t that AI won’t work—it’s that competitors will redesign their operating models while you’re still piloting agents and copilots,” says Rodgers. “Nonlinear gains come when companies create agent-centric workflows with human governance and adaptive orchestration.”

Routine and repetitive tasks are increasingly handled automatically, freeing employees to focus on higher value, creative, and strategic work. This shift improves operational efficiency, fosters stronger collaboration, and generates faster decision-making—helping organizations modernize the workplace without sacrificing enterprise security.

Download the article.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Shifting to AI model customization is an architectural imperative

In the early days of large language models (LLMs), we grew accustomed to massive 10x jumps in reasoning and coding capability with every new model iteration. Today, those jumps have flattened into incremental gains. The exception is domain-specialized intelligence, where true step-function improvements are still the norm.

When a model is fused with an organization’s proprietary data and internal logic, it encodes the company’s history into its future workflows. This alignment creates a compounding advantage: a competitive moat built on a model that understands the business intimately. This is more than fine-tuning; it is the institutionalization of expertise into an AI system. This is the power of customization.

Intelligence tuned to context

Every sector operates within its own specific lexicon. In automotive engineering, the “language” of the firm revolves around tolerance stacks, validation cycles, and revision control. In capital markets, reasoning is dictated by risk-weighted assets and liquidity buffers. In security operations, patterns are extracted from the noise of telemetry signals and identity anomalies.

Custom-adapted models internalize the nuances of the field. They recognize which variables dictate a “go/no-go” decision, and they think in the language of the industry.

Domain expertise in action

The transition from general-purpose to tailored AI centers on one goal: encoding an organization’s unique logic directly into a model’s weights.

Mistral AI partners with organizations to incorporate domain expertise into their training ecosystems. A few use cases illustrate customized implementations in practice:

Software engineering and assisting at scale: A network hardware company with proprietary languages and specialized codebases found that out-of-the-box models could not grasp their internal stack. By training a custom model on their own development patterns, they achieved a step function in fluency. Integrated into Mistral’s software development scaffolding, this customized model now supports the entire lifecycle—from maintaining legacy systems to autonomous code modernization via reinforcement learning. This turns once-opaque, niche code into a space where AI reliably assists at scale.

Automotive and the engineering copilot: A leading automotive company uses customization to revolutionize crash test simulations. Previously, specialists spent entire days manually comparing digital simulations with physical results to find divergences. By training a model on proprietary simulation data and internal analyses, they automated this visual inspection, flagging deformations in real time. Moving beyond detection, the model now acts as a copilot, proposing design adjustments to bring simulations closer to real-world behavior and radically accelerating the R&D loop.

Public sector and sovereign AI: In Southeast Asia, a government agency is building a sovereign AI layer to move beyond Western-centric models. By commissioning a foundation model tailored to regional languages, local idioms, and cultural contexts, they created a strategic infrastructure asset. This ensures sensitive data remains under local governance while powering inclusive citizen services and regulatory assistants. Here, customization is the key to deploying AI that is both technically effective and genuinely sovereign.

The blueprint for strategic customization

Moving from a general-purpose AI strategy to a domain-specific advantage requires a structural rethinking of the model’s role within the enterprise. Success is defined by three shifts in organizational logic.

1. Treat AI as infrastructure, not an experiment.  Historically, enterprises have treated model customization as an ad hoc experiment—a single fine-tuning run for a niche use case or a localized pilot. While these bespoke silos often yield promising results, they are rarely built to scale. They produce brittle pipelines, improvised governance, and limited portability. When the underlying base models evolve, the adaptation work must often be discarded and rebuilt from scratch.

In contrast, a durable strategy treats customization as foundational infrastructure. In this model, adaptation workflows are reproducible, version-controlled, and engineered for production. Success is measured against deterministic business outcomes. By decoupling the customization logic from the underlying model, firms ensure that their “digital nervous system” remains resilient, even as the frontier of base models shifts.

2. Retain control of your own data and models. As AI migrates from the periphery to core operations, the question of control becomes existential. Reliance on a single cloud provider or vendor for model alignment creates a dangerous asymmetry of power regarding data residency, pricing, and architectural updates.

Enterprises that retain control of their training pipelines and deployment environments preserve their strategic agency. By adapting models within controlled environments, organizations can enforce their own data residency requirements and dictate their own update cycles. This approach transforms AI from a service consumed into an asset governed, reducing structural dependency and allowing for cost and energy optimizations aligned with internal priorities rather than vendor roadmaps.

