Why do increasingly capable AI models struggle to produce reliable answers inside large organizations?

In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Misti Vogt, SVP of Engagement at Orange Logic. Her career spans military intelligence, data science, and enterprise content technology, and she also teaches in the DAM and AI program at Rutgers University. That combination gives her an unusually practical perspective on how machines interpret information and why business meaning cannot be assumed.

Misti argues that enterprise AI reliability depends on the context surrounding company data. A model may be technically impressive, but it needs to understand relationships, rules, metadata, rights, and intent. Without that layer, it reasons over information originally organized for people rather than machines. The result may sound convincing while remaining disconnected from the way the business defines accuracy, trust, and permitted use.

We discuss three forms of context. Static context reflects accumulated knowledge. Transactional context develops through projects and outside information. Semantic context helps systems interpret meaning and relationships across large collections of information. Misti compares this with human conversation. When an answer misses the point, we add information until the other person understands what we mean.

Digital asset management sits at the center of this discussion because DAM platforms already organize master data, metadata, transactional data, governance, relationships, and usage rights. Misti believes those structures can give AI applications a stronger business foundation. She also argues that content should become self-aware, carrying information about when it was created, how it was produced, its intended audience, where it has appeared, and how it has performed.

Natural language search provides a useful example of why this matters. An employee might ask for creative assets suited to a campaign and welcome a broad set of suggestions. The same employee may then ask for assets licensed for the United Kingdom and United States, with print and web rights for the next 12 months and no use in another campaign during the previous six months. That second request carries business consequences, so the system needs deterministic rules alongside creative choice.

Misti also shares an Orange Logic customer example involving a conglomerate with several brands. The company consolidated seven platforms, including three DAM deployments and local storage. Orange Logic then supported shared governance across the group while preserving autonomy for individual brands. Misti says the early results include time savings, improved efficiency, richer metadata collection, and lower costs, although no quantified figures were provided in the recording.

The wider question is whether businesses are spending enough time on the information surrounding their content before expanding AI use. Could better metadata, rights management, and business logic produce greater value than another round of model upgrades?

Listen to the 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.

What would change if your building could help explain what needs attention, why it matters, and whether the action you took actually worked?

In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I welcome Bert Van Hoof, CEO of Willow, back to the show to discuss operational AI for buildings and infrastructure. Bert spent about 20 years at Microsoft, where his work included launching Azure Digital Twins. He now works with environments such as hospitals, airports, universities, corporate campuses, and data centers, where the condition of a physical space can directly affect the work happening inside it.

We begin with a problem familiar to many facilities teams. Buildings already have sensors, management systems, meters, maintenance records, and dashboards. Having access to information does not necessarily help an operator decide what to do next. Bert describes operational AI as a way to move through a sequence of questions: what is happening, why is it happening, what might happen next, what should we do, and did the action produce the expected result?

Context gives those questions meaning. A temperature reading alone cannot tell us whether a room is operating correctly. We need to know the room's purpose, occupancy, equipment, weather conditions, and recent maintenance history. Bert explains how digital twins and knowledge graphs connect those relationships so that a system can assess the situation rather than interpret a sensor value in isolation.

The discussion then turns to predictive maintenance. A probability of failure may be useful to an analyst, but a technician also needs to understand the consequence, urgency, and next step. Bert describes how condition-based maintenance can support equipment decisions and how earlier detection can reduce the disruption caused by refrigeration problems or water leaks.

These are practical examples of the types of outcomes Willow targets, rather than a claim that every customer will achieve the same result.

There is a human side to the conversation too. Bert describes operators opening numerous browser tabs each morning to assemble a picture of their buildings. Daily briefings and natural-language questions could reduce that search effort, helping teams focus their attention on the issues that deserve it.

We also discuss the relationship between occupancy, ventilation, energy consumption, comfort, and maintenance. Bert describes Willow's Active Control and the use of schedules and occupancy signals to help buildings respond to how spaces are being used. His argument is that these decisions should account for the whole environment. Saving energy in isolation can create different problems if comfort, reliability, or safety is overlooked.

Trust runs through the interview. A poor recommendation in a hospital has different consequences from an awkward paragraph in a document. Bert argues for explainable recommendations, operational evidence, defined limits, and verification after an action. He also sees experienced facilities engineers as part of the solution, with responsibility for setting objectives and judging trade-offs.

For me, the larger question is how building operations connect with the organization's purpose. A hospital needs spaces and equipment ready for patient care. An airport needs to account for passengers, flights, gates, and changing demand. Understanding the environment means understanding what it needs to support.

Where would operational AI make the most useful difference in your buildings, and what evidence would you want before allowing it to take action? Please listen and share your thoughts.