On July 22, 2026, a transmission line fault in Ashburn, Virginia—the heart of the world’s largest data center cluster—knocked more than 3 gigawatts of load off the grid in seconds. And it wasn’t the first time. Two years earlier, a single failed surge arrester dropped roughly 60 Virginia facilities and 1,500 megawatts at once. No one could anticipate so much uniform load responding to grid faults the same way, at the same time.

The AI power debate is mostly about generation: more turbines, more solar, more transmission. The grid needs more electrons. But the outages in Virginia weren’t supply failures; they were architecture failures. And a giant wave of interconnections is arriving on that same architecture, putting grid reliability at risk. It’s a problem nobody wants to own.

Asking more from the grid

The grid was built around predictable loads: steel mills, refineries, and houses at dinnertime. Different load sizes, same process—drawing power smoothly, misbehaving occasionally, and recovering gracefully.

But AI data centers don’t behave that way.

An AI campus can swing 70% of its load in milliseconds during a training run, then trip offline just as fast at the first sign of trouble upstream to protect billions in compute. Each is rational alone. Together, at gigawatt scale, they’re a problem the grid has never solved—and the next wave of data center campuses is planned at exactly that scale.

Where the old stack breaks

The standard data center power stack hasn’t changed in decades. Medium-voltage power arrives, transformers step it down, low-voltage uninterruptible power supply (UPS) units condition it, and it reaches the racks. Push that design to AI scale, and it cracks in three places.

First, the UPS sits deep inside the building, close to the racks. But its batteries are an undersized spare tire, designed to handle an outage for a few minutes, not to absorb load swings this fast and volatile around the clock.

Second, the UPS spends most of its life in bypass. Legacy converters waste enough power that operators run in eco-mode: A static switch feeds the racks directly from the grid and nothing filters in either direction. The compute’s swings go out raw, and grid transients—sub-millisecond events that can damage or take down equipment—come in too fast for any switch to catch.

Third, the protection logic was written when “large load” meant 50 megawatts. This protection logic can’t see the grid it is now a part of, so when trouble hits upstream, it does exactly the wrong thing: it drops out. In the 2024 Virginia event, most of the lost load traced to protection schemes that count voltage dips and disconnect on the third one—as designed, at the worst moment.

This isn’t sloppy engineering. It’s careful engineering the load has outgrown.

Moving into the path

The fix is three moves, made together.

Move it up—from 480 volts to medium voltage (13.8 kilovolts and higher), the voltage large sites draw from the grid.

Move it out—from the data hall to modular enclosures near the substation so the building holds only compute and the cooling that keeps it alive.

Move it into the path—instead of a battery that watches and reacts, a system every electron runs through, all the time. There’s nothing to detect and nothing to switch because nothing was ever routed around it.

On paper, three straightforward upgrades. In practice, they rewrite every line item downstream.

Making the change

When thousands of GPUs spin up together, the system absorbs the swing and hands the grid a flat load profile. When a disturbance hits, the equipment behind it never notices. A difficult neighbor becomes a predictable one. And when the utility needs help, it becomes a useful one.

Interconnection changes, too. The utility certifies one medium-voltage box instead of untangling every transformer, UPS, chiller, pump, and switchgear lineup behind it. Engineers swap chip generations without a fresh interconnection study. Months come off the permitting timeline.

Inside the fence, UPS rooms become compute or cooling space. Density per construction dollar climbs.

And the economics flip. Equipment that runs at medium voltage, sits outside, and stores its own energy can qualify for tax credits, and earn revenue in grid programs like peak shaving and demand response. Backup power stops being insurance and starts paying for itself.

The architecture test

In early 2026, we tested a full-scale system at the National Laboratory of the Rockies, a U.S. Department of Energy facility and the only place in the Western Hemisphere that can replicate real grid faults and AI-scale load swings concurrently in the same loop.

We hit it from both directions: real AI load profiles hit the compute side at full medium voltage. Grid faults hit the utility side, including a full zero-voltage event. The compute side didn’t flinch. Neither did the grid side. It cleared the large-load voltage ride-through requirements from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the grid operator, with room to spare.

Those rules exist because operators no longer take facilities this size on faith, and more are coming. Most of the industry treats them as hurdles. A medium-voltage, inline system clears them out of the box. Compliance isn’t an added feature. It’s what the architecture does.

The new layer

Much of what looks like a grid problem in the AI buildout sits inside the fence, in equipment sized for a load that no longer exists. Move the right pieces up, out, and into the path, and a grid liability becomes a grid asset. Density goes up. Permitting time comes down. Backup power earns its keep.

The engineering works—and the next wave of AI factories is being built on it. The industry hasn’t named this layer yet. We call it the medium-voltage AI UPS. The name matters less than the choice: those factories can arrive as a strain on the grid or as strength for it. We already know how to build the second kind.    

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

The entrance of major AI companies into healthcare is a meaningful and welcome development, accelerating the technical foundation available to the industry.

Their models are increasingly capable of processing long clinical records, interpreting complex terminology, comparing documentation against evidence and generating coherent summaries from large volumes of information. For clinicians, operators, and administrative teams who spend significant time searching through fragmented data, these advances are helping reduce cognitive burden and make high-value information easier to access.

But healthcare leaders should not confuse model capability with operational capability.

Healthcare’s administrative challenges are caused by fragmented information, fragmented workflows, and fragmented accountability, not a lack of information. The industry has spent decades investing in systems that capture activity: electronic health records, billing platforms, payer portals, scheduling systems, call center platforms, and analytics applications. Each system records something important. But few were designed to reason across the full chain of decisions that determines whether patients get timely access, clinicians have the right documentation and providers are reimbursed appropriately.

This is the problem that AI must now confront.

Revenue cycle is becoming one of healthcare AI’s proving grounds

The revenue cycle is the process healthcare providers use to get paid for care — from scheduling and registration through coding, billing, payer follow-up, and payment collection.

It is unusually suited to rigorous AI deployment because it combines high transaction volume, complex reasoning, structured and unstructured data, measurable outcomes, and significant operational variation. It also sits at the intersection of financial performance, patient access, and administrative workload.

A single claim can be influenced by patient insurance information, clinical documentation, coding rules, payer-specific policies, prior authorization requirements, medical necessity criteria, and many other data sources and operational processes. A breakdown in any one of those areas can create downstream consequences weeks or months later.

This is why generic automation has often fallen short.

Traditional robotic process automation works well when workflows are stable and rules are predictable, but healthcare administration is neither. Payer requirements change. Documentation expectations evolve. Exceptions are common and often material.

Large language models improve part of the equation, extracting meaning from narrative text, summarizing records and supporting reasoning over complex documentation. But when used alone, they inherit important limitations. They may produce plausible outputs without sufficient traceability. They may lack awareness of local workflow constraints. They may miss payer-specific history or context that determines whether an action is likely to change an outcome.

Why foundation models will become necessary but insufficient

The major AI firms are solving real technical problems for healthcare.

Better context windows make it easier to process longitudinal records. Stronger reasoning improves the interpretation of complex clinical scenarios. Better multimodal capabilities may eventually help connect text, imaging, structured data, and clinical signals in more useful ways. Safer model behavior and healthcare-specific tuning will continue to improve adoption.

These capabilities will make healthcare work faster, more consistent and easier to navigate. But they will not, on their own, solve deep-rooted administrative complexity.

Much of healthcare’s operational knowledge does not live in general medical literature, coding manuals, or public payer guidance. It lives in the accumulated experience of what actually happens after decisions are made. For example:

• Why does one appeal strategy outperform another?
• Which documentation gaps are most likely to cause reimbursement delay?
• How does a specific payer respond to a particular clinical argument?

These insights are behavioral, operational, and longitudinal. They emerge from years of transactions, outcomes, exceptions, and human judgment.

As foundation models become more capable, access to baseline healthcare knowledge will become less differentiating. Most leading systems will be able to interpret ICD-10 codes, recognize medical terminology, summarize payer policies, and reason over public clinical criteria. The durable advantage will come from how organizations combine that model intelligence with proprietary operational data, structured knowledge, workflow context, and governance.

The technical shift: From automation to orchestration

Agentic orchestration turns foundation model understanding into coordinated action — intelligence that can follow work across systems, apply the right rules, adapt when something changes, and keep learning from what happens next.

A prior authorization workflow, for example, may require retrieving clinical documentation through fast healthcare interoperability resources (FHIR) APIs, mapping patient history to payer criteria, identifying missing evidence, generating a submission packet, routing exceptions to a specialist, monitoring payer response, adjusting patient care pathways, and learning from the outcome.