3. Design for continuous adaptation. The enterprise environment is never static: regulations shift, taxonomies evolve, and market conditions fluctuate. A common failure is treating a customized model as a finished artifact. In reality, a domain-aligned model is a living asset subject to model decay if left unmanaged.

Designing for continuous adaptation requires a disciplined approach to ModelOps. This includes automated drift detection, event-driven retraining, and incremental updates. By building the capacity for constant recalibration, the organization ensures that its AI does not just reflect its history, but it evolves in lockstep with its future. This is the stage where the competitive moat begins to compound: the model’s utility grows as it internalizes the organization’s ongoing response to change.

Control is the new leverage

We have entered an era where generic intelligence is a commodity, but contextual intelligence is a scarcity. While raw model power is now a baseline requirement, the true differentiator is alignment—AI calibrated to an organization’s unique data, mandates, and decision logic.

In the next decade, the most valuable AI won’t be the one that knows everything about the world; it will be the one that knows everything about you. The firms that own the model weights of that intelligence will own the market.

This content was produced by Mistral AI. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Agentic commerce runs on truth and context

Imagine telling a digital agent, “Use my points and book a family trip to Italy. Keep it within budget, pick hotels we’ve liked before, and handle the details.” Instead of returning a list of links, the agent assembles an itinerary and executes the purchase.

That shift, from assistance to execution, is what makes agentic AI different. It also changes the operating speed of commerce. Payment transactions are already clear in milliseconds. The new acceleration is everything before the payment: discovery, comparison, decisioning, authorization, and follow-through across many systems. As humans step out of routine decisions, “good enough” data stops being good enough. In an agent-driven economy, the constraint isn’t speed; it’s trust at machine speed and scale.

Automated markets already work because identity, authority, and accountability are built in. As agents transact across businesses, that same clarity is required. Master data management (MDM)—the discipline of creating a single master record—becomes the exchange layer: tracking who an agent represents, what it can do, and where responsibility sits when value moves. Markets don’t fail from automation; they fail from ambiguous ownership. MDM turns autonomous action into legitimate, scalable trust.

To make agentic commerce safe and scalable, organizations will need more than better models. They will need a modern data architecture and an authoritative system of context that can instantly recognize, resolve, and distinguish entities. It is the difference between automation that scales and automation that needs constant human correction.

The agent is a new participant

Digital commerce has long been built on two primary sides: buyers and suppliers/merchants. Agentic commerce adds a third participant that must be treated as a first-class entity: the agent acting on the buyer’s behalf.

That sounds simple until you ask the questions every enterprise will face:

• Who is the individual, across channels and devices, with enough certainty for automation?
• Who is the agent, and what permissions and limits define what it can do?
• Who is the merchant or supplier, and are we sure we mean the right one?
• Who holds liability if the agent acts with permission, but against user intent?

The practical risk is confusion. Humans, for example, can infer that “Delta” means the airline when they are booking a flight, not the faucet company. An agent needs deterministic signals. If the system guesses wrong, it either breaks trust or forces a human confirmation step that defeats the promise of speed.

Why ‘good enough’ data breaks at machine speed

Most organizations have learned to live with imperfect data. Duplicate customer records are tolerable. Incomplete product attributes are annoying. Merchant identities can be reconciled later.

Agentic workflows change that tolerance. When an agent takes action without a human checking the output, it needs data that is close to perfect, because it cannot reliably notice when data is ambiguous or wrong the way a person can.

The failure modes are predictable, and they show up in places that matter most:

• Product truth: If the catalog is inconsistent, an agent’s choices will look arbitrary (“the wrong shirt,” “the wrong size,” “the wrong material”), and trust collapses quickly.
• Payee truth: Agentic commerce expands beyond cards to account-to-account and open-banking-connected experiences, broadening the universe of payees and the need to recognize them accurately in real time.
• Identity truth: People operate in multiple contexts (work versus personal). Devices shift. A system that cannot distinguish amongst these contexts will either block legitimate activity or approve risky activity, both of which damage adoption.

This is why unified enterprise data and entity resolution move from nice to have to operationally required. The more autonomy you want, the more you must invest in modern data foundations that ensure it is safe.

