For organisations, knowing where they stand in this shift is a strategic question. A clear picture helps teams make better decisions about tooling, hiring, governance, and investment. Without it, they risk missing real productivity gains or adopting technology faster than their people and processes can handle.
This article walks through the AI-SDLC maturity model, which maps five stages of software development maturity: traditional, AI-supported, AI-assisted, AI-native, and AI-autonomous.
Level 1: Traditional SDLC
In traditional SDLC, developers write all code, supported only by basic tools such as IDEs, linters, and version control systems. AI almost does not contribute to the development process.
Every workflow is human-initiated, human-executed, and human-decided. Developers type code manually with only basic auto-suggestions from their IDE. Context awareness is limited to what individual developers know. Quality depends on the reviewer's skill and availability. Quality testing, documentation, and maintenance are all manual processes.
For example, a senior software engineer may serve as the primary source of knowledge about the codebase. Stakeholder interviews are conducted in person, often with handwritten notes. Architecture decisions are made during whiteboard sessions, and all code is written manually.
Traditional SDLC remains appropriate for a very small number of environments requiring human sign-off on every change, organisations with strict compliance and security requirements, or teams working on classified or air-gapped systems. For organisations under pressure to move faster, this approach can quickly become unsustainable.
Level 2: AI-supported SDLC
AI-supported SDLC provides passive assistance, such as autocomplete, code snippets, and basic suggestions. Humans remain fully in control.
For most companies, this yields modest, measurable productivity gains in routine coding tasks. AI handles mundane work: autocomplete fills in function signatures, linting catches errors before commit, and meeting transcription captures decisions, removing the need for manual note-taking.
Picture debugging where AI suggests causes based on errors and surrounding code. In code review, automated tools flag code smells before human reviewers check the pull request. Developers still decide, but routine tasks require less effort.
Without clear validation workflows and developers who know how to question, review, and stress-test suggestions, the answer is usually no.
The key difference from Level 1 is that AI now helps with routine tasks, reducing cognitive load. But it remains reactive, responding to developer actions, not proactively driving the process.
Level 3: AI-assisted SDLC
AI-assisted SDLC shifts to active AI support in the development process because, at this level, AI:
- Generates larger code blocks
- Understands multiple files
- Suggests cross-module improvements
- Anticipates developer needs
Developers still make all final decisions, but AI plays a more proactive role and is more involved in the process.
For example, when developing a feature involving three services, Level 2 provides independent autocomplete suggestions for each file. At Level 3, the AI recognises service connections, generates unit and integration tests, flags conflicts before code review, and drafts requirement summaries from stakeholder input.
All AI-generated artefacts require human validation before acceptance. The AI suggests improvements during code review and proposes optimised deployment strategies, but humans remain the final decision-makers.
Compared to Level 2, AI-supported SDLC offers reactive autocomplete and snippets, while AI-Assisted provides proactive, contextual contributions. All outputs still require human review and approval.
Level 4: AI-native SDLC
At this stage, AI is a true collaborator, deeply aware of your architecture, project standards and testing approach. It generates full features from specifications and proposes structural enhancements that are tightly aligned with the technical and business strategy.
Consider a scenario where product management describes a new product requirements document. At Level 3, you might ask AI to help implement a specific block of functions. At Level 4, the AI generates user stories and functional blocks from that conversation. It creates the first draft of test suites with coverage optimisation. It produces architecture proposals for your team to evaluate. It even generates the technical documentation and README updates.
The rise of AI agents as teammates
A key feature of Level 4 is the rise of advanced AI agents that act as AI teammates: autonomous, context-aware collaborators that work proactively and communicate as they go.
At Level 4, leaders increasingly integrate these agents as virtual team members with clearly defined deliverables. Teams route work to AI agents, evaluate outputs via pull requests, and embed agent deliverables in planning - unlocking a new model for scaling engineering throughput.
Tools like Cursor's parallel agents, Claude Code's agentic workflows, and GitHub Copilot's workspace features are examples of this evolution.
Challenges and governance
The main technical risk at this level is LLM hallucinations (especially in complex codebases. RAG-based mitigation methods have shown effectiveness across multiple models.
Governance requires a clear framework for change classification. Routine changes such as formatting, documentation, and test additions can be auto-approved. Refactoring and isolated bug fixes are approved by AI with logging. New features and business logic require human review. Security and infrastructure changes require mandatory human review.
Every AI decision must be logged, including the classification rationale, confidence scores, and human notification status.
When does AI-autonomous make sense?
This level suits organisations where development speed is a competitive necessity, DevOps practices and governance frameworks are already mature, leadership actively supports AI autonomy with human oversight, and the organisation has built trust through experience at Level 4.
