Skip to main content

Data Leaders Doubt That Their Data Is AI-Ready

While nearly all data leaders surveyed are building generative AI applications, most don't believe their data estate is actually prepared to support them, according to the State of Reliable AI report from Monte Carlo Data.


Source: Monte Carlo Data

Findings include:

■ 100% of data professionals feel pressure from their leadership to implement a GenAI strategy and/or build GenAI products.

■ 91% of data leaders (VP or above) have built or are currently building a GenAI product.

■ 82% of respondents rated the potential usefulness of GenAI at least an 8 on a scale of 1-10, but 90% believe their leaders do not have realistic expectations for its technical feasibility or ability to drive business value.

■ 84% of respondents indicate that it is the data team's responsibility to implement a GenAI strategy, versus 12% whose organizations have built dedicated GenAI teams.

While AI is widely expected to be among the most transformative technologies of the last decade, these findings suggest a troubling disconnect between data teams and business stakeholders.

Data leaders clearly feel the pressure and responsibility to participate in the GenAI revolution, but some may be forging ahead in spite of more primordial priorities — and in some cases, against their better judgment.

The State of Reliable AI Infrastructure

Even before the advent of GenAI, organizations were dealing with an exponentially greater volume of data than in decades past. Since adopting GenAI programs, 91% of data leaders report that both applications and the number of critical data sources has increased even further — deepening the complexity and scale of their data estates in the process.

"Data is the lifeblood of all AI — without secure, compliant, and reliable data, enterprise AI initiatives will fail before they get off the ground. Data quality is a critical but often overlooked component of ensuring ethical and accurate models, and the fact that 68% of data leaders surveyed did not feel completely confident that their data reflects the unsung importance of this puzzle piece," said Lior Solomon, VP of Data, Drata. "The most advanced AI projects will prioritize data reliability at each stage of the model development life cycle, from ingestion in the database to fine-tuning or RAG."

What's more, the survey revealed that data teams are using a myriad of approaches to tackle GenAI, suggesting that not only is the volume and complexity of data increasing, but that there's no one-size-fits-most method for getting these AI models customer-ready.

How data teams are approaching AI:

■ 49% building their own LLM

■ 49% using model-as-a-service providers like OpenAI or Anthropic

■ 48% implementing a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architecture

■ 48% fine-tuning models-as-a-service or their own LLMs

As the complexity of the AI's architecture — and the data that powers it — continues to expand, one perennial problem expands with it: data quality issues.

The Key Question: Is Your Data GenAI Ready?

Data quality has always been a challenge for data teams. However, survey results reveal that the introduction of GenAI has exacerbated both the scope and severity of this problem.

Our findings suggest that while the data estate has evolved rapidly over the last few years to accommodate AI and other novel use cases, data quality management has not. In fact, many respondents still rely on tedious and unscalable data quality methods, such as testing and monitoring, with more than half (54%) of data professionals surveyed depending exclusively on manual testing.

This lack of automated, resolution-focused solutions is reflected in the data, with two-thirds of respondents experiencing a data incident in the past 6 months that cost their organization $100,000 or more. This is a shocking figure when you consider that 70% of data leaders surveyed reported that it takes longer than 4 hours to find a data incident. What's worse, previous surveys commissioned by Monte Carlo reveal that data teams face, on average, 67 data incidents per month.

"In 2024, data leaders are tasked with not only shepherding their companies' GenAI initiatives from experimentation to production, but also ensuring that the data itself is AI-ready, in other words, secure, compliant, and most of all, trusted," said Barr Moses, Co-Founder and CEO of Monte Carlo. "As validated by our survey, organizations will fail without treating data trust with the diligence it deserves. Prioritizing automatic, resolution-focused data quality approaches like data observability will empower data teams to achieve enterprise-grade AI at scale."

Methodology: The Wakefield Research survey — which polled 200 data leaders and professionals — was commissioned by Monte Carlo in April 2024.

