3563: Vijay Rajendran on Why Startup Advice Fails When Reality Kicks In

If artificial intelligence is meant to earn trust anywhere, should banking be the place where it proves itself first? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I'm joined by Ravi Nemalikanti, Chief Product and Technology Officer at Abrigo, for a grounded conversation about what responsible AI actually looks like when the consequences are real. Abrigo works with more than 2,500 banks and credit unions across the United States, many of them community institutions where every decision affects local businesses, families, and entire regional economies. That reality makes this discussion feel refreshingly practical rather than theoretical. We talk about why financial services has become one of the toughest proving grounds for AI, and why that is a good thing. Ravi explains why concepts like transparency, explainability, and auditability are not optional add-ons in banking, but table stakes. From fraud detection and lending decisions to compliance and portfolio risk, every model has to stand up to regulatory, ethical, and operational scrutiny. A false positive or an opaque decision is not just a technical issue, it can damage trust, disrupt livelihoods, and undermine confidence in an institution. A big focus of the conversation is how AI assistants are already changing day-to-day banking work, largely behind the scenes. Rather than flashy chatbots, Ravi describes assistants embedded directly into lending, anti-money laundering, and compliance workflows. These systems summarize complex documents, surface anomalies, and create consistent narratives that free human experts to focus on judgment, context, and relationships. What surprised me most was how often customers value consistency and clarity over raw speed or automation. We also explore what other industries can learn from community banks, particularly their modular, measured approach to adoption. With limited budgets and decades-old core systems, these institutions innovate cautiously, prioritizing low-risk, high-return use cases and strong governance from day one. Ravi shares why explainable AI must speak the language of bankers and regulators, not data scientists, and why showing the "why" behind a decision is essential to keeping humans firmly in control. As we look toward 2026 and beyond, the conversation turns to where AI can genuinely support better outcomes in lending and credit risk without sidelining human judgment. Ravi is clear that fully autonomous decisioning still has a long way to go in high-stakes environments, and that the future is far more about partnership than replacement. AI can surface patterns, speed up insight, and flag risks early, but people remain essential for context, empathy, and final accountability. If you're trying to cut through the AI noise and understand how trust, governance, and real-world impact intersect, this episode offers a rare look at how responsible AI is actually being built and deployed today. And once you've listened, I'd love to hear your perspective. Where do you see AI earning trust, and where does it still have something to prove?

What really happens after the startup advice runs out and founders are left facing decisions no pitch deck ever prepared them for? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sit down with Vijay Rajendran, a founder, venture capitalist, UC Berkeley instructor, and author of The Funding Framework, to discuss the realities of company building that rarely appear on social feeds or investor blogs. Vijay has spent years working alongside founders at the sharpest end of growth, from early fundraising conversations through to the personal and leadership shifts that scaling demands. That experience shapes a conversation that feels refreshingly honest, thoughtful, and grounded in lived reality. We explore why building something people actually want sounds simple in theory yet proves brutally difficult in practice. Vijay explains how timing, learning velocity, and the willingness to adapt often matter more than stubborn vision, and why many founders misunderstand what momentum really looks like. From there, the discussion moves into investor relationships, not as transactional events, but as long-term partnerships that require founders to shift their mindset from defense to evaluation. The emotional and psychological dynamics of fundraising come into focus, especially the moments when founders underestimate how much power they actually have in shaping those relationships. A big part of this conversation centers on leadership identity. Vijay breaks down the messy transition from being the "chief everything officer" to becoming a true chief executive, and why the most overlooked stage in that journey is learning how to enable others. We talk about the point where founders become the bottleneck, often without realizing it, and why this tends to surface as teams grow and decisions start happening outside the founder's direct line of sight. The plateau many companies hit around scale becomes less mysterious when viewed through this lens. We also challenge some of the most popular startup advice circulating online today, particularly around fundraising volume, pitching styles, and the idea that persistence alone guarantees outcomes. Vijay shares why treating fundraising like enterprise sales, focusing on alignment over volume, and listening more than pitching often leads to better results. The conversation closes with practical reflections on personal growth, co-founder dynamics, and how leaders can regain clarity during periods of pressure without stepping away from responsibility. If you are building a company, leading a team, or questioning whether you are evolving as fast as your business demands, this episode will likely hit closer to home than you expect. And once you've listened, I'd love to hear what resonated most with you and the leadership questions you're still sitting with after the conversation. Useful Links Connect with Vijay Rajendran The Funding Framework Startup Pitch Deck Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

