Stuff about Software Engineering

Category: Dual-Track Strategy: Core vs. Strategic AI Projects

AI portfolios need to balance immediate value with long-term positioning. Some initiatives should focus on proven patterns, broad accessibility, and fast adoption. Others should explore new capabilities and areas of differentiation, even when they involve more uncertainty and a longer payback period.

Managing this duality is essential. Over-indexing on core initiatives leads to incrementalism. Over-indexing on strategic bets leads to fragmentation and delivery risk. A pragmatic AI strategy requires both tracks to exist at the same time, with clarity about which type of problem is being solved.

AI doesn’t create advantage -distribution does

Introduction

In the early 20th century, factories did not gain much by simply replacing steam engines with electric motors. The real gains came later, when they reorganized how work was done—redesigning layouts, workflows, and roles to take advantage of distributed power [9]. AI is following the same pattern. The technology itself is not the differentiator. How it is distributed inside the organization is.

Across domains, the pattern is already visible.

In scientific research, systems like AlphaFold and other AI models in biology and chemistry are shifting the frontier of what good looks like. Researchers who integrate these tools into their workflows move faster, explore more hypotheses, and expand output. Others are not just slower—they are operating below a moving baseline.

In software engineering, the dynamic is different but related. AI compresses the time required to produce code, but also compresses the time required to produce failure. Teams that combine strong engineering practices with AI accelerate safely. Teams that rely on generated output without discipline introduce risk at speed.

In both cases, the effect is not uniform improvement. It is divergence.

The hidden failure mode: uneven distribution

What is emerging is not a lack of AI capability, but an uneven distribution of it.

Some individuals and teams gain early access, experiment, and build fluency through use. Others wait for guidance, are constrained by governance, or never fully integrate AI into how they work. Over time, this creates a gap in capability that compounds.

This is where the A and B teams begin to appear—not as a deliberate strategy, but as a consequence of how access, learning, and incentives are structured.

AI literacy beats AI elites

Organizations that scale AI successfully distribute capability rather than concentrate it [1][2].

When AI is centralized, teams depend on specialists. Demand exceeds capacity, and most of the organization remains passive. When capability is distributed, teams solve problems locally, and learning happens through application rather than instruction.

McKinsey consistently finds that only a minority of companies capture meaningful value from AI, and those that do embed it across functions rather than isolating it [1]. Experimental evidence reinforces that productivity gains depend on how individuals integrate AI into their work, not just whether they have access to it [11][12].

The constraint is not the model. It is whether people know how to use it effectively in context.

The Center of Excellence trap

The default enterprise response is to centralize AI into a Center of Excellence. This improves oversight and consistency, but it also creates a structural bottleneck. Every team now depends on a central unit for access, prioritization, and delivery, which does not scale with demand.

More importantly, it concentrates knowledge. Patterns, practices, and hard-won lessons accumulate inside the CoE rather than flowing through the organization. Capability becomes something you request, not something you build.

This is why many organizations are exploring federated and embedded operating models [3][4], though the transition is often incomplete and uneven. The goal is not just to distribute execution—it is to distribute capability.

This is where platform engineering provides a better mental model. Instead of acting as a delivery function, the central team builds golden paths: paved, opinionated ways of working that make the right thing the easy thing. Tooling, templates, guardrails, and reusable components are exposed directly to teams, enabling them to move independently while staying within defined boundaries.

The difference is fundamental. A CoE pulls work toward itself. A platform pushes capability outward. One creates queues. The other creates flow.

If AI is treated as a centralized service, it will scale linearly at best. If it is treated as a platform, it can scale with the organization.

AI creates uneven gains, not uniform uplift

Research consistently shows average productivity gains in the range of 10–20%, combined with substantial variation across users and tasks [5][10][12]. The variation is the important part.

In some contexts, less experienced workers benefit significantly because AI transfers best practices and reduces barriers to entry. In others, highly skilled workers gain more when operating within the effective frontier of the technology. Outcomes depend on skill, task, and how well AI is integrated into the workflow.

The result is not a level playing field, but a changing gradient. People and teams that adapt effectively accelerate. Those who do not fall behind, even when they have access to the same tools.

Governance is becoming the bottleneck

Organizations respond to AI risk by increasing control: approvals, restrictions, and policy layers. While necessary, this often introduces systemic friction.

Industry and institutional research consistently identify organizational barriers—not technical limitations—as the primary constraint on AI value creation [1][3]. The issue is less about building capability and more about enabling its use.

A more effective approach is proportional governance. Low-risk, individual use cases require minimal control. Team-level workflows benefit from lightweight oversight. High-impact, enterprise-critical systems require full governance. This aligns with risk-based approaches such as those from the OECD [8].

