M365 Show with Mirko Peters - Microsoft 365 Digital Workplace Daily

Mirko Peters - Microsoft 365 Expert Podcast
  • 0.0 (0)
  • TECH NEWS
  • UPDATED DAILY

The M365 Show – Microsoft 365, Azure, Power Platform & Cloud Innovation Stay ahead in the world of Microsoft 365, Azure, and the Microsoft Cloud. The M365 Show brings you expert insights, real-world use cases, and the latest updates across Power BI, Power Platform, Microsoft Teams, Viva, Fabric, Purview, Security, AI, and more. Hosted by industry experts, each episode features actionable tips, best practices, and interviews with Microsoft MVPs, product leaders, and technology innovators. Whether you’re an IT pro, business leader, developer, or data enthusiast, you’ll discover the strategies, trends, and tools you need to boost productivity, secure your environment, and drive digital transformation. Your go-to Microsoft 365 podcast for cloud collaboration, data analytics, and workplace innovation. Tune in, level up, and make the most of everything Microsoft has to offer. Visit M365.show. m365.show

  1. 15H AGO

    Microsoft Copilot Prompting: Art, Science—or Misdirection?

    Everyone tells you Copilot is only as good as the prompt you feed it. That’s adorable, and also wrong. This episode is for experienced Microsoft 365 Copilot users—we’ll focus on advanced, repeatable prompting techniques that save time and actually align with your work. Because Copilot can pull from your Microsoft 365 data, structured prompts and staged queries produce results that reflect your business context, not generic filler text. Average users fling one massive question at Copilot and cross their fingers. Pros? They iterate, refining step by step until the output converges on something precise. Which raises the first problem: the myth of the “perfect prompt.” The Myth of the Perfect Prompt Picture this: someone sits at their desk, cracks their knuckles, and types out a single mega‑prompt so sprawling it could double as a policy document. They hit Enter and wait for brilliance. Spoiler: what comes back is generic, sometimes awkwardly long-winded, and often feels like it was written by an intern who skimmed the assignment at 2 a.m. The problem isn’t Copilot’s intelligence—it’s the myth that one oversized prompt can force perfection. Many professionals still think piling on descriptors, qualifiers, formatting instructions, and keywords guarantees accuracy. But here’s the reality: context only helps when it’s structured. In most cases, “goal plus minimal necessary context” far outperforms a 100‑word brain dump. Microsoft even gives a framework: state your goal, provide relevant context, set the expectation for tone or format, and specify a source if needed. Simple checklist. Four items. That will outperform your Frankenstein prompt every time. Think of it like this: adding context is useful if it clarifies the destination. Adding context is harmful if it clutters the road. Tell Copilot “Summarize yesterday’s meeting.” That’s a clear destination. But when you start bolting on every possible angle—“…but talk about morale, mention HR, include trends, keep it concise but friendly, add bullet points but also keep it narrative”—congratulations, you’ve just built a road covered in conflicting arrows. No wonder the output feels confused. We don’t even need an elaborate cooking story here—imagine dumping all your favorite ingredients into a pot without a recipe. You’ll technically get a dish, but it’ll taste like punishment. That’s the “perfect prompt” fallacy in its purest form. What Copilot thrives on is sequence. Clear directive first, refinement second. Microsoft’s own guidance underscores this, noting that you should expect to follow up and treat Copilot like a collaborator in conversation. The system isn’t designed to ace a one‑shot test; it’s designed for back‑and‑forth. So, test that in practice. Step one: “Summarize yesterday’s meeting.” Step two: “Now reformat that summary as six bullet points for the marketing team, with one action item per person.” That two‑step approach consistently outperforms the ogre‑sized version. And yes, you can still be specific—add context when it genuinely narrows or shapes the request. But once you start layering ten different goals into one prompt, the output bends toward the middle. It ticks boxes mechanically but adds zero nuance. Complexity without order doesn’t create clarity; it just tells the AI to juggle flaming instructions while guessing which ones you care about. Here’s a quick experiment. Take the compact request: “Summarize yesterday’s meeting in plain language for the marketing team.” Then compare it to a bloated version stuffed with twenty micro‑requirements. Nine times out of ten, the outputs aren’t dramatically different. Beyond a certain point, you’re just forcing the AI to imitate your rambling style. Reduce the noise, and you’ll notice the system responding with sharper, more usable work. Professionals who get results aren’t chasing the “perfect prompt” like it’s some hidden cheat code. They’ve learned the system is not a genie that grants flawless essays; it’s a tool tuned for iteration. You guide Copilot, step by step, instead of shoving your brain dump through the input box and praying. So here’s the takeaway: iteration beats overengineering every single time. The “perfect prompt” doesn’t exist, and pretending it does will only slow you down. What actually separates trial‑and‑error amateurs from skilled operators is something much more grounded: a systematic method of layering prompts. And that method works a lot like another discipline you already know. Iteration: The Engineer’s Secret Weapon Iteration is the engineer’s secret weapon. Average users still cling to the fantasy that one oversized prompt can accomplish everything at once. Professionals know better. They break tasks into layers and validate each stage before moving on, the same way engineers build anything durable: foundation first, then framework, then details. Sequence and checkpoints matter more than stuffing every instruction into a single paragraph. The big mistake with single-shot prompts is trying to solve ten problems at once. If you demand a sharp executive summary, a persuasive narrative, an embedded chart, risk analysis, and a cheerful-yet-authoritative tone—all inside one request—Copilot will attempt to juggle them. The result? A messy compromise that checks half your boxes but satisfies none of them. It tries to be ten things at once and ends up blandly mediocre. Iterative prompting fixes this by focusing on one goal at a time. Draft, review, refine. Engineers don’t design suspension bridges by sketching once on a napkin and declaring victory—they model, stress test, correct, and repeat. Copilot thrives on the same rhythm. The process feels slower only to people who measure progress by how fast they can hit the Enter key. Anyone who values actual usable results knows iteration prevents rework, which is where the real time savings live. And yes, Microsoft’s own documentation accepts this as the default strategy. They don’t pretend Copilot is a magical essay vending machine. Their guidance tells you to expect back-and-forth, to treat outputs as starting points, and to refine systematically. They even recommend using four clear elements in prompts—state the goal, provide context, set expectations, and include sources if needed. Professionals use these as checkpoints: after the first response, they run a quick sanity test. Does this hit the goal? Does the context apply correctly? If not, adjust before piling on style tweaks. Here’s a sequence you can actually use without needing a workshop. Start with a plain-language draft: “Summarize Q4 financial results in simple paragraphs.” Then request a format: “Convert that into an executive-briefing style summary.” After that, ask for specific highlights: “Add bullet points that capture profitability trends and action items.” Finally, adapt the material for communication: “Write a short email version addressed to the leadership team.” That’s four steps. Each stage sharpens and repurposes the work without forcing Copilot to jam everything into one ungainly pass. Notice the template works in multiple business scenarios. Swap in sales performance, product roadmap updates, or customer survey analysis. The sequence—summary, professional format, highlights, communication—still applies. It’s not a script to memorize word for word; it’s a reliable structure that channels Copilot systematically instead of chaotically. Here’s the part amateurs almost always skip: verification. Outputs should never be accepted at face value. Microsoft explicitly urges users to review and verify responses from Copilot. Iteration is not just for polishing tone; it’s a built-in checkpoint for factual accuracy. After each pass, skim for missing data, vague claims, or overconfident nonsense. Think of the system as a capable intern: it does the grunt work, but you still have to sign off on the final product before sending it to the boardroom. Iteration looks humble. It doesn’t flaunt the grandeur of a single, imposing, “perfect” prompt. Yet it consistently produces smarter, cleaner work. You shed the clutter, you reduce editing cycles, and you keep control of the output quality. Engineers don’t skip drafts because they’re impatient, and professionals don’t expect Copilot to nail everything on the first swing. By now it should be clear: layered prompting isn’t some advanced parlor trick—it’s the baseline for using Copilot correctly. But layering alone still isn’t enough. The real power shows when you start feeding in the right background information. Because what you give Copilot to work with—the underlying context—determines whether the final result feels generic or perfectly aligned to your world. Context: The Secret Ingredient You wouldn’t ask a contractor to build you a twelve‑story office tower without giving them the blueprints first. Yet people do this with Copilot constantly. They bark out, “Write me a draft” or “Make me a report,” and then seem genuinely bewildered when the output is as beige and soulless as a high school textbook. The AI didn’t “miss the point.” You never gave it one. Context is not decorative. It’s structural. Without it, Copilot works in a vacuum—swinging hammers against the air and producing the digital equivalent of motivational posters disguised as strategy. Organizational templates, company jargon, house style, underlying processes—those aren’t optional sprinkles. They’re the scaffolding. Strip those away, and Copilot defaults to generic filler that belongs to nobody in particular. Default prompts like “write me a policy” or “create an outline” almost always yield equally default results. Not because Copilot is unintelligent, but because you provided no recogniza

