Project Management

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

When someone says, “we should use AI,” how do you unpack what’s really being asked?

linkedin twitter facebook   Artificial Intelligence  
avatar
Michael Brinn
PMI Team Member
Product Manager, Learning| PMI Denver, Colorado, United States

What signals help you tell different kinds of AI work apart—and what tends to go wrong when everything gets lumped together?

Have you ever been in a conversation where “AI” meant different things to different people? What tipped you off?

Share your experiences navigating what’s really being asked when someone says “we should use AI” in the comments below.

Sort By:
< 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 >
avatar
J Kim Consultant| Accellon, Inc. South Riding, VA, United States
When most people say "We should use AI!", they just mean buying a $20/month subscription and creating generic AI slop like most everyone else. But enterprise AI is a workflow problem, not a tooling problem. You have to map the process, refactor out the waste, and only integrate AI where it definitively accelerates delivery and drives real mission value.
avatar
Gloria DELA CRUZ Philippines
amazing
avatar
Ibrahim Kitaz Riyadh, 01, Saudi Arabia
For me, the key signal is the job itself: content generation, prediction, classification, and autonomous action are not the same kind of AI work. Lumping them together usually leads to inflated expectations, weak governance, and the wrong solution for the actual business need.
When someone says “we should use AI,” I’ve learned to ask a simple follow-up: do you want AI to write, analyze, recommend, or act? That question usually clarifies what is really being asked.
avatar
Adnan Alghanmi Saudi Arabia

Bridging the Gap: Delivery vs. Value Creation in AI Project Management. Hi everyone, While I feel very confident in the Planning and Delivery phases of my projects, I find that Value Creation—specifically measuring the long-term institutional impact and organizational transformation driven by AI initiatives—remains the most challenging and ambiguous area. I am currently working on a research proposal to measure the impact of AI-powered coding assistants on the efficiency of software engineers. While I can easily track delivery metrics, quantifying the true "value" and scaling it into actionable policy is a complex hurdle. I’d love to hear your perspectives: How do you move beyond just "delivering" a project to ensuring you are demonstrably creating lasting value? How do you measure the success of AI implementation beyond simple efficiency gains? Looking forward to your insights!

avatar
Ebenezer Ofori Gyekye Laboratory Operations Officer| Gti health care Greater Accra, Ghana
Mar 19, 2026 11:15 AM
Replying to Omar Jabbar
...
I’ve been asked this many times, and my first response is always: what do you want to achieve with AI? Once the outcome is clear, we can define the right approach, tools, and path forward.

AI gives you the leverage to consider facts and data across the globe and even limit it to your locality.

AI also gives you the ability to choose a dynamic of framework that suits your operation when given a proper tailored inputs for a better feedback.

avatar
Joanna Tan Singapore, Singapore
Feb 19, 2026 1:05 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Great question.

When someone says “we should use AI,” the conversation is rarely about technology itself.
It is usually about pressure for speed, efficiency, innovation, or competitive leverage. The first step is to clarify intent.

Three signals help distinguish what is really being asked.

First, decision proximity.
Is AI automating a task, augmenting human judgment, or moving toward managing objectives autonomously?
These are fundamentally different categories of work.
The closer AI gets to consequential decisions, the stronger the need for governance, traceability, and explicit oversight.

Second, problem clarity.
Is there a clearly defined business problem with measurable impact, or is AI being treated as the starting point?
When the solution precedes the problem, misalignment and inflated expectations follow.

Third, accountability design.
Who owns the outcome if an AI-driven recommendation fails?
When responsibility becomes diffuse, risk scales faster than performance.

In many organizations, “AI” simultaneously means efficiency, experimentation, and cost reduction to different stakeholders.
Misalignment becomes visible when decision flows and ownership are unclear.
A common tipping point is when stakeholders use the same word “AI” but describe different success metrics.

The real shift is not from manual to automated.
It is from “man in the loop” to “man in control.” Without deliberate design of responsibility, capability increases while accountability erodes.

Clarity of purpose, category of AI work, and ownership separates disciplined transformation from technological noise.
Agreed
avatar
Mohamad Fadil Malaysia
When someone says, “We should use AI,” People start thinking use right tools for right jobs.
avatar
Rawan Mohamed Tekno Consultancy
ok
avatar
Rawan Mohamed Tekno Consultancy
We should use AI often sounds decisive, but it usually hides very different intentions.
I’ve found that using AI patterns as a mental model helps unpack whether the real ask is automation, insight, recommendation, or behavior change.
For project managers, framing the problem clearly is often more critical than the AI itself.
avatar
Rawan Mohamed Tekno Consultancy
Feb 22, 2026 7:45 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
The first thing is to clarify what AI means. Human beings are using AI from more than 50 years ago. We are surrounded of AI entities embeded inside refrigerators, air conditioners, cell phones, etc, etc, Unfortunately in the last time some people and organizations are contributing to the general confusion using generative AI as a synonim of AI.
agree
< 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 >

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

"There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out."

- Russian proverb

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors