The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis - A Practical Guide to Scaling AI
Episode Date: November 30, 2025A new OpenAI framework lays out what it actually takes for enterprises to move beyond pilots and into true whole-organization transformation, and the lessons reveal a widening gap between leaders who ...are building systems for compounding ROI and laggards stuck in experimentation mode. Today’s episode breaks down the four mindset shifts companies must make, the foundations that matter most, and why governance, fluency, and iterative product building define the real path to scaling AI in 2026. White paper: https://cdn.openai.com/business-guides-and-resources/from-experiments-to-deployments_whitepaper_11-25.pdfBrought to you by:KPMG – Discover how AI is transforming possibility into reality. Tune into the new KPMG 'You Can with AI' podcast and unlock insights that will inform smarter decisions inside your enterprise. Listen now and start shaping your future with every episode. https://www.kpmg.us/AIpodcastsRovo - Unleash the potential of your team with AI-powered Search, Chat and Agents - https://rovo.com/AssemblyAI - The best way to build Voice AI apps - https://www.assemblyai.com/briefLandfallIP - AI to Navigate the Patent Process - https://landfallip.com/Blitzy.com - Go to https://blitzy.com/ to build enterprise software in days, not months Robots & Pencils - Cloud-native AI solutions that power results https://robotsandpencils.com/The Agent Readiness Audit from Superintelligent - Go to https://besuper.ai/ to request your company's agent readiness score.The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614Interested in sponsoring the show? sponsors@aidailybrief.ai
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Today on the AI Daily Brief, a practical guide to scaling AI.
The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI.
All right, friends, quick notes before we dive in.
First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, robots and pencils, Blitzy and Rovo.
To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com slash AI Daily Brief,
or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts.
Remember, for those of you who hate ads, ad free is just three bucks a month.
And if you are interested on the other end of the spectrum in sponsoring the show,
shoot us a note at sponsors at AIDDaily Brief.A.I.
Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief.
Today, we are talking about some practical, useful frameworks for scaling AI.
In other words, moving beyond the pilot stage.
And the specific frame of reference and framework that we're going to be using comes
from a new guide from OpenAI called From Experiments to Deployments, a practical path to scaling
AI.
But even outside of this particular document, it is very clear to me that a huge theme heading
into next year is going to be this idea of whole org transformation and post-pilot post-experimentation
phase artificial intelligence inside the enterprise. If you look at literally any study of AI adoption
and impact, the story is pretty clear. Massive and increasing adoption and usage, initial
extremely promising ROI and impact, but some real barriers to converting individual value to whole org
value. Indeed, the very first set of charts in McKinsey's state of AI doc shows this really
crisply. On the one hand, the percentage of organizations that are using AI in at least one function
continues to reach new highs, and increasingly it is spread across multiple functions. But a huge
number of organizations remain in really early stages. McKinsey found 32% still experimenting,
and another 30% in the piloting stages, meaning just 38% total were scaling or fully scaled,
and only 7% of those were in that fully scaled phase.
Now, to be honest, the 7% in fully scaled, I don't think is all that bad.
When you have a technology that is going to impact every single part of the organization,
I would actually be surprised if those 7% actually are fully scaled.
There's just so much to do to get there.
The more concerning piece, especially if you are in that cohort,
is the 62% that are still in those really early stages.
I genuinely think that if you head into 2026 in those stages,
you have to treat yourself as officially behind.
One thing we've recently done at Super Intelligence is as part of our agent readiness audits,
we were very frequently recommending some version of quick-win pilots
as part of the initial things to do,
especially for organizations that found themselves in the Explorer stage,
which is very early in their AI journey.
I've now basically hard-blocked and demanded the removal of any sort of mention of quick-win pilots.
I just think that if we're talking in that sort of language,
and acting like a couple of quick wins is an okay place to be,
it's doing our customers a disservice.
This does not mean that I think that organizations have to have everything wired right now.
I think it's fine to build momentum with pilots that show value quickly.
But I think that the frame of reference and the overall vision for this has to be systemic.
I think organizations need to be thinking comprehensively and systematically,
or else they risk falling farther and farther behind.
Which brings us to this new guide from OpenA,
AI. From experiments to deployments, a practical path to scaling AI. Now, the folks over at Open
AI have been producing this sort of resource more regularly, and I think what's valuable about this
is not just that it's a sort of from the horse's mouth kind of document, although that is useful.