What happens when decades of clinical research experience collide with a regulatory environment that is changing faster than ever? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sat down with Dr Werner Engelbrecht, Senior Director of Strategy at Veeva Systems, for a wide-ranging conversation that explores how life sciences organizations across Europe are responding to mounting regulatory pressure, rapid advances in AI, and growing expectations around transparency and patient trust. Werner brings a rare perspective to this discussion. His career spans clinical research, pharmaceutical development, health authorities, and technology strategy, shaped by firsthand experience as an investigator and later as a senior industry leader.  That background gives him a grounded, practical view of what is actually changing inside pharma and biotech organizations, beyond the headlines around AI Acts, data rules, and compliance frameworks. We talk openly about why regulations such as GDPR, the EU AI Act, and ACT-EU are creating real pressure for organizations that are already operating in highly controlled environments. But rather than framing compliance as a blocker, Werner explains why this moment presents an opening for better collaboration, stronger data foundations, and more consistent ways of working across internal teams. According to him, the real challenge is less about technology and more about how companies manage data quality, align processes, and break down silos that slow everything from trial setup to regulatory response times. Our conversation also digs into where AI is genuinely making progress today in life sciences and where caution still matters. Werner shares why drug discovery and non-patient-facing use cases are moving faster, while areas like trial execution and real-world patient data still demand stronger evidence, cleaner datasets, and clearer governance. His perspective cuts through hype and focuses on what is realistic in an industry where patient safety remains the defining responsibility. We also explore patient recruitment, decentralized trials, and the growing complexity of diseases themselves. Advances in genomics and diagnostics are reshaping how trials are designed, which in turn raises questions about access to electronic health records, data harmonization across Europe, and the safeguards regulators care about most. Werner connects these dots in a way that highlights both the operational strain and the long-term upside. Toward the end, we look ahead at emerging technologies such as blockchain and connected devices, and how they could strengthen data integrity, monitoring, and regulatory confidence over time. It is a thoughtful discussion that reflects both optimism and realism, rooted in lived experience rather than theory. If you are working anywhere near clinical research, regulatory affairs, or digital transformation in life sciences, this episode offers a clear-eyed view of where the industry stands today and where it may be heading next. How should organizations turn regulation into momentum instead of resistance, and what will it take to earn lasting trust from patients, partners, and regulators alike? Useful Links Connect with Dr Werner Engelbrecht Learn more about Veeva Systems Viva Summit Europe and Viva Summit USA Follow on LinkedIn Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

What happens when an industry that has barely changed for generations suddenly finds itself at the center of one of the biggest shifts in modern work? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I'm joined by Kate Hayward, UK Managing Director at Xero, for a conversation about how accounting is being reshaped by technology, education, regulation, and changing expectations from clients and talent alike. Kate describes this moment as the largest reorganization of human capital in the history of the profession, and as we talk, it becomes clear why that claim is gaining traction. We explore how AI is shifting accountants away from pure number processing and toward higher-value advisory work, without stripping away the deep financial understanding the role still demands. Kate shares why so many practices are reporting higher revenues and profits, and how technology is acting as a catalyst for rethinking long-standing workflows rather than simply speeding up broken ones. We also dig into research showing that pairing AI with financial education strengthens analytical thinking while leaving core calculation skills intact, a useful counterpoint to the more dramatic headlines about machines replacing people. Our conversation moves into the practical reality of how firms are using tools like ChatGPT today, from scenario planning to preparing for difficult client conversations, while also discussing where caution still matters, particularly around data security and core financial workflows. Kate also explains how government initiatives such as Making Tax Digital and the digitization of HMRC are changing client expectations and deepening the relationship between accountants and the businesses they support. We also spend time on the future of the profession, including how hiring strategies are evolving, why problem-solving and communication skills are becoming just as valuable as technical knowledge, and why private equity interest in accounting is accelerating digital adoption across the sector. Kate rounds things out by sharing how Xero is thinking about product design in 2026, what users can expect next, and why keeping the human side of the profession front and center still matters. So as accounting moves further into an AI-assisted, digitally native future, how do firms balance efficiency, trust, identity, and long-term relevance, and what lessons can other industries take from this moment of change? Useful Links Follow Kate Hayward on LinkedIn Accounting and Bookkeeping Industry Report Xero Website Follow on LinkedIn, Facebook, X, YouTube, Instagram

