Tech Talks Daily

Can an enterprise move quickly with AI when the information it needs remains spread across business units, acquired companies, private data centers, multiple clouds, and systems governed by different privacy rules?
In this episode , I speak with Justin Borgman, co-founder and CEO of Starburst, about the data architecture decisions now affecting how quickly businesses can turn AI investment into useful results. The conversation begins with a reality many established companies will recognize. Their technology estate reflects years of applications, acquisitions, regulatory demands, regional choices, and earlier infrastructure programs.
Justin argues that this history becomes a constraint when AI teams need governed access to information quickly. A company created within the last year may design its data environment around AI from the beginning. A multinational enterprise rarely has that freedom. It must work with valuable data held across different locations while respecting security, privacy, and sovereignty requirements.
The traditional response has been to centralize everything. Justin believes the single source of truth is often an impossible target rather than a finished destination. Drawing on his earlier experience at Teradata, he says even customers using a leading database continued to retain information elsewhere. New applications, company acquisitions, regulations, and changing business demands kept creating additional systems.
His preferred approach is to accept that distributed data will remain part of enterprise life and build an architecture that can work across it. A federated data platform can query information where it lives while giving users a common point of access. This can reduce the time spent moving data before an analyst, executive, application, or AI agent can use it.
Justin illustrates the problem through a large American bank with many lines of business and inherited data silos. Senior leaders could ask commercially important questions, but answering them required analytics teams to write queries, assemble dashboards, and combine information from several systems. The process could take weeks.
He describes how connecting those sources and adding a natural-language interface can reduce that delay. Starburst calls its interface ADA. It allows a user to ask questions in conversational language while drawing on governed enterprise information and its business context. The company presents this as a way to shorten the path from question to insight without forcing every data set into one platform first.
Business value remains harder to prove than technical access. Justin recommends connecting data projects with revenue growth, cost reduction, or risk management. He also points to usage evidence within data platforms. If a data product is accessed frequently by leaders or operational teams, and the cost of producing it is known, those signals can help a company evaluate whether the investment is serving a recurring need.
Architecture economics also influence where workloads belong. Justin favors S3-compatible object storage and open formats such as Parquet and Apache Iceberg when companies assemble data in a lake architecture. His argument is that open storage can reduce cost while allowing customers to choose among query engines rather than binding the information to one provider.
That advice does not mean every workload belongs in one format or location. Some data will remain in warehouses, operational databases, regional systems, and on-premises infrastructure. Federation can provide access across those environments, while open formats create additional choice for the information that can be consolidated economically.
The human side of architecture receives equal attention. Justin says ownership, incentives, and internal politics affect data quality because centralized teams may lack the domain knowledge held by the business unit that produced the information. Treating data as a product gives an organization a way to assign responsibility for quality, maintenance, adoption, and feedback.
Named ownership changes the conversation. A successful data product can be recognized and improved because people know who created it. A weak product can receive feedback from its internal users. Distributed control can also allow teams closest to the data to apply their knowledge while the wider company accesses it through common governance.
Governance becomes especially important when AI agents can query enterprise information directly. Justin says access controls must operate beneath the agent rather than relying on the model to decide what a user should see. Row-level and column-level permissions, data masking, and query auditing can determine which records are available and provide a record of what the system retrieved.
Security and economics are also contributing to renewed interest in running some AI workloads on-premises. Justin says businesses may prefer open-weight models on owned hardware when scale improves the economics or when confidential data cannot comfortably leave the corporate firewall. He expects cloud and on-premises capabilities to coexist rather than one replacing the other.
For employees, conversational access could change the role of traditional business intelligence. Justin expects standard KPI dashboards to remain useful, but believes many custom reports and one-off dashboards could be replaced by interactive models that answer questions directly. Analysts and engineers may spend less time responding to requests and additional time improving trusted data products and governance.
The opportunity is faster access to answers. The risk is allowing speed to outrun security, quality, or accountability. A federated architecture can connect distributed systems, but it still requires companies to know who owns the data, which users can access it, how results are audited, and whether the outcome supports revenue, cost, or risk goals.
Should enterprises keep pursuing one central source of truth, or accept distributed data as a permanent condition and build governed AI around it? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts.

