AI Solutions · Company AI Accounts
Your people have already chosen their tools.
The only open question is whether that happens inside your policy or outside it. Governed AI is the category, and this option is the plainest one in it: a capable model on an account your company holds, instead of fifteen personal subscriptions nobody can see.
The boundary
We are Microsoft-centric about your environment and deliberately open about what we put to work inside it.
This is one of five ways an outcome gets delivered with governed AI, and it is the right one when the thinking work needs to reach material Copilot does not — or when people are already using consumer accounts, which in most organizations they are.
All five are governed AI. The option is chosen against the shape of the problem, never against a vendor relationship.
- 01Copilot
- 02Company AI
Accounts - 03Connected
Assistants - 04Workflow
Platforms - 05Tailored
Builds
What “company terms” means
Four conditions, not a plan name.
Vendors name these plans differently and rename them often — one of the better-known ones was retired nine months ago. So the test is the conditions rather than the label. All four have to be true.
Four conditions, all of them true
The contract, the training exclusion, the record and the ownership of the work. All four have to hold.
Company terms
- 01The contractSigned by the business
- 02No trainingStated in the agreement
- 03A recordWho reached what, and when
- 04The workCompany property, like any other
A gap anywhere on this line and it is not company terms
The plan names change and get retired. These four do not, which is why the test is the conditions rather than the label on the invoice.
- The company holds the contract, not the individual.
- The agreement is signed by the business. Access is granted and revoked like any other account, by whoever does that today.
- Your material is not used to train the model.
- Stated in the agreement, not inferred from a settings page that someone might change.
- There are admin controls, access control and a record of what was used.
- Someone can answer who has access, what they reached, and when — without asking people to self-report.
- What your people create in it belongs to the company.
- The prompts, the drafts and the accumulated working context are company property, like any other work product.
We do not name model vendors here. Which model suits a given task is decided with you, against the work, and it changes. Naming one on a page would advertise a decision nobody has made yet.
The honest part
Ownership is the part most organizations miss.
Work done in a personal account stays in a personal account. Not just the output — the prompts somebody refined over six months, the drafts, the accumulated context about how your business actually runs, the shortcuts that only work because that person taught the tool how you do things.
When that person leaves, it leaves with them. There is nothing to hand over, because there was never anywhere to hand it over from.
Under a company agreement it stays, and it is yours. That is the whole argument, and it has nothing to do with which model is better.
When it is right
When people are already using consumer accounts. Or when the thinking work needs to reach material Copilot does not.
When it is not
When the real problem is a process rather than thinking work. A better chat window does not fix a handoff — that is option four.
What it does not do
It builds nothing. The model reads, reasons, hands a person an answer, and the person acts on it. If something has to happen inside a system you run, you are at option three.
Who sells what
The technology partner sells the deployment, the policy, the access control and the usage visibility.
Personal accounts, and one the company holds
Work spread across personal accounts leaves with whoever made it. Under one company account the same work stays with the business.
Personal accounts
Work that walks out
Scattered, unseen, and leaving with whoever made it
One company account
The same work
Owned by the company, and it stays
The contract, the controls and the record sit on the second side
Nothing about the work changes. What changes is who holds the account it happens in — and whether it is still there after the person who did it has gone.
Shadow AI, stated plainly
What people are already doing is information, not a failure.
It is already happening
In most organizations, on personal accounts, under terms nobody read. Finding out is the first useful step, and it is part of the assessment.
It tells you where the demand is
If several people independently reached for the same tool for the same task, something in that workflow was not working and they fixed it themselves. That is demand somebody already proved for you.
A ban is not a policy
Blocking the tools moves the work somewhere less visible. A governed account that is genuinely better than the personal one is what actually changes behavior.
Where we come in
Advice, then the work, then the handover.
Whichever of the five is chosen, the shape of the engagement is the same: one outcome, a baseline measured before anything is switched on, a named owner, and the result published. What changes is the scope and the price.
- 01
Decide whether it is actually your option
The assessment establishes what you already own and pay for, what your people are already using, and which single outcome is worth doing first — with the baseline taken and the owner named before anything is switched on. If the real problem turns out to be a process rather than thinking work, we say so here rather than after the agreement is signed.
- 02
Do the work
The company agreement, the policy, the access control and the usage visibility — then moving people off personal accounts onto one you hold, which is the part that actually changes behavior. Measured against the baseline, because an outcome nobody measured did not happen.
- 03
Hand it over
The result is published, and the documentation to run it without us is written during the work rather than promised for later. A provider who becomes indispensable has failed at the job.
If you are a technology partner
You own the client relationship, the contract and the invoice. We are the specialist capacity behind it — the method, the assessment, and the delivery depth you would otherwise have to hire. You decide whether we are named in front of your client, and whether we are in the room at all.
If you are a business
Where a technology partner supports you, we work through them. Where one does not, we work with you directly and say so plainly.
Where to start
Find out what is already in use, then decide.
An assessment establishes what you already own and pay for, how identity, devices and permissions are configured today — read-only, against your own tenant, what AI is already running whether or not anyone approved it, and which single outcome is worth doing first. This option is often the fastest to stand up, because nothing has to be built first. That does not make it the right one.
Technology partners begin with the MSP Secure AI Practice Assessment. Businesses begin with the Secure AI Operations Assessment, offered through your technology partner where one is in place.