Where the value leaks

The state of it

One of 7 topics within ROI measurement.

17 documents from 10 organizations address the gap between a gain that is real in the process and a gain that is visible in the accounts. This is the smallest topic here and the one executives ask about most.

The mechanism is consistent wherever it is described: time saved becomes money saved only if the freed capacity is deliberately redeployed or removed. Absent that decision, the hours are reabsorbed by the work that was already queued, the process genuinely is faster, and the P&L is unchanged. Nobody has misreported anything, and there is still no return.

The issues, by agreement

How many independent organizations name each issue as a problem. An issue is only as real as the number of separate publishers that identify it, so the count is the ranking. Bars are organizations, not documents. Where the count reads ours, no publisher here states the issue and the analysis is our own.

The issues in full

Each issue carries the organizations that name it, the numbers behind it, and the remedies proposed - with the concrete steps under each. Every citation points at a section of a named document, so any count here can be checked.

Issue 012 organizations name itnewest evidence Jul 2026

Time saved is not money saved unless the freed capacity is deliberately reused

Hours released by AI are absorbed by existing backlog by default. Converting them into a financial result requires an explicit decision that is usually never taken.

23%Opportunity expressed as a share of salaries, upper boundKPMG · Jan 2025

How to fix it — 1 approach, 3 steps

Decide what happens to the freed hours before deploying

Name in advance whether released capacity is redeployed to a specific backlog, or removed. Both are legitimate; the absence of a decision is not.

Done when The investment paper records what released capacity is for - a named backlog or a reduction - the six-month check on whether it happened is done, and any reabsorbed capacity has been reflected in a restated return.

Record the intended use of released capacity in the investment paper: redeploy to what, or reduce.0-30 daysCFO
Track whether it happened at six months, and report the answer.90-180 daysCOO
Where capacity was reabsorbed, restate the claimed return honestly.ongoingCFO

The evidence — 4 documents

Organization	Document	Position
Boston Consulting GroupConsultancy · July 2026	Driving cost advantage with AIOur reading Frames the objective as structural cost advantage that reshapes the P&L, distinguishing it from efficiency that does not reach the accounts, and reports 60% seeing no material gains despite investment.Reshaping the P&L	names it
Boston Consulting GroupConsultancy · September 2025	The gen AI transformation of the communications functionOur reading Expresses the gain as time a function can reclaim, which makes the redeployment decision the determinant of whether any value is realised.Reclaimable time	names it
KPMGConsultancy · March 2025	Value at StakeOur reading Sizes the opportunity as a share of EBITDA and of salaries, locating realisation in workforce decisions rather than in the technology.Value at stake	names it
Boston Consulting GroupConsultancy · December 2024	AI value creation in leading enterprisesOur reading Places most of the required effort in people and process change, which is where reabsorption is either prevented or not.The 10-20-70 framing	proposes a fix

Issue 021 organization name it2026 evidence

The value sits in core operations and the investment goes to support functions

Support functions are easier to pilot in and easier to approve. The majority of the available value is not there.

How to fix it — 1 approach, 2 steps

Require one core-process deployment before funding more support work

Make core-operations deployment a condition of continued support-function investment, so the harder work is never indefinitely deferred.

Done when Every funded initiative is classified core-operations or support, and at least one core deployment is in production before any further support-function work is approved.

Classify every funded initiative as core-operations or support before the next budget round.0-30 daysCOO
Require at least one core deployment in production before approving further support-function work.30-90 daysCEO

The evidence — 2 documents

Organization	Document	Position
Boston Consulting GroupConsultancy · December 2024	AI value creation in leading enterprisesOur reading Reports 62% of AI value potential coming from core business functions while noting leaders deliberately focus on both rather than defaulting to support.Core and support functions	names it
Boston Consulting GroupConsultancy · July 2026	Driving cost advantage with AIOur reading Ties value generation to deliberate deployment into core operations at scale rather than peripheral application.Depth of commitment	names it

Who is represented

This dossier is drawn from 10 organizations working on the subject, 2 of which are cited directly in the issues above.

Consultancy — 5

Boston Consulting Group 7 KPMG 1 Accenture 2 McKinsey & Company 2 Capgemini 1

Institution — 1

NIST 1

Academic — 1

arXiv (research) 1

Hyperscaler — 2

IBM 1 Microsoft 1

Vendor — 1

TechWolf 1