Enterprise SaaS
Enterprise SaaS assistant with governance controls
A business or enterprise plan from an established vendor — ChatGPT Enterprise, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Glean or an equivalent — connected to your identity provider, scoped by existing permissions, covered by a DPA, and rolled out behind a written policy.
- Source
- Editorial recipe — no step evidence has been fetched yet
- Verified
- Evidence not verified
- Confidence
- Low
01Objective
Give the whole company a capable assistant on a vendor platform, with the contract, identity controls and internal policy that make it defensible.
- use caseEmail draftingDrafting replies in the inbox from the thread, the CRM record and the company style. Small per message, large in aggregate — and the place where a wrong statement leaves the building fastest.
- use caseInternal company searchOne search box over the documents a company already has — shared drives, wikis, ticket systems, email attachments — answered by a model that quotes the source. The value is finding the right paragraph in a corpus nobody has read end to end, not writing new text.
- use caseKnowledge managementCapturing what the organisation knows — process notes, decisions, answers given once already — and keeping it findable and current. AI helps by drafting entries, spotting duplicates and flagging pages that contradict each other.
- use casePrivate company ChatGPTA chat assistant for staff that behaves like a consumer chatbot but runs under company control: your accounts, your logging, your retention, your choice of model, and optionally your own documents attached.
Field notes about this recipe
02Recommended stack
| Role | Component |
|---|---|
| Authentication | Your identity provider, with SSO and SCIM provisioning |
| Ingestionoptional | Vendor connectors to your existing systems |
| Observability | Admin audit log export |
| Ui | Vendor assistant (ChatGPT Enterprise, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Glean or equivalent) |
Architecture and data flow
Components
- Employees — people
- Vendor assistant (web and desktop clients) — application
- Your identity provider (SSO + SCIM) — identity
- Vendor retrieval over connected sources — retrieval
- Vendor-managed storage of chats and indexes — database
- Vendor model service — inference server
- Connected company systems (email, files, wiki) — external api
- Vendor-hosted frontier model — model
Connections
- Employees to Vendor assistant (web and desktop clients) — HTTPS (confidential data)
- Vendor assistant (web and desktop clients) to Your identity provider (SSO + SCIM) — OIDC sign-in (personal data)
- Vendor assistant (web and desktop clients) to Vendor retrieval over connected sources — question + user groups (confidential data)
- Vendor retrieval over connected sources to Vendor-managed storage of chats and indexes — documents + permissions (confidential data)
- Vendor assistant (web and desktop clients) to Vendor-managed storage of chats and indexes — chats, users, settings (personal data)
- Vendor retrieval over connected sources to Vendor model service — prompt + retrieved passages (confidential data)
- Vendor model service to Vendor-hosted frontier model — loaded weights
- Vendor retrieval over connected sources to Connected company systems (email, files, wiki) — indexed content and permissions (confidential data)
External data transfer · YES
- confidential content leaves your control on the Employees → Vendor assistant (web and desktop clients) link.
- Content, prompts and answers are processed by the vendor under contract. What the vendor does with them is a matter for the DPA and the plan you buy, not for the architecture.
- The identity provider stays yours: sign-in and de-provisioning remain under your control.
03Suitable for
- Organisation size
- 50–20000 employees
- Data classes
- confidential, personal
- Constraints
- data may leave the company under contract; an identity provider already in place (Entra ID, Google Workspace, Okta); someone who can read a DPA and own the vendor relationship
- Industries
- Professional services, Technology, Financial services, Retail, Other
- Jurisdictions
- any
04Hardware
No hardware profile was sized for this answer.
Indicative costUSD · one-off plus monthly
- Per-seat licences
- Not estimated. We publish no price we have not read on the vendor's own pricing page, and enterprise pricing is negotiated. Get a quote for your seat count and term.
- Not estimated
- Model usage
- Not estimated: whether model usage is bundled into the seat price or metered separately depends on the plan. Confirm it in the order form.
- Not estimated
- Implementation (4–12 FDE-days)
- 4–12 FDE-days at US$760–1940 per day, converted from the HK$6,000–15,000 band at the HKMA Linked Exchange Rate band of HK$7.75–7.85 to one US dollar. One-off; excludes internal staff time.
- US$3,040 – US$23,280
- Implementation covers vendor assessment, SSO and SCIM configuration, a permissions review, the policy, and a departmental pilot. It excludes licence fees entirely.
- Assumes an identity provider is already in place.
- The total is deliberately incomplete: the licence line is the largest cost and only the vendor can price it.
05Difficulty
2 / 5
A few days, mostly configuration
06Skills
- API integrationapi-integration
- development
- Change managementchange-management
- operations
- Compliance and governancecompliance-governance
- compliance
- Identity and SSOidentity-sso
- security
- Security hardeningsecurity-hardening
- security
07Deployment steps
Commands are copied from each project’s own documentation, and the page they came from is linked under the step. 0 of 7 steps currently open an evidence record. The rest are linked to their source; §10 says which of those documents were fetched and which were fetched without their anchor being found — two different states, named differently there.