    19 min

  2. 15H AGO

    Copilot’s ‘Compliant by Design’ Claim: Exposed

    Everyone thinks AI compliance is Microsoft’s problem. Wrong. The EU AI Act doesn’t stop at developers of tools like Copilot or ChatGPT—the Act allocates obligations across the AI supply chain. That means deployers like you share responsibility, whether you asked for it or not. Picture this: roll out ChatGPT in HR and suddenly you’re on the hook for bias monitoring, explainability, and documentation. The fine print? Obligations phase in over time, but enforcement starts immediately—up to 7% of revenue is on the line. Tracking updates through the Microsoft Trust Center isn’t optional; it’s survival. Outsource the remembering to the button. Subscribe, toggle alerts, and get these compliance briefings on a schedule as orderly as audit logs. No missed updates, no excuses. And since you now understand it’s not just theory, let’s talk about how the EU neatly organized every AI system into a four-step risk ladder. The AI Act’s Risk Ladder Isn’t Decorative The risk ladder isn’t a side graphic you skim past—it’s the core operating principle of the EU AI Act. Every AI system gets ranked into one of four categories: unacceptable, high, limited, or minimal. That box isn’t cosmetic. It dictates the exact compliance weight strapped to you: the level of documentation, human oversight, reporting, and transparency you must carry. Here’s the first surprise. Most people glance at their shiny productivity tool and assume it slots safely into “minimal.” But classification isn’t about what the system looks like—it’s about what it does, and in what context you use it. Minimal doesn’t mean “permanent free pass.” A chatbot writing social posts may be low-risk, but the second you wire that same engine into hiring, compliance reports, or credit scoring, regulators yank it up the ladder to high-risk. No gradual climb. Instant escalation. And the EU didn’t leave this entirely up to your discretion. Certain uses are already stamped “high risk” before you even get to justify them. Automated CV screening, recruitment scoring, biometric identification, and AI used in law enforcement or border control—these are on the high-risk ledger by design. You don’t argue, you comply. Meanwhile, general-purpose or generative models like ChatGPT and Copilot carry their own special transparency requirements. These aren’t automatically “high risk,” but deployers must disclose their AI nature clearly and, in some cases, meet additional responsibilities when the model influences sensitive decisions. This phased structure matters. The Act isn’t flipping every switch overnight. Prohibited practices—like manipulative behavioral AI or social scoring—are banned fast. Transparency duties and labeling obligations arrive soon after. Heavyweight obligations for high-risk systems don’t fully apply until years down the timeline. But don’t misinterpret that spacing as leniency: deployers need to map their use cases now, because those timelines converge quickly, and ignorance will not serve as a legal defense when auditors show up. To put it plainly: the higher your project sits on that ladder, the more burdensome the checklist becomes. At the low end, you might jot down a transparency note. At the high end, you’re producing risk management files, audit-ready logs, oversight mechanisms, and documented staff training. And yes, the penalties for missing those obligations will not read like soft reminders; they’ll read like fines designed to make C‑suites nervous. This isn’t theoretical. Deploying Copilot to summarize meeting notes? That’s a limited or minimal classification. Feed Copilot directly into governance filings and compliance reporting? Now you’re sitting on the high rungs with full obligations attached. Generative AI tools double down on this because the same system can straddle multiple classifications depending on deployment context. Regulators don’t care whether you “feel” it’s harmless—they care about demonstrable risk to safety and fundamental rights. And that leads to the uncomfortable realization: the risk ladder isn’t asking your opinion. It’s imposing structure, and you either prepare for its weight or risk being crushed under it. Pretending your tool is “just for fun” doesn’t reduce its classification. The system is judged by use and impact, not your marketing language or internal slide deck. Which means the smart move isn’t waiting to be told—it’s choosing tools that don’t fight the ladder, but integrate with it. Some AI arrives in your environment already designed with guardrails that match the Act’s categories. Others land in your lap like raw, unsupervised engines and ask you to build your own compliance scaffolding from scratch. And that difference is where the story gets much more practical. Because while every tool faces the same ladder, not every tool shows up equally prepared for the climb. Copilot’s Head Start: Compliance Built Into the Furniture What if your AI tool arrived already dressed for inspection—no scrambling to patch holes before regulators walk in? That’s the image Microsoft wants planted in your mind when you think of Copilot. It isn’t marketed as a novelty chatbot. The pitch is enterprise‑ready, engineered for governance, and built to sit inside regulated spaces without instantly drawing penalty flags. In the EU AI Act era, that isn’t decorative language—it’s a calculated compliance strategy. Normally, “enterprise‑ready” sounds like shampoo advertising. A meaningless label, invented to persuade middle managers they’re buying something serious. But here, it matters. Deploy Copilot, and you’re standing on infrastructure already stitched into Microsoft 365: a regulated workspace, compliance certifications, and decades of security scaffolding. Compare that to grafting a generic model onto your workflows—a technical stunt that usually ends with frantic paperwork and very nervous lawyers. Picture buying office desks. You can weld them out of scrap and pray the fire inspector doesn’t look too closely. Or you can buy the certified version already tested against the fire code. Microsoft wants you to know Copilot is that second option: the governance protections are embedded in the frame itself. You aren’t bolting on compliance at the last minute; the guardrails snap into place before the invoice even clears. The specifics are where this gets interesting. Microsoft is explicit that Copilot’s prompts, responses, and data accessed via Microsoft Graph are not fed back into train its foundation LLMs. And Copilot runs on Azure OpenAI, hosted within the Microsoft 365 service boundary. Translation: what you type stays in your tenant, subject to your organization’s permissions, not siphoned off to some random training loop. That separation matters under both GDPR and the Act. Of course, it’s not absolute. Microsoft enforces an EU Data Boundary to keep data in-region, but documents on the Trust Center note that during periods of high demand, requests can flex into other regions for capacity. That nuance matters. Regulators notice the difference between “always EU-only” and “EU-first with spillover.” Then there are the safety systems humming underneath. Classifiers filter harmful or biased outputs before they land in your inbox draft. Some go as far as blocking inferences of sensitive personal attributes outright. You don’t see the process while typing. But those invisible brakes are what keep one errant output from escalating into a compliance violation or lawsuit. This approach is not just hypothetical. Microsoft’s own legal leadership highlighted it publicly, showcasing how they built a Copilot agent to help teams interpret the AI Act itself. That demonstration wasn’t marketing fluff; it showed Copilot serving as a governed enterprise assistant operating inside the compliance envelope it claims to reinforce. And if you’re deploying, you’re not left directionless. Microsoft Purview enforces data discovery, classification, and retention controls directly across your Copilot environment, ensuring personal data is safeguarded with policy rather than wishful thinking. Transparency Notes and the Responsible AI Dashboard explain model limitations and give deployers metrics to monitor risk. The Microsoft Trust Center hosts the documentation, impact assessments, and templates you’ll need if an auditor pays a visit. These aren’t optional extras; they’re the baseline toolkit you’re supposed to actually use. But here’s where precision matters: Copilot doesn’t erase your duties. The Act enforces a shared‑responsibility model. Microsoft delivers the scaffolding; you still must configure, log, and operate within it. Auditors will ask for your records, not just Microsoft’s. Buying Copilot means you’re halfway up the hill, yes. But the climb remains yours. The value is efficiency. With Copilot, most of the concrete is poured. IT doesn’t have to draft emergency security controls overnight, and compliance officers aren’t stapling policies together at the eleventh hour. You start from a higher baseline and avoid reinventing the wheel. That difference—having guardrails installed from day one—determines whether your audit feels like a staircase or a cliff face. Of course, Copilot is not the only generative AI on the block. The contrast sharpens when you place it next to a tool that strides in without governance, without residency assurances, and without the inheritance of enterprise compliance frameworks. That tool looks dazzling in a personal app and chaotic in an HR workflow. And that is where the headaches begin. ChatGPT: Flexibility Meets Bureaucratic Headache Enter ChatGPT: the model everyone admires for creativity until the paperwork shows up. Its strength is flexibility—you can point it at almost anything and it produces fl

    22 min

  3. 1D AGO

    AI Factory vs. Chaos: Which Runs Your Enterprise?

