No, 95% of AI Pilots Are Not Failing
Pilot Error: The Stall Was Scope, Not Science
I read Fortune’s headline and did what a lot of executives did: I winced. Then I tracked down the source, listened to a careful breakdown, and compared it with what I see inside client programs on a weekly basis. The “95% fail” claim is shaky. The coverage was worse. And the real lesson is not that AI pilots are doomed, it is that sloppy pilot design produces noisy results and scary headlines.
Where the 95% headline goes off the rails
First, what the piece actually summarized: an MIT project pulled together interviews and surveys, then looked at hundreds of public AI initiatives, and concluded that 95% of pilots “failed to deliver any discernible financial savings or uplift in profits.” In the same breath, it acknowledges that the bigger issue was how companies utilized the technology, not the technology itself. In other words, process and change, not model quality. That context did not survive the headline or the market reaction.
Second, the study design is thin for a market-moving claim. We are referring to a few hundred executives and employees, as well as a review of public write-ups. That mix blends apples and oranges, self-report and press releases, pilots and production. Useful color, not a scoreboard.
Third, the definition of success is fuzzy. A pilot “fails” if no one can point to sustained P&L impact. That is a high bar if the pilot was scoped as an experiment for a handful of users with no plan to change staffing, volumes, or service levels. If a team becomes 30 percent faster but does not change the work, the income statement will not change. That is not an AI problem. That is a management choice.
Fourth, even access to the report created confusion. People were quoting headlines before the full document was widely available. Once more folks actually read it, the story looked different: heavy employee use outside official channels, a pattern of tinkering in sales and marketing, and the same three blockers I see every day, sponsorship, integration, and adoption.
Fifth, the budget mix should raise an eyebrow. If half of your gen-AI spend goes to front-of-house experiments, of course the financial signal is faint. Back-office document work, risk checks, reconciliations, vendor invoices, and month-end commentary produce clearer savings faster. When pilots focus there, the math shows up.
Sixth, even the press coverage softened later. The real point, when you read through the examples, is simple: organizational learning and workflow design matter far more than whichever model you picked. That is the line every COO I work with recognizes, because it matches the lived reality of pilots that stall in integration, not in the prompt window.
Here is the plain-English takeaway I wish had been the headline: most pilots fail to show up in P&L because they are scoped as tools for individuals, not as changes to work. Treat pilots as process changes with owners, targets, and dates, and the “failure” rate drops fast.
What this means for you, practically
I care less about winning a debate and more about helping a pilot become a result. If you are setting up your next wave, here is what works.
Start with a unit of work you already count. “Reduce time-to-close by 20 percent on Tier-2 support tickets,” “Cut outside counsel spend on first-pass doc review by 25 percent,” “Auto-draft variance commentary for the top 50 accounts by day three.” If you cannot name the metric, you cannot claim the win.
Baseline before you touch anything. Capture current cycle time, error rate, rework, and external spend. Then, write a one-page plan that includes a target lift, a small pilot population, and a date by which the pilot either scales or stops. No vibes, just before-and-after.
Buy, then adapt. Off-the-shelf tools that already handle authentication, logging, auditing, and administration reach production more often than greenfield builds. Start with something serviceable, plug it into your data and workflow, and then tune it.
Make shadow AI official, safely. Your people are already using consumer tools. Provide them with an approved path that includes logging, red-team prompts, and a current model. Usage shifts from invisible to measurable, providing real data on where to focus your efforts.
Prioritize memory and integration over demo tricks. Tools that remember prior work, take feedback, and live inside systems of record survive the handoff from pilot to production. If it cannot read from and write to the places where work actually happens, it will not last.
Fund adoption like you fund licenses. A short class on prompts is not enough. Provide teams with playbooks, office hours, sandboxes, and a named owner who is accountable for the results. When pilots stall, it is almost always sponsorship, incentives, or access.
Go hunting in the back office first. Intake, extraction, summarization, reconciliation, and case-note drafting. The benefits show up as fewer vendor hours, fewer touches, shorter queues. Scale those, then come back to the splashy brand campaigns later.
Fortune’s headline lit the match. The details put the fire out. If you run a company, do not let a noisy week on the internet set your AI posture for the year. Design pilots that change work, pick metrics the CFO trusts, and measure, then decide. That is how pilots stop being pilots. And it is how you avoid becoming someone else’s headline.
If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to my newsletter and share it with your network! Looking for help to really drive the adoption of AI in your organization? Want to use AI to transform your team’s productivity? Reach out to me at: steve@intelligencebyintent.com