Business and technology leaders need no convincing that the time of agentic AI is here. Organizations are rapidly adopting agents, and few executives doubt the technology’s potential to transform work. But many organizations find that realizing the desired return on investment (ROI) from AI hinges on having the right foundation, with inadequate infrastructure and data being major blockers.
Agentic AI places considerable new demands on enterprise data systems. The shift from answering questions to taking actions means AI agents need data from across the enterprise, in all its structured and unstructured forms, and with the right business context. To make decisions and act in real time, agents also need frictionless access to the organization’s operational systems—for example, those storing its supply chain, point-of-sale, or human resources data. Legacy data systems, even those updated just a few years ago, struggle to meet these demands.
As AI agents become embedded more widely in enterprise operations, the need to overcome the restrictions of legacy data systems grows more urgent. If Gartner’s prediction that AI agents will augment or automate 50% of business decisions by 2027 proves correct, organizations must eliminate bottlenecks or risk depriving agents of the data they need to make the right decisions at speed.
This report, based on a survey of 300 data and technology executives, explores how legacy systems are limiting the effectiveness of AI agents in many organizations. It finds that a handful of organizations—the data leaders—are having greater success with agentic AI and experiencing fewer data limitations as a result of legacy systems. These leaders offer a guide to creating the right data environment for agents to flourish and trusted systems to scale.
Key findings from the report include:
Few companies currently provide agentic AI with ample access to enterprise data. Across all the surveyed organizations, AI only has access to an average of 45% of company data. That number falls to 30% or less in organizations categorized as “data laggards”. A select group, however, ensures access to over 70% of their data. These “data leaders” are having greater success with their agents than the rest.
Trust in agent decisions is a reflection of data readiness. Today, only around half of surveyed organizations trust that the decisions their AI agents make are accurate and relevant. By contrast, 100% of the data leaders trust their agents’ decisions, a strong indicator that reliable AI requires a reliable data foundation.
Data leaders find it easier to achieve agent scale and speed. Two-thirds of data laggards say legacy data systems limit AI agent scaling (66%) and prevent agents from making decisions at speed (68%). Having largely overcome legacy data constraints, the leaders have mostly cleared these roadblocks, with just 8% reporting either constraint.
The pressure is on to make data estates agent-ready. Within two years, 100% of respondents plan to be using agentic AI, with 69% expecting to use it widely. Without removing data system constraints, agentic AI will fail to deliver the desired speed and efficiencies it promises.
Data access and context are top priorities. The most important initiative to enable scaling among all respondents is improving access to structured and unstructured data for AI agents. Also high on the list is enhancing data and AI governance with business context. Data leaders are also focusing heavily on the automation of data management.
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.
Imagine a healthcare system made up of multiple AI agents: one that manages symptom assessment, another scheduling, a third insurance, and a fourth pharmacy.
Each is an expert in its domain. But they all have their own distinct knowledge and objectives. Today they can exchange data, but they are not yet able to actually coordinate patient care without a human making the decisions.
“The intelligence is already there. What is missing is the connective tissue that turns four strangers into one team,” explains Vijoy Pandey, senior vice president and general manager of Outshift by Cisco.
This “connective tissue” comes from adding a semantic layer—what Outshift calls the “Internet of Cognition”—that enables agents across domains to work together and, critically, “think” together through shared intent, context, and reasoning.
This semantic layer relies on a connectivity layer beneath it called the “Internet of Agents,” which allows autonomous agents to discover one another, prove identity, and exchange messages across domains.
When used together, they enable “the next step on the road to distributed artificial superintelligence,” says Pandey.
From solo silicon savants to the ‘Internet of Cognition’
For years, the AI industry has been focused on growth. Scaling vertically has led to bigger models, trained on more data with more compute. This has produced the reasoning capabilities that can be like a “brain” for AI agents, which can perceive, reason, and act in digital environments.
While vertical scaling can produce more capable agents perpetually, to enable agentic problem solving across different systems, companies, and platforms the next axis of scale must be horizontal, says Pandey.
