Building an Enterprise AI Framework for GenAI and Agentic AI Projects

Executive Summary

This report outlines a robust, scalable, and secure enterprise AI framework, integrating Generative AI (GenAI) and Agentic AI capabilities into a unified architecture. It emphasises a layered approach, from foundational infrastructure and data management to advanced model operationalisation (GenAIOps/MLOps) and stringent governance. Key pillars include multi-tenancy, zero-trust security, seamless legacy system integration, and a proactive Responsible AI framework. By adopting this architecture, large corporations can accelerate AI innovation, ensure compliance, optimise costs, and empower their development teams to deliver transformative AI solutions at scale.

1. Introduction: The Strategic Imperative for Enterprise GenAI & Agentic AI

The landscape of artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving, presenting both unprecedented opportunities and complex challenges for large corporations. The ability to harness the power of Generative AI (GenAI) and Agentic AI is no longer a competitive advantage but a strategic imperative for driving innovation, enhancing efficiency, and maintaining market relevance. Building a comprehensive AI framework that can support a multitude of these advanced AI projects requires a deliberate and well-architected approach.

Defining Generative AI and Agentic AI in an Enterprise Context

Generative AI focuses on the creation of new content — ranging from text and images to code — from various inputs. This capability is often powered by large language models (LLMs) and increasingly by multimodal models. In an enterprise setting, GenAI aims to automate tasks such as content creation, summarisation of complex documents, and semantic search, fundamentally transforming how businesses interact with information and generate value.1 For instance, it can accelerate report generation, personalise customer communications, or assist in software development by generating code snippets.

Agentic AI represents a profound shift from traditional reactive AI systems, which typically operate on an input/output model. Instead, agentic systems are designed to actively reason, plan, and execute actions autonomously, with minimal direct human supervision.2 These systems are often composed of multiple conversable agents that can interact with each other, orchestrate various tools, and adapt to changing environmental conditions. This paradigm fundamentally transforms intelligent automation within the enterprise, enabling more dynamic and self-optimising business processes.2 Examples include autonomous customer service agents, intelligent workflow orchestrators, or systems that can independently resolve complex IT issues.

The Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Large Corporations

Large corporations face distinct architectural and operational challenges when deploying AI at scale, which differ significantly from those encountered in consumer-facing applications. A primary concern is the need for robust multi-tenancy, ensuring complete isolation and data segregation between different business units or client workloads while simultaneously maintaining cost efficiency and performance.4 Unlike consumer applications where costs are distributed across millions of users, enterprise deployments often involve significant compute resources serving smaller, more specialised user bases, making cost optimisation paramount.4

Furthermore, enterprise AI solutions necessitate rigorous governance layers that are often absent in consumer applications. Every AI-driven decision, recommendation, or piece of generated content must be traceable, auditable, and explainable. This demands comprehensive logging, detailed decision tree recording, and integrated compliance frameworks within the core architecture.2 Security also takes on additional dimensions, requiring the application of zero-trust principles not just to network access but also to model access, training data handling, and inference result distribution.4

A significant hurdle for large corporations is the seamless integration of new AI capabilities with existing business systems, many of which may be decades old. This requires flexible API-first integration approaches and sophisticated middleware solutions to bridge compatibility gaps.4 Despite these complexities, the emergence of agentic AI offers unparalleled opportunities for enhanced automation, real-time decision-making, and dynamic intelligence across complex business processes. However, realizing these benefits is contingent upon establishing robust operational controls, ensuring comprehensive auditability, and adhering to strict ethical compliance from the outset.2

2. Foundational Architecture for Enterprise AI

A robust enterprise AI framework is built upon a layered architecture, designed for scalability, security, and seamless integration. This foundation ensures that AI capabilities can be developed, deployed, and managed effectively across diverse business units and use cases.

Core Architectural Layers

Infrastructure Layer

This layer serves as the bedrock for any scalable generative AI system. Modern enterprise GenAI architectures demand distributed computing patterns capable of handling the massive parallel processing requirements of large language models and generation tasks.4 Cloud platforms, such as Azure, AWS, and Google Cloud Platform, are essential for providing the necessary scalable object storage and compute resources, including specialised hardware like GPUs and TPUs.7 The ability to dynamically provision and scale these resources is critical for managing fluctuating AI workloads and optimising costs.

Data Layer

The data layer encompasses the entire lifecycle of data, from its initial ingestion and secure storage to its rigorous processing, stringent governance, and ultimate consumption by AI models and applications. It must be designed to accommodate a wide array of data types — structured, unstructured, and semi-structured — while simultaneously ensuring high data quality, comprehensive lineage tracking, and granular access control.7 This layer is pivotal as the effectiveness of AI models is directly tied to the quality and accessibility of the data they consume.

Model Layer

This layer is responsible for the discovery, provisioning, fine-tuning, and deployment of both foundational models (such as LLMs, small language models (SLMs), and multimodal models) and custom-trained models. It also includes the provision of model serving endpoints, which are crucial for enabling real-time inference and ensuring low-latency access to AI capabilities across the enterprise.1 This layer must support various model types and deployment patterns to cater to the diverse needs of GenAI and Agentic AI projects.

Application Integration Layer

The application integration layer defines how generative AI capabilities are exposed to end-users and seamlessly integrated with existing business systems. An API-first integration approach provides the most flexible foundation, allowing AI functionalities to be exposed through standard REST APIs.4 This approach is often complemented by sophisticated middleware solutions that facilitate compatibility with legacy systems through adapter patterns. The architecture must support both synchronous integration for real-time requirements (e.g., conversational AI) and asynchronous patterns for batch processing and workflow automation (e.g., document summarisation pipelines).4

Key Architectural Principles

The success of an enterprise AI framework hinges on adherence to several core architectural principles:

• Scalability: Enterprise AI systems must inherently support multi-tenancy at scale. This means guaranteeing complete isolation between different business units or client workloads while simultaneously maintaining cost efficiency and performance. Horizontal scaling strategies, often built upon a microservices architecture, provide the foundation for independent scaling of diverse AI capabilities, allowing components like model inference services or data preprocessing services to scale independently based on demand.4
• Security (Zero-Trust): A zero-trust approach is fundamental, applying not just to network access but also to model access, training data handling, and inference result distribution. This necessitates defense-in-depth strategies, robust input validation, anomaly detection, and mechanisms to prevent adversarial attacks on models.4
• Governance: Enterprise AI solutions demand robust governance layers that are often unnecessary in consumer applications. Every decision, recommendation, or generated content must be traceable, auditable, and explainable. This requires comprehensive logging, decision tree recording, and compliance frameworks integrated into the core architecture from the outset.2
• Cost Optimisation: At enterprise scale, cost optimisation is paramount. This involves the efficient utilisation of compute resources, careful management of token usage for LLMs, and balancing performance with economic viability.4
• Multi-tenancy: Essential for large corporations to efficiently serve diverse business units or external clients. It ensures secure and isolated environments while maximizing resource sharing and operational efficiency.4
• Explainability & Auditability: For enterprise deployment success, the ability to explain an AI system’s reasoning consistently outweighs raw performance. AI decision-making processes must be structured to be auditable, incorporating integrated bias detection, hallucination monitoring, and confidence scoring.2

The interconnectedness of these core principles is crucial for enterprise adoption. The prioritisation of explainability and auditability, for instance, over raw performance, represents a fundamental shift in enterprise AI evaluation criteria. For a large corporation, the potential risks — such as severe reputational damage, significant regulatory fines, or a profound erosion of internal and external trust — stemming from an opaque, unexplainable AI system far outweigh any marginal gains in raw performance.

