Taqtile Radar: between noise and breakthroughs, what we learned from the 5% succeeding with GenAI?

The year 2025 marked a natural inflection point for Artificial Intelligence in enterprises. While the headline dominating the market was that 95% of GenAI solution pilots delivered zero return, a deeper analysis reveals a divided reality.

There is a select group — the 5% — that has not only surpassed the experimentation phase but achieved millions in results.

At Taqtile, we analyzed dozens of projects and crossed our learnings with market data, including MIT's NANDA project (The GenAI Divide). The conclusion of our 2025 Radar is clear: the difference between success and failure is not in the chosen technology, but in how it meets the business.

Those who crossed the bridge between adoption and transformation share identifiable and replicable approaches. Below, we detail the 5 patterns that separate winning projects from stagnation.

Contact us to understand how we can be your strategic partner in developing GenAI solutions. [link p/ home - formulário]

1. Focused Use Cases vs. "Universal Assistant"

The most common mistake is trying to solve everything at once. Companies aiming for complex and comprehensive processes tend to take 9 months or more to see any result—often with no success at the end.

On the other hand, top performers focus on high-value processes with clear metrics. Solutions focused on "small but critical workflows" are reaching $1.2M in annualized revenue within 6 to 12 months of launch. These projects have a much faster cycle: an average of 90 days from pilot to full implementation.

2. Incremental Evolution vs. "State of the Art"

Unbridled ambition has killed projects. More than 50% of leaders cited tools that "break on edge cases and don't adapt" as the main reason for their initiatives' failure.

Practical reality shows that small agents aiming to cover 40% of a workflow under human supervision outperform ambitious systems promising 100% autonomy that deliver 0% adoption. It is more efficient to start with a specialized agent qualifying leads under supervision than to dream of an autonomous sales agent that manages the entire funnel and fails at the first exception.

3. Value Tracking from Day Zero vs. Late ROI Measurement

Successful companies do not measure "model accuracy" or laboratory benchmarks. They link AI directly to the P&L (Profit and Loss) from day one.

The 5% that crossed the frontier from simple adoption to transformation measured real business results: lead qualification 40% faster; customer retention 10% higher; elimination of $2-10M in BPO spending.

4. Hybrid Systems vs. Pure GenAI

Pure GenAI models lose context, hallucinate, and fail in edge cases. The winning architecture identified in the Radar is hybrid: it combines the best of both worlds.

• GenAI: for flexibility, used where it is strong (understanding and text generation).

• Deterministic Flows: for reliability, bringing rigid logic where the process demands predictability.

Specialized agents with controlled autonomy manage memory better and meet business rules with a precision that GenAI alone cannot achieve.

5. External Partners vs. Internal Development

Perhaps the most counterintuitive data from the MIT study concerns execution: external partnerships reach production with a 67% success rate, compared to only 33% for internal developments.

This is not due to a lack of capability in internal teams, but because the nature of the problem has changed. External partners bring:

1. Real Multidisciplinarity: Engineering, design, and strategy together from the start, without silos.

2. Cross-industry Experience: Pattern recognition from dozens of previous implementations.

3. Continuous Updating: Daily monitoring of new models and frameworks, without competing with the company's maintenance priorities.

Furthermore, the time to value drops drastically: from 9 months (internal) to 90 days (partner).

The Risk of the Wrong Choice

The most critical decision of the next 12 months will define the competitive landscape for the next five years. The market is full of impressive demonstrations that do not validate viability in real workflows.

The real risk is not choosing the wrong technology, but choosing based on the wrong criteria. As CIOs interviewed by MIT warned: "Any system that learns our specific processes better will win our business. Once we train it, we can't leave".

Organizations that choose poorly now not only waste money; they waste irretrievable time while competitors advance.

To invest safely, the approach must be: map processes before technology , start small by validating in real workflows , and evolve gradually. Technology changes. Leadership in adoption is what remains.

Download the full Taqtile Radar in PDF to access visual frameworks and the detailed implementation checklist.