It's also valuable because it reflects not just their best insights, but the aggregated wisdom
that comes from their boatload of enterprise relationships. Kicking us off, they reiterate
this problem that we've been talking about for the last couple of minutes, that there is increasingly
divide between laggers and leaders, and while some get stuck in pilots, others are weaving
AI into daily operations and customer products. Now, they don't put it quite this crisply,
but to me at core, there are four big mental shifts that Open AI is suggesting as a basis
for all of this work. The first is a shift from thinking about tools to thinking about systems.
In their introduction section, they write, for years, companies have focused on validating whether
software was fit for purpose. The approach was simple. Start small.
test a specific use case, and scale once results are proven. This worked when technology evolved
slowly and served a single department at a time. AI moves differently. Its capabilities evolve in
weeks, not quarters, and its impact reaches every part of the organization. Success depends less
on a single tool's performance and more on how quickly teams can learn, adapt, and apply AI to
solve the problems in front of them. These shifts demand a new operating rhythm that balances speed
with structure and evolves as fast as the technology itself. I actually think that breaking out of the
tools-based view of software is way more challenging than many organizations are realizing.
When you think about the entire structure of information around technology and innovation,
so much of it is anchored to this old tool-based world.
The biggest enterprise research and innovation company in the world is Gardner,
$6 billion a year in revenue, $20 billion in market cap,
and their most popular tool is their magic quadrant.
The magic quadrant is, of course, all about helping enterprises pick which tools.
They divide things into a quadrant of categories like challenges, leaders, niche players, and visionaries,
and plot companies on that access.
The problem with this, of course, is that when it comes to AI, the difference in your organizational
success will have almost nothing to do with whether you choose OpenAI or Microsoft co-pilot
or Google Gemini.
Sorry to all my friends who work with those companies.
That's not to say that different models won't be better or worse at different purposes.
But when it comes to whether an enterprise gets the most out of AI, it will
absolutely be based on how good are the systems that they put around AI. And so this entire
tool-based frame of reference kind of needs to get booted out the window. So that's the first
big mental shift. The second big mental shift is just thinking at a new velocity. Part of the reason
that we can't get stuck in the tool-based way of thinking is that the tools themselves don't stay in
one place for very long. One of the more remarkable charts in this entire document, they went back and
looked across ChatGBTGPT and the API and found that there had been a new feature released
approximately every three days this year. That is absolutely insane. And it also creates an
incredible organizational burden for companies that are trying to adopt all of that new capacity.
It has been clear for some time that the capability set of AI tools vastly outstrips the
ability of business users to put them into practice. And I don't see that gap doing anything but
expanding. A third big mental shift has to do with leadership and innovation. And there are really
two parts of this. The first is that because AI is cross-cutting, innovation that happens in one team can
actually be relevant for another team in a way that was not the case before. When your sales team was
using specialized data enrichment software to help with its sales prospecting, that wasn't necessarily
going to help marketing. However, now, there are certain types of prompts and use cases that sales could
discover that would be useful for marketing. As OpenAI puts it, innovation can come from any team.
A marketing analyst, they write, who automates reporting can find use cases that scale across the
whole company. And that gets at the second part of this shift. Solutions from anywhere doesn't
just mean from any team. It also means from any type of employee. There is no seniority level
that is a prerequisite for figuring out how to use AI better. In fact, one of the things that we
talk about very frequently on this show is how that it's still early enough that there's basically
no experts, just people who have more time on task and more reps with these tools. All that comes
together for OpenAI to present a vision of compounding ROI. And I think this is really valuable.
It's very easy to get stuck in thinking about different types of impact or different types of
ROI as disconnected from one another. In other words, this AI use case is a time saver,
this use case is a cost saver. That really exciting one, that's a new revenue generator.
Open AI is suggesting that instead we think about these things as cumulative and linked
and ultimately compounding.
Okay, so four big mental shifts from tools to systems, speed of change, solutions from
anywhere, and compounding ROI.
So what overall is the AI framework for creating a repeatable system for scaling AI?
Four parts.
The first is setting the foundations, establishing executive alignment, governance and data access.
The second is creating AI fluency, building literacy, champion network,
and sharing learnings across teams.
The third is scoping and prioritization,
capturing and prioritizing ideas
through a repeatable intake process focused on business impact,
fourth and finally, building and scaling products,
combining orchestration, measurement, and feedback loops
to deliver safely and efficiently.
You can see, they put it in this cumulative and repeating cycle,
where from those foundations,
you layer AI fluency, scope and prioritization,
and then building and scaling products,
and have that iteration cycle throughout.
So let's talk about foundations first.