What does sales leadership actually look like once the AI experimentation phase is over and real results are the only thing that matters? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sit down with Jason Ambrose, CEO of the Iconiq backed AI data platform People.ai, to unpack why the era of pilots, proofs of concept, and AI theater is fading fast. Jason brings a grounded view from the front lines of enterprise sales, where leaders are no longer impressed by clever demos. They want measurable outcomes, better forecasts, and fewer hours lost to CRM busywork. This conversation goes straight to the tension many organizations are feeling right now, the gap between AI potential and AI performance. We talk openly about why sales teams are drowning in activity data yet still starved of answers. Emails, meetings, call transcripts, dashboards, and dashboards about dashboards have created fatigue rather than clarity. Jason explains how turning raw activity into crisp, trusted answers changes how sellers operate day to day, pulling them back into customer conversations instead of internal reporting loops. The discussion challenges the long held assumption that better selling comes from more fields, more workflows, and more dashboards, arguing instead that AI should absorb the complexity so humans can focus on judgment, timing, and relationships. The conversation also explores how tools like ChatGPT and Claude are quietly dismantling the walls enterprise software spent years building. Sales leaders increasingly want answers delivered in natural language rather than another system to log into, and Jason shares why this shift is creating tension for legacy platforms built around walled gardens and locked down APIs.  We look at what this means for architecture decisions, why openness is becoming a strategic advantage, and how customers are rethinking who they trust to sit at the center of their agentic strategies. Drawing on work with companies such as AMD, Verizon, NVIDIA, and Okta, Jason shares what top performing revenue organizations have in common. Rather than chasing sameness, scripts, and averages, they lean into curiosity, variation, and context. They look for where growth behaves differently by market, segment, or product, and they use AI to surface those differences instead of flattening them away. It is a subtle shift, but one with big implications for how sales teams compete. We also look ahead to 2026 and beyond, including how pricing models may evolve as token consumption becomes a unit of value rather than seats or licenses. Jason explains why this shift could catch enterprises off guard, what governance will matter, and why AI costs may soon feel as visible as cloud spend did a decade ago. The episode closes with a thoughtful challenge to one of the biggest myths in the industry, the belief that selling itself can be fully automated, and why the last mile of persuasion, trust, and judgment remains deeply human. If you are responsible for revenue, sales operations, or AI strategy, this episode offers a clear-eyed look at what changes when AI stops being an experiment and starts being held accountable, so what assumptions about sales and AI are you still holding onto, and are they helping or quietly holding you back? Useful Links Follow Jason Ambrose on LinkedIn Learn more about people.ai Follow on LinkedIn Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sat down with Keith Zubchevich, CEO of Conviva, to unpack one of the most honest analogies I have heard about today's AI rollout. Keith compares modern AI agents to toddlers being sent out to get a job, full of promise, curious, and energetic, yet still lacking the judgment and context required to operate safely in the real world. It is a simple metaphor, but it captures a tension many leaders are feeling as generative AI matures in theory while so many deployments stumble in practice. As ChatGPT approaches its third birthday, the narrative suggests that GenAI has grown up. Yet Keith argues that this sense of maturity is misleading, especially inside enterprises chasing measurable returns. He explains why so many pilots stall or quietly disappoint, not because the models lack intelligence, but because organizations often release agents without clear outcomes, real-time oversight, or an understanding of how customers actually experience those interactions. The result is AI that appears to function well internally while quietly frustrating users or failing to complete the job it was meant to do. We also dig into the now infamous Chevrolet chatbot incident that sold a $76,000 vehicle for one dollar, using it as a lens to examine what happens when agents are left without boundaries or supervision. Keith makes a strong case that the next chapter of enterprise AI will not be defined by ever-larger models, but by visibility. He shares why observing behavior, patterns, sentiment, and efficiency in real time matters more than chasing raw accuracy, especially once AI moves from internal workflows