Skip to content

Topic · 3 articles

AI & automation

AI projects rarely fail at the model. They fail at the boundary: the queue nobody owns, the evaluation set that does not exist, the reviewer who is blamed when the output is wrong, the cost that grows faster than the volume, and the workflow that was never stable enough to automate in the first place.

This section is about the operational side of AI and automation. Which work should stay rule-based, which benefits from a model, and which should not be automated at all. Why a convincing pilot can sit for a year without reaching production. What monitoring, human review and failure handling look like when real money moves through the system.

We are deliberately unsentimental about it. An agent is a component with a non-deterministic output, and it needs the same discipline as any other component: a defined contract, a way to measure quality, a rollback path and an owner. If a workflow cannot be described as rules, a model will not rescue it. If a model cannot be evaluated, it is not ready for production.

The library is smaller here because we only publish when we have something specific to say. Coverage grows as we complete the 2026–27 research, including the EU AI Act transparency deadline and the cleanup work that follows AI-generated code.

For the commercial side, the AI engineering and automation service is where this becomes an engagement. For the decision itself, start with agents versus traditional automation.

All articles in this topic

Need help with a decision in this area?

Tell us what you are weighing up. We will share how we frame the trade-offs and what evidence we would need.

Email is the best way to reach us.