Multi-agent systems are already being explored in areas like software engineering, drug discovery, and scientific simulations, but their performances so far have been underwhelming. One study finds a failure rate of between 41% and around 87% when evaluating seven open-source multi-agent systems.
“Connected agents handle coordinated action well; taking a task whose shape they have seen, divided and passed around,” Pandey explains. “What they cannot do is hold a goal in common and reason toward something none of them was trained to solve.”
“The gap is architectural, not a prompting problem,” Pandey adds. “Without the right coordination layer, naive multi-agent setups can perform worse than a single agent. The step change is that team of agents converging on its own, on a new problem, with no human stitching the seams.”
To reach this goal, Pandey says Outshift has built a connectivity layer called AGNTCY, an open-source project now under the Linux Foundation. AGNTCY allows agents across different systems, companies, and platforms to find each other, prove identity, and exchange messages through open, standardized protocols.
And, as Pandey explains, this allows the Internet of Cognition thesis to take a step further. It creates a semantic layer that allows agents to align goals (share intent), pool institutional knowledge and compound memory (share context), and make collective trade-offs (share reasoning).
Pandey likens this progression to that of humans: “For hundreds of thousands of years humans got individually smarter, and the gains died with each person who made them,” he explains. “Around 70,000 years ago that changed, when humans learned to share intent, build cumulative knowledge, and reason collectively. That is when scattered individuals became civilization.
“Agents are at the same threshold. We have built the silicon geniuses and given them agency. What they lack is the layer that let humans go collective,” he says.
First steps to distributed superintelligence
Enabling agents to work collectively rests on three pillars in the tech stack:
Shared intent through cognition state protocols: Cognition state protocols are the semantic handshake that allow agents to agree on a goal before they act and then negotiate toward it. Outshift has created an open-source coordination layer called Mycelium, which organizations can clone and use against their own agents.
“We found that unstructured groups reached a decision about a third of the time across 14 scenarios,” says Pandey, speaking about internal testing. “A coordination protocol that makes agents declare a goal, surface missing information, and resolve conflicts before acting raised that to 93%.”
Shared context through cognition fabric: A cognition fabric is a shared institutional memory and communication mesh that allows agent insight to compound over time rather than resetting each session. This policy-governed context layer solves the problem of “organizational amnesia,” says Pandey, by ensuring the baseline intelligence of the systems only ever goes up.
Shared reasoning through cognitive amplifiers and guardrail technologies: Two kinds of cognition engine can be used together to enable shared reasoning. Cognitive amplifiers speed up shared reasoning and modeling, and guardrail technologies (GATs) create security, cost, and compliance frameworks. Humans are active contributors to this layer, making judgment calls the system routes to them (rather than reviewing outputs after the fact).
Cognition sharing in multi-agent systems can create new risks, including unintended delegations, malicious prompt injections or memory poisoning, or over-privileged agents with access to permissions and data far beyond what their tasks require. Environment-specific controls are therefore needed to protect against unintended actions or consequences.
“Agents have human-like attributes but operate at machine speed and scale,” says Pandey. “Everything we built for twenty years—access control, identity, compliance—was built for humans or machines, not both.”
Continuous Agent Semantic Authorization (CASA)—an open-source reference implementation developed by Outshift—is a GAT that works to ensure agent actions remain securely aligned with the user’s original goal through a process of continuous authorization. It does this by reading what the agent is trying to accomplish then checking each tool request against that task.
In the case of a healthcare system, for example, an agent told to summarize a patient record may start by querying a whole database. This could lead to CASA denying the call, because the request no longer matches the task it was authorized for.
“Today’s controls are scoped to a role or a session not to the task so an agent granted a tool can use it for anything,” explains Pandey. “Roughly 90% of the time, an agent has no way to confirm it is even cleared for the job it was handed.”
Experimentation for cross-domain innovation
When horizontally scaling intelligence in the enterprise, businesses should begin by experimenting with one cross-functional workflow that spans three or four teams and currently needs a human authorizing the handoffs, Pandey advises.
