AI Is a Change Management Problem: From Pilots to Real Enterprise Value

The diginomica network’s latest research lands a clear, uncomfortable verdict for enterprise technology teams: artificial intelligence is not primarily a technical deployment problem — it is a change management problem. Within an invitation‑only community of CIOs and CTOs, the report finds near‑ubiquitous experimentation with AI but a persistent gap between pilots and measurable business value. That gap is driven less by model architecture or API plumbing than by legacy data, poor governance, misaligned expectations across the C‑suite, and a failure to treat adoption as a sustained organizational program rather than a one‑off rollout.

---

Background / Overview​

The diginomica network research synthesizes discussions with senior IT leaders — a curated cohort of CIOs and CTOs running large, often global, enterprises. The headline figure reported inside that community is striking: 93% of network members say they have implemented some form of AI, from chatbots to advanced use cases like drug discovery. Yet the same community reports that AI often fails to meet the “elevated expectations” of boards and CEOs unless accompanied by rigorous change management, data work, and governance.
This is not a niche argument. Independent policy and industry studies cited in the same body of reporting show a broadly similar dynamic: many firms are experimenting, but far fewer have converted pilots into durable, auditable improvements in firm‑level productivity. That mismatch matters because it shapes procurement decisions, investor patience, and vendor viability across the AI stack.

---

Why change management, not tech, tops the list​

The core claim: adoption is an organizational problem​

CIOs in the diginomica network repeatedly framed AI as a fundamental rethinking of workflows and decision rights rather than a technology checkbox. The research quotes members saying that without sustained behaviour change, communications, and role redesign, a shiny Copilot or LLM integration will deliver only surface metrics — clicks, seats, or anecdotal wins — rather than true business outcomes. The observation is blunt: past technology waves (SaaS, cloud) frequently captured only 10–20% of potential value because organisations stopped at tool deployment and neglected follow‑through.

Why technical capability alone is insufficient​

There are clear technical blockers — data quality, legacy integrations, model‑ready pipelines — but the painful insight from CIOs is that these are necessary conditions, not sufficient ones. An organisation can solve model hosting and latency yet still fail if frontline staff don’t change how they work, if KPIs aren’t redefined, or if governance leaves dangerous shadow uses unchecked. The diginomica playbook emphasizes treating adoption as a product: role‑based training, gate‑staged scaling, and human‑in‑the‑loop safeguards.

---

What the research actually reports (numbers to note)​

• 93% of diginomica network members have implemented some form of AI. This reflects a high‑capability, early‑adopter cohort.
• Over half of respondents report initial AI efforts achieving around a 50% success rate, but a majority say outcomes frequently fall short of boardroom expectations. Expectation mismatch is a recurring theme.
• Some firms capture only 10–20% of the potential benefit from technology projects when change management is absent — an historical benchmark that CIOs fear repeating with AI.

These figures should be understood with nuance: the diginomica numbers reflect an invitation‑only CIO community and therefore skew toward earlier adoption than broader market surveys. Independent studies and national liaison reports show more mixed adoption rates at a population level, so the 93% figure is credible for this cohort but not representative of all firms.

---

Root causes: data, legacy systems, and organisational friction​

Data quality is the de facto starting line​

CIOs say the main technical barrier to successful AI adoption is poor data quality. Legacy systems, fragmented data sources, and inconsistent lineage make it hard to build model‑ready pipelines. The research and cross‑industry analysis both highlight the same refrain: without canonical data sources, feature stores, and clear ownership, models remain brittle and expensive experiments.

Legacy systems and integration drag​

Many organisations have modernised selectively for resilience and continuity, but those upgrades were not always designed to enable AI‑first workflows. Connecting forecasting models, agentic systems, or copilots to transaction systems — CRM, ERP, billing — can require months of engineering and process redesign. That integration cost favours incremental pilots over transformational redesigns, creating a natural conservative bias.

Skills and talent shortages amplify the problem​

The war for data engineers, ML engineers, and MLOps talent remains intense. Firms lack the specialist staff to move pilots into repeatable production, and many mid‑market companies cannot match the compensation or brand pull of hyperscalers and big tech. The result is that adoption becomes concentrated where talent, capital, and governance converge.

---

Leadership, governance and the C‑suite alignment problem​

Misaligned expectations between CEOs and CIOs​

CEOs increasingly treat AI as a lever to cut costs and accelerate productivity in a pressured macro environment. CIOs understand that pressure but also know that technology alone will not satisfy immediate ROI demands. The research describes a tension: boards want quick wins; IT leaders must temper hype and insist on staged plans, governance, and investment in people and data.

Confusion over terminology increases risk​

Multiple senior executives reportedly conflate generative AI, agentic systems, and robotics. This sloppy language matters because it drives poor procurement choices, mismatched KPIs, and unrealistic timelines. Part of the CIO role has become decoding what leaders mean by “AI” and translating that into concrete risk/benefit assessments.

Boards and regulators must demand evidence, not demos​

The diginomica research and independent policy reporting both urge boards to require KPIs, staged gating, and cost observability before authorising broad rollouts. Vendor demos and glossy case studies are inadequate substitutes for reproducible, auditable metrics tied to the business.

---

Learning from failure: why pilots that “fail” often aren’t dead ends​

Rapid model evolution complicates POCs​

Large Language Models and AI tools are improving fast. A proof‑of‑concept that fails today can succeed months later simply because the underlying models have improved. This dynamic creates friction with business stakeholders who expect consistency across trials. CIOs must design pilots and procurement with the timeline of model improvement in mind to avoid false negatives.

Failure modes are instructive​

The research outlines two clear failure scenarios: (1) purchasing broad Copilot licences and rolling them out without workflow integration or training, and (2) running expensive pilots with no measurement framework or data plumbing, leaving results anecdotal. Both produce good usage metrics but no bottom‑line impact. Successful pilots are small, instrumented, and tied to business outcomes.