This implies that architectural decisions must inherently prioritise the integration of transparency mechanisms, such as comprehensive logging of decision trees, confidence scoring, and clear decision rationales, as core, built-in features, rather than considering them as optional add-ons. Consequently, the most effective AI model for enterprise use is not solely the most accurate, but fundamentally the most trustworthy, controllable, and accountable within its operational context.

This principle will profoundly influence various aspects of the AI framework, including model selection processes, the design of evaluation frameworks, and the architecture of monitoring systems. Furthermore, it has significant implications for talent acquisition and development, necessitating that data scientists and ML engineers possess not only technical prowess but also a deep understanding of and ability to implement explainable AI techniques and ethical considerations.

The following summarises these key architectural principles:

Scalability

• Ability to handle significant growth in projects, data, and users while maintaining performance.
• Multi-tenancy, Horizontal Scaling, Microservices Architecture, Service Decomposition.

Security (Zero-Trust)

• Comprehensive protection of data, models, and applications, extending beyond network access.
• Zero-Trust Principles, Defense-in-Depth, Input Validation, Anomaly Detection, Adversarial Attack Prevention.

Governance

• Ensuring traceability, auditability, explainability, and ethical compliance for all AI outputs.
• Comprehensive Logging, Decision Tree Recording, Compliance Frameworks, Auditable Processes.

Cost Optimisation

• Efficient utilisation of compute and storage resources to balance performance with economic viability.
• Efficient Compute Resource Allocation, Token Usage Management, Intelligent Load Balancing.

Multi-tenancy

• Supporting isolated environments for different business units or clients while sharing resources efficiently.
• Complete Isolation, Cost Efficiency, Performance Maintenance.

Explainability & Auditability

• Prioritizing clear demonstration of AI reasoning processes over raw performance for enterprise adoption.
• Bias Detection, Hallucination Monitoring, Confidence Scoring, Automated Quality Assessment, Decision Rationale Capture.

3. Deep Dive into Agentic AI Architecture

Agentic AI represents a significant advancement in artificial intelligence, providing autonomous decision-making and problem-solving capabilities with minimal human intervention.3 For large corporations, adopting Agentic AI requires a systematic, phased approach to build competency and stakeholder trust incrementally.

The Three-Tier Framework for Enterprise Agentic AI

This framework outlines a systematic maturity progression for organisations to build competency and stakeholder trust incrementally before advancing to more sophisticated implementations.2

Tier 1: Establishing Controlled Intelligence (Foundation Tier)

This foundational tier creates the essential infrastructure for enterprise agentic AI deployment. Its primary objective is to deliver intelligent automation while maintaining strict operational controls, establishing the governance framework required for production systems where auditability, security, and ethical compliance are non-negotiable.2

Key patterns within this tier include:

• Tool Orchestration with Enterprise Security: This forms the cornerstone, creating secure gateways between AI systems and enterprise applications and infrastructure, rather than granting broad system access. Implementation involves role-based permissions, adversarial input detection, supply chain validation, and behavioral monitoring. API gateways with authentication, threat detection, and circuit breakers control AI models and tool interactions, with critical monitoring of API costs, token usage, and security events from the outset.2
• Reasoning Transparency with Continuous Evaluation: This addresses accountability requirements by structuring AI decision-making into auditable processes with integrated bias detection, hallucination monitoring, and confidence scoring. Automated quality assessment tracks reasoning consistency and captures decision rationale, alternative approaches, and demographic impact indicators, which are essential for regulatory compliance and model risk management.2
• Data Lifecycle Governance with Ethical Safeguards: This completes the foundational framework by implementing systematic information protection. This pattern manages data through classification schemes, encryption protocols, purpose limitation, and automated consent management. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Protected Health Information (PHI) receive differential privacy protection, and highly sensitive data undergoes pseudonymisation, with automated retention enforcement critical for scalability.2

Tier 2: Implementing Structured Autonomy (Workflow Tier)

Once the Foundation Tier has established trust and demonstrated value, organisations can advance to this tier, where meaningful business transformation begins. Here, orchestration patterns manage multiple AI interactions across flexible execution paths, while preserving the determinism and oversight needed for complex business operations.2

The key approach in this tier is Constrained Autonomy Zones with Change Management. This bridges foundational controls with business process automation. It defines secure operational boundaries where AI systems can operate independently, leveraging the cost controls, performance monitoring, and governance frameworks from the Foundation Tier. Workflows incorporate mandatory checkpoints for validation, compliance verification, and human oversight, with automated escalation procedures. AI systems optimise approaches, retry failed operations, and adapt to changing conditions within predefined constraints. Gradual autonomy expansion based on measured outcomes and user confidence is key.2

Tier 3: Enabling Dynamic Intelligence (Autonomous Tier)

This tier represents advanced implementations where agentic AI systems determine their own execution strategies based on high-level objectives. This level of autonomy is only feasible through the sophisticated monitoring, safety constraints, and ethical boundaries established in previous tiers.2

Key patterns at this advanced level include:

• Goal-Directed Planning with Ethical Boundaries: Systems receive strategic objectives and operate within ethical constraints, safety boundaries, cost budgets, and performance targets established in lower tiers. Planning incorporates uncertainty quantification, alternative strategy development, and stakeholder impact assessment, with continuous monitoring ensuring alignment with organisational values and regulatory requirements.2
• Adaptive Learning with Bias Prevention: This extends continuous evaluation frameworks into self-improvement capabilities. Systems refine approaches based on environmental feedback, such as tool execution results, user satisfaction, and fairness indicators. Learning mechanisms incorporate active bias correction to enhance performance without amplifying inequalities.2
• Multi-Agent Collaboration with Conflict Resolution: This coordinates specialised agents through structured communication protocols, enhanced with sophisticated conflict resolution, consensus mechanisms, and ethical arbitration. Agents manage planning, execution, testing, and analysis while maintaining shared context and synchronised ethical standards.2

Essential Orchestration Patterns (within Workflow Tier)

Within the Workflow Tier, five essential orchestration patterns emerge to deliver intelligent automation:

• Prompt Chaining: This extends reasoning transparency from the Foundation Tier across multi-step task sequences. Complex work is decomposed into predictable steps with validation gates, accuracy verification, and bias assessments between components. Continuous monitoring tracks output quality and reasoning consistency across the complete execution chain, ensuring reliability and maintaining auditability.2
• Routing: This leverages established security and governance frameworks to classify inputs using confidence thresholds and fairness criteria. Tasks are routed to specialised agents while monitoring systems track demographic disparities and ensure optimal cost-capability matching with equitable treatment across user populations.2
• Parallelisation: This utilises robust monitoring infrastructure to process independent subtasks simultaneously with sophisticated result aggregation, conflict resolution, and consensus validation. Bias detection prevents systematic discrimination while load balancing ensures efficient resource utilisation.2
• Evaluator-Optimiser: This extends continuous evaluation capabilities into iterative refinement processes. Self-correction loops operate with convergence detection, cost controls, and quality improvement tracking while preventing infinite iterations and ensuring productive outcomes that justify computational investment.2
• Orchestrator-Workers: This employs the comprehensive monitoring framework for dynamic planning with load balancing, failure handling, and adaptive replanning based on intermediate results. This pattern provides efficient resource utilisation while maintaining visibility into distributed decision-making processes.2

The phased approach to Agentic AI adoption is a critical risk mitigation strategy for large corporations. Instead of a high-risk “big bang” deployment of fully autonomous agents, organisations can build trust, refine capabilities, and establish operational resilience step-by-step.