This type of workflow requires coordination. It also requires guardrails: regulatory requirements, privacy standards, clinical policies, coding rules, payer criteria, and organizational risk thresholds. One promising approach is hybrid architecture that combines LLMs with structured knowledge bases, symbolic logic, reinforcement learning, and deterministic validation layers.

At Ensemble, this is the design principle behind EIQ, our revenue cycle intelligence engine. EIQ brings together operational activity, clinical documentation, payer behavior, and reimbursement outcomes into a continuously learning intelligence layer that’s integrated with the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR). It supplements the system of record with a system of intelligence, designed to connect information and surface actions most likely to improve outcomes.

EIQ uses a neuro-symbolic approach that combines LLMs and custom small language models with rules-based reasoning. That architecture is built on one of the most robust datasets in healthcare, informed by more than a decade of award-winning operational performance, transaction history, payer behavior, and operator decision-making. The language models help interpret information and generate human-readable outputs. The symbolic layer represents policies, rules, payer requirements, and workflow constraints so the system can apply guardrails, make reasoning steps more traceable and recommend actions that fit the specific operational context.

What the next decade will reward

The contribution of major AI firms to healthcare will be significant. Their models will become faster, safer, more capable, and more accessible.

But the next decade of healthcare AI will be defined by integration, not model capability alone.

The organizations that create the most value will be those that connect models to governed data, operational workflows, domain expertise, human oversight, and measurable outcomes. They will understand that healthcare intelligence cannot live in a separate interface. It has to exist inside the decisions that shape access, documentation reimbursement, and patient experience.

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

Prediction markets can help businesses and Bitcoin holders hedge rare risks when traditional insurers offer no suitable coverage.

Currently, market attention is gradually shifting toward the countdown to the procedural vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) on September 15. Against the backdrop of unclear regulatory expectations, XRP has recently performed relatively weakly.  At the…

A Calc II volume of revolution problem is a decent stress test for any study app. It has several moving parts: setting up the integral, choosing the right method, sketching the region being rotated, and labeling each stage clearly enough that a student can follow the logic back to the original question. Type that problem into a general chatbot, and you tend to get a wall of text. Somewhere in the middle is the right answer, but the steps blur together, and there's nothing to look at.

Accepting cryptocurrency is only one part of handling a digital asset payment. What happens to the funds after they arrive can determine how much value a business ultimately keeps. A payment may arrive in Bitcoin at the correct amount and…

Small and medium-sized business owners can lack the time and budget required to keep their audience...

The post How To Create Professional Social Media Content for SMB Clients Using AI appeared first on Fossbytes.

Plug a phone into a modern charger and the first 10 minutes are impressive. The next 20 are not.

This is not a defect. It’s the connected device protecting itself. As temperature rises during charging, a smartphone’s battery management system reduces the current it will accept, because heat accelerates the chemical degradation that permanently reduces battery capacity. The charger may be capable of delivering more, but the device simply stops taking it.

For anyone building products in the portable power category, this creates an uncomfortable gap between specification and experience. A device rated at 25 watts is accurate in the sense that it can deliver 25 watts. Whether it delivers 25 watts for the duration of a charge is a different question, and one the specification does not answer.

The specification gap

The gap matters commercially because it is invisible at the point of purchase and obvious in use.

Consumers compare wattage figures on packaging. They don’t compare thermal curves, because thermal curves are not published publicly. The result is a category where products differentiate on a number that describes peak output rather than sustained output, and where the actual user experience of two products with identical specifications can diverge substantially.

This is particularly acute in magnetic wireless charging. Inductive power transfer generates heat at both the transmitting and receiving coils, and the magnetic attachment that makes these products convenient also places the heat source in direct contact with the device it is charging. Convenience and thermal performance are working against each other by design.

The industry’s response for the past several years has been materials science. Graphite sheets, thermal interface materials, conductive housings, and heat-spreading layers have all improved how efficiently accumulated heat moves away from the source. Each generation has been incrementally better than the last.

But passive dissipation has a structural limitation: it can only move heat that has already been generated, and only as fast as the surrounding air will accept it. In a sealed, pocket-sized enclosure, that ceiling arrives quickly. Improving the materials slows the rate of temperature rise. It does not prevent the temperature rise.

Moving from dissipation to removal

The alternative is active thermal management, which is standard in stationary electronics and largely absent from portable ones for reasons that are easy to understand. Fans add volume, weight, moving parts, and noise. In a product category defined by portability, each of those is a meaningful cost.

At Anker, which manufactures charging and power products, engineering teams spent the past several development cycles working on whether that tradeoff could be made acceptable rather than eliminated. The approach involves several interacting systems: a micro centrifugal fan, dual airflow channels routed to avoid interference with the magnetic array, a three-layer graphene heat-spreading layer, and a control algorithm that modulates fan speed based on real-time temperature and battery state rather than running at a fixed rate. The result is that the Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro has become the world’s fastest and coolest wireless power bank.

In internal testing, at 77 °F (25 °C) ambient, the back of the power bank stays below 96.8 °F (36 °C) throughout wireless charging, 21.6 °F (12 °C) below the international standard limit of 118.4 °F (48 °C), for a comfortable grip. Comparable magnetic power banks in the same testing typically reached 113 °F (45 °C) or higher within 20 minutes. The functional consequence is that the connected device does not reach the threshold at which it begins reducing charge acceptance, so 25 watts of Qi2.2 magnetic wireless charging is delivered as a working rate rather than an opening rate. In practice, an iPhone 17 Pro reaches 50% charge in 25 minutes. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro’s premium performance in both charging speed and thermal management is certified by SGS, an independent testing and certification company.

The same principle applies in reverse. Recharging a power bank generates heat too, which is why devices in this category are often slow to recharge, leaving users with an empty accessory at the moment they need it. Active cooling during input allows the unit to accept 45 watts and reach 80% in 52 minutes.

What this suggests about the category

There is a broader pattern here worth naming, because it is not unique to charging.

When a category improves along a single axis for long enough, the constraint usually migrates somewhere else. Charging spent a decade optimizing power delivery. Power delivery is now, for most practical purposes, solved: the electronics can supply more energy than the receiving device is willing to accept. The binding constraint moved to thermal management, and the industry continued optimizing the axis it had always optimized, because that is the axis the specifications describe.

Recognizing when a constraint has moved is difficult precisely because the old metric keeps improving. Wattage figures have continued to climb. Products have continued to get faster on paper. The measurement stayed valid while quietly ceasing to describe the thing users experience.

For product organizations, the practical question is whether their specifications still measure the constraint or merely measure the capability. The two align until the constraint shifts and specifications rarely shift with it.

The transparency problem

A second implication follows from the first. If sustained performance differs meaningfully from peak performance, and if only peak performance is disclosed, then buyers cannot evaluate the products in front of them.

This is one reason Anker is adding displays on charging products. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro shows real-time power, temperature, battery level, and estimated time remaining. Some of that is user convenience. But some of it is a Anker stating a deliberate position—this category deserves to have the complete and accurate data made transparent to all.

Anker expects independent reviewers to test these claims and considers our internal numbers to be the correct outcome. The gap between specification and experience closes faster when the experience is measurable. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro will be available in the U.S. on September 17, 2026.

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

Traditional digital asset returns often rely on price increases. Whether it’s XRP, BTC, or other crypto assets, prices are influenced by various factors such as market sentiment, liquidity, and policy environment. Therefore, solely relying on price increases for returns carries…

Can DOGEBALL reach its stated $0.015 launch price? The target is possible, but not assured. Crypto news today shows Bitcoin near $80,000 and Sui near $0.82, making Sui (SUI) price prediction and next popular crypto searches more active. DOGEBALL enters…

Dogecoin (DOGE) started out as a joke; its creators originally intended for users to tip each other for entertaining social media content. Despite its playful origins, Dogecoin has since become one of the most popular cryptocurrencies. Like other cryptocurrencies, Dogecoin…

Fidelity Investments’ latest Retirement Analysis for the second quarter of 2026 shows that U.S. retirees continue to maintain strong long-term savings habits. The data shows that average balances in 401(k), 403(b), and IRA accounts have all reached historically high levels.…

The era of AI inference has arrived. Imagine a healthcare system analyzing millions of data points in real time to accelerate life-saving medical research, or an intelligent assistant instantly resolving thousands of complex customer needs at once. These real-world breakthroughs rely on advanced infrastructure acting as the engine of continuous intelligence, powering real-time services while also supporting an increasingly intelligent edge of IoT and consumer devices. However, in this inference-driven landscape, every delay, bottleneck, or wasted watt directly affects human outcomes and operating costs. 