---

A practical playbook for CIOs and IT leaders (numbered roadmap)​

• Anchor pilots to measurable business outcomes. Define 2–4 high‑value use cases with explicit KPIs (time to revenue, error reduction, conversion uplift) and include control periods for causal measurement.
• Harden data plumbing first. Audit canonical sources, fix lineage gaps, and create a model‑ready pipeline with versioned feature stores and clear data ownership.
• Treat adoption as a product. Build role‑based training, instrument human‑in‑the‑loop review points, and operate adoption squads that measure and iterate.
• Build pragmatic, operational governance. Create cross‑functional AI steering (legal, security, operations), standardise model docs, and establish SLAs that include explainability and rollback procedures.
• Design for portability and cost observability. Separate data stores, vector storage, and model hosting. Implement inference chargeback, caps, and automated alerts to avoid runaway costs.
• Phase scaling with gates. Move from pilot → bounded production → scaled production only after KPIs and operational readiness criteria are met. Avoid “forklift” rollouts of agentic systems.

This sequence is pragmatic and repeatable: it prioritises measurable ROI and mitigates the twin risks of vendor hype and governance failures.

---

Vendor implications and market risk​

Vendors must change how they sell​

The research signals a clear warning to AI vendors: selling point solutions to business lines without deep engagement with CIO/CTO functions is risky. If AI deployments repeatedly fail to deliver ROI, procurement budgets will shrink and investor patience will falter. Vendors will need to demonstrate measurable outcomes, technical portability, and contractual protections for data and compliance to remain credible.

Costing and procurement friction​

Consumption‑based inference billing and seat licences can create unpredictable long‑term costs. CIOs are increasingly demanding observability tools, chargeback mechanisms, and contractual guarantees on data handling and non‑training clauses. Vendors that offer clear tools for observability and portability will be advantaged.

---

Can enterprises keep up? A sober prognosis​

Enterprises can keep up with AI — but only with deliberate, sustained programs that couple technology with organisational change. The favourable scenario requires four conditions:

• Executive alignment on realistic timelines and measurable KPIs.
• Investment in data foundations and MLOps to make pilots repeatable.
• A productised approach to adoption that includes role redesign, training, and human‑in‑the‑loop processes.
• Pragmatic governance and cost controls that reduce regulatory and budgetary surprise.

Without these, organisations risk a scenario where pilots proliferate but strategic value remains elusive — a replay of historic shallow adoption cycles where only a fraction of potential value is captured. The diginomica community’s experienced CIOs are optimistic about the technology but realistic about the long road from pilot to scaled value. That realism is a strength: it reframes AI from a magic bullet into a multi‑year transformation program.

---

Risks and unresolved areas (what to watch)​

• Hallucination and provenance: Generative outputs require robust grounding and provenance to be trusted in decision workflows. Enterprises must bake evidence‑return and traceability into systems.
• Environmental and infrastructure costs: Large models increase compute and energy needs. TCO models must include sustainability and power considerations for scaled deployments.
• Talent concentration: Continued demand for specialised AI skills may centralise capability among a few firms, leaving gaps for mid‑market players. Workforce planning and reskilling will be critical.
• Vendor claims vs. reproducibility: Many vendor case studies need independent validation; procurement should insist on reproducible benchmarks and data on methodology.

Where the diginomica report makes firm claims about numbers or ROI, those claims are credible within the context of a high‑capability CIO network but should be treated cautiously if extrapolated to the entire market. Independent surveys and central‑bank liaison reports show a more mixed, uneven adoption landscape. Flag any broadly generalized claims about market penetration or universal ROI until third‑party benchmarks confirm them.

---

Practical checklist for getting unstuck (one‑page action plan)​

• Audit your data: map canonical sources, owners, retention rules, and lineage gaps.
• Choose high‑impact pilots with clear KPIs and control periods.
• Build an adoption squad: training, role redesign, and feedback loops.
• Enforce governance: per‑agent data restrictions, audit trails, and human‑in‑the‑loop gates.
• Control costs: implement inference chargeback and consumption caps.
• Require vendor reproducibility and contract protections for data use.

Follow these steps iteratively: measure, learn, and scale only when operational readiness and KPIs are met.

---

Conclusion​

The diginomica network research delivers a pragmatic, timely lesson: enterprise AI will be won or lost not in the model benchmarks or vendor demo rooms but in the daily practice of change management. CIOs and CTOs who combine clean data foundations, measured pilots, productised adoption, and operational governance will translate AI’s promise into measurable business outcomes. Those who treat AI as a point‑solution purchase risk repeating the same shallow adoption cycle that left earlier technology waves far short of their potential. The opportunity remains enormous, but capturing it is an organizational discipline as much as a technical one — and that is a challenge enterprises must treat as their central priority.

---

Source: Diginomica the diginomica network research reveals change management, not tech, is biggest AI challenge. Can enterprises keep up?

 

[ChatGPT]

Levi Strauss & Co. and Microsoft have quietly moved from pilot projects to a public commitment: the apparel giant is building an enterprise‑grade, Azure‑native “super agent” — a single Teams‑embedded orchestrator that routes employee requests to a network of specialized AI sub‑agents — with a planned corporate rollout in early 2026 and global expansion later that year.

Background / Overview​

Levi’s framed the effort as a core part of its multiyear digital transformation: the super‑agent is intended to streamline workflows across IT, human resources, operations and store teams, freeing employees from repetitive tasks and improving access to consolidated knowledge. The company also announced customer‑facing and store tools — Outfitting (a personalized styling feature in the Levi’s app) and STITCH (a store assistant app already piloted in 60 U.S. stores) — as complementary pieces of the broader modernization program. The corporate announcement and Microsoft’s accompanying materials establish the technical baseline: the platform is built on Microsoft 365 Copilot, Copilot Studio, Azure AI Foundry, Semantic Kernel and will surface inside Microsoft Teams, with additional operational tooling like Microsoft Intune and Surface Copilot+ devices mentioned as part of the deployment. This move places Levi among the first large retailers to publicly adopt a full multi‑agent orchestration approach at enterprise scale — a pattern Microsoft has been productizing through Copilot Studio and the Azure AI Foundry family of services. Documentation from Microsoft shows these components explicitly support multi‑agent workflows, identity integration (Microsoft Entra Agent ID), observability and tooling for connecting agents to enterprise data sources, which aligns with Levi’s stated architecture.

---

What Levi and Microsoft are actually building​

The architecture in plain terms​

At a high level, Levi’s “super agent” is a hierarchical multi‑agent orchestration:

• A single conversational portal (the super agent) embedded in Microsoft Teams serves as the employee entry point.
• The super agent routes prompts to domain‑specific subagents (for example, HR, IT, store operations, inventory, returns).
• Subagents are built and deployed via Copilot Studio and Azure AI Foundry; they use models, retrieval tools, and connectors to enterprise systems.
• The orchestrator aggregates results, executes authorized actions where allowed, and escalates to humans when necessary.

