Home •Blog
TTMS Blog
TTMS experts about the IT world, the latest technologies and the solutions we implement.
Sort by topics
Top 10 Salesforce Implementation Companies in Poland (2025 Ranking)
TOP 10 Salesforce Implementation Companies in Poland – Ranking of the Best Providers Salesforce’s customer relationship management (CRM) platform is used by thousands of companies worldwide – and Poland is no exception. As more Polish businesses embrace Salesforce to boost sales, service, and marketing, many turn to expert partners for implementation. Below we highlight ten leading companies in Poland that specialize in implementing Salesforce. These include homegrown Polish providers as well as global consulting firms active on the Polish market. Each offers distinct expertise in deploying and customizing Salesforce to meet business needs. 1. Transition Technologies MS (TTMS) Transition Technologies MS (TTMS) is a Poland-headquartered Salesforce consulting partner known for its end-to-end implementation services. Operating since 2015, TTMS has grown rapidly, now employing over 800 IT professionals and maintaining offices in major Polish cities (Warsaw, Lublin, Wrocław, Bialystok, Lodz, Cracow, Poznan and Koszalin) as well as abroad (Malaysia, Denmark, UK, Switzerland, India). TTMS’s Salesforce team provides full-cycle CRM deployments – from needs analysis and custom development to integration and ongoing support. The company is a certified Salesforce Partner, ensuring access to the latest platform features and training. TTMS has delivered successful projects for clients in pharma, manufacturing, finance, and other industries. It differentiates itself through a flexible, client-centric approach: solutions are tailored to each organization’s processes, and TTMS places emphasis on understanding business needs before implementation. In addition to core CRM setup, TTMS offers Salesforce integration (including connecting Salesforce with other enterprise systems) and innovative capabilities like Salesforce-AI integrations to help companies leverage artificial intelligence within their CRM. With its combination of technical expertise and focus on long-term client support, TTMS is often regarded as a reliable one-stop shop for Salesforce implementation in Poland. TTMS: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: PLN 233.7 million Number of employees: 800+ Website: www.ttms.com/salesforce Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland Main services / focus: Salesforce, AI, AEM, Azure, Power Apps, BI, Webcon, e-learning, Quality Management 2. Deloitte Digital (Poland) Deloitte Digital Poland is the technology consulting arm of Deloitte, recognized globally as a leading Salesforce implementation partner. In Poland, its large team of certified consultants delivers complex CRM projects across multiple Salesforce clouds, combining strategic business consulting with technical expertise. With global methodologies and a strong local presence, Deloitte Digital supports enterprises in sectors like finance, retail, and manufacturing, making it a trusted partner for large-scale, enterprise-grade implementations. Deloitte Digital Poland: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A (part of Deloitte global) Number of employees: Over 3,000 in Poland (tens of thousands globally) Website: www.deloitte.com Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland (global HQ: London, UK) Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, digital transformation, cloud consulting, business strategy 3. Accenture (Poland) Accenture Poland is a Platinum-level Salesforce partner with a strong local footprint and thousands of certified experts worldwide. Its teams specialize in large-scale implementations, complex customizations, and integrations, often using Agile methods to accelerate delivery. Known for scale and innovation, Accenture combines local resources with global support, making it ideal for enterprises needing advanced, multi-cloud Salesforce solutions. Accenture Poland: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A (part of Accenture global) Number of employees: Over 7,000 in Poland (700,000+ globally) Website: www.accenture.com Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland (global HQ: Dublin, Ireland) Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, IT outsourcing, digital strategy, AI integration 4. Capgemini Poland Capgemini Poland is a long-standing Salesforce Global Strategic Partner with hundreds of specialists across hubs in Warsaw, Kraków, and Wrocław. The company supports clients with end-to-end Salesforce projects, from CRM strategy and customization to data migration and long-term support. Leveraging industry-specific accelerators and broad IT expertise, Capgemini is a strong choice for enterprises needing scalable, comprehensive implementations. Capgemini Poland: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A (part of Capgemini global) Number of employees: 11,000+ in Poland (340,000+ globally) Website: www.capgemini.com Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland (global HQ: Paris, France) Main services / focus: Salesforce consulting, IT outsourcing, cloud migration, digital transformation 5. PwC (Poland) PwC Poland became a strong Salesforce partner after acquiring Outbox Group, gaining a dedicated local delivery team. It combines business advisory expertise with technical CRM implementation, focusing on improving customer experience and measurable business outcomes. With certified consultants and strong governance, PwC is a trusted choice for organizations in regulated industries seeking both strategy and execution. PwC Poland: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A (part of PwC global) Number of employees: 6,000+ in Poland (364,000+ globally) Website: www.pwc.com Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland (global HQ: London, UK) Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, CRM strategy, cloud solutions, digital transformation 6. Sii Poland Sii Poland is the country’s largest IT consulting and outsourcing firm, with over 7,700 employees and a certified Salesforce practice. Its team supports Sales Cloud and Service Cloud implementations, custom development, and ongoing administration. With strong local presence, flexible engagement models, and industry know-how, Sii is a reliable partner for companies seeking scalable and cost-effective Salesforce solutions. Sii Poland: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: Approx. PLN 2.1 billion Number of employees: 7,700+ Website: www.sii.pl Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, IT outsourcing, software development, cloud consulting 7. Britenet Britenet is a Polish IT services company with around 800 employees and a strong Salesforce practice of 100+ certified experts. It delivers tailored implementations across Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Marketing Cloud, and more, often supporting clients through outsourcing models. Known for flexibility and technical excellence, Britenet is a trusted partner for Polish enterprises in sectors like finance, education, and energy. Britenet: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A Number of employees: 800+ Website: www.britenet.com.pl Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, CRM consulting, custom software development 8. Cloudity Cloudity is a Polish-founded Salesforce consultancy that achieved Platinum Partner status and expanded across Europe. With a few hundred certified experts, it delivers end-to-end projects spanning Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, and Experience Cloud. Known for innovation and agility, Cloudity supports clients in sectors like e-commerce, insurance, and technology, offering tailored multi-cloud implementations. Cloudity: company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A Number of employees: 200+ Website: www.cloudity.com Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, CRM strategy, system integration, multi-cloud solutions 9. EPAM Systems (PolSource) EPAM Systems (formerly PolSource) is a global IT firm with one of Poland’s most experienced Salesforce teams, built on the heritage of PolSource’s 350+ certified specialists. It delivers complex CRM implementations, custom development, and global rollouts for clients from startups to Fortune 500 companies. Combining local expertise with EPAM’s global resources, it is a strong choice for organizations needing advanced, large-scale Salesforce solutions. EPAM Systems (PolSource): company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A (part of EPAM global) Number of employees: 350+ Salesforce specialists in Poland (EPAM global: 60,000+) Website: www.epam.com Headquarters: Kraków, Poland (global HQ: Newtown, USA) Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, custom development, global rollouts 10. Craftware (BlueSoft / Orange Group) Craftware is a Polish Salesforce specialist with over a decade of experience and Platinum Partner status since 2014. Now part of BlueSoft/Orange Group, it delivers consulting, implementation, and support services across industries like healthcare, life sciences, and e-commerce. Known for deep Salesforce expertise and agile delivery, Craftware helps clients adapt CRM to complex processes while ensuring effective knowledge transfer. Craftware (BlueSoft / Orange Group): company snapshot Revenues in 2024: N/A (part of BlueSoft/Orange Group) Number of employees: 200+ Website: www.craftware.pl Headquarters: Warsaw, Poland Main services / focus: Salesforce implementation, CRM consulting, custom solutions, integration When should you consider implementing Salesforce? These case studies illustrate how companies across sectors have used Salesforce to solve concrete business challenges. Whether the goal was streamlining data flow, boosting sales process efficiency, improving service support, or ensuring compliance, these examples highlight practical transformations. So, when should Salesforce be implemented? When your construction or installation projects suffer from scattered data and poor cost control, Salesforce can centralize information, automate processes, and equip field teams with real-time mobile tools. When your sales process is disorganized and lacks visibility, Salesforce CRM structures pipelines, standardizes lead management, and improves forecasting accuracy. When your sales department relies on spreadsheets and manual reporting, Salesforce enables digital dashboards, automation, and faster decision-making. When your service support struggles with slow response times and SLA breaches, Salesforce Service Cloud streamlines case management and boosts customer satisfaction. When your organization must track customer consents for compliance, Salesforce provides a single platform to collect, manage, and secure consent data. When reporting takes too much manual effort and leadership lacks insights, Salesforce analytics delivers real-time visibility into key business metrics. When your pharmaceutical business faces strict regulatory requirements, Salesforce helps enforce security controls and maintain compliance. When healthcare or pharma projects need digital health capabilities, Salesforce supports patient data management and remote service delivery. When consent management is fragmented in highly regulated industries, Salesforce integrates platforms to capture and manage patient or customer consents end to end. When NGOs need to modernize donor and volunteer management, Salesforce NPSP transforms engagement, tracking, and program operations. When biopharma companies want AI-driven, smarter customer engagement, Salesforce integrations unlock predictive insights and advanced analytics. Why Choose a Company from the Top Salesforce Implementation Firms in Poland? Selecting a partner from this ranking of leading Salesforce implementation companies in Poland ensures that your CRM project is in capable hands. These firms are proven experts with extensive experience in tailoring Salesforce to diverse industries, which minimizes risks and accelerates results. Top providers employ certified consultants and developers who are up to date with the latest Salesforce features and best practices, guaranteeing both technical excellence and compliance with business requirements. By working with an established partner, you gain access to multidisciplinary teams able to customize, integrate, and scale Salesforce according to your goals. This not only speeds up time to value but also helps optimize costs and maximize return on investment – allowing you to focus on strengthening relationships with your customers while experts handle the technology. Ready to Elevate Your Salesforce Implementation with TTMS? Choosing the right partner is crucial to the success of your Salesforce project. All the companies listed above offer strong capabilities, but Transition Technologies MS (TTMS) uniquely combines local understanding with global expertise. TTMS can guide you through every step of your Salesforce journey – from initial strategy and customization to user training and ongoing support. Our team of certified professionals is committed to delivering a solution that truly fits your business. If you want a Salesforce implementation that drives your growth and a partner who will support you long after launch, TTMS is ready to help. Get in touch with TTMS today to discuss how we can make your Salesforce project a success and empower your organization with a world-class CRM tailored to your needs. What are the key benefits of working with a Salesforce implementation partner in Poland compared to building in-house? Partnering with a Salesforce implementation firm in Poland offers access to certified experts who work daily with diverse projects across industries. This experience allows them to avoid common pitfalls and accelerate delivery timelines, which can be difficult for in-house teams without prior exposure. Additionally, outsourcing reduces the cost of recruitment, training, and retaining Salesforce specialists while ensuring compliance with international best practices. Local partners also bring cultural alignment, proximity, and industry-specific knowledge that global centers of excellence may lack. How long does a typical Salesforce implementation project take? The duration varies depending on scope, complexity, and the number of Salesforce clouds involved. A straightforward Sales Cloud rollout for a medium-sized company may take as little as two to three months, while enterprise-scale multi-cloud implementations can last six to twelve months or longer. The key factor is preparation: clearly defined requirements, engaged stakeholders, and proper change management often shorten timelines and reduce rework. Working with experienced partners helps set realistic expectations and ensures milestones are achieved on schedule. How much does Salesforce implementation cost in Poland? Costs depend on project size, customization, and whether advanced features such as AI, analytics, or integrations are required. Small deployments might start at several tens of thousands of PLN, while enterprise-scale projects can reach into the millions. Polish providers often offer a cost advantage compared to Western European or US firms, while still maintaining high quality thanks to certified talent and mature delivery methodologies. Many companies also offer flexible models such as fixed-price projects or dedicated outsourced teams. What industries in Poland benefit most from Salesforce adoption? While Salesforce is versatile and industry-agnostic, some sectors in Poland particularly benefit. Financial services and banking rely on Salesforce for regulatory compliance and customer insights. Manufacturing and construction companies use it to streamline project management and sales forecasting. Pharma and healthcare organizations value Salesforce for its security, compliance, and patient engagement features. NGOs increasingly adopt Salesforce NPSP to modernize donor management. In short, any organization that needs structured customer data, sales efficiency, or regulatory alignment can see tangible results. How do Polish Salesforce partners ensure data security and compliance? Polish Salesforce implementation companies typically follow both EU-wide regulations like GDPR and sector-specific compliance requirements such as pharmaceutical data standards. Certified consultants design architectures that leverage Salesforce’s built-in security features, including role-based access, encryption, and audit trails. Partners also help integrate consent management tools and implement governance frameworks tailored to the client’s industry. Regular training, documentation, and security testing further ensure that sensitive customer data is protected and regulatory obligations are fully met.
