标签：#ERP

Il rischio reale dell'AI enterprise non sono gli agenti autonomi. È la complessità tra di loro. Executive Briefing — Settembre 2026 Quando le aziende deployano fleet di agenti AI invece di sistemi singoli, il pericolo vero non è un agente che si mette a fare il matto da solo. È la complessità emergente delle loro interazioni: una ragnatela di chiamate a cascata, permessi dimenticati e gap di accountability che nessuna checklist può chiudere. 1. Il problema che nessuno vede arrivare Le aziende non deployano un agente e lo guardano girare. Deployano fleet: bot di supporto, agenti di retrieval, layer di orchestrazione, ognuno che chiama API, delega ad altri agenti, si infila in sistemi che non erano stati progettati per decisioni automatiche. Lo scenario che dovrebbe farvi perdere il sonno non è un singolo agente che combina un guaio. È cento agenti che fanno esattamente quello per cui sono stati costruiti, tutti insieme, in combinazioni che nessuno ha disegnato. La complessità non cresce linearmente col numero di agenti. Aggiungi un secondo agente e aggiungi una connessione. Aggiungi il decimo e potenzialmente aggiungi decine di connessioni, perché ora qualsiasi agente può chiamarne un altro, e ogni chiamata può scatenarne una terza altrove. Un ticket di supporto che prima toccava un solo sistema oggi può passare attraverso quattro agenti prima che un essere umano lo veda. E ogni passaggio è un punto decisionale non approvato. La maggior parte dei programmi AI enterprise si blocca quando gli umani responsabili perdono il filo. Chiedete a un team security quali agenti possono raggiungere quali sistemi, e otterrete silenzio. Chiedete quale agente ha triggered quale downstream action tre salti fa. Ancora silenzio. 2. Perché le checklist non funzionano L'istinto è trattarlo come compliance: approva l'agente, registralo, passa oltre. Ma una checklist valuta un singolo punto nel tempo. La complessità corre lungo una catena, e non puoi governare una catena con una pila di ap

Enterprise AI's real risk isn't autonomous agents. It's the complexity between them. Executive Briefing — September 2026 When enterprises deploy fleets of AI agents instead of single systems, the real danger is not a rogue agent. It is the emergent complexity of their interactions — a web of cascading calls, forgotten permissions, and accountability gaps that no checklist can fix. 1. The problem nobody sees coming Enterprises do not deploy one agent and watch it run. They deploy fleets: support bots, retrieval agents, orchestration layers, each calling APIs, delegating to other agents, reaching into systems that were never designed for machine decision-makers. The failure mode that should keep you up at night is not a single agent doing something bad. It is a hundred agents doing exactly what they were built to do, all at once, in combinations nobody designed for. Complexity does not grow linearly with agent count. Add a second agent and you add one connection. Add a tenth and you potentially add dozens, because any agent might call any other, and each call can trigger another somewhere else. A support ticket that used to touch one system might now pass through four agents before a human ever sees it. Every handoff is an undocumented decision point. Most enterprise AI programs stall when the humans responsible lose the thread. Ask a security team which agents can reach which systems, and you get silence. Ask which agent triggered which downstream action three hops ago. More silence. 2. Why checklists fail The instinct is to treat this like a compliance checklist. Approve the agent. Log the agent. Move on. But a checklist checks a single point in time. Complexity runs across a chain, and you cannot govern a chain with a stack of one-time approvals any more than you can call a diet successful because you had a vegetable once. Two failure modes dominate. Permissions creep. Somebody builds an agent to summarize support tickets and grants it broad API access because scop

Amazon is adding another 2 million Nvidia GPU chips to its data centers over the next two years. But this extended partnerships stretches beyond buying more chips.

Arga has raised $10 million in a seed funding round that was led by General Catalyst, with participation from Box Group, Emergence, Gradient and SV Angel.