“Stand it up as a small multi-agent system on open, interoperable infrastructure, with a measurable baseline,” he says. “Keep building bigger models, add the horizontal axis on top of them, and change what you measure. Track where one agent’s insight made another agent better—that is the signal the horizontal axis is working.”
By starting to experiment now with intent, context, and reasoning layers, organizations can get ahead of the curve. “The problems are open, and the infrastructure is still being written,” says Pandey. “This is the moment to build it.”
For more information on the Internet of Cognition, visit Outshift.com.
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.
Drug discovery is a high-cost, high-risk endeavor that is under growing pressure from a market increasingly defined by first-mover advantage.
Since the 1950s, the cost of developing new pharmaceuticals has roughly doubled every nine years—a phenomenon known as Eroom’s Law. Today, bringing a new drug to market takes an average of 10-15 years and costs anywhere from $1 billion to $2.5 billion, with failure rates upward of 90%.
AI has become the pharmaceutical industry’s biggest bet on bringing success rates up and timelines down. The faster drug companies can identify, test, and optimize new chemical compounds, the lower the risk of costly failures later in development.
“The main cost in drug discovery is still the clinical phase, so trying to reduce risk and increase your success rates there is obviously hugely beneficial,” says Paul Belcher, director of protein research strategy at global life sciences company Cytiva. “AI is one approach that drug companies hope will not only save time and compress timelines, but enable better quality candidates to reach the clinic.”
Early use of AI in drug discovery shows potential, but also highlights the need for robust and authentic data, as well as integration in lab systems.
AI brings efficiency to the lab
One of the most promising early-stage applications of AI in drug discovery is in hit identification. This involves screening libraries of molecular entities against a disease-related target, such as a protein, to find molecules that bind to it. A successful hit gives researchers a starting point for further testing and refinement, with the aim of eventually developing a viable drug.
Belcher has seen a shift from empirical screening to predictive design: Instead of physically screening libraries, drug companies are now using AI to design drug candidates from scratch and predict how they will interact with disease targets before committing anything to research and development (R&D).
This means companies are no longer limited by how much they can physically screen to identify starting points. “AI does away with that,” says Belcher. “And it can help eliminate low-quality candidates before you have to physically test them, saving time and resources.”
What AI can’t do yet is reliably predict kinetics or developability of new compounds, says Belcher. This means every AI-generated candidate still needs to be validated in the lab.
Traditional screening workflows were built to identify hits at scale, not to profile large numbers of complex candidates in detail. This is placing more pressure on lab teams, who now have to test, characterize, and purify a growing volume of more diverse, AI-generated compounds.
“The current techniques used in hit identification can screen hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of compounds, using binary or threshold-based techniques producing low-fidelity data—yes-or-no responses,” Belcher explains. “AI can increase the number of hits you get and potentially give you better quality hits as well. That increases demand for higher-throughput, information-rich technologies to then validate and characterize those hits.”
Models need complete, quality data
As AI has accelerated demand for data-rich lab systems, it has also highlighted a fundamental need for better, more complete data.
Many earlier AI models were trained on publicly available datasets and are now hitting what Belcher calls a data wall. Because models have access to the same data, they all reach similar conclusions, with diminishing returns over time. Additionally, the datasets weren’t built with AI in mind, meaning they lack the structure, labeling, and diversity needed to keep models accurate and free of bias.
Publication bias reinforces the problem. “Most publicly available datasets and scientific publications focus exclusively on positive results,” says Belcher. “No one wants to share their failures. This bias is almost like having one hand tied behind your back. AI models can identify patterns associated with success, but they lack the comprehensive understanding of failures that would make predictions more reliable.”
The data Belcher believes would markedly improve models—the failed experiments, the compounds that don’t bind—remains frustratingly difficult to come by. “We often joke that there should be a journal of negative data,” he says. “It’s often buried in lab notebooks, and it’s never used to inform or guide future research.”
This lack of negative data creates a fundamental problem: Without access to a broad range of data, models can’t be adequately trained to avoid bias. “In all machine learning applications, the model’s performance relies heavily on the quality and scope of the training data,” notes Belcher.