This shift changes what infrastructure must deliver. Performance, latency, memory bandwidth, storage throughput, and networking cannot be optimized in silos. Inference workloads are continuous, geographically distributed, and highly sensitive to response time, requiring systems designed for scale, resilience, and efficiency from the start.

“We tend to think of AI as a single workload, and it’s not. It’s thousands, it’s millions, it’s billions of different workloads,” says Jim McGregor, founder and principal analyst, Tirias Research. AI inference changes the optimization problem from one of raw compute to coordinated infrastructure—memory, storage, and networking.

For business leaders, the priority is clear: AI infrastructure decisions must balance cost, flexibility, and future readiness. The winners will be organizations that improve performance per watt, reduce environmental footprint, and remove memory and storage bottlenecks before they limit growth.

AI inference requires a new architectural approach

Systems for AI need to be rearchitected because shoehorning modern AI systems into legacy infrastructure limits AI’s transformative potential. Purpose-built architectures are essential to realize the true value of AI, from accelerating scientific discovery to creating truly autonomous digital agents.

Traditional enterprise IT has been able to rely on relatively stable infrastructure assumptions, but inference and agentic AI introduce new demands around latency, data movement, scalability, and utilization that make architecture choices far more consequential.

“Data centers must now support continuous, distributed, and increasingly real-time AI services—none of which are a single workload,” says McGregor. “They all require different requirements from a system-level perspective.”

To support real-time AI, enterprises can no longer view memory and storage merely as supporting hardware, but at the heart of the system. Organizations need to architect a data pipeline that can rapidly ingest, clean, transform, store, move, and deliver data. Inference workloads place sustained pressure on infrastructure in ways that look very different from earlier training-centric deployments, demanding continuous data retrieval and caching that traditional applications never required.

Accordingly, performance by itself is no longer the sole benchmark that matters. Enterprises increasingly must balance performance with efficiency, cost, and scalability, especially as they try to support different AI services without overbuilding infrastructure for peak conditions.

“You have to optimize the entire network, and that includes memory and storage, around the types of workloads you plan on running,” says McGregor. “You have to really have a detailed understanding of what those workloads are going to be.”

Any AI infrastructure strategy must start with workload awareness. Inference, agentic AI, and other emerging AI use cases require organizations to treat the data center as an integrated system.

Data movement is the new bottleneck and an opportunity for competitive advantage

As enterprises deploy advanced inference and agentic systems, the sheer volume of data being queried in real time has made data movement the most pressing constraint. Modern AI techniques like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) require systems to constantly scan massive databases to generate accurate responses. This requires immense computing power, but more importantly, it requires immediate access to data.

McGregor says the focus shift to how efficiently data can be moved, cached, and delivered across the broader architecture elevates memory and storage from background infrastructure to strategic assets. “The biggest thing we’re doing right now is moving data from one place to another and making sure that we can use it effectively.”

Because AI is not a single workload category, simply buying the fastest processors is insufficient. Inference depends heavily on memory bandwidth, caching, storage proximity, and the ability to retrieve relevant information quickly and consistently. Understanding where each resource belongs in the stack and how those layers interact under real operating conditions has become a business imperative.

The most effective AI infrastructure looks less like a collection of best-in-class parts and more like a balanced system of compute, memory, storage, and networking, McGregor says, because bottlenecks tend to migrate from one layer to the next. “You have to architect all four together to be efficient, and that’s the challenge.”

The interdependence of data-plane design and network bandwidth means AI infrastructure planning has become a business decision just as much as an engineering one: latency is now inseparable from value. In robotics, financial services, healthcare, and customer-facing AI systems, delays are not merely technical imperfections; they can undermine safety, responsiveness, or trust. AI infrastructure performance becomes a matter of reputation management.

The organizations that gain the most from AI may not be those with the largest clusters, but those with the clearest understanding of how to align every infrastructure element to effectively execute AI workloads.

Building an AI infrastructure procurement framework

Planning AI infrastructure is not simply about choosing the fastest hardware. It is about how to scale without locking the organization into assumptions that may quickly become obsolete. “You need to be flexible because the demands are going to change rapidly and the technology is changing rapidly,” McGregor says.

Future-proofing AI infrastructure requires keeping your options open as workloads, economics, and architectures keep shifting:

• Define the AI workloads that are being optimized. Infrastructure choices must match business needs rather than what McGregor calls generic “AI readiness,” which risks overspending in some areas while leaving bottlenecks unresolved in others.
• Build a modular architecture for compute, memory, storage, power, and cooling so capacity can change as demand shifts rather than committing too early to a rigid architecture.
• Work with the full ecosystem of suppliers and integrators to reduce supply risk and improve access to the right components. McGregor says buyers can no longer assume their OEM or cloud provider alone will insulate them from supply constraints or architectural complexity.
• Reassess your procurement strategy continuously. AI requirements, hardware, and business models are changing too quickly for a fixed long-term design.
• Optimize for efficiency and ROI, not just peak performance. The most powerful setup may be too costly to sustain. Efficiency is also a public-facing metric—better utilization and more workload-aware system design can help companies respond to growing scrutiny around power consumption and water use.

The strategic goal of smarter AI data center design is not maximum performance at any cost, but an adaptable architecture that can deliver value, absorb change, and justify its footprint.

AI infrastructure is now a business strategy

AI data centers have quickly evolved from a back-end technical concern to becoming strategic business systems that help determine how effectively an organization can turn AI into revenue, improve human outcomes, and create a competitive advantage.

In the inference era, memory and storage are no longer passive repositories, explains McGregor, they are the active lifeblood of AI. The organizations that gain the most from AI will not necessarily be those with the largest computing footprint, but those that align infrastructure investments to business outcomes, reduce data bottlenecks, and build the flexibility to adapt as workloads evolve. He predicts that competitive advantage will increasingly belong to enterprises that treat compute, memory, storage, and networking as an integrated system designed to deliver AI efficiently, at scale, and with measurable ROI.

Procurement is now strategy and system design is a leadership issue, McGregor concludes. “One of the biggest questions every executive has to ask is how is AI going to change my business model?”

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

As agentic AI moves from experimentation toward enterprise deployment, the challenge is figuring out how agents can work together, connect to the systems and data they need, and operate safely across the workflows that run a business. Although agentic AI has been adopted by some 80% of Fortune 500 companies, progress toward meaningful scale remains uneven, with many organizations still working through isolated pilots.

For Arun Chandra, chief operating officer at NiCE, the first step is moving beyond experimentation for its own sake. “Everybody’s trying to figure out what can we do with this technology?” he says. But scaling requires a clearer connection to business strategy: Organizations need to define whether they are trying to increase revenue, reduce costs, or pursue another strategic or financial objective. From there, they need to rethink the workflows where agents will operate instead of just layering AI onto existing processes. “The last thing you want to do is to apply AI on an outdated or an inefficient workflow,” Chandra says.

That shift requires organizations to treat agentic AI as a cohesive system. Agents need access to the data, knowledge, and context required to make effective decisions, as well as connections to back-end systems if they are expected to take action. Fragmented information can undermine those capabilities: “The efficacy of these AI agents is purely a function of the context, the knowledge, and the data they can ingest and use,” Chandra says.

The organizational implications are equally noteworthy. Scaling agents can create a new form of fragmentation if teams build isolated systems that don’t connect with one another, while governance, privacy, security, and change management become more important as agents take on more consequential work. Chandra argues that AI agents should ultimately be held to the same standards as human workers, with organizations thinking of their workforce as a combination of humans and AI agents.

Looking ahead, that connected approach could enable agents to work proactively and even communicate with other agents to resolve customer needs. For organizations making the transition from pilots to scale, the priority is not to “boil the ocean,” Chandra says, but to instead build a connected strategy around high-value use cases, workflows, workforce changes, and measurable outcomes.

This webcast is produced in partnership with NiCE.

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

As companies scale, the technology supporting operations can become a liability just as quickly as it becomes an asset. Disconnected systems, site-specific tools, spreadsheets, and manual workarounds can create data silos that make it harder to spot problems early, coordinate responses, and make decisions with confidence. For Jabil, a global manufacturing company with more than 100 sites across more than 30 countries, the answer has been to make integration and simplification a priority.

The company adopted a “simplify-first, then-innovate mindset,” says Harish Manohar, SAP IT director at Jabil, recognizing that adding new technologies without first reducing complexity risks creating more risk. The goal is to standardize processes, consolidate where possible, and establish a more consistent data backbone across the organization. “Any innovation without simplification is going to add more complexity,” Manohar says.