The concepts of “constrained autonomy zones” and “mandatory checkpoints” are not merely guidelines; they are crucial programmatic mechanisms that must be designed into the architecture to enforce boundaries and provide granular control over agent capabilities and their interactions, especially with sensitive legacy systems.

The success and safety of deploying Agentic AI at higher tiers are entirely contingent upon the robustness and maturity of the governance, monitoring, and control mechanisms established in the foundational tiers. This implies that the architecture must support dynamic configuration of these constraints and real-time visibility into agent decision-making. This mandates a strong architectural focus on granular access control, real-time monitoring of agent behaviour, and clear human-in-the-loop protocols, particularly for agents operating within or influencing sensitive business processes. It also suggests that initial Agentic AI projects should be strategically selected to align with the “Controlled Intelligence” tier, demonstrating tangible value and building internal confidence and operational maturity before venturing into more complex or highly autonomous applications. This also requires a shift in organisational culture towards embracing controlled experimentation and continuous learning in AI deployment.

4. Data Management for AI at Scale

Effective data management is the cornerstone of any successful enterprise AI initiative. The sheer volume, velocity, and variety of data required for GenAI and Agentic AI necessitate a robust and flexible data infrastructure.

Data Lake/Lakehouse Architecture

Data lakes offer a scalable and flexible solution for storing and analysing all types of data — structured, semi-structured, and unstructured — in its original format, effectively addressing challenges posed by data swamps and silos.7 Data lakehouse solutions further enhance this by combining the flexibility of data lakes with the transactional capabilities and schema enforcement of data warehouses, providing a unified platform for analytics and AI.7

The components of a modern data lake architecture include:

• Data Ingestion: This is the critical entry point, managing diverse data streams through both batch and real-time processing channels. It involves automated pipelines to extract data from various sources, such as SaaS applications, e-commerce platforms, and internal ERP/CRM systems. This layer performs data validation, quality checks, and routes data to appropriate storage zones. Real-time data enablement, often via tools like Apache Kafka, is crucial for the continuous data streams required by Agentic AI systems.7
• Cloud Storage: Forms the foundational backbone. Platforms like AWS S3, Google Cloud Storage, or Azure Data Lake Storage provide scalable object storage architectures that automatically handle replication, backups, and security. They excel at managing diverse data types with tiered storage options and offer built-in encryption and seamless analytics integration.7
• Data Processing: Utilises distributed processing engines such as Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Snowflake and Databricks to transform raw data into actionable insights. These engines efficiently handle both batch and real-time processing needs, cleaning, transforming, and analysing massive datasets directly within the lake, eliminating costly data movement.7
• Data Governance: Involves implementing strict controls to protect sensitive information, including granular Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), advanced encryption for data at rest and in motion, and comprehensive audit trails. Data quality is maintained through automated checks, and data catalogs are used to track data lineage and classify sensitive data, ensuring regulatory compliance.7
• Data Consumption: Data lakes serve as centralised repositories from which various downstream applications and services can access and consume data, including Business Intelligence (BI) tools, advanced analytics platforms, and cloud-based AI/ML services.7

Data lakes are fundamental for AI and machine learning initiatives, providing a scalable foundation for storing vast amounts of structured and unstructured data. They enable consolidating diverse training datasets, continuous model refinement through real-time data, supporting large-scale ML experiments, and providing flexible computational resources for cross-domain pattern recognition.7

The Role of Feature Stores

A feature store is a dedicated data platform that supports the development and operation of machine learning systems by managing the storage and efficient querying of feature data. It acts as a central hub for standardising, discovering, and reusing ML features across different teams and models, significantly reducing duplicate efforts, compute costs, and time-to-market.9

The architecture and components of a feature store typically include:

• Offline Store: Stores historical feature data, usually implemented as a columnar data store (e.g., data warehouse or lakehouse) optimised for large-scale batch queries and cost-efficiency.9
• Online Store: Stores the most recent feature data, designed for low-latency retrieval by online models for real-time inference. It is typically a row-oriented database or a key-value store.9
• Vector Database: If indexed embeddings are supported, they are stored in a vector database, providing a query API for similarity search using approximate nearest neighbour (ANN) algorithms. This is critical for real-time ML systems like personalised recommendation engines and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).9
• Feature Engineering/Transformations: Defines the automated path from raw ingested data to the desired shape and form for ML training or inference, ensuring consistency and reusability.10
• Feature Registry: A centralised repository for all features, storing comprehensive metadata (origin, transformations, format, model usage) and managing access control. It serves as the “glue” binding together all other components of the feature lineage.10
• Feature Serving: Enables data scientists and ML engineers to retrieve historical features for training or the latest feature vectors for real-time inference via a standardised API or SDK.10
• Feature Monitoring: Crucial for ensuring ongoing quality in production ML systems, helping detect changes in data quality, identify concept drift, assess training and serving data skew, and ensure real-time serving meets latency thresholds.10

For MLOps, the feature store acts as the “glue” connecting feature pipelines, training pipelines, and inference pipelines, enabling a modular architecture (FTI pipelines). It facilitates collaboration, simplifies the management of incremental datasets, supports backfilling historical features, provides history and context for stateless online models, and ensures consistency between training and serving environments, thereby preventing skew.9

Data Versioning and Data Catalogs

Data Versioning: This is essential for achieving reproducibility in machine learning, as model outputs can vary even with the same code if the underlying data or environment changes. Tools like DVC (Data Version Control), LakeFS, or Delta Lake are used to version datasets, enabling traceability and the ability to revert to previous states.19 DVC specifically manages and versions large data and model files alongside code, organising ML modeling into reproducible workflows and tracking experiments in Git.19

Data Catalogs: These build clarity, consistency, and trust across the enterprise by providing a centralised, searchable inventory of data assets. They help teams align on language, reduce friction in data access, and strengthen confidence in AI outputs.11 Key features include search and discovery capabilities, a business glossary for defining shared terms, data lineage visualisation (showing how data flows and transforms over time), and data quality insights.11

These benefits lead to faster use case development, fewer definition disputes, improved trust in data, stronger training datasets, and overall enterprise enablement. They are critical for robust data governance, quality assurance, and compliance.11 Sustaining the catalog requires ongoing effort and active business ownership, not solely resting with IT. Executive sponsorship, clear roles for data stewards, accessible tools, visible demonstration of value, and recognition for contributions are key to long-term success.11

Solutions like Databricks Unity Catalog manage the availability, usability, integrity, and security of both data and AI assets. It supports centralised and distributed governance models, manages metadata for all assets in one place (a single source of truth), tracks runtime data and model lineage (down to the column level), supports consistent metadata descriptions (comments, tags), enables easy data discovery, and centralises access control with robust audit logging.12

The overall success and reliability of enterprise GenAI and Agentic AI initiatives are overwhelmingly dependent on a robust, well-governed, and accessible data infrastructure, rather than solely on the sophistication of the AI models themselves. The unique demands of GenAI, especially for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and fine-tuning, which require vast amounts of domain-specific context, and Agentic AI, which needs continuous, contextual, and historical data for reasoning, memory, and tool interaction, elevate data management from a mere supporting function to a primary, strategic architectural concern. The “data-centric AI” paradigm is not just an academic concept; it is an operational imperative for large corporations.