Read
AI in a White Coat – Is Artificial Intelligence in Pharma Facing Its GMP Exam?
1. Introduction – A New Era of AI Regulation in Pharma The new GMP regulations open another chapter in the history of pharmaceuticals, where artificial intelligence ceases to be a curiosity and becomes an integral part of critical processes. In 2025, the European Commission published a draft of Annex 22 to EudraLex Volume 4, introducing the world’s first provisions dedicated to AI in GMP. This document defines how technology must operate in an environment built on accountability and quality control. For the pharmaceutical industry, this means a revolution – every AI-driven decision can directly affect patient safety and must therefore be documented, explainable, and supervised. In other words, artificial intelligence must now pass its GMP exam in order to “put on a white coat” and enter the world of pharma. 2. Why Do We Need AI Regulation in Pharma? Pharma is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. The reason is obvious – every decision, every process, every device has a direct impact on patients’ health and lives. If a new element such as artificial intelligence is introduced into this system, it must be subject to the same rigorous principles as people, machines, and procedures. Until now, there has been a lack of coherent guidelines. Companies using AI had to adapt existing regulations regarding computerised systems (EU GMP Annex 11: Computerised Systems) or documentation (EU GMP Chapter 4: Documentation). The new Annex 22 to the EU GMP Guidelines brings order to this area and clearly defines how and when AI can be used in GMP processes. 3. AI as a New GMP Employee The draft regulation treats artificial intelligence as a fully-fledged member of the GMP team. Each model must have: job description (intended use) – a clear definition of its purpose, the type of data it processes, and its limitations, qualifications and training (validation and testing) – the model must undergo validation using independent test datasets, monitoring and audits – AI must be continuously supervised, and its performance regularly assessed, responsibility – in cases where decisions are made by a human supported by AI, the regulations require a clear definition of the operator’s accountability and competencies. In this way, artificial intelligence is not treated as just another “IT tool” but as an element of the manufacturing process, with obligations and subject to evaluation. 4. Deterministic vs. Generative Models One of the key distinctions in Annex 22 to the EU GMP Guidelines (Annex 22: AI and Machine Learning in the GMP Environment) is the classification of models into: deterministic models – always providing the same result for identical input data. These can be applied in critical GMP processes, dynamic and generative models – such as large language models (LLMs) or AI that learns in real time. These models are excluded from critical applications and may only be used in non-critical areas under strict human supervision. This means that although generative AI fascinates with its capabilities, its role in pharmaceuticals will remain limited – at least in the context of drug manufacturing and quality-critical processes. 5. The Transparency and Quality Exam One of the greatest challenges associated with artificial intelligence is the so-called “black box” problem. Algorithms often deliver accurate results but cannot explain how they reached them. Annex 22 draws a clear line here. AI models must: record which data and features influenced the outcome, present a confidence score, provide complete documentation of validation and testing. It is as if AI had to stand before an examination board and defend its answers. Without this, it will not be allowed to work with patients. 6. Periodic Assessment – AI on a Trial Contract The new regulations emphasize that allowing AI to operate is not a one-time decision. Models must be subject to continuous oversight. If input data, the production environment, or processes change, the model requires revalidation. This can be compared to a trial contract – even if AI proves effective, it remains subject to regular audits and evaluations, just like any GMP employee. 7. Practical Examples of AI Applications in GMP The new GMP regulations are not just theory – artificial intelligence is already supporting key areas of production and quality. For example, in quality control, AI analyzes microscopic images of tablets, detecting tiny defects faster than the human eye. In logistics, it predicts demand for active substances, minimizing the risk of shortages. In research and development, it supports the analysis of vast clinical datasets, highlighting correlations that traditional methods might miss. Each of these cases demonstrates that AI is becoming a practical GMP tool – provided it operates within clearly defined rules. 8. International AI Regulations – How Does Europe Compare Globally? The draft of Annex 22 positions the European Union as a pioneer, but it is not the only regulatory initiative. The U.S. FDA publishes guidelines on AI in medical processes, focusing on safety and efficacy. Meanwhile, in Asia – particularly in Japan and Singapore – legal frameworks are emerging that allow testing and controlled implementation of AI. The difference is that the EU is the first to create a consistent, mandatory GMP document that will serve as a global reference point. 9. Employee Competencies – AI Knowledge as a Key Element The new GMP regulations are not only about technology but also about people. Pharmaceutical employees must acquire new competencies – from understanding the basics of how AI models function to evaluating results and overseeing systems. This is known as AI literacy – the ability to consciously collaborate with intelligent tools. Organizations that invest in developing their teams’ skills will gain an advantage, as effective AI oversight will be required both by regulators and internal quality procedures. 10. Ethics and Risks – What Must Not Be Forgotten Beyond technical requirements, ethical aspects are equally important. AI can unintentionally introduce biases inherited from training data, which in pharma could lead to flawed conclusions. There is also the risk of over-reliance on technology without proper human oversight. This is why the new GMP regulations emphasize transparency, supervision, and accountability – ensuring that AI serves as a support rather than a threat to quality and safety. 10.1 What Does AI Regulation Mean for the Pharmaceutical Industry? For pharmaceutical companies, Annex 22 is both a challenge and an opportunity: Challenge: it requires the creation of new validation, documentation, and control procedures. Opportunity: clearly defined rules provide greater certainty in AI investments and can accelerate the implementation of innovative solutions. Europe is positioning itself as a pioneer, creating a standard that will likely become a model for other regions worldwide. 11. How TTMS Can Help You Leverage AI in Pharma At TTMS, we fully understand how difficult it is to combine innovative AI technologies with strict pharmaceutical regulations. Our team of experts supports companies in: analysing and assessing the compliance of existing AI models with GMP requirements, creating validation and documentation processes aligned with the new regulations, implementing IT solutions that enhance efficiency without compromising patient trust, preparing organizations for full entry into the GMP 4.0 era. Ready to take the next step? Get in touch with us and discover how we can accelerate your path toward safe and innovative pharmaceuticals. What is Annex 22 to the GMP Guidelines? Annex 22 is a new regulatory document prepared by the European Commission that defines the rules for applying artificial intelligence in pharmaceutical processes. It is part of EudraLex Volume 4 and complements existing chapters on documentation (Chapter 4) and computerised systems (Annex 11). It is the world’s first regulatory guide dedicated specifically to AI in GMP. Why were AI regulations introduced? Because AI increasingly influences critical processes that can directly affect the quality of medicines and patient safety. The regulations aim to ensure that its use is transparent, controlled, and aligned with the quality standards that govern the pharmaceutical sector. Are all AI models allowed in GMP? No. Only deterministic models are permitted in critical processes. Dynamic and generative models may only be used in non-critical areas, and always under strict human supervision. What are the key requirements for AI? Every AI model must have a clearly defined intended use, undergo a validation process, make use of independent test data, and be explainable and monitored in real time. The regulations treat AI as a GMP employee – it must hold qualifications, undergo audits, and be subject to evaluation. How can companies prepare for the implementation of Annex 22? The best step is to conduct an internal audit, assess current AI models, and evaluate their compliance with the upcoming regulations. Companies should also establish validation and documentation procedures to be ready for the new requirements. Support from technology partners such as TTMS can greatly simplify this process and accelerate adaptation.
