Can You Have Too Much AI? The Risks of Unchecked Siloed Intelligence

Haider Al-Seaidy
Chief Customer Officer Customer Success
Are we sitting on AI hell without realizing it!
Can you ever have too much AI? I’d say the answer to that question is most probably yes…. if left unmanaged!
Demand for AI is at unprecedented levels with every business seeking to exploit the ability to do more with less and to offer an elevated level of service to their clients and stakeholders.
To stay relevant with rapidly moving times, software vendors are rushing to integrate Gen AI capabilities into their product offerings. Last week I attended DPW in Amsterdam, a major event for showcasing technology in Procurement and Supply Chain. I was able to spend time absorbing what many of the software vendors attending had to offer. It was clear that AI was very topical and positioned front and centre on most stands. I left the event with two overriding observations:
- There were many niche software vendors offering products for very targeted parts of the overall procurement and supply chain process.
- AI was very visible, regularly surfaced as a chat-bot type experience.
- What would the knock-on impact be for a customer who chooses to bring in a multitude of software solutions from different vendors, where each vendor offers their own AI?
- Why have many of the vendors chosen to make the AI so visible in their user experience and require so much user interaction?
Today, organizations of all sizes are maintaining large portfolios of operational business systems and applications from a multitude of vendors. It is surprisingly common to find literally hundreds of different applications deployed across any given business. Many of these applications may be relatively isolated from others and likely lack the necessary level of integration with other systems. Organizations have been grappling with siloed departments, siloed applications, and siloed data for decades now, and this is one of the primary obstacles towards implementing a more automated business.
As vendors now move towards introducing AI into their respective product offerings, as I witnessed at DPW this week, there is a risk that organizations find themselves in a situation where they have pockets of AI popping up across their business without a cohesive strategy in place to manage it all.
Many solutions will now have vendor-specific AI features introduced. Each AI may add value inside its own isolated scope, but is a situation brewing that means new unforeseen challenges are being introduced into businesses? If left unchecked, siloed AI may create significant headaches for businesses in the long run.
Some of the immediate questions that come to mind are: how hard would this be to manage? What knock-on effects would occur? How do these AI play nicely together? What is the hand-off between one AI to another? How do we ensure there is a consistent level of training across the models? How can we ensure a consistent level of compliance with so many variations of models being used by different vendors?
I have no doubt that siloed AI will become an additional headache unless businesses start to proactively consider their AI strategy. Increasing the complexity in an already complex landscape.
Moving onto the second point – many of the solutions we saw emphasised a chat-like experience for the user where AI was constantly prompting the user, and in return, the user was prompting the AI. This means the user needs to stay in the process longer, reducing the speed of automation.
The highly sceptical side of my brain concluded that some of the solutions were implemented in such a way to make it easier and more obvious to demonstrate to prospects that the vendor offered AI in their product.
I was hoping to see examples of how AI could operate under the radar, quietly getting on with its work in a diligent fashion, accelerating business processes by removing manual intervention without needing to poke business users on a constant basis for more information. AI shouldn’t be needy!!
In my view, the less obvious the implementation of the AI, the more valuable it likely will be. It seems to me that many of the vendors have gone for the flashy approach without really giving enough consideration into how the AI can be integrated seamlessly into a workflow or business process to help solve a business challenge.
As we walked into DPW Amsterdam, many people were asked to answer some questions by placing stickers onto a large board that displayed topical questions. I felt that the question and sticker positions below supported my sentiment overall; which is that AI will increasingly play a greater part in procurement. Overall, people accept it is here to stay, but few are ready to see it run completely autonomously. As confidence builds with existing implementations, the stickers will start to shift further to the right. It would be interesting to see where the stickers were positioned last year and where they will be one year from now!
Another school of thought I had was that we are on a journey with AI. Ultimately, AI will play an increasingly greater role in our day-to-day work lives. We may not be at a point where companies are happy for AI to work ‘automagically’ without a human in the loop – especially for things like negotiation. And so, as the technology matures, we will likely see greater automation and less need for human interaction in the process. This would justify the commonly seen chat like approach to implementing AI in the procurement space. Procurement decisions are important decisions to make, and so being guided to a negotiate a better deal makes sense as a first base to reach. From there, it was clear that vendors could see a pathway to increase the level of sophistication.
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?
