Can we deploy copilots without re-architecting?
This output has high confidence for general guidance. Standard validation processes should be sufficient.
Human Validation Recommended
- •Standard architecture review before implementation
Deployment Intent
This deployment prioritizes controlled adoption and governance maturity over speed, building organizational readiness before broad rollout.
Primary Objective
Enable AI-assisted productivity across the organization without requiring infrastructure changes
Outcome Owner
Productivity / Digital Workplace team, with Security as validation partner
Optimize For
- ↑Controlled rollout
- ↑User adoption quality
- ↑Governance maturity
Cannot Break
- ✕Existing Microsoft 365 collaboration workflows
- ✕Data access controls and permissions inheritance
- ✕Compliance posture for sensitive content
Can Degrade
- ~Initial feature completeness (phased enablement acceptable)
- ~Cross-platform parity (desktop-first acceptable)
- ~Third-party plugin ecosystem (defer to later phases)
Environmental Constraints
This reference architecture addresses "Can we deploy copilots without re-architecting?" for a enterprise organization in the manufacturing industry. The deployment targets aws infrastructure in us-west, handling high-sensitivity data. Timeline: exploring. Use case: we want to deploy AI assistants to help engineers write code faster
Reference Architecture
Logical architecture with control layers as enablers. No vendor-specific components shown.
Control Requirements
Required controls across identity, data, runtime, network, and governance layers.
Identity & Access
- •SSO integration with corporate IdP
- •Conditional access policies for Copilot access
- •MFA enforcement for all Copilot users
- •Privileged access workflow for admin functions
- •Session timeout and re-authentication policies
- •Guest and external user access restrictions
Data Protection
- •Sensitivity labels applied to all content sources
- •Microsoft-managed encryption
- •DLP policies preventing sensitive data in prompts
- •SharePoint/OneDrive permission inheritance review
- •External sharing restrictions for Copilot-accessible content
- •Prompt and response logging for compliance
Copilot Configuration
- •Copilot feature enablement by user group
- •Plugin and extension approval workflow
- •Grounding data source restrictions
- •Response citation requirements
- •Semantic index scope limitations
- •User feedback and reporting mechanisms
Governance & Compliance
- •Prompt and response audit logging
- •Retention policies for Copilot interactions
- •Standard retention
- •Usage analytics and adoption tracking
- •Policy violation alerting
- •Regular access reviews for Copilot-enabled groups
Network & Endpoints
- •Endpoint compliance requirements for Copilot access
- •Network location-based access policies
- •Cross-cloud connectivity requirements
- •Mobile device management for Copilot mobile access
- •Browser and client version requirements
Operating Model
This architecture assumes a centralized IT team manages identity and policy, with distributed business ownership for adoption outcomes.
Ownership Boundaries
| Area | Owner |
|---|---|
| License management & user provisioning | IT Operations / Identity team |
| Content governance & sensitivity labels | Information Governance / Compliance |
| User enablement & training | Digital Workplace / Change Management |
| Security policy & monitoring | Security Operations |
| Business value realization | Business unit sponsors |
Required Capabilities
- •Microsoft 365 administration expertise
- •Entra ID conditional access policy management
- •Data classification and DLP policy design
- •User adoption and change management
Day-2 Burden
Moderate — ongoing license optimization, policy tuning, and user support at scale
Failure Handling
Copilot failures are non-blocking; users fall back to standard M365 workflows. Primary risk is data exposure, not availability.
Change Velocity
Microsoft controls feature releases; organization controls policy and rollout scope. Plan for quarterly feature review cycles.
Tradeoffs & Boundaries
What this architecture optimizes for—and what it sacrifices.
Broad Rollout vs. Controlled Pilot
Enabling Copilot org-wide maximizes productivity gains but increases risk of unintended data exposure. Phased rollout limits risk but delays value realization.
Consideration: Start with a pilot group in a less sensitive business unit to validate controls before expanding.