Without this proportionality, governance becomes a bottleneck rather than a safeguard.

How the divide compounds

The gap between A and B teams develops through small, compounding differences in access, learning environments, and culture.

Some teams have direct access to tools and are encouraged to experiment. Others operate through restricted interfaces and formal processes. Some learn through iteration; others wait for approval.

Over time, these differences accumulate. One part of the organization develops new capabilities and ways of working, while another continues with established practices. Eventually, they are no longer operating at the same level.

Distribution requires giving up some control

Avoiding this outcome requires accepting a degree of decentralization. Teams need the ability to experiment locally, and organizations need to tolerate variation in tools and approaches.

This introduces a temporary phase where things feel less controlled and less consistent. That phase is where learning happens. Eliminating it too early suppresses adoption and reinforces the divide.

AI as infrastructure

If AI remains confined to specialists, organizations create internal inequality and limit their ability to adapt. If it becomes embedded in everyday work—more like electricity than expertise—it enables continuous, distributed improvement.

The objective is not to build a stronger AI team, but to remove the distinction altogether. Because the organizations that benefit most from AI will not be those with the most advanced models, but those where its use is widespread, routine, and integrated into how work gets done.

References

[1] McKinsey & Company – The State of AI
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

[2] Boston Consulting Group – Artificial Intelligence Capabilities
https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/artificial-intelligence

[3] Deloitte – State of AI in the Enterprise
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/cognitive-technologies/state-of-ai-and-intelligent-automation-in-business-survey.html

[4] Gartner – How to Scale AI in the Enterprise
https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/how-to-scale-ai-in-the-enterprise

[5] National Bureau of Economic Research – Generative AI at Work
https://www.nber.org/papers/w31161

[8] OECD – AI Principles
https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles

[9] Paul A. David – The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox
https://doi.org/10.3386/w5099

[10] Quarterly Journal of Economics – Generative AI at Work
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/2/889/7990658

[11] MIT Sloan – How Generative AI Can Boost Highly Skilled Workers’ Productivity
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-generative-ai-can-boost-highly-skilled-workers-productivity

[12] MIT Economics – Experimental Evidence on Generative AI
https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Noy_Zhang_1.pdf

Patterns for Artificial Intelligence Solutions

Introduction

This is an attempt at trying to create some highlevel patterns for Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions in order to be able to more easily choose a pattern based on type and problem area.

The goal is to have something like Software Architecture Patterns which again is based on Useful resources on Software & Systems Architecture so that we quickly can choose how to solve problems with AI. This page is also a companion to Four and not 3 Categories of AI Solutions as the patterns on this page is meant for AI-Brewers.

Emerging Types of AI Solution Patterns

  • Chatbots with LLMs: Automate interactions and provide instant, contextually relevant responses, enhancing customer service, information retrieval, and user engagement across various domains like e-commerce and healthcare.
  • Chaining LLMs: Link multiple LLMs in sequence, leveraging their specialized capabilities for more nuanced and accurate solutions, enabling sophisticated workflows where each model performs tasks it excels at.
  • State machines and directed graphs: This approach introduces cycles, meaning the system can loop back and reconsider previous steps, which allows for more complex decision-making and adaptive behaviors. The state machine can maintain a state based on previous interactions, which can influence future decisions and actions.
  • Orchestrating LLMs: Simplify the integration and management of multiple LLMs to work in harmony, improving the development, performance, and scalability of AI-driven applications by leveraging the strengths of diverse models.

Would be a neglect not to mention RAG here although more of a feature than a solution pattern:

  • Retrieval Augmentation Generation (RAG): RAG combines the power of LLMs with a retrieval mechanism to enhance response accuracy and relevance. By fetching information from a database or collection of documents before generating a response, RAG models can provide answers that are more detailed and contextually appropriate, drawing from a wide range of sources. This approach significantly improves performance on tasks requiring specific knowledge or factual information, making RAG models particularly useful for applications like question answering and content creation.

Graphs and orchestration is also commonly referred to as “Agentic” architectures.

Chatbots with LLMs

Bots and chat-based interfaces powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) address a wide array of problem areas by automating interactions and processing natural language inputs to provide instant, contextually relevant responses.

These AI-driven solutions revolutionize customer service, information retrieval, and interactive experiences by enabling scalable, 24/7 availability without the need for human intervention in every instance.

They excel in understanding and generating human-like text, making them ideal for answering queries, offering recommendations, facilitating transactions, and supporting users in navigating complex information landscapes.

