Recap | From Chaos to Clarity Webinar

This blog captures key takeaways from analysts and practitioners from Forrester, Becton Dickinson, and Databahn leaders on why pipeline independence is essential for resilience, visibility, and future-ready security operations.

October 3, 2025

Book a Demo

Back to Articles

On this page

Why are Legacy SIEMs a problem?

Ask any security practitioner what keeps them up at night, and it rarely comes down to a specific tool. It's usually the data itself – is it complete, trustworthy, and reaching the right place at the right time?

Pipelines are the arteries of modern security operations. They carry logs, metrics, traces, and events from every layer of the enterprise. Yet in too many organizations, those arteries are clogged, fragmented, or worse, controlled by someone else.

That was the central theme of our webinar, From Chaos to Clarity, where Allie Mellen, Principal Analyst at Forrester, and Mark Ruiz, Sr. Director of Cyber Risk and Defense at BD, joined our CPO Aditya Sundararam and our CISO Preston Wood.

Together, their perspectives cut through the noise: analysts see a market increasingly pulling practitioners into vendor-controlled ecosystems, while practitioners on the ground are fighting to regain independence and resilience.

The Analyst's Lens: Why Neutral, Open Pipelines Matter

Allie Mellen spends her days tracking how enterprises buy, deploy, and run security technologies. Her warning to practitioners is direct: control of the pipeline is slipping away.

The last five years have seen unprecedented consolidation of security tooling. SIEM vendors offer their own ingestion pipelines. Cloud hyperscalers push their monitoring and telemetry services as defaults. Endpoint and network vendors bolt on log shippers designed to funnel telemetry back into their ecosystems.

It all looks convenient at first. Why not let your SIEM vendor handle ingestion, parsing, and routing? Why not let your EDR vendor auto-forward logs into its own analytics console?

Allie's answer: because convenience is control and you're not the one holding it.

" Practitioners are looking for a tool much like with their SIEM tool where they want something that is independent or that’s kind of how they prioritize this "

— Allie Mellen, Principal Analyst, Forrester

‍

This erosion of control has real consequences:

Vendor lock-in: Once you're locked into a vendor's pipeline, swapping tools downstream becomes nearly impossible. Want to try a new analytics platform? Your data is tied up in proprietary formats and routing rules.
Blind spots: Vendor-native pipelines often favor data that benefits the vendor's use cases, not the practitioners’. This creates gaps that adversaries can exploit.
AI limitations: Every vendor now advertises "AI-driven security." But as Allie points out, AI is only as good as the data it ingests. If your pipeline is biased toward one vendor's ecosystem, you'll get AI outcomes that reflect their blind spots, not your real risk.

For Allie, the lesson is simple: net-neutral pipelines are the only way forward. Practitioners must own routing, filtering, enrichment, and forwarding decisions. They must have the ability to send data anywhere, not just where one vendor prefers.

That independence is what preserves agility, the ability to test new tools, feed new AI models, and respond to business shifts without ripping out infrastructure.

The Practitioner's Challenge: BD's Story of Data Chaos

Theory is one thing, but what happens when practitioners actually lose control of their pipelines? For Becton Dickinson (BD), a global leader in medical technology, the consequences were very real.

BD's environment spanned hospitals, labs, cloud workloads, and thousands of endpoints. Each vendor wanted to handle telemetry in its own way. SIEM agents captured one slice, endpoint tools shipped another, and cloud-native services collected the rest.

The result was unsustainable:

Duplication: Multiple vendors forwarding the same data streams, inflating both storage and licensing costs.
Blind spots: Medical device telemetry and custom application logs didn't fit neatly into vendor-native pipelines, leaving dangerous gaps.
Operational friction: Pipeline management was spread across several vendor consoles, each with its own quirks and limitations.

For BD's security team, this wasn't just frustrating, it was a barrier to resilience. Analysts wasted hours chasing duplicates while important alerts slipped through unseen. Costs skyrocketed, and experimentation with new analytics tools or AI models became impossible.

Mark Ruiz, Sr. Director of Cyber Risk and Defense at BD, knew something had to change.

