AI Integration Patterns for Enterprise Systems

Building AI is one challenge. Integrating it into decades of existing enterprise systems is another entirely.

The AI works perfectly in the lab. Then it meets SAP, Salesforce, a mainframe from 1987, three middleware platforms, and a security architecture that doesn't trust anything new.

Here are the patterns that actually work.

The Integration Challenge

flowchart TB
    subgraph Enterprise["Enterprise Reality"]
        E1[ERP System]
        E2[CRM Platform]
        E3[Legacy Mainframe]
        E4[Data Warehouse]
        E5[Custom Apps]
        E6[Third-party SaaS]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI System"]
        AI1[Model]
        AI2[Data Pipeline]
        AI3[Inference API]
    end

    AI --> |"Integration Challenge"| Enterprise

Enterprise systems have:

• Multiple data formats and protocols
• Complex security requirements
• Change management processes
• Performance expectations
• Availability requirements
• Decades of accumulated customization

AI systems need:

• Real-time or batch data access
• Low-latency inference
• Feedback loops for improvement
• Monitoring and observability
• Graceful degradation

Bridging these worlds requires careful architecture.

Pattern 1: API Gateway Integration

Put the AI behind a standard API that looks like any other enterprise service.

flowchart LR
    subgraph Consumers["Enterprise Systems"]
        C1[ERP]
        C2[CRM]
        C3[Web App]
    end

    subgraph Gateway["API Gateway"]
        G[Authentication<br/>Rate Limiting<br/>Routing<br/>Transformation]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI Service"]
        A1[Inference API]
        A2[Model]
        A3[Cache]
    end

    C1 --> G
    C2 --> G
    C3 --> G
    G --> A1
    A1 --> A2
    A1 --> A3

When to use:

• AI provides discrete predictions/classifications
• Multiple systems need AI capability
• Standard request/response pattern works

Implementation notes:

• Use standard API formats (REST, gRPC)
• Implement proper authentication (OAuth, API keys)
• Add rate limiting to protect the model
• Consider caching for repeated inputs
• Build fallback responses for model failures

Anti-pattern: Exposing the raw model endpoint without a service layer. Models change; APIs should be stable.

Pattern 2: Event-Driven Integration

AI reacts to events in the enterprise event stream.

flowchart TB
    subgraph Sources["Event Sources"]
        S1[Transaction System]
        S2[Customer System]
        S3[Inventory System]
    end

    subgraph Bus["Event Bus"]
        EB[Kafka / Event Hub / SQS]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI Processing"]
        A1[Event Consumer]
        A2[Model Inference]
        A3[Event Producer]
    end

    subgraph Actions["Event Handlers"]
        H1[Alert System]
        H2[Workflow Engine]
        H3[Dashboard]
    end

    S1 --> EB
    S2 --> EB
    S3 --> EB
    EB --> A1
    A1 --> A2
    A2 --> A3
    A3 --> EB
    EB --> H1
    EB --> H2
    EB --> H3

When to use:

• AI processes streams of events
• Results feed into workflows or alerts
• Loose coupling is desired
• Eventual consistency is acceptable

Implementation notes:

• Design for idempotency (events may replay)
• Handle out-of-order delivery
• Implement dead letter queues for failures
• Monitor consumer lag
• Plan for schema evolution

Anti-pattern: Tight coupling where AI results must be synchronously processed. Event systems are eventually consistent.

Pattern 3: Database Integration

AI reads from and writes to shared databases.

flowchart TB
    subgraph Apps["Applications"]
        A1[Order System]
        A2[Customer Portal]
    end

    subgraph DB["Shared Database"]
        D1[(Operational Data)]
        D2[(AI Results)]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI Pipeline"]
        P1[Extract]
        P2[Transform]
        P3[Model]
        P4[Load]
    end

    A1 --> D1
    A2 --> D1
    D1 --> P1
    P1 --> P2
    P2 --> P3
    P3 --> P4
    P4 --> D2
    D2 --> A1
    D2 --> A2

When to use:

• Batch processing is acceptable
• Applications already use shared databases
• AI augments existing data with predictions

Implementation notes:

• Use separate tables/schemas for AI outputs
• Document data freshness SLAs
• Implement change data capture for triggers
• Monitor database performance impact
• Consider materialized views for complex queries

Anti-pattern: AI directly modifying operational tables. Keep AI outputs separate and explicit.