- 01
Shortlist on terms and connectors, not on demos
AssessmentWrite down the three or four things this has to do and the data it will touch, then ask each vendor the same questions in writing. Vendors publish enterprise privacy pages — OpenAI’s says its commitments give you "ownership and control over your business data" across its business products — but a published page is a starting point for the contract, not a substitute for it, and the wording on these pages changes.
- 02
Get the DPA, the subprocessor list and the retention terms in writing
AssessmentAsk for: the data processing agreement; the current subprocessor list and how you are notified of changes; where processing happens; the retention period and the deletion path; and a written no-training commitment covering uploads and connected sources. Note the boundaries the vendor documents: Microsoft states that for EU users "EU traffic stays within the EU Data Boundary while worldwide traffic can be sent to the EU and other countries or regions for LLM processing".
- 03
Connect SSO and automatic provisioning first
AssessmentConfigure SSO before the pilot and SCIM provisioning before the rollout. Decide which groups get access, and make membership of those groups the only way in — a tool with its own user list becomes a shadow directory within a month.
- 04
Fix the source permissions before connecting anything
AssessmentConnectors respect the permissions they find. Run an over-sharing review on the systems you intend to connect — the shared drive everyone can read, the site with inherited permissions — because retrieval will surface what browsing never did. Vendors sell controls for this (Glean markets "enforced data permissions"), but the underlying permissions are yours to correct.
- 05
Write the acceptable-use policy before the licences arrive
AssessmentOne page: what may be put in, what may not, that output is a draft to be checked, that usage is logged, and who to ask. Publish it with the licences, not after the first incident. Name the sanctioned tool explicitly — most shadow AI use is people trying to do their job with the only tool they have.
- 06
Pilot with one department and measure something
AssessmentThirty people, six weeks, two or three named tasks, and a before-and-after measure you agreed in advance. Collect the answers that were wrong — they tell you which content is stale or over-shared, which is worth more than the satisfaction survey.
- 07
Put the vendor on a review cycle
AssessmentDiary a quarterly check of the subprocessor list, the retention terms and the admin audit export, and re-read the terms at renewal. These pages change without notice; that is precisely why they are worth watching.
08Compliance considerations
Structured issue-spotting to support your own review — not legal advice. Verify against the cited primary sources and your counsel.
Applies everywhere
Data processing agreement · Subprocessors · Vendor jurisdictionhigh
A processor agreement is the foundation of this option. Get the DPA, the subprocessor list and the contracting entity, and check how you are told when a subprocessor changes.
Model training · Retentionhigh
Ask for the no-training commitment and the retention period in the contract, covering uploads and connected sources as well as chats. Vendor pages describe defaults that can differ by plan — verify against the plan you are buying.
Data residency · Cross-border transfershigh
Establish where prompts are processed, not only where data is stored. Microsoft documents an EU Data Boundary for EU users while noting worldwide traffic may be processed elsewhere; check the equivalent statement for your vendor and jurisdiction.
Confidentiality · Professional secrecyhigh
Where professional secrecy or client confidentiality applies, a DPA may not be sufficient on its own — client consent or an engagement-letter provision may be required. This is a question for counsel, and it is the usual reason a firm chooses self-hosting instead.
Logging · Auditability · Transparencymedium
Confirm the admin audit log exists, what it records, whether you can export it, and how long the vendor retains it. Tell employees what is logged.
Terms-of-service restrictions · Acceptable-use restrictionsmedium
Vendor acceptable-use policies restrict certain uses regardless of your own policy. Read them against the workflows you actually intend to run.
09Alternatives
Self-hosted, if the answer to "may documents leave?" is no
When confidentiality or professional secrecy makes a processor relationship unattractive, running the stack yourself removes the question rather than governing it.
- — No vendor in the data path
- — You take on the operational work and the hardware
- — Fewer connectors and a less polished product
Private cloud, as the middle option
One tenancy, one region, open weights: a processor relationship with an infrastructure provider rather than an application vendor.
- — Region and retention under your control
- — You build the application rather than buying it
- Private cloudPrivate-cloud RAG in a single regionA GPU instance in one region running vLLM and Open WebUI, a managed PostgreSQL with pgvector for chats and embeddings, object storage for the original files, and your existing identity provider for sign-in. Same software as the on-premise recipe; different trust boundary.
- Self-hostedPrivate company knowledge base (self-hosted RAG)Open WebUI as the employee interface, vLLM serving a Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model on a single 24 GB GPU, PostgreSQL with pgvector for chats and embeddings, and OIDC single sign-on — all in Docker on one server in your office or colocation rack. Ollama replaces vLLM for teams under about 20 users; a 48 GB GPU lets you run a 32B model for better answers.
10Evidence
Not yet in the ledger
- OpenAI — Enterprise privacy
Vendor page
not yet fetched
not yet fetched
- Glean — Security and data protection
Vendor page
not yet fetched
11Community
Deployed this stack, or hit something this page does not cover? Corrections, sources and implementation reports are what keep a recipe worth reading.
Improve this page
Sign in to contribute
From the field
0 deployments · 0 questions
Nobody has reported deploying this here yet, and no question has been opened against this page. Both appear once a reviewer accepts them.
12Hire an FDE
If you would rather not build it, we can introduce a forward-deployed engineer who has deployed this stack before. The enquiry form starts from this recipe.