|
The Great Remaking series began with a specific claim: that AI is not the sixth technology wave in a familiar sequence, but something categorically different — a transformation of the essence of work itself. Across four articles published between February and March, that claim was built into a complete analytical case. BCG's February 2026 research found that only 5% of organisations have achieved substantial financial gains from AI, while that small group shows three-year total shareholder returns roughly four times higher than laggards. The series explains why.
The four articles form a single, sequential argument. The first establishes what is different about this transformation: unlike the desktop, internet, mobile, and cloud waves before it, AI restructures how organisations think, decide, create, and deliver — the four irreducible dimensions of work. The second goes dimension by dimension through how each is being remade at different speeds and toward different end states, making the case that treating AI strategy as a single question is working from an incomplete diagnosis. The third explains why the advantage between organisations that redesign and those that augment compounds over time — and why fast-follower logic, which worked in every previous technology wave, fails here. The fourth closes the series with a practical board-level diagnostic: the questions that cut through activity metrics to reveal whether an organisation is genuinely building compounding advantage or accumulating technology deployments that look like progress but are not.
The series is not primarily about AI capability. It is about the structure of competitive advantage in a transformation where 70% of the value — BCG's estimate — comes not from algorithms or technology, but from redesigning how work is organised. That insight reframes what boards should be overseeing: not whether AI investment is occurring, but whether the three self-reinforcing loops — data, talent, and process redesign — are operating. Organisations building those loops are not simply ahead. They are accelerating away.
If your time is limited, I particularly recommend the final article in the series, The Questions Boards Should Be Asking About Their AI Position. It translates the analytical case made across the first three articles into a specific diagnostic — structured questions that are genuinely difficult to answer well with a prepared slide, and an interpretive guide to what credible answers look like. It is designed to be applied at your next board meeting, not filed away.
How is your organisation approaching the distinction between augmenting existing workflows with AI and genuinely redesigning how work is structured around it — and does your board have a way of telling the difference?
-Mario
|