into customer-facing roles. This conversation will resonate with anyone under pressure to scale AI quickly while worrying about brand risk, accountability, and trust. Keith offers a grounded view of what effective AI "parenting" looks like inside modern organizations, and why measuring the customer experience remains the most reliable signal of whether an AI system is actually growing up or simply creating new problems at speed. As leaders rush to put agents into production, are we truly ready to guide them, or are we sending toddlers into the workforce and hoping for the best? Useful Links Connect with Keith Zubchevich Learn more about Conviva Chevrolet Dealer Chatbot Agrees to Sell Tahoe for $1 Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sit down with Imran Nino Eškić and Boštjan Kirm from HyperBUNKER to unpack a problem many organisations only discover in their darkest hour. Backups are supposed to be the safety net, yet in real ransomware incidents, they are often the first thing attackers dismantle. Speaking with two people who cut their teeth in data recovery labs across 50,000 real cases gave me a very different perspective on what resilience actually looks like. They explain why so many so-called "air-gapped" or "immutable" backups still depend on identities, APIs, and network pathways that can be abused. We talk through how modern attackers patiently map environments for weeks before neutralising recovery systems, and why that shift makes true physical isolation more relevant than ever. What struck me most was how calmly they described failure scenarios that would keep most leaders awake at night. The heart of the conversation centres on HyperBUNKER's offline vault and its spaceship-style double airlock design. Data enters through a one-way hardware channel, the network door closes, and only then is information moved into a completely cold vault with no address, no credentials, and no remote access. I also reflect on seeing the black box in person at the IT Press Tour in Athens and why it feels less like a gadget and more like a last-resort lifeline. We finish by talking about how businesses should decide what truly belongs in that protected 10 percent of data, and why this is as much a leadership decision as an IT one. If everything vanished tomorrow, what would your company need to breathe again, and would it actually survive?   Useful LInks Connect with Imran Nino Eškić Connect With Boštjan Kirm Learn More about HyperBUNKER Lear more about the IT Press Tour Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

What happens when the AI race stops being about size and starts being about sense? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sit down with Wade Myers from MythWorx, a company operating quietly while questioning some of the loudest assumptions in artificial intelligence right now. We recorded this conversation during the noise of CES week, when headlines were full of bigger models, more parameters, and ever-growing GPU demand. But instead of chasing scale, this discussion goes in the opposite direction and asks whether brute force intelligence is already running out of road. Wade brings a perspective shaped by years as both a founder and investor, and he explains why today's large language models are starting to collide with real-world limits around power, cost, latency, and sustainability. We talk openly about the hidden tax of GPUs, how adding more compute often feels like piling complexity onto already fragile systems, and why that approach looks increasingly shaky for enterprises dealing with technical debt, energy constraints, and long deployment cycles. What makes this conversation especially interesting is MythWorx's belief that the next phase of AI will look less like prediction engines and more like reasoning systems. Wade walks through how their architecture is modeled closer to human learning, where intelligence is learned once and applied many times, rather than dragging around the full weight of the internet to answer every question. We explore why deterministic answers, audit trails, and explainability matter far more in areas like finance, law, medicine, and defense than clever-sounding responses. There is also a grounded enterprise angle here. We talk about why so many organizations feel uneasy about sending proprietary data into public AI clouds, how private AI deployments are becoming a board-level concern, and why most companies cannot justify building GPU-heavy data centers just to experiment. Wade draws parallels to the early internet and smartphone app eras, reminding us that the playful phase often comes before the practical one, and that disappointment is often a signal of maturation, not failure. We finish by looking ahead. Edge AI, small-footprint models, and architectures that reward efficiency over excess are all on the horizon, and Wade shares what MythWorx is building next, from faster model training to offline AI that can run on devices without constant connectivity. It is a conversation about restraint, reasoning, and realism at a time when hype often crowds out reflection. So if bigger models are no longer the finish line, what should business and technology leaders actually be paying attention to next, and are we ready to rethink what intelligence really means? Useful Links Connect with Wade Myers Learn More About MythWorx Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