Read
A $20,000 Drone vs. a $2 Million Missile – Should We Really “Open Up” the Defense Market?
A $20,000 Drone vs. a $2 Million Missile – Should We Really “Open Up” the Defense Market? The recent incident of Russian drones violating Polish airspace has sparked a heated debate. A cheap flying provocation versus an expensive defensive missile – the contrast is striking. Experts point out that a styrofoam drone can cost as little as $10-20,000, while the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile used to shoot it down may cost $2-2.5 million. Few comparisons illustrate better the dilemma of “firing gold at plastic”. No wonder voices have emerged calling to “open the defense market” and let more companies in – supposedly to lower costs and accelerate cheaper defense technologies. Sounds tempting? At first glance, maybe. But defense is not a playground you can just walk into. Why is the idea of throwing the doors open to new players deeply problematic? Here are the key reasons. 1. National security is not an experiment The first and most important reason is national security. Military systems handle critical data and infrastructure that determine lives and sovereignty. A leak, sabotage, or hidden vulnerability could have catastrophic consequences – which is why access to defense projects is tightly regulated. Polish law requires every company producing or trading military technologies to hold a special license. This is not bureaucratic red tape, but a security filter: the state must know who has access to sensitive solutions. The same goes for classified data – security clearances are mandatory for both the company and key employees. In practice, this creates a high entry barrier. Very few IT firms in Poland even hold such authorizations – Transition Technologies MS (TTMS), for example, highlights that it belongs to a select group of companies with the full set of licenses, NATO Secret certificates, and vetted specialists able to work on defense projects. In short: not every smart startup coder with a laptop can just start writing code for the army. Earning trust requires formal certifications. 2. Military technology must never fail The second reason is reliability and quality. In defense, there’s no room for the startup mantra “move fast and break things.” Software for the military must work flawlessly under combat conditions, interference, and cyberattacks. A bug, crash, or hacker exploit – things tolerated in civilian apps – on the battlefield can cost lives. That’s why suppliers must meet stringent NATO quality standards (AQAP) and information security norms (ISO 27001) from day one. Building command or communication systems requires domain expertise, hardware integration skills, and familiarity with NATO STANAG standards. Such capabilities are not built overnight – firms acquire them through years of collaboration with the military. “We’ll build you an anti-drone app cheap and fast” is not a serious pitch, unless you can prove it will hold up in the harshest scenarios. The per-unit cost of a drone is not the whole story – what really matters is the guarantee that defensive systems will work when lives depend on it. 3. Control over technology and supply chains Another factor is state control over military technology. Defense systems cannot end up in the wrong hands – neither during development nor deployment. That’s why licenses and approvals act as safety sieves, filtering out players linked to hostile interests. Governments must also have visibility across the supply chain: what goes into a system, where components come from, whether chips or code are free of backdoors. Major defense contractors provide this assurance, with vetted subcontractors and strict audits. Opening the market indiscriminately would be playing with fire. In today’s hybrid warfare environment, adversaries would happily exploit any loophole, inserting compromised technologies under the guise of “cheap innovation.” This is not about protecting incumbents – it’s about ensuring that any new entrant undergoes rigorous vetting before touching sensitive projects. 4. Responsibility and continuity matter more than short-term savings Calls to open the defense market often emphasize price competition (“it will be cheaper”) and fresh ideas (“startups will save us”). What gets overlooked are the business risks. Defense contracts last for decades, requiring ongoing support, updates, and servicing. That’s why ministries demand financial stability and long-term reliability. A company that appears one day and disappears the next is the last thing the military can afford in the middle of a weapons program. References, proven track records, and the ability to sustain projects through long procurement cycles are essential. A new player may offer a lower price, but can they shoulder the responsibility when problems arise? Defense projects are not about one-off deliveries – they’re about lifecycle support. Large, established integrators dominate not by chance, but because they take on the long-term risk and responsibility. For smaller IT firms, there’s a safer route: joining as subcontractors under licensed contractors. TTMS, for instance, has entered defense projects in partnership with larger entities, combining expertise under controlled frameworks. This allows innovation to flow from smaller players without compromising security or accountability. 5. Allied commitments and international standards Finally, Poland operates within NATO and the EU. That means uniform standards and procedures for military hardware and software – certifications like AQAP, NCAGE codes, interoperability requirements. “Opening the market” cannot mean lowering these standards, as it would undermine Poland’s credibility as a NATO ally. Instead, what is actually happening is streamlining – faster procurement processes, less red tape, but without dropping the bar. A recent defense “special act,” for instance, allows for faster drone procurement outside normal public procurement law – provided the drones pass army testing and receive Ministry of Defense approval. This is the model: speed where possible, but with strict oversight. Similarly, Polish authorities stress partnerships: simplifying procedures so SMEs and startups can join consortia with larger defense contractors – rather than bypassing safeguards altogether. 6. Conclusion: security is costly – but insecurity costs more The clash of cheap drones and expensive missiles highlights a real challenge. Of course, we must pursue smarter, cheaper defense tools – intercepting drones with other drones, electronic jamming, lasers. And Poland is working on these, often through public-private partnerships. But throwing open the gates to any company with a “cheap idea” is a dangerous shortcut. Defense requirements are expensive and demanding for a reason: they protect us from failure, espionage, and chaos. Removing them may save money on paper but would risk far greater losses in reality. The better path is to streamline procedures, speed up certifications, and bring smaller innovators in through controlled cooperation with licensed partners. In defense, the old maxim applies: “make haste slowly.” Move fast, yes – but never at the cost of security. Because in the end, cheap enemy drones could cost us far more than expensive missiles if we get this wrong. For a deeper dive into the specific challenges and barriers IT companies face when entering the defense sector, read our full analysis here.
Read
RAG Meaning in Business: The Ultimate 2025 Guide to Understanding and Using RAG Effectively
When the topic of artificial intelligence comes up today in boardrooms and at industry conferences, one short term is heard more and more often – RAG. It is no longer just a technical acronym, but a concept that is beginning to reshape how companies think about AI-powered tools. Understanding what RAG really is has become a necessity for business leaders, because it determines whether newly implemented software will serve as a precise and up-to-date tool, or just another trendy gadget with little value to the organization. In this guide, we will explain what Retrieval-Augmented Generation actually is, how it works in practice, and why it holds such importance for business. We will also show how RAG improves the accuracy of answers generated by AI systems by allowing them to draw on always current and contextual information. 1. Understanding RAG: The Technology Transforming Business Intelligence 1.1 What is RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation)? RAG technology tackles one of the biggest headaches facing modern businesses: how do you make AI systems work with current, accurate, and company-specific information? Traditional AI models only know what they learned during training, but rag ai does something different. It combines powerful language models with the ability to pull information from external databases, documents, and knowledge repositories in real-time. Here’s the rag ai definition in simple terms: it’s retrieval and generation working as a team. When someone asks a question, the system first hunts through relevant data sources to find useful information, then uses that content to craft a comprehensive, accurate response. This means AI outputs stay current, factually grounded, and tailored to specific business situations instead of giving generic or outdated answers. What makes RAG particularly valuable is how it handles proprietary data. Companies can plug their internal documents, customer databases, product catalogs, and operational manuals directly into the AI system. Employees and customers get responses that reflect the latest company policies, product specs, and procedural updates without needing to constantly retrain the underlying AI model. 1.2 RAG vs Traditional AI: Key Differences Traditional AI systems work like a closed book test. They generate responses based only on what they learned during their initial training phase. This creates real problems for business applications, especially when you’re dealing with rapidly changing information, industry-specific knowledge, or proprietary company data that wasn’t part of the original training. RAG and LLM technologies operate differently by staying connected to external information sources. While a standard language model might give you generic advice about customer service best practices, a RAG-powered system can access your company’s actual customer service protocols, recent policy changes, and current product information to provide guidance that matches your organization’s real procedures. The difference in how they’re built is fundamental. Traditional generative AI works as a closed system, processing inputs through pre-trained parameters to produce outputs. RAG systems add extra components like retrievers, vector databases, and integration layers that enable continuous access to evolving information. This setup also supports transparency through source attribution, so users can see exactly where information came from and verify its accuracy. 2. Why RAG Technology Matters for Modern Businesses 2.1 Current Business Challenges RAG Solves Many companies still struggle with information silos – different departments maintain their own databases and systems, making it difficult to use information effectively across the entire organization.RAG technology doesn’t dismantle silos but provides a way to navigate them efficiently. Through real-time retrieval and generation, AI can pull data from multiple sources – databases, documents, or knowledge repositories – and merge it into coherent, context-rich responses. As a result, users receive up-to-date, fact-based information without having to manually search through scattered systems or rely on costly retraining of AI models. Another challenge is keeping AI systems current. Traditionally, this has required expensive and time-consuming retraining cycles whenever business conditions, regulations, or procedures change. RAG works differently – it leverages live data from connected sources, ensuring that AI responses always reflect the latest information without modifying the underlying model. The technology also strengthens quality control. Every response generated by the system can be grounded in specific, verifiable sources. This is especially critical in regulated industries, where accuracy, compliance, and full transparency are essential. 3. How RAG Works: A Business-Focused Breakdown 3.1 The Four-Step RAG Process Understanding how rag works requires examining the systematic process that transforms user queries into accurate, contextually relevant responses. This process begins when users submit questions or requests through business applications, customer service interfaces, or internal knowledge management systems. 3.1.1 Data Retrieval and Indexing The foundation of effective RAG implementation lies in comprehensive data preparation and indexing strategies. Organizations must first identify and catalog all relevant information sources including structured databases, unstructured documents, multimedia content, and external data feeds that should be accessible to the RAG system. Information from these diverse sources undergoes preprocessing to ensure consistency, accuracy, and searchability. This preparation includes converting documents into machine-readable formats, extracting key information elements, and creating vector representations that enable semantic search capabilities. The resulting indexed information becomes immediately available for retrieval without requiring modifications to the underlying AI model. Modern indexing approaches use advanced embedding techniques that capture semantic meaning and contextual relationships within business information. This capability enables the system to identify relevant content even when user queries don’t exactly match the terminology used in source documents, improving the breadth and accuracy of information retrieval. 3.1.2 Query Processing and Matching When users submit queries, the system transforms their natural language requests into vector representations that can be compared against the indexed information repository. This transformation process captures semantic similarity and contextual relationships, rather than relying solely on keyword matching techniques. While embeddings allow the system to reflect user intent more effectively than keywords, it is important to note that this is a mathematical approximation of meaning, not human-level understanding. Advanced matching algorithms evaluate similarity between query vectors and indexed content vectors to identify the most relevant information sources. The system may retrieve multiple relevant documents or data segments to ensure comprehensive coverage of the user’s information needs while maintaining focus on the most pertinent content. Query processing can also incorporate business context and user permissions, but this depends on how the system is implemented. In enterprise environments, such mechanisms are often necessary to ensure that retrieved information complies with security policies and access controls, where different users have access to different categories of sensitive or restricted information. 