Fabrication has also become much easier with AI, compounding concerns around data integrity. Take Western blots, for example. These are part of a standard technique for identifying proteins in blood or tissue samples, and they are among the most common targets for manipulation in biomedical research. Belcher cites research by Dutch microbiologist Elisabeth Bik, who found that almost 4% of biomedical papers contained duplicated or manipulated images. This was back in 2016, before generative AI made fabrication trivial.
“Manipulated or faked data has always been a problem in science, but in the AI world, especially when used to train models, it could have potentially disastrous consequences,” says Belcher. “There needs to be more tools to verify that data is not manipulated.”
Some vendors are starting to tackle this challenge. Belcher points to solutions like Cytiva’s Image Integrity Checker, for instance, which uses secure hash algorithms—the same technology used in blockchain—to detect whether scientific images have been tampered with. “We’re starting to see a lot of interest from publishing houses that want to adopt this as standard because it’s a quick way to ensure that what gets published in the literature is genuine,” he adds.
Autonomous labs could accelerate breakthroughs
Belcher describes the future state of drug discovery as fully autonomous labs that run with minimal human intervention. Foundational to this vision is consistency in data and infrastructure.
These AI-driven dark labs, or labs-in-the-loop, operate around the clock. They cycle through prediction, testing, and optimization, and then feed results back into AI models to guide the next round of experiments. This can improve the success rates of drug candidates entering clinical trials, says Belcher. Better starting points, combined with more rounds of optimization, should result in better candidates with fewer liabilities reaching the clinic.
But automating a lab depends heavily on integration. That means interoperable systems, highly structured and comprehensive datasets, and information flowing easily in and out. Most labs aren’t there yet. “Today, a lot of the instruments in labs are standalone,” Belcher notes. “You can have the best technology in the world, but if it’s a closed ecosystem—if the user can’t get the data out—it doesn’t do any good.”
An integrated infrastructure can enable labs to generate FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) data at scale. This would not only inform individual lab reports, but could also train subsequent generations of AI models, effectively closing the loop between the computational, AI-driven dry lab and the physical wet lab.
“Our goal is to help scientists and researchers accelerate their breakthroughs and make that future state of autonomous labs a real possibility,” says Belcher. “We want to help them generate reliable data, simplify workflows in discovery, and hopefully enable what they’re working on to become tomorrow’s life-changing therapies, faster and with greater confidence.”
On costs and what comes next
AI-driven drug discovery is still in its early days. Notably, no drug discovered primarily through AI-driven design has yet received full FDA approval—although Belcher expects that to change in the next two to three years.
How big of an impact could AI eventually have on drug discovery? “The holy grail would be full in silico prediction of efficacy and toxicity, eliminating the need for the vast majority of physical wet lab work,” says Belcher. But there are many barriers to this beyond the maturity of the models, including regulatory hurdles and cost challenges.
A Stanford study found that the cost of training frontier AI models has more than doubled every year since 2016, adding more financial pressure to a sector already defined by exceptionally high R&D spend.
Belcher acknowledges the tension, but remains optimistic about what’s ahead. “I think we’ll get to a point where there’s a balance between AI and wet work, from a cost perspective and a risk perspective,” he says. “As long as the cost of compute doesn’t ever outweigh the cost of clinical development, I think AI is going to be an advantage.”
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.
Designing and developing a new medicine is an expensive, failure-prone scientific challenge. A new drug can take many years to develop, at the cost of a significant investment. And even then, most possible candidates never reach the patient. For biologic medicines, therapies made from engineered proteins rather than synthetic chemistry (which are often used to treat conditions across most major acute and chronic diseases), the complexity is even greater.
Scientists explore vast quantities of possible molecules, looking for the rare few that will bind to the right target, remain stable in the human body, and be manufacturable at scale. Today, AI is speeding up these processes and has quickly become a core part of the infrastructure in pharmaceutical R&D.
AI-assisted design is a growing part of how biologic drug candidates are developed, and companies like AstraZeneca are actively building its engineering teams to push this further. “Everything we do, whether it’s design, make, test, or analyze, is now computationally enhanced,” says Puja Sapra, senior vice president and head of R&D biologics engineering and oncology targeted discovery at AstraZeneca. “The cycle times are getting shorter while productivity and innovation increase.”
