How 'confused' AI rollout hurts firms and baffles staff

When AI engineer Malcolm was working at a data analysis firm, executives wanted to use generative AI to categorise the customer database into a range of personas.

A traditional machine learning model would have been much more appropriate, he argued, producing consistent, repeatable results. And it would have been much cheaper.

"They still went ahead with Gen AI," says Malcolm (we have not used his real name).

That meant a process that was less accurate and much more expensive, but it also allowed the organisation to say they were embracing AI.

Malcolm's experience will be familiar to staff at other companies. More bosses are embracing AI and insisting their staff use it.

In February, global consultancy Accenture reportedly told staff that promotions to top roles would require "regular adoption of AI tooling" and it would be tracking their usage of the AI platform it has developed.

And in May, rival firm KPMG said it had developed a dashboard to track whether its US employees' meet a 75% usage target for its AI tools.

The company says this is part of "a holistic effort… to help people move up the AI maturity curve."

Other organisations are taking a less targeted approach to implementing AI but nevertheless expect it to transform how their workforces spend their days.

The UK government is banking on AI to help "rewire" the state and boost efficiency across Whitehall.

However, research by the civil servant union, the FDA, shows that while civil servants were open to the idea of using AI to improve productivity, there's doubt that management can handle the transformation.

Less than a third of civil servants had been consulted on how the technology could be rolled out, the union found, meaning "change is being done to workers, not with them".