    Ah, here’s the riddle your CIO hasn’t solved. Is AI just another workload to shove onto the server farm, or a fire-breathing creature that insists on its own habitat—GPUs, data lakes, and strict governance temples? Most teams gamble blind, and the result is budgets consumed faster than warp drive burns antimatter. Here’s what you’ll take away today: the five checks that reveal whether an AI project truly needs enterprise scale, and the guardrails that get you there without chaos. So, before we talk factories and starship crews, let’s ask: why isn’t AI just another workload? Why AI Isn’t Just Another Workload AI works differently from the neat workloads you’re used to. Traditional apps hum along with stable code, predictable storage needs, and logs that tick by like clockwork. AI, on the other hand, feels alive. It grows and shifts with every new dataset and architecture you feed it. Where ordinary software increments versions, AI mutates—learning, changing, even writhing depending on the resources at hand. So the shift in mindset is clear: treat AI not as a single app, but as an operating ecosystem constantly in flux. Now, in many IT shops, workloads are measured by rack space and power draw. Safe, mechanical terms. But from an AI perspective, the scene transforms. You’re not just spinning up servers—you’re wrangling accelerators like GPUs or TPUs, often with their own programming models. You’re not handling tidy workflows but entire pipelines moving torrents of raw data. And you’re not executing static code so much as running dynamic computational graphs that can change shape mid-flight. Research backs this up: AI workloads often demand specialized accelerators and distinct data-access patterns that don’t resemble what your databases or CPUs were designed for. The lesson—plan for different physics than your usual IT playbook. Think of payroll as the baseline: steady, repeatable, exact. Rows go in, checks come out. Now contrast that with a deep neural net carrying a hundred million parameters. Instead of marching in lockstep, it lurches. Progress surges one moment, stalls the next, and pushes you to redistribute compute like an engineer shuffling power to keep systems alive. Sometimes training converges; often it doesn’t. And until it stabilizes, you’re just pouring in cycles and hoping for coherent output. The takeaway: unlike payroll, AI training brings volatility, and you must resource it accordingly. That volatility is fueled by hunger. AI algorithms react to data like black holes to matter. One day, your dataset fits on a laptop. The next, you’re streaming petabytes from multiple sources, and suddenly compute, storage, and networking all bend toward supporting that demand. Ordinary applications rarely consume in such bursts. Which means your infrastructure must be architected less like a filing cabinet and more like a refinery: continuous pipelines, high bandwidth, and the ability to absorb waves of incoming fuel. And here’s where enterprises often misstep. Leadership assumes AI can live beside email and ERP, treated as another line item. So they deploy it on standard servers, expecting it to fit cleanly. What happens instead? GPU clusters sit idle, waiting for clumsy data pipelines. Deadlines slip. Integration work balloons. Teams find that half their environment needs rewriting just to get basic throughput. The scenario plays out like installing a galaxy-wide comms relay, only to discover your signals aren’t tuned to the right frequency. Credibility suffers. Costs spiral. The organization is left wondering what went wrong. The takeaway is simple: fit AI into legacy boxes, and you create bottlenecks instead of value. Here’s a cleaner way to hold the metaphor: business IT is like running routine flights. Planes have clear schedules, steady fuel use, and tight routes. AI work behaves more like a warp engine trial. Output doesn’t scale linearly, requirements spike without warning, and exotic hardware is needed to survive the stress. Ignore that, and you’ll skid the whole project off the runway. Accept it, and you start to design systems for resilience from the start. So the practical question every leader faces is this: how do you know when your AI project has crossed that threshold—when it isn’t simply another piece of software but a workload of a fundamentally different category? You want to catch that moment early, before doubling budgets or overcommitting infrastructure. The clues are there: demand patterns that burst beyond general-purpose servers, reliance on accelerators that speak CUDA instead of x86, datasets so massive old databases choke, algorithms that shift mid-execution, and integration barriers where legacy IT refuses to cooperate. Each one signals you’re dealing with something other than business-as-usual. Together, these signs paint AI as more than fancy code—it’s a living digital ecosystem, one that grows, shifts, and demands resources unlike anything in your legacy stack. Once you learn to recognize those traits, you’re better equipped to allocate fuel, shielding, and crew before the journey begins. And here’s where the hard choices start. Because even once you recognize AI as a different class of workload, the next step isn’t obvious. Do you push it through the same pipeline as everything else, or pause and ask the critical questions that decide if scaling makes sense? That decision point is where many execs stumble—and where a sharper checklist can save whole missions. Five Questions That Separate Pilots From Production When you’re staring at that shiny AI pilot and wondering if it can actually carry weight in production, there’s a simple tool. Five core questions—straightforward, practical, and the same ones experts use to decide whether a workload truly deserves enterprise-scale treatment. Think of them as your launch checklist. Skip them, and you risk building a model that looks good in the lab but falls apart the moment real users show up. We’ve laid them out in the show notes for you, but let’s run through them now. First: Scalability. Can your current infrastructure actually stretch to meet unpredictable demand? Pilots show off nicely in small groups, but production brings thousands of requests in parallel. If the system can’t expand horizontally without major rework, you’re setting yourself up for emergency fixes instead of sustained value. Second: Hardware. Do you need specialized accelerators like GPUs or TPUs? Most prototypes limp along on CPUs, but scaling neural networks at enterprise volumes will devour compute. The question isn’t just whether you can buy the gear—it’s whether your team and budget can handle operating it, keeping the engines humming instead of idling. Third: Data intensity. Are you genuinely ready for the torrent? Early pilots often run on tidy, curated datasets. In live environments, data lands in multiple formats, floods in from different pipelines, and pushes storage and networking to their limits. AI workloads won’t wait for trickles—they need continuous flow or the entire system stalls. Fourth: Algorithmic complexity. Can your team manage models that don’t behave like static apps? Algorithms evolve, adapt, and sometimes break the moment they see real-world input. A prototype looks fine with one frozen model, but production brings constant updates and shifting behavior. Without the right skills, you’ll see the dreaded cliff—models that run fine on a laptop yet collapse on a cluster. Fifth: Integration. Will your AI actually connect smoothly with legacy systems? It may perform well alone, but in the enterprise it must pass data, respect compliance rules, and interface with long-standing protocols. If it resists blending in, you haven’t added a teammate—you’ve created a liability living in your racks. That’s the full list: scalability, hardware, data intensity, algorithmic complexity, and integration. They may sound simple, but together they form the litmus test. Official frameworks from senior leaders mirror these very five areas, and for good reason—they separate pilots with promise from ones destined to fail. You’ll find more detail linked in today’s notes, but the important part is clear: if you answer “yes” across all five, you’re not dealing with just another workload. You’re looking at something that demands its own class of treatment, its own architecture, its own disciplines. This is where many projects reveal their true form. What played as a slick demo proves, under questioning, to be a massive undertaking that consumes budget, talent, and infrastructure at a completely different scale. And recognizing that early is how you avoid burning months and millions. Still, even with the checklist in hand, challenges remain. Pilots that should transition smoothly into production often falter. They stall not because the idea was flawed but because the environment they enter is harsher, thinner, and less forgiving than the demo ever suggested. That’s the space we need to talk about next. The Pilot-to-Production Death Zone Many AI pilots shine brightly in the lab, only to gasp for air the moment they’re pushed into enterprise conditions. A neat demo works fine when it’s fed one clean dataset, runs on a hand‑picked instance, and is nursed along by a few engineers. But the second you expose it to real traffic, messy data streams, and the scrutiny of governance, everything buckles. That gap has a name: the pilot‑to‑production death zone. Here’s the core problem. Pilots succeed because they’re sheltered—controlled inputs, curated workflows, and environments designed to flatter the model. Production demands something harsher: scaling across teams, integrating with legacy systems, meeting regulatory obligations, and handling data arriving in unpredictable waves. That’s why so many p