That philosophy also changes how Jabil approaches modernization. “Any modernization or transformation should add measurable business value,” Manohar says. The company is focused on connecting processes end-to-end across its supply chain and creating a foundation that can scale consistently across regions. Integration comes first because, as Manohar puts it, “the backbone of any contemporary or modern organization is data.” Before organizations can optimize, automate, or apply AI, data needs to flow seamlessly across systems.

But doing that across a global organization is hardly straightforward. Jabil’s more than 100 sites operate with different levels of process maturity, legacy systems, and localized workflows, while regulated businesses bring additional compliance requirements. As such, standardizing across different regions and business environments means changing processes and governance without disrupting the operations already in place.

The value of that work extends beyond the technology to the people using it. Integrated workflows can offer employees shared visibility into data, reduce manual data reconciliation, and help them move from chasing information to acting on insights. For Jabil, the aim is also to improve real-time visibility into supply chain events, which can enable faster responses to disruptions and reduce operational risk.

Looking to the future, that foundation could make AI and automation all the more useful and scalable. With trusted data and integrated systems in place, Jabil is exploring predictive supply chain insights, intelligent exception handling, and AI-driven planning and forecasting. To Manohar, the takeaway is clear: “Simplicity at scale is a very competitive advantage,” and technology investments must ultimately connect to business value and operational resilience.

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with SAP.

Full Transcript:

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

Our topic today is enterprise technology integration, and how the benefits of consolidating tools and systems across the supply chain help organizations operate more reliably at scale. When companies reduce tool sprawl and connect their systems more effectively, they gain earlier visibility, faster response, and greater resilience across production lines.

My guest today is Harish Manohar, SAP IT Director at Jabil. Jabil has been on a journey to simplify its technology landscape by using SAP Integration Suite as the foundation to connect systems, retire fragmented tools, and enable more consistent operations globally.

This podcast is produced in partnership with SAP.

Welcome, Harish.

Harish Manohar: Hello, Megan. Good morning.

Megan: Thank you so much for being here, Harish. Just to start, if we could set some context, can you give us a quick overview of Jabil, the business and its overall transformation journey?

Harish: All right. So, about Jabil. Jabil is a global manufacturing company headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA. We have about 60 years of experience offering comprehensive engineering, supply chain, and manufacturing solutions across different industries. We have a global footprint of about over 100 different sites across 30-plus countries, 140,000-plus employees.

We are a trusted partner for more than 400 of the world’s top brands. That’s a little bit about Jabil.

Megan: Fantastic. And a lot of scale there, as you’re referring to some of the stats there. As things have got more complex, where did disconnected tools and systems start to slow you down, and what ultimately drove you to make integration a really strategic priority?

Harish: I talked about our global footprint across 100-plus sites. With a global footprint always comes complexity about site-specific tools. All of our sites have been in business for a long time, and over the period of years, they had their own tools for their own processes. It’s a little bit disconnected.

When we are looking to scale, the first thing we wanted to start looking at is what is this mix of site-specific tools, manual workarounds, spreadsheet-based processes, legacy applications, whatnot? That’s a big technical debt that we have had over the last 25 years. That’s where we started, and that is what led Jabil to make integration a strategic priority because we had limited ability to see issues early across plants, across regions, which would help us to coordinate responses consistently, and also to be able to scale those responses consistently. This complexity created data silos, and in a way delayed robust decision-making.

As the complexity increased globally, integration became extremely critical to a few things. It was critical to establishing a single trusted data backbone, which would directly enable faster coordinated responses across the network. We at Jabil, as part of our transformation journey, believe that having the right data at the right time fundamentally changes how we respond to disruptions, which is all about a manufacturing business. How we respond to disruptions. This is where we started our strategic priority towards having a integrated system that drove data consistency across our landscape.

Megan: Fantastic. As you have outlined there, there was obviously a real commercial need for this, but how did you think about bringing in those new technologies without adding even more complexity to the mix?

Harish: Great question. Whenever we talk about transformation, we talk about all these bleeding-edge technologies that are out there today when it comes to AI and data, cloud, et cetera. But it was very important for us to put a stake in the ground and say and adopt a simplify-first, then-innovate mindset. Because any innovation without simplification is going to add more complexity, just like you mentioned.

For us, SAP is our core digital platform. We want to focus on bringing more processes into SAP as much as possible. That is easier said than done because we have been in business for a while, global company, so not all processes exist within SAP at this point in time. We are slowly trying to standardize those processes, and having them under one single source of data would help us scale faster in terms of having data silos. We don’t want data silos across different systems.

This is where we started to introduce newer capabilities around SAP. From a cloud standpoint, we have been using SAP’s BTP and Integration Suite, which is proving to be the center stage of all integrations across Jabil. Well, it’s not there yet, but that is the direction that we want to pursue is we don’t want to have a slew of different integration platforms, rather try and see where Integration Suite fits best and where other smaller integration platforms would add more value.

Similarly, we have adopted an API-driven, event-based integration approach. That is our best practice that we have put down because we don’t want to keep moving data from one place to the other. That’s not good business practice in the IT world. Most of our integration architectures are API-driven and event-based. That is our focus.

Coming back to your new technologies perspective, we want to reuse as much as possible and standardize versus going out and buying these one-off tools that solve for point-in-case use cases. We really don’t want to go down that path. For major processes, we do adopt a best-of-breed approach, but for, let’s say, site-based use cases where a specific site has a particular need for a tool, we try and standardize that and reuse what exists in a different site, for example. There may be some need for a business process change, minor process changes, but that is our direction to make those process changes and reuse what is there already in a different location or a different region. So, that’s one.

Lastly, we are heavily aligned with SAP’s clean-core approach when it comes to customization. That has been the challenge for us over the last 25 years where we have been using SAP is our systems are heavily customized because we cater to different customers across the globe. Most of our demands are customer-driven, so we have to put in play these heavy customizations.

But now we are taking a pause, and we are saying, “You know what? We have customized so much so far, but now we are moving our systems into RISE, which would enable a clean-core journey in the future.” Now we have to put really good governance criteria and review processes that do not allow heavy customization of our system. We want to move away from that model as much as possible. Again, it’s not easy to do that at this point in time, but there is always a start.

Megan: I mean, it sounds like you took a very incremental, intentional approach to this. I mean, as you scaled globally then, what did modernization really look like at the company, and why start with integration?

Harish: To that point, we have always looked at transformation, modernization, very objectively. For us, it’s just not about upgrading a system. That’s not what it is. Any modernization or transformation should add measurable business value is our model, is our charter. Having said that, we don’t look at modernization in terms of just upgrades, but in what it gets our business in terms of value.

Most of our modernization transformation approaches are focused on connecting processes end-to-end across our supply chain, which is key for our business value. And then we also have a very concerted effort going on in the business community: how to standardize how our plants operate globally. Because, like I mentioned earlier, we have 100-plus plants, different processes, different legal regulations, different countries. It’s very hard for us to come up with one template across the globe, but we are trying to standardize as much as possible. And that’s where we are leveraging SAP’s Signavio, which is our business process management tool. We want to leverage Signavio’s capabilities in helping us standardize these global processes.

Now, back to your question, why did integration come first? Because the backbone of any contemporary or modern organization is data. And to get the right data at the right time, integration is the key aspect of the whole optimization exercise. Data needed to flow seamlessly before we start optimizing or automating or even applying AI use cases. This is where integration came first.

We wanted to create a single system of record across the operations. Well, when I say “single system of record,” it’s not just SAP, but the ability for us to create those data pipelines across those systems of record being supply chain, planning, inventory, et cetera, et cetera, in that operation space.

The result is we want to get to a foundation that helps us scale consistently across our different region. That is our main objective is to, how do we scale as the business grows, as we develop into this bigger organization across different industries? How do we set this foundation that will help us scale consistently? Simplicity, consolidation becomes strategic assets at scale.

Megan: Absolutely. And you touched on some of the complexities there of doing this at a scale that Jabil is at with its international footprint. What were some of the biggest challenges in your view in terms of rolling this out across regions, and how did that more standardized approach that you’ve mentioned there help?

Harish: Absolutely. I would like to reiterate some of those key challenges I mentioned. One hundred-plus sites, different sites have different maturity levels in terms of how they approach processes. They have a multitude of different legacy systems, localized processes, workarounds, spreadsheets, and the change management that exists within each site is very different. And we do have a footprint of highly regulated businesses. And when it comes to regulated businesses, that comes with its own set of challenges around qualification and CSD processes, et cetera. These are the key challenges that we are up against.

Now, the standardization helped us provide consistent workflows, data flows, and governance across sites. Now, we are not there at 100%, but we are working towards that, providing consistent workflows, data pipelines, and governance across sites. And we want to enable faster rollouts of our new bleeding edge technologies. For example, when I talked about SAP’s BTP or SAP Signavio or any other new SAP tool or non-SAP tool, traditionally our ability to deploy those had a challenge around the heavy customization that is required for each and every site. Now, the standardization approach takes that heavy customization out, which enables a faster rollout of those newer technologies.