With Databahn, BD rebuilt its pipeline on neutral ground:

Universal ingestion: Any source from medical device logs to SaaS APIs could be onboarded.
Scalable filtering and enrichment: Data was cleaned and streamlined before hitting downstream systems, reducing noise and cost.
Flexible routing: The same telemetry could be sent simultaneously to Splunk, a data lake, and an AI model without duplication.
Practitioner ownership: BD controlled the pipeline itself, free from vendor-imposed limits.

The benefits were immediate. SIEM ingestion costs dropped sharply, blind spots were closed, and the team finally had room to innovate without re-architecting infrastructure every time.

" We were able within about eight, maybe ten weeks consolidate all of those instances into one Sentinel instance in this case, and it allowed us to just unify kind of our visibility across our organization."

‍ — Mark Ruiz, Sr. Director, Cyber Risk and Defense, BD

‍

Where Analysts and Practitioners Agree

What's striking about Allie's analyst perspective and Mark's practitioner experience is how closely they align.

Both argue that convenience isn't resilience. Vendor-native pipelines may be easy up front, but they lock teams into rigid, high-cost, and blind-spot-heavy futures.

Both stress that pipeline independence is fundamental. Whether you're defending against advanced threats, piloting AI-driven detection, or consolidating tools, success depends on owning your telemetry flow.

And both highlight that resilience doesn't live in downstream tools. A world-class SIEM or an advanced AI model can only be as good as the data pipeline feeding it.

This alignment between market analysis and hands-on reality underscores a critical shift: pipelines aren't plumbing anymore. They're infrastructure.

The Databahn Perspective

For Databahn, this principle of independence isn't an afterthought—it's the foundation of the approach.

Preston Wood, CSO at Databahn, frames it this way:

"We don't see pipelines as just tools. We see them as infrastructure. The same way your network fabric is neutral, your data pipeline should be neutral. That's what gives practitioners control of their narrative."

— Preston Wood, CSO, Databahn

‍

This neutrality is what allows pipelines to stay future-proof. As AI becomes embedded in security operations, pipelines must be capable of enriching, labeling, and distributing telemetry in ways that maximize model performance. That means staying independent of vendor constraints.

Aditya Sundararam, CPO at Databahn, emphasizes this future orientation: building pipelines today that are AI-ready by design, so practitioners can plug in new models, test new approaches, and adapt without disruption.

Own the Pipeline, Own the Outcome

For security practitioners, the lesson couldn't be clearer: the pipeline is no longer just background infrastructure. It's the control point for your entire security program.

Analysts like Allie warn that vendor lock-in erodes practitioner control. Practitioners like Mark show how independence restores visibility, reduces costs, and builds resilience. And Databahn's vision underscores that independence isn't just tactical, it's strategic.

So the question for every practitioner is this: who controls your pipeline today?

If the answer is your vendor, you've already lost ground. If the answer is you, then you have the agility to adapt, the visibility to defend, and the resilience to thrive.

In security, tools will come and go. But the pipeline is forever. Own it, or be owned by it.

See all articles

What an AI-Native SOC Actually Looks Like (and Why Most Teams Get It Wrong)

Most AI SOC initiatives layer AI onto legacy SIEMs without fixing detection gaps. Learn what an AI-native, agentic SOC architecture actually requires and why most teams get it wrong.

February 18, 2026

Today’s SOCs don’t have a detection or an AI readiness problem. They have a data architecture problem. Enterprise today are generating terabytes of security telemetry daily, but most of it never meaningfully contributes to detection, investigation, or response. It is ingested late and with gaps, parsed poorly, queried manually and infrequently, and forgotten quickly. Meanwhile, detection coverage remains stubbornly low and response times remain painfully long – leaving enterprises vulnerable.

This becomes more pressing when you account for attackers using AI to find and leverage vulnerabilities. 41% of incidents now involve stolen credentials (Sophos, 2025), and once access is obtained, lateral movement can begin in as little as two minutes. Today’s security teams are ill-equipped and ill-prepared to respond to this challenge.

The industry’s response? Add AI. But most AI SOC initiatives are cosmetic. A conversational layer over the same ingestion-heavy and unreliable pipeline. Data is not structured or optimized for AI deployments. What SOCs need today is an architectural shift that restructures telemetry, reasoning, and action around enabling security teams to treat AI as the operating system and ensure that their output is designed to enable the human SOC teams to improve their security posture.

