Show Notes
I invited Kyle Hauptfleisch, Chief Growth Officer at Daemon, to strip the buzzwords out of AI and talk plainly about what moves the needle at work. The conversation began with an honest look at why so many pilots stall. It ended with a calm, workable path for leaders who want results they can measure rather than demos that gather dust. Along the way we compared two very different mindsets for adoption, AI added and AI first, and what that means for teams, accountability, and the way work actually gets done. Here’s the thing. Plenty of organisations raced into proofs of concept because a board memo said they had to. Kyle has seen that pattern play out for years, and he argues for a simpler starting point. You do not need an AI strategy in a vacuum. You need a business strategy that names real constraints and outcomes, then you pick the right kind of AI to serve that plan. AI Added vs AI First This distinction matters. AI added means dropping tools into the current way of working. Think code generation that saves hours on day one, only to lose those hours later in testing, release, or approvals. The local gain never flows through to the customer. AI first asks a harder question. How do we change the workflow so those gains survive from whiteboard to production? That can mean new handoffs, fresh definitions of ownership, and different review gates. It is less about tools, more about the shape of the system they live in. Accountability sits at the center. Kyle raised a scenario where a lead might one day direct fifty software agents. The intent behind those agents remains human. So does the responsibility. Until structures reflect that, companies will cap the value they can safely realise. From Pilots to Production Kyle offered a simple mental model that avoids endless experimentation. Picture a Venn diagram with three circles. First, a real constraint that people feel every week. Second, usefulness, meaning AI can change the outcome in a measurable way. Third, compartmentalisation, so the work sits far enough from core risk to move fast through governance. Where those circles overlap, you have a candidate to run live. He shared a small but telling example from Daemon. Engineers dislike writing case studies after long projects. The team now records a short conversation, transcribes it with Gemini inside a safe, private setup, and drafts the case study from that transcript. People still edit, but the heavy lift is gone. It saves time, produces more human stories, and proves a pattern the business can repeat. Leaders can start there. Pick a contained problem, run it in production, measure the outcome, and tell the truth about the bumps. That story buys trust for the next step, which is how you scale without inflating the promise. Humans, Accountability, and Culture We talked about the fear that AI erases the human role. Kyle’s view is steady. Models process data. People set intent, judge context, and carry the can when decisions matter. Agents will take on more tasks. The duty to decide will remain with us. Upskilling then becomes less about turning everyone into a prompt whisperer forever and more about teaching teams to think with these tools. Inputs improve, outputs improve. Middle managers, in particular, gain new leverage for research, planning, and option testing. The job shifts toward framing better questions and challenging the first answer that comes back.
More from AI at Work
How do you give AI agents greater responsibility without losing control of the decisions they make or the costs they generate? On AI at Work, I’m joined by Jason Kurtz, Chief Executive Officer of Basware, to discuss governed autonomy, financial accountability, and what businesses need to consider as AI begins taking a more active role in their operations. For finance leaders, the challenge extends beyond choosing a tool. They need to understand what an agent is authorized to do, where human judgment remains necessary, and how to establish whether the investment is delivering useful results. Our conversation looks at the relationship between autonomy and oversight. Giving an AI system permission to complete a task creates questions about responsibility, approval boundaries, and intervention. When should an agent proceed independently, and when should a person review its work? These are business decisions that require input from the people responsible for the process, alongside the teams implementing the technology. We also discuss the CFO’s role in assessing AI value. Understanding the bill is only part of the job. Leaders need to connect spending with outcomes, whether that means improving a finance process, reducing repetitive work, or helping employees make better decisions. The conversation considers why cost visibility and evidence of value need to develop together. Token-based pricing adds another complication. As AI usage grows, businesses can face costs that vary with the amount and complexity of the work being performed. An experiment that appears affordable at a small scale may require a different commercial assessment when it becomes part of everyday operations. Jason and I discuss the questions leaders should ask about pricing, usage, and the relationship between greater adoption and greater expense. The people involved deserve equal attention. Working alongside AI agents may create new responsibilities for training, supervision, and governance. Employees need to understand how these systems fit into their work, what they can reasonably expect from them, and when to challenge an output or escalate a decision. Introducing digital workers brings organizational questions as well as technical ones. For anyone considering AI in finance or across the wider enterprise, this episode offers a way to think about adoption through accountability, commercial discipline, and business purpose. The opportunity is to give teams useful support while keeping responsibility for outcomes clear. Please share your thoughts. How is your organization deciding which responsibilities to give AI agents, and what evidence would convince you that their autonomy is delivering value?