This pattern maps directly to Microsoft’s multi‑agent and agentic tooling: Copilot Studio’s multi‑agent orchestration and Azure AI Foundry’s Agent Service provide the primitives for connected agents, tool calls, observability and lifecycle management. Microsoft’s docs describe features like “connected agents,” agent tracing, and hundreds of connectors to enterprise data and apps — the same capabilities Levi cites as part of the platform.

Key components Levi named​

• Microsoft 365 Copilot & Copilot Studio — delivery surface and low‑code hub for agent orchestration.
• Azure AI Foundry / Agent Service — runtime and factory for agent deployment, observability and scaling.
• Microsoft Teams — the UI channel where the super agent is embedded.
• Surface Copilot+ PCs, Microsoft Intune, GitHub Copilot — device standardization, device management and developer productivity tooling referenced as part of the rollout.

These products are not hypothetical: Microsoft’s public documentation confirms Copilot Studio and Azure AI Foundry include multi‑agent orchestration, agent tracing, and integration points for corporate knowledge sources such as SharePoint, Microsoft Fabric, and Azure AI Search. That technical foundation is mature enough to support the stated architecture in principle.

---

Timeline, scope and business claims — verified​

Levi and Microsoft’s joint announcements state the super‑agent is under development and testing with a targeted rollout to corporate employees in early 2026 and broader global expansion later in 2026. The company’s public materials also confirm pilot deployments of in‑store tools (STITCH) to 60 U.S. locations ahead of the holiday season. The fiscal metrics used in Levi’s release — net revenue of $6.4 billion in 2024 — match the company’s public filings cited in the same announcement. These timeline and financial figures are direct claims from Levi’s press release and Microsoft’s newsroom post. A few of Levi’s forward‑looking statements — for example, the aspiration to become a “$10 billion retailer” and the expectation that these tools will materially accelerate that path — are corporate targets rather than empirically proven outcomes. Treat those projections as strategic intent, not guaranteed ROI, until Levi publishes measurable post‑deployment KPIs.

---

Why this matters for retail IT and operations​

• Unified interface: For store associates and corporate teams who juggle POS systems, ERP, inventory platforms and internal knowledge bases, a single Teams‑based portal reduces context switching and can materially shorten task times if it reliably grasps context and calls the right subagent.
• Developer velocity: Using Copilot Studio and GitHub Copilot can reduce build cycles by pairing low‑code agent composition with pro‑code extensibility — a practical route to quicker iteration and tighter observability.
• Enterprise governance: Deploying agent fleets at scale requires identity, lifecycle controls, policy enforcement and observability. Microsoft has product primitives for these (Microsoft Entra Agent ID, Azure observability features, Purview integration), but the operational burden remains on Levi’s IT teams to configure and continuously audit them.

These benefits are plausible and have precedent in other enterprise automation programs, but scale and safety will determine whether the initiative becomes a durable productivity lever or a source of operational complexity.

---

Strengths: What’s convincing about Levi’s approach​

• Azure‑native stack reduces integration friction. Choosing Microsoft 365 Copilot, Copilot Studio and Azure AI Foundry creates an integrated stack where agent orchestration, identity, data access and monitoring are designed to work together — reducing the number of bespoke connectors Levi would otherwise need to build. This reduces integration risk and speeds time to pilot‑to‑production.
• Embedded in Team collaboration means agents can be surfaced directly in the tools employees already use, increasing adoption likelihood and making agent actions part of daily workflows instead of separate systems.
• Device and endpoint standardization (Surface Copilot+ plus Intune) helps Levi maintain consistent security controls, feature availability and update cadences across a widely dispersed retail workforce. This is a pragmatic operational move for retailers with thousands of physical locations.
• Pilot pragmatism: Rolling STITCH out to 60 stores during a controlled pilot window gives Levi a measurable environment to tune policies, measure accuracy and observe failure modes before global scale. Staged pilots are how enterprise risk is normally managed in automation projects.

---

Risks and failure modes Levi must manage​

1) Agent hallucinations and actionable mistakes​

When agents are permitted to take actions (change inventory status, submit HR approvals, update pricing rules), incorrect outputs become business events. Levi must enforce circuit breakers and human confirmation for material changes — a best practice for action‑capable agents. Microsoft’s tooling supports read‑only vs action‑capable modes, but enforcement is an implementation detail Levi must get right.

2) Identity and permissioning complexity​

Agents need identities and least‑privilege access to act safely. Microsoft’s Entra Agent ID and conditional access can provide agent lifecycle control, but configuration mistakes (overbroad scopes, long‑lived tokens) could expose sensitive data or enable unauthorized actions. Levi’s zero‑trust statements are necessary but not sufficient unless enforced via rigorous AgentOps.

3) Observability and auditability​

Agent architectures multiply telemetry: model inputs, tool calls, trace threads and tool outputs. Levi will need robust logging, explainability records and retention policies to support audits, incident response and regulatory inquiries. Azure AI Foundry and Copilot Studio offer agent tracing and monitoring features, but these must be integrated into Levi’s compliance processes and SIEM/monitoring pipelines.

4) Vendor lock‑in and portability​

Large enterprises should design for portability where practical. Levi’s heavy alignment to Microsoft stack delivers speed, but it also concentrates operational dependencies. Consideration of exportable agent definitions, open protocols for agent‑to‑agent communication, and data portability will reduce long‑term strategic lock‑in risk. Industry work on Model Context Protocol and related standards can help, but broad adoption is still evolving.

5) Privacy and consumer perception​

The more agents touch customer data (order history, returns, personalized styling), the higher the stakes for privacy compliance and for consumer trust. Levi must ensure clear consent surfaces and robust controls for consumer‑facing models and datasets; corporate statements of “responsible AI” are insufficient without concrete provenance and red‑team testing.

---

Technical verification: what’s confirmed vs what’s aspirational​

Confirmed by vendor and customer releases:

• The partnership and the public announcement were published jointly on November 17, 2025.
• The super‑agent will be Teams‑embedded and Azure‑powered, with an early 2026 rollout to corporate employees and broader expansion in 2026.
• Levi is piloting STITCH in 60 U.S. stores and has launched Outfitting in its app in several markets.
• Microsoft products cited (Copilot Studio, Azure AI Foundry, Entra Agent ID) publicly support multi‑agent orchestration, agent identity, tracing and integration with enterprise data sources.

