AI has crossed the threshold from experimentation to inevitability. Models are capable. Tools are abundant. Proofs of concept are everywhere.

And yet, many organizations are still treating AI like a side project — a sandbox, a prompt library, or a pilot with a demo deadline.

‍

Meanwhile, the rest of the organization is asking far more practical questions:

• Where does AI sit in the actual workflow?
• Who owns the output when it’s used to make decisions?
• What happens when it’s wrong?
• How do we measure whether it truly helped?

Until those questions are answered, “scaling AI” remains more aspiration than reality.

‍

From Exploration to Operation

‍

The early phase of AI adoption was exploratory by necessity. Teams needed to understand what large language models could and couldn’t do. Experiments, demos, and pilots were the right tools for that moment.

That moment has passed.

Today, the limiting factor is no longer model capability. It’s operational clarity.

‍

Running AI in production means treating it like any other system that influences business outcomes:

• It must have clear ownership.
• It must fit into existing decision and approval flows.
• It must have defined escalation paths for errors and exceptions.
• It must be measured against business impact, not technical novelty.
• ‍

Without this, AI remains impressive but isolated — useful in pockets, invisible at scale.

‍

Why Pilots Stall

‍

Most AI pilots stall not because the technology fails, but because responsibility is ambiguous.

‍

When an AI system produces an output:

• Who is accountable for acting on it?
• Who decides when it should be overridden?
• Who owns the risk if it introduces bias, error, or downstream impact?

If those answers are unclear, organizations instinctively limit scope. AI stays advisory. Human teams double-check everything. Velocity drops. Trust erodes.

What looks like “responsible caution” is often just unresolved governance.

‍

The Real Work: Designing for Exceptions

‍

AI works best when things are predictable. Businesses rarely are.

‍

Real workflows are full of edge cases, judgment calls, and exceptions. Production-grade AI doesn’t eliminate that complexity — it surfaces it.

‍

Teams that succeed don’t try to remove tension between automation and judgment. They make it explicit:

• Where AI decides
• Where humans decide
• Where the handoff happens
• How exceptions are resolved

‍

That clarity is what allows AI systems to operate reliably over time instead of collapsing under their own ambiguity.

‍

The Shift That Matters

‍

Scaling AI is no longer about more prompts, better demos, or bigger pilots.

‍

It’s about running AI as part of the operating model:

• With decision rights
• With ownership
• With accountability
• With a way to manage when things go wrong

‍

That’s the shift we talk about in our ABCs (AI Bootcamps): moving from experimenting with AI to actually running it.

Because AI is no longer experimental.

Our thinking about it still is.

‍

FAQs

‍

Q1. What does it mean to move AI from experimentation to production?
Moving AI to production means embedding it into real business workflows with defined ownership, escalation paths, and success metrics. It shifts AI from demos and pilots to systems that actively influence decisions, actions, and outcomes, with accountability when things go wrong.

‍

Q2. Why do most AI initiatives stall at the pilot stage?
Most pilots fail to scale because they optimize for technical feasibility rather than operational fit. Teams often lack clarity on who owns AI outputs, how exceptions are handled, and how AI performance is measured against business KPIs rather than model metrics.

‍

Q3. What kind of ownership model is required for production AI?
Production AI requires explicit ownership across three layers:

• Business ownership for outcomes and value realization
• Technical ownership for reliability, performance, and maintenance
• Governance ownership for risk, compliance, and ethical use
  Without this separation, AI decisions fall into organizational gray zones.
• ‍

Q4. How should organizations handle AI errors in production workflows?
Errors must be treated as operational risks, not model failures. This requires predefined human-in-the-loop checkpoints, escalation mechanisms, and rollback procedures—similar to how financial, security, or safety-critical systems are managed today.

‍

Q5. What metrics actually matter when running AI in production?
Beyond accuracy or latency, teams should track:

• Impact on cycle time, cost, or revenue
• Exception rates and human override frequency
• Trust indicators such as adoption, reliance, and rework
  These metrics determine whether AI is improving outcomes or adding friction.

‍

Q6. How does this shift change the role of AI teams?
AI teams move from experimentation and prompt engineering to system design and operational enablement. Their role becomes aligning AI capabilities with workflows, governance models, and decision structures that allow AI to run safely at scale.

‍

Q7. Why is this shift described as operational rather than exploratory?
The core challenges are no longer about discovering what AI can do, but about deciding how it should be used, governed, and trusted inside existing organizations. That makes it a management and operating model problem, not a research one.

‍

‍