Without high-quality, versioned, discoverable, and consistently available features, even the most sophisticated LLMs or autonomous agents will inevitably underperform, hallucinate, or produce unreliable and untrustworthy outputs. The integration of data lakes (for raw data storage and processing), feature stores (for standardised, reusable, and consistent features), and data catalogs (for discoverability, governance, and trust) forms a synergistic ecosystem where each component addresses a critical aspect of data readiness for AI.

This implies that significant and sustained investment in data engineering capabilities, comprehensive data governance frameworks, and advanced data quality tools must either precede or run in parallel with AI model development efforts. This necessitates that large corporations establish a dedicated, enterprise-wide “data for AI” strategy, potentially leading to the formation of specialised data platform teams. It also underscores the critical importance of fostering data literacy and enhancing collaboration across traditionally siloed functions, including data engineers, data scientists, and ML engineers.

Ultimately, the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of AI output are directly proportional to the quality, accessibility, and governance of its underlying data.

5. Operationalising Enterprise AI: GenAIOps & MLOps

Operationalizing AI at scale within a large corporation requires a sophisticated set of practices and tools, extending traditional Machine Learning Operations (MLOps) to encompass the unique demands of generative and agentic AI. This evolution is often referred to as Generative AI Operations (GenAIOps) or LLMOps.

Extending MLOps for Generative AI Workloads (GenAIOps/LLMOps)

GenAIOps extends existing MLOps investments to incorporate generative AI technology and patterns into production workloads.16 It is not a replacement for MLOps but an expansion that addresses the distinct characteristics of these new AI paradigms.

Key Differences from Traditional ML Workloads

• Focus on Generative Models: Unlike traditional MLOps, which primarily focuses on training new models for specific tasks, GenAIOps involves consuming and sometimes fine-tuning generative models (including multimodal ones) that can address a broader range of use cases.16
• Focus on Extending the Models: For generative AI solutions, a crucial aspect is the prompt provided to the generative model. The system that orchestrates the logic, calls to various backends or agents, generates the prompt, and interacts with the generative model is an integral part of the generative AI system that must be governed with GenAIOps.16

Generative AI Technical Patterns and MLOps Extensions

• Pretraining and Fine-tuning: While many generative AI solutions utilise existing foundation models without fine-tuning, some use cases benefit from fine-tuning a foundation model or training a new small language model (SLM). The processes for training new SLMs or fine-tuning generative foundation models are logically similar to traditional ML model training and should leverage existing MLOps investments.1 Customisation through fine-tuning can offer higher quality results, the ability to train on more examples than context limits allow, token savings due to shorter prompts, and lower-latency requests.1
• Prompt Engineering: This encompasses all processes involved in designing an effective prompt for a generative model. Typically, an orchestrator manages a workflow that generates the prompt, calling into multiple data stores directly or indirectly through agents to gather information (including grounding data). This pattern can address various use cases, including classification, translation, summarisation, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).16
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): This is an architectural pattern that uses prompt engineering to incorporate domain-specific data as grounding data for a language model. When an LLM needs to reason over data specific to a company or domain, RAG solutions query this data (often from vector stores like Azure AI Search) and provide the most relevant results to the LLM as part of the prompt, usually via an orchestration layer.1 RAG is not limited to vector search storage and can utilise any data store technology.1

Inner Loop (DataOps, Experimentation, Evaluation)

• DataOps: Both MLOps and GenAIOps apply DataOps fundamentals to create extensible and reproducible workflows for data cleaning, transformation, and formatting. For RAG, this includes processing large documents into semantically relevant chunks for vector stores and maintaining search indexes to ensure accuracy and compliance.16
• Experimentation: This is an iterative process of creating, evaluating, and refining solutions. For RAG and Prompt Engineering, this requires extending MLOps investments to experiment with dimensions like instructions, personas, examples, prompt chaining, chunking strategies, embedding model selection, and search index configurations.16
• Evaluation: Critical in the iterative experimentation process. Tools like Prompt Flow provide a framework for defining custom logic, criteria, and metrics to assess prompt variants and LLMs. Different metrics are used based on the use case (e.g., Groundedness/Relevancy for RAG).16

Outer Loop (Deployment, Inferencing and Monitoring, Feedback Loop)

• Deployment: Orchestrators and data stores (like vector indexes) require proper operational procedures, including rigorous testing (unit, integration, A/B, end-to-end) and roll-out strategies (canary deployments, blue-green deployments).16 Gateways (e.g., Azure API Management) are often used in front of LLMs for load balancing, authentication, monitoring, and progressive rollouts of new models.3
• Inferencing and Monitoring: This observes ongoing system operations, including data pipelines for grounding data and multi-agent system performance. For non-predictive tasks like RAG, metrics like groundedness, completeness, usage, and relevancy are used. Human feedback from end-users is valuable. Content safety monitoring is a key area.16 Resource management focuses on service throughput, quota, throttling, and monitoring token usage for cost management and performance efficiency.16

MLOps Best Practices for Enterprise AI

To build a resilient and scalable MLOps framework, enterprises must focus on several critical components:

• Versioning Everything: Code, Data, Models: Machine learning is not deterministic; two runs can produce different outputs if the data or environment changes. Therefore, versioning is foundational. Best practices include using Git for source control of pipelines and training code, versioning datasets with tools like DVC, LakeFS, or Delta Lake, and tracking and registering models using MLflow, SageMaker Model Registry, or Vertex AI. Maintaining a Feature Store ensures features are consistent across training and inference. It is advisable to tag every model in production with the exact dataset, code commit, and hyperparameters used during training.20
• Automate the Lifecycle with CI/CD for ML: Manual ML deployment invites drift, duplication, and downtime. Automation eliminates this risk. This involves setting up Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines to validate code, run unit tests, and check data quality, and using Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines to push models to staging and production environments. Automating data ingestion and transformation using tools like Airflow, Prefect, or Dagster, and standardizing pipelines with Kubeflow Pipelines, TFX, or SageMaker Pipelines are crucial. Building modular pipelines allows each component (data preparation, training, evaluation, deployment) to be improved independently.20
• Monitor Everything Post-Deployment: Most models do not fail on day one; they degrade quietly when data changes, customer behavior shifts, or features lose relevance. Monitoring helps catch problems early. Best practices include tracking model performance over time (accuracy, precision), setting up data drift detection (Evidently AI, WhyLabs), monitoring for concept drift, and establishing alerting pipelines (Prometheus + Grafana) to flag metric degradation. Using shadow deployment or A/B testing to compare new models without affecting users is also recommended.20
• Build for Governance, Security & Compliance: Especially in regulated sectors, MLOps is incomplete without auditability and control. This involves tracking lineage (who trained the model, on what data, with what configuration), using Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for each MLOps tool, encrypting all data in transit and at rest, and maintaining Model Cards and Data Datasheets to capture context and intent. Models should be treated as regulated digital assets, with every step documented.20
• Make Every Experiment Reproducible: Without reproducibility, ML becomes guesswork; with it, iteration becomes scientific. This requires logging every training run (Weights & Biases, MLflow, Neptune.ai), capturing environment information (Python version, GPU driver, library versions), and containerizing training pipelines with Docker or Conda Environments. Reproducibility encompasses reproducible data, reproducible code, and a reproducible environment.20
• Define Infrastructure as Code: Managing GPUs, batch jobs, cloud storage, and deployment servers manually is complex. Best practices include using Terraform, Pulumi, or AWS CloudFormation to define ML infrastructure, orchestrating ML workloads using Kubernetes, and separating compute, storage, orchestration, and monitoring layers for modularity. Infrastructure as Code helps rebuild the entire ML stack rapidly, eliminating “it worked on that cluster” issues.20

Automated Model Retraining Strategies

Automated machine learning (ML) model retraining, also known as continuous training, is an MLOps capability designed to automatically and continuously retrain an ML model. This process can be initiated either on a predefined schedule or by a trigger driven by a specific event.24

The primary reason to initiate an automated retraining process is performance degradation of the model. This can be triggered when the model’s performance falls below a predefined baseline threshold, which is determined by running offline experiments to estimate the time it takes for data drift and concept drift to negatively impact model performance. Alternatively, retraining can be set to occur on a regular schedule, for example, weekly or monthly, particularly useful when underlying data changes within measurable timeframes. Changes in data, updates to the model, or modifications to the code can also initiate retraining as part of the continuous integration (CI) pipeline.24

Automated model retraining is crucial for ensuring that an ML model consistently provides the most accurate and up-to-date predictions, while simultaneously minimizing manual intervention and optimising for monitoring and reliability. It leads to consistent correct output, a quicker pathway to production for similar machine learning pipelines, and increased trustworthiness of models. A correctly defined model retraining process can lead to increased revenue and customer satisfaction, freeing up data scientists and machine learning engineers to focus on improving existing use cases and developing new ones.24

The evolution of GenAIOps is not a replacement for traditional MLOps but a necessary extension driven by the unique characteristics of generative models and agentic systems. Traditional MLOps focuses on discrete model training and deployment for specific tasks, whereas GenAIOps must contend with the dynamic nature of prompts, the need for external grounding data (as in RAG), and the autonomous, multi-step execution of agents.

This means that the “key asset” shifts from just the trained model to the entire orchestration system that generates prompts and interacts with models and agents.16 Consequently, the operationalisation framework must expand to govern not only model artifacts but also prompt versions, RAG pipeline configurations (chunking strategies, embedding models, search indexes), and the logic of orchestrators and agents.

This requires new tooling and skill sets beyond those typically found in traditional MLOps, such as specialised prompt engineering environments (e.g., Prompt Flow), advanced evaluation metrics for generative outputs (e.g., groundedness, relevancy), and sophisticated monitoring for multi-agent system performance and token usage. The implication is that large corporations must invest in developing expertise in these new areas and adapt their MLOps platforms to support the lifecycle management of these novel AI components, ensuring that the entire generative AI system, from prompt to output, is subject to the same rigor of versioning, testing, deployment, and monitoring as traditional ML models.

6. Compute Infrastructure for AI Workloads

The compute infrastructure forms a critical component of the enterprise AI framework, directly impacting performance, cost, and scalability. The selection and sizing of hardware, particularly GPUs and TPUs, must align with the specific demands of different AI lifecycle stages and project types.

GPU vs. TPU Selection

Both GPUs (Graphics Processing Units) and TPUs (Tensor Processing Units) are vital for accelerating AI workloads. GPUs excel at parallel computing, capable of breaking complex problems into millions of separate tasks and processing them simultaneously. They are versatile and widely used across various AI tasks, including deep learning and machine learning.

TPUs, invented by Google, are application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed specifically to handle the computational demands of machine learning and accelerate AI calculations and algorithms.26 They are optimised for neural network loads, often working quicker than GPUs while using fewer resources for specific tasks. TPUs are particularly well-suited for accelerating machine learning applications, scaling applications quickly, and cost-effectively managing machine learning workloads, especially when starting with well-optimised, open-source reference models. The choice between GPUs and TPUs often depends on the specific workload, budget, and the need for specialised acceleration versus general-purpose parallel processing.26

GPU Sizing and Optimisation

GPU sizing is a nuanced process, heavily influenced by the AI lifecycle stage and the nature of the workload. Key considerations include:

• VRAM (Video RAM): This is the dedicated memory on the GPU used to store model weights, attention caches, and temporary outputs. Larger and more complex models, or longer input sequences, require more VRAM, especially during training or when running large batches in production.17
• Batch Size: The number of inputs processed simultaneously. Higher batch sizes increase throughput but require more VRAM, impacting both training and inference efficiency.17
• Sequence Length: The maximum number of tokens (words/characters) per input. Longer sequences consume more VRAM, particularly for transformer-based models.17
• Precision (Quantization): Lower-precision formats (e.g., INT4 vs. FP32) reduce VRAM usage and improve throughput and energy efficiency, often with minimal impact on accuracy. KV Cache Quantization, specific to transformer models, significantly reduces memory footprint during long prompts or multi-turn interactions, improving concurrency and responsiveness in deployment scenarios.17

Different AI lifecycle stages have varying hardware needs:

• Inference: For applying a model in production, the focus is on speed, low latency, and cost-efficiency. Lower VRAM GPUs can often be used, especially with quantization and KV cache compression.17
• Customisation (e.g., RAG): Introducing domain-specific knowledge or context to a base model without adjusting weights (e.g., RAG) focuses on contextual accuracy and responsiveness. Hardware needs are similar to inference, often enabling edge deployment.17
• Fine-tuning: Modifying a pre-trained model’s weights based on proprietary data requires more VRAM and compute than inference but less than full training. The focus is on targeted performance improvements.17
• Training (from scratch): Creating a model from zero using large datasets demands significant GPU infrastructure, often multi-GPU setups, prioritizing scale, performance, and deep control.17

For agentic workflows, which break down problems into components (e.g., one model for data extraction, another for sentiment analysis, a third for drafting responses), the importance of right-sizing hardware is reinforced. Not every model needs a high-end, training-grade GPU; many tasks can be efficiently handled using smaller, fine-tuned or quantised models with modest compute needs. This approach often results in a more efficient, scalable system that benefits from parallelism and can be deployed flexibly across environments.17

The strategic allocation of compute resources represents a critical factor in managing the economic viability and operational efficiency of enterprise AI. The traditional approach of provisioning monolithic, high-end compute for all AI tasks is no longer sustainable or optimal, particularly with the rise of diverse GenAI and Agentic AI workloads. The ability to “right-size” compute — matching the specific hardware capabilities (e.g., VRAM, processing power) to the distinct needs of each AI lifecycle stage (training, fine-tuning, inference) and the modular components of agentic workflows — becomes a significant differentiator for large corporations. This means that instead of a single, large GPU cluster, the architecture should support a heterogeneous compute environment where smaller, more cost-effective GPUs (or even TPUs for specific neural network loads) are utilised for inference and certain fine-tuning tasks, while larger, more powerful units are reserved for foundational model training or extensive fine-tuning.

