Skip to main content

Why AI ROI is more volatile than classical IT projects

 Traditional IT solutions typically remain stable for years, requiring only occasional patches, scaling, or feature additions. In contrast, AI systems operate in a changing environment, so ROI must be monitored and recalculated regularly.

Here are the three main reasons for the volatility of AI in Azure and other cloud projects:
  • Models are frequently replaced or retired. In the Microsoft and Azure ecosystem, model families evolve rapidly. A model used last year may become unavailable or inferior. Even without application changes, costs, speed, and quality can fluctuate.
  • Quality can change over time. New documents in SharePoint, evolving policies, and new user questions can impact performance. Without regular updates to your RAG pipeline, prompts, and evaluation sets, accuracy and trust decline, reducing system adoption.
  • Costs can increase with usage. Token cost is only one factor; vector search, storage, observability, and human review become crucial as adoption grows. What appears cost-effective in a proof of concept can become expensive at scale.
Imagine you build a Policy Copilot for employees in Microsoft Teams, using Azure OpenAI Service and Azure AI Search over SharePoint that plays the role of RAG. In the first month, it works well. People ask questions like “Can I expense a taxi?” or “What’s the travel policy?” and get correct answers with citations.
However, over time, several changes occur:
  1. Your policy documents change, like new HR rules or finance thresholds. If SharePoint is updated but your indexing or chunking isn’t adjusted, the system starts missing the right sections. Accuracy can drop from 85% to 70%. Users lose trust, and the value drops faster than the costs.
  2. A model version change. Your initial proof-of-concept might use one model, but later you switch to a newer version for better results or faster responses. However, prompts may behave differently, providing longer, more cautious, or less accurate answers. Testing and updating prompts can be costly. As usage increases, costs increase. With 200 daily users, expenses are minimal, but at 5,000 daily users, new issues appear as search queries increase significantly during office hours, stronger guardrails are required, and a process for reviewing sensitive topics must be established.
ROI remains achievable, but only if the system is managed as an ongoing product rather than a one-time project.


To sustain ROI through changes, incorporate these three items:
  • Lifecycle plan: Plan to review model selection quarterly, and ensure model changes are managed in a controlled manner.
  • Evaluation: Keep a set of key test questions, check answer quality every week, and connect it to how much people use the
  • Cost guardrails: Monitor per-conversation costs, apply rate limits and caching, and optimize retrieval before addressing token costs.
The value is real, but the system is constantly evolving. With effective lifecycle management, ROI can be measured and sustained. Without it, ROI becomes unpredictable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...