How should a business measure AI success when employee adoption tells leaders very little about revenue, savings, risk, or better decisions?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Thomas Robinson, better known as T-Rob, who recently moved from Chief Operating Officer to CEO of Domino Data Lab. After ten years inside the company, he has seen enterprise AI move through several phases, from specialist data science projects to generative AI tools available across the workforce.
T-Rob argues that businesses have become too focused on the technology itself. Generative AI has attracted attention because almost anyone can use it, but an individual productivity tool is very different from an AI system making decisions about mortgages, clinical trials, financial markets, or defense operations.
As the potential value of a decision rises, so does the financial, regulatory, and operational risk. That is why T-Rob believes governance should be built alongside AI development rather than added after a system has been completed.
He compares the process with constructing a building. Engineers do not wait until the work is finished before checking whether it has been designed and assembled correctly. Reviews happen throughout construction. Domino applies the same principle to AI through policy controls, production monitoring, tracing, and continued human oversight.
We also discuss why companies should avoid beginning with a fashionable tool and searching for somewhere to use it. T-Rob recommends starting with the company's primary business measures and working backward. A pharmaceutical business may examine the number of promising therapies entering its pipeline, revenue, and risk. The appropriate AI system can then be designed around those outcomes.
That system may combine large language models with computer vision, statistical models, rules, and company data. T-Rob believes the assumption that every business problem requires the latest frontier model can waste money and produce weaker results.
People remain a major part of the equation. T-Rob has seen companies reduce headcount in anticipation of AI replacing employees before the technology was ready. He argues that domain experts become more valuable because they understand the business history, operating environment, exceptions, and consequences that a model may miss.
The conversation also considers model independence and AI sovereignty. Many enterprises became dependent on a single cloud provider by building their own technology on proprietary services. T-Rob believes businesses should avoid repeating that decision with AI models. Open systems can allow companies to replace models as prices, capabilities, regulations, and operational needs change.
For organizations handling sensitive intellectual property, sovereignty also raises questions about what information leaves the business when employees prompt external models. T-Rob describes the risk of enterprise knowledge being absorbed into future model development, even when information has been anonymized.
Perhaps his strongest argument concerns measurement. He calls consumption and adoption terrible measures of success because they mainly reveal cost. Giving every employee an AI tool does not mean the entire company becomes proportionally more productive. Real return comes from improving the business processes that generate revenue, reduce expense, control risk, or support better decisions.
Are businesses ready to stop measuring AI by logins and start measuring what it changes inside the company?
Listen to the episode and share your thoughts.

What happens when artificial intelligence moves beyond helping marketers create content and begins making decisions on their behalf?
Recorded at Forge 2026 in Las Vegas, I speak with Astha Malik, Chief Business Officer at Braze, about how AI is changing customer engagement and what marketers should retain control over as more operational work is handed to software.
Astha explains why the long-standing promise of genuine one-to-one personalization has been so difficult to deliver and why she believes AI can finally help brands move beyond broad segments toward individual decisioning. We discuss Decisioning Studio Go, where AI can optimize content, timing, and frequency for different customers, while marketers continue to define the objectives and brand boundaries within which the system operates.
But greater automation creates new questions. If AI can generate more campaigns and messages, does marketing simply become noisier? Astha talks openly about the danger of "AI slop" and why using the same models and tools can make brands increasingly forgettable.
We also discuss Agentic Standards and the idea of AI checking the work of other AI systems before campaigns reach customers. Astha argues that organizations need controls around agents in much the same way they already have quality processes around human teams.
Our conversation also moves beyond marketing into the changing enterprise software interface. Operator Connect allows Braze capabilities to be accessed through environments such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot, raising questions about whether employees will increasingly interact with business systems through AI assistants rather than traditional applications.
Finally, we examine how organizations can prove AI is creating measurable value, why some businesses remain trapped in experimentation, and Astha's advice for leaders overwhelmed by the pace of change.
Her recommendation is simple: start experimenting rather than waiting for certainty.
As AI takes on more decision-making and execution, which parts of marketing should remain firmly in human hands? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts.