Statements that require caution or remain unverifiable from public material:

• The exact set of subagents, their action scopes, and the endpoints they will call (for example, which ERP modules or third‑party systems are in scope) are not specified in the public releases; those are implementation details Levi must disclose later. Treat integration assertions as achievable, but contingent on careful engineering.
• Claims about financial impact (e.g., timeline to a $10 billion revenue objective) are corporate targets and depend on many variables beyond the AI program; label them aspirational.
• Any public claims about specific device NPU performance thresholds or internal Microsoft infrastructure scale referenced in third‑party commentary (for instance, unverified GPU cluster sizes) should be treated as unconfirmed unless corroborated by primary vendor disclosures. Flag these as speculative until Microsoft publishes technical compute commitments.

---

Operational checklist for enterprise IT leaders (practical steps)​

1. Inventory and classify data sources that agents will access (POS, ERP, HRIS, CRM). Prioritize read‑only access for early pilots.
2. Define agent action levels and require explicit human approval for any action that modifies financials, prices, inventory, or contractual records.
3. Implement Entra Agent ID or equivalent to assign short‑lived identities to every agent; enforce least privilege and automated token rotation.
4. Configure agent observability: trace every agent thread, store tool calls and inputs, and integrate with SIEM/monitoring for anomaly detection.
5. Run continuous red‑teaming and adversarial testing before expanding action‑capable agents beyond tightly controlled pilots.
6. Publish internal guidance and thresholds for escalation — ensure frontline employees know when to trust automated responses and when to escalate to humans.

---

Legal, privacy and regulatory considerations​

• Privacy: Agents that use or combine customer personal data must be governed under the company’s privacy program — data minimization, purpose limitation, and retention policies must be enforced at the agent level.
• Consumer protection: Any consumer‑facing agent or purchase flow must provide clear disclosure when recommendations are AI‑generated and must surface material terms for transactions.
• Auditability: For HR/finance actions, maintain immutable logs tying agent decisions to the identity that authorized the action (agent identity and, where applicable, approving human).
• Cross‑border data flows: Retailers operating in ~120 countries (Levi’s footprint) must ensure agent data flows comply with local transfer restrictions and data residency needs.

---

Strategic implications for competition and partnerships​

Levi’s partnership is consequential beyond a single vendor deployment. By publicly aligning a major retailer to Microsoft’s agentic stack, Levi creates a high‑visibility reference architecture that other retailers will study. If Levi demonstrates measurable gains while maintaining safety and compliance, Microsoft gains a marquee case study for enterprise agent deployments — which can accelerate broader vendor adoption and expand their partner ecosystem.
At the same time, heavy platform alignment accelerates vendor lock‑in risks. Enterprises should weigh short‑term speed against long‑term strategic flexibility and evaluate whether agent definitions, connectors and governance policies can be exported or re‑implemented elsewhere if business needs change.

---

What to watch next (the signal window)​

• Pilot metrics: Levi should publish (or disclose to investors) measurable pilot KPIs such as mean time to resolution of store queries, agent accuracy rates, reduction in ticket volumes, change in average handle time, and customer experience metrics if agent‑facing features touch consumers.
• Governance milestones: Evidence of AgentOps processes — scheduled red‑teaming results, audit logs, and identity governance for agents — will be a credible indicator the program is production‑grade.
• Scaling patterns: Whether Levi expands subagents into action‑capable roles (e.g., automated refunds, price adjustments) or keeps agents read‑only will reveal their tolerance for operational risk.
• Third‑party integrations: Public details about which third‑party systems and vendors are integrated will show how deeply the super‑agent meshes with the retail backend (OMS, ERP, fulfillment networks).

---

Conclusion​

Levi Strauss’s announcement with Microsoft is more than a pilot press release; it’s an early, high‑profile example of an enterprise attempting to operationalize agentic AI across a distributed retail organization using a single Teams‑embedded orchestrator. The technical foundations exist: Microsoft’s Copilot Studio and Azure AI Foundry provide multi‑agent tooling, identity primitives and observability that make the concept feasible in production. The practical upside — faster access to knowledge, fewer repetitive tasks, and more consistent store experiences — is real, but the program’s success will hinge on rigorous governance, identity controls, observability and staged rollout discipline.
In short: the platform is technically plausible and strategically sensible for a Microsoft‑aligned enterprise, but the business and reputational outcomes rest on Levi’s ability to turn vendor primitives into an operational discipline — AgentOps — that prevents mistakes before they become incidents. If Levi publishes clear pilot metrics and governance artifacts during its 2026 rollouts, other retailers will follow. If not, the announcement risks becoming another example where ambition outpaced operational safeguards.

---

---

Source: Digital Commerce 360 Levi Strauss to build enterprise “super agent” AI platform

 

[ChatGPT]

The European Commission has launched a trio of formal market investigations into Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), testing whether hyperscale cloud platforms should be treated as ex‑ante “gatekeepers” and whether the DMA’s toolbox can be sensibly applied to cloud infrastructure — a move that could reshape cloud contracts, procurement, interoperability and the economics of AI workloads across Europe.

Background / Overview​

Cloud computing is no longer merely an IT outsourcing option: it sits at the core of national services, banking, telecoms and the compute fabric that underpins generative AI. That systemic role is central to Brussels’ rationale for bringing cloud under the DMA’s lens. The Commission has opened two focused market investigations — one each for AWS and Microsoft Azure — and a third horizontal probe to assess whether the DMA, which was designed around consumer‑facing core platform services, is fit for purpose in infrastructure markets. The Commission has signalled an expedited fact‑finding timetable of roughly 12 months for these inquiries.
The DMA is an ex‑ante regulatory regime that imposes mandatory obligations on designated gatekeepers — firms whose services operate as critical intermediaries between business users and end users. Designated gatekeepers face duties such as non‑discrimination, interoperability, data portability, and bans on self‑preferencing, backed by heavy fines (up to 10% of global turnover for first breaches and steeper penalties for repeat breaches). Applying those instruments to cloud changes the regulatory vocabulary from consumer metrics (monthly active users, ad dynamics) to enterprise metrics (contract values, capacity quotas, technical control‑plane interfaces), a legal and technical translation that Brussels aims to map during the horizontal probe.

---

Why the EU moved now​

Several converging drivers explain the timing and scope of the Commission’s actions.

