Why AI on Old Processes Fails: The 46-Hour to 6-Hour Lesson

Jan de Vries · 2026-09-16

AI is moving into boardrooms faster than most businesses can figure out what to do with it. For Jim Harris, the bigger risk isn't moving too slowly. It's bolting new technology onto old ways of working and expecting a miracle. Harris specializes in GenAI and disruptive innovation. He advises executive teams and has worked with organizations including American Express, Barclays, IBM, SAP, Walmart, and the UK Cabinet Office. In 2024, TEC Canada named him Speaker of the Year for his work on AI. In an exclusive interview with the AI Speakers Agency conducted by Tabish Ali, Harris explains why companies need to redesign processes from scratch, how leaders can ease employees' fear of AI, and why keeping humans involved still matters as adoption accelerates. ### Stop Sprinkling AI Fairy Dust on Old Processes This is the heart of Harris's argument, and it comes with a story that's hard to forget. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Harris interviewed the head of AI for Ernst & Young in the US. EY has 400,000 employees and has spent a billion dollars on AI. EY had a 46-hour risk management process it ran for clients. The team thought, why not apply some AI to it? Working with the people who designed the process, they got it down to 32 hours. That's a 20% gain, which is great. Then they tried something different. They paired technology-first, AI-first new hires with risk managers who had never been involved in the process. They got it down to 15 minutes. Then reality kicked in. Compliance and verification had to be added back. The final number: six hours. > "You can't just sprinkle some AI fairy dust on your existing processes and hope to get the greatest gain." — Jim Harris Look at the arc: 46 hours, 32 hours, 15 minutes, then back to six. That's a more than 80% reduction. And it only happened because they started with a blank sheet of paper. ### Why Fresh Eyes Beat Process Veterans Harris points out something uncomfortable. The people who designed a process are, consciously or not, wedded to it. They know all the reasons it works the way it does. That's exactly what makes them the wrong people to reinvent it. The fix isn't to fire anyone. It's to bring in people with no history with the process, pair them with subject experts, and ask a simple question: - If we were designing this today from first principles, what would we do? - What steps exist only because of a limitation that no longer applies? - Where can AI-first thinking replace manual work entirely? - What must stay because of compliance, and what can be rebuilt around it? That last point matters. EY didn't keep six hours because they were lazy. They kept it because data compliance and verification are real requirements. The win was redesigning around those requirements, not ignoring them. ### How Leaders Can Reduce the Fear of AI Harris says the first move is creating psychological safety. Most people in developed nations actually fear AI. They fear job loss, and adults tend to be uncomfortable with new ways of working. So organizations have to work hard to send three clear messages: - Your job is safe. - We're going to provide training. - This will enhance your skill set and your employability. That's not a one-time speech. It's a posture leaders have to hold as adoption accelerates, because fear doesn't disappear after the first all-hands meeting. ### The Bottom Line for Business Leaders AI isn't a finishing coat you brush onto a process built in 2018. It's a reason to tear the process down and rebuild it. Companies that treat it as an add-on will get 20% gains. Companies that redesign from scratch are seeing 80% and more. The difference isn't the technology. It's the willingness to ask hard questions, bring in fresh eyes, and redeploy people toward work that actually matters.