The Myth Most Teams Are Buying

Most “AI SOC” initiatives follow a similar pattern. New intelligence is introduced at the surface of the system, while the underlying architecture remains intact. Sometimes this takes the form of conversational interfaces. Other times it shows up as automated triage, enrichment engines, or agent-based workflows layered onto existing SIEM infrastructure.

This ‘bolted-on’ AI interface only incrementally impacts the use, not the outcomes. What has not changed is the execution model. Detection is still constrained by the same indexes, the same static correlation logic, and the same alert-first workflows. Context is still assembled late, per incident, and largely by humans. Reasoning still begins after an alert has fired, not continuously as data flows through the environment.

This distinction matters because modern attacks do not unfold as isolated alerts. They span identity, cloud, SaaS, and endpoint domains, unfold over time, and exploit relationships that traditional SOC architectures do not model explicitly. When execution remains alert-driven and post-hoc, AI improvements only accelerate what happens after something is already detected.

In practice, this means the SOC gets better explanations of the same alerts, not better detection. Coverage gaps persist. Blind spots remain. The system is still optimized for investigation, not for identifying attack paths as they emerge.

That gap between perception and reality looks like this:

Each gap above traces back to the same root cause: intelligence added at the surface, while telemetry, correlation, and reasoning remain constrained by legacy SOC architecture.

Why Most AI SOC Initiatives Fail

Across environments, the same failure modes appear repeatedly.

1. Data chaos collapses detection before it starts
Enterprises generate terabytes of telemetry daily, but cost and normalization complexity force selective ingestion. Cloud, SaaS, and identity logs are often sampled or excluded entirely. When attackers operate primarily in these planes, detection gaps are baked in by design. Downstream AI cannot recover coverage that was never ingested.

2. Single-mode retrieval cannot surface modern attack paths
Traditional SIEMs rely on exact-match queries over indexed fields. This model cannot detect behavioral anomalies, privilege escalation chains, or multi-stage attacks spanning identity, cloud, and SaaS systems. Effective detection requires sparse search, semantic similarity, and relationship traversal. Most SOC architectures support only one.

3. Autonomous agents without governance introduce new risk
Agents capable of querying systems and triggering actions will eventually make incorrect inferences. Without evidence grounding, confidence thresholds, scoped tool access, and auditability, autonomy becomes operational risk. Governance is not optional infrastructure; it is required for safe automation.

4. Identity remains a blind spot in cloud-first environments
Despite being the primary attack surface, identity telemetry is often treated as enrichment rather than a first-class signal. OAuth abuse, service principals, MFA bypass, and cross-tenant privilege escalation rarely trigger traditional endpoint or network detections. Without identity-specific analysis, modern attacks blend in as legitimate access.

5. Detection engineering does not scale manually
Most environments already process enough telemetry to support far higher ATT&CK coverage than they achieve today. The constraint is human effort. Writing, testing, and maintaining thousands of rules across hundreds of log types does not scale in dynamic cloud environments. Coverage gaps persist because the workload exceeds human capacity.

The Six Layers That Actually Work

A functional AI-native SOC is not assembled from features. It is built as an integrated system with clear dependency ordering.

Layer 1: Unified telemetry pipeline
Telemetry from cloud, SaaS, identity, endpoint, and network sources is collected once, normalized using open schemas, enriched with context, and governed in flight. Volume reduction and entity resolution happen before storage or analysis. This layer determines what the SOC can ever see.

Layer 2: Hybrid retrieval architecture
The system supports three retrieval modes simultaneously: sparse indexes for deterministic queries, vector search for behavioral similarity, and graph traversal for relationship analysis. This enables detection of patterns that exact-match search alone cannot surface.

Layer 3: AI reasoning fabric
Reasoning applies temporal analysis, evidence grounding, and confidence scoring to retrieved data. Every conclusion is traceable to specific telemetry. This constrains hallucination and makes AI output operationally usable.

Layer 4: Multi-agent system
Domain-specialized agents operate across identity, cloud, SaaS, endpoint, detection engineering, incident response, and threat intelligence. Each agent investigates within its domain while sharing context across the system. Analysis occurs in parallel rather than through sequential handoffs.

Layer 5: Unified case memory
Context persists across investigations. Signals detected hours or days apart are automatically linked. Multi-stage attacks no longer rely on analysts remembering prior activity across tools and shifts.