• Market concentration: Independent trackers and national authorities have repeatedly shown that a handful of hyperscalers — chiefly AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud — capture a dominant share of public‑cloud spending in many jurisdictions. That concentration is central to the gatekeeper hypothesis the Commission is testing.
• Switching friction and vendor lock‑in: Contractual egress charges, proprietary control‑plane primitives, licensing differentials and bundling of managed services can materially increase the cost and complexity of migration, creating effective barriers to competition. The CMA and other national investigations documented these frictions and influenced Brussels’ calculus.
• Systemic outages and resilience concerns: High‑impact outages at major cloud providers have shown how single‑provider faults can cascade across sectors. Regulators are treating concentration not only as an antitrust problem but as a resilience and public‑policy risk.
• The AI accelerant: Large‑scale AI workloads intensify demand for specialised hardware and tightly integrated stacks, amplifying provider‑specific lock‑in and increasing the importance of cloud governance for the future of AI markets.

These forces combine to make cloud a strategic policy area: procurement and sovereignty concerns sit alongside classic competition questions.

---

What exactly is being investigated?​

The Commission’s probes are practical and focused, investigating both structural market characteristics and specific commercial or technical practices. Key lines of inquiry include:

Gatekeeper designation and measurement​

• Can and should cloud infrastructure (IaaS, managed platform services) be characterized as a core platform service under the DMA?
• Do AWS or Azure meet the DMA’s quantitative and qualitative designation tests when cloud‑specific metrics are used (contract value, EU turnover, enterprise reach)? The horizontal probe will examine these mapping challenges explicitly.

Switching costs and data portability​

• Are egress fees, slow export tooling, or contractual terms deliberately or effectively inflating the cost of migration?
• Do current migration tools provide audit‑grade, performant paths off a provider when needed? The Commission will look for invoices, contracts and technical evidence showing whether exit costs materially deter switching.

Self‑preferencing, bundling, and preferential treatment​

• Do hyperscalers give first‑party managed services, marketplace placements, or integrated features preferential treatment (pricing, performance, visibility) that disadvantage independent ISVs and competing infrastructure providers?
• Is Microsoft’s licensing and bundling (for example Windows Server, SQL Server, productivity suites) structured in ways that make Azure the less costly or more performant choice for Microsoft‑centric workloads?

Interoperability and proprietary control planes​

• Are APIs, orchestration primitives, and control‑plane features practically open and standardised, or are they proprietary primitives that lock workloads into one stack and hinder realistic multi‑cloud operations and fast failover?

The DMA’s fitness for cloud​

• The DMA was drafted around consumer‑facing platforms. The Commission’s third investigation will assess whether the DMA’s obligations (and the enforcement model behind them) can be adapted for cloud without producing technical or legal absurdities. This is a methodological question with significant downstream consequences.

---

Possible outcomes and regulatory remedies​

The Commission’s findings could lead to multiple regulatory pathways — ranging from full DMA gatekeeper designation to more targeted, sector‑specific remedies or the conclusion that the DMA is not the right instrument for cloud.

• Full gatekeeper designation for specific cloud services or providers
• Would trigger the DMA’s full palette of obligations: interoperability mandates, transparency/auditing duties and strict non‑discrimination rules.
• Non‑compliance could attract fines up to 10% of global turnover for initial breaches and higher penalties for repeated infringement.
• Targeted, market‑specific remedies without full designation
• Examples include caps or standardisation of egress fees, enforceable migration guarantees, obligations for audited migration tools, or non‑discrimination undertakings tailored to cloud realities.
• Hybrid or sectoral approach
• The Commission could conclude that the DMA’s yardstick doesn’t fit cloud and instead propose a hybrid model combining competition law enforcement, sectoral rules or new legislation (e.g., cloud‑specific rules in tandem with the Data Act, the AI Act or a proposed Cloud & AI Development Act).

Each route carries trade‑offs: formal DMA designation offers strong and clear enforcement tools, but risks sharper political pushback and technical implementation complexity. Narrower remedies may be more implementable but could leave structural market power unaddressed.

---

What this means for enterprises and procurement​

For CIOs, procurement teams and enterprise architects, the Commission’s probes create an urgent operational and contractual planning horizon. Practical implications include:

• Negotiation leverage: Expect a stronger position when negotiating exit terms, egress fees and audit rights over the coming 12 months as regulators seek evidence and industry attention tightens.
• Contract hygiene and escape routes: Inventory workloads tied to proprietary managed services, quantify migration costs, and insist on contractual commitments for migration tooling and data export performance.
• Key and data control: Negotiate rights to customer‑controlled encryption keys and clear data residency commitments, especially for public‑sector and regulated workloads.
• Architectural portability: Prioritise containerisation, open standards, orchestration layers and abstraction that reduce supplier lock‑in and make multi‑cloud failover practical rather than theoretical.
• Procurement policy shifts: Large public buyers and sovereign customers will likely harden procurement clauses to demand portability, verified sovereignty guarantees and technical audit rights.

Enterprises that proactively plan for portability — and document contractual pain points and technical barriers — will be best positioned to influence remedies and to protect operations if remedies change commercial behaviour.

---

Implications for Microsoft and AWS​

A formal designation or binding DMA‑style obligations would be materially consequential for hyperscalers’ operations and commercial model.

• Operational changes: Providers could be required to publish non‑discriminatory APIs, open certain control‑plane primitives, and provide audited migration tooling — all of which would require significant engineering programmes and potential re‑architecting of proprietary stacks.
• Commercial shock: Limits on self‑preferencing and bundled discounts could reduce the comparative advantage of provider‑owned managed services, shifting the economics of how ISVs and customers procure cloud‑native services.
• Legal and financial risk: DMA obligations carry large fines for non‑compliance; even prior to fines, reputational and contract enforcement costs would be significant.
• Public positioning and cooperation: Microsoft has publicly stated it will cooperate with the Commission’s probe; other providers are expected to vigorously contest any premise that scale equals anti‑competitive conduct. Expect robust industry engagement, technical submissions and likely legal challenges.

Strategically, hyperscalers argue that scale delivers customer benefits — lower prices, integrated features and global reach — and that heavy‑handed ex‑ante rules risk chilling investment in new data‑centre capacity and specialised accelerators. Regulators counter that unchecked lock‑in and concentration can distort AI markets and leave critical infrastructure vulnerable.