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...

Data Leaders Doubt That Their Data Is AI-Ready

While nearly all data leaders surveyed are building generative AI applications, most don't believe their data estate is actually prepared to support them, according to the State of Reliable AI report from Monte Carlo Data.


Source: Monte Carlo Data

Findings include:

■ 100% of data professionals feel pressure from their leadership to implement a GenAI strategy and/or build GenAI products.

■ 91% of data leaders (VP or above) have built or are currently building a GenAI product.

■ 82% of respondents rated the potential usefulness of GenAI at least an 8 on a scale of 1-10, but 90% believe their leaders do not have realistic expectations for its technical feasibility or ability to drive business value.

■ 84% of respondents indicate that it is the data team's responsibility to implement a GenAI strategy, versus 12% whose organizations have built dedicated GenAI teams.

While AI is widely expected to be among the most transformative technologies of the last decade, these findings suggest a troubling disconnect between data teams and business stakeholders.

Data leaders clearly feel the pressure and responsibility to participate in the GenAI revolution, but some may be forging ahead in spite of more primordial priorities — and in some cases, against their better judgment.

The State of Reliable AI Infrastructure

Even before the advent of GenAI, organizations were dealing with an exponentially greater volume of data than in decades past. Since adopting GenAI programs, 91% of data leaders report that both applications and the number of critical data sources has increased even further — deepening the complexity and scale of their data estates in the process.

"Data is the lifeblood of all AI — without secure, compliant, and reliable data, enterprise AI initiatives will fail before they get off the ground. Data quality is a critical but often overlooked component of ensuring ethical and accurate models, and the fact that 68% of data leaders surveyed did not feel completely confident that their data reflects the unsung importance of this puzzle piece," said Lior Solomon, VP of Data, Drata. "The most advanced AI projects will prioritize data reliability at each stage of the model development life cycle, from ingestion in the database to fine-tuning or RAG."

What's more, the survey revealed that data teams are using a myriad of approaches to tackle GenAI, suggesting that not only is the volume and complexity of data increasing, but that there's no one-size-fits-most method for getting these AI models customer-ready.

How data teams are approaching AI:

■ 49% building their own LLM

■ 49% using model-as-a-service providers like OpenAI or Anthropic

■ 48% implementing a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architecture

■ 48% fine-tuning models-as-a-service or their own LLMs

As the complexity of the AI's architecture — and the data that powers it — continues to expand, one perennial problem expands with it: data quality issues.

The Key Question: Is Your Data GenAI Ready?

Data quality has always been a challenge for data teams. However, survey results reveal that the introduction of GenAI has exacerbated both the scope and severity of this problem.

Our findings suggest that while the data estate has evolved rapidly over the last few years to accommodate AI and other novel use cases, data quality management has not. In fact, many respondents still rely on tedious and unscalable data quality methods, such as testing and monitoring, with more than half (54%) of data professionals surveyed depending exclusively on manual testing.

This lack of automated, resolution-focused solutions is reflected in the data, with two-thirds of respondents experiencing a data incident in the past 6 months that cost their organization $100,000 or more. This is a shocking figure when you consider that 70% of data leaders surveyed reported that it takes longer than 4 hours to find a data incident. What's worse, previous surveys commissioned by Monte Carlo reveal that data teams face, on average, 67 data incidents per month.

"In 2024, data leaders are tasked with not only shepherding their companies' GenAI initiatives from experimentation to production, but also ensuring that the data itself is AI-ready, in other words, secure, compliant, and most of all, trusted," said Barr Moses, Co-Founder and CEO of Monte Carlo. "As validated by our survey, organizations will fail without treating data trust with the diligence it deserves. Prioritizing automatic, resolution-focused data quality approaches like data observability will empower data teams to achieve enterprise-grade AI at scale."

Methodology: The Wakefield Research survey — which polled 200 data leaders and professionals — was commissioned by Monte Carlo in April 2024.

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...