Categories
Artificial Intelligence Case study Uncategorized

Why your AI agents keep failing – and it’s not AI

Why your AI agents keep failing – and it’s not AI

Most companies experimenting now with AI agents never manage to scale them. Fewer than one in ten do. The problem, almost always, is what’s underneath: the data.

The gap everyone is trying not to talk about

So, there’s a version of the AI story that sounds like this: companies deploy AI agents, the agents automate complex tasks, productivity soars, and everyone wins. That version exists. It’s just rarer than the headlines suggest.

In other words, according to a McKinsey study published in April 2026, roughly two thirds of enterprises worldwide have run experiments with AI agents. Fewer than ten percent have managed to scale them into something that delivers real, measurable value. And the failure isn’t usually the AI itself – it’s what the AI is running on.

“Eight in ten companies say fragmented, siloed data is what stops them from scaling AI agents.”

What good foundations actually look like

Actually, McKinsey’s research identifies four steps that separate organisations managing to scale agentic AI from those who get stuck in pilot purgatory. They’re worth understanding as a sequence – each one builds on the last.

  1. Find the right workflows to automate. Not everything benefits from an AI agent. The organisations getting results start by identifying a small number of end-to-end processes where autonomous decision-making could genuinely change outcomes – and map exactly what data those processes would need.
  2. Clean up the data architecture, layer by layer. This doesn’t mean rebuilding everything from scratch, it actually means modernising how data flows, connects, and becomes usable – progressively. Thus, data from different systems (CRM, supply chain, finance) needs to speak the same language.
  3. Move from cleanup sprints to continuous quality management. One of the most common failure modes is treating data quality as a periodic project. In an agentic environment, we should be able to monitor data quality in real time, with automated checks.
  4. Build governance for what agents are allowed to do. As agents gain autonomy, the rules governing their behaviour become the primary mechanism of control. Clear policies – defining what data an agent can access need to be automated and embedded. Human roles shift from doing the work to supervising and orchestrating agent-driven workflows.

Not to mention that the thread running through all four steps is the same: we need to treat data as infrastructure.

Where Zeren fits into this picture

In fact, this is the layer of work Zeren’s consultants operate in. We have consultants like Sânziana for whom the data architecture makes the AI models reliable.

Sânziana, one of Zeren’s senior data architects, is currently leading a Business Intelligence engagement for a major manufacturing company in the Nordics. Her framing of the problem captures it well:

“Without properly modelled data, AI cannot produce good results. We are among the fortunate ones for whom the rise of AI brings more work, not less.”

What Zeren Software does

Nevertheless, Zeren connects specialist data professionals – data architects, data engineers, BI consultants, AI engineers – with complex international projects. Our consultants work across industries building the data foundations that make AI actually usable in production environments.

The question worth asking now

So, if your organisation is planning an AI initiative, the most useful diagnostic relates to the data underneath the AI model. Is it connected or consistent? Is it governed? Do your agents have access to what they need, and only what they need? All these are questions to consider.

“In the agentic age, data foundations are becoming the primary source of competitive differentiation.”

Undoubtedly, for the companies already operating at scale, this prediction is already a sheet fact.

Curious about how your data infrastructure stacks up? Get in touch with Zeren.

Categories
Artificial Intelligence Case study

Romania and Bulgaria are EU’s AI Readiness Laggards

Romania and Bulgaria are EU’s AI Readiness Laggards

A new peer-reviewed study maps AI readiness across all EU member states. The findings are blunt: Southern and Eastern Europe – and Romania in particular – face systemic barriers that go far deeper than infrastructure or investment. Here is what the research says, and what needs to change.

This should not be surprising. For years, analyses of the EU’s digital landscape have pointed to the same fault line – a persistent gap between Northern and Western European member states on one side, and Southern and Eastern ones on the other. Lower levels of digital and AI literacy, slower e-government adoption, educational disparities, weaker institutional capacity: the diagnosis is familiar.

What is new — and what should prompt genuine concern — is the specific nature of the deficit now being quantified. A 2026 peer-reviewed study published in Telematics and Informatics on ScienceDirect (“Unequal AI readiness: institutional and digital disparities in e-government across the European Union”) does not merely describe a digital divide. It maps, clusters, and names the countries that are structurally unprepared for artificial intelligence in public governance.

Romania and Bulgaria appear in the worst-performing cluster. The study calls them AI Readiness Laggards.

“Extremely low levels of digital skills, suggesting systemic barriers to AI readiness.”

What the study actually measures

Unlike broader digital economy indices, this study focuses specifically on the prerequisites for AI adoption in e-government — the machinery of public services and state institutions. The researchers identify two independent and underlying dimensions that determine whether a country is ready for AI-driven governance:

  1. Digital Skills & E-Government Engagement – Measures citizen-side readiness: the prevalence of digital competencies in the general population and the degree to which citizens actually interact with government digitally.
  2. Transparency & E-Government Service Availability – Measures institution-side readiness: how openly and completely public services are delivered digitally, and the transparency of government operations and data.
How the EU clusters

The study identifies six distinct clusters of member states based on their combined scores across the two dimensions. The distribution is uneven, and the gap between the best and worst performers is stark.

On one side, the AI – Ready Leaders: High digital skills. High transparency. A self-reinforcing cycle: skilled citizens demand better services; better services built more skilled citizens. Institutions here are the closest to being operationally ready for AI in governance. Here you can find countries like Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands.

On the other side, the AI Readiness Laggards: Low digital skills. Low transparency. Systemic, not surface-level, barriers. Extremely low digital skills in the general population combined with limited institutional transparency creates a compound readiness deficit. Here you can find countries like Romania or Bulgaria.

What Romania must do – and where to start

The study does not prescribe solutions, but the diagnosis makes the priorities clear. Closing the AI readiness gap requires action on multiple levels simultaneously, because the two dimensions interact: you cannot build institutional AI capacity without a population that can engage with digital public services, and you cannot drive citizen digital literacy without better, more transparent digital services to engage with.

Our view

At Zeren Software, we work at the intersection of digital transformation, software development, and institutional capacity. The study’s findings confirm what we observe in our client work across the region: the barriers to AI readiness are organisational and human before they are technical. Procuring AI tools is not the same as being ready to use them. Writing a national AI strategy is not the same as having the institutional infrastructure to implement it.

Romania can close this gap. But it requires treating digital literacy and institutional transparency not as outputs of AI adoption, but as the prerequisites for it. The study makes clear that the countries which are genuinely ready started building those prerequisites long before AI became the policy priority it is today.

The readiness gap is a shared problem. Closing it requires pressure and example also from the private sector, not just government initiative.