Context intelligence: The missing layer

When leaders talk about agentic AI, they often focus on model capability: planning, tool use, and reasoning. Those are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

Agentic commerce also requires a layer that provides authoritative context at runtime. Think of it as a real-time system of context that can answer instantly and consistently:

• Is this the right person?
• Is this the right agent, acting within the right permissions?
• Is this the right merchant or payee?
• What constraints apply right now (budget, policy, risk, loyalty rules, preferred suppliers)?

Two design principles matter.

First, entity truth must be deterministic enough for automation. Large language models are probabilistic by nature. That is helpful for creating options for writing and drawing. It is risky for deciding where money goes, especially in B2B and finance workflows, where “probably correct” is not acceptable.

Second, context must travel at the speed of interaction and remain portable across the entire connected network value chain. Mastercard’s experience optimizing payment flows is instructive: the more services you layer onto a transaction, the more you risk slowing it down. The pattern that scales pre-resolves, curates, and packages the signal so that execution is lightweight.

This is also where tokenization is heading. Initiatives like Mastercard’s Agent Pay and Verifiable Intent signal a future in which consumer credentials, agent identities, permissions, and provable user intent are encoded as cryptographically secure artifacts — enabling merchants, issuers and platforms to deterministically verify authorization and execution at machine speed.

What leaders should do in the next 12 to 24 months

Adoption will not be uniform. Early traction will often depend less on industry and more on the sophistication of an organization’s systems and data discipline.

That makes the next two years a window for practical preparation. Five moves stand out.

1. Treat agents as governed identities, not features. Define how agents are onboarded, authenticated, permissioned, monitored, and retired.
2. Prioritize entity resolution where the cost of being wrong is highest. Start with payees, suppliers, employee-versus-personal identity, and high-volume product categories.
3. Build a reusable context service that every workflow and agent can call. Do not force each system to reconstruct identity and relationships from scratch.
4. Precompute and compress signals. Resolve and curate context upstream so that runtime decisioning stays fast and predictable.
5. Expand autonomy only as trust is earned. Build a governance framework to address disputes, keep humans in the loop for higher-risk actions, measure accuracy, and expand automation as outcomes prove reliable.

A tsunami effect across industries

Agentic AI will not be confined to shopping carts. It will touch procurement, travel, claims, customer service, and finance operations. It will compress decision cycles and remove manual steps, but only for organizations that can supply agents with clean identity, precise entity truth, and reliable context.

The winners will treat entity truth and context as core infrastructure for automation, not as a back-office cleanup project. In commerce at machine speed, trust is not a brand attribute; it is an architectural decision encoded in identity, context, and control.

This content was produced by Reltio. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Securing digital assets against future threats

Nurturing agentic AI beyond the toddler stage

Parents of young children face a lot of fears about developmental milestones, from infancy through adulthood. The number of months it takes a baby to learn to talk or walk is often used as a benchmark for wellness, or an indicator of additional tests needed to properly diagnose a potential health condition. A parent rejoices over the child’s first steps and then realizes how much has changed when the child can quickly walk outside, instead of slowly crawling in a safe area inside. Suddenly safety, including childproofing, takes a completely different lens and approach.

Generative AI hit toddlerhood between December 2025 and January 2026 with the introduction of no code tools from multiple vendors and the debut of OpenClaw, an open source personal agent posted on GitHub. No more crawling on the carpet—the generative AI tech baby broke into a sprint, and very few governance principles were operationally prepared.

The accountability challenge: It’s not them, it’s you

Until now, governance has been focused on model output risks with humans in the loop before consequential decisions were made—such as with loan approvals or job applications. Model behavior, including drift, alignment, data exfiltration, and poisoning, was the focus. The pace was set by a human prompting a model in a chatbot format with plenty of back and forth interactions between machine and human.

Today, with autonomous agents operating in complex workflows, the vision and the benefits of applied AI require significantly fewer humans in the loop. The point is to operate a business at machine pace by automating manual tasks that have clear architecture and decision rules. The goal, from a liability standpoint, is no reduction in enterprise or business risk between a machine operating a workflow and a human operating a workflow. CX Today summarizes the situation succinctly: “AI does the work, humans own the risk,” and   California state law (AB 316), went into effect January 1, 2026, which removes the “AI did it; I didn’t approve it” excuse.  This is similar to parenting when an adult is held responsible for a child’s actions that negatively impacts the larger community.