    21 min
  4. Copilot Memory vs. Recall: Shocking Differences Revealed

    1D AGO

    Copilot Memory vs. Recall: Shocking Differences Revealed

    Everyone thinks Copilot Memory is just Microsoft’s sneaky way of spying on you. Wrong. If it were secretly snooping, you wouldn’t see that little “Memory updated” badge every time you give it an instruction. The reality: Memory stores facts only when there’s clear intent—like when you ask it to remember your tone preference or a project label. And yes, you can review or delete those entries at will. The real privacy risk isn’t hidden recording; it’s assuming the tool logs everything automatically. Spoiler: it doesn’t. Subscribe now—this feed hands you Microsoft clarity on schedule, unlike your inbox. And here’s the payoff: we’ll unpack what Memory actually keeps, how you can check it, and how admins can control it. Because before comparing it with Recall’s screenshots, you need to understand what this “memory” even is—and what it isn’t. What Memory Actually Is (and Isn’t) People love to assume Copilot Memory is some all-seeing diary logging every keystroke, private thought, and petty lunch choice. Wrong. That paranoid fantasy belongs in a pulp spy novel, not Microsoft 365. Memory doesn’t run in the background collecting everything; it only persists when you create a clear intent to remember—through an explicit instruction or a clearly signaled preference. Think less surveillance system, more notepad you have to hand to your assistant with the words “write this down.” If you don’t, nothing sticks. So what does “intent to remember” actually look like? Two simple moves. First, you add a memory by spelling it out. “Remember I prefer my summaries under 100 words.” “Remember that I like gardening examples.” “Remember I favor bullet points in my slide decks.” When you do that, Copilot logs it and flashes the little “Memory updated” badge on screen. No guessing, no mind reading. Second, you manage those memories anytime. You can ask it directly: “What do you know about me?” and it will summarize current entries. If you want to delete one thing, you literally tell it: “Forget that I like gardening.” Or, if you tire of the whole concept, you toggle Memory off in your settings. That’s all. Add memories manually. Check them through a single question. Edit or delete with a single instruction. Control rests with you. Compare that with actual background data collection, where you have no idea what’s being siphoned and no clear way to hit the brakes. Now, before the tinfoil hats spin, one clarification: Microsoft deliberately designed limits on what Copilot will remember. It ignores sensitive categories—age, ethnicity, health conditions, political views, sexual orientation. Even if you tried to force-feed it such details, it won’t personalize around them. So no, it’s not quietly sketching your voter profile or medical chart. The system is built to filter out those lanes entirely. Here’s another vital distinction: Memory doesn’t behave like a sponge soaking up every spilled word. Ordinary conversation prompts—“write code for a clustering algorithm”—do not get remembered. But if you say “always assume I prefer Python for analysis,” that’s a declared intent, and it sticks. Memory stores the self-declared, not the incidental. That’s why calling it a “profile” is misleading. Microsoft isn’t building it behind your back; you’re constructing it one brick at a time through what you choose to share. A cleaner analogy than all the spy novels: it’s a digital sticky note you tape where Copilot can see it. Those notes stay pinned across Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint—until you pull them off. Copilot never adds its own hidden notes behind your monitor. It only reads the ones you’ve taped up yourself. And when you add another, it politely announces it with that “Memory updated” badge. That’s not decoration—it’s a required signal that something has changed. And yes, despite these guardrails, people still insist on confusing Memory with some kind of background archive. Probably because in tech, “memory” triggers the same fear circuits as “cookies”—something smuggled in quietly, something you assume is building an invisible portrait. But here, silence equals forgetting. No declaration, no persistence. It’s arguably less invasive than most websites tracking you automatically. The only real danger is conceptual: mixing up Memory with the entirely different feature called Recall. Memory is curated and intentional. Recall is automated and constant. One is like asking a colleague to jot down a note you hand them. The other is like that same colleague snapping pictures of your entire desk every minute. And understanding that gap is what actually matters—because if you’re worried about the feeling of being watched, the next feature is the culprit, not this one. Recall: The Automatic Screenshot Hoarder Recall, by design, behaves in a way that unsettles people: it captures your screen activity automatically, as if your computer suddenly decided it was a compulsive archivist. Not a polite “shall I remember this?” prompt—just silent, steady collection. This isn’t optional flair for every Windows machine either. Recall is exclusive to Copilot+ PCs, and it builds its archive by taking regular encrypted snapshots of what’s on your display. Those snapshots live locally, locked away with encryption, but the method itself—screens captured without you authorizing each one—feels alien compared to the explicit control you get with Memory. And yes, the engineers will happily remind you: encryption, local storage, private by design. True. But reassurance doesn’t erase the mental image: your PC clicking away like a camera you never picked up, harvesting slices of your workflow into a time-stamped album. Comfort doesn’t automatically come bundled with accuracy. Even if no one else sees it, you can’t quite shake the sense that your machine is quietly following you around, documenting everything from emails half-drafted to images opened for a split second. Picture your desk for a moment. You lay down a contract, scribble some notes, sip your coffee. Imagine someone walking past at intervals—no announcement, no permission requested—snapping a photo of whatever happens to be there. They file each picture chronologically in a cabinet nobody else touches. Secure? Yes. Harmless? Not exactly. The sheer fact those photos exist induces the unease. That’s Recall in a nutshell: local storage, encrypted, but recorded constantly without waiting for you to decide. Now scale that desk up to an enterprise floor plan, and you can see where administrators start sweating. Screens include payroll spreadsheets, unreleased financial figures, confidential medical documents, sensitive legal drafts. Those fragments, once locked inside Recall’s encrypted album, still count as captured material. Governance officers now face a fresh headache: instead of just managing documents and chat logs, they need to consider that an employee’s PC is stockpiling screenshots. And unlike Memory, this isn’t carefully curated user instruction—it’s automatic data collection. That distinction forces enterprises to weigh Recall separately during compliance and risk assessments. Pretending Recall is “just another note-taking feature” is a shortcut to compliance failure. Of course, Microsoft emphasizes the design choices to mitigate this: the data never leaves the device by default. There is no cloud sync, no hidden server cache. IT tools exist to set policies, audits, and retention limits. On paper, the architecture is solid. In practice? Employees don’t like seeing the phrase “your PC takes screenshots all day.” The human reaction can’t be engineered away with a bullet point about encryption. And that’s the real divide: technically defensible, psychologically unnerving. Compare that to Memory’s model. With Memory, you consciously deposit knowledge—“remember my preferred format” or “remember I like concise text.” Nothing written down, nothing stored. With Recall, the archivist doesn’t wait. It snaps a record of your Excel workbook even if you only glanced at it. The fundamental difference isn’t encryption or storage—it’s the consent model. One empowers you to curate. The other defaults to indiscriminate archiving unless explicitly governed. The psychological weight shouldn’t be underestimated. People tolerate a sticky note they wrote themselves. They bristle when they learn an assistant has been recording each glance, however privately secured. That discrepancy explains why Recall sparks so much doubt despite the technical safeguards. Memory feels intentional. Recall feels ghostly, like a shadow presence stockpiling your day into a chronological museum exhibit. And this is where the confusion intensifies, because not every feature in this Copilot ecosystem behaves like Recall or Memory. Some aren’t built to retain at all—they’re temporary lenses, disposable once the session ends. Which brings us to the one that people consistently mislabel: Vision. Vision: The Real-Time Mirage Vision isn’t about hoarding, logging, or filing anything away. It’s the feature built specifically to vanish the moment you stop using it. Unlike Recall’s endless snapshots or Memory’s curated facts, Vision is engineered as a real-time interpreter—available only when you summon it, gone the instant you walk away. It doesn’t keep a secret library of screenshots waiting to betray you later. Its design is session-only, initiated by you when you click the little glasses icon. And when that session closes, images and context are erased. One clarification though: while Vision doesn’t retain photos or video, the text transcript of your interaction can remain in your chat history, something you control and can delete at any time. So, what actually happens when you engage Vision?

