Close Menu
  • Home
  • Managing resilience
    • AI resilience
    • Business continuity
    • Business resilience
    • Climate resilience
    • C-suite and the board
    • DORA – the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act
    • Operational resilience
    • Organizational resilience
    • Supply chain resilience
    • Technology
  • Risk
    • Enterprise risk management
    • Operational risk
    • Threatscape
  • Cyber resilience
    • Cyber resilience updates
    • DORA – the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act
    • Product updates
More items
  • All News
  • Research
  • Jobs in Resilience
  • Resilience Resources
  • About Resilience Forward
X (Twitter) LinkedIn
  • Home
  • Managing resilience
    • AI resilience
    • Business continuity
    • Business resilience
    • Climate resilience
    • C-suite and the board
    • DORA – the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act
    • Operational resilience
    • Organizational resilience
    • Supply chain resilience
    • Technology
  • Risk
    • Enterprise risk management
    • Operational risk
    • Threatscape
  • Cyber resilience
    • Cyber resilience updates
    • DORA – the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act
    • Product updates
Login
LinkedIn Bluesky
Resilience Forward
Subscribe Now
  • All News
  • Research
  • Jobs in Resilience
  • Resilience Resources
  • About Resilience Forward
Resilience Forward
You are at:Home»Feature»Why most IT environments aren’t ready for agentic AI – and what CIOs can do about it
Feature

Why most IT environments aren’t ready for agentic AI – and what CIOs can do about it

Agentic AI will advance in 2026, but many IT environments lack the resilience fundamentals needed to support it. CIOs must close critical gaps in observability, root cause analysis, workflows, and data trust, argues Dan Salinas.
December 18, 20255 Mins Read
A hand places a wooden block onto a stack of blocks forming a circular process symbol with gears and arrows, representing the building of resilient, iterative IT systems and operational foundations.

Agentic AI promises systems that can reason, plan, and act autonomously. But adoption hinges on whether an organization’s IT environment can truly support that level of autonomy. In this article, I explain why companies must first close fundamental gaps in observability, root cause analysis, workflows, and data trust before enabling agentic AI. Without that foundation, even the most advanced AI will struggle to produce consistent, reliable outcomes, backed by insights from professionals across the industry.

Today, the moment agentic AI systems go live in production, they all hit the same wall: AI cannot make reliable decisions because it has no understanding of the root causes of why things actually go wrong in the real world.

A device might slow down for unclear reasons, an app may crash only during specific workflows, or a patch could impact certain users without a clear explanation from existing monitoring tools.

This struggle to identify root causes is not about a lack of tools. If anything, IT teams are drowning in tools, from dashboards and alerts to machine-generated insights. Instead, the issue is fragmentation, as these tools are often scattered across systems that were not designed to work together. Endpoint tools, SaaS analytics, network telemetry, and the IT service management platform all tell different stories. By the time the IT team needs to act, critical context has already been lost across the gaps.

In practice, vital information is lost as incidents pass through the workflow. Level 1 agents must guess solutions. Level 2 engineers repeat diagnostic work that has already been done. Level 3 teams receive escalated cases with only symptoms, not explanations. AI built on this structure inherits these limitations and magnifies them.

IBM’s Jennifer Kady identified the core issue: AI agents only work when backed by detailed first-party endpoint context. But fragmentation kills speed. Many organizations implement AI-driven monitoring and automation expecting quick wins, then spend weeks or months integrating data, tuning models, and bridging visibility gaps. The promise of quick benefits fades as teams realise their IT environments cannot deliver the consistent, high-quality evidence that AI demands.

Without that evidence, autonomous capabilities stall at the proof-of-concept stage. Service providers observe this issue on a large scale.

Preparing for agentic AI requires tackling the root of these issues. It starts with understanding that true root-cause clarity relies on continuous, high-quality, context-aware telemetry at the points where problems truly start: the endpoint. Many digital disruptions begin long before a ticket is raised, stemming from minor changes in resource usage, interactions between background processes, or differences in environmental conditions across devices. Snapshots fail to capture these dynamics. Sampling overlooks crucial moments. When telemetry is divided across multiple tools, the story becomes fragmented.