And then lastly, we want to scale across all of our plants. I think initially we want a target of about 40-plus plants with shared processes that are consistent across the different regions. We want to shift from a site-by-site operations model to more of an enterprise-capability approach.

Megan: Right, and fascinating. And you touched on the people management aspect of this as well, because obviously this isn’t just about technology, it’s about people too. So, from the employee side, how did this shift to a more simplified landscape change the day-to-day experience for people compared to juggling multiple tools at once?

Harish: Great question. And I’ve been hearing direct feedback from our business community on some of these transformation initiatives on how those have changed their daily jobs significantly. Before we embarked on this transformation journey, any employee, any persona. You take a buyer, you take an inventory planner, you take a finance analyst, we go by personas. They had to deal with multiple tools, manual coordination, data reconciliation, especially in the finance space, inconsistent processes across different regions. And then the time spent reconciling data resulted in delay of making decisions, robust decisions. This was the before.

But now, since we are moving towards this newer standardization and more of an integration approach, we are able to achieve, to a certain extent, a single integrated workflow across different systems. We have built some key processes that will enable the single integrated workflows across systems. The users, our business community, irrespective of their roles in the organization, have clear visibility and shared data across their teams, which is very important. Earlier, they were dealing with different versions of the data, local workbooks, spreadsheets, and then the time spent talking to each other and reconciling what is the right data? What is the single source of truth? That we are trying to peel away that layer and get to that where the employees don’t have to deal with that kind of complexity.

This reduces manual effort and enables faster issue resolution when it comes to actual disruptions. Employees move from chasing information to focusing on acting on insights, which is where I think the new age of AI comes into play. I’ll talk about that in a little bit, but technology becomes an enabler of decision-making, and it’s no more an overhead. That’s where we want to go.

Megan: Fantastic. Such an important element of this, isn’t it, that people side of things? And we’ve touched briefly on this idea of value you’ve talked about before, because with an initiative of this scale, ROI is always front and center, of course. What benefits stood out most for you, and how important was better visibility in particular across systems?

Harish: Megan, I talked about how modernization and transformation for Jabil means measurable business value, which is directly connected to the ROI. We don’t do any transformation initiatives just because we want to do it from an IT standpoint. Any investment that we make in a transformation or a modernization initiative has to have a deliverable business case that is approved, signed off by business, because that is the only way true transformation happens, if IT and business are a partner as part of this transformation journey.

The biggest benefit that we have seen in this initiative is we are striving to reach, attain real-time visibility across our supply chain events. That is the biggest benefit that we see, faster response to disruptions and exceptions. And we are working to reduce our operational risk significantly by operating in this newer model.

One example I can give you is the unified workflows that I talked about earlier. It enabled earlier identification of missing materials and faster resolution across our sites. When it comes to a manufacturing company that has a global footprint, materials are the backbone of our whole supply chain process, right? Having a unified workflow, which is able to identify missing materials early in the game, was a game changer for our whole operations community.

Real-time analytics allow instant supply chain adjustments without delays. We are focusing a lot on getting analytics, a global analytic footprint in place that allows instant supply chain adjustments without any delays. That’s where AI is going to play a major role currently, and also in the near future.

And again, when you talk about visibility. Visibility is not just about reporting what is there in the system. Visibility directly should enable scenario modeling for our users to make strategic adjustments in their processes, which visibility also should make way for proactive decision-making, and also foster business continuity. This is how we look at visibility at Jabil.

Megan: Right. And you’re still on this journey, of course, but now that Jabil has a strong integration foundation in place, what does it unlock next for you, and how are you thinking about AI and automation as you’ve touched on a couple of times?

Harish: Yeah, we have talked about a couple of times around AI. So, we strongly believe at Jabil, a strong integration foundation enables event-driven, real-time processes, robust decision-making, scalable automation, and all of this enable easier adoption of AI use cases. And again, we are in the new age of AI. We are working towards getting to a AI-enabled enterprise, but having these foundations in place truly fast tracks our approach of AI use cases.

Our key focus areas, when I’m thinking about AI and automation in the immediate future, are predictive supply chain insights, intelligent exception handling, which is key to our business operations from a site operation standpoint. Intelligent exception handling is very, very key. On the supply chain side, I talked about predictive insights. That is also absolutely important. All of this enables AI-driven planning and forecasting capabilities.

For us, AI should augment true decision-making and robust decision-making, and deliver measurable value, not just experiment AI in use cases. We want to move beyond just experimenting AI in our business processes, but we want that AI that we implement to truly augment the decision-making process that we have, and also deliver key business value.

How does all this connect to integration? Integration ensures AI has access to trusted data, and also enables the ability to act across multiple systems in a global company like Jabil.

Megan: Fantastic. And if we could just finish, I suppose, with a little bit of advice for others, for other leaders, perhaps, dealing with tool sprawl at the moment, what are some key lessons you would say you’ve learned about prioritizing integration right from the start?

Harish: Absolutely. When it comes to tool sprawl, we can go all day about what are the different areas of tool sprawl? For example, application development, we have a multitude of tools; via integration, we have a multitude of tools. Data, we have a multitude of tools, but let’s just focus on integration. That’s the core topic here.

I would recommend folks that are in transformative roles in their organizations to start with integration as a foundation and not as an afterthought, right? Prioritize simplification over adding a slew of different tools to address different capabilities. Try and simplify as much as possible before we start your upgrade or your transformation journey. Standardize over locally optimizing tools. Try and get to that. Try and get the business community, your key SMEs in the business space, to understand the value of standardization and simplification of processes and how that enables your business to deliver value faster.

Second one, after prioritize: build a single source of truth for data as much as possible. I’m not saying it’s going to be always the case where an organization as in the scale of Jabil will be able to function just with SAP. They’re going to have different systems, but try and get to a model where you’re working with a single source of truth and not locally siloed data sources, right?

Next is focus on building a scalable integration architecture. Don’t just confine yourselves to the current state where you are, and build something in place that will only serve you for the next six months to a year. No, that’s not the goal. Anything that you build as an integration architecture should be scalable, and should serve the organization for the next three to five years. That’s how I look at it. When I’m putting in a new architecture pattern or a new event-driven insights, I look at, “Okay, where is Jabil going to be two years, three years down the line? Would this suffice for that scale?” That’s how I look at it.

Then focus on outcomes and not just technology. Focus on outcomes: speed, visibility, resilience, and not just technology deployment, because end of the day, IT and business should partner on the business value and not just technology upgrades.

Going back, simplicity at scale is a very competitive advantage, and technology investments must tie directly to business value and operational resilience. That’s how we look at Jabil in terms of our tool sprawl and how we prioritize integration right from the start. And that’s what I would suggest to other leaders that are looking to advance in this space.

Megan: Fantastic. Brilliant and very comprehensive advice. Thank you ever so much, Harish. And thank you ever so much for joining us. That was Harish Manohar, SAP IT Director at Jabil, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor at Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web, and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks so much for listening. Goodbye.

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

For years, legacy technology has been a problem companies knew they needed to solve, but one they often struggled to tackle. The cost, complexity, and risk of replacing business-critical systems could make modernization feel like a disruption to manage instead of an opportunity to pursue. But with the rise in customer expectations and the changes AI brought to the economics of software development, that calculation is changing. Bupa’s modernization of its My Bupa mobile application offers a case study in what becomes possible when a legacy migration is treated as a business transformation rather than a technology rewrite.

Bupa CIO of health insurance Asifa Sherazi describes the risks of waiting for legacy systems to become an emergency: “The end-of-life technology is a risk that compounds quietly, and then arrives all at once.” For Bupa, moving its application from Xamarin to native Swift and Kotlin improved the app rating from 3.7 to 4.7, while the user-perceived crash rate fell by nearly 24 percentage points on Android and eight points on iOS. “What they’ll notice is that when they need us, often at a stressful moment, it just simply works,” Sherazi says.

Sanjeev Tripathi, senior vice president and region head of BFSI, healthcare, and public sector for Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia at Infosys, contends that AI is helping change the equation. “The emergence of AI is fundamentally shifting the economics of modernization,” he says, reducing the effort, risk, and time traditionally associated with these programs. At Bupa, combining AI-assisted reverse engineering with forward engineering helped deliver the transformation in approximately 60% less time than would have been possible in the pre-AI era.

Sherazi and Tripathi also highlight the human dimension of modernization: preserving institutional knowledge, giving teams capacity to adapt, and creating an environment where employees can surface problems early.

