360 Surveillance on Asset Vaults
Agentic AI: Revolution or Just More Marketing Hype?
The Agentic AI Promise: Efficiency or Revolution?
Agentic AI. The term is everywhere, promising a new era of autonomous systems that proactively solve problems and drive efficiency. But how much of this is genuine transformation, and how much is just marketing fluff? The source material presents a mixed bag, a combination of enthusiastic predictions and cautious warnings. Let's break down the claims and see what the numbers actually suggest.
One of the central arguments is that agentic AI can break the "gen AI paradox" – the observation that while nearly 80% of companies have deployed generative AI, a similar percentage report no significant impact on earnings. McKinsey's research (cited in Seizing the agentic AI advantage) points to an imbalance between "horizontal" (enterprise-wide) copilots and chatbots, which are widely deployed but deliver diffuse benefits, and "vertical" (function-specific) use cases, which have higher potential but struggle to scale beyond pilot programs.
The promise is compelling: AI agents, unlike simple chatbots, can automate complex business processes, shifting AI from a reactive tool to a proactive collaborator. This, in turn, should lead to more than just efficiency gains; it should "supercharge operational agility and create new revenue opportunities."
But here's where the skepticism kicks in. The sources themselves acknowledge significant hurdles. Tolga Kurtoglu, CTO at Lenovo, notes that while agentic AI represents a "leap beyond generative AI," integrating multiple data sources while maintaining governance is complex, and failure rates remain high. Josh Rogers, CEO at Precisely, puts it bluntly: only 12% of organizations report their data is of sufficient quality for effective AI. As Rogers notes, the real barrier isn’t the technology, it’s trust in the data powering it.
Agentic AI: Data Quality – The Elephant in the Room
Data Integrity: The Achilles' Heel
This data quality issue is critical. Agentic AI relies on data to make decisions, and if that data is flawed, the results will be, too. Garbage in, garbage out – an old saying, but eternally relevant. The McKinsey report highlights that data accessibility and quality gaps exist for both structured and unstructured data, with unstructured material remaining largely ungoverned in most organizations.
The McKinsey report dives deep into the reasons for the "gen AI paradox," noting fragmented initiatives, a lack of mature, packaged solutions, the technological limitations of LLMs, siloed AI teams, and cultural apprehension. These are not trivial problems. They represent fundamental challenges in how organizations operate and manage data.
Oracle, for example, touts its Globally Distributed Exadata Database on Exascale Infrastructure as a solution, offering automated data distribution, dynamic elastic compute capacity, and Raft-based replication. But even with these technological advancements, the underlying issue of data quality remains. You can have the fastest, most reliable database in the world, but if the data it contains is inaccurate or incomplete, the agentic AI system built on top of it will still produce unreliable results.
The McKinsey report offers a series of case studies to illustrate the potential of agentic AI. A bank used "digital factories" to modernize its legacy core system, achieving a "more than 50 percent reduction in time and effort." A research firm boosted data quality to derive deeper market insights, with a "more than 60 percent potential productivity gain." And another bank reimagined how it creates credit-risk memos, resulting in a "potential 20 to 60 percent increase in productivity."
These numbers are impressive, but they also raise questions. What were the initial conditions? How were these gains measured? What were the error rates before and after the implementation of agentic AI? Details on the methodology are scant (a parenthetical clarification: I wish the authors had gone into more detail here). While the potential is clearly there, the path to realizing it is not as straightforward as some might suggest.
I've looked at hundreds of these reports, and one thing always stands out: the disconnect between the high-level claims and the granular details. Companies are quick to tout the potential of new technologies, but they are often less forthcoming about the challenges and limitations.
What's more, the McKinsey report acknowledges the need for a new AI architecture paradigm – the agentic AI mesh – to govern the rapidly evolving organizational AI landscape. This mesh must be composable, distributed, layered, vendor-neutral, and governed. In other words, it requires a fundamental rethinking of how organizations approach AI infrastructure.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: the emphasis on technology architecture when the real bottleneck may be cultural and organizational. As Benjamin Brial, founder of Cycloid.io, puts it, "People see demos of agents writing code or fixing workflows like magic – but those demos exist in perfect conditions. Real enterprises are messy."
A Dose of Reality
The sources also highlight the importance of addressing concerns around privacy, security, and fairness. RingCentral, for example, focuses on "explainable AI," with strict policies against using data to train models or allowing third parties to do so. This is a crucial step in building trust and ensuring that AI is deployed responsibly.
The McKinsey report argues that generating impact in the agentic era requires a reset of the AI transformation approach. Organizations must shift from scattered initiatives to strategic programs, from use cases to business processes, from siloed AI teams to cross-functional transformation squads, and from experimentation to industrialized, scalable delivery.
This is a tall order. It requires not just technological changes but also fundamental shifts in how organizations are structured and managed. It requires a commitment to data quality, governance, and ethical considerations. And it requires a willingness to challenge existing assumptions and embrace new ways of working.
The IDC’s Future Enterprise Resiliency & Spending Survey (February 2025) indicates that organizations prioritizing AI strategy focus on responsible AI, ethics, and data management, emphasizing frameworks for ethical AI use and high-quality, well-governed data. This is encouraging, but the question remains: how many organizations are actually putting these principles into practice?
It's Still Early Days
Agentic AI holds tremendous promise, but it's important to separate the hype from the reality. The technology is still evolving, and there are significant challenges to overcome. Data quality, governance, and ethical considerations are paramount. And organizations must be willing to rethink their approach to AI transformation, embracing new ways of working and managing data.
The key is to start small, focus on high-impact use cases, and demonstrate quick wins. Build credibility with customers and confidence amongst employees. And always, always, prioritize data quality. As Josh Rogers said, the real barrier isn’t the technology, it’s trust in the data powering it. Growth was about 30%—to be more exact, 28.6%.
Agentic AI: A Controlled Explosion
The real question isn't *if* agentic AI will transform enterprises, but *how* and *when*. The potential is there, but so are the pitfalls. A measured, data-driven approach is essential to avoid the hype and realize the true value of this technology.
Avaxsignals Published on2025-11-29 02:24:33 Views7 Comments0