This granular approach to compute allocation directly impacts cost optimisation by reducing unnecessary resource consumption and improves overall system efficiency by enabling parallelism across various, smaller models within an agentic system. The implication is that infrastructure planning for enterprise AI must move beyond simple capacity planning to embrace a nuanced understanding of workload characteristics, leveraging techniques like quantisation and dynamic resource scaling to maximise performance per dollar spent.

7. Integration with Existing Enterprise Systems

Integrating AI capabilities into a large corporation’s existing technology landscape is a complex but mission-critical undertaking. Legacy systems, while foundational to current operations, often present significant challenges to modern AI adoption.

Challenges of Legacy System Integration

Legacy architectures were typically designed for structured transactions and often lack the compute capacity, modularity, and scalability that modern AI demands. Key challenges include:

• Incompatibility Between AI and Legacy Systems: Technical gaps arise from rigid architectures, outdated APIs, and data formats that limit interoperability. Monolithic applications struggle to support distributed AI workloads.6
• Data Silos and Incompatibility: Legacy systems frequently store data in isolated or outdated formats, making it difficult for modern AI tools to access or interpret this information. These silos obstruct unified data flow and reduce the effectiveness of predictive analytics and automation.14
• System Rigidity and Monolithic Architecture: Older enterprise systems are often monolithic, lacking modular flexibility, which limits scalability and makes it difficult to incorporate modern APIs, microservices, or intelligent agents.14
• Lack of Real-Time Data Processing: Many legacy systems operate on batch processing models, preventing the real-time decision-making required by Agentic AI systems that need continuous data streams.14
• Limited Interoperability with New Technologies: Integrating AI-driven platforms often requires seamless communication across systems, but legacy systems may lack standardised interfaces or integration support, leading to delays, errors, or costly middleware development.14
• Security and Compliance Gaps: Legacy infrastructure might not meet current cybersecurity standards or compliance requirements (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA), posing risks when integrating with intelligent systems handling sensitive data.14

Strategies for Seamless Integration

A strategic approach is required to bridge the gap between legacy realities and future AI capabilities:

• Modularisation and Microservices: To overcome rigidity, enterprises should prioritise modularisation. By decoupling legacy systems into manageable services and wrapping them with modern APIs, critical components can be isolated for AI integration, minimising disruptions and allowing targeted improvements.6
• API-First Approach: Adopting an API-first strategy is crucial for connecting AI services with legacy systems. This ensures interoperability without major changes to the core legacy infrastructure, enabling smooth data exchange and communication.4
• Real-Time Data Enablement: Activating real-time data pipelines using tools like Apache Kafka enables continuous data exchange, allowing AI agents to make timely decisions and supporting the continuous data streams needed for effective Agentic AI.14
• Cloud Migration Readiness: Evaluating legacy system compatibility with cloud platforms and using tools like AWS Migration Hub, Microsoft Azure Migrate, or Google Cloud Migrate can help move infrastructure to the cloud, simplifying AI integration and enhancing scalability.14
• AI Integration Tools: Platforms like Apache Kafka, MuleSoft, and Zapier facilitate smooth data exchange and interoperability between legacy systems and Agentic AI.14
• Security and Compliance Alignment: Incorporating robust security protocols and compliance frameworks early in the integration process, using platforms like Apache Atlas, ensures governance and mitigates risks associated with handling sensitive data.14
• Performance Monitoring Setup: Implementing monitoring tools such as Prometheus and Datadog to track AI integration performance, detect anomalies, and ensure system reliability is essential.14

Integrating AI into existing systems is not merely a technical hurdle but a strategic imperative that enables agility and unlocks significant value from legacy investments for AI-driven transformation. The ability to modularise existing monolithic applications and expose their functionalities through modern, well-defined APIs is paramount. This approach allows AI components, particularly Agentic AI systems, to interact with legacy data and processes without requiring a complete overhaul of the underlying infrastructure. This incremental modernisation strategy reduces risk, preserves existing investments, and accelerates the time-to-value for AI initiatives. Furthermore, the emphasis on real-time data enablement and robust monitoring during integration ensures that AI systems can operate with the necessary freshness of data and that their impact on legacy systems is continuously observed and controlled. This transforms legacy systems from bottlenecks into valuable data sources and execution points for AI, fostering a more agile and data-driven enterprise.

8. Internal Developer Platform (IDP) and AI Frameworks/SDKs

To accelerate the development and deployment of GenAI and Agentic AI projects at enterprise scale, large corporations should leverage Internal Developer Platforms (IDPs) and standardised AI frameworks and SDKs.

The Role of Internal Developer Platforms (IDPs)

Internal Developer Platforms (IDPs) are tools designed to optimise development processes within organisations. They address the complexities of cloud-native architectures, microservices, and the need for rapid deployment by streamlining workflows, automating repetitive tasks, and empowering developers to focus on coding.27

The benefits of IDPs are extensive:

• Streamlined Workflows and Automated Tasks: IDPs simplify complex development processes and automate routine tasks, freeing up developers to concentrate on more critical coding work.27
• Developer Empowerment and Self-Service: By abstracting away infrastructure complexities, IDPs empower developers with self-service capabilities, allowing them to provision resources and deploy applications more independently.27
• Improved Collaboration and Accelerated Time-to-Market: These platforms enhance collaboration among development teams and, by streamlining processes, help organisations deploy applications more quickly.27
• Enhanced Visibility and Standardisation: Platforms like OpsLevel provide a comprehensive service catalog, offering better visibility into microservices architecture and promoting standardisation across deployments and configurations.27
• Reduced Cognitive Load and Cost-Efficiency: By abstracting complexities, IDPs reduce the mental burden on developers and, by optimising processes and resource utilisation, can lead to significant cost savings.27
• Enterprise-Grade Security and Governance: Many IDPs offer robust security controls and governance capabilities, helping organisations maintain compliance.27
• Support for Full Software Development Lifecycle and Ephemeral Environments: Some IDPs support the entire software development lifecycle, and platforms like Bunnyshell offer Environments as a Service (EaaS), enabling the creation of isolated, realistic environments for each pull request, which reduces integration issues and accelerates feedback.27

AI Frameworks and SDKs

The choice of AI frameworks and SDKs is crucial for developer productivity and the performance of AI models. Large corporations should standardise on a set of robust tools that offer flexibility, performance, and integration capabilities.