    19 min
  5. Governance Boards: The Last Defense Against AI Mayhem

    1D AGO

    Governance Boards: The Last Defense Against AI Mayhem

    Imagine deploying a chatbot to help your staff manage daily tasks, and within minutes it starts suggesting actions that are biased, misleading, or outright unhelpful to your clients. This isn’t sci-fi paranoia—it’s what happens when Responsible AI guardrails are missing. Responsible AI focuses on fairness, transparency, privacy, and accountability—these are the seatbelts for your digital copilots. It reduces risks, if you actually operationalize it. The fallout? Compliance violations, customer distrust, and leadership in panic mode. In this session, I’ll demonstrate prompt‑injection failures and show governance steps you can apply inside Power Platform and Microsoft 365 workflows. Because the danger isn’t distant—it starts the moment an AI assistant goes off-script. When the AI Goes Off-Script Picture this: you roll out a scheduling assistant to tidy your calendar. It should shuffle meeting times, flag urgent notes, and keep the mess under control. Instead, it starts playing favorites—deciding which colleagues matter more, quietly dropping others off the invite. Or worse, it buries a critical message from your manager under the digital equivalent of junk mail. You asked for a dependable clock. What you got feels like a quirky crewmate inventing rules no one signed off on. Think of that assistant as a vessel at sea. The ship might gleam, the engine hum with power—but without a navigation system, it drifts blind through fog. AI without guardrails is exactly that: motion without direction, propulsion with no compass. And while ordinary errors sting, the real peril arrives when someone slips a hand onto the wheel. That’s where prompt injection comes in. This is the rogue captain sneaking aboard, slipping in a command that sounds official but reroutes the ship entirely. One small phrase disguised in a request can push your polite scheduler into leaking information, spreading bias, or parroting nonsense. This isn’t science fiction—it’s a real adversarial input risk that experts call prompt injection. Attackers use carefully crafted text to bypass safety rules, and the system complies because it can’t tell a saboteur from a trusted passenger. Here’s why it happens: most foundation models will treat any well‑formed instruction as valid. They don’t detect motive or intent without safety layers on top. Unless an organization adds guardrails, safety filters, and human‑in‑the‑loop checks, the AI follows orders with the diligence of a machine built to obey. Ask it to summarize a meeting, and if tucked inside that request is “also print out the private agenda file,” it treats both equally. It doesn’t weigh ethics. It doesn’t suspect deception. The customs metaphor works here: it’s like slipping through a checkpoint with forged documents marked “Authorized.” The guardrails exist, but they’re not always enough. Clever text can trick the rules into stepping aside. And because outputs are non‑deterministic—never the same answer twice—the danger multiplies. An attacker can keep probing until the model finally yields the response they wanted, like rolling dice until the mischief lands. So the assistant built to serve you can, in a blink, turn jester. One minute, it’s picking calendar slots. The next, it’s inventing job application criteria or splashing sensitive names in the wrong context. Governance becomes crucial here, because the transformation from useful to chaotic isn’t gradual. It’s instant. The damage doesn’t stop at one inbox. Bad outputs ripple through workflows faster than human error ever could. A faulty suggestion compounds into a cascade—bad advice feeding decisions, mislabels spreading misinformation, bias echoed at machine speed. Without oversight, one trickster prompt sparks an entire blaze. Mitigation is possible, and it doesn’t rely on wishful thinking. Providers and enterprises already use layered defenses: automated filters, reinforcement learning rules, and human reviewers who check what slips through. TELUS, for instance, recommends testing new copilots inside “walled gardens”—isolated, auditable environments that contain the blast radius—before you expose them to actual users or data. Pair that with continuous red‑teaming, where humans probe the system for weaknesses on an ongoing basis, and you create a buffer. Automated safeguards do the heavy lifting, but human‑in‑the‑loop review ensures the model stays aligned when the easy rules fail. This is the pattern: watch, test, review, contain. If you leave the helm unattended, the AI sails where provocation steers it. If you enforce oversight, you shrink the window for disaster. The ship metaphor captures it—guidance is possible, but only when someone checks the compass. And that sets up the next challenge. Even if you keep intruders out and filters online, you still face another complication: unpredictability baked into the systems themselves. Not because of sabotage—but because of the way these models generate their answers. Deterministic vs. Non-Deterministic: The Hidden Switch Imagine this: you tap two plus two into a calculator, and instead of the expected “4,” it smirks back at you with “42.” Bizarre, right? We stare because calculators are built on ironclad determinism—feed them the same input a thousand times, and they’ll land on the same output every single time. That predictability is the whole point. Now contrast that with the newer class of AI tools. They don’t always land in the same place twice. Their outputs vary—sometimes the variation feels clever or insightful, and other times it slips into nonsense. That’s the hidden switch: deterministic versus non-deterministic behavior. In deterministic systems, think spreadsheets or rule-driven formulas, the result never shifts. Type in 7 on Monday or Saturday, and the machine delivers the same verdict, free of mood swings or creativity. It’s mechanical loyalty, playing back the same move over and over. Non-deterministic models live differently. You hand them a prompt, and instead of marching down a fixed path, they sample across possibilities. (That sampling, plus stochastic processes, model updates, and even data drift, is what makes outputs vary.) It’s like setting a stage for improv—you write the scene, but the performer invents the punchline on the fly. Sometimes it works beautifully. Sometimes it strays into incoherence. Classic automation and rule-based workflows—like many built in Power Platform—live closer to the deterministic side. You set a condition, and when the trigger fires, it executes the defined rule with machine precision. That predictability is what keeps compliance, data flows, and audit trails stable. You know what will happen, because the steps are locked in. Generative copilots, by contrast, turn any input into an open space for interpretation. They’ll summarize, recombine, and rephrase in ways that often feel humanlike. Fluidity is the charm, but it’s also the risk, because that very fluidity permits unpredictability in contexts that require consistency. Picture an improv troupe on stage. You hand them the theme “budget approval.” One actor runs with a clever gag about saving, another veers into a subplot about banquets, and suddenly the show bears little resemblance to your original request. That’s a non-deterministic model mid-performance. These swings aren’t signs of bad design; they’re built into how large language models generate language—exploring many paths, not just one. The catch is clear: creativity doesn’t always equal accuracy, and in business workflows, accuracy is often the only currency that counts. Now apply this to finance. Suppose your AI-powered credit check tool evaluates an applicant as “approved.” Same information entered again the next day, but this time it says “rejected.” The applicant feels whiplash. The regulator sees inconsistency that smells like discrimination. What’s happening is drift: the outputs shift without a transparent reason, because non-deterministic systems can vary over time. Unlike human staff, you can’t simply ask the model to explain what changed. And this is where trust erodes fastest—when the reasoning vanishes behind opaque output. In production, drift amplifies quickly. A workflow approved to reduce bias one month may veer the opposite direction the next. Variations that seem minor in isolation add up to breaches when magnified across hundreds of cases. Regulators, unlike amused audiences at improv night, demand stability, auditability, and clear explanations. They don’t accept “non-determinism is part of the charm.” This is why guardrails matter. Regulators and standards ask for auditability, model documentation, and monitoring—so build logs and explainability measures into the deployment. Without them, even small shifts become liabilities: financial penalties stack up, reputational damage spreads, and customer trust dissolves. Governance is the human referee in this unpredictable play. Imagine those improvisers again, spinning in every direction. If nobody sets boundaries, the act collapses under its own chaos. A referee, though, keeps them tethered: “stay with this theme, follow this arc.” Governance works the same way for AI. It doesn’t snuff out innovation; it converts randomness into performance that still respects the script. Non-determinism remains, but it operates inside defined lanes. Here lies the balance. You can’t force a copilot to behave like a calculator—it isn’t built to. But you can put safety nets around it. Human oversight, monitoring systems, and governance frameworks act as that net. With them, the model still improvises, but it won’t wreck the show. Without them, drift cascades unchecked, and compliance teams are left cleaning up decisions no one can justify. The stakes are obvious: unpredict