Within each of these categories, Open AI gives a set of steps, almost like a recipe for what an
organization could do to start to think in this more systematic terms. So, for example, in the context
of the foundation step, step one they have is assessing your maturity. Step two is bringing
executives into AI early. Step three is strengthening access to data. Step four is designing
governance for motion. Step five is setting clear goals and incentives. Now, a lot of our work at
super-intelligent is, of course, in and around these zero-to-one moments. And so a lot of it is resonant.
That maturity assessment is an incredibly important step, because usually what you're going to
find is that an organization's readiness for AI and agents is very jagged. There are certain
pockets of the organization that are ahead and optimized for exactly the sort of iterative adoption
that is required, whereas other parts of the organization, not necessarily the ones that you would
think, might lag for reasons that aren't just technical. But the point, of course, is that you have to
know where you stand before you can build a program to move the whole organization together.
On the idea of bringing executives into AI early, it is absolutely true, but one important note
that builds on what we've seen is that this needs to be a two-way buy-in recruitment.
Yes, executives need to be brought into AI early and be seen to be using these tools and changing
how they work because of them, but they also need to have a ground-level view and a pulse from
what employees are thinking. I think that when Chad GPT first came out and enterprise adoption first
started, people might have assumed that it would be executive buy-in that was the blocker, but in fact,
it has often been the opposite, where executives get super excited and actually kind of exhaust their
employees by pouring too many new things on them at once. Both are important. You just have to have a
bidirectional conversation about buy-in from all different parts of the organization. On the idea of
governance, you might remember that when I did some research and analysis across the thousands and
thousands of interviews we've conducted, one really interesting stat that stood out was that
organizations that had robust articulated governance programs around AI scored on average
6.6 points higher on our 100-point agent readiness scale. It was the single biggest differentiating
factor in terms of how much impact it had if that governance program was there versus if it
wasn't. They suggest creating a cross-functional center of excellence and that's a pattern we see a lot.
A last note from foundations is around the data. They write reliable data and tools
underpin every AI initiative. Start with low sensitivity data sets to move quickly while improving
quality and governance in parallel. And again, this is just a framework, but this I think
actually reveals how much easier it is to say this stuff versus actually do it. In fact,
when I was thinking about the foundations piece, I think it might be valuable to think about
foundations not as a thing that you do in day zero before the other phases. They basically have
foundations as day zero, AI fluency as day 30, scope and prioritizes day 60,
Build and scale is day 90. And I know that's just a demonstration example to get people thinking in
relative terms. But I might actually put foundations as an ongoing process that happens throughout
and around all the other parts of this iterative framework. If you think about just three
categories at these foundations, that leadership team alignment that I was talking about,
governance that can evolve as the technology evolves, which is extremely important and very different
than some other types of governance structures that we've dealt with in the past, and what I'm calling
loosely data improvement, which means a continual improvement of the quality of the data,
the readiness of the data, as well as the access and provisioning of the data, which is no mean
feat in and of itself, these are things that are not ultimately going to get done once and just
be done. They are instead ongoing processes that will continue to shape the relative success
or failure of AI initiatives throughout the lifecycle of those initiatives. So of course,
we had AI's help to modify the visual slightly to show foundations as a process that
happens throughout and around the rest of the work.
Sure, there's hype about AI, but KPMG is turning AI potential into business value.
They've embedded AI and agents across their entire enterprise to boost efficiency,
improve quality, and create better experiences for clients and employees.
KPMG has done it themselves.
Now they can help you do the same.
Discover how their journey can accelerate yours at www.kpmg.us slash agents.
That's www.kpmg.coms slash agents.
Today's episode is brought to you by robots and pencils.
When competitive advantage lasts mere moments, speed to value wins the AI race.
While big consultancies bury progress under layers of process, robots and pencils builds impact at AI speed.
They partner with clients to enhance human potential through AI, modernizing apps, strengthening data pipelines, and accelerating cloud transformation.
With AWS certified teams across U.S., Canada, Europe, and Latin America, clients get local expertise and global scale.
And with a laser focus on real outcomes, their solutions help organizers work smarter and serve
customers better.
They're your nimble, high-service alternative to big integrators.
Turn your AI vision into value fast.
Stay ahead with a partner built for progress.
Partner with Robots and Pencils at Robots and Pencils.com slash AI Daily Brief.
This episode is brought to you by Blitzy, the Enterprise Autonomous Software Development Platform
with infinite code context.
Blitzy uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand
and Enterprise-scale code bases with millions of lines of code.
Enterprise engineering leaders start every development sprint with the Blitzy platform,
bringing in their development requirements.
The Blitzy platform provides a plan, then generates and pre-compiles code for each task.
Blitzy delivers 80% plus of the development work autonomously,
while providing a guide for the final 20% of human development work required to complete the sprint.