Some fortnights the complaint is the bill. This one it was the product itself. Across the forums where paying customers of the big AI tools compare notes, the same grievance surfaced against three different companies in the same window, and it wasn’t about price at all. It was about direction : the new model feels worse than the old one, the app quietly took away the thing I used, and I can’t even tell what I’m running any more. Quotes sourced from: Reddit — specifically the subreddits r/ClaudeAI, r/cursor and r/perplexity_ai. Every quote below was opened at its permalink and copied verbatim; each is listed with its handle, subreddit and date in the Sources section. We quote experiences, not verdicts — a forum post is one person’s felt reality, and model quality is genuinely subjective, so we have framed these as exactly that: what it felt like to the person typing. “Rage-inducing”: the flagship that felt like a step back The sharpest thread came from Claude Code users trying, and failing, to get on with a new top-end model. A user posting as ronoudgenoeg opened it on 13 August with a title that set the tone — “Opus 5 is actually almost rage-inducing to use” — and a specific, un-nostalgic complaint: “Responses are way too verbose and buzzwordy and hard to follow. I legit don’t read 90% of the output anymore, that’s how bad it is. No matter what I put in my claude.md when it comes to communication style, after it did any type of meaningful work, it always reverts back to its extremely verbose, over-explained, buzzword heavy mess.” What made the thread notable wasn’t one angry post; it was the agreement, and how concrete it was. zimxero described asking the model to make a file more concise and getting “walls of text” and an hour of unwanted process in return. BeowulfShaeffer was blunter: “I fired opus 5. Worst model I’ve ever tried to use. I refuse to use it anymore.” And the tell that this was regression rather than grumbling — several users independently reaching f

Introduction & Industry Context The pursuit of operational efficiency has long been a cornerstone of enterprise strategy. For decades, Robotic Process Automation (RPA) served as the primary vehicle, automating repetitive, rule-based tasks across various departments. While RPA delivered initial gains, its inherent limitations—rigidity, high maintenance, and inability to handle ambiguity—are now becoming glaring bottlenecks in an increasingly dynamic business landscape. The digital era demands more than just automation; it requires hyper-automation: intelligent, adaptive systems capable of autonomous decision-making and continuous learning. This is precisely where the breakthrough of AI agents emerges, offering a paradigm shift from static, brittle automation to dynamic, resilient, and highly adaptable enterprise workflows. This blueprint outlines how CEOs and CTOs can strategically leverage modern AI agent orchestration to achieve unprecedented operational ROI. The Core Problem & Business/Technical Impact Traditional RPA solutions, while effective for strictly defined processes, struggle immensely with variability. Any deviation from a pre-programmed path, new data formats, or evolving business rules often leads to bot failures, requiring extensive human intervention and costly reprogramming. This rigidity manifests in several critical business impacts: Escalating Operational Costs: High maintenance overhead, constant recalibration, and the need for human exception handling negate much of the initial cost savings. Stifled Agility: Businesses cannot rapidly adapt to market changes or introduce new services when automation pipelines are inflexible. Missed Opportunities: Complex, unstructured data remains largely untouched by RPA, preventing deeper insights and value extraction. Human Resource Drain: Valuable human capital is trapped in mundane exception handling and bot maintenance, diverting focus from strategic initiatives. Hidden Tech Debt: A sprawling ecosystem of

Is the technique outdated? Yes. Is it still creepy? Also yes.

Enterprise vibe coding: the governance framework for shipping AI-generated apps to production Published: August 22, 2026 Category: Enterprise · AI Deployments Reading time: 9 minutes Author: NEXUS AI Team Gartner forecasts that 40% of new enterprise production software will be built using vibe coding techniques by 2028. A 2026 scan of more than 1,400 live vibe-coded applications found that 65% already had a security issue, and 58% shipped with at least one critical vulnerability. Those two numbers describe the same industry moving in opposite directions at once: adoption is outrunning governance. This post covers what a governance framework for enterprise vibe coding actually looks like, the five controls it needs, and where most teams get it wrong. What is enterprise vibe coding? Enterprise vibe coding is the practice of using natural-language prompts to generate application code, then governing that code through mandatory review, access control, and audit before it reaches production, rather than letting it ship straight from a prompt to a live endpoint. The term (coined by Andrej Karpathy in early 2025) originally described a fast, low-friction way for one person to build a prototype. What "enterprise" adds is the governance layer prototyping was never built for: staging environments, encrypted secrets, role-based access, and a record of who approved what. That distinction matters because the adoption curve and the risk curve are not moving together. The governance gap, in three numbers 40% of new enterprise production software will be built using vibe coding techniques by 2028, according to Gartner's May 2025 report "Why Vibe Coding Needs to Be Taken Seriously," as reported by CIO Dive . 65% of vibe-coded production applications had a security issue, in a 2026 scan of more than 1,400 live apps by the API security firm Escape.tech, reported via a Cloud Security Alliance research note . 58% of those same applications shipped with at least one critical vulnerabilit

Rillet CEO Nicolas Kopp shared growth numbers at a board meeting and set off a fundraising frenzy from Iconiq, Sequoia and others. Without even trying.

