Making AI Boring on Purpose

A couple years ago, on a gray Saturday with that familiar coastal marine layer hanging over the neighborhood, our kitchen turned into a tiny factory.

One kid wanted pancakes now. Another wanted to “invent” a new recipe with extra everything; especially the sprinkles! And I—half awake, holding a measuring cup like it was a sacred relic—just wanted breakfast that didn’t end in smoke, arguments followed by tears, or a sink full of regret.

So we did what every tired parent eventually learns to do: we went back to standard work. In other words, we made breakfast on purpose.

Same bowl. Same ratios. Same order: mix dry, mix wet, combine, rest. We didn’t kill creativity—we just put it in the right place, as a step at the end. Chocolate chips? Sure. Sprinkles? Fine. But the base stayed steady.

And wouldn’t you know it: once everyone saw what was going on and realized it was boring and repeatable, we got breakfast on the table faster than the “move fast” kid ever could by improvising.

That’s the heartbeat of what AI needs to become in most organizations: boring on purpose—so it can deliver real value, with dependable quality, and only then… real speed.

---

AI isn’t a product rollout. It’s an accelerator—one that amplifies everything

The kitchen is a small system, but the principle scales. In a Lean Six Sigma-minded environment, AI tends to be viewed in three blunt (and honestly helpful) ways:

• A process accelerator, not a product
• A variation amplifier if unmanaged
• A defect multiplier if poorly governed

That framing is not cynical. It’s practical.

AI doesn’t politely stay in its lane. It speeds up whatever you already are:

• If your workflow is clear, AI can compress cycle time.
• If your workflow is fuzzy, AI can multiply confusion.
• If your controls are weak, AI can scale the very risks you hoped it would solve.

So the right question isn’t, “How fast can we roll out copilots?”

The right questions sound more like:

• Where does AI introduce variability?
• Where does it remove waste?
• Where does it create rework or risk?
• Do we have standard work for it?

Those questions aren’t barriers. They’re the on-ramp to making AI useful at scale.

---

The AI Product Owner Mindset: Value first, then Quality, then Speed

Start by standardizing work and making costs predictable. Teams do get faster—but the order matters.

1. Value: Prove AI improves a real workflow outcome people care about. Don’t do work that doesn’t deliver measurable value.
2. Quality: Make outputs safe, reliable, controlled, auditable, and compliant.
3. Speed: Once value and quality are stable, create fast lanes and scale.

If you flip that order—if you chase speed first—you don’t get speed. You get churn. You get ten versions of the same solution. You get costs that spike when usage spikes. You get “AI fatigue.” You get disappointment. You get chaos. That’s not speed, that’s just motion in the wrong direction.

But if you honor the order, speed shows up like a blessing you didn’t have to fake.

---

Value: Stop building “AI programs.” Start building AI standard work.

The fastest way to lose credibility with AI is to treat it like a program with an executive demo, a big program kick-off event, an arbitrary program closure date, and a celebration when it ships. That’s transformation theater that doesn’t produce change.

The fastest way to do actual change and build trust is to treat AI like standard work: repeatable patterns follow specifications that reduce cycle time and errors in core workflows—with built-in controls.

That shift is not semantics. It changes what gets built, how it’s funded, and what gets measured.

Instead of celebrating “we did a thing…” you celebrate:

• Cycle time dropped in a core workflow
• Error rates fell
• Rework declined
• A unit-cost metric improved (more on that soon)
• Adoption is real, not just a demo

Value is the anchor. Without it, quality efforts feel like bureaucracy and speed efforts feel like chaos.

---

Standardize the base recipe (and stop re-litigating the foundations)

Most AI sprawl doesn’t happen because people are reckless. It happens because the organization never hands teams a shared “base recipe.” So every group does the same work again: picking models, wiring auth, figuring out logging, debating guardrails, improvising cost controls. It’s not innovation—it’s duplicate plumbing.

If we want AI that scales without chaos, the move is simple:

Reduce variation where it creates enterprise cost and risk, and increase flexibility where it creates local outcomes.

In practice, that means:

• Tight (non-negotiable): models/providers, data access, and whether AI can take actions (because this is where breaches, regulatory issues, and surprise bills are born)
• Standard (paved road): gateways, APIs/connectors, logging/monitoring, testing/evals (so every team doesn’t build their own “AI stack” from scratch)
• Loose (team-owned): prompts, workflow steps, UI choices, playbooks (because that’s where teams learn what actually works in their context)
• Business-owned (outcomes): use-case priority, success metrics, and adoption (because value isn’t an IT artifact—it’s a business result)

When that base is steady, teams don’t move slower. They move cleaner. And clean speed is the only speed worth scaling.