Public companies are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase
when incorporating Blitzy as their pre-IDE development tool,
pairing it with their coding pilot of choice to bring an AI-native SDLC
into their org.
Visit blitzie.com and press get a demo to learn how Blitzy transforms your SDLC from AI
assisted to AI native.
Meet Rovo, your AI-powered teammate.
Robo unleashes the potential of your team with AI-powered search, chat, and agents, or build
your own agent with Studio.
Rovo is powered by your organization's knowledge and lives on Atlassian's trusted and
secure platform, so it's always working in the context of your work.
Connect Robo to your favorite SaaS app so no knowledge gets left behind.
Rovo runs on the teamwork graph, Atlassian's intelligence layer that unifies data across all of your apps
and delivers personalized AI insights from day one.
Robo is already built into Jira, Confluence and Jira Service Management Standard, Premium, and Enterprise Subscriptions.
Know the feeling when AI turns from tool to teammate?
If you Rovo, you know.
Discover Rovo, your new AI teammate powered by Atlassian.
Get started at ROV, as in Victory, O,
Let's move on to the next phase, though, creating AI fluency.
Once again, with this unnamed dialectic between leaders and laggers, they write,
many organizations roll out AI tools before building skills and adoption and experimentation stalls.
The company's progressing fastest treat AI as a discipline that must be learned, reinforced, and rewarded.
So what are their suggestions?
First step they suggest is scale learning foundations and then tailoring it by role.
So, for example, make sure that there's some common basis of understanding around
prompting and perhaps other everyday use cases, before starting to hone in function by function.
Next step, create rituals that sustain learning, basically making this an organizational habit,
not a short-term initiative. Step three, building champions networks and subject matter experts.
This is basically the human side of that center of excellence, where you create a mechanism for
people who are getting out ahead of their peers to share what they are learning back into the system.
Relatedly, step four, recognizing and rewarding experimentation.
Basically, Open AI is suggesting to make success highly visible,
highlighting the teams, the individuals, the groups that can connect AI usage to results.
A couple things I want to double-click on here.
This idea of champions networks is one of the more ubiquitous ideas that we see,
but one of the most powerful.
Again, going back to this idea of no experts yet, just people with more practice,
one of the things that a Champions network does is it rightly recognizes that to get really good at AI,
you have to get good at AI in context.
and it doesn't so much matter what any external experts say about how to use AI
if it doesn't translate to your specific organizational environment.
For that reason, it is incredibly valuable when you start to have people who are in different
roles within your organization who have done the work of translating the general lessons
to the specific organizational context and who can then share that with the rest of the organization.
Every single enterprise, no matter how far behind you are, has these champions internally
that are just waiting to be recognized and organized, and they are an incredibly powerful resource.
On step four, this idea of rewarding experimentation, I very much agree, but I think that if we are thinking
systematically, it needs to go a step farther. It shouldn't just be recognizing and rewarding
experimentation. There needs to be a mechanism for distributing new best practices, use cases,
great prompts, et cetera, across the organization. If you look at most new tools, most new technologies,
it's a small handful of people that figure out all the use cases and best practices,
and then the rest of us just copy them.
Organizations should be set up to have a similar sort of distribution mechanism.
That can just be your teams or your Slack account,
but it still needs to be intentionally designed.
In other words, you don't just want to recognize and reward experimentation.
You want that experimentation to filter into the rest of the system as well.
One last note, which is sort of captured and create rituals that sustain learning,
but I think maybe deserves its own highlight as well,
is that in addition to, quote, creating consistent spaces for teams to test ideas, share outcomes,
and learn from peers, all of which is great. The even simpler part of this is that you have to
create official, formal time allocated away from normal work and to learning these tools.
The key paradox across these more than thousand interviews that we did in the middle of this year
were that people were too busy to learn the thing that saves them time. And especially as we
move to a world where there are more and more AI usage mandates, they have to come with formal
space chopped away from other types of work to do the AI learning. Okay, now with phase three and
phase four, we move away from just sort of general AI usage to some of the more advanced
opportunities that are in this framework of compounding ROI, not just about employee productivity
or even organizational efficiency, but actually translate into the ROI that ultimately is the one that
matters most for the long-term success of the organization, which is revenue generation and
new revenue. In many ways, this is the part where OpenAI is trying to provide a framework for
organizations that maybe haven't made the leap from those foundational and AI fluency stages
to really developing new products and opportunities with AI deeply integrated and embedded.