What evidence shows that AI is making a business more productive, more resilient, and more valuable to a potential buyer? In this episode of AI At Work, I speak with Robby Riggs, Global Chief Transformation and Operations Officer and Head of Coverage at Equiteq. Robby previously built a consulting business with a cofounder and sold it to North Highland. His experience as an operator informs the way he now works with founders and investors assessing technology services and consulting businesses. Our conversation begins with the gap between AI claims and operating reality. Robby says buyers are increasingly examining AI as part of due diligence, while questioning how widely it is used inside the business. His suggested evidence includes revenue per employee, margins, delivery speed, and the actual work promised in client contracts. He also offers a simple diagnostic question. If AI were removed, would the firm's economics change materially? The answer can reveal whether it supports the operating model or mainly supports the sales story. We discuss how AI could affect the economics of professional services. Robby believes smaller firms can gain capacity through faster analysis and delivery, while larger businesses may retain advantages through proprietary knowledge, customer access, and established relationships. His argument raises a useful question for leaders deciding where to invest. If common tools make certain tasks easier for everyone, what remains distinctive about the firm? Robby also describes investor interest in recurring revenue and payment for outcomes, alongside the possibility of improved margins. He emphasizes the need to demonstrate those improvements over time. A profitable quarter created by reducing headcount tells a different story from a business that uses additional capacity to deliver better work and develop its people. We examine what happens to the talent pipeline when short term financial targets take priority over future capability. The discussion then turns to data rights, dependence on models, security, and client concentration. Robby explains why these issues deserve closer attention when AI becomes part of service delivery. After an acquisition, different tools, controls, and working practices can create problems that reduce the value the buyer expected. His advice is to understand the integration work early and make people responsible for delivering the intended result. For founders, his recommendation is to pursue a consistent plan, demonstrate improvements over successive quarters, and turn existing organizational knowledge into reusable assets. His optimism about deal activity is presented as his outlook, rather than a forecast listeners should treat as certain. Where is AI creating lasting value in your business, and what would you measure to prove it? I'd love you to share your thoughts. Useful Links:
Are businesses investing in tomorrow's artificial intelligence while continuing to operate with yesterday's organizational structures? And could that explain why so many enterprise AI initiatives struggle to deliver the results leaders expect? In this episode of AI at Work, Neil C. Hughes is joined by Jesper Schleimann, Head of Business AI for EMEA at SAP, to discuss why adopting AI technology and achieving meaningful business transformation are two very different challenges. Jesper shares what he's seeing across organizations in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, where AI adoption is accelerating but progress remains uneven. While some businesses are already reporting improvements in productivity and customer service, others are discovering that isolated projects and impressive demonstrations do not automatically translate into business value. The conversation examines why companies need to begin with a business problem rather than a technology solution, and why adding AI to inefficient processes can limit its potential. They also discuss the growing interest in autonomous AI agents and the practical realities of allowing intelligent systems to take action inside an enterprise. Jesper explains why business context, defined authority, reliable data, and human accountability all play an important role in building trust. As businesses progress toward increasingly autonomous operations, what happens to traditional management structures? How should leaders decide when humans need to intervene? And could the greatest opportunity come from redesigning how work happens rather than simply making existing tasks faster? Jesper also introduces ideas from his book, The Intent-Driven Leader, which examines the changes in leadership and organizational thinking required as AI becomes more capable. With companies investing heavily in enterprise AI, this conversation offers a timely reminder that technology alone cannot deliver organizational transformation. Are businesses ready to rethink the way they operate, or will familiar structures and habits continue to limit what AI can achieve?
How can customs agencies inspect vast volumes of cargo without slowing legitimate trade or handing consequential decisions entirely to an algorithm? In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with David Smason, founder of CargoSeer and Head of Customs AI at BigBear.ai, about a form of workplace AI that operates far from the usual office productivity conversation. CargoSeer was built to help customs teams combine cargo documents, x-ray images, routes, commodity codes, tariffs, and historical patterns before an experienced officer makes the final decision. David explains why traditional customs work can overwhelm even highly trained people. A single shipment may involve dozens of documents, different languages, handwritten information, revenue questions, and national security risks. His vision is one operator overseeing hundreds or eventually thousands of analyses while concentrating attention where human experience matters. He compares the result to a James Bond command center, although the real work involves careful data processing, explainable recommendations, and a clear role for the officer. We discuss CargoSeer’s internal findings that an operator using its supporting technology can assess a shipment in under five seconds, compared with several minutes in some existing processes. That speed comes with an important qualification. False positives may delay legitimate cargo, while false negatives may allow serious risks through. David says each customs agency must define its own risk appetite, operating procedures, success measures, and thresholds rather than accept a universal model. Human feedback remains central to the system. David compares an AI model to a baby that must be taught continuously. When an officer corrects a false alert, the correction can improve later recommendations. He argues that operators value this influence because their knowledge becomes part of the technology instead of being discarded. We also discuss localization and proof. David estimates that CargoSeer’s models are currently about 85 percent standardized, with the remaining work shaped by local data, language, culture, tariffs, agreements, and operating practices. His advice to public agencies is direct: demand evidence that the system works on your data, in your environment, and within your workflow. Test it, try to break it, and define performance before live deployment. Could this model of AI-supported judgment work in other high-consequence roles where speed, evidence, and accountability must coexist? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.
Why are so many enterprise AI programs still stuck in pilot mode when powerful models are widely available? In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Emma McGrattan, Chief Technology Officer at Actian, about why model selection may be receiving more attention than it deserves. Emma argues that models are becoming increasingly interchangeable, while an organization’s proprietary data, business definitions, governance controls, and data culture remain much harder to reproduce. Emma explains why familiar terms such as customer, revenue, and churn can mean different things across sales, finance, tax, and operational teams. AI cannot reliably fill those gaps without context, ownership, lineage, and measurable quality. We discuss why enterprise data designed for dashboards and human interpretation must be treated differently when an AI system or autonomous agent becomes the consumer. The conversation examines Actian’s data governance research, including the finding that 83% of organizations face governance and compliance challenges and that executives rate data maturity 12 percentage points higher than operational managers. Emma describes what this gap looks like in practice, from duplicate customer records and undocumented pipelines to a business field called “Revenue Final Version 7 Verified and Revised.” We also discuss data products, data contracts, executable governance, and BARC research suggesting that organizations using data products and contracts were 3.4 times more likely to report success with AI at scale. Emma recommends beginning with one valuable use case, defining the data product it requires, agreeing the contract around it, and proving that the organization can deliver reliable results before expanding. Agentic AI raises the stakes further because the human who previously handled ambiguity may no longer be present at every step. Emma shares the example of an expense agent that approved one thousand $300 purchases. Every transaction sat below its individual limit, yet the combined spend reached $300,000. Finally, Emma explains what a strong data culture looks like. Employees need permission, access, and skills to question an AI answer, trace its lineage, and recognize when the result does not make sense. Learn