What happens when attackers can discover and exploit a weakness faster than your organization can patch it?
Recorded at Barracuda TechSummit 2026 in Alpbach, Austria, this conversation features Arve Kjoelen, CISO at Barracuda. Arve is responsible for protecting Barracuda's systems, environment, and code, which makes him the person answering the familiar question of who checks the checker.
Our conversation begins with the collapse in response time. Security teams once had hours or days to investigate suspicious activity. Arve explains why they may now have minutes or seconds, while vulnerabilities can move from disclosure to exploitation within days. Traditional weekly scans and handoffs to patching teams struggle when attackers operate at machine speed.
Arve offers a useful framework for understanding security posture through threats, exposures, assets, and controls. Technology changes constantly, but these categories give leaders a way to assess risk without chasing every new term. He also explains why reducing attack surface can begin with basic questions. Does a system need to be accessible from the internet? Does a web server also need remote management exposed? Does a midsize business benefit from spreading its workloads across every major cloud provider?
We examine the difficult balance surrounding AI adoption. Blocking every new tool can prevent employees from benefiting from useful technology, but allowing unrestricted adoption creates new exposure. Arve argues for deliberate choices and guidance that reduce risk without stopping progress.
The conversation also addresses AI-guided remediation. Barracuda uses AI internally to identify vulnerabilities, but Arve is cautious about fully automated fixes. An AI system may identify a problem and suggest a solution, while a human remains responsible for judging whether the proposed action could damage a production environment. Faster decisions are valuable only when organizations understand the consequences.
Arve also considers how entry-level technology roles may change as AI performs more coding and analysis. His view is that people will need to understand how to work with AI, evaluate its output, and carry an idea from design through secure implementation. The role changes, but the demand for human judgment remains.
We finish with model sovereignty, data trust, and provider dependency. If a security capability relies on one AI model, leaders need to know whether they can move to an alternative if access, performance, pricing, or policy changes. Arve also explains why Barracuda is preparing to support both open and closed models while the market develops.
Where should your organization use AI to accelerate defense, and which security decisions should remain firmly under human control? Listen to the full conversation and share your thoughts with me.

What if every market research project could continue contributing to business decisions after its original question had been answered?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I'm joined by Phil Ahad, Managing Director of Data at Cint, to discuss why he believes companies should move away from disposable research. For decades, the familiar model has been straightforward. A business asks a question, commissions a study, receives the answer and begins again when the next question appears. Phil argues that this process wastes useful information and repeatedly asks people for details that may already be available.
His alternative is an always-on human data engine that allows new studies to build on previous research. Existing responses can be combined with first-party information, third-party sources, transactional records and behavioral signals. Phil says this can help organizations answer new questions faster while reducing the burden placed on respondents.
That burden matters because survey fatigue is often misunderstood. Phil does not believe people have stopped wanting to share opinions. The problem is the experience. Customers are repeatedly asked long batteries of familiar questions, often after everyday transactions, because the structure of data collection has changed remarkably little since paper surveys. If researchers already know much of the background, they can ask fewer questions and focus on the reasons behind a person's decision.
We also examine synthetic data, a term Phil openly dislikes, and the growing use of AI personas or digital twins. At one end of the spectrum, a model might add 200 modeled responses to an 800-person study so researchers can work with a sample of 1,000. Phil says this extends an existing data set rather than creating genuinely new insight. At the other end, a company may create a digital representation of a person from survey responses, purchasing patterns, mobile activity and other signals, then ask that representation new questions.
The opportunity is faster research with less repeated questioning. The risk is believing the model knows a person better than the evidence allows. Phil says the industry must test how much information is required to predict an answer with an acceptable level of confidence. He expects progress to come from repeated comparison and validation rather than a single certification method or technical shortcut.
For business leaders, this makes transparency as important as speed. Before relying on AI-augmented research for a major decision, they need to understand where the original data came from, how modeled responses were created, how performance was tested and where human judgment remains involved. Phil also notes that strong decisions rarely rely on a single input. Companies bring together research, customer records, benchmarks and other sources before deciding what to do.
Cint's ambition, as Phil describes it, is to turn recurring tracking studies into a continuing source of insight. He says roughly one million people pass through the company's ecosystem each day, giving Cint an asset that can be combined with increasingly accessible technology. The larger challenge is making useful sense of growing data volumes at business speed.
Could continuous research help your organization ask people fewer, better questions, or would AI-generated responses introduce uncertainty that outweighs the speed gained? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.