Scaling Generative AI: 13 elements for sustainable growth and value

An organization’s Generative AI strategy and vision need to be comprehensive, integrated with broader business objectives, and aligned with other existing AI programs. Executive buy-in and a top-down mandate are essential for aligning functions and decision-making. Leadership sets priorities and strategy, and without an executive mandate, it is difficult to coordinate change across multiple teams.

A cohesive GenAI business strategy:

• Defines business objectives
• Sets measurable goals
• Identifies valuable areas for application
• Measures realized value

As a part of strategy development, it’s important to show progress against short-term goals and inform any iterative improvements needed to the strategy.

There are six common macro archetypes for GenAI: Q&A-based search, summarization, content generation, content transformation, virtual agent, and code generation.

In seeking value-driving applications, organizations should look across the archetypes for low-barrier, high-impact use cases for core business domains. These drive efficiencies and savings that can be reinvested in innovation. Other high-impact use cases may be more transformational and differentiating with enterprise-wide applicability.

Whether deploying a proven application or striving for something novel, all applications require technical feasibility and a viable business case. What is more, existing processes will likely need to be reimagined to incorporate and leverage the capabilities of GenAI use cases in workflows.

At its core, the use case portfolio needs to be focused on answering business questions and meeting quantified goals. We see leading organizations create business cases that weave together the value that scaling AI can provide to multiple teams, rather than evaluating the value of individual applications. This is done most effectively by running a number of use cases in parallel. It makes efficient use of resources and allows for rapid portfolio management should a specific use case prove less compelling without sacrificing momentum of the overall Gen AI portfolio.

GenAI is maturing rapidly, with existing providers and new market entrants alike driving capabilities and lateral applications. The array of GenAI solutions and the speed with which they are evolving can make it challenging to select the appropriate tools and platforms that enable enterprise strategy. To reach target outcomes, enterprise leaders should build strategic relationships with technology and data ecosystem stakeholders and keep pace with GenAI development.

By monitoring elements like product roadmaps, total cost of ownership, and labor delivery models, business leaders can gain an understanding as to how their GenAI programs should evolve and how ecosystem players can accelerate progress and results as strategic partners, rather than as transactional vendors. A framework can support a structured approach to evaluating solutions based on factors such as:

• Data readiness
• AI maturity
• Risk appetite
• Total cost of ownership

Inconsistent processes can lead to risks and inefficiencies, while consistent governance processes help standardize workflows for data collection, solution engineering, output validation, and performance monitoring. Common delivery frameworks (e.g., LLMOps) bring together GenAI development and deployment into a unified, governed lifecycle that is secure and compliant.

A common misconception is that strong processes can hinder speed and creativity. Our experience suggests the opposite. By understanding how work needs to be done and the accompanying guardrails, teams are empowered to explore ways to generate value without fear that they may be making a mistake. Clear boundaries allow freedom for bold action and innovation, while a lack of clarity may lead to more conservative approaches.

Governance includes documented roles and responsibilities driving stakeholder accountability in decision-making across the AI lifecycle, and it informs the controls for risk identification and mitigation. Governance also standardizes how stakeholders identify, prioritize, and approve GenAI applications. As processes are amended, organizations need to be mindful about disrupting existing automated or manual controls and take steps to establish assurance in those amended processes. Even as the regulatory landscape is in flux, organizations should proactively establish governance processes that meet existing or likely regulatory requirements.

For GenAI at scale to reach its full potential business value and adoption, it must be trusted and secure. Attempting to scale without accounting for trust in data and the machine that consumes it can have implications for:

• Regulatory compliance
• Finance and strategy
• Cybersecurity and privacy
• Brand reputation

The consequences can limit or even erase GenAI’s intended value. Risk and trust need to be considered and addressed across the GenAI lifecycle, from design and development through deployment and scaled implementation. This includes validation processes and feedback loops for human oversight to manage solution performance and accuracy. It also includes guardrails to ensure privacy, drive ongoing compliance, and promote agility in proactively responding to emerging risks.

Data security is particularly essential. Differentiating GenAI applications are fueled by sensitive, proprietary enterprise data, and training and usage can potentially expose or leak business-critical data and create risks to the organization. This is not a one-time event—organizations must make this part of regular work, rather than a separate consideration.

The operating model impacts how the enterprise aligns technology, processes, and roles and responsibilities to create strategic business value.

An integrated model connects the blueprint for value with AI business cases to inform how work is delivered and helps drive alignment across the enterprise. As the marketplace matures and new capabilities and risks impact AI lifecycles and governance, the organization needs to be agile in matching internal opportunities with the right technologies.

To help, organizations may turn to technical experts or an AI Center of Excellence (COE) that equips decision makers with the insight to align the GenAI strategy for success with the organization’s AI maturity and ambition. This supports a cohesive approach to orchestrating the elements of GenAI development and application. It helps avoid AI and data silos and instead drive toward reusable building blocks, coordinated sourcing strategy, informed build-versus-buy decisions, and security and risk management.

Trust in GenAI is essential to increasing workforce adoption and realizing benefits. With GenAI, employees may have existing biases, inhibitions, skills gaps, or even a fear that they could be replaced by a machine. Trust in scaling AI grows out of transparency, where every stakeholder understands how the enterprise is pursuing GenAI applications, how they are intended to create value, and how the workforce can leverage these tools as efficiency and productivity enhancers.

Transparency around the benefits targeted by GenAI solutions helps correct misinformation and creates an opportunity to improve the workforce experience. Trust is also important for external stakeholders, third parties, and customers, and a transparent approach to GenAI use includes consent for data collection, notification of how GenAI outputs may impact users, and documentation across the AI lifecycle to inform audits and compliance.

