Sorry, Paul, but when you say MNR is directionally right here, but I think the market still understates how hard “outcomes” actually are, and reference an IDC article, you’re off. The only part that’s right is that AI price wars miss the point (that you probably shouldn’t be using [Gen-]AI to begin with).
Outcomes only matter more … to the vendors. Because the meaning of outcomes in the vendor vernacular has NOTHING to do with results, but how they can spin their story to grift you as much as possible. As I clearly explained in my series on how Outcomes is a Dirty Word, which I now have to revisit, “outcomes” is always a way to charge you more for less (and sometimes next to nothing).
And it all has to do with (Gen)-AI costing way more than what the vendors want you to believe.
As per my initial post, while once exclusively the verbiage of GPOs, who wanted you to turn over a significant share of your procurement to them (to the point you’d be dependent on them and their ever-increasing cost of service for the entire existence of your business), or recovery audit firms, who wanted you to believe their services were the only way to recover your overspend, it’s now on the tip of every snake-slit tongue of every vendor rep.
While the vendor reps want you to believe that the reason you pay for “outcomes” instead of traditional SaaS pricing is that their AI will deliver immediate, measurable, results (instead of just transaction cost reductions where it will take at least a year to measure savings), and therefore you should pay (dearly) for those outcomes up front (because a success today is a CEO pat on the head today), that’s not the real reason. (Especially when those projected savings from the auto-sourcing and procurement events will never materialize.)
The real reason they are pushing for outcome-based pricing is that (Gen)-AI compute costs are now so high (and won’t compress as the energy and cooling costs keep rising as the majority of existing data centers are on already overstrained grids) that they can’t afford to sell the solution using a traditional SaaS based pricing model — they wouldn’t even cover their compute costs! (Most of which is wasted since most of what is being “automated” by these solutions can be automated by traditional A-RPA SaaS solutions for a fraction of the cost, as long as you don’t need a natural language interface or slick UX — and you don’t!)
The reality is that the software (assisted) solution from any vendor selling on an “outcome” model isn’t worth it, and (Gen-)AI forgets what software is supposed to be about — enabling efficiency so Human Intelligence (HI!) can achieve outcomes using low-cost Augmented Intelligence solutions.
And until a new generation of AI emerges where hallucinations aren’t a core function, measurability and confidence are restored, and compute costs are inline with classic AI tech, AI models won’t become utilities. We are years away from a systems problem!
The only way to get value is, as Paul pointed out, to redesign workflows, align incentives, clean up constraints, and embed decision logic into execution and find fairly priced modern tech with orchestration and “real” AI (in the form of Augmented Intelligence built on best-of-breed analytics, optimization, and machine learning) that will allow you to make decisions 10 times faster AND 10 times better.
The vendors who ultimately win when the AI crash hits will be those that built real tech on tried-and-true analytical, optimization, and machine learning models that will, as Paul states:
- drastically reduce cycle times,
- minimize manual intervention (via A-RPA where the response to every exception remembered, encoded, and applied to all future instances),
- improve overall compliance,
- increase throughput, and, ultimately
- allow for better decisions.
And, as Paul points out, that’s not building yet another chatbot. That’s building real systems that work!
And, FYI, Gen-AI is not feature theatre. It’s puppet theatre! And while puppet theatre may provide entertainment, it’s not a viable business model!