Runlayer and Rippling have dropped their lawsuits. No money was paid. Rippling celebrated by releasing a competing product.

Fusion power startup Inertia Enterprises reduced the fuel filling process from a week to just a few hours. It's one of ten hurdles the company must overcome to make a profitable power plant.

AI-native account startup Rillet became a unicorn, led by Iconiq, after it doubled its ARR in the past three months, it said.

Perplexity's India revenue rose about 60% after the Airtel offer ended for new users, even as downloads declined.

I built a small manufacturing company end-to-end inside an SAP S/4HANA sandbox — one plant, one product, one month — specifically to watch what the month-end close does to a margin that looks healthy at billing time. Every number below comes from an actual document in that system. At billing, the month looked good Revenue 20,000 COGS at standard 12,800 Margin 7,200 = 36% Three days later, after the close, the same month landed at 1,200 = 6% . Nothing was posted incorrectly. Three gates took the 30 points, in this order. Gate 1 — Cost center revaluation (KSS1 / KSII) The planned price for the labour activity type was derived the usual way: planned cost divided by planned activity quantity. Production orders consumed hours at that planned rate all month. Then the actuals arrived. Depreciation posted 9,000 against a plan of 3,000 . Activity quantity did not move. So the actual activity rate came out at roughly three times the planned rate, and every hour any order had already consumed became retroactively more expensive. This is the part that surprises people: the damage was decided weeks earlier, in a transaction nobody files under "costing decisions" — planning the activity price. Gate 2 — Order variance (KKS1 / CO88) With the revalued rate applied (CON2), the production orders no longer settled clean. The difference split across variance categories and settled to variance accounts — not into inventory. That distinction matters. If it went to inventory, it would sit on the balance sheet until the goods were sold. It doesn't. It is parked, waiting for the next step. Gate 3 — Actual costing (CKMLCP) This is the step people forget, and it is where the margin actually dies. The actual costing run rolls the variance into the material's periodic unit price, and then moves the portion belonging to what was already sold into COGS. Before this run, the P&L still looked fine. After it, the 6,000 that had been sitting in variance found its way onto the income statement. What I

IBM plans to train and certify tens of thousands of consultants on OpenAI's technologies as part of this deal.

Thrive Holdings has raised $2 billion in new funding at a $12 billion valuation from investors like SoftBank, D1 Capital Partners, and Altimeter Capital.

If you have ever wanted to ship an AI-powered application without managing GPUs, model servers, or scaling infrastructure yourself, this guide is for you. Managed inference simply means letting a cloud provider run the AI model for you: you send a request, the platform handles the compute, and you get a response back. On Google Cloud, the cleanest way to do this today is to pair the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (formerly Vertex AI) with Google Cloud Run , dividing responsibilities between the two services. The Agent Platform serves as the orchestration and intelligence engine, while Cloud Run hosts your custom application logic, front-end UIs, or Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. By the end of this article, you will be able to: Explain the hybrid architecture and why each layer exists Define an AI agent in code using the Agent Development Kit (ADK) Deploy your app layer to Cloud Run with a single command Choose between online and batch inference for your workload Secure and monitor the whole setup in production New to the underlying concept? Start with Google Cloud's primer: What is AI inference? Prerequisites To follow along hands-on, you will need: A Google Cloud project with billing enabled The gcloud CLI installed and authenticated Python 3.10+ and the ADK installed ( pip install google-adk ) You can also read this purely as an architecture walkthrough; every step is explained, not just shown. 1. The Architectural Blueprint This pattern splits your system into independent, auto-scaling tiers: [ Client / Web UI ] ──> [ Cloud Run Service ] (App Logic / Tool Front End) │ ▼ [ Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform — Agent Runtime ] (Orchestration, Intent Analysis, Memory) │ ▼ [ Managed Inference / Model Garden ] (Gemini 3.x Pro / Flash models) Why split it this way? Each tier scales independently and fails independently. Your web front end can handle a traffic spike without touching the model layer, and you can swap models without redeploying your application code

Blacksmith says revenue has grown more than tenfold over the past year.

Silicon Valley companies are already working on neurotechnology products that track your brain activity. The next privacy frontier might be the things you only think.

Beyond Elon Musk’s interpretation of The Odyssey, Silicon Valley leaders have often misunderstood classic books like Foundation and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. It’s evident in their tech.