Examples include:

• Azure OpenAI Service: Provides access to powerful language models like GPT-4o, GPT-4 Turbo, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, enabling content generation, summarisation, image understanding, and natural language to code translation.1
• Azure AI Foundry: A comprehensive platform for experimenting, developing, and deploying generative AI apps and APIs responsibly. It provides access to Azure AI services, foundation models, a playground, and resources for fine-tuning, evaluating, and deploying AI models and agents. It supports multi-modal integration, RAG implementation, prompt engineering, and LLM flow orchestration.1
• Azure AI Agent Service: A no-code tool within Azure AI Foundry for creating AI agents exposed as microservices, connected to foundation models and custom knowledge stores or APIs, capable of invoking tools to perform tasks.1
• Qualcomm AI Engine Direct SDK: Provides lower-level, unified APIs for AI development, allowing developers to improve the performance of AI models on Qualcomm AI accelerators (CPU, GPU, NPU). It offers a hardware abstraction API, handling graph optimisation internally while leaving broader functionality to higher-level frameworks, resulting in high-performance, nimble executables.28

Internal Developer Platforms are crucial for abstracting away the underlying infrastructure complexities and standardising workflows, thereby empowering developers to focus on AI innovation rather than operational overhead. For a large corporation engaging in numerous GenAI and Agentic AI projects, the ability to rapidly provision environments, access standardised data and model resources, and deploy AI applications with minimal friction directly translates into accelerated time-to-market and increased developer productivity.

Without an IDP, each AI project might face redundant setup efforts, inconsistent environments, and fragmented toolchains, leading to significant delays and inefficiencies. By providing a self-service, governed environment, IDPs enable data scientists and ML engineers to experiment, train, and deploy models more autonomously, fostering innovation and reducing the burden on central operations teams. This strategic investment ensures that the technical talent can concentrate on solving complex AI problems, which is where the true business value lies, rather than being bogged down by infrastructure management.

9. Responsible AI Framework

For large corporations, the implementation of AI must be guided by a comprehensive Responsible AI framework that ensures ethical, safe, and compliant operations. This framework is not an afterthought but an integral, proactive component of the entire AI lifecycle.

Core Principles of Responsible AI

Firms adopting AI must ensure responsible AI is:

• Fit for Purpose: Considerations include the type of model (traditional AI, LLMs, deep learning), the stage of the AI lifecycle, the type of data, and specific use cases. For example, loan eligibility AI requires fairness, privacy protection, and transparency, while generative AI for code needs IP protection and security best practices.15
• Built In, Not Bolted On: Ethical considerations must be woven into AI systems from data selection and algorithmic design to deployment and monitoring. Responsible AI practices proactively identify and mitigate potential biases, privacy concerns, and other risks throughout the AI development process.15
• Proactive, Not Reactive: Responsible AI involves continuous evaluation and monitoring for emerging vulnerabilities and approaches. Enterprises must regularly upgrade their tools, systems, and processes as AI technology evolves.15
• Platform-Centric: A dedicated platform serves as a repository for all guardrails, monitoring, and testing capabilities. It integrates with other AI systems, products, and processes, providing a one-stop shop for responsible AI controls.15
• Metrics-Driven: Defining metrics improves measurement, monitoring, and external auditing throughout AI design, development, and deployment. While challenging to quantify, especially for societal impact, this data supports risk management, model retraining, system updates, and accountability.15
• Operationalised: Responsible AI requires an equally responsible AI framework that ties together all interventions and helps scale them at the enterprise level.15
• Ecosystem-Led: The AI value chain is complex, involving hardware providers, SDK providers, hyperscalers, model providers, and vector database providers. Enterprises must scrutinise partners for adherence to standards and build an ecosystem of partners specializing in responsible AI solutions and guardrails.15

Operationalizing Responsible AI

At the team and use case level, responsible AI requires:

• Use Case Assessment: Enterprises need to assess use cases and classify them into risk categories via automated risk assessments. This initial classification informs further gating criteria and design considerations for the development team.15
• Reskilling: All employees, regardless of function, should receive training to understand the principles of responsible AI.15
• Centralised Monitoring: Enterprises should implement systems to monitor all their AI projects, providing a view of model health, performance, and the nature and type of prompts used. This functions as an early warning system for quick problem response.15
• Red Teaming: Enterprises should use adversarial testing processes to expose vulnerabilities in models and use cases.15
• Reference Playbooks: To follow leading practices, organisations need to create reference guides setting out the use of responsible AI across the organisation.15

A robust Responsible AI framework is not an optional add-on but a foundational and proactive component, essential for building trust, ensuring compliance, and achieving long-term success with AI initiatives in a large corporation. The emphasis on “built-in, not bolted-on” means that ethical considerations, bias detection, and explainability mechanisms must be integrated into every stage of the AI lifecycle, from data collection and model design to deployment and continuous monitoring. This approach mitigates risks proactively, preventing issues like algorithmic bias, data privacy breaches, or unintended societal impacts from escalating into significant corporate liabilities.

Furthermore, the “metrics-driven” and “operationalised” principles underscore the need for quantifiable measures of ethical performance and a scalable framework to enforce responsible AI practices across diverse projects and business units. This necessitates continuous evaluation, regular upgrades of tools, and an ecosystem-led approach that scrutinises the entire AI value chain for vulnerabilities. Ultimately, the ability of a large corporation to deploy AI responsibly will directly influence its reputation, regulatory standing, and the level of trust its stakeholders place in its AI-powered operations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Building an enterprise AI framework capable of supporting numerous Generative AI and Agentic AI projects for a large corporation is a multifaceted undertaking that extends beyond mere technological implementation. It requires a holistic architectural vision that prioritises scalability, stringent security, comprehensive governance, and seamless integration with existing systems.

The framework must be anchored by a robust foundational architecture comprising distinct layers for infrastructure, data, models, and application integration. Adherence to principles such as multi-tenancy, zero-trust security, cost optimisation, and, critically, explainability and auditability, is non-negotiable. The emphasis on explainability over raw performance highlights a fundamental shift in enterprise AI, where trustworthiness and accountability are paramount for mitigating reputational and regulatory risks.

For Agentic AI, a progressive three-tier framework (Controlled Intelligence, Structured Autonomy, Dynamic Intelligence) is recommended. This phased approach allows corporations to incrementally build trust and operational maturity. The success of higher autonomy tiers is contingent upon the robust governance, monitoring, and control mechanisms established in the foundational tiers, emphasizing the need for constrained autonomy zones and mandatory checkpoints.

Data management forms the bedrock of this AI framework. A data lake/lakehouse architecture provides the necessary flexibility and scale for diverse data types, complemented by feature stores that standardise, manage, and serve features consistently across training and inference. Data versioning and comprehensive data catalogs are essential for reproducibility, discoverability, and robust data governance. The success of AI initiatives is inherently data-centric; without high-quality, governed, and accessible data, even the most advanced models will underperform.

Operationalizing AI necessitates extending traditional MLOps into GenAIOps, addressing the unique characteristics of generative models, prompt engineering, and RAG. This involves adapting inner loop processes (DataOps, experimentation, evaluation) and outer loop processes (deployment, monitoring, feedback) to account for prompt versions, RAG pipeline configurations, and agent orchestration. Automated retraining strategies, triggered by performance degradation or schedules, are crucial for maintaining model accuracy and relevance over time.