The challenge is that without building in code that enforces operational governance aligned to different levels of risk and liability along the entire workflow, the benefit of autonomous AI agents is negated. In the past, governance had been static and aligned to the pace of interaction typical for a chatbot. However, autonomous AI by design removes humans from many decisions, which can affect governance.  

Considering permissions

Much like handing a three-year-old child a video game console that remotely controls an Abrams tank or an armed drone, leaving a probabilistic system operating without real-time guardrails that can change critical enterprise data carries significant risks.  For instance, agents that integrate and chain actions across multiple corporate systems can drift beyond privileges that a single human user would be granted. To move forward successfully, governance must shift beyond policy set by committees to operational code built into the workflows from the start.  

A humorous meme around the behavior of toddlers with toys starts with all the reasons that whatever toy you have is mine and ends with a broken toy that is definitely yours.  For example, OpenClaw delivered a user experience closer to working with a human assistant;, but the excitement shifted as security experts realized inexperienced users could be easily compromised by using it.

For decades, enterprise IT has lived with shadow IT and the reality that skilled technical teams must take over and clean up assets they did not architect or install, much like the toddler giving back a broken toy. With autonomous agents, the risks are larger: persistent service account credentials, long-lived API tokens, and permissions to make decisions over core file systems. To meet this challenge, it’s imperative to allocate upfront appropriate IT budget and labor to sustain central discovery, oversight, and remediation for the thousands of employee or department-created agents.

Having a retirement plan

Recently, an acquaintance mentioned that she saved a client hundreds of thousands of dollars by identifying and then ending a “zombie project” —a neglected or failed AI pilot left running on a GPU cloud instance. There are potentially thousands of agents that risk becoming a zombie fleet inside a business. Today, many executives encourage employees to use AI—or else—and employees are told to create their own AI-first workflows or AI assistants. With the utility of something like OpenClaw and top-down directives, it is easy to project that the number of build-my-own agents coming to the office with their human employee will explode. Since an AI agent is a program that would fall under the definition of company-owned IP, as a employee changes departments or companies, those agents may be orphaned. There needs to be proactive policy and governance to decommission and retire any agents linked to a specific employee ID and permissions.

Financial optimization is governance out of the gate

While for some executives, autonomous AI sounds like a way to improve their operating margins by limiting human capital, many are finding that the ROI for human labor replacement is the wrong angle to take. Adding AI capabilities to the enterprise does not mean purchasing a new software tool with predictable instance-per-hour or per-seat pricing. A December 2025 IDC survey sponsored by Data Robot indicated that 96% of organizations deploying generative AI and 92% of those implementing agentic AI reported costs were higher or much higher than expected.

The survey separates the concepts of governance and ROI, but as AI systems scale across large enterprises, financial and liability governance should be architected into the workflows from the beginning. Part of enterprise class governance stems from predicting and adhering to allocated budgeting. Unlike the software financial models of per-seat costs with support and maintenance fees, use of AI is consumption and usage costs scale as the workflow scales across the enterprise: the more users, the more tokens or the more compute time, and the higher the bill. Think of it as a tab left open, or an online retailer’s digital shopping cart button unlocked on a toddler’s electronic game device.

Cloud FinOps was deterministic, but generative AI and agentic AI systems built on generative AI are probabilistic. Some AI-first founders are realizing that a single agents’ token costs can be as high as $100,000 per session. Without guardrails built in from the start, chaining complex autonomous agents that run unsupervised for long periods of time can easily blow past the budget for hiring a junior developer.

Keeping humans in the loop remains critical

The promise of autonomous agentic AI is acceleration of business operations, product introductions, customer experience, and customer retention. Shifting to machine-speed decisions without humans in and or on the loop for these key functions significantly changes the governance landscape. While many of the principles around proactive permissions, discovery, audit, remediation, and financial operations/optimizations are the same, how they are executed has to shift to keep pace with autonomous agentic AI.

This content was produced by Intel. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Why physical AI is becoming manufacturing’s next advantage

For decades, manufacturers have pursued automation to drive efficiency, reduce costs, and stabilize operations. That approach delivered meaningful gains, but it is no longer enough.

Today’s manufacturing leaders face a different challenge: how to grow amid labor constraints, rising complexity, and increasing pressure to innovate faster without sacrificing safety, quality, or trust. The next phase of transformation will not be defined by isolated AI tools or individual robots, but by intelligence that can operate reliably in the physical world.