Layer 6: Zero-trust governance
Policies constrain data access, reasoning scope, and permitted actions. Autonomous decisions are logged, auditable, and subject to approval based on impact. Autonomy exists, but never without control.

Miss any layer, or implement them out of order, and the system degrades quickly.

Outcomes When the Architecture Is Correct

When the six layers operate together, the impact is structural rather than cosmetic:

Faster time to detection
Detection shifts from alert-triggered investigation to continuous, machine-speed reasoning across telemetry streams. This is the only way to contend with adversaries operating on minute-level timelines.

Improved analyst automation
L1 and L2 workflows can be substantially automated, as agents handle triage, enrichment, correlation, and evidence gathering. Analysts spend more time validating conclusions and shaping detection logic, less time stitching data together.

Broader and more consistent ATT&CK coverage
Detection engineering moves from manual rule authoring to agent-assisted mapping of telemetry against ATT&CK techniques, highlighting gaps and proposing new detections as environments change.

Lower false-positive burden
Evidence grounding, confidence scoring, and cross-domain correlation reduce alert volume without suppressing signal, improving analyst trust in what reaches them.

The shift from reactive triage to proactive threat discovery becomes possible only when architectural bottlenecks like fragmented data, late context, and human-paced correlation, are removed from the system.

Stop Retrofitting AI Onto Broken Architecture

Most teams approach AI SOC transformation backward. They layer new intelligence onto existing SIEM workflows and expect better outcomes, without changing the architecture that constrains how detection, correlation, and response actually function.

The dependency chain is unforgiving. Without unified telemetry, detection operates on partial visibility. Without cross-domain correlation, attack paths remain fragmented. Without continuous reasoning, analysis begins only after alerts fire. And without governance, autonomy introduces risk rather than reducing it.

Agentic SOC architectures are expected to standardize across enterprises within the next one to two years (Omdia, 2025). The question is not whether SOCs become AI-native, but whether teams build deliberately from the foundation up — or spend the next three years patching broken architecture while attackers continue to exploit the same coverage gaps and response delays.

The scenarios played our on how an attack disappears in your data

5 min read

Your AI Security Investment Will Fail Without This Foundation

Here's an uncomfortable truth: 55% of security teams have already deployed AI assistants in their SOC. But most are quietly disappointed with the results.

February 13, 2026

The AI isn't broken. The data feeding it is.

The $4.8 Million Question

When identity breaches cost an average of $4.8 million and 84% of organizations report direct business impact from credential attacks, you'd expect AI-powered security tools to be the answer.

Instead, security leaders are discovering that their shiny new AI copilots:

Miss obvious attack chains because user IDs don't match across systems

Generate confident-sounding analysis based on incomplete information

Can't answer simple questions like "show me everything this user touched in the last 24 hours"

The problem isn't artificial intelligence. It's artificial data quality.

Watch an Attack Disappear in Your Data

Here's a scenario that plays out daily in enterprise SOCs:

Attacker compromises credentials via phishing

Logs into cloud console → CloudTrail records arn:aws:iam::123456:user/jsmith

Pivots to SaaS app → Salesforce logs jsmith@company.com

Accesses sensitive data → Microsoft 365 logs John Smith (john.smith@company.onmicrosoft.com)

Exfiltrates via collaboration tool → Slack logs U04ABCD1234

Five steps. One attacker. One victim.

Your SIEM sees five unrelated events. Your AI sees five unrelated events. Your analysts see five separate tickets. The attacker sees one smooth path to your data.

This is the identity stitching problem—and it's why your AI can't trace attack paths that a human adversary navigates effortlessly.

Why Your Security Data Is Working Against You

Modern enterprises run on 30+ security tools. Here's the brutal math:

Enterprise SIEMs process an average of 24,000 unique log sources

Those same SIEMs have detection coverage for just 21% of MITRE ATT&CK techniques

Organizations ingest less than 15% of available security telemetry due to cost

More data. Less coverage. Higher costs.

This isn't a vendor problem. It's an architecture problem—and throwing more budget at it makes it worse.

Why Traditional Approaches Keep Failing

Approach 1: "We'll normalize it in the SIEM"

Reality: You're paying detection-tier pricing to do data engineering work. Custom parsers break when vendors change formats. Schema drift creates silent failures. Your analysts become parser maintenance engineers instead of threat hunters.