Sapra explains that AstraZeneca’s approach follows a build-measure-learn loop. AI generates or prioritizes candidate molecules computationally, predicting which designs are most likely to succeed. Scientists then focus lab resources only on the top-ranked candidates. This leads to a tighter feedback cycle with fewer dead ends, faster iteration, and the ability to go after disease targets that were previously considered untreatable by medicine. Because the number of possible molecular combinations far exceeds what any human team can systematically explore, using AI to narrow and refine the options for testing has become a major focus in biologics drug design.
Navigating complex drug design problems
Beyond accelerating timelines, AI is also being applied to the discovery of entirely new classes of medicines. Traditional biologics typically target one disease pathway. The next generation of drugs can hit multiple targets simultaneously or precisely deliver therapeutic payloads to specific cells. Achieving this requires optimization across many variables at once. Looking ahead AI-driven models could help design these increasingly complex, multi-specific biologics, explains Puja Sapra. “For example,” she continues, “such models could help identify which two or three targets to prioritize based on the underlying biology, then optimize across multiple parameters to balance a molecule’s potency, stability, manufacturability, and safety.” “Drugging the undruggable is becoming a reality,” Sapra says. “These technologies will eventually enable us to develop medicines against targets once thought impossible to reach. The potential for benefit to patients is remarkable.”
The data moat
McKinsey estimates that generative AI, combined with other computational tools, could cut drug discovery timelines by as much as 50%. But every AI model is only as good as its training data. In drug discovery, that means ample quantities of high-quality biological data. Experiments can provide a rich source of such data. Whether they succeed or fail, each experiment generates a signal about what does and does not work.
“Data is our differentiator,” says Sapra, explaining how the company’s datasets are proprietary and multimodal and include molecular structures, binding measurements, safety profiles, and manufacturing outcomes. “We’ve built an intentionally diverse portfolio across multiple disease areas and drug types. All of that data empowers us to fine-tune frontier AI models with richer, more representative training sets.” She continues, “Further, we have invested in deep screening technologies to generate additional datasets required in volume to constantly refine and validate our models.”
Building an autonomous discovery engine
To bring all of that data together in one place, AstraZeneca is building what it calls a “lab of the future” facility in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts where AI and robotic automation will be able to form a continuous, closed-loop discovery system. “Where a self-driving car uses sensors and models to navigate its environment, this system uses AI to make predictions, robotic systems to execute experiments, and instruments to generate data,” explains Sapra. That data feeds directly back into the models, accelerating each subsequent cycle.
“Throughout, scientists will remain central to the process, providing the oversight, judgement, and strategic direction that ensure outputs are explainable, tolerable, and directed toward potential patient benefit,” she adds.
Eventually, automated high-throughput systems will be able to make and evaluate thousands of molecular interactions on a weekly basis. “This will generate AI-ready data at a scale that traditional workflows cannot match,” Sapra says. “Robotic sample handling, automated quality checks, and integrated data pipelines also have the potential to help accelerate early drug development timelines significantly.”
The next frontier: Generating medicines from scratch
Ultimately, Sapra says, the end-state vision for AI in biologic drug discovery is what the field calls “de novo” design. For this, the goal is for AI to generate entirely new protein sequences that precisely fit the desired drug properties. This includes designing the structure, predicting safety, how it will behave in the body and how to make it manufacturable.
“The field is making great progress toward a completely AI-generated biologic, designed from scratch all the way to a clinical candidate,” Sapra says. “As we continue to leverage frontier models and fine-tune them with the right datasets, we bring ourselves closer to this reality. I believe it will come. It’s a matter of time.”
Several key elements are needed to reach this point, however. First is richer and more standardized training data across the industry. Second, robust evaluation benchmarks for AI-generated candidates. And third, teams that know how to work at the intersection of machine learning and biology. Of all the prerequisites, however, safety prediction may be the most consequential, and perhaps the least discussed, Sapra says.