3.1.3 Content Augmentation Retrieved information is combined with the original user query to create an augmented prompt that provides the AI system with richer context for generating responses. This process structures the input so that retrieved data is highlighted and encouraged to take precedence over the AI model’s internal training knowledge, although the final output still depends on how the model balances both sources. Prompt engineering techniques guide the AI system in using external information effectively, for example by instructing it to prioritize retrieved documents, resolve potential conflicts between sources, format outputs in specific ways, or maintain an appropriate tone for business communication. The quality of this augmentation step directly affects the accuracy and relevance of responses. Well-designed strategies find the right balance between including enough supporting data and focusing the model’s attention on the most important elements, ensuring that generated outputs remain both precise and contextually appropriate. 3.1.4 Response Generation The AI model synthesizes information from the augmented prompt to generate comprehensive responses that address user queries while incorporating relevant business data. This process maintains natural language flow and encourages inclusion of retrieved content, though the level of completeness depends on how effectively the system structures and prioritizes input information. In enterprise RAG implementations, additional quality control mechanisms can be applied to improve accuracy and reliability. These may involve cross-checking outputs against retrieved documents, verifying consistency, or optimizing format and tone to meet professional communication standards. Such safeguards are not intrinsic to the language model itself but are built into the overall RAG workflow. Final responses frequently include source citations or references, enabling users to verify accuracy and explore supporting details. This transparency strengthens trust in AI-generated outputs while supporting compliance, audit requirements, and quality assurance processes. 3.2 RAG Architecture Components Modern RAG systems combine several core components that deliver reliable, accurate, and scalable business intelligence. The retriever identifies the most relevant fragments of information from indexed sources using semantic search and similarity matching. Vector databases act as the storage and retrieval backbone, enabling fast similarity searches across large volumes of mainly unstructured content, with structured data often transformed into text for processing. These databases are designed for high scalability without performance loss. Integration layers connect RAG with existing business applications through APIs, platform connectors, and middleware, ensuring that it operates smoothly within current workflows. Security frameworks and access controls are also built into these layers to maintain data protection and compliance standards. 3.3 Integration with Existing Business Systems Successful RAG deployment depends on how well it integrates with existing IT infrastructure and business workflows. Organizations should assess their current technology stack to identify integration points and potential challenges. API-driven integration allows RAG systems to access CRM, ERP, document management, and other enterprise applications without major system redesign. This reduces disruption and maximizes the value of existing technology investments. Because RAG systems often handle sensitive information, role-based access controls, audit logs, and encryption protocols are essential to maintain compliance and protect data across connected platforms. 4. Business Applications and Use Cases 4.1 AI4Legal – RAG in service of law and compliance AI4Legal was created for lawyers and compliance departments. By combining internal documents with legal databases, it enables efficient analysis of regulations, case law, and legal frameworks. This tool not only speeds up the preparation of legal opinions and compliance reports but also minimizes the risk of errors, as every answer is anchored in a verified source. 4.2 AI4Content – intelligent content creation with RAG AI4Content supports marketing and content teams that face the daily challenge of producing large volumes of materials. It generates texts consistent with brand guidelines, rooted in the business context, and free of factual mistakes. This solution eliminates tedious editing work and allows teams to focus on creativity. 4.3 AI4E-learning – personalized training powered by RAG AI4E-learning addresses the growing need for personalized learning and employee development. Based on company procedures and documentation, it generates quizzes, courses, and educational resources tailored to the learner’s profile. As a result, training becomes more engaging, while the process of creating content takes significantly less time. 4.4 AI4Knowledge Base – intelligent knowledge management for enterprises At the heart of knowledge management lies AI4Knowledge Base, an intelligent hub that integrates dispersed information sources within an organization. Employees no longer need to search across multiple systems – they can simply ask a question and receive a reliable answer. This solution is particularly valuable in large companies and customer support teams, where quick access to information translates into better decisions and smoother operations. 4.5 AI4Localisation – automated translation and content localization For global needs, AI4Localisation automates translation and localization processes. Using translation memories and corporate glossaries, it ensures terminology consistency and accelerates time-to-market for materials across new regions. This tool is ideal for international organizations where translation speed and quality directly impact customer communication. 5. Benefits of Implementing RAG in Business 5.1 More accurate and reliable answers RAG ensures AI responses are based on verified sources rather than outdated training data. This reduces the risk of mistakes that could harm operations or customer trust. Every answer can be traced back to its source, which builds confidence and helps meet audit requirements. Most importantly, all users receive consistent information instead of varying responses. 5.2 Real-time access to information With RAG, AI can use the latest data without retraining the model. Any updates to policies, offers, or regulations are instantly reflected in responses. This is crucial in fast-moving industries, where outdated information can lead to poor decisions or compliance issues. 5.3 Better customer experience Customers get fast, accurate, and personalized answers that reflect current product details, services, or account information. This reduces frustration and builds loyalty. RAG-powered self-service systems can even handle complex questions, while support teams resolve issues faster and more effectively. 5.4 Lower costs and higher efficiency RAG automates time-consuming tasks like information searches or report preparation. Companies can manage higher workloads without hiring more staff. New employees get up to speed faster by accessing knowledge through conversational AI instead of lengthy training programs. Maintenance costs also drop, since updating a knowledge base is simpler than retraining a model. 5.5 Scalability and flexibility RAG systems grow with your business, handling more data and users without losing quality. Their modular design makes it easy to add new data sources or interfaces. They also combine knowledge across departments, providing cross-functional insights that drive agility and better decision-making. 6. Common Challenges and Solutions 6.1 Data Quality and Management Issues The effectiveness of RAG implementations depends heavily on the quality, accuracy, and currency of underlying information sources. Poor data quality can undermine system performance and user trust, making comprehensive data governance essential for successful RAG deployment and operation. Organizations must establish clear data quality standards, regular validation processes, and update procedures to maintain information accuracy across all sources accessible to RAG systems. This governance includes identifying authoritative sources, establishing update responsibilities, and implementing quality control checkpoints. Data consistency challenges arise when information exists across multiple systems with different formats, terminology, or update schedules. RAG implementations require standardization efforts and integration strategies that reconcile these differences while maintaining information integrity and accessibility. 6.2 Integration Complexity Connecting RAG systems to diverse business platforms and data sources can present significant technical and organizational challenges. Legacy systems may lack modern APIs, security protocols may need updating, and data formats may require transformation to support effective RAG integration. Phased implementation approaches help manage integration complexity by focusing on high-value use cases and gradually expanding system capabilities. This strategy enables organizations to gain experience with RAG technology while managing risk and resource requirements effectively. Standardized integration frameworks and middleware solutions can simplify connection challenges while providing flexibility for future expansion. These approaches reduce technical complexity while ensuring compatibility with existing business systems and security requirements. 6.3 Security and Privacy Concerns RAG systems require access to sensitive business information, creating potential security vulnerabilities if not properly designed and implemented. Organizations must establish comprehensive security frameworks that protect data throughout the retrieval, processing, and response generation workflow. Access control mechanisms ensure that RAG systems respect existing permission structures and user authorization levels. This capability becomes particularly important in enterprise environments where different users should have access to different types of information based on their roles and responsibilities. Audit and compliance requirements may necessitate detailed logging of information access, user interactions, and system decisions. RAG implementations must include appropriate monitoring and reporting capabilities to support regulatory compliance and internal governance requirements. 6.4 Performance and Latency Challenges Real-time information retrieval and processing can impact system responsiveness, particularly when accessing large information repositories or complex integration environments. Organizations must balance comprehensive information access with acceptable response times for user interactions. Optimization strategies include intelligent caching, pre-processing of common queries, and efficient vector database configurations that minimize retrieval latency. These approaches maintain system performance while ensuring comprehensive information access for user queries. Scalability planning becomes important as user adoption increases and information repositories grow. RAG systems must be designed to handle increased demand without degrading performance or compromising information accuracy and relevance. 6.5 Change Management and User Adoption Successful RAG implementation requires user acceptance and adaptation of new workflows that incorporate AI-powered information access. Resistance to change can limit system value realization even when technical implementation is successful. Training and education programs help users understand RAG capabilities and learn effective interaction techniques. These programs should focus on practical benefits and demonstrate how RAG systems improve daily work experiences rather than focusing solely on technical features. Continuous feedback collection and system refinement based on user experiences improve adoption rates while ensuring that RAG implementations meet actual business needs rather than theoretical requirements. This iterative approach builds user confidence while optimizing system performance. 7. Future of RAG in Business (2025 and Beyond) 7.1 Emerging Trends and Technologies The RAG technology landscape continues evolving with innovations that enhance business applicability and value creation potential.Multimodal RAG systems that process text, images, audio, and structured data simultaneously are expanding application possibilities across industries requiring comprehensive information synthesis from diverse sources. AI4Knowledge Base by TTMS is precisely such a tool, enabling intelligent integration and analysis of knowledge in multiple formats. Hybrid RAG architectures that combine semantic search with vector-based methods will drive real-time, context-aware responses, enhancing the precision and usefulness of enterprise AI applications. These solutions enable more advanced information retrieval and processing capabilities to address complex business intelligence requirements. Agent-based RAG architectures introduce autonomous decision-making capabilities, allowing AI systems to execute complex workflows, learn from interactions, and adapt to evolving business needs. Personalized RAG and on-device AI will deliver highly contextual outputs processed locally to reduce latency, safeguard privacy, and optimize efficiency. 7.2 Expert Predictions Experts predict that RAG will soon become a standard across industries, as it enables organizations to use their own data without exposing it to public chatbots. Yet AI hallucinations “are here to stay” – these tools can reduce mistakes, but they cannot replace critical thinking and fact-checking. Healthcare applications will see particularly strong growth, as RAG systems enable personalized diagnostics by integrating real-time patient data with medical literature, reducing diagnostic errors. Financial services will benefit from hybrid RAG improvements in fraud detection by combining structured transaction data and unstructured online sources for more accurate risk analysis. A good example of RAG’s high effectiveness for the medical field is the study by YH Ke et al., which demonstrated its value in the context of surgery — the LLM-RAG model with GPT-4 achieved 96.4% accuracy in determining a patient’s fitness for surgery, outperforming both humans and non-RAG models. 7.3 Preparation Strategies for Businesses Organizations that want to fully unlock the potential of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) should begin with strong foundations. The key lies in building transparent data governance principles, enhancing information architecture, investing in employee development, and adopting tools that already have this technology implemented. In this process, technology partnerships play a crucial role. Collaboration with an experienced provider – such as TTMS – helps shorten implementation time, reduce risks, and leverage proven methodologies. Our AI solutions, such as AI4Legal and AI4Content, are prime examples of how RAG can be effectively applied and tailored to specific industry requirements. The future of business intelligence belongs to organizations that can seamlessly integrate RAG into their daily operations without losing sight of business objectives and user value. Those ready to embrace this evolution will gain a significant competitive advantage: faster and more accurate decision-making, improved operational efficiency, and enhanced customer experiences through intelligent knowledge access and synthesis. Do you need to integrate RAG? Contact us now!