Approach 2: "We'll enrich at query time"

Reality: Queries become complex, slow, and expensive. Real-time detection suffers because correlation happens after the fact. Historical investigations become archaeology projects where analysts spend 60% of their time just finding relevant data.

Approach 3: "We'll train the AI on our data patterns"

Reality: You're training the AI to work around your data problems instead of fixing them. Every new data source requires retraining. The AI learns your inconsistencies and confidently reproduces them. Garbage in, articulate garbage out.

None of these approaches solve the root cause: your data is fragmented before it ever reaches your analytics.

The Foundation That Makes Everything Else Work

The organizations seeing real results from AI security investments share one thing: they fixed the data layer first.

Not by adding more tools. By adding a unification layer between their sources and their analytics—a security data pipeline that:

1. Collects everything once Cloud logs, identity events, SaaS activity, endpoint telemetry—without custom integration work for each source. Pull-based for APIs, push-based for streaming, snapshot-based for inventories. Built-in resilience handles the reliability nightmares so your team doesn't.

2. Translates to a common language So jsmith in Active Directory, jsmith@company.com in Azure, John Smith in Salesforce, and U04ABCD1234 in Slack all resolve to the same verified identity—automatically, at ingestion, not at query time.

3. Routes by value, not by volume High-fidelity security signals go to real-time detection. Compliance logs go to cost-effective storage. Noise gets filtered before it costs you money. Your SIEM becomes a detection engine, not an expensive data warehouse.

4. Preserves context for investigation The relationships between who, what, when, and where that investigations actually need—maintained from source to analyst to AI.

What This Looks Like in Practice

The 70% reduction in SIEM-bound data isn't about losing visibility—it's about not paying detection-tier pricing for compliance-tier logs.

More importantly: when your AI says "this user accessed these resources from this location," you can trust it—because every data point resolves to the same verified identity.

The Strategic Question for Security Leaders

Every organization will eventually build AI into their security operations. The question is whether that AI will be working with unified, trustworthy data—or fighting the same fragmentation that's already limiting your human analysts.

The SOC of the future isn't defined by which AI you choose. It's defined by whether your data architecture can support any AI you choose.

Questions to Ask Before Your Next Security Investment

Before you sign another security contract, ask these questions:

For your current stack:

"Can we trace a single identity across cloud, SaaS, and endpoint in under 60 seconds?"

"What percentage of our security telemetry actually reaches our detection systems?"

"How long does it take to onboard a new log source end-to-end?"

For prospective vendors:

"Do you normalize to open standards like OCSF, or proprietary schemas?"

"How do you handle entity resolution across identity providers?"

"What routing flexibility do we have for cost optimization?"

"Does this add to our data fragmentation, or help resolve it?"

If your team hesitates on the first set, or vendors look confused by the second—you've found your actual problem.

The foundation comes first. Everything else follows.

Stay tuned to the next article on recommendations for architecture of the AI-enabled SOC

What's your experience? Are your AI security tools delivering on their promise, or hitting data quality walls? I'd love to hear what's working (or not) in the comments.

5 min read

Reducing MSSP Onboarding Time by 90% with AI-Driven Configuration

Learn how AI-driven configuration helps MSSPs reduce onboarding time by up to 90%, improving scalability, consistency, and operational efficiency across customer environments.

February 5, 2026

The managed security services market isn’t struggling with demand. Quite the opposite. As attack surfaces sprawl across cloud, SaaS, endpoints, identities, and operational systems, businesses are leaning more heavily than ever on MSSPs to deliver security outcomes they can’t realistically build in-house.

But that demand brings a different kind of pressure – customers aren’t buying coverage anymore. They’re looking to pay for confidence and reassurance: full visibility, consistent control, and the operational maturity to handle complexity, detect attacks, and find gaps to avoid unpleasant surprises. For MSSP leaders, trust has become the real product.

That trust isn’t easy to deliver. MSSPs today are running on deeply manual, repetitive workflows: onboarding new customers source by source, building pipelines and normalizing telemetry tool by tool, and expending precious engineering bandwidth on moving and managing security data that doesn’t meaningfully differentiate the service. Too much of their expertise is consumed in mechanics that are critical, but not meaningful.

