My one thought piece on AI

 

This is going to be my one post on the place of AI and my opinions on how we are handling it in business and life.

AI. It’s been the big talking point for the last year or so and is still a front page topic. is it going to take all our jobs, spark a revolution, or create new opportunities? At first glance, AI does look like another seismic shift akin to the sewing machine, mechanised loom, or Ford’s production line. But there’s something fundamentally different about this wave.

Unlike past revolutions, AI doesn’t seem primed to create jobs at scale. It won’t spawn entirely new industries in the same way we’ve seen before. Instead, we’re likely looking at significant genuine job losses, particularly among lower-level white-collar roles.

In the Short-term, we’ll see disruptions as many companies will eagerly adopt AI to reduce costs and boost productivity quickly. But that’s where things get tricky as in doing that a certain way, you strip the long term growth out of your own company.

Lets take my own career as a technical PM. My effectiveness in this role comes directly from the breadth of my experience, having worked my way up through the lower level roles that AI now threatens. When I meet fellow managers lacking that foundational experience, their narrow perspectives are glaringly obvious. They struggle because they lack the hands-on knowledge gained from climbing the career ladder step by step.

If we let AI sweep away lower-end roles entirely, the future leaders and decision-makers won’t just lack depth; they’ll be missing the creative problem-solving skills developed by working through small, varied challenges. AI excels at averaging human outputs, but brilliance and breakthroughs often come from the “odd ones out,” those uniquely creative individuals whose careers and ideas evolve slowly over time.

Companies adopting wholesale AI driven job cuts might thrive briefly, lowering costs and increasing productivity, but will inevitably pay a steep price down the road. In five to ten years, we’ll experience a severe creativity and skill gap, causing real damage.

So what should sane businesses do instead? Integrate AI subtly and strategically. Take insurance claims, for example. AI excels at quickly identifying suspicious claims, far better than most humans on first initial checks, which means claim handlers don’t waste so much time sifting through genuine claims and can concentrate on the ones with a higher probability of being fraudulent. Leveraging AI in such a supportive way, rather than broadly replacing roles, allows businesses to boost efficiency without sacrificing human development.

This issue is particularly stark in creative industries. Jobs like artists, video editors, and audio engineers may seem like a good idea to replace with AI as it can theoretically turn an inexact set of processes into ones that can be managed precisely. But losing these foundational roles to AI doesn’t merely eliminate positions; it stifles future creativity. Rebuilding lost creative foundations is far more challenging than retraining white-collar workers. So, personally, while I use AI to eliminate tedious tasks,

I consciously avoid AI-generated creative content. Supporting human creativity, rather than replacing it, is critical.

How, then, do we roll with integrating with AI as individuals? I think back to my first corporate role during university placement, at the dawn of outsourcing to the Indian subcontinent. Everyone worried about job security. but a network technician named Richard Nixon told me simply: “Make sure you’re worth your money.” and that is how we should look at ourselves.

AI isn’t free, it’s a business tool, and companies providing AI will profit significantly. But AI has inherent limitations. The key is identifying human-specific strengths, intuition, flexibility, emotional intelligence, nuanced communication, and emphasising those. Managers seeking immediate cost savings might underestimate these qualities initially, but they’ll soon miss the critical human elements that AI can’t replicate 1.

AI, despite its capabilities, struggles to navigate human subtleties: body language, tone, persuasion, and ethical gray areas. These interactions are precisely where humans excel and prove their irreplaceable value.

Ultimately, AI is a remarkable tool, indeed it could be one of the greatest tools humanity ever creates, and if used thoughtfully, it will enhance human capabilities massively. But if handled recklessly, focusing solely on short-term gains, the long-term costs could be a right cluster f**k.

  1. Well not currently[↩]

Corporate term: “Fundamental”

Definition:

Fundamental: A non-accusatory term describing something implemented only at its bare functional level, but not yet properly completed or robust.

Explanation:

The term “fundamental” refers to systems, processes, or features implemented minimally to meet an immediate project deadline or delivery requirement but not subsequently refined or completed to a sustainable standard.

Although functional, these fundamentals often lack essential attributes such as comprehensive documentation, support infrastructure, or operational resilience.

Common examples include:

  • Software: implemented without proper support teams or documentation.
  • Network features: implemented but still requiring significant manual intervention and maintenance.
  • Business processes: heavily reliant on a single individual’s specialised knowledge, creating vulnerability due to lack of redundancy.

Using the term “fundamental” avoids assigning blame while clearly highlighting the importance of addressing the unfinished aspects. It implicitly communicates to management that such tasks are critical for long-term operational efficiency.

Completing fundamentals not only reduces business and technical debt but also significantly lowers operational risks and ongoing resource overhead.