This is where physical AI—intelligence that can sense, reason, and act in the real world—marks a decisive shift. And it is why Microsoft and NVIDIA are working together to help manufacturers move from experimentation to production at industrial scale.

The industrial frontier: Intelligence and trust, not just automation

Most early AI adoption focused on narrow optimization: automating tasks, improving utilization, and cutting costs. While valuable, that phase often created new friction, including skills gaps, governance concerns, and uncertainty about long‑term impact. Furthermore, the use cases were plentiful but not as strategic.

The industrial frontier represents a different approach. Rather than asking how much work machines can replace, frontier manufacturers ask how AI can expand human capability, accelerate innovation, and unlock new forms of value while remaining trustworthy and controllable.

Across industries, companies that successfully move into this frontier phase share two non‑negotiables:

• Intelligence: AI systems must understand how the business actually handles its data, workflows, and institutional knowledge.
• Trust: As AI begins to act in high‑stakes environments, organizations must retain security, governance, and observability at every layer.

Without intelligence, AI becomes generic. Without trust, adoption stalls.

Why manufacturing is the proving ground for physical AI

Manufacturing is uniquely positioned at the center of this shift.

AI is no longer confined to planning or analytics. It is moving into physical execution: coordinating machines, adapting to real‑world variability, and working alongside people on the factory floor. Robotics, autonomous systems, and AI agents must now perceive, reason, and act in dynamic environments.

This transition exposes a critical gap. Traditional automation excels at repetition but struggles with adaptability. Human workers bring judgment and context but are constrained by scale. Physical AI closes that gap by enabling human‑led, AI‑operated systems, where people set intent and intelligent systems execute, learn, and improve over time. Humans are essential for scaled success.

Microsoft and NVIDIA: Accelerating physical AI at scale

Physical AI cannot be delivered through point solutions. It requires agentic-driven, enterprise-grade development, deployment, and operations toolchains and workflows that connect simulation, data, AI models, robotics, and governance into a coherent system.

NVIDIA is building the AI infrastructure that makes physical AI possible, including accelerated computing, open models, simulation libraries, and robotics frameworks and blueprints that enable the ecosystem to build autonomous robotics systems that can perceive, reason, plan, and take action in the physical world. Microsoft complements this with a cloud and data platform designed to operate physical AI securely, at scale, and across the enterprise.

Together, Microsoft and NVIDIA are enabling manufacturers to move beyond pilots toward production‑ready physical AI systems that can be developed, tested, deployed, and continuously improved across heterogeneous environments spanning the product lifecycle, factory operations, and supply chain.

From intelligence to action: Human-agent teams in the factory

At the industrial frontier, AI is not a standalone system, but a digital teammate.

When AI agents are grounded in the proper operational data, embedded in human workflows, and governed end to end, they can assist with tasks such as:

• Optimizing production lines in real time
• Coordinating maintenance and quality decisions
• Adapting operations to supply or demand disruptions
• Accelerating engineering and product lifecycle decisions

For example, manufacturers are beginning to use simulation‑grounded AI agents to evaluate production changes virtually before deploying them on the factory floor, reducing risk while accelerating decision‑making.

Crucially, frontier manufacturers design these systems so humans remain in control. AI executes, monitors, and recommends, while people provide intent, oversight, and judgment. This balance allows organizations to move faster without losing confidence or control.

The role of trust in scaling physical AI

As physical AI systems scale, trust becomes the limiting factor.

Manufacturers must ensure that AI systems are secure, observable, and operating within policy, especially when they influence safety‑critical or mission‑critical processes. Governance cannot be an afterthought; It must be engineered into the platform itself.

This is why frontier manufacturers treat trust as a first‑class requirement, pairing innovation with visibility, compliance, and accountability. Only then can physical AI move from promising demonstrations to enterprise‑wide deployment.

Why this moment matters—and what’s next

The convergence of AI agents, robotics, simulation, and real‑time data marks an inflection point for manufacturing. What was once experimental is becoming operational. What was once siloed is becoming connected.

At NVIDIA GTC 2026, Microsoft and NVIDIA will demonstrate how this collaboration supports physical AI systems that manufacturers can deploy today and scale responsibly tomorrow. From simulation‑driven development to real‑world execution, the focus is on helping manufacturers cross the industrial frontier with confidence.

For manufacturing leaders, the question is no longer whether physical AI will reshape operations, but how quickly they can adopt it responsibly, at scale, and with trust built in from the start.