“One of the hardest problems in de novo design is predicting whether a computationally generated molecule will be safe in the human body,” Sapra explains. AstraZeneca is tackling this with what amounts to virtual clinical trials. These are advanced cell systems and micro-scale organ models that function as physical testbeds, paired with AI that learns from their outputs.
“These systems have the potential to generate enhanced biological signals without traditional testing bottlenecks, and they’re a critical missing piece in closing the loop between AI-generated designs and clinical-ready candidates,” Sapra adds.
A shift currently underway is the move toward agentic AI systems that can simultaneously generate molecule candidates and predict how efficacious and safe they are likely to be. These autonomous workflows can connect disease-level insights directly to molecule design, bridging what were previously separate data silos. “The complexity of the biology goes hand-in-hand with the design of the molecule,” summarizes Sapra.
Human talent unlocks AI potential
The transformation underway in biologics is not just about technology. “With more autonomous systems, human oversight remains at the heart of this approach—ensuring explainable and ethical AI for the benefit of patients,” says Sapra.
For scientists, working with AI is a collaborative process. “Scientists will work hand-in-hand with these model systems,” she says. “There will be a world where models will design molecules, then scientists will work with the systems to test those molecules and put all that data together.” Through this process of human checks, balances, and judgement calls, the models will evolve and constantly improve, ultimately with potential to benefit patients.
For engineers, designing and building effective systems ready for human-AI collaboration will mean ensuring high levels of model transparency and explainability. According to Sapra, AstraZeneca’s engineering teams include data scientists, automation specialists, and AI engineers, who are developing systems that act as “thinking partners” rather than black boxes. “Engineers are designing systems that generate, validate, and learn at speed. And the problems are genuinely hard: Multimodal data fusion, closed-loop optimization, uncertainty quantification, and interpretability at the point of clinical decision-making,” she adds.
In taking on such technically demanding challenges, engineers and scientists have the opportunity to contribute to the research and development of potentially life-changing treatments for many diseases, says Sapra. “The biologic medicines we can develop today, and those we’ll design tomorrow, depend on combining world-class AI and engineering talent with deep scientific expertise.”
This article has been initiated and funded by AstraZeneca. Z4-85058, July 2026.
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.
With the rapid progress of AI capabilities and the move to agentic systems, organizations are expanding their use cases as the technology continues to grow. That constant evolution also introduces risk, leaving IT leaders to wonder which investments will prove valuable even six months into the future.
Returning to the foundational elements of AI architecture—the structural framework required for deploying and managing reliable, integrated AI systems at scale—allows technology leaders to make astute decisions today while supporting a future of AI agents that can retrieve information, make decisions, and execute complex workflows across systems.
Four elements of AI architecture you can count on
The following capabilities provide a stable compass on the path to production-ready deployment, regardless of how the underlying technology evolves.
1. Prepare data for AI at scale
Models are only as reliable as the data they can access, and poor data quality leads to AI hallucinations, bias, and unreliable outputs.
Most enterprises rely on legacy systems, inconsistent data structures, fragmented ownership, and incomplete datasets, making it difficult to scale AI effectively. Powerful as it is, AI itself cannot solve these underlying data problems.
As Adnan Adil, CIO of Elastic, explains: “The data is a durable part of AI architecture because without it, these models won’t run, won’t provide the right context, or won’t give the right level of services that we’re looking to implement.” Industry surveys consistently cite data quality as one of the greatest barriers to AI success. “The data quality has to be good; otherwise, the user loses confidence in the system,” says Adil.
An effective AI strategy begins with connecting data across the organization and ensuring it is organized, accurate, governed, and accessible in real time. These considerations are most effective when built into models and architecture from the start. Scalable data architecture allows AI systems to evolve alongside the business and connect reliably to the internal information needed to deliver meaningful value.
Gartner predicts that companies will abandon 60% of all AI projects through 2026 if they are not supported by AI-ready data. Avoiding that outcome includes clear data standards and ownership, clean and labeled data, and pipelines that support real-time retrieval.
