Lexmark CIO & CTO on recognizing the right use cases for AI
Lexmark CIO & CTO Vishal Gupta wades through the murk surrounding AI, explaining what tech organizations should know when deciding whether to adopt it.
The article summarizes a Network Disrupted podcast conversation with Vishal Gupta about practical AI adoption in technology organizations, focusing on clarifying what AI can and cannot do, using use-case-based approaches, and avoiding common pitfalls like data overload. It highlights AI’s useful role in tasks such as cybersecurity classification and policy application while warning that simpler logic-based solutions may suffice and that biased or context-missing AI decisions are real risks. The piece also describes Gupta’s competency-based learning program at Unisys that enabled more than 2,000 engineers to rapidly build AI-related skills through five eight-hour tracks, accelerating digital transformation by prioritizing people and targeted education.
Why does the article recommend discussing AI in specific, use-case-based terms?
The article recommends a use-case-based discussion because AI is a broad, often-overhyped term that can mean different things to different people, leading to misinterpretation and unrealistic expectations. By documenting and fully understanding specific requirements and use cases, teams reduce ambiguity about objectives, choose appropriate technologies (for example, distinguishing when simple logic trees suffice versus when AI classification is beneficial), and focus data collection on the inputs that matter. The approach mirrors advice from practitioners cited in the article who emphasize requirements-based project definitions to ensure AI is applied where it adds real operational value.
What are the risks of using more data without considering the use case?
The article cautions that while enterprises can collect unprecedented volumes of data, indiscriminate accumulation often leads to data overload rather than better outcomes. More data is not inherently better: if data collection isn’t aligned to specific use cases, organizations drown in irrelevant information and make it harder to teach AI systems the right distinctions. Poorly chosen training data can cause biased decisions, loss of context, or incorrect automated outcomes. Gupta therefore advises stepping back to identify the use case first and then gather targeted, high-quality data that supports accurate decision-making.
How did Vishal Gupta structure engineer learning at Unisys to support AI adoption?
Gupta created a competency-based learning program focused on people as part of Unisys’s digital transformation. The program defined five learning tracks, each requiring eight hours of content, and was deployed across six technology centers to more than 2,000 engineers. Engineers were encouraged to choose tracks that interested them; whereas Gupta expected one track every other month, participants completed all five tracks on average within seven months, demonstrating strong engagement. The program emphasized practical upskilling tied to business goals so teams could experiment with and adopt AI-relevant technologies effectively.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can help organizations with digital transformation, strengthen their security posture, and unlock operational efficiencies. But that assumes it is leveraged properly.
For all its benefits, AI can be overhyped and misunderstood as well.
In the first season of the Network Disrupted podcast, Vishal Gupta, CIO and CTO of Connected Technology at Lexmark, willingly wades into the murkiness surrounding AI and explains what technology organizations should know to make more informed choices about its adoption. He also details the program he created at Unisys to engage engineers in continued learning about new fields like AI.
Below are his insights that he shared with host and BlueCat Chief Strategy Officer Andrew Wertkin.
(Mis)understanding AI and what it can and can’t do
AI is a very broad term and can mean different things to different people. Uses can range from a catch-all buzzword, to carrying an association with neural networks, to even erroneously mixing it up with machine learning.
It’s no wonder it’s hard to get on the same page about it, let alone make the best use of it.
According to Gupta and Wertkin’s examples in the episode, it’s best to discuss AI in specific, use-case-based terms. Just like Jon Macy at Cerner ensures projects are requirements-based, fully documenting and understanding the use case leaves less room for misinterpretation.
Gupta shares one of the more compelling and specific use cases for AI in cybersecurity. AI’s classification and comparison capabilities, which are fairly well-developed, can be used to apply security policies to a range of digital equipment.
On the flip side, Wertkin pointed out, it isn’t always necessary to use AI to strengthen one’s security posture. Even more simple logic-based decision trees can be used to help secure devices on a network.
Keep in mind, Gupta warns, that AI-based decision-making isn’t a panacea. Depending on the data that the machines learn from, AI can learn to make biased decisions, miss valuable context, or plainly make the wrong call.
More data is not always better
AI needs to be taught how to properly make decisions and distinctions, using good data—and lots of it. It’s a good time for that, given that enterprises can collect more data than ever before.
Except, every organization has struggled with thoughtful data gathering. It’s easy to collect data with good intentions only to quickly start drowning in it.
Gupta advises taking a few steps back. It’s not about gathering all the data. It’s about identifying use cases and then working to gather the right data that supports the use case.
Do-able ways for engineers to learn AI skills
To get to the point where Unisys could experiment with and adopt AI technology, the 100-year-old company had to undergo some serious digital transformation efforts. To accomplish that, Unisys paid special attention to what matters most: its people.
Gupta helped Unisys look for ways to build up their engineers in a manner that also supported the business’ goals.
The resulting approach was five key competency-based learning tracks for more than 2,000 engineers across the six technology centers where the engineers are based. Gupta worked with teams to develop content and then encouraged engineers to pursue the tracks that interested them.
Each of the learning tracks took eight hours to complete. Gupta initially estimated that an engineer could finish one every other month. Instead, within the first year of deploying the learning program, Gupta found his engineers completed all five tracks within an average of just seven months. To him, this meant his teams were indeed hungry to learn and grow with the business.