So phase three, they call scope and prioritize. And the objective they write is to create a clear
repeatable system for capturing, evaluating, and prioritizing opportunities across the
organization. This one is simple to write, but does require work to do well. Step one, they suggest,
is to create open channels for idea and this very much harkens back to the idea that innovation
can come from anywhere in the era of AI. Basically, rather than people having to work through the
traditional channels, anyone should be encouraged to submit ideas, be it for use cases or new products
or whatever, in a formal way. From there, they suggest hosting discovery sessions that can turn
some of those ideas into prototypes. They write,
act as both filters and accelerators, the strongest advanced of proof of concept, others feed insights
back into the backlog to guide future work. And as the scoping happens, they actually share their
own little magic quadrant for how to prioritize different ideas. On the x-axis, they have low effort
to high effort in terms of how much lift it takes to actually get a thing done, and on the y,
low value to high value. So, for example, a low-value but high-effort idea is one that you're
likely to want to deprioritize. Basically, the juice isn't worth
squeeze in that case. A low value but low effort idea might be more in the realm of self-service.
I think actually a lot of our day-to-day time-saving use cases fit in that bucket. Meeting note
summarization, email assistance, things like that. Remember, low value doesn't mean no value,
or you should ignore it. It just means when it comes to the organization as a whole,
it's comparatively lower than something that, for example, is going to generate new revenue. That's why
they designated itself service. Now, high value, low effort, that's just kind of a no-brainer, right? If you can do
something with little effort that creates a high value for the organization, you should just do it.
And at the extent that you can find those ideas, they're a really good thing to run with.
Maybe the most interesting category from an organizational planning perspective is in the high
value, high effort quadrant, where something really good could come out of it, but it's going to
take a lot of work to get there. And unfortunately, I think for enterprises, a lot of the best
use cases, in fact, the vast majority of the best use cases are going to be in that bucket.
And that's why organizations need to scope and prioritize them, because you can only do so many of those
high-value, high-effort initiatives.
Now, one last note that I think is a really valuable call-out
is they suggest as you are doing this as an organization
to design for reuse from the very beginning.
As you prioritize, look for recurring patterns.
Code, orchestration flows, or data assets that can support multiple use cases.
Designing with reuse in mind, compound speed, lowers costs,
and creates a technical memory that turns each project into a launch pad for the next.
Basically, once again, don't view these efforts in isolation,
view them as part of a larger system,
and see what can be reused from each process to make the next thing move a little bit faster or work a little bit better.
Which brings us to Phase 4 Building and Scaling Products.
The objective they suggest is to develop a consistent, reliable method for turning new ideas and use cases into internal and external products.
And the watchword of this whole section is iteration.
Building with AI, they write, is uniquely powerful because AI systems can learn and adapt rather than relying on fixed logic.
AI products improve through repeated iterations of the project itself.
Each new version is assessed on how it responds to real data, context, and whether it is reliable and cost-effective.
As teams run evaluations, integrate new information, and adjust system prompts for workflows,
these refinements strengthen the final product.
So their set of tips for this include one, building the right teams,
and really here they're talking about combining technical and other types of talent.
Pair engineers, they suggest, with subject matter experts who define success,
data leads who ensure access to the right information and an executive sponsor to remove blockers.
Basically, if these things are systemic and cross-organizational, get all the types of people that you need, rather than developing them in isolation.
Step two, unblock the path. They argue that most slowdown stem from access and approvals, and certainly it is the case that the biggest constraint on AI's impact in the organization is organizational inertia.
This, by the way, though, is also why I think governance should be viewed as something that is constantly iterated as well.
In fact, it will very often be when you are getting close to this actual building and scaling products phase
that you figure out where your governance is insufficient and have to update it.
Step three is basically taking a build path that is iterative by design,
build incrementally and measure as you go.
This is a little bit more native for small companies and startups,
but can be really hard for big older organizations that have very ingrained processes
that don't move at the space of AI.
I think there is a lot of work in unlearning,
some of those systems, but that's ultimately what they're suggesting. So that is OpenAI's practical
path to scaling AI. I think the way to think about this is not as some gospel framework that you
have to follow exactly, but much more like a cookbook that has a bunch of recipes that if you
prepare it all of them, in some combination and some sequence, would probably add up to a pretty
kickbut feast. The metaphors are getting a little tortured here, but you get what I'm saying. As we head
into 2026, the key thing I think more than anything else is to think systematically and systemically.
Getting the most out of AI is going to be a whole org effort. These things can't be done in isolation.
And so whether it's this framework or another one that you've developed yourself or have from someone
else, if you are thinking systemically, I think you are going to be ahead.
Anyways, friends, that is going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief. Appreciate you listening or
watching as always. And until next time, peace.