Although refining existing fundamentals might appear less exciting compared to pursuing new initiatives, the long-term benefits, such as freeing resources and reducing risk, substantially enhance organisational capacity for future projects.

 

Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.

 

Corporate term: “War list”

Definition:

A war list is an informal term for a concise list of priority items used when a project is starting to spiral slightly out of control. It is most commonly employed by a task force.

Explanation:

A War List, often just a single-sheet on an Excel file, might initially start as a very long list of all the things that need attention on a project. However, it is the project manager’s responsibility to organise and prioritise this list, transforming it into a structured “order of march.”
The War List differs from a regular task list because it is typically managed manually, frequently updated by the project manager themselves in a spreadsheet. It serves as their personal working document to track and manage tasks. While other team members are not expected to update this list directly, it remains accessible as a constant, living reference for the team.

Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.

 

Developing software: the very old versus the very new.

 

I had a fascinating experience recently that really highlighted how far software development has come, and how some things haven’t changed at all. It began, as many of my days do, with trying to resolve a conflict between two technical teams who weren’t seeing eye-to-eye.

Normally, getting everyone in a room to clarify dependencies is straightforward enough, but this time, something unusual was at play.

On the surface, it seemed like a typical methodology clash: one team heavily leaned toward waterfall approaches, while the other embraced agile development. Easy enough, right? Just find common ground between methods and move on.

But as the discussion unfolded, it quickly became apparent there was more to the issue. Both teams, despite their methodological differences, consisted mainly of younger developers with around ten years of professional experience. And yet, the deeper we dug, the clearer it became that struggles to understand each other’s challenges was rooted not in methods, but in the technologies they were using.

One team was working with a cloud-based service UI, a modern SaaS environment where flexibility is the norm. Defining and changing fields in such systems is almost effortless: you can quickly roll back changes, validation updates automatically, and code provides clear flags and warnings. Fields are disposable, easy to manage, and quick to modify even at the last minute.

Contrast this with the other team’s world, developing for a mainframe system that has been around for more than three decades.

Here, field definitions are anything but flexible. Fields are strictly limited in length, difficult to modify once provisioned, and changing field types after the fact is practically impossible. In some cases, the system demands pre-provisioning fields en masse just to have some flexibility later, making every change a monumental effort.

This stark difference in environments had created a disconnect. Each team was frustrated, not realising the other’s technical constraints. The cloud-based team couldn’t comprehend why changing fields could be such a big deal, while the mainframe team couldn’t understand why the cloud team kept pushing changes that seemed careless and that made assumptions.

It was fascinating because usually, this kind of misunderstanding happens between technical and non-technical teams or between business stakeholders and developers. But this was a rare case of two technical teams misunderstanding each other simply because their platforms and experiences were worlds apart.

For me, it was a powerful reminder: integration specialists and project managers today don’t just bridge business requirements and technical execution, they also need to bridge knowledge gaps between entirely different technological eras.
It’s not enough to understand the technology you work with; you have to grasp the challenges faced by those working on completely different platforms, sometimes from a completely different generation of computing.

Why do Project Managers do what they Do (support edition)

 

If you work in a support, technical, or specialist role, you’ve probably felt the urge to dismiss a project manager’s status or planning demand with “I’ll get to it later.” or “FFS” but before you do, it helps to remember what drives their behaviour.

Project managers are hired to deliver one outcome, nothing more, nothing less.

Especially in contract roles, their performance is judged almost exclusively on whether the project’s scope, timeline, and budget are met. They aren’t rewarded for keeping infrastructure stability long term or for preserving team morale. They’re rewarded for shipping.

Because of that narrow mandate, they will:

  • Relentlessly pursue status updates: Frequent check‑ins aren’t harassment; they’re risk management.
  • Prioritise deadlines over comfort: If a subject‑matter expert is at capacity, the project manager may still push, because slipping the schedule is costlier to their success and thus them than your overload.
  • Ignore peripheral fires: Issues that don’t directly block the project often fall outside their remit, even if they matter to you.

Understanding this incentive structure doesn’t excuse poor behaviour, but it does offer practical ways of working with them:

  • Clarify capacity early: Spell out what’s realistic, agree on trade‑offs, and document them.
  • Frame updates in impact terms: Explain how delays or scope changes affect the critical path; PMs will adjust if the risk is explicit.
  • Escalate strategically: When workload or morale is at stake, involve sponsors who balance delivery with sustainability, even offer to talk to the sponsors directly to help fight your case.

A project manager’s laser‑focus can feel abrasive, yet it’s the same focus that keeps initiatives from drifting. Recognise the problems they face, communicate to them within that context, and you will be able to get a better working relationship.