Data Access Breadth vs. Security
Copilot is most useful when it can access all relevant content. Restricting data sources improves security but reduces the quality and relevance of responses.
Consideration: Review and remediate SharePoint permissions before enabling Copilot rather than restricting access.
Prompt Logging vs. Privacy
Full prompt and response logging supports compliance and security monitoring but may capture sensitive employee queries.
Consideration: Implement retention policies that balance compliance needs with employee privacy expectations.
Security vs. Velocity
Higher security controls increase deployment time and operational complexity. Teams must budget 2-4 additional weeks for security review cycles.
Consideration: Evaluate whether phased rollout can satisfy both security and timeline needs.
Role-Based Perspectives
Same architecture, different lenses. Select the perspective most relevant to your role.
CIO
Strategic alignment and organizational readiness
CIO
Strategic alignment and organizational readiness
- •Assess organizational change management requirements for AI adoption
- •Evaluate productivity gains against implementation and training costs
- •Planning phase allows for proper stakeholder alignment
- •Consider pilot group selection to demonstrate value before broad rollout
CISO
Security posture and risk management
CISO
Security posture and risk management
- •High-sensitivity data requires DLP policies before any Copilot access
- •Audit logging and prompt retention policies must meet compliance requirements
- •Conditional access policies should restrict Copilot to managed devices
- •Review Microsoft's data processing terms against your security requirements
Security Architect
Control design and threat modeling
Security Architect
Control design and threat modeling
- •Map data flows from Copilot through Microsoft Graph to all connected data sources
- •Design conditional access policies that enforce device compliance and location restrictions
- •Implement sensitivity label enforcement to prevent Copilot access to restricted content
- •Define logging requirements for prompt/response capture and retention
- •Assess attack surface expansion from Copilot plugins and third-party integrations
Enterprise Architect
Technical coherence and integration patterns
Enterprise Architect
Technical coherence and integration patterns
- •Verify Microsoft Graph permissions align with least-privilege principles
- •Assess impact on existing SharePoint and Teams governance
- •Plan for semantic index build time and content freshness requirements
- •Document integration points with existing enterprise search
Business / Project Owner
Outcomes, timelines, and stakeholder impact
Business / Project Owner
Outcomes, timelines, and stakeholder impact
- •Identify pilot user groups with highest productivity gain potential
- •Define success metrics before rollout (time saved, task completion, user satisfaction)
- •Use planning phase to build internal advocacy
- •Plan for user training and ongoing support resources
- •Communicate clearly what Copilot can and cannot do to manage expectations
Procurement
Vendor requirements and contract considerations
Procurement
Vendor requirements and contract considerations
- •Copilot licensing is per-user; model total cost of ownership for target population
- •Verify existing Microsoft 365 E3/E5 licensing prerequisites
- •Review data residency commitments in existing Microsoft agreements
- •Consider phased licensing to match rollout timeline
Explicit Assumptions
This output is based on the following assumptions. Validate these against your actual environment.
Environment
- •Primary cloud: aws
- •Region: us-west
- •Company size: enterprise
- •Industry: manufacturing
Data
- •Data sensitivity: high
- •Data classification taxonomy exists
- •Data owners are identified
Identity
- •Central IdP exists
- •RBAC model is documented
- •Service account governance is in place
Governance
- •Change management process exists
- •Security review process is defined
- •Incident response procedures are documented
What This Does NOT Decide
The following items are explicitly out of scope for this reference architecture:
Disclaimer
This reference architecture is provided for planning purposes only. It does not constitute a security assessment, compliance certification, or implementation guarantee. Organizations should validate all recommendations against their specific requirements, engage qualified professionals for implementation, and conduct independent security reviews before deployment. This output reflects assumptions stated above and may not account for all organizational constraints.
Found an error? Report it here.
Get Updates
Subscribe to receive notifications when this reference architecture is updated.
Request Vendor Mapping
Interested in seeing which vendors may qualify for this architecture? Leave your email and we'll notify you when vendor mapping is available.