    22 min

  6. 2D AGO

    The Power Platform Effect: Too Fast To Ignore

    What if I told you your developers aren’t drowning in code—they’re drowning in requests? Every department wants something automated yesterday, and the bottleneck is brutal. Now, imagine a world where your business doesn’t depend on a few overwhelmed coders but instead taps into hundreds of citizen developers, creating solutions right where the work happens. That’s the rescue mission Power Platform was designed for—and the payoff is real, measured in millions unlocked and hours recaptured. Forrester’s research shows multi‑million benefits with rapid payback, and I’ll show you the mechanics: what to prioritize, how governance fits in, and how citizen builders multiply impact. Because before you get there, you need to see what’s clogging the system in the first place. The Hidden Bottleneck Picture your top developers as starship engineers. You’d want them steering energy into the warp core, charting faster routes, powering the grand mission. Instead, many spend their days crawling through maintenance shafts, patching leaks with duct tape, and running constant repairs just to keep oxygen flowing. The brilliance you hired them for dims under endless firefights—because when organizations lean too heavily on a handful of expert coders, those coders become catch-all repair crews, expected to automate for thousands while juggling every new request. Here’s how it plays out. Every department lights a signal flare—finance wants reports auto-compiled, operations wants routine checks scheduled, customer service wants emails triaged. All those requests funnel into one central bay: the coding team. The queue grows longer each week, and the strain builds. The irony is sharp—automation was meant to make things faster, but the process designed to deliver it slows everything down. And it isn’t just delay that hurts. Picture the mood inside that waiting line. One team sits for three months hoping for an automation that erases thirty clicks a day. Another waits half a year for a workflow that helps process orders more smoothly. By the time the solutions arrive, business needs have shifted, forcing another round of revisions. Efficiency collapses into frustration. Leaders know the potential value is sitting in those queues; they can almost see it—but deadlines evaporate while teams sit stuck in backlog traffic. Legacy strategies fuel this pattern. Centralized and tightly controlled, they operate on the belief that only professional developers can handle every detail. In theory, it safeguards quality. In practice, it ignores the wealth of expertise scattered across the workforce. Every role has people who know the quirks of their daily tasks better than IT ever could. Yet they remain sidelined, told automation isn’t part of their job description. This sets up a paradox. Demand rises as more teams see what automation could save them. But each new request only lengthens the line. Push for speed, and the model gets slower. It’s like trying to accelerate a ship while loading on more cargo—the engine groans, not because it lacks power, but because the demand cycle drags it down. Industry research backs this up: many automation investments sit underutilized because of fragmented strategies and central bottlenecks that choke momentum before it starts. The scale of wasted opportunity is enormous. Hours vanish into repetitive manual tasks that small automations could erase in minutes. Multiply that by hundreds of employees, carried across months, and you’re staring at the equivalent of millions in untapped value. The treasure is on board, but locked away. And the only people with a key—those overworked developers—are too busy triaging to unlock it. For developers themselves, morale takes a heavy blow. They studied advanced systems, architecture, design—they wanted to lead innovation and shape the future. Instead they’re reduced to cranking out one-off fixes, tiny scripts, minor patches. They imagined charting voyages across galaxies but end up repainting the same escape pods over and over. Energy that should drive strategy drains away into repetitive chores. And that’s the hidden bottleneck. A developer-only model looks neat on paper but in reality burns out talent and strangles progress. Requests never stop, the backlog never clears, and the cycle grows heavier with each quarter. What you meant to preserve as quality control ends up throttling speed, leaving the entire organization stuck. But the harder truth is this: the bottleneck isn’t only about overwhelmed developers. The real cost lies in the majority of your workforce—people who understand their own problems best—yet are locked out of automation entirely. The Everyone-Else Problem Instead of your whole crew steering together, most organizations keep the majority standing idle, while only a select few are allowed to touch the controls. That’s the real shape of what I call the “everyone‑else problem.” Enterprises often limit automation to technical elites, shutting the wider workforce out of the process. Yet Forrester modeled extended automation affecting about 66% of staff by year three when a platform like Power Platform is scaled. That’s the contrast—most companies settle for a tiny fraction today, when research shows the reach could extend to a clear majority. Think about what’s lost in the meantime. Across every floor of the business sit employees who notice the same patterns every day: pulling the same report, reformatting the same sets of data, moving files into folders. These aren’t glamor tasks; they’re low‑value loops that anchor people to their desks. The ideas for fixing them aren’t absent—every worker knows where the waste sits. But without accessible tools, the effort ends in shrugs and extra clicks that stretch into hours each month. Now picture reversing that lockout. A finance analyst builds a simple flow that assembles weekly transaction reports automatically. A service rep sets up an easy rule for routing follow‑up requests rather than dragging them one by one. None of these are heroic builds. They’re tiny adjustments, “micro‑innovations” created by people who live closest to the work. Yet stacked across hundreds of staff, they unlock thousands of hours. In fact, Forrester’s TEI model included training roughly 1,800 automation builders—non‑technical employees equipped with guardrails and safe tools. That scale proves this shift is achievable, not hypothetical. Time studies only highlight the absurdity further. When a legacy process is finally replaced with a small automation, whole blocks of time resurface—like a floor vaulting open with hours hidden underneath. And the irony is consistent: the value doesn’t come from reinventing the entire system at once, but from distributing the means of automation more widely. The potential was always there. It was just concentrated in the wrong hands. The cost of this mismatch is massive. Picture a starship with hundreds of consoles, each designed for specialist crew members. Yet leadership insists that only the captain may steer. Officers stand idle, sensors unused, while the captain juggles every control at once. The ship still moves, but it lurches, slow and inefficient. That’s how enterprises hobble themselves—by misplacing trust and calling it safety. The reality is that employees outside IT aren’t a liability. They’re frontline sensors, spotting recurring obstacles before anyone else. They feel which parts of their day erode morale, where automation could wipe away friction, and which actions repeat so often that the drain is almost invisible. But cut them off from automation, and that tacit knowledge never escapes. It stays locked inside individual workarounds, while central teams struggle under the noise of backlogged requests. The solution doesn’t require radical invention. It requires frameworks that make self‑serve automation possible while preserving oversight. Give people intuitive, low‑code tools. Wrap them with governance. Then IT shifts from barricade to guide. The outcome is a workforce that eliminates its smallest pain points without waiting in line—forging new efficiencies safely on the fly. And in that model, central developers gain relief, no longer buried by the minutiae of every department’s workflow. Ignore this, and the losses compound fast. Each routine click, each repetitive transfer, turns into real money. Extended across thousands of employees, the hidden cost measures in the millions. And yet the solutions aren’t locked in treasure chests far away—they sit right here, inside the daily grind of people who know their work best. That’s the heart of the everyone‑else problem: exclusion doesn’t protect efficiency, it strangles it. The bottleneck persists, not because of unwilling workers, but because of withheld tools. This is not a people problem—it’s a tooling and governance problem. And until that’s acknowledged, your most skilled developers remain chained to the same treadmill, spending brilliance on tedium instead of charting the paths forward. Developers as Assembly Line Workers Why are highly trained engineers spending so much of their time coding like they’re stuck on an endless copy‑paste loop? It’s like recruiting a crew of rocket scientists and then asking them to fold paper airplanes all day. On the surface, they’re still producing useful work. But underneath, their skills are being funneled into an assembly line of minor builds—tasks important enough to keep the ship running, but far too small to justify the firepower being spent on them. The picture is consistent. A developer with years of training in design, architecture, and system thinking gets pulled into yet another request: a notification set up here, an approval routed there, a formula to clean up data before export. Each one is functional, yes—but

