Access is not adoption

It depends on what is stopping people. If they have not tried the tools, practice on real work may be enough. If they cannot use the right data safely, fix that first. But if people use AI and the work still takes the same route, another licence is unlikely to change much. Look at one workflow: who starts it, who assembles the first version, who reviews it and who makes the decision. The opportunity is to redesign those steps around what AI can carry, with a person still responsible for the result.

We think the useful question is less "Which model should we use?" and more "What should be true about this work now that these tools exist?" A better model matters. But it does not decide who owns a piece of work or what a good result looks like. Those are still decisions the company has to make.

Take a recurring report. Someone collects the numbers, copies them between tools, writes a first version and sends it for review. Adding a chat window might help that person write faster. It might also leave most of the work exactly where it was. A different starting point is a draft assembled from approved source data, with the account lead checking the evidence and deciding what the client needs to hear. That is an illustrative workflow, not a claim about a client result.

This is where leadership has to be specific. What can be drafted? What must be checked? Which decisions need a named person? What information must not leave the approved tools? Without those choices, everyone is left to work it out for themselves.

We would organise this around the job to be done, rather than start with a list of titles and ask which ones can be automated. The job might still need several people. It might need a different kind of review. We should be willing to find that out rather than decide the answer in advance.

Start with the current workflow. Measure the time it takes, the waiting between steps and the corrections needed before it is usable. Then run the changed version on comparable work. A faster first draft is not much of a win if checking it takes longer or errors reach the customer.

The result worth looking for is a change in how the team works, with quality still accounted for. If the tools disappeared tomorrow, would the team have to change its workflow back? That is a more useful test of adoption than whether people opened the app this week.

Tell us which team and which workflow you have in mind. Start a conversation, or read how we work and what it costs.

Still deciding where to start? Compare consultancy, training and building in-house.