Furthermore, they significantly enhance user engagement by providing personalized interactions, thereby improving satisfaction and efficiency in areas such as e-commerce, education, healthcare, and beyond. By harnessing the capabilities of LLMs, bots and chat interfaces can decode intricate user intents, engage in meaningful dialogues, and automate tasks that traditionally required human intelligence, thus solving key challenges in accessibility, scalability, and automation in digital services.

Chaining LLMs

Chaining LLMs involves linking multiple LLMs in sequence to process information or solve problems in a stepwise manner, where the output of one model becomes the input for the next. This technique utilizes the specialized capabilities of different LLMs to achieve more complex, nuanced, and accurate solutions than could be provided by any single LLM.

Through this approach, developers can create advanced workflows in which each model is tasked with a specific function it excels at, ranging from understanding context to generating content or refining answers. This method significantly enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of AI systems, allowing them to address a wider variety of tasks with greater precision and contextual relevance. Chaining LLMs thus represents a strategic approach to leveraging the complementary strengths of various models, paving the way for more intelligent, adaptable, and capable AI-driven solutions.

Chaining LLMs is particularly effective for solving problems that benefit from a multi-step approach, where each step might require a different kind of processing or expertise. Here are some examples of problems typically solved using chaining:

  • Complex Query Resolution: Simplifying and addressing multifaceted queries through a stepwise refinement process.
  • Content Creation and Refinement: Generating drafts and then improving them through editing, summarization, or styling in successive steps.
  • Decision Support Systems: Deriving insights and suggesting actions through a sequential analysis and decision-making process.
  • Educational Tutoring and Adaptive Learning: Providing personalized educational feedback and instruction based on initial assessments.

These examples highlight the versatility of chaining LLMs, enabling solutions that are not only more sophisticated and tailored but also capable of handling tasks that require depth, precision, and a layered understanding of context.

Directed Graphs

State machines (a directed graph) are abstract machines that can be in exactly one of a finite number of states at any given time. In the context of LLMs and LangChain, a state machine would manage the flow of interactions with the LLM, keeping track of the context and state of conversations or processes.

  • LangGraph is designed to facilitate the creation, expansion, and querying of knowledge graphs using language models. It uniquely combines the representational power of knowledge graphs—structures that encode information in a graph format where nodes represent entities and edges represent relationships between entities—with the generative and understanding capabilities of language models. This integration allows for sophisticated semantic reasoning, enabling applications to derive insights and answers from a rich, interconnected dataset.
  • The primary value of LangGraph lies in its ability to leverage the contextual awareness and depth of language models to enrich knowledge graphs. This makes it particularly well-suited for applications requiring complex query answering, semantic search, and dynamic knowledge base expansion. It’s about not just processing language but understanding and organizing information in a way that mirrors human cognition.

Orchestrating LLMs

A framework for orchestrating LLMs is aimed at tackling the intricate challenges of integrating and managing multiple LLMs to work in harmony. Such a framework simplifies the process of combining the capabilities of diverse LLMs, enabling developers to construct more complex and efficient AI-driven solutions. It offers tools and methodologies for seamless integration, enhancing the development process, and allowing for the creation of applications that leverage the strengths of various LLMs. This not only streamlines the development of sophisticated applications but also boosts their performance and scalability, facilitating the customization of AI solutions to meet specific needs and contexts.

Orchestrating LLMs involves coordinating multiple models to work together efficiently, often in parallel or in a dynamic sequence, to tackle complex tasks. This approach is particularly useful for problems that benefit from the combined capabilities of different LLMs, each bringing its unique strength to the solution. Here are some examples of problems typically solved using orchestration:

  • Multi-domain Knowledge Integration: Coordinating specialized LLMs to offer solutions that require expertise across various fields.
  • Personalized User Experiences: Dynamically combining LLM outputs to customize interactions according to user data.
  • Complex Workflow Automation: Utilizing different LLMs for distinct tasks within a broader workflow, optimizing for efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Advanced Customer Support Systems: Integrating various LLMs to understand, process, and respond to customer inquiries in a nuanced and effective manner.

Orchestration enables the leveraging of multiple LLMs’ strengths in a coordinated manner, offering solutions that are more versatile, scalable, and capable of addressing the multifaceted nature of real-world problems.

Four Categories of AI Solutions

Introduction

When driving value from generative AI (GenAI) it’s important to choose the right approach in order to be able to get a return on investment. This page attempts at explaining possible approaches and required resources.

Takers, Shapers and Makers

There seems to be 3 major categories of GenAI adopters according to McKinsey and Gartner:

McKinseyGartnerDescription
TakersQuick WinsFocus on utilizing existing GenAI tools and models for productivity improvements with minimal customization.