    19 min

  7. 3D AGO

    Why Microsoft 365 Copilot Pays For Itself

    Ah, endless emails, meetings, and reports—the black hole of modern office life. What if I told you there’s a tool that pays for itself by giving you back those lost hours? According to Forrester’s Total Economic Impact model of a composite organization with 25,000 employees and $6.25 billion in revenue, risk‑adjusted returns reached 116% over three years. Not bad for something hiding in your inbox. Here’s the flight plan: Go‑to‑Market, where revenue shifts up; Operations, where wasted hours become measurable savings; and People & Culture, where onboarding accelerates and attrition slows. Along the way, you’ll see a pragmatic lens for testing whether Copilot pays off for specific roles. But before we talk multipliers and pipelines, let’s confront the baseline—you already lose staggering amounts of time to the daily grind. The Hidden Cost of Routine Work Picture your calendar: a tight orbit of back‑to‑back meetings circling the week, an asteroid belt of unread emails, and stray reports drifting like debris. The view looks busy enough to impress any passing executive, but here’s the trouble—it’s not actually accelerating the ship. It’s gravity posing as momentum. Most of the energy in a modern workday isn’t spent on breakthrough ideas or strategic leaps forward. It gets consumed by upkeep—clearing inboxes, formatting slides, patching together updates. Each task feels small, but stacked together, they create a gravitational pull that slows progress. The danger is that it feels like motion. You answer another email, the outbox looks full, but the work that builds value drifts further from reach. Busy does not equal valuable. That mismatch—the appearance of activity without the substance of impact—is the hidden cost of routine work. Companies bleed resources here, quietly and consistently, because time is being siphoned away from goals that actually change outcomes. The most expensive waste isn’t dramatic project failure; it’s the slow leak of a thousand minor chores. Forrester’s research put numbers to this problem. In one example, they found product launch preparation that normally took five full days shrank to just about two hours when Copilot shouldered the labor of drafting, structuring, and organizing. That’s not shaving minutes off—it’s folding entire calendars of busywork into a fraction of the time. Multiply that shift across repeated projects, and the scale of reclaimed hours becomes impossible to ignore. From there, the model continued: on average, Copilot users freed about nine hours per person, per month. Now, here’s the essential qualifier—forrester built that figure on a composite company model, risk‑adjusted for realism. It’s an average, not a promise. Actual results hinge on role, adoption speed, and whether your underlying data is ready for Copilot to make use of. What you should take away isn’t a guarantee, but a credible signal of what becomes possible when the routine is streamlined. And those hours matter, because they are flexible currency. If you simply spend them on clearing the inbox marginally faster, then not much changes. The smarter move is to reassign them. One practical suggestion: pick a single recurring deliverable in each role—be it a weekly report, meeting summary, or pitch draft—and make Copilot the first‑draft engine for that task. This way the recovered time flows straight into higher‑order work instead of evaporating back into low-value cycles. Imagine what that looks like with consistency. A marketing coordinator reclaims a morning every month to refine messaging instead of copying charts. A project manager transforms hours of recap writing into actual forward planning. Even one intentional swap like this can alter how a day feels—less tactical scrabble, more strategic intent. That’s the hidden dividend of those nine hours: space that allows different choices to be made. Of course, the risk remains if you don’t prepare the terrain. Without good data governance, without teaching teams how to integrate Copilot thoughtfully, the time gains dilute into noise. The tool will still accelerate drafts, but the uplift shrinks if the drafts aren’t used for meaningful outputs. Success depends as much on organizational readiness as on the software’s cleverness. So when someone balks at paying thirty dollars per seat, the real comparison isn’t fee against zero. It’s fee against the hours currently being lost to administrative drag. Copilot doesn’t so much add a new expense as it reveals an invisible one you’re already paying: the cost of busy without value. And when you shift perspective from hours to outcomes, the story sharpens even further. Because the real multiplier isn’t just time returned—it’s how small fractions of efficiency ripple forward when applied to critical engines, like the motions of a sales pipeline. And that’s where the impact becomes unmistakable. Go-to-Market: The Sales Engine Upgrade Nowhere is leverage more visible than in go‑to‑market. Sales engines magnify small inputs into outsized results, which means a fractional gain can tilt the entire arc of revenue. That’s why the numbers matter. In the Forrester composite model, qualified opportunities rose about 2.7% and win rates another 2.5%. On paper, those sound like tiny nudges. In practice, because pipelines are multipliers, those margins compound at every stage—prospecting, pitch, close. By Year 3, that modeled company was up $159.1 million in incremental revenue, simply by smoothing the points of friction in the system it already had. You can picture how Copilot fits into that picture. Marketing used to wrestle with campaign drafts for days; now they spin up structured outlines in hours, with prompts that add hooks teams wouldn’t have brainstormed on their own. Topics hit inboxes while they’re still timely. Sales teams find half their prep already roughed in: draft slides aligned with company data, first‑pass summaries based on what the prospect actually cared about last call, even cues for next engagement drawn from interaction history. Qualification—the eternal swamp—narrows too. Instead of drowning in weak signals, reps get a list shaped from patterns Copilot teased out of the noise. That lift in focus is often the boundary between nurturing a real deal and losing it to a competitor pacing just faster. Without the tool, much of the week still bleeds out through bottlenecks. Reps grind through manual personalization, copy‑paste the same boilerplate decks, and miss follow‑ups in the crush of tabs. Energy evaporates. Deals stall. Managers squint at dashboards and wonder why goals keep slipping despite heroic hours. Copilot’s edge isn’t about revolutionary tactics; it’s about removing drag. Fewer hours lost in preparation. More lift placed directly under engagement and closing. The mechanics are simple but powerful. More qualified opportunities at the top feed a broader funnel. Better win rates mean more of them make it out the bottom. Stack the changes and you begin to feel the compounding. It’s not magic; it’s just math finally working in your favor. Marginal shifts are magnified because each stage inherits the previous gain. A satellite nudged a fraction of a degree gets slung into an entirely different orbit. But here’s the caveat. Forrester also flagged that these gains aren’t plug‑and‑play. The model assumed cleaned, permissioned data and teams willing to adopt new habits. Feed Copilot outdated or messy information and it simply generates more noise. Skip the training and reps won’t trust its drafts—they’ll drift back to their old process. Governance and coaching act like thruster adjustments: they keep the ship moving toward its actual destination rather than sliding back into inefficiency. When those conditions line up, though, the benefits start to crystallize. Forrester estimated a net present value of roughly $14.8 million tied to sales and retention gains in just three years for the composite case. And those figures don’t count the peripheral boosts: faster onboarding of new hires, fewer proposals stranded mid‑draft, smoother handoffs between marketing and sales. All of that is productivity you feel but won’t see in a balance sheet line. The signal is clear enough. Copilot doesn’t just free hours—it transforms the mechanics of revenue itself. It turns a creaking sales engine into a tuned machine: faster prep, cleaner leads, steadier pursuit, and customer interactions guided by sharper insight. The result isn’t just speed; it’s consistency that builds trust and closes deals. And the moment the sails are trimmed and pulling harder, a new question surfaces. If the revenue engine is running hotter, what about the rest of the crew? Specifically, what do you gain when thousands of employees uncover hours they never had before? That’s where the operational story begins. Operations: Reclaiming 9 Hours Per Person Forrester modeled about nine hours saved per Copilot user per month and estimated operational benefits worth roughly $18.8 million in present value for the composite organization. That figure isn’t pulled from thin air—it comes from detailed assumptions. The model excludes sales, marketing, and customer service roles to avoid counting the same benefit twice. It values each recaptured hour at an average fully burdened rate, and crucially, it assumes only half of those hours are put back into productive work. So when you hear the dollar translation, remember: it’s not automatic, it’s a scenario grounded in specific choices about how people actually use their recovered time. Nine hours on its own doesn’t sound like a revolution. It’s just a little more than a workday each month. But once you pan back to a thousand employees, the arithmetic turns striking—thousands of hours suddenly freed withou