Looking ahead, both experts see modernized platforms as foundations for more personalized, predictive and AI-driven experiences. The payoff of modernization may be less about replacing aging technology and more about building the flexibility needed for whatever comes next. 

“Modern platforms will become the base for far more intelligent AI-driven ecosystems, where AI is not just an add-on, but it is built into everything from design to operations. That’s how the modern platforms will evolve, and the customer experiences will become far more personalized and predictive,” says Tripathi. For Sherazi, that shift is already changing the questions organizations can ask: “It used to be, can our platform support that? Now, it’s: is that the right thing to do for our customers?”

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Infosys.

Full Transcript:

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

Our topic today is legacy modernization. Companies across industries continue to struggle to bring AI modernization to legacy technology stacks, increasing the risk of losing vendor support, degraded customer experience, and limited capacity for innovation.

Two words for you: future-ready foundation.

My guests are Asifa Sherazi, who is CIO of health insurance at Bupa, and Sanjeev Tripathi, who is senior vice president, region head of BFSI, healthcare, and public sector for Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia at Infosys.

This podcast is produced in association with Infosys.

Welcome, Asifa and Sanjeev.

Asifa Sherazi: Thank you, Megan. Delighted to be here.

Sanjeev Tripathi: Thanks, Megan. Wonderful to be here. And good talking to you again, Asifa.

Megan: Thank you both so much for being here. Asifa, if I could start with you just to set the context for our conversation. There are seven million healthcare customers across the Asia-Pacific. Could you tell us a bit more about Bupa and the challenges it’s faced in its modernization plan?

Asifa: Yes, absolutely. Let me start with something about Bupa that shapes everything we do. We are a global healthcare organization. Think hospitals, clinics, dental, age care, digital health, alongside our insurance business. We reinvest back into the organization, so into our services, our capability, our teams, and our outcomes that we deliver for our customers. In Asia-Pacific, we serve around, as you said, seven million customers across health insurance and health services, individuals, families, corporate clients, patients. Our purpose, helping people live longer, healthier, happier lives is more than just a statement. It actually shapes our strategy, guides our investment decisions, and influences the choices our teams make every day.

Now, for most of our health insurance members, the day-to-day digital relationship with Bupa begins through My Bupa, our self-service platform. It’s the front door for managing cover, updating policy details, submitting claims, checking entitlements. Alongside of it, Blua plays a complimentary role. Where My Bupa helps members manage their cover, Blua helps them manage their health, digital healthcare services, clinical support, preventative health. And together, they let us move beyond transactional interactions towards more personalized, proactive care.

Here was our challenge. Our mobile app, My Bupa, was built on Xamarin, and Microsoft support for it ended sometime in 2024. We had extended support in place, so our customers remained protected throughout, but we were clear-eyed that this was a bridge, not a destination. The runway was finite, and it was shortening for us. We made the decision to modernize from a position of stability proactively for the long-term safety and experiences of our customer rather than waiting until circumstances forced our hand, because the platform carrying our most important customer relationship was in effect standing still while the world around it was moving.

Megan: Right. So you decided to act really proactively in that sense. And so, Asifa, what are some of the risks then of sticking with end-of-life technologies, and how will moving away from legacy technologies help you improve the customer experience?

Asifa: Yeah. Look, the end-of-life technology is a risk that compounds quietly, and then arrives all at once. We saw it in three ways. The first is security and compliance. Once a technology is out of vendor support, the flow of security updates and fixes changes fundamentally. In our case, we put extended support in place as a bridge so our customers stayed protected. But extended support buys you time, it doesn’t buy you a future. In healthcare, we hold some of the most sensitive information a person will ever share with an organization. That isn’t data to us, it’s trust. And trust is extraordinarily expensive to rebuild. We weren’t prepared to run that risk on a shortening runway.

The second is losing control of your own roadmap. How I’d explain that is iOS and Android don’t stand still. Every operating system release, every change to app store requirements becomes something that you react to rather than plan for. As each one slows you down a little further, over time, that opens a widening gap between what customers expect and what you can actually give them. We’re all customers. We don’t benchmark a health insurer against other health insurers. We benchmark against whatever app we used last.

And the third way was, and this is one we’d flag for peers, is the shrinking talent pool. Xamarin is legacy technology, and the engineering expertise available for it is limited. You end up with a critical customer platform supported by a narrowing group of specialists. That’s a workforce risk wearing a technology costume. We partnered with Infosys and we migrated the entire application estate from Xamarin to fully native Swift and Kotlin, and the customer outcomes are why we’re comfortable talking about this today. Our app rating moved from 3.7 to 4.7. Some of the stats that I’d love to share are that the user-perceived crash rate fell by nearly 24 percentage points on Android and eight points on iOS. The Android login success per visit doubled back up to 77%, and that’s one the team that is most proud of, because a login failure isn’t a technical event. It’s a person who wanted to check their cover and they couldn’t.

The team achieved 100% feature parity in a single release, and 90% of our active customer base moved to a new version, and they’ve, I think, downloaded nearly 1.8 million unique downloads. From our customers’ perspective, customers will never think about any of this as a technology change, and they shouldn’t have to either. What they’ll notice is that when they need us, often at a stressful moment, it just simply works, and that’s the outcome we were really after.

Megan: Those are some really striking results and statistics that you’ve shared there on the success of the migration. I mean, Sanjeev, could you talk a bit about why modernizing legacy technologies is so critical at this time, and how Infosys has approached that transformation journey with Bupa?

Sanjeev: Sure, Megan. To be honest, legacy modernization initiatives are not new, and there has always been a strong desire to drive modernization across the entire technology landscape. And Asifa covered all the points that I was going to cover about the risks that have been there. But I’ll reiterate, the reality is the industry has been held back by the cost complexity, and also the risks that have been associated with any legacy modernization initiative that has been undertaken historically.

As Asifa mentioned, customer expectations of what was acceptable five, 10 years back are simply not acceptable anymore. The customers today expect a seamless, intuitive, responsive interaction across every channel. And Asifa also covered the growing challenges around security, resilience, talent availability, and so on. Finding talent on legacy technology is extremely, extremely difficult, and that introduces risk in every organization and in every legacy platform, most of which are actually business-critical platforms as well. Security vulnerabilities are getting increasingly difficult to manage, and as I mentioned, finding deep expertise in older technologies is very, very difficult now.

So what has changed? What has changed is that we now have new tools that are available to us to address these challenges. The emergence of AI is fundamentally shifting the economics of modernization, and it’s doing that by helping organizations to reduce the effort, risk, and also the time that is traditionally taken for programs like these, and that is why we believe that the time is now for legacy modernization. In fact, in Infosys, we have six strategic value pools that we have identified in our AI-first value framework, which is publicly available, and legacy modernization is one of these six value pools. And in the market, we are seeing very strong interest across our client base, and they recognize that the opportunity to unlock both technical and business value is now.

With Bupa in particular, we approached the journey as a business transformation rather than simply a technology rewrite, and our approach had two key phases. One is reverse engineering, and then forward engineering. Let me just quickly cover what these two are.

Reverse engineering, what we did is we extracted and we understood the rules, the processes, and the logic within the legacy environment, and that’s a standard approach we took, we take in any legacy modernization program. What that does is it allows us to preserve the critical business functionality, but at the same time, it avoids the risks that often come with large-scale migration programs.

The second aspect is forward engineering, where we re-architected the solution to enable a reimagined customer experience. The objective is not just a feature-by-feature migration or ensuring feature parity, which is important, but it is even more important that since we’re investing this kind of money to create a modern platform that is scalable, maintainable, and is also capable for future innovation, and that’s what Asifa mentioned about you need to be in control of your own roadmap. You have to build a platform which is capable of supporting future innovation as well. We essentially ensured nothing was lost in translation, and we significantly improved the platform stability and long-term maintainability. And some of the metrics that Asifa mentioned reflects the meaningful improvement in customer experience as well.

Finally, just one more point before I close this question is the time to market. I spoke about the time is now, and because we’ve got the power of the tools that are available now. What AI allowed us is to accelerate the transformation dramatically. What would have traditionally been a long and complex modernization, was delivered in approximately 60% less time than what would have happened in pre-AI era, and that is the real story.

Megan: So AI in this context is a real enabler in terms of the economics and the speed and all of those things you’re talking about. If I could come back to you, Asifa, as much as modernization is a technology challenge, there is the human component as well, and I wondered if you could talk about how you prepared employees for these new technologies, and what challenges and solutions you faced on that front as well?