The result is a barrier to scale. Not because MSSPs lack customers or talent, but because their operating model forces highly skilled teams to solve the same data problems over and over again. And that constraint shows up early. The first impression of an MSSP for a customer is overshadowed by the onboarding experience, when their services and professionalism are tested in tangible ways beyond pitches and promises. The speed and confidence with which an MSSP can move to complete, production-grade security visibility becomes the most lasting measure of their quality and effectiveness.

Industry analysis from firms such as D3 Security points to an inevitable consolidation in the MSSP market. Not every provider will scale successfully. The MSSPs that do will be those that expand efficiently, turning operational discipline into a competitive advantage. Efficiency is no longer a back-office metric; it’s a market differentiator.

That reality shows up early in the customer lifecycle most visibly, during onboarding. Long before detection accuracy or response workflows are evaluated, a more basic question is answered. How quickly can an MSSP move from a signed contract to reliable, production-grade security telemetry? Increasingly, the answer determines customer confidence, margin structure, and long-term competitiveness.

The Structural Mismatch: Multi-Customer Services and Manual Onboarding

MSSPs operate as professional services organizations, delivering security operations across many customer environments simultaneously. Each environment must remain strictly isolated, with clear boundaries around data access, routing, and policy enforcement. At the same time, MSSP teams require centralized visibility and control to operate efficiently.

In practice, many MSSPs still onboard each new customer as a largely independent effort. Much of the same data engineering and configuration work is repeated across customers, with small but critical variations. Common tasks include:

Manual configuration of data sources and collectors

Custom parsing and normalization of customer telemetry

Customer-specific routing and policy setup

Iterative tuning and validation before data is considered usable

This creates a structural mismatch. The same sources appear again and again, but the way those sources must be governed, enriched, and analyzed differs for each customer. As customer counts grow, repeated investment of engineering time becomes a significant efficiency bottleneck.

Senior engineers are often pulled into onboarding work that combines familiar pipeline mechanics with customer-specific policies and downstream requirements. Over time, this leads to longer deployment cycles, greater reliance on scarce expertise, and increasing operational drag.

This is not a failure of tools or talent. Skilled engineers and capable platforms can solve individual onboarding problems. The issue lies in the onboarding model itself. When knowledge exists primarily in ad-hoc engineering work, scripts, and tribal knowledge, it cannot be reused effectively at scale.

Why Onboarding Has Become a Bottleneck

At small scales, the inefficiency is tolerable. As MSSPs aim to scale, it becomes a growth constraint.

As MSSPs grow, onboarding must balance two competing demands:

Consistency, to ensure operational reliability across multiple customers; and

Customization, to respect each customer’s unique telemetry, data governance, and security posture.

Treating every environment identically introduces risk and compliance gaps. But customizing every pipeline manually introduces inefficiency and drag. This trade-off is what now defines the onboarding challenge for MSSPs.

Consider two customers using similar toolsets. One may require granular visibility into transactional data for fraud detection; the other may prioritize OT telemetry to monitor industrial systems. The mechanics of ingesting and moving data are similar, yet the way that data is treated — its routing, enrichment, retention, and analysis — differs significantly. Traditional onboarding models rebuild these pipelines repeatedly from scratch, multiplying engineering effort without creating reusable value.

The bottleneck is not the customization itself but the manual delivery of that customization. Scaling onboarding efficiently requires separating what must remain bespoke from what can be standardized and reused.

From Custom Setup to Systemized Onboarding

Incremental optimizations help only at the margins. Adding engineers, improving runbooks, or standardizing steps does not change the underlying dynamic. The same contextual work is still repeated for each customer.

The reason is that onboarding combines two fundamentally different kinds of work.

First, there is data movement. This includes setting up agents or collectors, establishing secure connections, and ensuring telemetry flows reliably. Across customers, much of this work is familiar and repeatable.

Second, there is data treatment. This includes policies, routing, enrichment, and detection logic. This is where differentiation and customer value are created.

When these two layers are handled together, MSSPs repeatedly rebuild similar pipelines for each customer. When handled separately, the model becomes scalable. The “data movement” layer becomes a standardized, automated process, while “customization” becomes a policy layer that can be defined, validated, and applied through governed configuration.