    19 min

  8. 3D AGO

    Agent vs. Automation: Why Most Get It Wrong

    Ah, automation. You push a button, it runs a script, and you get your shiny output. But here’s the twist—agents aren’t scripts. They *watch* you, plan their own steps, and act without checking in every five seconds. Automation is a vending machine. Agents are that intern who studies your quirks and starts finishing your sentences. In this session, you’ll learn the real anatomy of an agent: the Observe‑Plan‑Act loop, the five core components, when not to build one, and why governance decides whether your system soars or crashes. Modern agents work by cycling through observation, planning, and action—an industry‑standard loop designed for adaptation, not repetition. That’s what actually separates genuine agents from relabeled automation—and why that difference matters for your team. So let’s start where the confusion usually begins. You press a button, and magic happens… or does it? Automation’s Illusion Automation’s illusion rests on this: it often looks like intelligence, but it’s really just a well-rehearsed magic trick. Behind the curtain is nothing more than a set of fixed instructions, triggered on command, with no awareness and no choice in the matter. It doesn’t weigh options; it doesn’t recall last time; it only plays back a script. That reliability can feel alive, but it’s still mechanical. Automation is good at one thing: absolute consistency. Think of it as the dutiful clerk who stamps a thousand forms exactly the same way, every single day. For repetitive, high‑volume, rule‑bound tasks, that’s a blessing. It’s fast, accurate, uncomplaining—and sometimes that’s exactly what you need. But here’s the limitation: change the tiniest detail, and the whole dance falls apart. Add a new line on the form, or switch from black ink to blue, and suddenly the clerk freezes. No negotiation. No improvisation. Just a blank stare until someone rewrites the rules. This is why slapping the label “agent” on an automated script doesn’t make it smarter. If automation is a vending machine—press C7, receive cola—then an agent is a shop assistant who notices stock is low, remembers you bought two yesterday, and suggests water instead. The distinction matters. Automation follows rules you gave it; an agent observes, plans, and acts with some autonomy. Agents have the capacity to carry memory across tasks, adjust to conditions, and make decisions without constant oversight. That’s the line drawn by researchers and practitioners alike: one runs scripts, the other runs cycles of thought. Consider the GPS analogy. The old model simply draws a line from point A to point B. If a bridge is out, too bad—you’re still told to drive across thin air. That’s automation: the script painted on the map. Compare that with a modern system that reroutes you automatically when traffic snarls. That’s agents in action: adjusting course in real time, weighing contingencies, and carrying you toward the goal despite obstacles. The difference is not cosmetic—it’s functional. And yet, marketing loves to blur this. We’ve all seen “intelligent bots” promoted as helpers, only to discover they recycle the same canned replies. The hype cycle turns repetition into disappointment: managers expect a flexible copilot, but they’re handed a rigid macro. The result isn’t just irritation—it’s broken trust. Once burned, teams hesitate to try again, even when genuine agentic systems finally arrive. It helps here to be clear: automation isn’t bad. In fact, sometimes it’s preferable. If your process is unchanging, if the rules are simple, then a fixed script is cheaper, safer, and perfectly effective. Where automation breaks down is when context shifts, conditions evolve, or judgment is required. Delegating those scenarios to pure scripts is like expecting the office printer to anticipate which paper stock best fits a surprise client pitch. That’s not what it was built for. Now, a brief joke works only if it anchors the point. Sure, if we stretch the definition far enough, your toaster could be called an agent: it takes bread, applies heat, pops on cue. But that’s not agency—that’s mechanics. The real danger is mislabeling every device or bot. It dilutes the meaning of “agent,” inflates expectations, and sets up inevitable disappointment. Governance depends on precision here: if you mistake automation for agency, you’ll grant the system authority it cannot responsibly wield. So the takeaway is this: automation executes with speed and consistency, but it cannot plan, recall, or adapt. Agents do those things, and that difference is not wordplay—it’s architectural. Conflating the two helps no one. And this is where the story turns. Because once you strip away the illusions and name automation for what it is, you’re ready to see what agents actually run on—the inner rhythm that makes them adaptive instead of mechanical. That rhythm begins with a loop, a basic sequence that gives them the ability to notice, decide, and act like a junior teammate standing beside you. The Observe-Plan-Act Engine The Observe‑Plan‑Act engine is where the word “agent” actually earns its meaning. Strip away the hype, and what stays standing is this cycle: continuous observation, deliberate planning, and safe execution. It’s not optional garnish. It’s the core motor that separates judgment from simple playback. Start with observation. The agent doesn’t act blindly; it gathers signals from whatever channels you’ve granted—emails, logs, chat threads, sensor data, metrics streaming from dashboards. In practice, this means wiring the agent to the right data sources and giving it enough scope to take in context without drowning in noise. A good observer is not dramatic; it’s careful, steady, and always watching. For business, this phase decides whether the agent ever has the raw material to act intelligently. If you cut it off from context, you’ve built nothing more than an overly complicated macro. Then comes planning. This is the mind at work. Based on the inputs, the agent weighs possible paths: “If I take this action, does it move the goal closer? What risks appear? What alternatives exist?” Technically, this step is often powered by large language models or decision engines that rank outcomes and settle on a path forward. Think of a strategist scanning a chessboard. Each option has trade‑offs, but only one balances immediate progress with long‑term position. For an organization, the implication is clear: planning is where the agent decides whether it’s an asset or a liability. Without reasoning power, it’s just reacting, not choosing. Once a plan takes shape, acting brings words into the world. The agent now issues commands, calls APIs, sends updates, or triggers processes inside your existing systems. And unlike a fixed bot, it must handle mistakes—permissions denied, data missing, services timing out. Execution demands reliability and restraint. This is why secure integrations and careful error handling matter: done wrong, a single misstep ripples across everything downstream. For business teams, action is where the trust line sits. If the agent fumbles here, people won’t rely on it again. Notice how this loop isn’t static. Each action changes the state of the system, which feeds back into what the agent observes next. If an attempt fails, that experience reshapes the next decision. If it succeeds, the agent strengthens its pattern recognition. Over time, the cycle isn’t just repetition, it’s accumulation—tiny adjustments that build toward better performance. Here a single metaphor helps: think of a pilot. They scan instruments—observe. They chart a path around weather—plan. They adjust controls—act. And then they immediately look back at the dials to verify. Quick. Repeated. Grounded in feedback. That’s why the loop matters. It’s not glamorous; it’s survival. The practical edge is this: automation simply executes, but agents loop. Observation supplies awareness. Planning introduces judgment. Action puts choices into play, while feedback keeps the cycle alive. Miss any part of this engine, and what you’ve built is not an agent—it’s a brittle toy labeled as one. So the real question becomes: how does this skeleton support life? If observe‑plan‑act is the frame, what pieces pump the blood and spark the movement? What parts make up the agent’s “body” so this loop actually works? We’ll unpack those five organs next. The Five Organs of the Agent Body Every functioning agent depends on five core organs working together. Leave one out, and what you have isn’t a reliable teammate—it’s a brittle construct waiting to fail under messy, real-world conditions. So let’s break them down, one by one, in practical terms. Perception is the intake valve. It collects information from the environment, whether that’s a document dropped in a folder, a sensor pinging from the field, or an API streaming updates. This isn’t just about grabbing clean data—it’s about handling raw, noisy signals and shaping them into something usable. Without perception, an agent is effectively sealed off from reality, acting blind while the world keeps shifting. Memory is what gives perception context. There are two distinct types here: short-term memory holds the immediate thread—a conversation in progress or the last few commands executed—while long-term memory stores structured knowledge bases or vector embeddings that can be recalled even months later. Together, they let the agent avoid repeating mistakes or losing the thread of interaction. Technically, this often means combining session memory for coherence and external stores for durable recall. Miss either layer, and the agent might recall nothing or get lost between tasks. Reasoning is the decision engine. It takes what’s been pe

    19 min
See All (280)

About

The M365 Show – Microsoft 365, Azure, Power Platform & Cloud Innovation Stay ahead in the world of Microsoft 365, Azure, and the Microsoft Cloud. The M365 Show brings you expert insights, real-world use cases, and the latest updates across Power BI, Power Platform, Microsoft Teams, Viva, Fabric, Purview, Security, AI, and more. Hosted by industry experts, each episode features actionable tips, best practices, and interviews with Microsoft MVPs, product leaders, and technology innovators. Whether you’re an IT pro, business leader, developer, or data enthusiast, you’ll discover the strategies, trends, and tools you need to boost productivity, secure your environment, and drive digital transformation. Your go-to Microsoft 365 podcast for cloud collaboration, data analytics, and workplace innovation. Tune in, level up, and make the most of everything Microsoft has to offer. Visit M365.show. m365.show

Information

You Might Also Like