I'd go further on the Tech x Human requirements of org design - the functions our businesses have now are built of necessary capabilities. The new capabilities needed are org design, work design and continuous change. That's why companies like Moderna (and others) are putting HR and IT together - but does that ACTUALLY create a new capability?
What would it take for an organisation to understand the real constraints of conceptualising the work the way they do now, in this phase of Industrial Revolution, and reimagine it for the next phase? Because that's what we're talking about .....
Is the 2:1 ratio for McKinsey more than marketing? The number of AI agents is output but not outcome and hence just a hollow number that does not matter. What are they delivering? Looking at Uber they had >70% adoption rate, burned the budget in 4 months but admitted it does not create value for customers.
Companies will stop using AI to automate the way they currently do work but begin by utilizing AI to get work done and then add HI to augment, enhance, quality control and feeling to the AI product and solutions.
Once again, I get the message. AI and gen AI are only like the genie from Alladins Magic Lamp. The genie needs a master - and that that is a human
Does the way you reorganize burn through the human skill the whole thing depends on? "AI first, humans next" assumes the judgment is still there to add at the end. But judgment comes from practice. You get good at catching what's wrong by doing the work yourself, over and over. If AI does the first pass and people only check the end, they stop practicing, and the skill fades.
The tension between organizations of the past and the disruption of AI is palpable. I've observed it first hand, recently asking an executive team "If AI allows your employees to get their work done in half the time, what should they do with that remaining time?" They didn't have an answer, nor do I. The predominant work culture rewards hours and perceived effort vs. outcomes.
My second observation is that the real impact of AI at the frontlines is blurry at best. I attribute this to the fact that most employees, outside of developers, are not taking advantage of AI, whether due to lack of capabilities or incentives (see point #1). How many here would willingly use a technology that could lead to the conclusion they are no longer needed?
My hypothesis is that this will play out much like the early days of SaaS, with organizations attempting to adopt AI lagging compared to those born-in-AI. The latter are unincumbered by the tensions raised in Rishad's article and my prior points.
Not sure what I loved most. Yours. Shelly’s. The comments. And all so much easier if you can build the organisation from scratch and not go through the pain of going from one place to another. Feels everyone will need a lot of cash in the ST.
The HI framing lands—but I'd argue it all collapses into one word: creativity.
Innovation, Imagination, Iteration—they're just creativity wearing different outfits. AI generates, optimizes, and executes brilliantly, but always from what already exists. Creativity is the one input that doesn't: the ability to want something that isn't in the training data yet.
Which is exactly why AI-first / HI-next is the right order. Let the machine do the convergent work; reserve humans for the divergent leap that sets the direction. Everyone rents the same electricity—the edge goes to whoever pairs it with people who ask the question no agent would think to ask.
The real turd on the table? Most companies are still optimizing for efficiency when the scarce resource just became creativity. I'm not really sure how younger professionals are going to learn critical thinking/creative thinking when they are so reliant on AI.
I'd go further on the Tech x Human requirements of org design - the functions our businesses have now are built of necessary capabilities. The new capabilities needed are org design, work design and continuous change. That's why companies like Moderna (and others) are putting HR and IT together - but does that ACTUALLY create a new capability?
What would it take for an organisation to understand the real constraints of conceptualising the work the way they do now, in this phase of Industrial Revolution, and reimagine it for the next phase? Because that's what we're talking about .....
Is the 2:1 ratio for McKinsey more than marketing? The number of AI agents is output but not outcome and hence just a hollow number that does not matter. What are they delivering? Looking at Uber they had >70% adoption rate, burned the budget in 4 months but admitted it does not create value for customers.
Oh wow! @Rishad Tobaccowala
Loved this
Companies will stop using AI to automate the way they currently do work but begin by utilizing AI to get work done and then add HI to augment, enhance, quality control and feeling to the AI product and solutions.
Once again, I get the message. AI and gen AI are only like the genie from Alladins Magic Lamp. The genie needs a master - and that that is a human
Does the way you reorganize burn through the human skill the whole thing depends on? "AI first, humans next" assumes the judgment is still there to add at the end. But judgment comes from practice. You get good at catching what's wrong by doing the work yourself, over and over. If AI does the first pass and people only check the end, they stop practicing, and the skill fades.
The hydrochloric acid visual works.
The tension between organizations of the past and the disruption of AI is palpable. I've observed it first hand, recently asking an executive team "If AI allows your employees to get their work done in half the time, what should they do with that remaining time?" They didn't have an answer, nor do I. The predominant work culture rewards hours and perceived effort vs. outcomes.
My second observation is that the real impact of AI at the frontlines is blurry at best. I attribute this to the fact that most employees, outside of developers, are not taking advantage of AI, whether due to lack of capabilities or incentives (see point #1). How many here would willingly use a technology that could lead to the conclusion they are no longer needed?
My hypothesis is that this will play out much like the early days of SaaS, with organizations attempting to adopt AI lagging compared to those born-in-AI. The latter are unincumbered by the tensions raised in Rishad's article and my prior points.
Not sure what I loved most. Yours. Shelly’s. The comments. And all so much easier if you can build the organisation from scratch and not go through the pain of going from one place to another. Feels everyone will need a lot of cash in the ST.
Another excellent piece Rishad. Thank you.
The HI framing lands—but I'd argue it all collapses into one word: creativity.
Innovation, Imagination, Iteration—they're just creativity wearing different outfits. AI generates, optimizes, and executes brilliantly, but always from what already exists. Creativity is the one input that doesn't: the ability to want something that isn't in the training data yet.
Which is exactly why AI-first / HI-next is the right order. Let the machine do the convergent work; reserve humans for the divergent leap that sets the direction. Everyone rents the same electricity—the edge goes to whoever pairs it with people who ask the question no agent would think to ask.
The real turd on the table? Most companies are still optimizing for efficiency when the scarce resource just became creativity. I'm not really sure how younger professionals are going to learn critical thinking/creative thinking when they are so reliant on AI.