The key distinction from Level 4 is scope: AI now operates across the entire organisation, not just individual projects. Routine tasks run autonomously, freeing humans to focus on exceptions and strategic decisions.
The hidden costs of AI adoption
Moving up the AI maturity ladder carries real risks that enterprise organisations should not overlook.
39.33% of top AI suggestions contained vulnerabilities, including eight from the CWE Top-25 list. Separate analysis of real GitHub projects found security issues in 32.8% of Python and 24.5% of JavaScript snippets, spanning 38 CWE categories. AI can also inadvertently expose sensitive training data.
GitClear's analysis of 211 million lines of code (2020–2024) found that duplication rose from 8.3% to 12.3%, duplicated code blocks increased 8-fold in 2024 alone, and refactoring dropped from 25% to under 10% of changed lines.
Google's DORA 2024 report found that a 25% increase in AI adoption correlated with a 7.2% decrease in delivery stability. The explanation: AI accelerates development in organisations with weak foundations, exposing and amplifying existing problems downstream.
Developers predicted AI would reduce task completion time by 24%. In practice, it increased completion time by 19% for experienced developers on complex tasks — yet afterwards, those same developers still believed AI had saved them time. This 43-percentage-point gap creates real problems for timeline planning, team sizing, and quality control.
The importance of human expertise in AI-driven software development
AI-assisted, AI-native, and AI-autonomous development increase the importance of human expertise. Imagine that 40% of AI-generated code contains vulnerabilities. To evaluate AI output, experts must validate AI-generated code, manage technical debt, and mentor junior developers. AI provides technically correct but strategically misaligned solutions, but experienced engineers must make the final decision.
Companies that use AI tools primarily to reduce engineering investment are likely to face negative outcomes documented in research: declining stability, increased technical debt, and more security vulnerabilities.
Implementation guidance for progressing through maturity levels
Progressing through the AI-SDLC maturity model requires a deliberate, step-by-step approach. Each stage should build on the foundations of the previous level.
- Level 1 to Level 2: Initial implementation. At this stage, begin with low-risk use cases such as code completion and documentation. Set baseline metrics before deployment, train users on the tool’s capabilities and limitations, and address resistance by demonstrating measurable value.
- Level 2 to Level 3: Expanding AI involvement. To progress from Level 2 to 3, enhance AI tools to support multi-file context awareness. Implement security scanning for AI-generated code, establish validation workflows, and define clear guidelines for accepting or modifying AI-generated suggestions. Begin tracking acceptance rates and quality metrics.
- Level 3 to Level 4: Integrating AI into the workflow. Apply comprehensive security scanning to all AI-generated code and require human review for critical workflows. Build internal prompt engineering expertise, set quality gates that do not assume AI correctness, and allocate validation resources within project timelines.
- Level 4 to Level 5: Advancing toward autonomy. Create a change classification framework with tiered approval processes and full audit logging. Set up rollback procedures for problematic auto-approvals, establish governance boards for AI autonomy decisions, and retain human expertise to address potential AI system failures.
Conclusion
The shift from traditional to AI-autonomous software development is inevitable. What matters is how deliberately organisations navigate this transition.
The AI-SDLC maturity model provides a practical framework. For most enterprises, Level 3 (AI-assisted) and Level 4 (AI-native) are the practical frontier. Level 5 (AI-autonomous) is emerging in organisations with strong governance that need to move very quickly.
Some risks are security issues, lower code quality, and unstable delivery. Organisations that succeed are those that move carefully and keep investing in human expertise. When skilled humans oversee, AI teams work faster and maintain high quality.
Artificial intelligence tools show real promise, but their impact depends on task complexity, developer experience, and organisational maturity. As AI takes on more implementation work, the judgment, oversight, and strategic thinking that experienced engineers provide become more valuable, not less.
Ultimately, AI is a powerful accelerant, but it amplifies what is already there. Strong foundations will scale faster and safer. Weak ones will fail more visibly.
Related Insights
The breadth of knowledge and understanding that ELEKS has within its walls allows us to leverage that expertise to make superior deliverables for our customers. When you work with ELEKS, you are working with the top 1% of the aptitude and engineering excellence of the whole country.
Right from the start, we really liked ELEKS’ commitment and engagement. They came to us with their best people to try to understand our context, our business idea, and developed the first prototype with us. They were very professional and very customer oriented. I think, without ELEKS it probably would not have been possible to have such a successful product in such a short period of time.
ELEKS has been involved in the development of a number of our consumer-facing websites and mobile applications that allow our customers to easily track their shipments, get the information they need as well as stay in touch with us. We’ve appreciated the level of ELEKS’ expertise, responsiveness and attention to details.
