3 ms·

I agree. The original report is vague about that as well: > Over 80 percent of organizations have explored or piloted them, and nearly 40 percent report deploy

I agree. The original report is vague about that as well: > Over 80 percent of organizations have explored or piloted them, and nearly 40 percent report deployment. But these tools primarily enhance individual productivity, not P&L performance. How on earth does "enhancing individual productivity" not improve P&L performance?

Aeolun 1y ago
If your boss doesn’t get credited for it it doesn’t count?
qudat 1y ago
> How on earth does "enhancing individual productivity" not improve P&L performance? If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours. This is especially true in a remote-work environment where you are not in an office setting.
- arcane23 1y ago
  >If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours. I have never seen people working fewer hours due to technological improvement, productivity just goes up from them working more efficiently for 8 hours.
  - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
    Have you met many humans? ;) A very large proportion of the people I've worked with over my career would absolutely work less hard if they could get away with it.
    - arcane23 1y ago
      Ah for sure, that's not what I meant. I was talking about the fact that sooner or later people running the business figure out they can increase the workload if employees have too much spare time. Else we'd be at pre-computers productivity levels.
      - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
        Fair point!
reval 1y ago
Snark aside, this is the main topic of Eli Goldratt's "The Goal" - one of my favourite books. Output of the business is constrained by some bottleneck. Improving efficiency away from the bottleneck is just waste. Said differently, enhancing individual productivity has no effect on the business output unless doing so elevates the bottleneck. Sadly, most business don't know what their constraints are or are otherwise blocked from elevating them due to politics and other factors.
stubish 1y ago
You have to factor in the cost of the tools. And also, just because an employee is producing more code or more reports or more trades or more summaries per day, that doesn't guarantee the company will make more money. If you enabled your market analysts to make twice as many trades per day, you will likely lose money if they actually did that. Because they were already finding the good trades, and now they are also making the not-so-good trades and maybe even the unlikely trades. And also, in the longer term not being shown in existing studies, you are in an arms race with your competitors. Like advertising, you will be spending a lot of that money in order to counter the spending of your competitors, and you both lose the game of prisoners dilemma, the only winner being the arms dealer selling to both sides.
rsynnott 1y ago
How is this 'enhancing individual productivity' being measured? If by self-reporting, it's worthless. Here's a recent experiment: https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/m365_copilot_uk_government/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/m365_copilot_uk_gover... A fairly common pattern seems to be emerging; users _believe_ that it makes them more productive, but attempts to actually measure this don't show that.

Aeolun 1y ago

If your boss doesn’t get credited for it it doesn’t count?

qudat 1y ago

> How on earth does "enhancing individual productivity" not improve P&L performance? If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours. This is especially true in a remote-work environment where you are not in an office setting.

arcane23 1y ago
>If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours. I have never seen people working fewer hours due to technological improvement, productivity just goes up from them working more efficiently for 8 hours.
- MattPalmer1086 1y ago
  Have you met many humans? ;) A very large proportion of the people I've worked with over my career would absolutely work less hard if they could get away with it.
  - arcane23 1y ago
    Ah for sure, that's not what I meant. I was talking about the fact that sooner or later people running the business figure out they can increase the workload if employees have too much spare time. Else we'd be at pre-computers productivity levels.
    - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
      Fair point!

reval 1y ago

Snark aside, this is the main topic of Eli Goldratt's "The Goal" - one of my favourite books. Output of the business is constrained by some bottleneck. Improving efficiency away from the bottleneck is just waste. Said differently, enhancing individual productivity has no effect on the business output unless doing so elevates the bottleneck. Sadly, most business don't know what their constraints are or are otherwise blocked from elevating them due to politics and other factors.

stubish 1y ago

You have to factor in the cost of the tools. And also, just because an employee is producing more code or more reports or more trades or more summaries per day, that doesn't guarantee the company will make more money. If you enabled your market analysts to make twice as many trades per day, you will likely lose money if they actually did that. Because they were already finding the good trades, and now they are also making the not-so-good trades and maybe even the unlikely trades. And also, in the longer term not being shown in existing studies, you are in an arms race with your competitors. Like advertising, you will be spending a lot of that money in order to counter the spending of your competitors, and you both lose the game of prisoners dilemma, the only winner being the arms dealer selling to both sides.

rsynnott 1y ago

How is this 'enhancing individual productivity' being measured? If by self-reporting, it's worthless. Here's a recent experiment: https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/m365_copilot_uk_government/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/m365_copilot_uk_gover... A fairly common pattern seems to be emerging; users _believe_ that it makes them more productive, but attempts to actually measure this don't show that.