This approach allows MSSPs to maintain isolation and compliance while drastically reducing repetitive engineering work. It shifts human expertise upstream—toward defining intent and validating outcomes rather than executing low-level setup tasks.

In other words, systemized onboarding transforms onboarding from an engineering exercise into an operational discipline.

Applying AI to Onboarding Without Losing Control

Once onboarding is reframed in this way, AI can be applied effectively and responsibly.

AI-driven configuration observes incoming telemetry, identifies source characteristics, and recognizes familiar ingestion patterns. Based on this analysis, it generates configuration templates that define how pipelines should be set up for a given source type. These templates cover deployment, parsing, normalization, and baseline governance.

Importantly, this approach does not eliminate human oversight. Engineers review and approve configuration intent before it is executed. Automation handles execution consistently, while human expertise focuses on defining and validating how data should be treated.

Platforms such as Databahn support a modular pipeline model. Telemetry is ingested, parsed, and normalized once. Downstream treatment varies by destination and use case. The same data stream can be routed to a SIEM with security-focused enrichment and to analytics platforms with different schemas or retention policies, without standing up entirely new pipelines.

This modularity preserves customer-specific outcomes while reducing repetitive engineering work.

Reducing Onboarding Time by 90%

When onboarding is systemized and supported by AI-driven configuration, the reduction in time is structural rather than incremental.

AI-generated templates eliminate the need to start from a blank configuration for each customer. Parsing logic, routing rules, enrichment paths, and isolation policies no longer need to be recreated repeatedly. MSSPs begin onboarding with a validated baseline that reflects how similar data sources have already been deployed.

Automated configuration compresses execution time further. Once intent is approved, pipelines can be deployed through controlled actions rather than step-by-step manual processes. Validation and monitoring are integrated into the workflow, reducing handoffs and troubleshooting cycles.

In practice, this approach has resulted in onboarding time reductions of up to 90 percent for common data sources. What once required weeks of coordinated effort can be reduced to minutes or hours, without sacrificing oversight, security, or compliance.

What This Unlocks for MSSPs

Faster onboarding is only one outcome. The broader advantage lies in how AI-driven configuration reshapes MSSP operations:

Reduced time-to-value: Security telemetry flows earlier, strengthening customer confidence and accelerating value realization.

Parallel onboarding: Multiple customers can be onboarded simultaneously without overextending engineering teams.

Knowledge capture and reuse: Institutional expertise becomes encoded in templates rather than isolated in individuals.

Predictable margins: Consistent onboarding effort allows costs to scale more efficiently with revenue.

Simplified expansion: Adding new telemetry types or destinations no longer creates operational variability.

Collectively, these benefits transform onboarding from an operational bottleneck into a competitive differentiator. MSSPs can scale with control, predictability, and confidence — qualities that increasingly define success in a consolidating market.

Onboarding as the Foundation for MSSP Scale

As the MSSP market matures, efficient scale has become as critical as detection quality or response capability. Expanding telemetry, diverse customer environments, and cost pressure require providers to rethink how their operations are structured.

In Databahn’s model, multi-customer support is achieved through a beacon architecture. Each customer operates in an isolated data plane, governed through centralized visibility and control. This model enables scale only when onboarding is predictable and consistent.

Manual, bespoke onboarding introduces friction and drift. Systemized, AI-driven onboarding turns the same multi-customer model into an advantage. New customers can be brought online quickly, policies can be enforced consistently, and isolation can be preserved without slowing operations.

By encoding operational knowledge into templates, applying it through governed automation, and maintaining centralized oversight, MSSPs can scale securely without sacrificing customization. The shift is not merely about speed — it’s about transforming onboarding into a strategic enabler of growth.

Conclusion

The MSSP market is evolving toward consolidation and maturity, where efficiency defines competitiveness as much as capability. The challenge is clear: onboarding new customers must become faster, more consistent, and less dependent on manual engineering effort.

AI-driven configuration provides the structural change required to meet that challenge. By separating repeatable data movement from customer-specific customization, and by automating the configuration of the former through intelligent templates, MSSPs can achieve both speed and precision at scale.

In this model, onboarding is no longer a friction point; it becomes the operational foundation that supports growth, consistency, and resilience in an increasingly demanding security landscape.