Plenty of enterprises want AI coding agents. Fewer are willing to send their source code to someone else’s cloud to get them. That tension has slowed adoption at banks, insurers, government agencies and other organizations that build software under strict rules about where code and data can live.
Plenty of enterprises want AI coding agents. Fewer are willing to send their source code to someone else’s cloud to get them. That tension has slowed adoption at banks, insurers, government agencies and other organizations that build software under strict rules about where code and data can live.
In context
- Topic: Desarrollo con IA — Copilotos y agentes en el ciclo de desarrollo de software.
- Source: DevOps.com
- Published: 01/10/2026
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
When a tool appears promising faster development, the useful question is not how much code it generates but how much work it generates downstream. Tests, review, security, technical debt, incidents: that is where the promise gets paid or charged.
My yardstick is simple: did the time from request to working-in-production improve? If writing got faster but a change still takes three weeks to ship, the bottleneck was somewhere else and the tool never touched it.
What usually goes wrong
Where I see most stumbles is in the conversation with people. The tool gets announced as a productivity improvement without saying what is expected of each person, and everyone fills the silence with their own fear. Adoption does not stall on the technology, it stalls on what was left unsaid.
What to watch
- Where the source code travels when the assistant is used, and what the contract says about it.
- The effect on people newly joining the team, which is where judgement erodes fastest.
- Whether total time to production drops or only writing time, which is not the same thing.
How I read this entry
I would treat it as a process change, not a tool change. The assistant shifts who does what inside the team, and that has to be discussed with people beforehand, not discovered in the retrospective once somebody already felt replaced.
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.
