AI at Work

How can a business tell whether workplace AI is producing a meaningful result rather than another encouraging adoption chart?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Scott Pope, Director of Value Advisory at Nexthink, about a problem facing many technology leaders. AI tools are reaching employees quickly, but deployment, usage, and business value are often treated as though they describe the same thing. They do not. A company can distribute thousands of licenses and report active users without knowing whether work became faster, easier, less expensive, or less frustrating.
Scott argues that AI value has to be defined before a rollout begins. Productivity may matter most to a chief executive or HR leader, while a CFO may focus on cost and an IT support manager may watch ticket volumes. Each stakeholder is working with a different currency of value. Without a baseline, the business cannot measure the gap between its starting point and the result it hopes to achieve.
That distinction matters because familiar IT measurements can create a misleading picture. Scott says a decline in support tickets does not automatically prove that the employee experience improved. People may have stopped reporting problems, created workarounds, or accepted friction as part of the job. Infrastructure can appear healthy while employees continue to lose time at the device, application, or workflow level.
We discuss why digital employee experience, often shortened to DEX, has moved from a specialist IT concern into a wider business conversation. Work happens where employees interact with laptops, virtual desktops, mobile devices, applications, and services. Monitoring servers and cloud platforms remains useful, but it does not reveal every delay, failed interaction, or workaround experienced by the person trying to complete a task.
Scott explains how observability can help organizations understand which AI tools employees are using, where adoption is deep or shallow, and which teams may need support. He is also careful to distinguish visibility from proof of value. Knowing that an employee opened an AI application is a starting point. It does not show whether the tool saved time, improved a decision, reduced cost, or produced a better customer result.
The conversation also considers why one AI tool will not suit every role. Different teams work with different information, processes, risks, and desired outcomes. A persona based approach can help a business decide which technology fits the work rather than asking every employee to adopt the same product. It can also reveal where people need timely guidance instead of a training session delivered once and quickly forgotten.
For Scott, the people question is where many programs become difficult. Providing access to software has become relatively straightforward, but changing established behavior takes communication, evidence, and a reason employees can recognize in their own work. Leaders often explain what AI could do for the business while giving less attention to the personal value for the person expected to use it.
The opportunity is a workplace where technology problems are identified earlier, employees receive help at the moment they need it, and AI investments can be connected with measurable results. The risk is that businesses mistake purchasing and activity for progress while adoption becomes uneven and employees quietly carry the cost of poor implementation.
Does your organization know what its AI tools are changing for employees, and which measure would give you the clearest answer? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts.

What happens when companies stop adding isolated AI tools and begin redesigning entire business processes around AI employees?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Surojit Chatterjee, founder and CEO of Ema, which stands for Enterprise Machine Assistant. We discuss why the debate about AI replacing jobs often misses the larger business question: how should organizations redesign work when intelligent systems can coordinate tasks, access enterprise knowledge and complete workflows across multiple applications?
Surojit describes this as “agentic business transformation.” Instead of giving every employee another chatbot or assistant, organizations can use coordinated AI agents to manage processes that cross departments, systems and approval chains. People remain responsible for setting boundaries, reviewing sensitive decisions and deciding when an agent has earned greater autonomy.
He shares the example of Wipro, where an Ema-powered system called WiproNow supports around 240,000 employees across 65 countries. According to Surojit, it covers approximately 70 use cases spanning the employee journey from recruitment to retirement, connecting with over 100 enterprise applications.
The reported results show why workflow-level automation matters. Average response times for employee requests reportedly fell from five days to less than five seconds, while employee satisfaction increased by almost 20 percentage points. Surojit also says the number of people needed for this work fell from roughly 1,000 to 550, with employees reassigned to other areas.
We also discuss why companies do not need perfect data before beginning. Surojit argues that capable AI systems can identify contradictions, missing information and undocumented processes as they work. This can expose the informal knowledge that organizations often discover only when an experienced employee leaves or goes on vacation.
Trust remains the deciding factor. Surojit compares deploying an AI employee with hiring a talented new colleague. Leaders provide context, test performance, review early decisions and gradually increase autonomy. Clear boundaries remain necessary for sensitive issues involving areas such as employee relations, healthcare or financial decisions.
The practical lesson is that meaningful AI returns come from redesigning work across teams rather than measuring prompts, tokens or individual productivity gains. Is your organization preparing AI to own complete workflows, or giving employees another tool to manage? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.