Pattern 4: Embedded AI

AI runs inside the application, not as a separate service.

flowchart TB
    subgraph App["Application"]
        subgraph Code["Application Code"]
            C1[Business Logic]
        end
        subgraph SDK["AI SDK"]
            S1[Model Runtime]
            S2[Local Model]
        end
        C1 --> S1
        S1 --> S2
    end

    subgraph Update["Model Update Service"]
        U1[Model Registry]
        U2[Update Push]
    end

    U1 --> U2
    U2 --> |"Periodic Update"| S2

When to use:

• Ultra-low latency required
• Network round-trips unacceptable
• Model is small enough to embed
• Offline operation needed

Implementation notes:

• Design for model updates without app restarts
• Implement local caching and fallbacks
• Monitor model versions across deployments
• Consider ONNX or similar portable formats
• Test memory and CPU impact

Anti-pattern: Embedding large models that should be centralized. Balance latency against resource usage.

Pattern 5: Human-in-the-Loop Queue

AI feeds a work queue for human review and action.

flowchart LR
    subgraph Input["Input"]
        I1[Documents]
        I2[Requests]
        I3[Transactions]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI Processing"]
        A1[Classification]
        A2[Scoring]
        A3[Extraction]
    end

    subgraph Queue["Work Queues"]
        Q1[High Confidence<br/>Auto-process]
        Q2[Medium Confidence<br/>Quick Review]
        Q3[Low Confidence<br/>Full Review]
    end

    subgraph Human["Human Processing"]
        H1[Auto-approved]
        H2[Review Interface]
    end

    I1 --> A1
    I2 --> A2
    I3 --> A3
    A1 --> Q1
    A2 --> Q2
    A3 --> Q3
    Q1 --> H1
    Q2 --> H2
    Q3 --> H2

When to use:

• Decisions require human oversight
• AI confidence varies
• Regulatory requirements mandate review
• Training data needs to be collected

Implementation notes:

• Design efficient review interfaces
• Capture human decisions for model improvement
• Balance automation rate against error rate
• Monitor queue depths and processing times
• Implement SLAs and escalation

Anti-pattern: All-or-nothing automation. Graduated confidence thresholds maximize throughput while maintaining quality.

Pattern 6: Sidecar/Advisor Pattern

AI provides recommendations that applications can use or ignore.

flowchart TB
    subgraph Request["User Request"]
        R[Action Request]
    end

    subgraph App["Application"]
        A1[Request Handler]
        A2[Business Logic]
        A3[Response]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI Advisor"]
        AI1[Recommendation API]
        AI2[Risk Score]
        AI3[Alternative Options]
    end

    R --> A1
    A1 --> AI1
    AI1 --> AI2
    AI1 --> AI3
    AI2 --> A1
    AI3 --> A1
    A1 --> A2
    A2 --> A3

When to use:

• AI augments but doesn't control decisions
• Gradual AI adoption desired
• Application needs to maintain control
• Fallback to non-AI flow required

Implementation notes:

• Design for optional AI input
• Don't block if AI is unavailable
• Log when AI advice is followed vs. ignored
• Track outcomes to measure AI value
• Make AI influence visible and explainable

Anti-pattern: Making AI mandatory before it's proven. Start optional, prove value, then increase influence.

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

1. Direct Model Access

Exposing models directly to applications without a service layer.

flowchart LR
    subgraph Bad["Anti-Pattern"]
        A1[App 1] --> M[Raw Model]
        A2[App 2] --> M
        A3[App 3] --> M
    end

Problems: Model changes break all consumers; no versioning; no monitoring; no security.

2. Big Bang Integration

Trying to integrate AI everywhere at once.

Problems: Too much change; can't isolate failures; no learning; overwhelming complexity.

3. Ignoring Failure Modes

Assuming AI will always be available and correct.

Problems: Cascading failures; no graceful degradation; poor user experience.

4. Synchronous Chains

Long synchronous chains where AI is in the critical path.

flowchart LR
    subgraph Chain["Synchronous Chain"]
        S1[Step 1] --> S2[Step 2] --> AI[AI Call] --> S3[Step 3] --> S4[Step 4]
    end

Problems: AI latency affects entire chain; single point of failure; hard to scale.

Integration Checklist

Before integrating AI into enterprise systems:

Consideration	Questions
Data flow	Where does input data come from? Where do results go?
Latency	What response time is required? Acceptable?
Availability	What happens when AI is unavailable?
Security	How is AI access controlled? Data protected?
Monitoring	How will you know if AI is working correctly?
Versioning	How will model updates be handled?
Rollback	Can you revert to previous behavior?
Compliance	What audit trail is required?

The Bottom Line

AI integration is an architecture problem, not just an AI problem. The patterns that work:

1. Loose coupling through APIs and events
2. Graceful degradation when AI fails
3. Human oversight for critical decisions
4. Incremental adoption to reduce risk
5. Proper monitoring for AI-specific concerns

Build the integration architecture before optimizing the model. The best model in the world is useless if it can't connect to your systems.

---

ServiceVision specializes in integrating AI into existing enterprise architectures. We understand both the AI and the enterprise—and how to connect them. Let's discuss your integration challenges.