---

Standardize the right layers (and keep creativity where it belongs)

A practical way to make AI both scalable and sane is to standardize the parts that create enterprise risk and cost, and let teams innovate in how they use AI to get results.

What we control	Examples (plain English)	How tightly we control it	Why leaders should care
AI Providers and Models	Which AI vendors/models we allow; when we upgrade them	Tight	Controls cost, regulatory risk, data exposure, and reliability
Data Access	What data AI can see; which systems it can pull from; permissions	Tight	Prevents leaks, protects customer/employee data, and keeps us audit-ready
“Can it take actions?”	Whether AI can create tickets, send emails, change records, trigger workflows	Tight	Stops accidental or unauthorized changes in systems that run the grid and customer ops
Tooling and Integration	Standard APIs, gateways, connectors, logging	Standard	Makes AI secure, supportable, and scalable (not one-off hacks)
Security Guardrails	Identity, access controls, rate limits, monitoring, redaction	Tight	Reduces blast radius and supports compliance (privacy, cyber, regulatory)
Quality and Testing	Required tests before production; monitoring after launch	Standard	Avoids “demo magic” and ensures performance holds up in real work
Agent Behavior Rules	Safety rules, escalation rules, what it must never do	Tight	Ensures consistent behavior under pressure—especially in field, outage, and customer scenarios
Prompts and Workflows	Team-specific instructions and workflows	Loose	Enables local optimization without rewriting the platform
Use Cases and Outcomes	Which problems we solve and what success looks like	Business-owned	Keeps AI tied to results (cost, reliability, safety, customer experience)

The one-sentence policy:

Reduce variation in how AI is built and governed, while increasing flexibility in how the business uses AI to deliver outcomes.

This helps because it creates clear benefits:

• Predictable spend: fewer surprise bills and uncontrolled experimentation
• Lower operational risk: less chance an AI system does the wrong thing in critical workflows
• Faster scaling: once the platform is standard, new use cases launch faster
• Cleaner accountability: IT secures and runs the foundation; the business owns outcomes

That is how AI becomes predictable instead of theatrical. Or in 3 words: Boring on purpose.

---

The “only supported build shapes” that make AI repeatable

Most AI sprawl happens because every team invents their own “shape” of solution. You can prevent a lot of waste by defining a small set of approved patterns—the base recipe that stays steady.

A solid starting set:

1. Knowledge Management (read-only): Enterprise rights + search + citations + logging. Great for internal knowledge workflows.

2. Workflow Copilot (human-in-the-loop): Guided steps with clear approvals. AI assists; humans decide.

3. Document Generator / Summarizer / Classifier: Deterministic templates, confidence routing, and clear fallback behavior for low quality outputs.

4. Agentic AI Tools: Powerful—but should start in a more controlled tier until controls mature.

When teams can recognize their use case as one of these “build shapes,” you can give them a paved road: templates, test harnesses, logging, guardrails, and predictable cost levers.

---

Quality: Build “stop-the-line” controls before you scale

If AI can amplify variation and defects, quality cannot be an afterthought. Quality has to be designed into the system—quietly, consistently, automatically, and from day one.

A simple, scalable approach is to define risk tiers

Quality tiering that teams can actually apply (in under five minutes)

Risk tiering only works if people can classify a use case quickly—without debate, without a meeting, and without a glossary.

Here’s a simple rule set:

Green (fast lane)

All of the following are true:

• Internal-only (no customer-facing output)
• Read-only (no write actions; no system changes)
• No sensitive data (no PII/Sensitive PII/NERC; no regulated decisions)
• Low consequence if wrong (annoying ≠ harmful)

Typical examples: internal knowledge search with citations, drafting internal docs, summarizing non-sensitive meeting notes.

Yellow (controlled lane)

Any one of these is true:

• Handles sensitive data (data classified as confidential or above)
• Supports business-critical decisions (outage triage, claims guidance, financial approvals)
• Uses tools that touch systems, even if still human-approved
• Has meaningful reputation or operational risk if it behaves inconsistently

Yellow requires: deeper review, tighter evals, stronger monitoring, and explicit owner sign-off.

