Don’t Let Your AI Proof of Concept End With the Demo

In a September 24 letter to The Wall Street Journal, Sparq CEO Ingrid Curtis makes an important distinction between experimenting with AI and being ready to deploy it enterprise-wide. “A successful pilot proves little,” she writes. AI earns trust when it performs reliably “within the messy reality of a working business.”

One widely circulated 2025 statistic, based on IDC research for Lenovo (and reported by CIO), suggested that 88% of AI proofs of concept (PoCs) fail to result in widespread deployment. BCG reported in late 2024 that 74% of companies struggle to achieve and scale value from AI. But deployment may not be the only measure of a successful PoC. What did the organization learn from the experiment, and what happened to that knowledge?

Curtis argues that companies need to better prepare their AI applications, data, infrastructure, systems, and employees for that reality. I would add that the two most important contributors to this preparation are documentation and communication.

In my last two posts, I’ve focused primarily on external content—and the AI-mitigated audiences that interact with it. But demand for enterprise-ready AI is also creating demand for important internal content: the knowledge organizations generate as they experiment with the technology.

That knowledge shouldn’t disappear when the PoC ends.

An internal AI PoC is not complete when an organization determines whether the technology can perform as expected. It is complete when the organization documents, communicates, and applies what it learned to the decisions that come next.

Documentation creates organizational memory. Communication creates organizational knowledge. Both are essential if an AI PoC is going to become more than a successful experiment.

In this blog post, I answer these questions:

  • What is an AI PoC?
  • How can AI PoC documentation capture knowledge?
  • How can communication about AI PoC findings serve future efforts?
  • What kind of organizational knowledge can an AI PoC yield?
Read more →

Human Judgment vs. AI Insight: Rethinking Strategy in an Automated World

Visionaries have given us products that disrupted markets, but they have always had a strategy to back up the vision. Steve Jobs gave us a cellular phone (the iPhone) with a touchscreen keyboard because he hated mechanical keyboards. It also played music like Apple’s popular iPod and offered a world of apps you could download from Apple itself.

When Herb Kelleher took Southwest Airlines nationwide, he had a vision for making air travel affordable for all: he would model it after Greyhound bus lines. For better or worse, that led Southwest to implement its less expensive point-to-point flight patterns, distinct from the other airlines’ hub-and-spoke patterns.

The vision drove the strategy, and, no doubt, many project managers and communications professionals made it work.

In recent months, I have heard a subtle but important shift in how professionals talk about strategy. Increasingly, teams are not just using AI to support execution; they are asking it to suggest direction. Prompts such as “What should our strategy be?” or “What is the best approach?” crop up more and more in both project environments and content strategy discussions.

This shift raises an important question: Are we improving strategic thinking, or are we outsourcing it?

This post explores the following:

  • What Strategy Really Is
  • Features of Experience-Based Strategy
  • Features of AI-Influenced Strategy
  • Comparison of the Two Approaches
  • The Blended Approach—And Its Risks
  • Caveat: HITL Is Not a Panacea
  • Conditions for Effective Blending
  • Structuring Strategy in an AI Environment: A Model
  • Practical Applications
  • Strategy Still Requires Human Ownership
Read more →

Thistle-Tomes

The following are my 2024 short takes on all things content in life and work:

  1. No one is an expert on AI yet. Take everything with a grain of salt.
  2. Sustainability should be part of every content strategy and content project.
  3. Lack of specificity on websites can be both a friend and an enemy. Vagueness can leave room for negotiation but also misinterpretation.
  4. Jargon in customer-facing content can be a significant barrier to understanding and engagement.
  5. Something I like to call “name theory” says that what you call something matters. And it doesn’t have to rhyme with “oom.”
Read more →

The 5 Benefits of a Content Audit

If we’re honest with ourselves, we should be auditing our organization’s content more often than we do. A content audit, which is a survey and analysis of existing content, should encompass content that is online and printed, long and short, text, audio, video, and graphics. Or encompass at least the part of that whole that aligns with your organization’s current challenge.

If you’re having difficulty selling the need to conduct a content audit, this blog post is for you. If your organization has never conducted a content audit but you suspect it should let me help you understand what a content audit might reveal.

Read more →

Neurodivergence and Content Design: The Migraine Edition

Designing online content sensitive to user differences has been our responsibility for at least 20 years – in the U.S., since the advent of Section 508 requirements. During that time, our awareness of inclusivity has evolved to include (pun intended) neurodiversity, a term coined in the 1990s by Judy Singer.

Nick Walker, Ph.D., defines “neurodivergent” folks as having “a mind that functions in ways which diverge significantly from the dominant societal standards of ‘normal.’” (See her helpful blog post “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions.”)

The mind functions differently. That definition encompasses folks with dyslexia, autism, dyscalculia, ADHD, anxiety, and a neurological injury. It also includes me, a person with migraine disorder. Or it should.

Read more →