Read
Microsoft’s In-House AI Move: MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 Signal a Shift from OpenAI
Microsoft’s In-House AI Move: MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 Signal a Shift from OpenAI August 2025 – Microsoft has unveiled two internally developed AI models – MAI-1 (a new large language model) and MAI-Voice-1 (a speech generation model) – marking a strategic pivot toward technological independence from OpenAI. After years of leaning on OpenAI’s models (and investing around $13 billion in that partnership since 2019), Microsoft’s AI division is now striking out on its own with homegrown AI capabilities. This move signals that despite its deep ties to OpenAI, Microsoft is positioning itself to have more direct control over the AI technology powering its products – a development with big implications for the industry. A Strategic Pivot Away from OpenAI Microsoft’s announcement of MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 – made in late August 2025 – is widely seen as a bid for greater self-reliance in AI. Industry observers note that this “proprietary” turn represents a pivot away from dependence on OpenAI. For years, OpenAI’s GPT-series models (like GPT-4) have been the brains behind many Microsoft products (from Azure OpenAI services to GitHub Copilot and Bing’s chat). However, tensions have emerged in the collaboration. OpenAI has grown into a more independent (and highly valued) entity, and Microsoft reportedly “openly criticized” OpenAI’s GPT-4 as “too expensive and slow” for certain consumer needs. Microsoft even quietly began testing other AI models for its Copilot services, signaling concern about over-reliance on a single partner. In early 2024, Microsoft hired Mustafa Suleyman (co-founder of DeepMind and former Inflection AI CEO) to lead a new internal AI team – a clear sign it intended to develop its own models. Suleyman has since emphasized “optionality” in Microsoft’s AI strategy: the company will use the best models available – whether from OpenAI, open-source, or its own lab – routing tasks to whichever model is most capable. The launch of MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 puts substance behind that strategy. It gives Microsoft a viable in-house alternative to OpenAI’s tech, even as the two remain partners. In fact, Microsoft’s AI leadership describes these models as augmenting (not immediately replacing) OpenAI’s – for now. But the long-term trajectory is evident: Microsoft is preparing for a post-OpenAI future in which it isn’t beholden to an external supplier for core AI innovations. As one Computerworld analysis put it, Microsoft didn’t hire a visionary AI team “simply to augment someone else’s product” – it’s laying groundwork to eventually have its own AI foundation. Meet MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1: Microsoft’s New AI Models MAI-Voice-1 is Microsoft’s first high-performance speech generation model. The company says it can generate a full minute of natural-sounding audio in under one second on a single GPU, making it “one of the most efficient speech systems” available. In practical terms, MAI-Voice-1 gives Microsoft a fast, expressive text-to-speech engine under its own roof. It’s already powering user-facing features: for example, the new Copilot Daily service has an AI news host that reads top stories to users in a natural voice, and a Copilot Podcasts feature can create on-the-fly podcast dialogues from text prompts – both driven by MAI-Voice-1’s capabilities. Microsoft touts the model’s high fidelity and expressiveness across single- and multi-speaker scenarios. In an era where voice interfaces are rising, Microsoft clearly views this as strategic tech (the company even said “voice is the interface of the future” for AI companions). Notably, OpenAI’s own foray into audio has been Whisper, a model for speech-to-text transcription – but OpenAI hasn’t productized a comparable text-to-speech model. With MAI-Voice-1, Microsoft is filling that gap by offering AI that can speak to users with human-like intonation and speed, without relying on a third-party engine. MAI-1 (Preview) is Microsoft’s new large language model (LLM) for text, and it represents the company’s first internally trained foundation model. Under the hood, MAI-1 uses a mixture-of-experts architecture and was trained (and post-trained) on roughly 15,000 NVIDIA H100 GPUs. (For context, that is a substantial computing effort, though still more modest than the 100,000+ GPU clusters reportedly used to train some rival frontier models.) The model is designed to excel at instruction-following and helpful responses to everyday queries – essentially, the kind of general-purpose assistant tasks that GPT-4 and similar models handle. Microsoft has begun publicly testing MAI-1 in the wild: it was released as MAI-1-preview on LMArena, a community benchmarking platform where AI models can be compared head-to-head by users. This allows Microsoft to transparently gauge MAI-1’s performance against other AI models (competitors and open models alike) and iterate quickly. According to Microsoft, MAI-1 is already showing “a glimpse of future offerings inside Copilot” – and the company is rolling it out selectively into Copilot (Microsoft’s AI assistant suite across Windows, Office, and more) for tasks like text generation. In coming weeks, certain Copilot features will start using MAI-1 for handling user queries, with Microsoft collecting feedback to improve the model. In short, MAI-1 is not yet replacing OpenAI’s GPT-4 within Microsoft’s products, but it’s on a path to eventually play a major role. It gives Microsoft the ability to tailor and optimize an LLM specifically for its ecosystem of “Copilot” assistants. How do these models stack up against OpenAI’s? In terms of capabilities, OpenAI’s GPT-4 (and the newly released GPT-5) still set the bar in many domains, from advanced reasoning to code generation. Microsoft’s MAI-1 is a first-generation effort by comparison, and Microsoft itself acknowledges it is taking an “off-frontier” approach – aiming to be a close second rather than the absolute cutting edge. “It’s cheaper to give a specific answer once you’ve waited for the frontier to go first… that’s our strategy, to play a very tight second,” Suleyman said of Microsoft’s model efforts. The architecture choices also differ: OpenAI has not disclosed GPT-4’s architecture, but it is believed to be a giant transformer model utilizing massive compute resources. Microsoft’s MAI-1 explicitly uses a mixture-of-experts design, which can be more compute-efficient by activating different “experts” for different queries. This design, plus the somewhat smaller training footprint, suggests Microsoft may be aiming for a more efficient, cost-effective model – even if it’s not (yet) the absolute strongest model on the market. Indeed, one motivation for MAI-1 was likely cost/control: Microsoft found that using GPT-4 at scale was expensive and sometimes slow, impeding consumer-facing uses. By owning a model, Microsoft can optimize it for latency and cost on its own infrastructure. On the voice side, OpenAI’s Whisper model handles speech recognition (transcribing audio to text), whereas Microsoft’s MAI-Voice-1 is all about speech generation (producing spoken audio from text). This means Microsoft now has an in-house solution for giving its AI a “voice” – an area where it previously relied on third-party text-to-speech services or less flexible solutions. MAI-Voice-1’s standout feature is its speed and efficiency (near real-time audio generation), which is crucial for interactive voice assistants or reading long content aloud. The quality is described as high fidelity and expressive, aiming to surpass the often monotone or robotic outputs of older-generation TTS systems. In essence, Microsoft is assembling its own full-stack AI toolkit: MAI-1 for text intelligence, and MAI-Voice-1 for spoken interaction. These will inevitably be compared to OpenAI’s GPT-4 (text) and the various voice AI offerings in the market – but Microsoft now has the advantage of deeply integrating these models into its products and tuning them as it sees fit. Implications for Control, Data, and Compliance Beyond technical specs, Microsoft’s in-house AI push is about control – over the technology’s evolution, data, and alignment with company goals. By developing its own models, Microsoft gains a level of ownership that was impossible when it solely depended on OpenAI’s API. As one industry briefing noted, “Owning the model means owning the data pipeline, compliance approach, and product roadmap.” In other words, Microsoft can now decide how and where data flows in the AI system, set its own rules for governance and regulatory compliance, and evolve the AI functionality according to its own product timeline, not someone else’s. This has several tangible implications: Data governance and privacy: With an in-house model, sensitive user data can be processed within Microsoft’s own cloud boundaries, rather than being sent to an external provider. Enterprises using Microsoft’s AI services may take comfort that their data is handled under Microsoft’s stringent enterprise agreements, without third-party exposure. Microsoft can also more easily audit and document how data is used to train or prompt the model, aiding compliance with data protection regulations. This is especially relevant as new AI laws (like the EU’s AI Act) demand transparency and risk controls – having the AI “in-house” could simplify compliance reporting since Microsoft has end-to-end visibility into the model’s operation. Product customization and differentiation: Microsoft’s products can now get bespoke AI enhancements that a generic OpenAI model might not offer. Because Microsoft controls MAI-1’s training and tuning, it can infuse the model with proprietary knowledge (for example, training on Windows user support data to make a better helpdesk assistant) or optimize it for specific scenarios that matter to its customers. The Copilot suite can evolve with features that leverage unique model capabilities Microsoft builds (for instance, deeper integration with Microsoft 365 data or fine-tuned industry versions of the model for enterprise customers). This flexibility in shaping the roadmap is a competitive differentiator – Microsoft isn’t limited by OpenAI’s release schedule or feature set. As Launch Consulting emphasized to enterprise leaders, relying on off-the-shelf AI means your capabilities are roughly the same as your competitors’; owning the model opens the door to unique features and faster iterations. Compliance and risk management: By controlling the AI models, Microsoft can more directly enforce compliance with ethical AI guidelines and industry regulations. It can build in whatever content filters or guardrails it deems necessary (and adjust them promptly as laws change or issues arise), rather than being subject to a third party’s policies. For enterprises in regulated sectors (finance, healthcare, government), this control is vital – they need to ensure AI systems comply with sector-specific rules. Microsoft’s move could eventually allow it to offer versions of its AI that are certified for compliance, since it has full oversight. Moreover, any concerns about how AI decisions are made (transparency, bias mitigation, etc.) can be addressed by Microsoft’s own AI safety teams, potentially in a more customized way than OpenAI’s one-size-fits-all approach. In short, Microsoft owning the AI stack could translate to greater trust and reliability for enterprise customers who must answer to regulators