Red (highest scrutiny)

Any one of these is true:

• Customer-facing outputs (especially advice or commitments)
• Regulated decisions or legally significant outcomes
• Autonomous write actions (changes records, triggers workflows, sends external comms)
• High-impact harm potential (safety, compliance, financial loss, civil rights issues)

Red requires: formal governance, rigorous evaluation, and “stop-the-line” operational controls before launch.

The simple escalation rule

• Any Red factor → Red
• Two Yellow factors → treat as Red until mitigations are in place
• Otherwise: Green or Yellow as defined above

This isn’t about slowing teams down. It’s about protecting flow. In other words: optimize for flow without increasing defect rates.

“Trigger Points” for AI: when to escalate

You want automatic “stop-the-line” triggers—clear events that must be handled, no debate required. Examples:

• PII detected in prompts, responses, or logs
• External model endpoint not on the allowlist
• Tool invocation that writes/changes records without approvals
• Latency/SLO breach in production workflows
• Spend anomaly (daily burn exceeds a defined threshold)

Good quality systems don’t rely on heroics. They rely on clear signals and repeatable responses.

Security, privacy, and model risk standard work

Quality also includes disciplines that are easy to hand-wave and painful to ignore later:

• Single-Sign-On all the way down the stack, least privilege, encryption, audit logging, retention policy
• Prompt/data handling: redaction, DLP scans, “no training” contractual controls where applicable
• Model risk: an evaluation harness before production (hallucination rate, toxicity, PII leakage, jailbreak resistance)

If you don’t build these early, you’ll pay for them later—usually in the most expensive currency: trust.

---

Cost predictability: Make AI measurable, metered, and owned

If you want AI to help predict costs, you have to stop treating costs like mysterious weather. Cost predictability is not a hope. It’s a practice.

FinOps for AI: every AI capability needs a cost “identity”

For each AI application or workflow, require:

• A cost owner
• A budget
• A unit-cost metric (e.g., $/case, $/ticket, $/work order, $/document)
• Metering that’s tagged by product/use case

And measure what actually drives spend:

• Token usage
• Retrieval cost (RAG queries, operations of the search indexes)
• Tool calls
• Operational overhead (monitoring, logging, upgrading based on underlying technical changes)
• Defect remediation costs
• Infrastructure Costs tied to the workload

Then add guardrails that are enforced by the platform, not by meetings:

• Quotas by environment
• Auto-throttle
• Model tiering (cheap-first fallback)

This is where AI stops being a surprise line item and starts behaving like an engineered system.

---

A practical framework: Cost controls that don’t kill innovation

Cost control fails when it becomes an excuse to say “no.” It succeeds when it becomes a set of boundaries that protect the ability to learn.

A helpful structure is a three-layer model:

Layer A — Portfolio controls (what you fund)

• Cap the long tail: limit approved model providers and tooling stacks
• Value gates: every use case has an owner, KPI, unit-cost target, and a sunset condition if value isn’t realized
• Reuse mandate: new builds start from approved patterns; exceptions require quantified benefit

Layer B — Platform controls (what you run it on)

• One AI gateway for the enterprise: routing, logging, policy, caching
• Model tiering: default to the cheapest model that meets the quality floor; escalate only when needed
• Caching + retrieval optimization: dedupe embeddings, cache common prompts/responses, standards on how how we split documents so the model can cite them reliably
• Environment quotas: dev/test caps; production budgets enforced with throttling

Layer C — Delivery controls (how teams build)

• Innovation sandbox:

  • fixed monthly token budget
  • pre-approved datasets
  • No paths to production
  • Dispose environments after 90 days
  • no sensitive data
  • lightweight documentation of experiments (problem, current state, target, experiments, learnings)

• Fast lane to prod: if it stays in the green tier and passes automated rules that block unsafe changes, ship to dev/test/prod without extra review

Innovation doesn’t need unlimited freedom. It needs safe space and clear exits.

---

Speed: Create “fast lanes” inside standards (not outside them)

Here’s the truth every delivery team learns the hard way: Speed without standards is just motion.

Real speed comes from paved roads—so teams can move without re-litigating foundational decisions.

A strong “fast lane” definition might look like this:

Teams can ship without additional review if they stay inside:

• Approved model/API gateway + approved vector store + approved identity + approved logging stack
• Data sources only from a pre-cleared “green list”
• No PII/PCI/PHI, no customer comms, no autonomous action (read-only assist)
• Uses reference template repo + CI checks pass (policy-as-code)

And you complement that with a single page every engineer and product owner understands:

• “If you do X, you never need a meeting.”
• Template repos
• CI policy checks
• A published pattern cookbook
• Office hours for exceptions, not for routine work

Speed is the dividend you earn after you reduce variation.