Discover more with Microsoft at NVIDIA GTC 2026.

This content was produced by Microsoft. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Building a strong data infrastructure for AI agent success

In the race to adopt and show value from AI, enterprises are moving faster than ever to deploy agentic AI as copilots, assistants, and autonomous task-runners. In late 2025, nearly two-thirds of companies were experimenting with AI agents, while 88% were using AI in at least one business function, up from 78% in 2024, according to McKinsey’s annual AI report. Yet, while early pilots often succeed, only one in 10 companies actually scaled their AI agents.

One major issue: AI agents are only as effective as the data foundation supporting them. Experts argue that most companies are seeing delays in implementing AI, not because of shortcomings in the models, but because they lack data architectures that deliver business context to be reliably used by humans and agents.

Companies need to be ready with the right data architecture, and the next few months — years, at most — will be critical, says Irfan Khan, president and chief product officer of SAP Data & Analytics.

“The only prediction anybody can reliably make is that we don’t know what’s going to happen in the years, months — or even weeks — ahead with AI,” he says. “To be able to get quick wins right now, you need to adopt an AI mindset and … ground your AI models with reliable data.”

While data has always been important for business, it will be even more so in the age of AI. The capabilities of agentic AI will be set more by the soundness of enterprise data architecture and governance, and less by the evolution of the models. To scale the technology, businesses need to adopt a modern data infrastructure that delivers context along with the data.

More business context, not necessarily more data

Traditional views often conflate structured data with high value, and unstructured data with less value. However, AI complicates that distinction. High-value data for agents is defined less by format and more by business context. Data for critical business functions — such as supply-chain operations and financial planning — is context dependent. While fine-grained, high-volume data, such as IoT, logs, and telemetry, can yield value, but only when delivered with business context.

For that reason, the real risk for agentic AI is not lack of data, but lack of grounding, says Khan.

“Anything that is business contextual will, by definition, give you greater value and greater levels of reliability of the business outcome,” he says. “It’s not as simple as saying high-value data is structured data and low-value data is where you have lots of repetition — both can have huge value in the right hands, and that’s what’s different about AI.”

Context can be derived through integration with software, on-site analysis and enrichment, or through the governance pipeline. Data lacking those qualities will likely be untrusted — one reason why two-thirds of business leaders do not fully trust their data, according to the Institute for Data and Enterprise AI (IDEA). The resulting “trust debt” has held back businesses in their quest for AI readiness. Overcoming that lack of trust requires shared definitions, semantic consistency, and reliable operational context to align data with business meaning.

Data sprawl demands a semantic, business-aware layer

Over the past decade, the most important shift in enterprise data architecture has been the separation of compute and storage, cloud-scale flexibility, says Khan. Yet, that separation and move to cloud also created sprawl, with data housed in multiple clouds, data lakes, warehouses, and a multitude of SaaS applications.

As companies move to AI, that sprawl does not go away. In fact, the problem is growing with more than two-thirds of companies citing data siloes as a top challenge in adopting AI, with more than half of enterprises struggling with 1,000 data sources or more. While the last era was about laying the foundation on which to build software-as-a-service — separating compute and storage and building lakes — the next era is about delivering the right data to autonomous AI agents tasked with various business functions.

“Probably the biggest innovation that occurred in data management was the separation of compute and store,” Khan says. “But what’s really making a distinction now is the way that we harmonize the data and harvest the value of the data across multiple sources of content.”

To do that requires a semantic or knowledge layer that supports multiple platforms, encodes business rules and relationships, provides a business-contextual and governed view of data, and allows humans and agents to access the data in the appropriate ways. But legacy data architectures cannot power the autonomous AI systems of the future, consultancy Deloitte stated in its State of AI in the Enterprise report. Only four in 10 companies believe their data management process is ready for AI, and that’s down from 43% the previous year, suggesting that as companies explore AI deployment, they are realizing their infrastructure’s shortcomings.

Agentic AI does not replace SaaS

Some investors and technologists speculate that AI agents will make SaaS applications obsolete. Khan strongly disagrees. Over the past 15 years, value has steadily moved up the stack, from on-premises infrastructure to infrastructure as a service (IaaS) to platform as a service (PaaS) to SaaS. Agentic AI is simply the next layer. Agentic AI will have its own layer to access the data and interact with the business logic. The value rises up the stack, but nothing below disappears, he says.

