Pawel Rzeszucinski is Senior Director of Data and AI at WebPros.
getty
Organizations have spent the past couple of years distributing AI productivity tools across their workforces. Microsoft 365 Copilot users save an average of nine hours per month, according to Forrester. GitHub Copilot now generates 46% of code written by developers and has been adopted by 90% of Fortune 100 companies.
These are impressive individual-level gains, yet a stark reality persists: McKinsey's 2025 research reveals that while 92% of companies plan to increase AI investment, only 1% consider themselves at AI maturity. BCG research reinforces this gap: Only 5% of firms are "AI future-built" and generating transformative value, while 60% report minimal revenue and cost gains despite substantial investment.
The productivity paradox is clear. Individual employees are more efficient, yet organizational transformation remains elusive. Forrester's Microsoft 365 study linked above demonstrates a 116% ROI over three years, but these returns stem primarily from operational efficiency and not business model reinvention.
The uncomfortable truth is that giving everyone access to Copilot can hardly be called transformative when competitors enjoy identical capabilities. As I've observed over the last few years, true AI transformation requires organizations to confront existential questions about their very survival.
As generative AI and agentic capabilities mature, leadership teams must confront the reality that AI‑native competitors can rebuild entire value propositions from scratch, often with radically lower cost structures and far greater speed.
Strategy, therefore, starts with acknowledging how existing business models could be commoditized or displaced if AI‑enabled automation drives marginal costs toward zero, a scenario already anticipated by leading consultancies as agentic systems take on increasingly complex, end‑to‑end workflows.
At the same time, AI coding assistants have collapsed the barrier between idea and execution, effectively turning far more employees—and competitors—into builders. In this environment, the competitive advantage shifts away from access to models, which are rapidly commoditizing, and toward proprietary first‑party data and the ability to redesign the few core processes that truly drive revenue or margin.
Organizations that wish to succeed must be willing to rethink what their business would look like if they were built today with current AI capabilities, deliberately redesigning mission‑critical workflows for agentic execution and clearly defining where human judgment, accountability and creativity remain essential. This is not incremental change, but rather a preemptive self‑disruption.
Organizations serious about AI transformation must move beyond experimentation and ask questions that redefine how they operate—before the market forces those answers upon them.
The following are questions I'd urge business leaders in any industry to consider:
1. If an AI-native startup launched tomorrow to disrupt us, what would they build? Most leadership teams ask this question too cautiously and far too late. A serious version of this exercise assumes an AI‑native competitor with no legacy systems to protect, no silos to respect and no historical revenue to defend. Leadership teams should deliberately stress‑test this scenario in cross‑functional sessions, explicitly assuming that agentic AI can reach production readiness within the next six to nine months. The result should be uncomfortable by design: a clear view of where the business would break first, which assumptions would fail fastest and which “nonnegotiables” are no longer defensible.
2. Which workflows, if transformed, would fundamentally alter our competitive position? Transformation requires focus. Rather than spreading AI investments thin, organizations must identify the small number of workflows that truly matter. From there, they should work backward, defining which steps demand human judgment, accountability or creativity—and which can be executed by agents. Every AI initiative should begin with outcome definition, not tool selection. Human involvement should be intentional and explicit, reserved for areas where judgment under uncertainty, accountability or creative problem‑solving provides irreplaceable value. Everything else should be designed for agentic execution.
3. What proprietary data do we own that competitors cannot access? As models rapidly commoditize, durable advantage migrates away from algorithms and toward the data that shapes their behavior. First‑party data like customer interactions, operational telemetry and domain‑specific signals accumulated over years are increasingly the only input competitors cannot simply buy or replicate. Companies that do this can turn data into a strategic flywheel, compounding advantage as AI systems learn from unique context. Those that do not may discover that, once tools and models are shared, they are competing on exactly the same inputs as everyone else—at which point differentiation becomes almost impossible.
The next six to nine months represent a critical inflection point as agentic AI capabilities mature and the cost of inaction compounds. The organizations that will thrive are not those with the most AI pilots; they are those willing to confront existential questions, redesign core processes from first principles and fortify data moats while competitors chase incremental productivity gains.
AI transformation is not a technology challenge; it is a leadership challenge. The tools exist. The capabilities are maturing rapidly. The question is whether leadership will act with the urgency and boldness required to preemptively disrupt their own organizations before external forces do it for them. The window to lead transformation, rather than react to disruption, is narrow and closing fast.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。