These initiatives typically have short time to value and are task-specific, aiming for immediate efficiency gains in routine tasks.
ShapersDifferentiating Use CasesEngage in integrating GenAI tools with proprietary data or adapting them for specific applications.

These initiatives aim to achieve competitive advantages, involving medium time to value with higher costs and risks than quick wins.

They leverage GenAI to extend current processes and create unique value propositions.
MakersTransformative InitiativesConcentrate on developing new GenAI models or tools for specialized applications, with the potential to transform business models and markets.

These are the most ambitious initiatives, characterized by high cost, complexity, and risk, and a long time to value.

They aim for strategic benefits that may be difficult to quantify initially.

TCO/ROI

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Return on Investment (ROI) for GenAI adoption across takers, shapers, and makers categories involve several considerations, including hidden costs, strategic implications, and potential benefits.

Gartner offers insights on measuring GenAI ROI, advocating for a business case approach that simulates potential cost and value realization across GenAI activities. This approach categorizes investments into quick wins, differentiating use cases, and transformational initiatives. Quick wins focus on immediate productivity improvements with short time to value, differentiating use cases aim at competitive advantage with medium time to value, and transformative initiatives have the potential to upend business models with longer time to value but higher costs and complexity. The guide emphasizes the importance of balancing financial returns with strategic benefits, which might be difficult to quantify initially.

Source: https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/take-this-view-to-assess-roi-for-generative-ai.
Red box is added by me, see conclusion below.

Builders

I’m introducing an extra “Builders” category into the GenAI adoption landscape beyond merely adopting or adapting, Builders take a step further by crafting bespoke extensions and plugins for GenAI platforms. This initiative is driven by the ambition to tackle intricate, multi-step workflows that typically demand considerable human intervention. The essence of being a Builder lies in their ability to not just work with GenAI but to enhance its core capabilities, enabling solutions that seamlessly bridge various systems and processes. This approach demands a blend of creativity, technical prowess, and a deep understanding of both the technology and the problem domain.

CategoryDescriptionRequired People Resources/SkillsTools
TakersUtilize existing GenAI tools for productivity improvements with minimal customization.

Aimed at immediate efficiency gains in routine tasks with short time to value.
Basic understanding of AI/ML conceptsSkills in integrating and configuring APIs

Ability to adapt third-party GenAI tools to existing workflows
Microsoft Copilot

Microsoft Copilot Plugins

Enterprise “Chat”-GPTs
ShapersIntegrate GenAI tools with proprietary data or adapt them for specific applications to achieve competitive advantages, involving medium time to value with higher costs and risks.Low/No-code developers

Domain experts for data interpretation

Project managers with a technical background
Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)

Microsoft Copilot Studio

Microsoft Azure AI Studio
BuildersDevelop custom solutions or extensions to GenAI platforms to solve complex, multi-step processes that usually require significant human effort.Advanced programming skills in relevant languages

Data scientists for model tuning

Experience with GenAI frameworks

Systems integration expertise

Creative problem-solving abilities
Microsoft Copilot Extensions

Microsoft PromptFlow

LangChain

LangGraph

LlamaIndex

AutoGen

CrewAI

(OpenAI Swarm)

LLM Function Calling

LLM Routing

LLM Threat Modelling

LLM Security
MakersDevelop new GenAI models or tools for specialized applications with the potential to transform business models and markets.

Characterized by high cost, complexity, and risk, with a long time to value.
Expertise in deep learning and neural networks

Experience in building and training large-scale AI modelsStrong research and development background

Ability to work with high-performance computing resources
LLM Models

LLM Frameworks

LLM Fine-Tuning

(LLM Creation and Training)

The “Builders” category fills the gap between “Shapers,” who mainly adapt existing models for their unique needs, and “Makers,” who create new GenAI models from scratch. Builders leverage powerful frameworks and platforms to create bespoke solutions that automate complex workflows, potentially revolutionizing how businesses approach process automation and efficiency. This distinction underscores the evolving landscape of GenAI adoption, highlighting the increasing sophistication and customization capabilities available to organizations.

Conclusion

The red box on the image above indicates that solutions made in the Takers and lower Shapers category are likely to be overtaken by standard solutions from vendors and the plethora of SaaS AI offerings appearing on a daily basis. Caution should be used when choosing to invest in solutions in this area unless quick wins are important.

Clearly it’s important to have a strategic, well-planned approach to integrating GenAI with emphasis on organizational readiness, skill development, and a focus on applications that offer a competitive advantage – otherwise GenAI just becomes a technology looking for a problem like Blockchain.

References

© 2026 Peter Birkholm-Buch

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