- Home
- Services: MLOps
MLOps services that keep AI stable and accurate
Our MLOps consulting services connect data science to IT operations, so predictive models and generative AI systems are deployed reliably, watched continuously, and updated before quality slips.
MLOps challenges we help you solve
Deployment as routine as a code release
Pipelines package, test, and release every model version the same way.
Accuracy tracked continuously
Prediction accuracy, data drift, and generative output quality are monitored against baselines, triggering alerts and updates when performance starts to slide.
Versioned data, prompts, and models
We version datasets, features, prompts, and model artifacts together, so any output traces back to the exact configuration that produced it.
Lifecycle records ready for review
Approval workflows, lineage, and performance history are captured throughout the lifecycle, supporting regulatory review and internal governance.
How we approach MLOps
Operations discipline applied to models
Release testing, rollback plans, and observability standards in application engineering are applied to every model and LLM system in production.
Model updates driven by evidence
Models are retrained, and prompts are revised when monitored performance or data shifts call for it, with a documented reason behind each change.
Platform choice follows your stack
Pipelines are assembled in the cloud and use the tooling you already run, whether as a defined project or as ongoing MLOps-as-a-service.
Ownership shared across teams
Data scientists, engineers, and operations agree on handoffs, alerts, and responsibilities, leaving no model without an owner.
The practices behind the outcomes
MLOps Maturity Assessment & Roadmap
Current workflows are reviewed to define a practical roadmap.
Model CI/CD & Versioning
Automated pipelines and registries are established to test, version, and deploy models across environments.
Model Monitoring & Drift Detection
Dashboards and alerts can be configured for data drift, prediction quality, and service health.
Automated Retraining Workflows
Retraining triggers, validation gates, and promotion rules are established for models in production.
LLMOps & Generative AI Operations
Evaluation pipelines, prompt versioning, and token cost monitoring are run for generative AI systems in production.
AI Governance & Compliance Controls
Approval workflows, access controls, and audit records are implemented throughout the model lifecycle.
Related Services
Explore these additional services from our AI & Gen AI capability pillar.
We design and engineer custom intelligent products and applications, transforming your requirements into rapid prototypes and production-ready software that combines advanced algorithms, robust architecture, and human-centered design.
We deploy AI agents that reason, plan, and execute multi-step workflows autonomously. These agents adapt to context, handle exceptions, and orchestrate across systems with human judgment while maintaining machine consistency and auditability.
We can help you apply the latest advancements in generative and predictive AI to deploy practical, production-grade solutions that automate complex tasks and unlock new capabilities across text, images, code, and data.
Built to pivot without losing velocity
Full product teams
Forward-deployed engineering
Co-sourced delivery
Rapid capacity deployment
Team augmentation
Our global AI/ML engineering team builds for production
We’re not here to help you chase more pilots and PoCs. We’re here to help you activate production-ready AI/ML use cases that improve your internal capability.
Practice Lead, AI & BI
Over 20 years leading complex programs for global enterprises.
Sr. Director of AI Solutions
Deep expertise consulting on AI-enabled solutions for global enterprises.
AI-SDLC Leader
Expertise in modernizing traditional SDLC with AI tech stacks.
Case Studies
SPARK: Searchable Platform for Assets, Resources & Knowledge
Our approach
As the client's partner, Coherent Solutions engineered an NLP solution that analyzes online product reviews. Aspect-based sentiment analysis makes it possible to see which product characteristics customers react to, and how, across a large set of reviews.
Cloud engineering and scalable data processing allowed the solution to handle the large volume.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223641064615}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121423312165, name=module_179121423312165, type=module, order=7, label=Case Study Content Section 2, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223641064615}, module_179121449478468={body={discription=The solution
Coherent Solutions contributed:
- AI and machine learning engineering for a natural language processing solution built on aspect-based sentiment analysis
- Data processing designed for large volumes of customer feedback
- Cloud engineering supporting scalable data processing
The impact
The engagement produced the following results:
- Sentiment identified for specific product characteristics
- Product strengths and weaknesses identified from customer feedback
- Customer feedback processed at scale
The challenge
Reviews often mention several characteristics of a product in the same text, each with its own opinion. An overall review score or sentiment label cannot capture that, and the client needed to know what customers thought about individual characteristics of each product.
