For CIOs and transformation leaders, the real question is not whether employees should experiment with AI, but how that experimentation is governed, measured and translated into repeatable business value. Personal fluency can improve judgment, yet without clear decision rights it can also create uneven quality, shadow use and fragmented tool sprawl. Leaders need to decide who approves use cases, what data can be exposed, and how output is reviewed before it reaches customers or regulated workflows.
The management trade-off is breadth versus proof. Broad AI access may lift productivity, but productivity gains are not the same as ROI. That means portfolio owners should distinguish between enterprise enablement and targeted remediation of pain points such as rework, cycle-time delays, exception handling or data-quality failures. The practical question is not โHow much AI are people using?โ but โWhich operational costs are falling, and by how much?โ
This also changes the operating model for adoption. If staff are expected to become effective AI users, then training cannot stop at prompting tips; it must cover validation, escalation, and when not to trust the output. Managers should ask whether current controls are strong enough for wider use, whether the organisation has a common standard for acceptable results, and how to capture learnings from power users without turning them into isolated champions.
For leadership teams, the next step is to align AI ambition to measurable business problems. The useful follow-up questions are: Which processes are ready for a controlled pilot? What baseline numbers will prove improvement? And which use cases should wait until governance, data quality and operating discipline are stronger?
How power users can help ROI with AI
In a one-on-one interview with InformationWeek, Arora explained further that being a power user still requires a grounded approach to AI in the workplace to realize ROI for the organization. “There is a pressure to be reporting some kind of progress on a quarter-by-quarter basis. These kinds of investments take time,” he said. It is essential to find the right metrics to show actual, relevant progress in solving problems via AI, Arora said. AI can be used to solve a pain point, whether it is a broken process, fragmented data that results in inaccuracies or just a lot of churn in connecting all the dots, he said. How to get the right metrics? Organizations should start by quantifying their pain points that AI can assist with, rather than quantifying the value of AI, Arora said. This includes maintaining consistency, the cost of systems being down, and figuring out what went wrong. “If you have those numbers to begin with, then you can say, ‘Can we deploy AI where this dollar number can go down?'” he asks. That establishes a benchmark that companies can start with. Indeed, the basic ROI formula has changed little over the years, Arora said, but AI has introduced a new wrinkle:-
Real revenue-generation + Cost savings + Operational efficiencies – Cost to deploy AI = ROI
A panel of expectations for AI
The forum, hosted by data intelligence platform provider DDN, included Aser Blanco, global IBD head, banking at Nvidia; Moiz Kohari, vice president of enterprise AI and data intelligence at DDN; and John Watso, managing director of tactical opportunities from Blackstone, as moderator. During the panel discussion, Blanco said Nvidia spoke recently with more than 1,000 financial institutions around the world, who said their AI plans for 2026 were already lined up. “They’re going to invest 10% or more on AI. The growth in AI investment is going to grow by more than 10% and I think almost half of them said they could be spending more,” Blanco said. Nvidia, of course, has a lot of skin in the AI market as a significant supplier of advanced GPUs that support AI developmentย . Kohari said while agentic AI gets a lot of attention at the moment, other forms of AI also have roles to play. “There is predictive AI that is being leveraged to do different types of predictions, especially in financial markets. And then there is natural language processing โฆ which allows us to take unstructured data and then provide some levels of insights,” Kohari said. The panel also discussed the MIT study from August that asserted most companies that launched AI pilots did not see any ROI from their efforts. Arora was not put off by the studyโs claims. “The interesting aspect is trying to understand why 95% of the companies are getting zero returns on their pilots. Once you can uncover that, you really understand what’s going on,” he said. Arora went on to put the numbers in context, noting that 90% of all startups fail, and 70% of all change management initiatives also fail. “The reason why a lot of the pilots are failing is not because the technologyโs not there, but it’s because the organization isn’t ready to scale the technology that’s been used in those pilots,” he said.Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.