and risk officers. It’s worth noting that Microsoft is initially applying MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 in consumer-facing contexts (Windows, Office 365 Copilot for end-users) and not immediately replacing the AI inside enterprise products. Suleyman himself commented that the first goal was to make something that works extremely well for consumers – leveraging Microsoft’s rich consumer telemetry and data – essentially using the broad consumer usage to train and refine the models. However, the implications for enterprise clients are on the horizon. We can expect that as these models mature, Microsoft will integrate them into its Azure AI offerings and enterprise Copilot products, offering clients the option of Microsoft’s “first-party” models in addition to OpenAI’s. For enterprise decision-makers, Microsoft’s pivot sends a clear message: AI is becoming core intellectual property, and owning or selectively controlling that IP can confer advantages in data governance, customization, and compliance that might be hard to achieve with third-party AI alone. Build Your Own or Buy? Lessons for Businesses Microsoft’s bold move raises a key question for other companies: Should you develop your own AI models, or continue relying on foundation models from providers like OpenAI or Anthropic? The answer will differ for each organization, but Microsoft’s experience offers some valuable considerations for any business crafting its AI strategy: Strategic control vs. dependence: Microsoft’s case illustrates the risk of over-dependence on an external AI provider. Despite a close partnership, Microsoft and OpenAI had diverging interests (even reportedly clashing over what Microsoft gets out of its big investment). If an AI capability is mission-critical to your business or product, relying solely on an outside vendor means your fate is tied to their decisions, pricing, and roadmap changes. Building your own model (or acquiring the talent to) gives you strategic independence. You can prioritize the features and values important to you without negotiating with a third party. However, it also means shouldering all the responsibility for keeping that model state-of-the-art. Resources and expertise required: On the flip side, few companies have the deep pockets and AI research muscle that Microsoft does. Training cutting-edge models is extremely expensive – Microsoft’s MAI-1 used 15,000 high-end GPUs just for its preview model, and the leading frontier models use even larger compute budgets. Beyond hardware, you need scarce AI research talent and large-scale data to train a competitive model. For most enterprises, it’s simply not feasible to replicate what OpenAI, Google, or Microsoft are doing at the very high end. If you don’t have the scale to invest in tens of millions (or more likely, hundreds of millions) of dollars in AI R&D, leveraging a pre-built foundation model might yield a far better ROI. Essentially, build if AI is a core differentiator you can substantially improve – but buy if AI is a means to an end and others can provide it more cheaply. Privacy, security, and compliance needs: A major driver for some companies to consider “rolling their own” AI is data sensitivity and compliance. If you operate in a field with strict data governance (say, patient health data, or confidential financial info), sending data to a third-party AI API – even with promises of privacy – might be a non-starter. An in-house model that you can deploy in a secure environment (or at least a model from a vendor willing to isolate your data) could be worth the investment. Microsoft’s move shows an example of prioritizing data control: by handling AI internally, they keep the whole data pipeline under their policies. Other firms, too, may decide that owning the model (or using an open-source model locally) is the safer path for compliance. That said, many AI providers are addressing this by offering on-premises or dedicated instances – so explore those options as well. Need for customization and differentiation: If the available off-the-shelf AI models don’t meet your specific needs or if using the same model as everyone else diminishes your competitive edge, building your own can be attractive. Microsoft clearly wanted AI tuned for its Copilot use cases and product ecosystem – something it can do more freely with in-house models. Likewise, other companies might have domain-specific data or use cases (e.g. a legal AI assistant, or an industrial AI for engineering data) where a general model underperforms. In such cases, investing in a proprietary model or at least a fine-tuned version of an open-source model could yield superior results for your niche. We’ve seen examples like Bloomberg GPT – a financial domain LLM trained on finance data – which a company built to get better finance-specific performance than generic models. Those successes hint that if your data or use case is unique enough, a custom model can provide real differentiation. Hybrid approaches – combine the best of both: Importantly, choosing “build” versus “buy” isn’t all-or-nothing. Microsoft itself is not abandoning OpenAI entirely; the company says it will “continue to use the very best models from [its] team, [its] partners, and the latest innovations from the open-source community” to power different features. In practice, Microsoft is adopting a hybrid model – using its own AI where it adds value, but also orchestrating third-party models where they excel, thereby delivering the best outcomes across millions of interactions. Other enterprises can adopt a similar strategy. For example, you might use a general model like OpenAI’s for most tasks, but switch to a privately fine-tuned model when handling proprietary data or domain-specific queries. There are even emerging tools to help route requests to different models dynamically (the way Microsoft’s “orchestrator” does). This approach allows you to leverage the immense investment big AI providers have made, while still maintaining options to plug in your own specialty models for particular needs. Bottom line: Microsoft’s foray into building MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 underscores that AI has become a strategic asset worth investing in – but it also demonstrates the importance of balancing innovation with practical business needs. Companies should re-evaluate their build-vs-buy AI strategy, especially if control, privacy, or differentiation are key drivers. Not every organization will choose to build a giant AI model from scratch (and most shouldn’t). Yet every organization should consider how dependent it wants to be on external AI providers and whether owning certain AI capabilities could unlock more value or mitigate risks. Microsoft’s example shows that with sufficient scale and strategic need, developing one’s own AI is not only possible but potentially transformative. For others, the lesson may be to negotiate harder on data and compliance terms with AI vendors, or to invest in smaller-scale bespoke models that complement the big players. In the end, Microsoft’s announcement is a landmark in the AI landscape: a reminder that the AI ecosystem is evolving from a few foundation-model providers toward a more heterogeneous field. For business leaders, it’s a prompt to think of AI not just as a service you consume, but as a capability you cultivate. Whether that means training your own models, fine-tuning open-source ones, or smartly leveraging vendor models, the goal is the same – align your AI strategy with your business’s unique needs for agility, trust, and competitive advantage in the AI era. Supporting Your AI Journey: Full-Spectrum AI Solutions from TTMS As the AI ecosystem evolves, TTMS offers AI Solutions for Business – a comprehensive service line that guides organizations through every stage of their AI strategy, from deploying pre-built models to developing proprietary ones. Whether you’re integrating AI into existing workflows, automating document-heavy processes, or building large-scale language or voice models, TTMS has capabilities to support you. For law firms, our AI4Legal specialization helps automate repetitive tasks like contract drafting, court transcript analysis, and document summarizations—all while maintaining data security and compliance. For customer-facing and sales-driven sectors, our Salesforce AI Integration service embeds generative AI, predictive insights, and automation directly into your CRM, helping improve user experience, reduce manual workload, and maintain control over data. If Microsoft’s move to build its own models signals one thing, it’s this: the future belongs to organizations that can both buy and build intelligently – and TTMS is ready to partner with you on that path. Why is Microsoft creating its own AI models when it already partners with OpenAI? Microsoft values the access it has to OpenAI’s cutting-edge models, but building MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 internally gives it more control over costs, product integration, and regulatory compliance. By owning the technology, Microsoft can optimize for speed and efficiency, protect sensitive data within its own infrastructure, and develop features tailored specifically to its ecosystem. This reduces dependence on a single provider and strengthens Microsoft’s long-term strategic position. How do Microsoft’s MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 compare with OpenAI’s models? MAI-1 is a large language model designed to rival GPT-4 in text-based tasks, but Microsoft emphasizes efficiency and integration rather than pushing absolute frontier performance. MAI-Voice-1 focuses on ultra-fast, natural-sounding speech generation, which complements OpenAI’s Whisper (speech-to-text) rather than duplicating it. While OpenAI still leads in some benchmarks, Microsoft’s models give it flexibility to innovate and align development closely with its own products. What are the risks for businesses in relying solely on third-party AI providers? Total dependence on external AI vendors creates exposure to pricing changes, roadmap shifts, or availability issues outside a company’s control. It can also complicate compliance when sensitive data must flow through a third party’s systems. Businesses risk losing differentiation if they rely on the same model that competitors use. Microsoft’s decision highlights these risks and shows why strategic independence in AI can be valuable. hat lessons can other enterprises take from Microsoft’s pivot? Not every company can afford to train a model on thousands of GPUs, but the principle is scalable. Organizations should assess which AI capabilities are core to their competitive advantage and consider building or fine-tuning models in those areas. For most, a hybrid approach – combining foundation models from providers with domain-specific custom models – strikes the right balance between speed, cost, and control. Microsoft demonstrates that owning at least part of the AI stack can pay dividends in trust, compliance, and differentiation. Will Microsoft continue to use OpenAI’s technology after launching its own models? Yes. Microsoft has been clear that it will use the best model for the task, whether from OpenAI, the open-source community, or its internal MAI family. The launch of MAI-1 and MAI-Voice-1 doesn’t replace OpenAI overnight; it creates options. This “multi-model” strategy allows Microsoft to route workloads dynamically, ensuring it can balance performance, cost, and compliance. For business leaders, it’s a reminder that AI strategies don’t need to be all-or-nothing – flexibility is a strength.