The work covered hundreds of thousands of online product reviews, so the solution had to process customer feedback at scale.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223640941568}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121390029660, name=module_179121390029660, type=module, order=5, label=Case Study Content Section 1, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223640941568}, module_17923271166927={body={hide_show_module_=false, module_id=224756528181}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_17923271166927, name=module_17923271166927, type=module, order=10, label=Case Study Video Banner Block, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224756528181}, module_179120410606221={body={counter=[], logo_image={src=}, module_id=223627951216}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179120410606221, name=module_179120410606221, type=module, order=2, label=Case Study Posts Title, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223627951216}, module_179121475366271={body={discription=What's next
How we worked here is how we work on every engagement. Whatever form your data takes, we start with the questions you need answered, select the right approach, and engineer the data processing and cloud deployment so the answers are ready to be used.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223641064784}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121475366271, name=module_179121475366271, type=module, order=11, label=case-study-content-section-4, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223641064784}, module_179015393630755={body={heading_group=More Case Studies
, hide_author_name_=false, module_id=224238135902, select_blog=224579243279, select_tag=technology-saas}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179015393630755, name=module_179015393630755, type=module, order=12, label=Related Case Study Posts, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224238135902}, module_179121160763349={body={module_id=223636303144, slider_image=[]}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121160763349, name=module_179121160763349, type=module, order=8, label=fullwidth-image-slider, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223636303144}}Our approach
Coherent's team treated the automation layer as a codebase rather than a set of prompts. Everything the team built lived in a versioned, code-reviewed directory checked directly into the repository and structured around three parts.
-
Skills: Sixteen invocable workflows, one for each recurring task, from writing unit tests and drafting pull request descriptions to generating commit messages, building Jira tickets, and investigating a payment.
-
Agents: Five specialist sub-agents, each scoped to a narrow set of tools and a specific job, spawned by the skills that need them.
-
A knowledge corpus: Table schemas, enumeration values, and business-flow documentation, read into every session, so agents work from cached, verified context instead of rediscovering the same facts on every run.
The new automation layer covered ten stages of the team’s delivery lifecycle, including discovery, operations, and even code generation.
-
Discovery: One skill traced a data table's schema straight from source code, cross-referencing the underlying event class, its enums, and its Avro schema, then wrote the result into the knowledge corpus for every other skill to read. The corpus documents itself.
In planning, a Jira skill handled full ticket creation with exact custom-field mappings baked in, so story points, sprint assignment, and epic links landed correctly every time instead of depending on the model to remember conventions. Nothing got written until the engineer had confirmed the epic, the description, the estimate, and the sprint, in that order.
In code review, the team built its highest-leverage automation. A deep review spawns three specialist agents in parallel: one focused on security (OWASP checks, entitlement and brand isolation, webhook signature validation), one on performance (missing timeouts, unfiltered queries against partitioned tables, consumer lag), and one on test coverage. Two run on a more capable model tuned for judgment calls; the third runs on a lighter model tuned for pattern matching, because classifying test gaps doesn't need the same reasoning budget as flagging a security hole. All three report back on a fixed severity scale, with file, line, and fix.
In operations, an incident-investigation skill takes a UUID or a cart ID and fans out in parallel: a query against the data warehouse, a search across the team's incident and alert Slack channels, and a synthesis of the resulting payment timeline into one report. The team's most complex skill recovers failed partner-webhook events from a dead-letter queue, a job with real financial exposure if it goes wrong. It draws a hard line. Scripts own every piece of raw data handling, and the model only makes decisions and confirms them with a person, one webhook at a time, never in a batch.
One rule carried across every skill the team built: the model orchestrates and decides, but deterministic code touches the data. IDs, SQL, and exact field mappings live in scripts, not model output, because that's where hallucination and inconsistency do the most damage.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223641064615}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121423312165, name=module_179121423312165, type=module, order=7, label=Case Study Content Section 2, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223641064615}, module_179121449478468={body={discription=The impact
Nine months after the operations tooling went live, the AI-driven automation layer has fundamentally changed how the engineering team works. For example, the skill for dead-letter-queue recovery has generated dozens of incident folders, brand correction reports, and recovery runs XX. The client’s engineering team has also seen other system improvements:
- Delivery cycle time from ticket to pull request dropped materially.
- Code review overhead per pull request decreased by hours with the new parallel specialist agents in place.
- Manual documentation effort on architecture and diagrams dropped to nearly zero.
- Cross-team incident response speed increased by 10% to 50%, depending on the investigation.