2. Use context engineering to deliver the right data to every AI query
Context engineering ensures that the model draws on the most pertinent information for each query, selecting and organizing the data needed to produce accurate answers efficiently.
Effective context engineering shapes the inputs that guide AI reasoning and action. While prompt engineering focuses on how a request is worded, context engineering designs the entire information environment around the model: retrieving the right data and presenting it in a structured, machine-readable way. Many organizations are discovering that reliable AI depends as much on context quality as on the strength of the model.
Context engineering relies on a modernized, unified data foundation as well as retrieval and memory systems such as retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and vector databases. It also requires careful prioritization to determine what information matters most, what should be excluded, and when different types of information should be used. Feeding models too much context can dilute relevant details, increase costs, and slow response times.
“Minimum context, correct and current data, and machine-readable information are critical to effective context engineering,” Adil says.
3. Build AI governance and LLM observability in from the start
Strong governance and LLM observability help organizations maintain control over how AI systems use data, monitor system performance, and identify problems before they affect operations.
In the absence of clear controls around retrieval, workflows, and model usage, AI systems often process far more information than necessary. This inefficiency also drives up operating costs by requiring additional computing resources, often reflected in higher token consumption and API charges.
Governance also works in tandem with robust security. AI expands the attack surface, introducing risks such as prompt-based data leakage, model vulnerabilities, and adversarial inputs. Protecting sensitive information requires strong access controls, monitoring, and oversight.
Adil notes that essential controls — including those related to security, granular cost management, project controls, data security, and architecture—are frequently insufficient.
For governance systems to support transparent, compliant, trustworthy, and cost-effective AI, organizations cannot leave them as a layer to add later. Governance structures need to be embedded into architecture, workflows, and decision-making processes from the outset.
When governance is established from the start, it enables robust observability. Observability helps organizations understand how AI applications are performing in practice. Mechanisms for LLM observability and benchmarking allow teams to assess accuracy and utility over time, monitor adoption patterns, and adjust systems as conditions change. Observability also helps organizations gain trust by increasing visibility of model performance, behavior, and failure points.
Furthermore, observability is essential to get ROI of AI initiatives, as the benefits of it are often indirect and business value depends heavily on how systems are adopted and used. Real-time visibility into AI behavior allows organizations to measure performance against expectations, identify gaps between intent and reality, and continuously refine systems as requirements evolve.
In a 2026 report from Elastic, 85% of IT decision makers expect to enable LLM observability for their internal generative AI apps.
“Observability is actually huge. We can use observability data for cost control, decision-making, and engineering efficiency,” Adil says.
4. Keep humans in the loop
The thoughtful design, integration, and governance that maximize AI value demand specialized in-house expertise. Nearly 70% of respondents in Deloitte’s 2025 Tech Executive Survey report plan to grow teams in direct response to generative AI, a clear contrast to widely reported AI-related cuts. Adil agrees: “We think the people aspect is largely what’s going to make AI impactful going forward.”
As AI systems become more embedded in operations, organizations need people who can govern workflows, evaluate outputs, redesign processes, and adapt systems as conditions change. Evolution toward increasingly autonomous tools requires teams skilled in prompt engineering, orchestration, and change management.
Talent adept at critical thinking and prepared to adapt with technology’s rapid advances will be in high demand. Although turnover brings in fresh thinking, it also presents high costs in system continuity, institutional understanding, and innovation. Human-centered strategy needs to be built into AI execution stages to ensure smooth implementation.
As Adil says, “Many aspects of the stack are moving very, very fast, but institutional knowledge and the ability to adapt remain durable.
Thoughtful AI investment for future growth
As AI systems evolve from single-task assistants to increasingly autonomous agents, the organizations best positioned to benefit will be those that invest in the underlying systems, governance, and expertise that make AI reliable at scale.
Tech leaders who focus on these fundamentals can move effectively from experimentation to reliable, production-level deployment in the medium term, confident that these elements will remain relevant and adaptable amid constant advancements.
“We fundamentally believe that with these tools, velocity of work will get much faster,” Adil says. “We are really focused on how we can do work with these tools in ways we had not thought of before.”
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.
Login