Strategic compute infrastructure planning is vital for cost-efficiency and performance. The selection of GPUs and TPUs must be right-sized for specific AI lifecycle stages (training, fine-tuning, inference) and modular agentic workflows, moving away from monolithic provisioning towards a heterogeneous, dynamically scalable environment.

Integration with existing enterprise systems is a strategic enabler, transforming legacy systems from bottlenecks into valuable data sources and execution points for AI. This requires modularisation, an API-first approach, real-time data enablement, and robust monitoring to ensure seamless, secure, and controlled interaction.

Finally, a Responsible AI framework is not an optional add-on but a proactive, built-in, and metrics-driven component. It must be integrated into every stage of the AI lifecycle, ensuring ethical considerations, bias detection, and explainability are continuously addressed. This framework is crucial for building trust, ensuring compliance, and achieving long-term success with AI initiatives.

Recommendations:

1. Establish a Unified AI Platform Team: Create a dedicated cross-functional team responsible for building, maintaining, and governing the core AI framework, encompassing infrastructure, data, and MLOps/GenAIOps capabilities.
2. Invest in Data Foundation First: Prioritise the establishment of a robust data lakehouse architecture, coupled with a comprehensive feature store and data catalog, before extensive AI model development. This ensures high-quality, discoverable, and governed data for all AI projects.
3. Adopt a Phased Agentic AI Rollout: Begin with Agentic AI projects aligned with the “Controlled Intelligence” tier, focusing on building internal trust, refining governance mechanisms, and demonstrating tangible value before progressing to higher levels of autonomy.
4. Implement End-to-End GenAIOps: Extend existing MLOps practices to cover the unique lifecycle of generative models and agentic systems, including prompt versioning, RAG pipeline management, and specialised evaluation metrics. Automate CI/CD pipelines and integrate continuous monitoring for performance, drift, and content safety.
5. Standardise on Internal Developer Platforms (IDPs): Deploy an IDP to abstract infrastructure complexities, standardise development workflows, and empower data scientists and ML engineers with self-service capabilities, thereby accelerating AI project delivery.
6. Embed Responsible AI from Inception: Integrate ethical considerations, bias detection, explainability, and auditability mechanisms into the design and development of every AI project, rather than attempting to “bolt them on” later. Establish clear metrics and continuous monitoring for responsible AI performance.
7. Prioritise API-First Integration: Mandate an API-first approach for all new AI services and develop robust middleware solutions to facilitate secure and efficient interaction with existing legacy systems.
8. Optimise Compute Strategically: Implement a nuanced compute strategy that right-sizes GPU/TPU resources for different AI lifecycle stages and modular agentic components, leveraging techniques like quantization for cost-efficiency.
9. Evaluate Enterprise Platform Solutions: Consider leveraging comprehensive enterprise AI platforms like DataBricks, Snowflake and Informatica to accelerate development, streamline data management, and ensure robust governance for GenAI and Agentic AI initiatives.

By systematically addressing these architectural and operational considerations, a large corporation can construct a resilient, scalable, and responsible AI framework that unlocks the full transformative potential of Generative AI and Agentic AI across its entire enterprise.

Works cited

1. AI Architecture Design — Azure Architecture Center | Microsoft Learn, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/ai-ml/
2. Agentic AI Architecture Framework for Enterprises — InfoQ, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.infoq.com/articles/agentic-ai-architecture-framework/
3. Baseline Agentic AI Systems Architecture | Microsoft Community Hub, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/machinelearningblog/baseline-agentic-ai-systems-architecture/4207137
4. Generative AI Architecture for Enterprises: Best Practices, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://bigsteptech.com/blog/generative-ai-enterprise-architecture-guide-2025
5. Build and Secure, Scalable AI Applications with the AI Reference …, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.f5.com/company/blog/f5-expands-ai-reference-architecture-to-navigate-challenges-of-developing-ai-applications
6. AI Integration into Legacy Systems: Challenges and Strategies — Optimum, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://optimumcs.com/insights/ai-integration-into-legacy-systems-challenges-and-strategies/
7. Modern Data Lake Architecture — Scale, Insights, Agility — Dataforest, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://dataforest.ai/blog/data-lake-architecture-for-unified-data-analytics-platform
8. What Is Data Lake Architecture? | MongoDB, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.mongodb.com/resources/basics/databases/data-lake-architecture
9. What is a Feature Store: The Definitive Guide — Hopsworks, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.hopsworks.ai/dictionary/feature-store
10. What is a Feature Store in ML, and Do I Need One? — JFrog, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://jfrog.com/blog/what-is-a-feature-store-in-ml-and-do-i-need-one/
11. Data Catalogs Are the Underrated Tool in Your AI Toolbox — Lantern, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://lanternstudios.com/insights/blog/data-catalogs-are-the-underrated-tool-in-your-ai-toolbox/
12. Best practices for data and AI governance | Databricks Documentation, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://docs.databricks.com/gcp/en/lakehouse-architecture/data-governance/best-practices
13. What is a Feature Store in ML, and Do I Need One? — JFrog, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://jfrog.com/blog/what-is-a-feature-store-in-ml-and-do-I-need-one/
14. Integrating Legacy Systems with Agentic AI: Enterprise-Ready …, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.amplework.com/blog/integrating-legacy-systems-with-agentic-ai/
15. The Decent Dozen: 12 Principles for Responsible AI by Design — Infosys, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.infosys.com/iki/perspectives/responsible-ai-design-principles.html
16. Generative AI Operations for Organizations with MLOps Investments …, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/ai-ml/guide/genaiops-for-mlops
17. Guide to GPU Sizing for AI Workloads — Touchpoint Technology, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.touchpoint.com.au/guide-to-gpu-sizing-for-ai-workloads/
18. The Architect’s Guide to Machine Learning Operations (MLOps) — MinIO Blog, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://blog.min.io/the-architects-guide-to-machine-learning-operations-mlops/
19. Data Version Control · DVC, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://dvc.org/
20. MLOps Best Practices Every ML Team Should Follow in 2025, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.azilen.com/blog/mlops-best-practices/
21. Enterprise MLOps: Scalable Pipelines & Governance, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.trigyn.com/insights/mlops-best-practices-enterprise-ai
22. A Beginner’s Guide to CI/CD for Machine Learning : r/mlops — Reddit, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/mlops/comments/1auli2z/a_beginners_guide_to_cicd_for_machine_learning/
23. A Beginner’s Guide to CI/CD for Machine Learning | DataCamp, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/ci-cd-for-machine-learning
24. What is Model Retraining | Iguazio, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.iguazio.com/glossary/model-retraining/
25. Model Retraining in 2025: Why & How to Retrain ML Models?, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://research.aimultiple.com/model-retraining/
26. TPU vs GPU: Pros and Cons | OpenMetal IaaS, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://openmetal.io/docs/product-guides/private-cloud/tpu-vs-gpu-pros-and-cons/
27. 10 Best Internal Developer Platforms (IDPs) — July 2025 — Unite.AI, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.unite.ai/best-internal-developer-platforms-idps/
28. Qualcomm AI Engine Direct SDK | Qualcomm Developer, accessed on July 23, 2025, https://www.qualcomm.com/developer/software/qualcomm-ai-engine-direct-sdk