Asifa: The human side of it is what I’m really passionate about. Technology was only half the challenge. The real work was helping people move from what they knew to what was possible. Modernization isn’t just about replacing systems, it’s about giving teams the confidence, the capability, the clarity to embrace a different future, and that’s what determines whether change actually succeeds.

From that experience, there were three human challenges that stood out for us. The first one was scarcity of expertise on both sides of the transition, and like we said before, Xamarin is a legacy app. We were moving away from a legacy technology, supported by a rapidly shrinking specialist talent pool, and modernizing onto two native platforms. Documentation of that existing environment was limited. Much of the operational knowledge sat in individual experience and in the code base itself, and that created a real dependency on a small number of people. And for the team, it was a confronting reality and a powerful reminder that modernization isn’t just about technology imperative, it’s actually a resilience one.

What changed the dynamic was using AI to do the archeology. As Sanjeev mentioned, Infosys applied AI-assisted reverse engineering to harvest the legacy Xamarin code and extract the flows, the rules, the business logic, and generate native-ready user stories and acceptance criteria from it. The team did a lot of work. They mapped hundreds, I think nearly 1,500 regression scenarios to native epics, and that way, parity critical journeys were preserved by design rather than by memory. The human effect was just as important. Knowledge stopped living with a handful of individuals and became shared across the team, and our people could spend less energy holding institutional memory and more on designing and improving. So that was the first challenge.

The second challenge, Megan, was capacity and not willingness. Our business analysts were fully committed to ongoing feature delivery. And this is a live customer-facing app, and you cannot pause improving the customer experience while you rebuild underneath it. AI-driven discovery and documentation removed almost an estimated of 400 hours of manual BA effort, and that’s not a headcount story, that’s actually people not being asked to do two full-time jobs at once.

The third challenge that stood out was pace. Our original internal estimate was around 18 months, and thanks to Sanjeev and the team, almost like a one-team approach of how do we tackle this, the team delivered it in seven, and that’s exhilarating.

t’s also demanding, and both things need saying out loud. We mobilized cross-functional squads across engineering, architecture, testing, release, because managing parallel environments while protecting BAU commitments is such an emotional load as well as a logistical one. We leaned in hard alongside the team, being present rather than reporting from a distance, regular check-ins, genuinely listening to concerns, unblocking things quickly so people weren’t sitting waiting on a decision. And Megan, one thing I’ll say is when you’re compressing 18 months to seven, the most useful thing leadership can do is remove the friction in front of someone else and get out of their way.

But the thing that made the biggest difference was surprisingly simple, actually. We built a visual depiction of the transformation journey, and we updated it every month so the team could actually see how far they’ve come. Because when you deepen migration of this scale, it’s really easy to only see what’s left to be done, and being able to look back at the ground that’s already been covered gave people real intent and real momentum. And genuinely, it was exhilarating to watch. Watching the team’s pride became their fuel.

Megan: I love that idea of it being exhilarating, but exhausting. I think that’s a great description.

Asifa: Yeah. And the leadership lesson for all of us was just simpler than any of it. Programs like this have hard weeks, there’s going to be incidents, delay, difficult conversations. And Sanjeev, you and I have had those conversations many times. The job of leadership in those moments is to absorb the ambiguity rather than transmit anxiety, because if people feel safe telling you bad news early, there’s almost nothing you can’t fix. I say this plainly because it’s the truest thing about the whole program. I am so incredibly proud of this team, because what they achieved in seven months, while continuing to serve customers every single day without disruption, was genuinely remarkable. But what I’m really proud of isn’t the speed and it isn’t the engineering, it’s that the team never lost sight of who it was for, so every decision that we were making, and they came back, it just came back to the person at the other end of the app.

Megan: It sounds like you did an incredible job focusing on that people element just as much as the technology, which is so important. And Sanjeev, we’ve heard some of the incredible results Bupa has had with this, but more broadly, I suppose, looking across modernization use cases, where do you find that companies see the most ROI, and what advice do you have for leaders who need to focus on transformation at that legacy level?

Sanjeev: Thanks, Megan. That’s a very important and actually a very good question, because what we see is modernization ROI is sometimes viewed too narrowly through just a technology lens, and as Asifa mentioned, it is broader than just technology. Legacy modernization has aspects associated with business implications as well, so I’ll just cover that very quickly.

There are two dimensions, as I mentioned. One is technical ROI or technology-related ROI, and second is business ROI. On the technical side, and as you heard from Asifa as well, the biggest benefits come from faster time to market, platform stability and resilience, of course, and a lot of times, in fact, almost in all the cases, lower operating costs, and that is one of the aspects associated with some of the legacy modernization programs.

Besides this, access to broader, more readily available talent pool, and security management, and ensuring that the platforms are secure and free from, as much as possible, free from vulnerabilities in the current environment. At the same time, making it easier to innovate, releases become faster so that the feature delivery into the market becomes faster, and also able to respond to any new technology innovation that comes into play. But this is only on the technology side.

On the business side, however, the returns are often reflected in customer outcomes, and what we typically see are improvements in measures such as net promoter score, and in this case, for example, application ratings that you see on the app store. Both of which are actually very strong indicators of customer satisfaction and digital experience quality. I think it is important for us to cover, look at the ROI from both technology, but more importantly, from a business perspective.

The second part of your question was about what would be my advice to leaders, and I think Asifa covered it very well, where she mentioned that the one-team approach, the providing safe environment to the team to be able to say what is going well, but also what is not going well, and keeping your eye on the end outcome. I think those are very important things. But I would also like to add that don’t treat modernization as a technology initiative. It is a unique opportunity for us to rethink the business platform itself, and rather than pursuing a like-to-like migration, use the investment that you’re making to improve customer experience, simplify processes, and re-architect for capabilities such as real-time personalization and data-driven decision-making. The greatest returns come when technology transformation is directly linked to business outcomes.

And finally, and this is something that I have seen from personal experience multiple times, is you have to think from first principles. AI does not replace good engineering practices. It enables organizations to execute those practices faster, and it enables it faster, but also more consistently and at greater scale. The foundations of good architecture, sound engineering, and clear business objectives will continue to remain important, and in fact, their importance is going to increase as we progress. That, I think, is what I would say anybody embarking on a legacy modernization program should be focused on.

Megan: I love the idea that this is not just about migration. This a chance, as you say, to reimagine what you can deliver and what’s possible. Fantastic. Let’s close with a forward look. Asifa, what innovation are you looking forward to that wouldn’t have been possible before this, and what do you see on the horizon?

Asifa: There’s definitely lots of things on the horizon. But what excites us most isn’t specific technology, it’s that the question in our conversations has changed. It used to be, can our platform support that? Now, it’s is that the right thing to do for our customers? And that’s a profound shift.

There’s three things, Megan, that genuinely weren’t possible before, and we’ve touched on this a little bit, and Sanjeev’s touched on it as well. This first is speed as a permanent capability. Since launch, Android and iOS, the team has shipped multiple rapid-fire releases, including our migration to a new payment gateway. Builds are now completing four times faster, codes are reaching to testers in about an hour, and we’ve reduced our code base by 30%, and our application footprint’s reduced 18% as well. A simpler estate isn’t an aesthetic preference anymore, it’s what makes the next change cheap, and we’ve bought ourselves optionality to do that.

The second is quality at that speed, which is the part we’ve been most skeptical about five years ago. AI-driven triage and predictive defect analysis, we ran it across nearly 1,400 cases to focus on testing on the highest risk journeys, which meant we went live with zero security defects and zero high severity defects, and Sanjeev mentioned that just before. The old trade-off between moving fast and moving safely is being renegotiated right in front of us, so that’s the second point.

The third one is AI-driven accessibility testing, which the teams treated as a critical rather than an optional opportunity. In healthcare, people who most need to reach us are very often the people whom our poorly designed interface is a genuine barrier, and so being able to test that systematically at scale was a real advance for us as well.

And Megan, you mentioned on the horizon. It’ll be remiss of me not to take the name of agentic AI. The shift from AI that supports a task to AI that completes an outcome end-to-end with proper governance, human oversight at the key decision points. What this program showed us is that the constraint is no longer the models. It’s whether your platforms, data, processes are modern enough to let AI act safely, which is precisely why this work mattered now. Sanjeev alluded to it as well about that underlying architecture. Responsible AI as a source of advantage, not a compliance exercise, I would say. In health, if people don’t trust how you’re using their information, nothing else you build matters. We didn’t modernize to have modern technology. We modernized to earn the right to do the next thing, and to do it in weeks rather than years.

Megan: Absolutely. And now you have those foundations in place, like you say, all of these opportunities open up. Fantastic. And Sanjeev, just finally, as companies complete these migrations, what kinds of innovations and benefits are you seeing, and what do you expect in the next five years?

