Every new frontier model release seems to spur a fresh round of doomsday articles. Just Google “the end of white-collar jobs,” and you’ll be bombarded with discourse on the end of modern work, the unraveling of the social contract between employees and organizations.
Every new frontier model release seems to spur a fresh round of doomsday articles. Just Google “the end of white-collar jobs,” and you’ll be bombarded with discourse on the end of modern work, the unraveling of the social contract between employees and organizations.
What I don’t see anyone talking about, however, and what I believe is a far more productive conversation, is the opportunity for knowledge workers.
Nobody understands critical business processes better than your line-of-business (LOB) employees. Not executives. Not IT. Not even the most advanced LLMs. These are your business analysts and RevOps professionals, your supply chain managers and finance leaders, and the employees whose expertise has been forged over decades.
For an enterprise to become truly intelligent, these workers must be involved in how AI workflows are built and deployed. Their guiding hand is the only way AI can learn and truly understand your business.
But what does this transition look like, and how can organizations start operationalizing AI in a meaningful way alongside knowledge workers? Let’s take a look.
Imagine walking your board through a set of financials and recommending specific actions. Then, in your next meeting, you walk everything back because your AI layer got the numbers wrong.
In context
- Topic: Estrategia y Gobierno de TI — Decisiones de portafolio, costo total, gobierno y marcos de referencia.
- Source: CIO
- Published: 28/08/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
There is a wide gap between a company that has technology projects and one that has a technology strategy. The first accumulates initiatives; the second decides what it will not do. Moves like this are usually the moment somebody at the top finally wrote down the list of what gets left out.
I read it looking for coordination cost. Every technology decision splits work across areas that do not report to each other, and that is where the return leaks out. If nobody defined who resolves it when two areas disagree, the project already has its grounding date set.
What usually goes wrong
Where I see this fail most is in the second half of the year. The announcement is made with energy, the team gets assembled, and eight months later the person driving it changed role or company. Without an institutional owner, not just a personal one, the programme fades without anybody formally cancelling it.
What to watch
- The real calendar of contracts and renewals: that is where you see whether the move was strategic or was an expiry date.
- What gets switched off to fund the new thing; if nothing does, the budget will hurt in six months.
- How the relationship with current vendors is left, which is usually where the dependency nobody measured is sitting.
How I read this entry
If this landed on my desk, the first thing I would ask for is not a plan. It is an honest inventory of what is already running and what it costs to keep it alive. It almost always turns out that the budget for the new thing comes from switching off something old that nobody wants to name, and that conversation decides whether the project lives.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