None of these results came from giving the AI models maximum autonomy. Instead, Coherent focused on giving the agents narrower, well-defined jobs and adding human validation where the risk was highest.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223640945533}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121449478468, name=module_179121449478468, type=module, order=9, label=Case Study Content Section 3, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223640945533}, module_179121507763678={body={discription=[10% to 50% — speed increase on cross-team incident response, Zero — manual documentation effort after AI implementation, 6 months — from pilot to production-grade tooling], module_id=223640945724}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121507763678, name=module_179121507763678, type=module, order=6, label=case-study-three-column-card, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223640945724}, module_17921485850025={body={module_id=224578905090, quotes_description=, quotes_image={alt=, src=}}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_17921485850025, name=module_17921485850025, type=module, order=4, label=case-study-full-width-quotes-block, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224578905090}, module_179121390029660={body={discription=The challenge
Payments engineering teams carry a specific kind of overhead. Tickets require careful scoping, pull requests need security and performance reviews, and the context behind incidents must be reconstructed from logs, Slack threads, and data warehouses before they can even start diagnosing the problem. In addition to the built-in operational work, teams are actively working to ship new features.
The client wanted to use AI to absorb more of that overhead, freeing engineering teams to focus on refining and releasing new features. Integrating a technology like AI into payment systems, however, requires additional safeguards to avoid major risks for companies and their clients. Potential issues such as a hallucinated ID, a query against a partition-less table, or an unreviewed production webhook send could cause significant financial harm. For the client, the concern wasn't whether AI could write code for a live payments system, but rather it could be trusted to make judgment calls, and where that trust needs human validation.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223640941568}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121390029660, name=module_179121390029660, type=module, order=5, label=Case Study Content Section 1, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223640941568}, module_17923271166927={body={hide_show_module_=false, module_id=224756528181}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_17923271166927, name=module_17923271166927, type=module, order=10, label=Case Study Video Banner Block, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224756528181}, module_179120410606221={body={counter=[], logo_image={src=}, module_id=223627951216}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179120410606221, name=module_179120410606221, type=module, order=2, label=Case Study Posts Title, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223627951216}, module_179121475366271={body={discription=What's next
Coherent will continue working with the client as an engineering partner. The dead-letter-queue recovery skill and the rest of the operations tooling continue to handle live incidents, and the payments team can extend the automation layer as new needs arise. What started as one engineer's build has since spread to other teams across the client's engineering organization through the shared internal repository, the same pattern the client has followed with Coherent for six years now, turning one team's tooling into a reference point for the next.
This engagement is a working example of Coherent's Continuous Delivery Loop (CDL) approach in action. CDL is the model Coherent uses in place of a traditional, linear SDLC; it’s built around continuous feedback loops instead of sequential handoffs, bridging the value gap in AI-assisted development. Learn more about CDL.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223641064784}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121475366271, name=module_179121475366271, type=module, order=11, label=case-study-content-section-4, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223641064784}, module_179015393630755={body={heading_group=More Case Studies
, hide_author_name_=false, module_id=224238135902, select_blog=224579243279, select_tag=retail-consumer-hospitality}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179015393630755, name=module_179015393630755, type=module, order=12, label=Related Case Study Posts, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224238135902}, module_179121160763349={body={module_id=223636303144, slider_image=[]}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121160763349, name=module_179121160763349, type=module, order=8, label=fullwidth-image-slider, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223636303144}}Our approach
Coherent’s team built a pilot in six weeks and proved it on the client's own legacy code.
The first attempt used a fully autonomous, agentic AI setup, pushing to minimize human involvement in the migration process. The team hit a wall fast: the app's dynamic UI didn't tolerate loose interpretation, and the context needed to track its complexity burned through the AI's usable window within hours.
So, the team adapted in real time, pivoting mid-engagement. They rebuilt the approach around a defined set of AI-driven skills mapped to each stage of the SDLC — requirements gathering, planning, code generation, testing — with deliberate human checkpoints at every stage. Catching a wrong turn early is far cheaper than untangling it three phases later, and that perspective ensured the team could deliver a working pilot faster than expected.
Additionally, Coherent’s team didn't migrate the entire application at once. They scoped the pilot around the migration of a single, complete user journey and locked that in with the client before writing any new lines of code.
The solution
Coherent’s two engineers delivered the full pilot scope in about six weeks, completing roughly 18%–20% of the application by code. Prior to Coherent joining the project, the client's larger team spent six months on a comparable slice without finishing. Coherent worked with the same legacy codebase and complexity, but completed the pilot in a fraction of the time.