---

Strengths of the Commission’s approach​

• Proactive, ex‑ante focus: The DMA framework aims to prevent entrenched harms before they become irreversible, offering remedies that can be faster and more predictable than ex‑post antitrust litigation.
• Systemic thinking: Treating cloud as critical infrastructure aligns competition policy with resilience and digital sovereignty goals, reflecting the real economic footprint of cloud platforms.
• Evidence‑driven remit: The probes are structured to gather contracts, telemetry, invoices and customer testimony — the type of documentary evidence needed to assess real switching frictions rather than theoretical arguments.

---

Risks, trade‑offs and implementation challenges​

There are meaningful downsides and technical pitfalls to mapping DMA obligations wholesale onto cloud.

• Technical infeasibility and fragmentation: Mandating deep control‑plane interoperability risks exposing complex internal primitives that are not standardised, potentially creating brittle cross‑provider dependencies or incentivising minimal, surface‑level compliance that fails real portability tests.
• Innovation chill and investment impacts: Hyperscalers warn that ex‑ante constraints could lower returns on capital and slow investment in data‑centre footprint and next‑generation specialised accelerators vital for AI and resilience. If true, that could reduce capacity and raise costs for end users.
• Regulatory enforceability: Translating user‑centric DMA metrics into enterprise cloud metrics is legally complex. Enforcement will require deep technical expertise in audits and robust performance baselines — a non‑trivial administrative burden for regulators.
• Fragmentation and compliance costs: If different jurisdictions pursue divergent remedies, global providers will face complex compliance matrices that could produce regional feature differences and higher costs passed to customers.

The challenge for policymakers is to craft narrowly targeted, technically precise remedies that fix demonstrable harms without undermining the scale and investment that underpin cloud benefits.

---

Practical steps for IT leaders (a 12‑month action plan)​

• Map and quantify lock‑in risks
• Catalogue workloads that depend on provider‑specific managed services, accelerators, or proprietary APIs; quantify technical and financial migration costs.
• Strengthen contracts now
• Negotiate clearer egress pricing, enforceable migration SLAs, rights to audit telemetry and explicit control over encryption keys and data residency.
• Architect for portability
• Use containers, open orchestration, data formats and abstraction layers to make multi‑cloud or hybrid deployments practical. Test failover with regular drills.
• Demand transparency and proof
• Require evidence‑based migration tools and third‑party audit reports that verify data export performance, completeness and integrity.
• Engage procurement and legal teams
• Update RFPs and procurement templates to include portability criteria, sovereign‑processing clauses and incident response obligations.
• Monitor regulatory developments
• Track Commission filings, technical annexes and requests for information — they will reveal the Commission’s emerging theory of harm and likely remedies.

These steps will improve immediate operational resilience and position organisations to influence remedy design through documented evidence.

---

What to watch next (timeline and signals)​

• Commission publications: look for non‑confidential decisions, technical annexes, and requests for information — these will indicate the Commission’s legal theory and evidentiary focus.
• Industry consultations and DMA compliance workshops: technical submissions will surface the critical engineering compromises and highlight where remedies must be carefully scoped.
• Parallel national actions: coordination or divergence between the CMA, national authorities and Brussels will shape final remedies. Expect national regulators to feed evidence into the Commission process.
• Procurement shifts: major public buyers revising cloud procurement clauses will signal practical consequences that are already rippling through markets.

The Commission has set a roughly 12‑month horizon; the coming year will be crucial in shaping whether the DMA becomes a decisive tool for cloud governance or whether the EU opts for a hybrid, sector‑specific route.

---

Conclusion​

The Commission’s decision to probe AWS and Microsoft Azure under the DMA — alongside a horizontal review of the Act’s fitness for cloud — is a watershed for cloud governance. The inquiries squarely address the economic, technical and geopolitical stakes tied to hyperscaler dominance: switching costs, proprietary stacks, resilience, and the strategic control of AI infrastructure. The possible outcomes range from full DMA gatekeeper designation to bespoke remedies or a call for new sectoral instruments. Each path carries trade‑offs between contestability, resilience and the incentives that drive investment in capacity and innovation.
For IT leaders, the immediate imperative is clear: treat portability and contractual escape rights as front‑line risk management, document technical and contractual frictions comprehensively, and prepare architectures for mobility and resilience. For policymakers, the task is to translate DMA principles into technically precise, evidence‑based remedies that reduce lock‑in without fracturing an ecosystem that delivers global scale and specialised capability. The next 12 months will determine whether Europe’s toughest ex‑ante digital rule becomes a template for governing cloud — and, by extension, the infrastructure of AI — or whether legislators adopt a different regulatory architecture better suited to the technical realities of infrastructure.

---

Source: MLex https://www.mlex.com/mlex/antitrust...soft-aws-for-possible-gatekeeper-designation/
Source: MLex https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/...services-face-eu-probe-over-gatekeeper-rules/

 

[ChatGPT]

Astera Labs’ Leo controllers are now powering a customer preview of CXL‑attached memory on Microsoft Azure M‑series VMs, a practical milestone that moves Compute Express Link from interoperability demos into cloud‑hosted evaluation and forces cloud architects to confront both a potent new scaling lever and a set of operational caveats they cannot ignore.

Background / Overview​

The long‑running “memory wall” — the mismatch between rapidly growing compute capabilities and comparatively constrained host DRAM capacity — has driven multiple industry efforts to give systems access to more low‑latency memory without paying the price of extra CPU sockets or wholesale architecture rewrites. Compute Express Link (CXL) was designed to address that problem by delivering coherent memory semantics over PCIe, enabling hosts to attach, share, pool, and hot‑plug DRAM‑class devices outside the CPU socket. CXL 2.0 added critical fabric capabilities — switching, memory pooling, device partitioning and EDSFF support — that make cloud‑scale memory fabrics possible. Astera Labs’ announcement that its Leo CXL Smart Memory Controllers are enabling Microsoft Azure’s M‑series preview places a shipping controller implementation into a hyperscaler testbed, where customers can run real workloads and measure the practical trade‑offs of attaching DRAM over CXL rather than relying solely on CPU‑attached DIMMs. Multiple product statements and press coverage report that Leo supports CXL 1.1/2.0 and that selected Leo SKUs can present up to 2 TB of CXL‑attached DDR5 memory per controller (using DDR5‑5600 RDIMMs), a figure that appears on Astera’s product pages and in market coverage.

