How control is lost
There are several reasons why the current surge in AI adoption is difficult to manage.
The first is speed. The pace of AI innovation is unlike previous technology cycles. New models, tools, assistants, and agents are appearing every few weeks, each promising better performance or broader functionality. Business teams are understandably eager to experiment. Individuals want productivity gains. Departments want faster workflows. Leaders want to show progress. That enthusiasm is valuable, but it also creates the conditions for shadow AI.
Unlike earlier software adoption, AI often enters the organisation through many doors at once. It may appear as a standalone application, an embedded feature in an existing SaaS platform, an API call in a cloud environment, a chatbot subscription, or a custom agent built by a team outside central IT. Each instance may seem small on its own. Together, they create a fast-growing layer of cost, risk, and operational dependency that many organisations cannot fully see.
The second challenge is that AI behaves differently from traditional cloud and SaaS applications. Not only is spending spread across tools, APIs, models, and cloud environments; it is also irregular and behaviour driven. Usage can rise suddenly when a workflow is automated or when users discover a new use case. Without the right controls, costs can increase before finance, procurement, or ITAM teams know what is happening.
AI also makes value harder to predict. Traditional automation was often judged by speed, consistency, and cost. Generative AI is more variable. Output quality depends on the model selected, the quality of the data, the design of the agent, the prompts used, and the skills of the people interacting with it. If those elements are weak, organisations may pay for activity without getting reliable outcomes. In practical terms, that means wasted tokens, duplicated tools, unused licences, poor adoption, and a growing gap between AI investment and business value.