Everyone is arguing about AI ROI right now. Boards want a number. Consultants are selling frameworks. And the headlines look brutal: an MIT report claimed 95% of enterprise GenAI pilots showed no measurable return, and a Forbes piece this January says 56% of CEOs see zero ROI from AI.
So AI is a bust, right?
Here is the thing. Ask any of those same companies to turn off email for a week. Just try it. Nobody ever ran a six month ROI study on email. Nobody had to. It became the way work happens, and the return stopped being a line item because it was everywhere.
I think AI is following the same path, and the data backs it up.
The gap between the pilot and the person
That same MIT report has a stat that got way less coverage than the 95% number: 90% of employees regularly use personal AI tools for work, while only 40% of companies have an official LLM subscription. Workers adopted it at more than twice the rate of their own employers. The report even found that 70% of workers prefer AI over a colleague for quick stuff like drafting emails and basic analysis.
So the official pilot fails its KPI review while the people inside the building are quietly using AI multiple times a day. That is not a failed technology. That is a measurement problem.
Worth noting: the 95% figure itself has been heavily criticized. It came from 52 interviews and a narrow definition of success. I would not build a strategy on that number in either direction.
Why the ROI is invisible
The value seems to be landing in the same place email's value landed: the unglamorous middle of the workday. Drafting the reply. Summarizing the thread. Turning messy notes into something you can send. None of that shows up as a new revenue line. It shows up as an hour you got back and immediately spent on something else.
You cannot easily measure that, but you can feel it. Take the tools away from a developer who has been using them for a year and watch what happens. People cannot imagine working without it anymore. That reaction is the ROI.
What I'd actually track
If you have to justify it, skip the moonshot pilot and count the boring stuff: time to first draft, time spent on status updates, how long the inbox takes in the morning. Small numbers, measured honestly, beat a big transformation deck every time.
Email never had a business case. It had users. AI is getting there the same way.
What's the one AI task you'd refuse to give back? Curious what it is for everyone else.
Top comments (6)
It's a bit scary that twice as many workers are using AI as the companies themselves. It seems there's still a lot of room to improve AI policies in the workplace. I can use AI at work, but I also wish I could use the latest AI tools, such as Fable 5, more freely.
Very true! Its like the wild west right now!
This is such a refreshing take, Evan. The email analogy is spot on, and I think you are right that we are dealing with a measurement problem rather than a technology failure.
If I may add two constructive thoughts:
First, beyond just "time saved," I believe the real ROI might lie in the quality of the time regained. Tracking "time to first draft" is a great start, but I would also suggest tracking the reduction in context-switching fatigue. Even saving 5 minutes of mental recalibration per task adds up significantly across a team over a quarter. That is harder to put on a spreadsheet, but it is exactly what makes a tool feel "essential."
Second, your point about 90% of employees using personal tools actually highlights another hidden ROI: risk mitigation. Companies that invest in official LLM subscriptions are not just buying productivity—they are also buying data security. Adopting sanctioned tools prevents sensitive internal information from ending up in free public versions that employees are already quietly using. That is a tangible cost avoidance that finance teams can definitely appreciate.
To answer your closing question: I would absolutely refuse to give up AI for summarizing long technical documentation or dense email threads. It turns a daunting 20-minute slog into a quick 5-minute validation check, and I honestly cannot imagine going back.
Great read—it really pushes us to rethink how we value foundational work tools. Thanks for sharing!
I couldn't agree more with your points. I personally, have been able to reclaim some of that time enjoying more time with my family and have more time for working out among others. Basically having a life again. Im glad it resonated, thank you for reading!
Really liked this article. The measurement problem is a valid point. Enterprise AI adoption is still in a stage of experimentation. With so much trial and error, should expect immediate ROI from every initiative? Maybe some value comes from learning what works and what doesn't.
I also liked your point that many people already experience ROI from AI in their everyday work, it's probably one of AI aspects that hardly anyone would disagree with 😀
Thank you so much! And you’re right, enterprise AI is still in its infancy but the technology is growing so rapidly. I’m glad you enjoyed the article! 😊