---

What Astera and Microsoft are Offering in the Preview​

The headline claims​

• Astera’s Leo CXL Smart Memory Controllers are integrated into Azure M‑series preview VMs to enable customer evaluation of CXL memory expansion in a cloud VM environment.
• Leo implementations support CXL 2.0 semantics and, depending on SKU/form factor, can present up to 2 TB of CXL‑attached DDR5 memory per controller (commonly via DDR5‑5600 RDIMM configurations).
• The preview is explicitly an evaluation offering, not a general availability (GA) service — it is intended to let customers run targeted memory‑heavy workloads (in‑memory DBs, LLM KV caches, analytics, and AI inference) and capture real performance and operational telemetry.

Verification of the core technical specs​

Astera’s product documentation lists the Leo portfolio, showing CXL 1.1/2.0 support, DDR5‑5600 support, and orderable parts that map to 2 TB per controller capacity in certain add‑in card and E‑series SKUs. This confirms the vendor‑published hardware limits referenced in public reporting. Independent descriptions of the CXL 2.0 specification from industry documentation note the exact capabilities that make pooling and multi‑host memory sharing possible — switching and device partitioning among them — which is the protocol foundation that Leo leverages. That specification-level context is important because the 2 TB figure is an implementation detail, not a protocol ceiling.

---

Technical deep dive: what Leo controllers actually do​

Astera’s Leo family acts as the bridge and management plane between CXL hosts and DRAM modules. Key technical roles include:

• Implementing the CXL.mem/CXL.cache protocol stack and presenting remote DDR5 resources to the host OS/hypervisor as memory devices.
• Performing hardware interleaving and presenting aggregated capacity to the host so that workloads see a larger contiguous memory space without application changes in many cases.
• Providing RAS (reliability, availability, serviceability), telemetry, and fleet management hooks (Astera’s COSMOS suite) for hyperscale operational visibility.

Astera’s product brief shows multiple Leo SKUs with different link widths and memory channel counts, which explains why the 2 TB figure recurs: it is the per‑controller capacity for Leo designs that combine multiple RDIMM slots with modern DDR5 densities. The CXL spec itself does not set a per‑controller capacity — vendors do.

Latency, bandwidth and where CXL fits​

• CXL‑attached DRAM aims to be DRAM‑like in latency, but not identical to CPU‑attached DIMMs. Latency varies with controller design, link topology, interleaving strategy and whether devices are cached locally by host CPUs or accessed remote‑only. This means the delta versus local DRAM must be measured for each workload.
• Bandwidth remains constrained by the PCIe/CXL link characteristics and by contention if memory is pooled and shared across hosts. Proper QoS, interleaving, and switch buffering are essential to predictable performance.

In short: Leo is a practical controller silicon and board stack that makes CXL memory usable at scale, but it inherits the protocol‑level trade‑offs of fabric‑attached memory.

---

Real‑world use cases and the business case​

CXL‑attached memory shines where capacity, not raw microsecond latency or massive streaming bandwidth, is the limiting factor. The primary early adopters and use cases include:

• In‑memory databases (Redis, SAP HANA, etc. that run into per‑node DRAM limits and suffer from expensive scale‑up alternatives.
• LLM KV caches and inference memory layers where embedding tables, context windows and token caches benefit from much larger memory without rearchitecting inference stacks.
• Large graph processing and analytics where working sets exceed CPU DIMM capacity but tolerate slightly higher memory latency in exchange for larger in‑memory indices.

From an economics perspective, memory pooling and expansion can improve utilization (less stranded memory across heterogeneous fleet members) and lower cost per usable memory byte compared with adding CPU sockets or moving workloads to bare‑metal. Astera and Azure position the M‑series preview as a concrete step toward those economics — but the precise TCO depends heavily on workload access patterns, pricing and operational overhead.

---

Operational and integration challenges​

Deploying CXL at cloud scale is not a purely hardware exercise. The preview underscores several integration and operational requirements:

• Hypervisor and guest OS support: memory hot‑plug, NUMA behavior, kernel allocators, and VM memory schedulers must be validated and sometimes tuned to prevent unexpected GC pauses or scheduler thrashing.
• Firmware, drivers and update paths: controllers, add‑in cards and host firmware must be coordinated. Early preview environments will surface edge cases like link resets, firmware rollbacks, and interop gaps.
• Observability and telemetry: rich per‑device and per‑link telemetry is essential to diagnose tail latency and to automate recovery when devices or paths degrade. Astera’s COSMOS telemetry is designed to provide that visibility, but cloud operators must integrate it into orchestration and SRE tooling.
• SLA, billing and orchestration semantics: how memory pools are allocated, billed, snapshot‑protected and reclaimed under contention or failure must be clearly defined by cloud providers for enterprise adoption. The preview is a place to validate those policies.

---

Security, isolation and supply‑chain considerations​

CXL introduces new attack surfaces and supply dependencies that require explicit controls:

• Link encryption and attestation: CXL 2.0 includes link‑level options for integrity and data encryption (CXL IDE), which should be considered for multi‑tenant or regulated workloads. However, enabling and verifying these options requires platform support and clear documentation.
• Firmware and supply chain: controllers and memory modules introduce firmware that must be supply‑chain verified and attested during provisioning. Enterprises should demand firmware attestation and vetted update pipelines in preview and GA services.
• Tenant isolation in pooled memory: pool sharing and device partitioning are powerful, but enforceable isolation — across tenants and across failure domains — is a platform responsibility and must be demonstrated in rigorous tests.

---

How to evaluate CXL memory in Azure M‑series preview — practical checklist​

• Confirm preview access and region availability with your Azure account and procurement team.
• Select 2–3 production‑like workloads that are memory bound (in‑memory DBs, LLM KV cache, analytic joins) and define measurable SLOs: throughput, 95/99/99.9% latency tails, and recovery RTO.
• Run baseline jobs on non‑CXL memory‑optimized instances and on the CXL preview instances. Capture tail latencies, throughput under steady state and under stress (GC, heap growth, failover).
• Test failure modes: controller resets, link drops, hot‑plug events, and pool reclamation — measure automated recovery and the time to return to steady state.
• Validate observability end‑to‑end: link, device, and host telemetry must trace resource allocation to workload impact. Require vendor access to raw telemetry if needed.
• Model total cost of ownership (TCO): include instance premium, additional operational overhead, and potential efficiency gains from consolidation. Compare to bare‑metal alternatives where appropriate.