“SaaS doesn’t go away,” he says. “It just means SaaS and these agents will cooperate with one another. Companies are not going to throw away their entire general ledger and replace it with an agent. What’s the agent going to do? It doesn’t know anything without business context and business processing.”

In this emerging model, the software stack is being reshaped so that applications and data provide governed context within which AI can act effectively. SaaS applications remain the systems of record, while the semantic layer becomes the business-context source of truth. AI agents become a new engagement layer, orchestrating across systems, and both humans and agents become “first-class citizens” in how they access business logic, he says.

Critically, agents cannot directly connect to every operational system. “If we’re saying agents are going to take over the world … you can’t have an agent talking to every operational backend system,” Khan warns. “It just doesn’t work that way.”

This further elevates the importance of a semantic or business-fabric layer.

Where to start

Most enterprises need to begin where their data already lives — in platforms like Snowflake, Databricks, Google BigQuery, or an existing SAP environment. Khan says that’s normal, but warns against rebuilding old patterns of vendor lock-in.

He suggests that companies prioritize the data that matters most by focusing on preserving and providing business context to operational and application data. Companies should also invest early in governance and semantics by defining shared policies, access rules, and semantic models before scaling pilots. Finally, businesses should prioritize openness and fabric-style interoperability rather than forcing all data into one stack.

Khan cautions against aiming for full automation too early. “There is a new brave opportunity to really engage in the agentic and AI world,” Khan says, “Fully automating [critical business processes] is maybe a stretch, because there’s going to be a lot of extra oversight necessary.” Early wins will likely come from less-critical processes and from agents that work off fresh, stateful data rather than stale dashboards, he adds. As AI begins to deliver value and adoption increases, leaders must decide how to reinvest those gains to drive top-line efficiency or enter new markets.

Register for “The Fabric of Data & AI” virtual event on March 24, 2026. Hear insights from executives and thought leaders who are shaping the future of data and AI.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Pragmatic by design: Engineering AI for the real world

The impact of artificial intelligence extends far beyond the digital world and into our everyday lives, across the cars we drive, the appliances in our homes, and medical devices that keep people alive. More and more, product engineers are turning to AI to enhance, validate, and streamline the design of the items that furnish our worlds.

The use of AI in product engineering follows a disciplined and pragmatic trajectory. A significant majority of engineering organizations are increasing their AI investment, according to our survey, but they are doing so in a measured way. This approach reflects the priorities typical of product engineers. Errors have concrete consequences beyond abstract fears, ranging from structural failures to safety recalls and even potentially putting lives at risk. The central challenge is realizing AI’s value without compromising product integrity.

Drawing on data from a survey of 300 respondents and in-depth interviews with senior technology executives and other experts, this report examines how product engineering teams are scaling AI, what is limiting broader adoption, and which specific capabilities are shaping adoption today and, in the future, with actual or potential measurable outcomes.

Key findings from the research include:

Verification, governance, and explicit human accountability are mandatory in an environment where the outputs are physical—and the risk high. Where product engineers are using AI to directly inform physical designs, embedded systems, and manufacturing decisions that are fixed at release, product failures can lead to real-world risks that cannot be rolled back. Product engineers are therefore adopting layered AI systems with distinct trust thresholds instead of general-purpose deployments.

Predictive analytics and AI-powered simulation and validation are the top near-term investment priorities for product engineering leaders. These capabilities—selected by a majority of survey respondents—offer clear feedback loops, allowing companies to audit performance, attain regulatory approval, and prove return on investment (ROI). Building gradual trust in AI tools is imperative.

Nine in ten product engineering leaders plan to increase investment in AI in the next one to two years, but the growth is modest. The highest proportion of respondents (45%) plan to increase investment by up to 25%, while nearly a third favor a 26% to 50% boost. And just 15% plan a bigger step change—between 51% and 100%. The focus for product engineers is on optimization over innovation, with scalable proof points and near-term ROI the dominant approach to AI adoption, as opposed to multi-year transformation.

Sustainability and product quality are top measurable outcomes for AI in product engineering. These outcomes, visible to customers, regulators, and investors, are prioritized over competitive metrics like time to-market and innovation—rated of medium importance—and internal operational gains like cost reduction and workforce satisfaction, at the bottom. What matters most are real-world signals like defect rates and emissions profiles rather than internal engineering dashboards.

Download the report.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.