New McKinsey research reveals a significant AI adoption gap. While 88% of organizations use AI, nearly two-thirds haven't scaled it beyond pilots, meaning they are not behind their peers. This explains why only 39% report enterprise-level EBIT impact. True high-performers succeed by fundamentally redesigning workflows, not just experimenting.

Companies feel immense pressure to integrate AI to stay competitive, leading to massive spending. However, this rush means they lack the infrastructure to measure ROI, creating a paradox of anxious investment without clear proof of value.

Focusing on AI for cost savings yields incremental gains. The transformative value comes from rethinking entire workflows to drive top-line growth. This is achieved by either delivering a service much faster or by expanding a high-touch service to a vastly larger audience ("do more").

In the current market, AI companies see explosive growth through two primary vectors: attaching to the massive AI compute spend or directly replacing human labor. Companies merely using AI to improve an existing product without hitting one of these drivers risk being discounted as they lack a clear, exponential growth narrative.

C-suites are more motivated to adopt AI for revenue-generating "front office" activities (like investment analysis) than for cost-saving "back office" automation. The direct, tangible impact on making more money overcomes the organizational inertia that often stalls efficiency-focused technology deployments.

An "AI arms race" is underway where stakeholders apply AI to broken, adversarial processes. The true transformation comes from reinventing these workflows entirely, such as moving to real-time payment adjudication where trust is pre-established, thus eliminating the core conflict that AI is currently used to fight over.

The life sciences investor base is highly technical, demanding concrete data and a clear path to profitability. This rigor acts as a natural barrier to the kind of narrative-driven, AI-fueled hype seen in other sectors, delaying froth until fundamental catalysts are proven.

The AI investment case might be inverted. While tech firms spend trillions on infrastructure with uncertain returns, traditional sector companies (industrials, healthcare) can leverage powerful AI services for a fraction of the cost. They capture a massive 'value gap,' gaining productivity without the huge capital outlay.

While AI investment has exploded, US productivity has barely risen. Valuations are priced as if a societal transformation is complete, yet 95% of GenAI pilots fail to positively impact company P&Ls. This gap between market expectation and real-world economic benefit creates systemic risk.