Read
EU AI Act Update 2025: Code of Practice, Enforcement & Industry Reactions
EU AI Act Latest Developments: Code of Practice, Enforcement, Timeline & Industry Reactions The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) is entering a critical new phase of implementation in 2025. As a follow-up to our February 2025 introduction to this landmark regulation, this article examines the latest developments shaping its rollout. We cover the newly finalized Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI), the enforcement powers of the European AI Office, a timeline of implementation from August 2025 through 2027, early reactions from AI industry leaders like xAI, Meta, and Google, and strategic guidance to help business leaders ensure compliance and protect their reputations. General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: A Voluntary Compliance Framework One of the most significant recent milestones is the release of the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice – a comprehensive set of voluntary guidelines intended to help AI providers meet the EU AI Act’s requirements for foundation models. Published on July 10, 2025, the Code was developed by independent experts through a multi-stakeholder process and endorsed by the European Commission’s new AI Office. It serves as a non-binding framework covering three key areas: transparency, copyright compliance, and safety and security in advanced AI models. In practice, this means GPAI providers (think developers of large language models, generative AI systems, etc.) are given concrete measures and documentation templates to ensure they disclose necessary information, respect intellectual property laws, and mitigate any systemic risks from their most powerful models. Although adhering to the Code is optional, it offers a crucial benefit: a “presumption of conformity” with the AI Act. In other words, companies that sign on to the Code are deemed to comply with the law’s GPAI obligations, enjoying greater legal certainty and a lighter administrative burden in audits and assessments. This carrot-and-stick approach strongly incentivizes major AI providers to participate. Indeed, within weeks of the Code’s publication, dozens of tech firms – including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic and others – had voluntarily signed on as early signatories, signalling their intent to follow these best practices. The Code’s endorsement by the European Commission and the EU’s AI Board (a body of member state regulators) in August 2025 further cemented its status as an authoritative compliance tool. Providers that choose not to adhere to the Code will face stricter scrutiny: they must independently prove to regulators how their alternative measures fulfill each requirement of the AI Act. The European AI Office: Central Enforcer and AI Oversight Hub To oversee and enforce the EU AI Act, the European Commission established a dedicated regulator known as the European AI Office in early 2024. Housed within the Commission’s DG CONNECT, this office serves as the EU-wide center of AI expertise and enforcement coordination. Its primary role is to monitor, supervise, and ensure compliance with the AI Act’s rules – especially for general-purpose AI models – across all 27 Member States. The AI Office has been empowered with significant enforcement tools: it can conduct evaluations of AI models, demand technical documentation and information from AI providers, require corrective measures for non-compliance, and even recommend sanctions or fines in serious cases. Importantly, the AI Office is responsible for drawing up and updating codes of practice (like the GPAI Code) under Article 56 of the Act, and it acts as the Secretariat for the new European AI Board, which coordinates national regulators. In practical terms, the European AI Office will work hand-in-hand with Member States’ authorities to achieve consistent enforcement. For example, if a general-purpose AI model is suspected of non-compliance or poses unforeseen systemic risks, the AI Office can launch an investigation in collaboration with national market surveillance agencies. It will help organize joint investigations across borders when the same AI system is deployed in multiple countries, ensuring that issues like biased algorithms or unsafe AI deployments are addressed uniformly. By facilitating information-sharing and guiding national regulators (similar to how the European Data Protection Board works under GDPR), the AI Office aims to prevent regulatory fragmentation. As a central hub, it also represents the EU in international AI governance discussions and oversees innovation-friendly measures like AI sandboxes (controlled environments for testing AI) and SME support programs. For business leaders, this means there is now a one-stop European authority focusing on AI compliance – companies can expect the AI Office to issue guidance, handle certain approvals or registrations, and lead major enforcement actions for AI systems that transcend individual countries’ jurisdictions. Timeline for AI Act Implementation: August 2025 to 2027 The EU AI Act is being rolled out in phases, with key obligations kicking in between 2025 and 2027. The regulation formally entered into force on August 1, 2024, but its provisions were not all active immediately. Instead, a staggered timeline gives organizations time to adapt. The first milestone came just six months in: by February 2025, the Act’s bans on certain “unacceptable-risk” AI practices (e.g. social scoring, exploitative manipulation of vulnerable groups, and real-time remote biometric identification in public for law enforcement) became legally binding. Any AI system falling under these prohibited categories must have been ceased or removed from the EU market by that date, marking an early test of compliance. Next, on August 2, 2025, the rules for general-purpose AI models take effect. From this date forward, any new foundation model or large-scale AI system (meeting the GPAI definition) introduced to the EU market is required to comply with the AI Act’s transparency, safety, and copyright measures. This includes providing detailed technical documentation to regulators and users, disclosing the data used for training (at least in summary form), and implementing risk mitigation for advanced models. Notably, there is an important grace period for existing AI models that were already on the market before August 2025: those providers have until August 2, 2027 to bring legacy models and their documentation into full compliance. This two-year transitional window acknowledges that updating already-deployed AI systems (and retrofitting documentation or risk controls) takes time. During this period, voluntary tools like the GPAI Code of Practice serve as an interim compliance bridge, helping companies align with requirements before formal standards are finalized around 2027. The AI Act’s remaining obligations phase in by 2026-2027. By August 2026 (two years post-entry into force), the majority of provisions become fully applicable, including requirements for high-risk AI systems in areas like healthcare, finance, employment, and critical infrastructure. These high-risk systems – which must undergo conformity assessments, logging, human oversight, and more – have a slightly longer lead time, with their compliance deadline at the three-year mark (around late 2027) according to the legislation. In effect, the period from mid-2025 through 2027 is when companies will feel the AI Act’s bite: first in the generative and general-purpose AI domain, and subsequently across regulated industry-specific AI applications. Businesses should mark August 2025 and August 2026 on their calendars for incremental responsibilities, with August 2027 as the horizon by which all AI systems in scope need to meet the new EU standards. Regulators have also indicated that formal “harmonized standards” for AI (technical standards developed via European standards organizations) are expected by 2027 to further streamline compliance. Industry Reactions: What xAI, Google, and Meta Reveal How have AI companies responded so far to this evolving regulatory landscape? Early signals from industry leaders provide a telling snapshot of both support and concern. On one hand, many big players have publicly embraced the EU’s approach. For example, Google affirmed it would sign the new Code of Practice, and Microsoft’s President Brad Smith indicated Microsoft was likely to do the same. Numerous AI developers see value in the coherence and stability that the AI Act promises – by harmonizing rules across Europe, it can reduce legal uncertainty and potentially raise user trust in AI products. This supportive camp is evidenced by the long list of initial Code of Practice signatories, which includes not just enterprise tech giants but also a range of startups and research-focused firms from Europe and abroad. On the other hand, some prominent companies have voiced reservations or chosen a more cautious engagement. Notably, Elon Musk’s AI venture xAI made headlines in July 2025 by agreeing to sign only the “Safety and Security” chapter of the GPAI Code – and pointedly not the transparency or copyright sections. In a public statement, xAI said that while it “supports AI safety” and will adhere to the safety chapter, it finds the Act’s other parts “profoundly detrimental to innovation” and believes the copyright rules represent an overreach. This partial compliance stance suggests a concern that overly strict transparency or data disclosure mandates could expose proprietary information or stifle competitive advantage. Likewise, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) took a more oppositional stance: Meta declined to sign the Code of Practice at all, arguing that the voluntary Code introduces “legal uncertainties for model developers” and imposes measures that go “far beyond the scope of the AI Act”. In other words, Meta felt the Code’s commitments might be too onerous or premature, given that they extend into areas not explicitly dictated by the law itself (Meta has been particularly vocal about issues like open-source model obligations and copyright filters, which the company sees as problematic). These divergent reactions reveal an industry both cognizant of AI’s societal risks and wary of regulatory constraints. Companies like Google and OpenAI, by quickly endorsing the Code of Practice, signal that they are willing to meet higher transparency and safety bars – possibly to pre-empt stricter enforcement and to position themselves as responsible leaders. In contrast, pushback from players like Meta and the nuanced participation of xAI highlight a fear that EU rules might undercut competitiveness or force unwanted disclosures of AI training data and methods. It’s also telling that some governments and experts share these concerns; for instance, during the Code’s approval, one EU member state (Belgium) reportedly raised objections about gaps in the copyright chapter, reflecting ongoing debates about how best to balance innovation with regulation. As the AI Act moves from paper to practice, expect continued dialogue between regulators and industry. The European Commission has indicated it will update the Code of Practice as technology evolves, and companies – even skeptics – will likely engage in that process to make their voices heard. Strategic Guidance for Business Leaders With the EU AI Act’s requirements steadily coming into force, business leaders should take proactive steps now to ensure compliance and manage both legal and reputational risks. Here are key strategic considerations for organizations deploying or developing AI: Audit Your AI Portfolio and Risk-Classify Systems: Begin by mapping out all AI systems, tools, or models your company uses or provides. Determine which ones might fall under the AI Act’s definitions of high-risk AI systems (e.g. AI in regulated fields like