Op-ed by Olivier Rafal (Consulting Director Strategy at WeNvision) published on February 23, 2024 on CIO-Online (Tribune section), which puts forward a thesis that was still counterintuitive at the time: generative AI is more a matter of technological product than of an AI/data science project. Argument 1 — data science is not the core of the issue: building a foundation model from scratch requires « several months, millions of euros, and access to enormous quantities of data » — reserved for players with specific, monetizable datasets (e.g. Bloomberg and its BloombergGPT for finance).
By **Olivier Rafal**// Source cio-online.com ↗/Reading 2 min/.md// Auto-verified translation
In this op-ed published on February 23, 2024 on CIO-Online, Olivier Rafal (Consulting Director Strategy at WeNvision) argues a then-counter-current idea: generative AI is more a matter of technological product than of an AI or data science project. Many organizations get their priorities wrong by seeking to hire data scientists and machine learning engineers.
First argument: building a foundation model from scratch « requires several months, millions of euros, and access to enormous quantities of data ». This only makes sense for players with specific, monetizable datasets — the emblematic example being Bloomberg, which created BloombergGPT to leverage its financial data. For nearly all companies, it is better to rely on commercial LLMs.
You don't necessarily need to be a data scientist, but you do need to understand the basic concepts, have back-office development skills, and strong cloud skills.
— **Olivier Rafal** , cio-online.com
Second argument: the skills mismatch. Rather than data scientists, what's needed are development and integration engineers (back and front), strong cloud skills, and DevOps. A client sums it up: « You don't necessarily need to be a data scientist, but you do need to understand the basic concepts, have back-office development skills, and strong cloud skills. »
Third argument: architecture. Companies should build a plateforme d'IA générative resting on orchestrators and APIs, which makes it « easy to work with the best LLMs on the market and switch between them as they each evolve, without reworking the applications » — a guarantee of independence against vendor lock-in.
Fourth argument, the central one: the shift from project to product. « The platform […] must itself be considered a product », funded not by a one-off investment but by a monthly stream, to sustain continuous iterations and innovation.
Fifth argument: governance. GenAI « has become democratized in an unprecedented way », which generates « as much shadow AI as strong expectations toward the DSI ». Adequate governance must capture the needs of the various business lines, prioritize products by the value they create, and oversee the proper functioning of the whole.
Rafal finally announces a paradigm shift that needs to be accepted: « we are moving from classic algorithmic programming to agents Langchain that handle part of the decisions ». A founding text, it lays down as early as the beginning of 2024 the foundation (product, platform/API, flow-based funding, governance) that later analyses — up to the 2026 FinOps/token financial governance — will only extend.
Key takeaways
Date / source.February 23, 2024, CIO-Online (Tribune). Author: Olivier Rafal, Consulting Director Strategy WeNvision. Founding text (≈ 2 years before the agentic WeNvision fiches).
Thesis.« L'IA générative est plus une affaire de produit technologique qu'un projet d'IA » → don't turn it into a data science project. ### The 5 messages 1. No need for data scientists (in general): a foundation model costs « several months, millions of euros » + massive data → reserved for players with specific datasets (Bloomberg → BloombergGPT). 2. Key skills: development/integration engineers (back/front), strong cloud, DevOps. Client quote: « not necessarily need to be a data scientist […] strong cloud skills. » 3. Platform = orchestrators + API: « switch [LLMs] […] without reworking the applications » (model independence, anti lock-in). 4. Product > project: « consider [the platform] itself as a product » + monthly flow-based funding (vs one-off investment). 5. Governance & shadow AI: unprecedented democratization → « shadow AI » + « strong expectations toward the DSI »; capture needs, prioritize by value. ### Signal of the era
Paradigm shift. already announced: « from classic algorithmic programming to agents Langchain that handle part of the decisions » (Feb. 2024). ### To use in client engagements / presentations
WeNvision doctrine milestone. lays down as early as 2024 product > project, platform/API, flow-based funding, governance, shadow AI — a through-line up to the financial governance / FinOps token of the Tokenomics Foundation op-ed (June 2026).
Argument reusable on the DSI side: model independence via an orchestration layer (prefigures systems around the model).
generative AI is a technology product more than an AI project
— Olivier Rafal
building a foundation model requires several months and millions of euros
— Olivier Rafal
The knowledge graph extracted from this fiche — 11 entities, 14 relations.
In this graph :Olivier Rafal · WeNvision · CIO-Online · L'IA générative est plus une affaire de produit technologique qu'un projet d'IA · produit vs projet · foundation model · BloombergGPT · plateforme d'IA générative · financement en flux · shadow AI · agents Langchain