AI vendors need enterprise adoption to speed up or their investment community may lose heart. Unsurprisingly many of them  vendors are turning to the big consultancies to encourage enterprises to pick up the pace in adopting AI technology stacks. 

Google has its $750 million fund to help its partnerships with Accenture, Deloitte and McKinsey, while OpenAI has its very similar Frontier Alliance initiative in place. 

And yet, amongst all the AI hype in the market, shouldn’t consultancies be a neutral advisory resource? Can they retain that neutrality if they are incentivised to sell AI technology stacks? 

 Sam Shar, CEO of Trend-Setters Consulting Inc. has his doubts. Shar’s company is a consultancy in the US that works with Fortune 500 companies to execute and modernize their operations providing digital development management, enterprise fax, desktop services and workplace transformation. His pitch: 

We form the bridge between technical strategy and its execution and we implement technology appropriately.

What he has noticed is that: 

A lot of companies are trying to adopt their own version of AI. They are pitched a lot by external AI vendors and are now pushing to adopt their own AI models. They want to own it and so are buying AI before identifying the business problems or how to measure success. 

We seem to be back at a point where technology is directing investment, rather than seeing it as simply one technology that can help with digitalization efforts. You need to take a look at business requirements first and undertake some analysis to determine use cases. Stop rushing to the gates of building it all yourself because these systems are not free to build. Whereas if you outsource then you have to be more aware of the desired end-result and how to measure ROI.

Shar thinks that an objective AI consultant should be promoting model flexibility for long term resilience from shocks, including in prices. Since AI technology is developing so rapidly, he thinks it is irresponsible for consultancies to hitch their wagons to specific technology stacks at the moment because it could well lead enterprises to make ill-conceived or risky investments: 

My argument is not that AI is bad but that we shouldn’t lose our heads and rush ahead with excitement without understanding what we need and how we measure outcomes. What business process will change? You need patience to do the research before implementation.

It is wise to become familiar with AI, to educate yourself on a new technology that is changing the world, but you should not be in a rush to spend on it, to risk a poor investment that will annoy your shareholders. A lot of companies are pushing the technology but do not know how it will affect your business’s bottom line.

Of course, consultancies have been partnering with technology vendors for decades. Indeed, Shar’s company itself has clearance to sell Xerox solutions to other clients. The difference lies with the type of technology that AI is since it develops extremely quickly and enterprises are uncertain about how to proceed and concerned about the vulnerabilities it may expose their businesses to. 

This, Shar argues, is a period of time when consultancies should be providing objective balanced counsel, not advocating a particular vendor as a sales person in the guise of a neutral advisor. As Shar phrases it:

Companies need someone on their side – we are tech advisory not software sales. If you take the analogy of an Audi dealership, once you enter you will be talking to an Audi salesman and you will leave with an Audi car. Similarly with AI vendors and some GSIs.”

He continues: 

Clients engage us to step into a complex environment and understand how the project has to move to keep pace with the business. We are neutral and unbiased and can take part in vendor pitches with you. Change management is important as projects rarely fail because of the technology. You need strong leadership and clear communication. Hire some consultants at the front end to listen to tech vendor sales pitches with you.

We are not just being engaged for AI as we have years of experience with our clients. AI is a part of broader conversations, and as we are already in place, working as part of the client’s team, make use of us to help you make the best AI procurement decision for your business.

Shar also thinks that once a pilot is completed, it is best if the consultant stays on for the deployment journey to help to drive adoption in the enterprise, arguing: 

We can help you modernize without upsetting current operations.”

He concludes:

This is like a gold rush, it is very exciting, but we need a more disciplined approach.

I think Shar raises some valid points about the role of the GSI in enterprise adoption of AI. Of course, the GSIs themselves would argue they have expertise in several models and ultimately it is the client’s decision which model and technology stack is adopted. 

The point that Shar makes is a good one, however, as with a technology developing so very quickly many enterprises will be depending on their partners to advise them. At which point advice may be compromised by financial incentives. Indeed, one wonders whether quite so many large enterprises would have rushed to embrace CoPilot without active encouragement from certain GSIs. Now we are experiencing a market where CFOs are a little jaded about finding ROI from AI investment. 

The point is that faster enterprise adoption alone will not keep AI momentum going for long because once enterprise shareholders lose patience in waiting for business returns the AI bubble will burst. Tech advisors might be wise to stay in their lane as independent counsellors.