AI Can Code. But Can It Ship?
The Challenges of AI Code Generation

Haider Al-Seaidy
Chief Customer Officer Customer Success
Every few months, it seems, the tech industry collectively gasps at the next leap forward in large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT 5. You can now generate working code with a fluency that would have seemed like science fiction only a few years ago.
On the surface, this looks like the holy grail: tell the AI what you want, and voilà, out comes a program. The dream of “everyone can code” is suddenly within reach. A marketing executive, a biology undergrad, or even my neighbour who still struggles with Excel formulas can now dabble in the art of software creation. That’s no small advancement.
But here’s the catch: generating code has never been the hard part. Beneath the hype lie very real AI code generation challenges that can’t be ignored. The true difficulty is controlling the code—ensuring it fits into a coherent architecture, remains maintainable, resilient, and performant, and, above all, aligns with a product vision that solves real business problems. Writing lines of code is easy. Shipping software that enterprises can depend on? That’s where the battle is truly won or lost.
The Hidden Challenges of AI Code Generation
Having worked with enterprise clients, I know how cautious they are with new technology. “Due diligence” isn’t just a phrase; it’s a ritual. Layers of testing, review, and validation are baked into the software delivery lifecycle (SDLC). And for good reason.
Now imagine dropping AI-generated code into that environment. Suddenly, the AI code generation challenges aren’t just theoretical, they hit directly at the heart of enterprise software delivery. What if the code contains vulnerabilities the prompter doesn’t understand? What if it lacks error handling, or behaves in unpredictable ways under stress? It’s hard enough to debug our own logic, let alone logic conjured up by a statistical model.
And then there are the questions nobody has clear answers to yet:
- What does the SDLC look like when code is generated by AI?
- Can prompts ever capture the level of detail needed for robust software?
- If your prompt is longer than the code it produces… have you really saved time?
- When bugs crop up, do you fix them with more prompting, or roll up your sleeves and get into the code yourself?
We’re in uncharted waters. And while the ship is moving faster, I can’t help but notice the extra time we’re now spending inspecting the cargo.
LLMs in Software Development: A Double-Edged Sword
Take a friend of mine as an example. He doesn’t have a background in coding, but thanks to today’s LLMs, he managed to create a trading bot. He won’t stop telling people that it actually made him money three days in a row. Now he’s convinced he’s cracked the markets and is walking around with the swagger of a hedge fund quant.
The reality, of course, is that the market is just being polite to him for now. We all know what usually happens to “can’t miss” trading bots after day four. But his story does illustrate the point: the barriers to entry have been dramatically lowered. LLMs in software development make it easier than ever for non-experts to build something that works, at least temporarily. Whether that thing is robust, reliable, secure, and sustainable… well, that’s another matter entirely.
Speeding Up in One Place, Slowing Down in Another
Yes, AI accelerates the creation of code. But deployment in an enterprise context involves more than speed. It requires security reviews, performance testing, integration planning, architecture alignment, documentation, and ongoing maintenance.
Ironically, introducing AI-generated code may increase time spent validating, auditing, and rewriting. You gain speed in development, but risk losing it in governance and quality assurance.
It reminds me of the old truth: it’s always harder to understand someone else’s logic than your own. Well, what happens when that “someone else” is an AI?
The Human Side
There’s another wrinkle: how do we measure developer competency in this new world? Hiring was already a challenge, but what happens when a candidate generates elegant solutions with a single prompt? Do they really understand the underlying systems? Or have we entered the era of “prompt jockeys” passing as engineers?
I worry this could dumb us down, making it harder to tell who’s a true builder versus who’s just very good at nudging a model in the right direction. The wood may be harder to see for the trees.
AI in Enterprise Software Delivery: What Still Matters
For my company, Cyferd, it means being aware of what’s happening in the industry but staying grounded in reality. The world is too complex to be solved purely through automated code generation. Yes, this is a leap forward. Yes, it lowers barriers and empowers more people to experiment. But when it comes to AI in enterprise software delivery, the reality is clear: AI-generated code is, at least for now, just one small piece of a much larger puzzle.
The future may prove me wrong. But today, I’d say: AI can code. Impressive. But can it ship? That’s another question entirely.
Find out more About Cyferd
New York
Americas Tower
1177 6th Avenue
5th Floor
New York
NY 10036
London
2nd Floor,
Berkeley Square House,
Berkeley Square,
London W1J 6BD
Request a Demo
Comparisons
BOAT Platform Comparison 2026
Timelines and pricing vary significantly based on scope, governance, and integration complexity.