health, finance, HR, etc.) or general-purpose AI models (broad AI models that could be adapted to many tasks). This risk classification is essential – high-risk systems will need to meet stricter requirements (e.g. conformity assessments, documentation, human oversight), while GPAI providers have specific transparency and safety obligations. By understanding where each AI system stands, you can prioritize compliance efforts on the most critical areas. Establish AI Governance and Compliance Processes: Treat AI compliance as a cross-functional responsibility involving your legal, IT, data science, and risk management teams. Develop internal guidelines or an AI governance framework aligned with the AI Act. For high-risk AI applications, this means creating processes for thorough risk assessments, data quality checks, record-keeping, and human-in-the-loop oversight before deployment. For general-purpose AI development, implement procedures to document training data sources, methodologies to mitigate biases or errors, and security testing for model outputs. Many companies are appointing “AI compliance leads” or committees to oversee these tasks and to stay updated on regulatory guidance. Leverage the GPAI Code of Practice and Standards: If your organization develops large AI models or foundation models, consider signing onto the EU’s GPAI Code of Practice or at least using it as a blueprint. Adhering to this voluntary Code can serve as evidence of good-faith compliance efforts and will likely satisfy regulators that you meet the AI Act’s requirements during this interim period before formal standards arrive. Even if you choose not to formally sign, the Code’s recommendations on transparency (like providing model documentation forms), on copyright compliance (such as policies for respecting copyrighted training data), and on safety (like conducting adversarial testing and red-teaming of models) are valuable best practices that can improve your risk posture. Monitor Regulatory Updates and Engage: The AI regulatory environment will continue evolving through 2026 and beyond. Keep an eye on communications from the European AI Office and the AI Board – they will issue guidelines, Q&As, and possibly clarification on ambiguous points in the Act. It’s wise to budget for legal review of these updates and to participate in industry forums or consultations if possible. Engaging with regulators (directly or through industry associations) can give your company a voice in how rules are interpreted, such as shaping upcoming harmonized standards or future revisions of the Code of Practice. Proactive engagement can also demonstrate your commitment to responsible AI, which can be a reputational asset. Prepare for Transparency and Customer Communications: A often overlooked aspect of the AI Act is the emphasis on transparency not just to regulators but also to users. High-risk AI systems will require user notifications (e.g. that they are interacting with AI and not a human in certain cases), and AI-generated content may need labels. Start preparing plain-language disclosures about your AI’s capabilities and limits. Additionally, consider how you’ll handle inquiries or audits – if an EU regulator or the AI Office asks for your algorithmic documentation or evidence of risk controls, having those materials ready will expedite the process and avoid last-minute scrambles. Being transparent and forthcoming can also boost public trust, turning compliance into a competitive advantage rather than just a checkbox. Finally, business leaders should view compliance not as a static checkbox but as part of building a broader culture of trustworthy AI. The EU AI Act has put ethics and human rights at the center of AI governance. Companies that align with these values – prioritizing user safety, fairness, and accountability in AI – stand to strengthen their brand reputation. Conversely, a failure to comply or a high-profile AI incident (such as a biased outcome or safety failure) could invite not only regulatory penalties (up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover for the worst violations) but also public backlash. In the coming years, investors, customers, and partners are likely to favor businesses that can demonstrate their AI is well-governed and compliant. By taking the steps above, organizations can mitigate legal risk, avoid last-minute fire drills as deadlines loom, and position themselves as leaders in the emerging era of AI regulation. TTMS AI Solutions – Automate With Confidence As the EU AI Act moves from paper to practice, organizations need practical tools that balance compliance, performance, and speed. Transition Technologies MS (TTMS) delivers enterprise-grade AI solutions that are secure, scalable, and tailored to real business workflows. AI4Legal – Automation for legal teams: accelerate document review, drafting, and case summarization while maintaining traceability and control. AI4Content – Document analysis at scale: process and synthesize reports, forms, and transcripts into structured, decision-ready outputs. AI4E-Learning – Training content, faster: transform internal materials into modular courses with quizzes, instructors’ notes, and easy editing. AI4Knowledge – Find answers, not files: a central knowledge hub with natural-language search to cut time spent hunting for procedures and know-how. AI4Localisation – Multilingual at enterprise pace: context-aware translations tuned for tone, terminology, and brand consistency across markets. AML Track – Automated AML compliance: streamline KYC, PEP and sanctions screening, ongoing monitoring, and audit-ready reporting in one platform. Our experts partner with your teams end-to-end – from scoping and governance to integration and change management – so you get measurable impact, not just another tool. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) When will the EU AI Act be fully enforced, and what are the key dates? The EU AI Act is being phased in over several years. It formally took effect in August 2024, but its requirements activate at different milestones. The ban on certain unacceptable AI practices (like social scoring and manipulative AI) started in February 2025. By August 2, 2025, rules for general-purpose AI models (foundation models) become applicable – any new AI model introduced after that date must comply. Most other provisions, including obligations for many high-risk AI systems, kick in by August 2026 (two years after entry into force). One final deadline is August 2027, by which providers of existing AI models (those that were on the market before the Act) need to bring those systems into compliance. In short, the period from mid-2025 through 2027 is when the AI Act’s requirements gradually turn from theory into practice. What is the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI, and do companies have to sign it? The Code of Practice for GPAI is a voluntary set of guidelines designed to help AI model providers comply with the EU AI Act’s rules on general-purpose AI (like large language models or generative AI systems). It covers best practices for transparency (documenting how the AI was developed and its limitations), copyright (ensuring respect for intellectual property in training data), and safety/security (testing and mitigating risks from powerful AI models). Companies do not have to sign the Code – it’s optional – but there’s a big incentive to do so. If you adhere to the Code, regulators will presume you’re meeting the AI Act’s requirements (“presumption of conformity”), which gives you legal reassurance. Many major AI firms have signed on already. However, if a company chooses not to follow the Code, it must independently demonstrate compliance through other means. In summary, the Code isn’t mandatory, but it’s a highly recommended shortcut to compliance for those who develop general-purpose AI. How will the European AI Office enforce the AI Act, and what powers does it have? The European AI Office is a new EU-level regulator set up to ensure the AI Act is applied consistently across all member states. Think of it as Europe’s central AI “watchdog.” The AI Office has several important enforcement powers: it can request detailed information and technical documentation from companies about their AI systems, conduct evaluations and tests on AI models (especially the big general-purpose models) to check for compliance, and coordinate investigations if an AI system is suspected to violate the rules. While daily enforcement (like market checks or handling complaints) will still involve national authorities in each EU country, the AI Office guides and unifies these efforts, much like the European Data Protection Board does for privacy law. The AI Office can also help initiate penalties – under the AI Act, fines can be steep (up to €35 million or 7% of global annual revenue for serious breaches). In essence, the AI Office will be the go-to authority at the EU level: drafting guidance, managing the Code of Practice, and making sure companies don’t fall through the cracks of different national regulators. Does the EU AI Act affect non-EU companies, such as American or Asian firms? Yes. The AI Act has an extraterritorial scope very similar to the EU’s GDPR. If a company outside Europe is providing an AI system or service that is used in the EU or affects people in the EU, that company is expected to comply with the AI Act for those activities. It doesn’t matter where the company is headquartered or where the AI model was developed – what matters is the impact on the European market or users. For instance, if a U.S. tech company offers a generative AI tool to EU customers, or an Asian manufacturer sells a robot with AI capabilities into Europe, they fall under the Act’s provisions. Non-EU firms might need to appoint an EU representative (a local point of contact) for regulatory purposes, and they will face the same obligations (and potential fines) as European companies for non-compliance. In short, if your AI touches Europe, assume the EU AI Act applies. How should businesses start preparing for EU AI Act compliance now? To prepare, businesses should take a multi-pronged approach: First, educate your leadership and product teams about the AI Act’s requirements and identify which of your AI systems are impacted. Next, conduct a gap analysis or audit of those systems – do you have the necessary documentation, risk controls, and transparency measures in place? If not, start implementing them. It’s wise to establish an internal AI governance program, bringing together legal, technical, and operational stakeholders to oversee compliance. For companies building AI models, consider following the EU’s Code of Practice for GPAI as a framework. Also, update contracts and supply chain checks – ensure that any AI tech you procure from vendors meets EU standards (you may need assurances or compliance clauses from your providers). Finally, stay agile: keep track of new guidelines from the European AI Office or any standardization efforts, as these will further clarify what regulators expect. By acting early – well before the major 2025 and 2026 deadlines – businesses can avoid scrambling last-minute and use compliance as an opportunity to bolster trust in their AI offerings.
ReadThe world’s largest corporations have trusted us
We hereby declare that Transition Technologies MS provides IT services on time, with high quality and in accordance with the signed agreement. We recommend TTMS as a trustworthy and reliable provider of Salesforce IT services.
TTMS has really helped us thorough the years in the field of configuration and management of protection relays with the use of various technologies. I do confirm, that the services provided by TTMS are implemented in a timely manner, in accordance with the agreement and duly.
Ready to take your business to the next level?
Let’s talk about how TTMS can help.
Michael Foote
Business Leader & CO – TTMS UK