Deploying AI at scale can disrupt the status quo, transforming employee responsibilities and how work is accomplished. As an enterprise reimagines strategy, processes, and technology to drive GenAI value in scaling AI, the workforce needs to be brought on the journey as value is created through individuals doing work differently.

Organizations should nurture adoption by documenting and communicating responsibilities and process amendments to workflows. Poor communications may cause misunderstanding about GenAI’s potential and limitations, leading to unrealistic expectations or resistance. Conversely, effective communications align stakeholders around the same vision for scale and value, including as they relate to governance, policy, IT security, risk, and funding.

Topics to communicate include outcomes and lessons learned, the organization’s Generative AI strategy roadmap, the impact on end users (e.g., customers or employees), and guidance to the workforce on how to balance day-to-day tasks with AI skills development. Ongoing adoption should be measured to identify optimization opportunities and internal leading practices. This should inform the overall use case roadmap and activation strategy. Simply put, upstream conversations should take place before continuing to build technical solutions that are underdelivering against expectations.

Organizations deploying GenAI at scale need to consider the skilled human talent required across the GenAI lifecycle. Skills mapping can reveal where the enterprise needs to expand or improve the workforce. Recruiting new talent is one avenue, such as by attracting new employees from educational facilities (e.g., universities). In reimagining work with GenAI, the organization may attract new leaders who are eager to use technology to deliver business value, as well as top talent seeking opportunities to learn and develop.

Yet, most of a company’s GenAI capabilities will grow out of training and upskilling existing employees, and as GenAI touches every part of the enterprise, the entire workforce requires training to adopt and use it. To this end, businesses may create overall AI literacy programs, training plans tailored to employee personas (e.g., technical, functional, sales, marketing, etc.), and opportunities (e.g., hackathons and digital playgrounds) for employees to apply new knowledge and build competence in GenAI application, management, and monitoring. A GenAI COE can help orchestrate human-centered continuous learning to promote adoption.

IT architecture needs to evolve as technologies mature and as the organization’s needs change. Flexibility in modular systems includes leveraging microservices and APIs for tech stack integration, as well as techniques for improving output reliability (e.g., retrieval augmented generation, fine-tuning). This enables platform and model “lift and shift” and supports partnerships with hyperscalers that can provision on-prem or cloud-based environments via contracts that reward increased volume with lower unit costs. In prioritizing a modular architecture, organizations can:

• facilitate user growth with a cost-per-user model;
• automate guardrails for managing GenAI risk;
• leverage GenAI capabilities in enterprise software platforms;
• and establish an internal marketplace where users can select models, access prompt catalogs, and leverage existing solutions.

Modular architecture and delivery also accommodate low-code platforms for business users and provide a clear pathway to industrializing capabilities.

Infrastructure for scaling AI includes reusable assets, data pipelines, solution development environments, and a range of post-deployment management and feedback capabilities. Bringing the right secure infrastructure to the right place in the GenAI value chain is necessary for sustainable, cost-effective scale.

Taking an AI Factory approach enables reusable components and data products while also integrating sourcing strategy, cybersecurity considerations, demand generation, prioritization, governance, and business outcomes. While focusing on speed to value and taking an agile, incremental approach to infrastructure development, organizations can look to iterative design and continual evaluation of cost mechanisms against a per-user or per-use model.

One important consideration is that executives are likely to be more comfortable funding enhancements to existing capabilities, as opposed to building net-new systems. Using existing investments and approaching AI scaling as building incremental capabilities can help encourage investments by overcoming a misperception that a GenAI endeavor is starting from scratch.

As organizations increasingly shift to hybrid-cloud environments, data integration challenges may increase, with proprietary and third-party data sources existing on disparate platforms. In addition to master data, GenAI applications consume other forms of data (e.g., reference, unstructured first-party) that traditionally sit in the realm of knowledge management. Value creation opportunities from GenAI are blending knowledge and data management capabilities. Data quality and accessibility issues can limit value and potentially create a perception that scaled solutions are not viable nor valuable.

A GenAI-ready data foundation includes the processes, philosophies, approaches, and approvals for data sharing and use. As a part of this, evaluate the organization’s data findability, accessibility, interoperability, reusability, and storage. Rather than starting from scratch, the organization’s existing data governance efforts can likely be extended and adjusted to accommodate unstructured data.

Data should also be curated and integrated across departmental lines. Consider a parallel workstream for data readiness evaluation and progression focused on clean and organized data, efficient data pipelines, and robust data governance practices. By ensuring systems are secure and foundational data capabilities are aligned with the Generative AI strategy and governance, enterprises can evolve data availability, engineering, and management to enable adoption and scale. At the same time, it is worth noting that interim value can be harvested, albeit at a lower potential, while comprehensive and foundational data modernization activities are underway.

Trustworthy, compliant GenAI applications require coordinated solution management, including continuous monitoring for impartial output accuracy, waypoints for decision- making, and data feedback loops for continuous improvement.

Cost management is also a factor. GenAI deployment raises questions around variable and fixed costs, and business leaders need visibility into managing and forecasting end-to-end costs for infrastructure, tools, personnel, maintenance, and models. Insourcing key functions may permit differentiation or better economics over time, and insourcing decisions need to be balanced against the cost to build a capability, the ramifications of moving to a fixed versus variable cost, and the expenses associated with capability management (e.g., hiring and training, oversight, technology acquisition, facilities).