What Is a BOAT Platform?
Business Orchestration and Automation Technology (BOAT) platforms coordinate end-to-end workflows across teams, systems, and decisions.
Unlike RPA, BPM, or point automation tools, BOAT platforms:
- Orchestrate cross-functional processes
- Integrate operational systems and data
- Embed AI-driven decision-making directly into workflows
BOAT platforms focus on how work flows across the enterprise, not just how individual tasks are automated.
Why Many Automation Initiatives Fail
Most automation programs fail due to architectural fragmentation, not poor tools.
Common challenges include:
- Siloed workflows optimised locally, not end-to-end
- Data spread across disconnected platforms
- AI added after processes are already fixed
- High coordination overhead between tools
BOAT platforms address this by aligning orchestration, automation, data, and AI within a single operational model, improving ROI and adaptability.
Enterprise BOAT Platform Comparison
Appian
Strengths
Well established in regulated industries, strong compliance, governance, and BPMN/DMN modeling. Mature partner ecosystem and support for low-code and professional development.
Considerations
9–18 month implementations, often supported by professional services. Adapting processes post-deployment can be slower in dynamic environments.
Best for
BPM-led organizations with formal governance and regulatory requirements.
Questions to ask Appian:
- How can we accelerate time to production while maintaining governance and compliance?
- What is the balance between professional services and internal capability building?
- How flexible is the platform when processes evolve unexpectedly?
Cyferd
Strengths
Built on a single, unified architecture combining workflow, automation, data, and AI. Reduces coordination overhead and enables true end-to-end orchestration. Embedded AI and automation support incremental modernization without locking decisions early. Transparent pricing and faster deployment cycles.
Considerations
Smaller ecosystem than legacy platforms; integration catalog continues to grow. Benefits from clear business ownership and process clarity.
Best for
Organizations reducing tool sprawl, modernizing incrementally, and maintaining flexibility as systems and processes evolve.
Questions to ask Cyferd:
- How does your integration catalog align with our existing systems and workflows?
- What is the typical timeline from engagement to production for an organization of our size and complexity?
- How do you support scaling adoption across multiple business units or geographies?
IBM Automation Suite
Strengths
Extensive automation and AI capabilities, strong hybrid and mainframe support, enterprise-grade security, deep architectural expertise.
Considerations
Multiple product components increase coordination effort. Planning phases can extend time to value; total cost includes licenses and services.
Best for
Global enterprises with complex hybrid infrastructure and deep IBM investments.
Questions to ask IBM:
- How do the Cloud Pak components work together for end-to-end orchestration?
- What is the recommended approach for phasing implementation to accelerate time to value?
- What internal skills or external support are needed to scale the platform?
Microsoft Power Platform
Strengths
Integrates deeply with Microsoft 365, Teams, Dynamics, and Azure. Supports citizen and professional developers, large connector ecosystem.
Considerations
Capabilities spread across tools, requiring strong governance. Consumption-based pricing can be hard to forecast; visibility consolidation may require additional tools.
Best for
Microsoft-centric organizations seeking self-service automation aligned with Azure.
Questions to ask Microsoft:
- How should Power Platform deployments be governed across multiple business units?
- What is the typical cost trajectory as usage scales enterprise-wide?
- How do you handle integration with legacy or third-party systems?
Pega
Strengths
Advanced decisioning, case management, multi-channel orchestration. Strong adoption in financial services and healthcare; AI frameworks for next-best-action.
Considerations
Requires certified practitioners, long-term investment, premium pricing, and ongoing specialist involvement.
Best for
Organizations where decisioning and complex case orchestration are strategic differentiators.
Questions to ask Pega:
- How do you balance decisioning depth with deployment speed?
- What internal capabilities are needed to maintain and scale the platform?
- How does licensing scale as adoption grows across business units?
ServiceNow
Strengths
Mature ITSM and ITOM foundation, strong audit and compliance capabilities. Expanding into HR, operations, and customer workflows.
Considerations
Configuration-first approach can limit rapid experimentation; licensing scales with usage; upgrades require structured testing. Often seen as IT-centric.
Best for
Enterprises prioritizing standardization, governance, and IT service management integration.
Questions to ask ServiceNow:
- How do you support rapid prototyping for business-led initiatives?
- What is the typical timeline from concept to production for cross-functional workflows?
- How do licensing costs evolve as platform adoption scales globally?
