Expereo has published a report commissioned from IDC that identifies organisations are investing in AI more from a fear of missing out than a disciplined ROI evaluation. The IDC Infobrief is titled Enterprise Horizons 2026: Where Innovation Meets Reality.
The twenty-two-page report is based on the latest results of IDC’s Technology Leaders Survey, 2026, of over 800 multinational enterprises from across the US, Europe and APAC. The report is divided into 12 short sections. Each of which has data visualisations and commentary with analysis that highlights data points. It concludes with eight recommendations for enterprises to balance innovation and risk.
The report is well laid out but lacks a qualitative element,. And there are no quotes, either from respondents, specific analysts or Expereo leaders that might have further backed or added depth to the findings.
Data is often cited as a key foundation for successful AI projects. However, Expereo, understandably as a global network connectivity provider, rightly highlights the importance of organisations having the right network in place to transit that data over.
The report looks at the investment in AI, the state of investment, the challenges, what matters, and the catalysts.
Ben Elms, CEO, Expereo, says: “Every enterprise we speak to is investing in AI. Yet the data shows a clear gap opening up between AI ambition and AI outcomes. More often than not, that gap comes down to the network underneath. AI only delivers on its promise when the infrastructure carrying it is built to support it.
Without resilient, scalable, cloud-optimised networks, even the most well-funded AI programmes will struggle to deliver ROI. Getting the network right is no longer an IT decision; it is one of the most important conversations happening in the boardroom today to help fulfil AI ambition.”
Fuelling The Growth Rocket
The majority (78%) of organisations are optimistic about growth over the next 12 months. With US and European firms slightly more optimistic than APAC ones. For those already investing AI, expectation of strong growth is higher (62% vs 31% overall). The source of that optimism is increased innovation (59%), new products/services (53%) and new partnerships (47%).
70% of firms are investing in AI to deliver growth; however, only 29% have seen the return exceed and significantly exceed expectations. With referenced to the title, 20% say they are investing in AI because they have a fear of missing out, and are not basing those investments on business value delivered. The data points in the paper are slightly unclear; it doesn’t specifically pull out how many organisations are not evaluating AI accurately.
The benefits of investing are clear. Though with high percentages seeing a positive impact on productivity (90%), quality of work (84%) and customer experience (78%).
For the foundation of AI, the report pulls out data, skills and the networks that can help determine winners and losers. 51% cite poor data quality as a barrier and 27% a lack on in-house skills.
74% of companies that have seen transformative use of AI have a fully ready network, while only 8% of those using AI extensively have a ready network. The top three barriers that remain to providing the network required to support AI effectively are flexibility (54%), resilience (51%) and the ability to support high bandwidth (42%).
Threats to growth
The survey also highlighted the threats to growth. With Cybersecurity 63% coming out top, with supply chain disruption (36%) and Challenges around AI implementation at 30%. Overall, 64% of companies suffered material loss of revenue, output, or productivity over the last 12 months.
Worryingly, it is the AI leaders who have been impacted most by cybersecurity issues. Also, 58% stated that talent competition is a bigger growth risk than cyberthreats or geopolitical threats.
The report also has some interesting findings around sustainability. Noting that 60% are seeing sustainability as having a higher priority than ever before. And amongst AI leaders, that number is higher (though not revealed). Legislation such as Europe’s CMDB and legislation in California and Australia may be causing issues.
The report highlights five ways in which they are mitigating the sustainability impact of AI. Including:
- 51% are looking at energy efficiency
- 45% are monitoring and limiting AI usage
- 44% are opting to use green/renewable energy, infrastructure, or services
On the talent front, firms are looking to hire fewer but want better quality hires. 64% note that hires are more skilled and more costly. Hiring is also taking longer than it did 12 months ago. The problem is that the lack of talent is hindering risk mitigation from cybersecurity shortages and digital initiatives being delayed 99% of the time, though 74% by less than 25%.
AI is also impacting what technology leaders are expected to deliver. IDC sees the CIO/CFO partnership as key to unlocking budgets. With 84% more likely to unlock funding for AI and innovation. The report does not compare that to wider technology budgets, with that relationship always being critical.
Enterprise Times: What does this mean
The eight recommendations IDC highlight are, for many, common sense, and are frequently cited elsewhere. The two that stand out are perhaps :
- Identify how best to transform your networks to support an AI future
- Balance innovation and growth, security and resilience, and sustainability
Networks are more important, not so much for internal communication as they used to be, but for the secure connectivity organisations need external to their organisation’s network. The re-emergence of cybersecurity and especially sustainability is also noteworthy. Though cybersecurity is perhaps less surprising, the rise of sustainability in importance is welcomed. It is a growing necessity as legislation increases.
The report is well worth a read. While comprehensive, it does not read easily. Instead, it functions better as a report for readers to dip into and review section by section. While there is some good analysis within it, deeper insights and recommendations would have lengthened this report.
Also, some data points raise more questions than answers, as the reader may want to seek why the responses were delivered. It also lacks a deeper breakdown by region or industry. For example, what are the key barriers for services vs product companies?