To move toward readiness, organizations require continuous visibility into how devices and applications behave over time, rather than just whether they meet a specific threshold at any given moment. This ongoing observation serves as the foundation for accurate diagnostics. It allows IT to trace issues from symptoms back to their source, rather than relying solely on correlations. It also prevents duplicate workflows and unnecessary escalations by ensuring that each diagnostic step is documented and not repeated.

At a global level, the importance of contextual continuity becomes even clearer.

Preserving context as data moves across the estate is equally important. When information flows through IT service management systems, maintaining the full depth of telemetry data is critical. A rich telemetry signal from an endpoint needs to retain its surrounding context, such as user activity, network conditions, patch history, and changes to configuration, as it moves between teams and tools. Without this contextual information agentic AI cannot function successfully – it is being asked to operate in an information void.

Trust is non-negotiable, as autonomous systems must justify every decision. When an AI recommends a solution or identifies a root cause, engineers need to understand the reasoning and confirm the evidence. AI that cannot explain itself will not gain trust. Organizations preparing for agentic AI must focus on transparency and auditability. Every insight and action must be supported by clear evidence.

The real shift is not about technology, but about understanding, where digital experience is not viewed as something to review only after the fact. It is the system where agentic AI either thrives or falters. Tougher questions need to be asked, such as: can we trace problems back to their source without unnecessary work; does the context for diagnostics carry over during transitions; when AI takes action, can we assess its reasoning; and when actions do not succeed, do we understand the reasons?

Here is what truly matters: agentic AI will not come from larger models or more automation alone. It needs environments that can clarify themselves. Organizations that are building that foundation now, improving root-cause analysis, linking telemetry, removing workflow obstacles, and maintaining context, will not just adopt agentic AI more quickly. They will implement it with confidence, gain the trust of their teams, and turn the idea of autonomy into a solid reality.

The author

Dan Salinas is Chief Operating Officer, Lakeside Software

Africa Asia Asia Pacific Australasia Europe Middle East North America UK
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email WhatsApp
Previous ArticleDeclaring data breaches: why self-reporting is on the increase
Next Article Major C-suite survey finds that resilience is a growing priority

Related Posts

MAS logo

MAS releases Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Risk Management

October 13, 2026
A finger points to a green tick on a box, which is next to a red cross on a box.

Resilience is an evidence problem

October 8, 2026
A series of white cubes crumble into a pile.

Impact analysis: how to assess the true cost of a cyber breach

October 7, 2026
Mission critical downtime concept

Operational resilience is key for organizations protecting mission-critical infrastructure

October 7, 2026
Cyber threats concept

Cyber security’s biggest vulnerability? It’s still people

October 7, 2026
A solar farm with associated wind turbines.

The resilience challenges of the renewable energy transition

October 2, 2026
Advertisement
Resilience First
This week's most read articles
Cyber threats concept

Cyber security’s biggest vulnerability? It’s still people

October 7, 2026
Open lorry car trunk full of moving cardboard boxes and furniture outdoors at city street.

HP Wolf study finds growing concern about attacks on hardware supply chains

August 6, 2024
A finger points to a green tick on a box, which is next to a red cross on a box.

Resilience is an evidence problem

October 8, 2026
Latest resources
MAS logo

MAS releases Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Risk Management

October 13, 2026
Load More

Subscribe to Updates

Get our Resilience Updates newsletter.

Most Popular Feature Articles
Three dark coloured light bulbs on a black background illustrate the concept of The Dark Triad in Crisis Management.

The Dark Triad in crisis management

Five stage crisis management framework

A five stage framework for a crisis management process

Blue interconnected gears and network nodes symbolizing automation and complex machinery.

Agent zero – the 2028 digital pandemic

Latest Reports
Global risks concept

UN report warns that the global risk landscape is being redrawn

Three blank wooden signs against a blue sky.

System restoration is not business continuity: research finds that ‘most cyber recovery plans are built for the wrong outcome’

BCI Continuity and Resilience Report 2026 cover.

BCI report sees growing structural divide between business continuity and resilience

A promo box for an article about resilience governance.
© 2026 Resilience Forward
  • About Resilience Forward
  • Newsletter
  • Newsfeed
  • Advertise
  • Call for Papers
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Cookie Use
  • AI Use Policy

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
Ad Blocker Enabled!
Ad Blocker Enabled!
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please support us by disabling your Ad Blocker.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below.

Lost password?