What Do We Do With the Frameworks?

What Do We Do With the Frameworks?

Twenty years of customer interviews, workshops, and journey maps. Then agentic AI arrived, and every framework I trusted turned out to share one assumption I had stopped noticing: that the human is always smarter than the tool. Here's what breaks when that stops being true.

The Blueprint Was Already There

The Blueprint Was Already There

This week I read three papers that made me happy. JAMA. NEJM. Nature Medicine. All randomized trials. All showing AI outperforming standard care. Then I read the methodology. None of them LLMs. The AI winning in top journals in 2026 was built before the hype cycle. The blueprint was always there.

The 60-Point Gap: Why We're Measuring the Wrong Customer

The 60-Point Gap: Why We're Measuring the Wrong Customer

A Nature study shows LLMs achieve 94.9% accuracy on benchmarks but only 34.5% when laypeople use LLMs on physician-created scenarios. The gap reveals something deeper: We measure the model in isolation. We deploy to a human in distress. The system fails at the intersection.

Governance: The Word Everyone Uses and Nobody Agrees On

Governance: The Word Everyone Uses and Nobody Agrees On

Everyone talks about governance. Nobody agrees on what it means. Data governance, AI governance, master data governance: they're not separate programs. They're one spectrum. And most enterprises already have 70% of what they need. They just can't see how the pieces connect.

The Architect Who Should Have Read JAMA

The Architect Who Should Have Read JAMA

In healthcare AI, policy shifts now appear first in journals like JAMA and NEJM, then quietly become grant conditions and RFP requirements. Many tech teams miss this signal. The winners will be those who translate medical literature into architecture before it becomes mandatory.