At Oktane a couple of weeks ago, Okta and a group of enterprise heavyweights, including AWS, CrowdStrike, Databricks, Google Cloud, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Wiz and Zscaler, launched the Blueprint Alliance. Their goal is a shared plan for securing and governing AI agents across the enterprise.
At Oktane a couple of weeks ago, Okta and a group of enterprise heavyweights, including AWS, CrowdStrike, Databricks, Google Cloud, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Wiz and Zscaler, launched the Blueprint Alliance. Their goal is a shared plan for securing and governing AI agents across the enterprise.
The biggest names in tech are forming bigger alliances, signing bigger deals and making bigger promises. Everybody wants to rule the world.
Bigger doesn’t always mean better for the people writing the checks. More than half of CEOs told PwC this year that AI had delivered neither higher revenue nor lower costs over the prior 12 months. Only one in eight saw both.
You will work with alliances like this one. The real question is whether you’ll still hold the keys when you do.
Credit where it’s due. The Blueprint Alliance is a multi-vendor coalition that co-authored an open reference architecture for governing AI agents at enterprise scale. It’s built around four practical questions: Where are my agents? What can they do? What are they doing? How do I respond?
Those are the right questions, and the timing is right. Okta cites a Gartner prediction that the average global Fortune 500 company will run more than 150,000 agents by 2028, up from fewer than 15 in 2025. No single product will govern that.
In context
- Topic: Estrategia y Gobierno de TI — Decisiones de portafolio, costo total, gobierno y marcos de referencia.
- Source: CIO
- Published: 05/10/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
There is a wide gap between a company that has technology projects and one that has a technology strategy. The first accumulates initiatives; the second decides what it will not do. Moves like this are usually the moment somebody at the top finally wrote down the list of what gets left out.
My filter is always the same: does this change a decision, or only a tool? If at the end of the quarter the same people are approving the same things by the same criteria, there was no transformation, there was a purchase. The difference shows up in the committee minutes, not in the press release.
What usually goes wrong
Where I see this fail most is in the second half of the year. The announcement is made with energy, the team gets assembled, and eight months later the person driving it changed role or company. Without an institutional owner, not just a personal one, the programme fades without anybody formally cancelling it.
What to watch
- Whether business metrics appear or only delivery metrics — cost per transaction beats percentage complete.
- The real calendar of contracts and renewals: that is where you see whether the move was strategic or was an expiry date.
- What gets switched off to fund the new thing; if nothing does, the budget will hurt in six months.
How I read this entry
I would treat it less as a technology story and more as a market signal. If one player moves this way, in twelve to eighteen months the rest will have to answer something. Better to decide now, calmly, what that answer will be, rather than improvise it when a client asks.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Comments
No comments yet. Yours can be the first.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