Sanjeev: Sure. Again, good question, Megan. The reason is there is no uniformity on how these migrations are being done even today. As I mentioned earlier, so where there is simple lift and shift of existing code base onto a new platform, a like-to-like replacement, the benefits generally tend to be limited. Where we apply first principles, thinking about re-imagining, re-architecting, and refactoring the system to establish foundations for a far more flexible system, where rules are not boxed into the architecture, but are managed in a way that changes can be incorporated faster, personalization can be achieved in real time, and time to market improves multifold. That’s where we are really seeing far more benefits coming through.

And to take the example of Bupa, it is a pretty clear step change, both in terms of customer experience and how fast teams can actually deliver now. I think the app ratings have gone up significantly. The customer experience has improved. Even simple things, such as login success rate, has improved quite significantly. And on the engineering side, we are now building and releasing features roughly about four times faster, and we are also seeing the migration of nearly 100% of the customers onto the new platform.

Now, if I look ahead over the next, you mentioned about next five years, I don’t know about five years, four years, but over the next few years at least, I think it is going to get very interesting, because modern platforms will become the base for far more intelligent AI-driven ecosystems, where AI is not just an add-on, but it is built into everything from design to operations. That’s how the modern platforms will evolve, and the customer experiences will become far more personalized and predictive. And even the way we build software will shift, with AI playing a much bigger role in the development process itself.

Megan: Fantastic. Really exciting changes on the horizon then. Thank you both so much.

That was Asifa Sherazi, who is the CIO of health insurance at Bupa, and Sanjeev Tripathi, senior vice president, region head of BFSI, healthcare, and public Sector for Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia at Infosys, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor at Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web, and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thank you so much for listening.

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

Each day, an airline transports tens of thousands of passengers on hundreds of flights. Often these are not straightforward point-to-point routes, with passengers requiring multiple connections. The airline can consider potentially hundreds of variables to price each of these journeys: demand, season, time of day, current events, global markets, and competitor airline activity to name just a few. It is a nuanced process that must constantly adapt to the goings on in the wider world.

Generative AI-powered market models are emerging as a means of handling complex tasks like this in real time. These deep learning models are trained on high-resolution numerical data and designed to analyze, simulate, and predict complex financial dynamics. Rather than relying on historical trends or static rules, the market model acts as an AI “brain,” consolidating a variety of data to simulate different market environments and make dynamic commercial decisions, such as pricing, inventory, or revenue management.

“It helps us make better, faster, more granular commercial decisions,” says Dominic Kennedy, senior vice president of revenue management, sales, and e-commerce at Virgin Atlantic about the market model his team is using to drive their generative pricing engines in some markets.

“It considers, on a real-time basis, a plethora of different inputs, whether it be demand, capacity, or booking. It has a really sophisticated way of evaluating our positioning relative to competitors, market conditions, and a whole raft of other things that have significance in how demand is manifested,” he adds.

Download the full 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.

Quantum computing has alternated between breakthrough darling and overhyped promise in technology circles. Its powerful new capabilities come with a threat to break current cryptography, but for business leaders navigating the noise, the signal should be clear: post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is a manageable evolution, not a crisis.

The mathematics behind today’s encrypted digital transactions may yield to quantum computers one day, but the transition to quantum-resistant algorithms is neither sudden nor insurmountable. For executives concerned about disruption, cost, or complexity, a structured and phased approach exists with trusted technology partners like Intel that are already beginning to deliver the infrastructure to make it possible.

A natural evolution, not a cliff edge

The “quantum threat” narrative often swings between two extremes: imminent catastrophe or distant irrelevance. The reality occupies a more pragmatic middle ground. Quantum computers are highly specialized accelerators that exploit quantum physics to solve specific hard problems. They have the potential to crack modern encryption, but they will not replace classic servers overnight, nor will they instantly break every encryption protocol on the internet. What they will do is gradually shift the security landscape, much as previous cryptographic transitions have done over the past three decades.

In late 2024, the Global Risk Institute, a Toronto-based financial services think tank, surveyed 32 quantum computing experts on when a quantum computer could break a 2048-bit RSA key within 24 hours. An average of optimistic and pessimistic estimates from the experts gave it an even 50-50 probability of reaching this code-breaking milestone by 2040. This timeline, uncertain but measurable, creates space for deliberate planning rather than emergency reaction. The near-term focus should be on “harvest now, decrypt later” scenarios, where adversaries collect encrypted data today and then hold it for future decryption later when that capability becomes possible. This is particularly applicable for information requiring confidentiality beyond 10 years.

For most enterprises, this can be a manageable risk when addressed through methodical modernization.

Government signals as confidence builders

The U.S. government has issued new directives for National Security Systems (NSS), which would likely be first on the list for potential quantum attack. Beginning January 2027, CNSSP-15 states new NSS acquisitions must be capable of supporting Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0 (CNSA 2.0) requirements for PQC algorithms standardized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and selected by the National Security Agency, the U.S. intelligence agency responsible for signals intelligence and information assurance. Implementation for new systems (with certain exceptions) is then required by 2031, with 100% adoption targeted by 2035.

For commercial enterprises, these timelines are not mandates, but could be signposts. They indicate where vendors, standards bodies, and auditors are headed, providing a reference architecture for responsible stewardship. Organizations can borrow this discipline without necessarily copying the exact timelines, using government guidance to calibrate their own risk tolerance and investment cadence.

Intel’s role: Infrastructure ready for the transition

Intel is at the heart of the AI revolution by delivering quantum-resistant capabilities across our product portfolio. This is not just aspirational roadmap language; it is starting to be shipping technology.

For instance, the Intel Xeon 6 Processor already incorporates quantum-safe memory encryption (AES-256) and microcode signing to protect processor integrity. Upcoming platforms will extend post-quantum algorithms to more firmware and software signing, device interconnects, attestations, and secure boot functions, aligning with the most stringent government and industry directives.

Post-quantum algorithms carry different key sizes and computational overhead than legacy methods. Intel addresses this through dedicated cryptographic accelerators, optimized libraries, and specialized CPU instructions that reduce latency and preserve service-level agreements. Technologies such as Intel QuickAssist Technology offload cryptographic workloads, enabling enterprises to adopt stronger algorithms without sacrificing performance.

PQC is not a processor-alone problem. System builders and application owners must take a comprehensive view spanning solid-state drives, network interface cards, operating systems, hypervisors, applications, and connected services. Intel is delivering its pieces of the stack, while collaborating with ecosystem partners to ensure interoperability and smooth transition paths.

A more in-depth discussion of post-quantum algorithms and attacks can be found in my recent blog posted on Intel’s Community forum: “Post-Quantum Crypto: Panic Like It’s 1999?“

A practical roadmap for enterprises

The path forward does not require upheaval, just discipline. Organizations can follow a phased approach that mirrors patterns emerging in government and critical infrastructure sectors:

• Approach PQC as modernization, not mitigation. Frame the transition as an opportunity to strengthen cryptographic foundations, reduce technical debt, and improve system maintainability.
• Leverage trusted partners. Technology suppliers like Intel are already shipping quantum-resistant capabilities with performance acceleration. Evaluate platform readiness and vendor roadmaps as part of procurement decisions.
• Start with visibility. Cryptography is embedded throughout modern technology stacks: not just in database encryption settings but in data at rest, data in transit, digital signatures, code signing, device identity, password hashing, and software update mechanisms. Start by mapping where cryptographic assets live, what algorithms protect them, and which data sets have the longest confidentiality requirements.
• Protect long-lived data first. Not all cryptographic uses age at the same rate. Encryption protecting long-lifespan intellectual property, personal data, or state secrets faces more immediate attention than short-lived session keys or rotating certificates. Focus initial investments on high-value, long-retention data stores and the trust anchors (root certificates, firmware signing keys) that underpin system integrity.
• Design for evolution and agility. Post-quantum algorithms are not simple drop-in replacements. They carry different key sizes, performance characteristics, and integration requirements that ripple through protocols, APIs, and hardware. Design systems that can transition algorithms without business disruption: testing compatibility, ensuring vendor roadmaps align, and engineering for rotation.

The bottom line

Quantum computing will reshape cryptography, but despite what occasional click-bait headlines say, it will not upend business overnight. The transition to post-quantum algorithms is a measured, multi-year journey, one that organizations can navigate with confidence by partnering with capable technology providers, prioritizing long-lived data, and designing for agility. Leaders who approach this as an engineering evolution rather than a threat response will not only be ready for whatever timeline quantum delivers; they will emerge with more robust, transparent, and maintainable cryptographic foundations across their platforms.

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

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.

Download the full 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.

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.