The pilot didn't just produce migrated code. It validated the cost and timeline model for the entire migration, as well as the proposed team structure and roadmap for the project. In other words, the pilot gave the client's leadership team everything it needed to confidently greenlight the full engagement.
The impact
Before the pilot, the client's team estimated that the full migration would take more than two years to complete. After Coherent‘s pilot proved its AI-driven approach, the projected timeline for completing the entire migration came in at six to nine months, with a team of three developers and a part-time architect — a fraction of the original timeline and headcount.
This is what an AI-native migration approach looks like in practice: real speed on real legacy code, with zero impact on the user experience or shortcuts on quality, testing rigor, and fidelity. The client didn't just get a migration plan — Coherent provided a pilot as proof, and a faster path forward.
The challenge
The client’s leadership team wanted to add the application to Android and Windows in addition to iOS, and they wanted it done quickly. Their team, working manually and without Flutter experience, spent six months on the migration with little progress.
The application was a genuinely hard migration target. Its interface was almost entirely dynamic, with screens generated from configuration rather than built individually. As a result, the migration didn’t support screen-by-screen porting; instead, the underlying patterns needed to be rebuilt.
Additionally, there was no technical documentation, automated test coverage, or formal requirements record. The knowledge lived entirely in the heads of the app’s engineers. The app also had to communicate with two parallel server environments, on-prem and cloud, through fixed APIs. And the bar was high for functionality: the rebuilt app had to look and feel identical to users — no visible seams and no rebranding.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223640941568}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121390029660, name=module_179121390029660, type=module, order=5, label=Case Study Content Section 1, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223640941568}, module_17923271166927={body={hide_show_module_=false, module_id=224756528181}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_17923271166927, name=module_17923271166927, type=module, order=10, label=Case Study Video Banner Block, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224756528181}, module_179120410606221={body={counter=[], logo_image={src=}, module_id=223627951216}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179120410606221, name=module_179120410606221, type=module, order=2, label=Case Study Posts Title, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223627951216}, module_179121475366271={body={discription=What’s next
Coherent's Continuous Delivery Loop (CDL) is the operating framework we use to move clients from traditional development toward AI-native delivery through checkpointed steps and focused technology investment. CDL builds human oversight into the process across four activity centers. Those are problem identification, validation and exploration, design and engineering, and observation and scale. This pilot is a live example of CDL in action. The checkpoint-driven model that made this migration faster is the discipline we bring to our AI-native engagements.
, hide_section_=true, module_id=223641064784}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121475366271, name=module_179121475366271, type=module, order=11, label=case-study-content-section-4, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223641064784}, module_179015393630755={body={heading_group=More Case Studies
, hide_author_name_=false, module_id=224238135902, select_blog=224579243279, select_tag=retail-consumer-hospitality}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179015393630755, name=module_179015393630755, type=module, order=12, label=Related Case Study Posts, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=224238135902}, module_179121160763349={body={module_id=223636303144, slider_image=[]}, css={}, child_css={}, id=module_179121160763349, name=module_179121160763349, type=module, order=8, label=fullwidth-image-slider, smart_type=null, styles={}, module_id=223636303144}}Ready to optimize your MLOps?
Relevant
Questions
Software changes when code changes; models also change when data changes, which means a model can degrade with no code deployment at all. MLOps adds data validation, model evaluation gates, and performance monitoring that traditional CI/CD pipelines have no concept of.
Managed platforms cover pipelines, registries, and monitoring well enough for most teams and are worth adopting. Custom builds make sense only where a managed tool blocks a specific requirement, since maintaining bespoke infrastructure competes with delivering models.
Evaluate it on a held-out set and on recent production data, compare against the current model on the same inputs, and check for regressions in specific segments, not just aggregate accuracy. Shadow deployment or a canary rollout catches issues that offline evaluation misses.
When models are reaching production faster than the team can build the pipelines, monitoring, and governance to support them, or when the organization has data scientists but no one dedicated to operating what they build. MLOps as a service makes sense until model volume and in-house skills justify a permanent platform team; before that point, building the capability internally usually costs more than the models it supports.
Beyond infrastructure health, watch prediction latency, input data quality and distribution, output distribution, and business outcome metrics tied to the model. A model can be up, fast, and confidently wrong, which only the last two categories reveal.
Right-size serving infrastructure per model, consolidate low-traffic models onto shared endpoints, use batch inference where latency allows, and retire models no one calls. Cost visibility per model is the prerequisite; most teams discover they're paying for endpoints nobody remembers deploying.