A few weeks ago, I posted something that seemed to hit a nerve. Nothing elaborate - just a thought about how we might be measuring the wrong thing when it comes to AI in the enterprise.

But the comments kept circling back to one question that's clearly haunting boardrooms right now: "Are we spending enough on AI?"

It sounds like the right question. It's asked with spreadsheets open, and competitor moves on everyone's minds. We might have to ask a different question in reality.

‍

‍

What's really being asked

When that question surfaces, what's happening is this: someone looks at the market, sees competitors announcing AI initiatives, reads the Gartner reports, and panics. The question becomes defensive -are we keeping up?

But "keeping up" is a trap. It assumes AI strategy is a spending parity game. Match your competitor's investment, stay safe. That's industrial era thinking.

Here's what that framing misses: your AI strategy doesn't unfold in a vacuum. It unfolds in a market where your competitors are making simultaneous moves. And in that environment, how much you spend matters far less than where you invest and how fast you execute.

‍

If a competitor reduces operating costs by 15-25% through AI-driven automation, your unchanged cost base isn't neutral - it's a permanent disadvantage. If they get faster at pricing decisions, forecasting, supply chain coordination, you're not just slower. You're exposed.

The real question is: are we investing in the right places, in the right sequence, at the right speed -relative to people who are also moving?

‍

‍

The cost you're not calculating

Most organizations have gotten pretty good at calculating AI ROI. Automation savings, productivity gains, business cases that clear committees. Fine.

It is the cost of inaction that could be important here.

Inaction isn't static - it compounds. When competitors redesign processes with AI embedded from the ground up, those cost advantages don't appear once and stop. They scale. Every quarter, their cost base gets lighter while yours stays flat. The gap doesn't close on its own. It widens.

‍

Then there's decision velocity. AI compresses the time between analysis and action. Companies that embed it well make better calls faster. Those decisions compound into margin, market share, customer loyalty. A velocity gap becomes an outcomes gap. The people you want most -high-caliber digital talent -migrate toward organizations perceived as technically serious. Underinvestment doesn't just save money today. It quietly erodes your future capability.

‍

‍

Sequence matters more than budget

None of this is an argument for reckless spending. I've seen that mistake too - money thrown at AI without discipline, pilots that go nowhere, headlines chased.

The real question isn't how much. It's where first.

The pattern that could work; start with operational efficiency. Deploy AI to improve productivity, reduce errors, cut internal costs. Learn how the technology behaves in your environment. Build real capability, not just awareness.

‍

Then, once you understand the tools, redesign end-to-end workflows. Not automating fragments - reimagining finance, procurement, service operations from scratch. That's where efficiency becomes transformation.

Only after that foundation is solid should you bring AI into customer-facing value propositions. Use what you've learned to create genuine advantage, not just catch up.

‍

‍

The part nobody talks about enough

Even perfect sequencing fails without one critical ingredient.

Technology creates potential. Adoption creates advantage.

And the constraint in AI transformation is almost never the algorithm. The models work. The technology delivers. What slows everything down is something far messier: human and organizational friction.

‍

And then there's that is critical: middle managers. They control the daily rhythms of work. They're often the ones who feel most threatened by AI-driven changes. If they're not genuinely brought into the process - not just informed but involved - they become quiet bottlenecks. Nodding in meetings, slowing things down everywhere else.

‍

If a competitor achieves real adoption while your organization is stuck in that friction, the competitive gap widens dramatically - even at identical investment levels.

Execution quality changes the entire game.

Moving first is an advantage. But moving together - with real organizational alignment - is what compounds into something durable.

The companies that win this won't necessarily have the best models. They'll have the best change management. They'll have leaders who understand that AI transformation is maybe 20% technology and 80% psychology, culture, and incentive design.

‍

‍

A better set of questions

AI isn't just a technology wave. It's a competitive coordination problem. And in coordination problems, the winners aren't the biggest spenders.

They're the ones who move deliberately, in sequence, with their organization moving with them.

The most important number to calculate next might not be AI ROI at all.

It might be the strategic cost of doing nothing.