Why are some businesses generating measurable value from AI while others remain surrounded by pilots, rising costs and impressive demonstrations that never reach daily operations?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Brad Hairston, Director of Strategy at SS&C Blue Prism, about the operational and cultural foundations that separate productive AI programs from expensive experimentation.
Brad spent 30 years in consulting before joining SS&C Blue Prism around seven and a half years ago. He now works within the company’s Customer Zero program, which deploys SS&C’s automation technology internally before it reaches customers. Brad says the program has helped SS&C grow revenue by approximately one billion dollars without adding headcount.
We discuss why AI programs should begin with the business outcome rather than the latest model. Brad explains why companies making progress connect their automation investments with corporate strategy, build on existing robotic process automation and create reusable governance, security, orchestration and measurement practices.
Brad also challenges the idea that AI agents will replace every deterministic automation. Rules-based digital workers remain useful for predictable processes, while AI agents can support work that requires reasoning and adaptation. Combining both approaches can also provide greater control over cost.
Our conversation examines what should happen before an AI agent receives permission to make payments, update customer records or initiate business processes. Brad recommends defined roles, limited permissions, human approval for higher-risk decisions, complete audit trails and an orchestration layer connecting agents with people, APIs and digital workers.
We also discuss how companies can give employees access to no-code automation while maintaining common standards and oversight. Brad describes the federated model used inside SS&C, where individual business units build automations through shared platforms, templates and governance.
For leaders feeling overwhelmed by daily announcements from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and other providers, Brad offers simple advice: take a breath, return to the business problem and begin with a process where the outcome can be measured.
Is your AI program building reusable capabilities with every deployment, or simply adding another experiment to the pilot queue? Please share your thoughts with me.

If anyone can produce a professional-looking image or video with AI, what will make audiences care about one piece of content over another?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Joaquín Cuenca, co-founder and CEO of Freepik, about how generative AI is changing creative work, business workflows, and access to professional production. Freepik serves over one million paid subscribers, while Joaquín says the platform attracts over 70 million monthly visitors.
At that scale, Freepik has seen the difference between an impressive AI demonstration and a tool people can rely on for real creative work. Joaquín argues that generating something attractive is easy. Producing something that reflects a precise idea, maintains consistency, and creates an emotional response requires direction, judgment, and human intent.
We also discuss what Joaquín calls the no-collar economy. His view is that lower production costs will allow individuals, smaller companies, and modestly funded creative teams to pursue projects that previously looked too expensive or risky. That could create opportunities for storytellers, photographers, audio specialists, performers, and other creative professionals. Joaquín also acknowledges that some existing roles will be affected as machines take over repeatable production work.
For companies adopting creative AI, Joaquín recommends looking past licenses, activity, and content volume. Experimentation has value while teams are learning, but businesses eventually need to connect AI adoption with revenue, costs, brand performance, or another measurable return.
We also consider the threat of AI slop. Better tools cannot provide taste, purpose, or a compelling story. As technical production becomes easier, those human qualities may become the greatest source of differentiation.
Will easier production produce a new generation of creators, or will businesses fill every channel with forgettable content? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.

What does an AI first workplace look like when every employee has an agent but every person remains responsible for the outcome?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Alex Svanevik, co-founder and CEO of Nansen, about how his company is integrating AI agents into daily operations while retaining human judgment, security boundaries, and quality control.
Nansen has around 80 employees, and Alex says each person has been given an AI agent. His own agent, Winnie, prepares draft agendas using previous meetings, company objectives, strategy, and cultural context. Alex then works with the agent to improve the agenda before the meeting begins.
His use of AI extends beyond routine administration. Alex describes building the first version of a Nansen product through Telegram while walking with his daughter. By the time he returned home, the agent had created a working product that later became a command line interface used by thousands of people.
There is also a lighter side to this deeply connected life. Alex and his wife occasionally use their respective agents to broker disagreements. As someone who has been married long enough to appreciate the commercial possibilities of automated diplomacy, I suspect this could become an unexpectedly popular category.
The workplace message is serious. Nansen expects employees to use AI across much of their work, but Alex says the human must own the quality, output, and result. Employees cannot blame the tool for inaccurate, generic, or poorly reviewed work.
Alex compares the review process with sending a disappointing meal back to the kitchen. The first output may be acceptable, but reaching a high standard often requires several rounds of feedback. He believes judgment and taste will become strong sources of differentiation as average quality becomes easier to produce.
We also discuss the security tension surrounding workplace AI. Alex argues that companies must consider the risk of avoiding AI because attackers and competitors are using it. His preference is to provide employees with approved tools and safe environments rather than leave them to assemble uncontrolled alternatives.
One of his most practical recommendations concerns machine readable information. Documents, code, designs, spreadsheets, and diagrams must be accessible to both employees and agents. Nansen has moved internal work toward GitHub repositories, Markdown documents, CSV files, and other formats agents can process.
Making everything readable only by machines would create a different problem. People must retain the ability to inspect, understand, and approve the work. The aim is shared accessibility rather than transferring complete control to an agent.
Evaluation becomes especially important when agents influence financial decisions. Nansen tests trading agents through backtesting, measuring whether they can interpret data, judge the significance of news, and produce profitable decisions. A separate optimizer or coach then recommends improvements to each agent’s strategy.
Alex closes with four human traits he believes will matter in an AI first workplace: high agency, good problem selection, judgment and taste, and clear communication. Experimentation amplifies those qualities, provided people avoid unnecessary risk and retain ownership of the result.
Could giving every employee an AI agent increase productivity while making personal accountability even more important? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.