---

The language shift that makes this real (and keeps it real)

Words matter because they reveal what you’re optimizing for.

Instead of:

“We’re rolling out AI”

Say:

“We’re defining standard AI patterns that reduce cycle time and error rates in core workflows, with built-in controls.”

Instead of:

“Teams can experiment with models”

Say:

“We’re limiting variation at the model layer and allowing innovation at the prompt and workflow layer.”

Instead of:

“We need to move fast”

Say:

“We’re optimizing for flow without increasing defect rates.”

That’s not corporate polish. That’s operational truth.

---

Start here this month: a 30-day path to “boring on purpose”

If you’re wondering what to do next—what the first real step is—it’s not “launch copilots.” It’s this:

1. Choose one workflow that already hurts. Pick something with rework, delays, handoffs, or error rates people complain about weekly.
2. Name the outcome and the owner. One accountable business owner, one KPI, one definition of “better.”
3. Pick a build shape (don’t invent a new species). Knowledge (read-only), Copilot (HITL), Doc generator/classifier, or controlled agent tools.
4. Tier the risk in five minutes. Green/Yellow/Red—then let the tier determine the controls, not personalities.
5. Define the cost identity before production. Owner, budget, unit-cost metric, and metering tags tied to the workflow.
6. Ship a small slice with real controls. Build out the solution using human managed internal steps, to make sure you have the process correct. Include Logging, redaction, evaluation criteria, and stop-the-line triggers — built in from day one.
7. Hold the line on standards, loosen the edges for learning. Standard platform and policy, flexible prompts and workflow details, business-owned outcomes.

Do that, and something rare happens: momentum without chaos. Teams move faster because the foundation stops moving under their feet. Once you have something real, with metrics, you can use this data to expand, refine, and scale to something with less human interaction. You don’t need to get to the finish line in one sprint. You just need to get to the current milestone, to prove you can get to the next milestone.

---

Closing: Back to the pancakes

A few months after that gray Saturday, we had our pancake morning down to a rhythm.

Same base recipe. Same tools. Same order. And the kids still got creativity—just in the right lane. One added blueberries. One did chocolate chips. One had Sprinkles! Nobody tried to add eggs for “the vibes!”

And here’s the part that surprised me: the biggest win wasn’t the pancakes.

It was the extra time.

With the kitchen no longer in crisis mode, we had ten quiet minutes to sit at the table. To talk. To breathe. To be together before the day pulled us in ten directions. Order didn’t take something from us—it gave something back.

In the new year, the kids are saying Dad no longer needs to make the pancakes. They’ve got the recipe down. They can do it themselves. It’s because even they have standard work now. It’s all because we made breakfast boring on purpose

That’s the promise of doing AI the right way.

Value first so it matters. Quality next so it’s trustworthy. Speed last so it’s sustainable.

In the end, standard work isn’t about control, it’s about stewardship—of cost, of risk, of people’s time, and of the outcomes you’re responsible to deliver. So it can become a reliable foundation for what comes next.

And like a good family recipe, once it’s steady… you finally get to enjoy what it was meant to do.

---

Appendix: Discussion Guide

Making AI Boring on Purpose

Value first. Quality next. Speed last.

Executive Brief (5-minute read)

AI scales whatever already exists.

If your workflows are clear, AI compresses cycle time. If they’re fuzzy, AI multiplies confusion. If controls are weak, AI scales risk faster than value.

That’s why most AI disappointments don’t come from bad models—they come from chasing speed before value and quality are stable.

The counterintuitive move is the right one:

Make AI boring on purpose.

Not boring in outcomes—but boring in how it’s built, governed, and operated.

The operating principle

Organizations that succeed with AI follow a consistent order:

1. Value — Prove AI improves a real workflow outcome people care about
2. Quality — Make it safe, reliable, auditable, and compliant
3. Speed — Scale only after value and quality are steady

When this order is reversed, teams don’t get speed—they get churn, duplicated solutions, unpredictable cost, and AI fatigue.

What “boring on purpose” actually means

AI sprawl doesn’t happen because teams are reckless. It happens because the organization never hands them a shared base recipe.

So every team reinvents the same foundations: models, access, logging, guardrails, cost controls. That’s not innovation—it’s duplicate plumbing.