What happens when we finally admit that stopping every cyberattack was never realistic in the first place? That is the thread running through this conversation, recorded at the start of the year when reflection tends to be more honest and the noise dial is turned down a little. I was joined by returning guest Raghu Nandakumara from Illumio, nearly three years after our last discussion, to pick up a question that has aged far too well. How do organizations talk about cybersecurity value when breaches keep happening anyway? This episode is less about shiny tools and more about uncomfortable truths. We spend time unpacking why security teams still struggle to show value, why prevention-only thinking keeps setting leaders up for disappointment, and why the conversation is slowly shifting toward resilience and containment. Raghu is refreshingly direct on why reducing cyber risk, rather than chasing impossible guarantees, is the only metric that really holds up under boardroom scrutiny. We also talk about the strange contradiction playing out across industries. Attackers are often using familiar paths like misconfigurations, excessive permissions, and missing patches, yet many organizations still fail to close those gaps. The issue, as Raghu explains, is rarely a lack of tools. It is usually fragmented coverage, outdated processes, and a talent pipeline that blocks capable people from entering the field while claiming there is a skills shortage. One of the most practical parts of this conversation centers on mindset. Instead of asking whether an attacker got in, Raghu argues that leaders should be asking how far they were able to go once inside. That shift alone changes how success is measured, how teams prepare for incidents, and how pressure-filled P1 moments are handled when boards want answers every fifteen minutes. We also touch on how legal action, public claims campaigns, and customer lawsuits are changing the stakes after a breach, forcing executives to rethink how they frame cyber investment. From there, Raghu shares how Illumio has been working with Microsoft to strengthen internal resilience at massive scale, and why visibility and segmentation are becoming harder to ignore. This is a conversation about realism, responsibility, and growing up as an industry. If cybersecurity is really about safety and not slogans, what would you want your organization to stop saying, and what would you rather hear instead? Please feel free to upload the podcast. Here are also the links we discussed on the call: Useful Links Connect with Raghu Nandakumara on LinkedIn and Twitter Learn more about Illumio Lateral Movement in Cyberattacks Illumio Podcast  Follow on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube   Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.

What really happens inside an organization when a cyber incident hits and the neat incident response plan starts to fall apart? That question sat at the heart of my return conversation with Max Vetter, VP of Cyber at Immersive. It has been a big year for breaches, public fallout, and eye-watering financial losses, and this episode goes beyond headlines to examine what cyber crisis management actually looks like when pressure, uncertainty, and human behavior collide. Max brings a rare perspective shaped by years in law enforcement, intelligence work, and hands-on cyber defense, and he is refreshingly honest about where most organizations are still unprepared. We talked about why written incident response plans tend to fail at the exact moment they are needed most. Cyber incidents are chaotic, emotional, and non-linear, yet many plans assume calm decision-making and perfect coordination. Max explains why success or failure is often defined by the response rather than the initial breach itself, and why leadership, communication, and judgment matter just as much as technical skill. Real-world examples from major incidents highlight how competing pressures quickly emerge, whether to contain or keep systems running, whether to pay a ransom or risk prolonged downtime, and how every option comes with consequences. One idea that really stood out is Max's belief that resilience is revealed, not documented. Compliance and audits may tick boxes, but they rarely expose how teams behave under stress. We explored why organizations that rely on annual tabletop exercises often develop a false sense of confidence, and how that confidence can become dangerous when decisions are made quickly and publicly. Max shared why the best-performing teams are often the ones that feel less certain in the moment, because they question assumptions and adapt faster. We also dug into the growing role of crisis simulations and micro-drills. Rather than rehearsing a single scenario once a year, Immersive focuses on repeated, realistic practice that builds muscle memory across technical teams, executives, legal, and communications. The goal is not to predict the exact attack, but to train people to think clearly, collaborate across functions, and make defensible decisions when there are no good options. That preparation becomes even more important as cyber incidents increasingly spill into supply chains, manufacturing, and the physical world. As public scrutiny rises and consumer-led legal action becomes more common after breaches, reputation and response speed now sit alongside forensics and recovery as business-critical concerns. This episode is a candid look at why cyber crisis readiness is a discipline, not a document, and why assuming you will cope when the moment arrives is a risky bet. So if resilience only truly shows itself when everything is on the line, how confident are you that your organization would perform when the pressure is real and the clock is ticking? Useful Links Connect with Max Vetter on Linkedin Learn more about Immersive Labs Follow on LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook Thanks to our sponsors, Alcor, for supporting the show.