\ Enterprises are rapidly adopting copilots across various functions. HR has one. Finance has another. Marketing is testing its own.
\ The problem is that none of these tools connect, and all too often, IT doesn’t find out about them until after they have been embedded into workflows.
\ Does this problem sound familiar? It should. A decade ago, shadow IT spread through tools like Dropbox and Slack, which entered organizations without prior approval.
\ The difference today is that copilots do more than manage files. They sit inside sensitive workflows, influence compliance-heavy processes, and shape decisions. This raises the risks and complicates the problems.
Employees often have the best intentions when integrating a new tool into their team workflow. But unfortunately, they also create blind spots.
\ A Komprise survey revealed that 90 percent of IT leaders are concerned about shadow AI, and nearly 80 percent have already experienced negative outcomes, ranging from data leaks to reputational damage.
\ The risks are clear. A finance team’s copilot may give a different answer than HR’s. A member of the marketing team might test plugins that were never reviewed for viruses and malware. Sensitive data may be fed into copilots that lack the security safeguards enterprises expect.
\ Each of these scenarios has the potential to erode trust and expose the organization.
When copilots spread without control, four problems consistently appear:
\ These outcomes happen when well-intentioned teams adopt tools that are not designed to scale securely across an enterprise.
These problems can be avoided, but the solution starts with visibility. Leaders need a clear view of where copilots are in use. Building this inventory provides a baseline for governance.
\ Once visibility is established, the next step is to set standards. Every copilot should meet requirements for data security, privacy, and compliance.
\ I think it is important to stress that guardrails do not mean shutting down innovation. Many of these tools offer significant benefits for productivity. They just need to be monitored.
\ Some companies have instituted harsh bans on any outside tools. I really don’t recommend this approach. Bans often prompt employees to seek unsanctioned workarounds that are more difficult to monitor.
\ The better approach is to let experimentation continue while ensuring copilots remain within defined boundaries.
Approval cannot be treated as a one-time exercise. Copilots change as new plugins, integrations, and data connections are introduced.
\ They need to be managed as living systems. Ongoing monitoring and regular reviews are critical. Without oversight, copilots drift back into shadow IT, and they do so at a faster pace than traditional applications.
Copilots and tools like them are not going anywhere soon. And for good reason. I myself leverage AI tools to enhance my work and productivity.
\ These tools will continue to multiply across functions, whether IT is ready or not.
\ The challenge is to move from fragmented adoption to structured systems. With visibility, standards, and oversight, copilots can be turned into infrastructure that strengthens the enterprise instead of weakening it.
\ This prevents a repeat of shadow IT and avoids another cycle of technical debt.
\ More importantly, it ensures that copilots become a reliable source of productivity rather than a hidden risk.
. . .
Nick Talwar is a CTO, ex-Microsoft, and a hands-on AI engineer who supports executives in navigating AI adoption. He shares insights on AI-first strategies to drive bottom-line impact.
→ Follow him on LinkedIn to catch his latest thoughts.
→ Subscribe to his free Substack for in-depth articles delivered straight to your inbox.
→ Watch the live session to see how leaders in highly regulated industries leverage AI to cut manual work and drive ROI.