The fix is simple and scalable:

Reduce variation where it creates enterprise cost and risk, and increase flexibility where it creates local outcomes.

Standardize the right layers

Layer	How it’s handled	Why it matters
Models & providers	Tight	Controls cost, risk, and reliability
Data access & actions	Tight	Prevents leaks and unintended system changes
Tooling & integration	Standard	Enables reuse, security, and scale
Quality & monitoring	Standard	Keeps demos from collapsing in production
Prompts & workflows	Loose	Allows teams to optimize locally
Use cases & success	Business-owned	Keeps AI tied to outcomes

This creates predictable spend, lower operational risk, faster scaling, and clear accountability.

Use a small set of approved “build shapes”

Most AI solutions fall into a few repeatable patterns. Start there:

1. Knowledge (read-only) — search, retrieval, citations, logging
2. Workflow copilots (human-in-the-loop) — AI assists, humans decide
3. Document generation/classification — templates, confidence routing, fallbacks
4. Agentic tools — powerful, but gated until controls mature

When teams can recognize their work as one of these shapes, you can give them paved roads instead of guardrails built from scratch.

Quality before scale: risk tiers that actually work

Risk tiering should take minutes—not meetings.

Green (fast lane)

• Internal-only, read-only
• No sensitive data
• Low consequence if wrong

Yellow (controlled lane)

• Sensitive data or business-critical decisions
• Tool use with human approval
• Reputation or operational risk

Red (highest scrutiny)

• Customer-facing outputs
• Regulated or legally significant decisions
• Autonomous write actions
• High potential harm

Rules of thumb:

• Any red factor → red
• Two yellow factors → treat as red until mitigated

Quality systems protect flow by stopping defects early—not by slowing everything down.

Cost predictability is a design choice

AI costs aren’t weather. They’re engineered.

Every AI workflow needs:

• A clear owner
• A budget
• A unit-cost metric (e.g., $/ticket, $/case)
• Metering tied to the use case

Guardrails should be enforced by the platform, not by meetings:

• Environment quotas
• Auto-throttling
• Model tiering (cheapest that meets the quality bar)

This is how AI becomes predictable instead of surprising.

Speed comes last—and shows up naturally

Real speed doesn’t come from skipping standards. It comes from fast lanes inside them.

Teams can move without extra review when they stay within:

• Approved models and gateways
• Pre-cleared data sources
• Read-only or human-approved actions
• Standard logging, monitoring, and templates

Speed is the dividend you earn after reducing variation.

Start here this month

If you want progress without chaos:

1. Pick one workflow that already hurts
2. Name one owner and one outcome
3. Choose a known build shape
4. Tier the risk (Green/Yellow/Red)
5. Define the unit-cost metric before production
6. Ship a small slice with logging, evaluation, and stop-the-line triggers
7. Hold standards firm; let teams learn at the edges

You don’t need to reach the finish line in one sprint. You just need to prove you can reach the next milestone.

The takeaway

Standard work isn’t about control for its own sake. It’s about stewardship—of cost, risk, people’s time, and outcomes.

When the foundation is steady, creativity doesn’t disappear. It finally has room to matter.

Discussion Guide

Use this to drive a 30–60 minute conversation.

Framing questions (set the tone)

• Where have we seen AI create motion without progress?
• Where are teams rebuilding the same AI foundations repeatedly?
• What would “boring on purpose” feel like in our environment?

Value (are we solving the right problems?)

• Which workflows create the most rework, delay, or frustration today?
• Do our AI efforts have clear owners and measurable outcomes?
• Where are we celebrating demos instead of operational improvements?

Quality (are we protecting flow?)

• Can teams classify AI risk in minutes—or does it require escalation?
• Where could an AI mistake cause real harm (customers, safety, compliance)?
• Do we have clear “stop-the-line” triggers, or do we rely on heroics?

Cost (are we surprised—or in control?)

• Can we explain AI spend in unit terms the business understands?
• Who owns the cost of an AI workflow end-to-end?
• Where do we allow experimentation without cost visibility?

Speed (are standards helping or hurting?)

• Where do teams still need meetings to do routine AI work?
• What would a true “fast lane” look like for low-risk use cases?
• Which standards actually accelerate delivery—and which slow it down?

Alignment & next steps

• What is one workflow we could pilot using this approach in the next 30 days?
• What standards would remove friction immediately?
• Where do leaders need to explicitly support “boring on purpose” to prevent sprawl?