---

Strengths and strategic opportunities​

• Practical silicon readiness: Astera’s Leo controllers are shipping products with SKU granularity, interop lab tests, and partner add‑in card support — a step beyond proof‑of‑concept demonstrators. That product maturity lowers integration risk for hyperscalers and early enterprise pilots.
• A new cloud primitive for memory‑bound workloads: If CXL is widely adopted by hyperscalers, it creates a memory elasticity tier that can be productized (large‑memory VM types without extra CPUs), enabling new cost/performance trade‑offs for database and AI customers.
• Ecosystem acceleration: Hyperscaler previews force firmware, BIOS, kernel, and orchestration fixes into practice quickly — the Azure preview can accelerate cross‑vendor hardening and interoperability.

---

Risks, limitations and unknowns​

• Preview status — the Azure M‑series integration is an evaluation and not GA. Expect availability limits, evolving firmware and tooling, and changes in behavior before GA. Treat the preview as a validation surface, not production infrastructure.
• Performance determinism: CXL memory is not identical to local DIMMs; worst‑case latency tails and contention scenarios are the danger points that can break SLAs. Vendor numbers (2 TB, 1.5× scaling) are useful but must be validated under real workloads.
• Operational complexity at scale: Multi‑host pooling, device partitioning, and firmware orchestration add operational layers that require sophisticated automation, test harnesses and SRE playbooks. Rolling this out fleet‑wide without automation increases risk.
• Ecosystem lock‑in and portability risks: While the CXL standard is open, implementations differ — vendor‑specific management stacks, firmware expectations and interop quirks can affect portability between cloud providers or between on‑prem and cloud. Demand compatibility matrices and validated configurations.

Unverifiable or marketing‑grade claims to watch​

Some claims in early press — for example, “industry’s first” deployments or large macro TCO improvements — are marketing‑oriented and require empirical validation. The statement that Azure’s M‑series preview represents the industry’s first announced CXL‑attached memory VM is reported by vendor and market coverage; however, independent Microsoft technical deep‑dive documentation was not publicly available at the time the press summary appeared, so buyers should treat “first announced” as the vendors’ framing and request Microsoft’s platform-level docs to confirm billing, availability and detailed failure semantics.

---

Market and vendor implications​

• For Astera Labs, validation in an Azure preview is both a technical validation and a commercial signal: fielded controller silicon + platform integration at a hyperscaler can accelerate customer conversations and design wins with other cloud and OEM partners. Astera’s interop lab work and DDR5‑5600 focus aim to reduce the friction of adoption.
• For cloud providers, offering a CXL memory tier is a differentiator for memory‑bound tenants. Being first confers marketing and procurement pull, but it also raises the bar for operational maturity and documentation. Hyperscalers must clearly communicate expectations, pricing models and failure semantics to avoid customer surprise.
• For enterprises, CXL adds a new lever for tackling memory constraints without rearchitecting applications, but it also means new procurement, testing, and governance steps: supply‑chain firmware checks, telemetry integration, and precise SLAs will be necessary before production adoption.

---

Recommended pilot design for IT teams (step‑by‑step)​

• Identify the highest‑value, memory‑bound workload that currently forces expensive scale‑up decisions.
• Negotiate preview access and collect the vendor’s compatibility and telemetry matrices.
• Define SLOs focused on latency tails and recovery objectives, not just averages.
• Deploy parallel baselines (non‑CXL instances, bare‑metal where possible). Run load patterns that reveal worst‑case behavior (GC storms, memory pressure).
• Practice failure drills: simulate controller resets and hot‑plug events, then measure detection and recovery time.
• Build integration tests for telemetry ingestion, alerting and automated remediation. Require vendor support for deep diagnostics.
• Document cost scenarios and negotiate clear rollback and support SLAs before moving business‑critical workloads.

---

What to watch next​

• Public benchmark reports from the Azure M‑series preview that disclose tail latency, throughput under mixed workloads, and cost‑per‑job comparisons against non‑CXL alternatives.
• Microsoft platform documentation explaining how CXL memory is allocated, billed, and isolated across tenants (this is essential to moving from pilot to GA).
• Additional hyperscaler pilots or GA announcements from other cloud vendors — multi‑cloud availability will drive portability expectations and standardize operational playbooks.
• Independent interoperability and stress tests that validate cross‑vendor stability for controllers, switch silicon and EDSFF module suppliers.

---

Verdict: promising technology, disciplined adoption required​

Astera Labs’ Leo controllers powering an Azure M‑series preview is a meaningful step on the path from lab demos to production‑grade memory fabrics. The combination of shipping controller silicon, DDR5‑5600 interop work, and a hyperscaler evaluation surface gives enterprises a real chance to test whether pooled, fabric‑attached DRAM materially changes system economics for their memory‑bound workloads. That promise comes with hard caveats: the preview status means firmware, driver and orchestration maturity will continue to evolve; vendor figures (2 TB, “>1.5× scaling”) are implementation‑level and must be validated per workload; and the operational complexity of pooled memory at hyperscale demands robust telemetry, automated SRE playbooks and clear SLA/billing semantics from cloud providers.
Enterprises should treat this announcement as the moment to start rigorous pilots, not as a cue to migrate production workloads immediately. Well‑designed tests will either confirm the TCO and performance benefits for a clear set of workloads (and thus justify procurement) or reveal the practical limits and integration costs that still make alternative approaches (additional CPUs, HBM, persistent memory tiers) more appropriate.

---

Final thoughts​

CXL’s march from specification to deployed fabric continues to accelerate. Astera Labs’ Leo controllers appearing inside an Azure preview is an important milestone because it forces real workloads to reveal the strengths and the operational friction of fabric‑attached memory. For memory‑bound applications — in‑memory databases, LLM caches, large analytics — CXL presents a compelling new tool. For platform owners and SRE teams, the arrival of Leo in a hyperscaler testbed is a prompt to build robust validation frameworks, insist on documented failure semantics and telemetry, and to treat the new capability as a program‑level change rather than a plug‑and‑play upgrade. Proceed with curiosity and discipline: CXL can reshape cloud memory economics, but only careful engineering and transparent operational controls will turn preview promises into predictable production value.

---

Source: Investing.com South Africa Astera Labs’ memory controllers power Microsoft Azure CXL preview By Investing.com