AI
The AI Velocity Gap: Why Standing Still Means Falling Behind
How fast your organization can absorb and scale AI will determine your competitive future.
The Cost of Caution
Enterprises have never had more access to AI tools, talent, or investment—yet many still struggle to turn experiments into real impact. The barrier isn’t capability; it’s pace. In a world of rapid model releases and rising customer expectations, moving too slowly has become the costliest mistake.
The difference between success and stagnation isn’t budget, talent, or technology—it’s velocity. This pattern is showing up everywhere. While 78% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function [Netguru, AI Adoption Statistics 2025], only 31% of prioritized use cases ever reach full production [ISG-One, State of Enterprise AI 2025]. The gap between AI experimentation and impact keeps widening.
This is the AI Velocity Gap: the distance between how fast AI capabilities evolve and how quickly enterprises can effectively deploy and scale them. In an era where the AI market expands at 35.9% CAGR [Netguru], speed isn’t just an advantage—it’s survival.
The Three Dimensions of AI Velocity
AI velocity isn’t one thing. It’s three speeds working together:
- Adoption Velocity: Awareness to Action
How quickly do employees move from “AI might be useful” to actively using it? While 87% of large enterprises report implementing AI [Secondtalent, AI Adoption in Enterprise 2025], depth varies wildly. Some see viral adoption. Others mandate tools that gather dust.
High adoption numbers can mislead. One financial services firm discovered 40% of employees using unapproved AI tools with sensitive data. They had velocity—in the wrong direction.
- Enablement Velocity: Pilot to Production
Many AI initiatives stall in pilot phases. Enablement velocity measures how efficiently organizations can move AI from experimentation to production. Delays often stem from slow integration, compliance checks, or coordination across teams. High enablement velocity requires streamlined processes and pre-approved pathways that allow AI to connect with core systems safely and quickly.
- Cultural Velocity: Threat to Opportunity
Technology means nothing if your culture rejects it. Employees who receive AI training are 89% more likely to view AI positively, yet only 54% receive training [Secondtalent]. The rest form opinions from headlines and anxiety.
Organizations with a mindset that treats AI as an opportunity rather than a threat move faster and more effectively. Training, awareness, and the redesign of roles to leverage AI capabilities contribute to a culture where velocity is sustainable and positive.
Why Standing Still Means Falling Behind
If your competitor can deploy AI in 6 weeks and iterate monthly, they’ll test 24 variations while you launch your first version two years later. They’ve learned what works, built expertise, and moved to their next challenge. You’re celebrating a launch while they’re compounding advantages.
Nearly 75% of enterprises remain stuck in pilot mode, while 71% report regularly using generative AI in functions [Netguru]. This isn’t a contradiction—it’s bifurcation. Some operationalize across functions. Others run pilots that never graduate.
The cautious middle is collapsing.
The Velocity Paradox: When Speed Is Dangerous
Speed without structure creates problems:
- Technical debt: Rapid deployments can become costly to maintain if not designed carefully.
- Governance gaps: Without oversight, AI solutions may inadvertently create compliance or ethical risks.
- Shadow AI sprawl: Slow official pathways often push employees to adopt unsanctioned tools, spreading data risk.
The answer isn’t slowing down. It’s building velocity with guardrails. The fastest organizations aren’t reckless—they remove friction while maintaining essential controls.
Five Plays for Accelerating Velocity
Play 1: Create Fast Lanes for Low-Risk Use Cases
Not all AI initiatives carry the same level of risk. Organizations can create “fast lanes” for use cases that access non-sensitive data, operate internally, and stay below cost or impact thresholds. These fast lanes allow projects to move quickly through approval and security processes, enabling more frequent deployments without compromising governance.
Play 2: Start with Document Processing, Not Customer-Facing Apps
Most organizations start with high-visibility, customer-facing use cases. This is backwards. Begin with document-heavy back-office processes:
- Contract review and extraction
- Invoice processing
- Compliance documentation analysis
Build capability, create wins, develop learning—all while keeping risks contained.
Play 3: Build AI Capability Showcases, Not Just Training
Generic AI training creates awareness, not adoption. Organizations can create live demonstrations where employees see AI solving real business problems in a safe environment. Experiencing AI in action builds trust, reduces skepticism, and encourages voluntary adoption across teams.
Play 4: Embed Governance, Don’t Gate It
Governance should be integrated into AI teams rather than treated as an external checkpoint. By embedding governance expertise directly into development and deployment processes, organizations can move quickly while maintaining safety and compliance. Proactive involvement of risk and compliance functions ensures solutions are designed correctly from the start.
Play 5: Measure Decision Velocity, Not Just ROI
Traditional ROI metrics often miss strategic value. Organizations should also track metrics like time-to-decision, cycle time for core processes, and responsiveness to market changes. Highlighting these speed and responsiveness metrics alongside financial measures helps identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement, reinforcing the importance of velocity as a strategic capability.
The Velocity Maturity Model
Organizations move through predictable stages:
Stage 1: Experimental – Scattered pilots, shadow AI, no governance
Challenge: Nothing scales
Fix needed: Basic governance, integration standards
Stage 2: Structured – Formal programs, slow governance, some production wins
Challenge: Process too heavy
Fix needed: Fast lanes for low-risk, velocity metrics
Stage 3: Scaled – AI across functions, streamlined governance, reusable platforms
Challenge: Maintaining momentum
Fix needed: Continuous learning, distributed capability building
Stage 4: Adaptive – AI is “how we work,” governance accelerates, continuous adaptation
Challenge: Staying ahead of disruption
Fix needed: Strong feedback loops, architectural flexibility
Most enterprises are stuck between Stage 1 and 2. Companies widening the gap operate at Stage 3 or 4.
What the Market Is Teaching Us
The winners share common principles:
Composability over monoliths: Modular systems that swap components without rebuilding everything
Data as infrastructure: Data preparation, governance, and access built once and reused—not custom work per project
Cross-functional by default: Integrated teams with shared accountability, not siloed handoffs
Bias toward action: Default answer to “should we try this?” is “yes, let’s test it”
Research shows 90% of companies include AI in strategy, but only 13% of IT budgets go to AI [Wavestone, Global AI Survey 2025]. This gap reveals a misunderstanding: AI transformation isn’t an IT project. It’s operational redesign requiring investment in skills, processes, and culture—not just technology.
Velocity as Strategy
The AI era won’t be won by organizations with the best technology—everyone will have access to the same models and tools. It will be won by those who can learn, adapt, and deploy faster than competitors.
This requires building velocity into organizational DNA:
- Adoption velocity that embraces experimentation without chaos
- Enablement velocity moving AI from pilot to production in weeks
- Cultural velocity viewing AI as opportunity for everyone
The question isn’t whether to accelerate—the market decided that already. It’s how quickly you can build organizational capabilities making velocity sustainable.
Those who move now will compound advantages daily. Those who wait for perfect clarity will find themselves unable to catch up.
The AI velocity gap doesn’t close on its own. It widens until action becomes impossible.
What’s your velocity?
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?
