Posted on

The Pilot-to-Production Chasm: Why “Successful Pilots” Still Fail

AI pilot
Series Post #2

The Pilot-to-Production Chasm: Why GenAI “Success” Often Stops at the Pilot

Most organizations can launch an AI pilot. Very few can integrate it into core workflows without breaking in edge cases, losing trust, or creating more work than they remove.

The uncomfortable truth

The report highlights a steep drop from investigation → pilot → implementation for task-specific enterprise tools.

What this post gives you

A practical checklist to turn pilots into workflow-integrated systems that users trust—and leaders can measure.

Why pilots “look good” but production breaks

Pilots often operate in controlled conditions: partial data, friendly users, and simplified scenarios. Production is different:
messy inputs, shifting priorities, and edge cases. That’s where brittle AI tooling collapses.
The report attributes many failures to poor workflow fit, lack of contextual learning, and systems that don’t improve over time.

Production reality checklist

  • Edge cases: What happens when inputs are missing, contradictory, or late?
  • Ownership: Who is accountable for the workflow—not just the tool?
  • Integration: Does it plug into the systems people already use?
  • Trust: Can users guide and iterate outputs without fighting the tool?
  • Learning: Does the system retain feedback and improve?

Why generic tools win (and still lose)

The report notes a paradox: general-purpose tools feel better to users because they are fast, familiar, and flexible.
But they often fail in mission-critical workflows because they lack persistent memory and require too much manual context.
That’s why organizations get stuck—useful for quick tasks, unreliable for core operations.

A 4-step conversion plan: Pilot → Production

1) Define “success” in business terms

Cycle time reduction, fewer errors, fewer touchpoints, lower external spend. Avoid vanity metrics.

2) Standardize inputs

Make the workflow predictable: required fields, templates, and data boundaries.

3) Build exception paths

Automate the routine. Escalate high-risk cases. Log decisions to refine rules.

4) Add feedback loops

The “learning gap” closes only when systems retain corrections and improve over time.

Need help getting a pilot into production?

We’ll redesign the workflow, define metrics, and implement AI in a way that survives real operations.

Contact Us

Posted on

The GenAI Divide: Why 95% Get Zero ROI (and What the 5% Do Differently)

GenAI divide
AI + Operations Series
Based on MIT NANDA Research (2025)

The GenAI Divide: Why 95% of Organizations Get Zero ROI

Enterprise spend on GenAI is huge, adoption is high, and yet most organizations report no measurable P&L impact. The “GenAI Divide” explains why only a small group extracts real value—and how to join them.

Quick takeaway

The gap isn’t model quality. It’s approach: workflow fit, learning capability (memory + adaptation), and operational integration determine outcomes.

What the research found

The report calls it the GenAI Divide: many organizations adopt general-purpose tools, but very few turn AI into measurable business performance.
A key claim is stark—most organizations see no measurable return, while a small minority extracts meaningful value at scale.

High
Adoption

Teams try ChatGPT/Copilot quickly because the interface is familiar and flexible.

Low
Transformation

Most efforts stop at productivity improvements—not P&L impact.

Rare
Scale

Custom tools often stall due to brittle workflows and poor fit in day-to-day operations.

The real reason most GenAI initiatives stall

According to the report, the core barrier is not infrastructure, regulation, or talent. It’s learning:
many GenAI systems don’t retain feedback, don’t adapt to context, and don’t improve over time. In real operations,
that creates friction instead of reliability.

What the 5% do differently

  • They start with a specific process (not a generic “AI program”).
  • They measure outcomes (cycle time, error rate, external spend reduction).
  • They demand workflow fit (integration with existing systems and real user behavior).
  • They choose tools that learn (memory + feedback loops).

A simple “Monday morning” playbook

  1. Pick one repeatable workflow that touches revenue, risk, or delivery (approvals, ticket routing, document handling, forecasting prep).
  2. Map it: trigger → inputs → decision → handoffs → outcome.
  3. Remove ambiguity: define required inputs and rules (and what counts as an exception).
  4. Deploy AI where it removes friction (summaries, routing, extraction, drafting, classification).
  5. Track 2–3 metrics weekly and iterate for 30 days.

Want to cross the GenAI Divide in your organization?

We’ll identify a high-ROI workflow, build the measurement plan, and choose the right implementation path.

Talk to WSI