Earlier in my career I've noticed that there was the distinct separation of "marketing" vs "digital marketing" (or "internet marketing", if you go even further back). I recall being quite puzzled about that even then - isn't digital marketing still marketing, just a different form and function? Even in those days, I've always advocated that the digital and physical should move in tandem, and the digital should be supported with physical and on ground initiatives. (I wondered then, if 30 years ago there was a separation between "TV advertising" and advertising as a whole?)

Thankfully, though, over the years I've seen that this separation has largely gone away, and nowadays, the entire marketing or comms team do oversee the various different ways, methods, forms and means - of which, digital is one.

Another categorical division I've noticed: "IT" initiatives or systems vs everything else.

In fact, I recall a conversation with a client a couple years back where we were trying to figure out how to position the budgeting of the system I had developed for them, to his board.

The board felt that the system - because it was a system - fell under "IT"'s jurisdiction and therefore, under IT's budgets.

But the system was one that was running Sales (leads), Aftersales (loyalty and recurring sales), and CRM.

If that system were to be cut tomorrow, all those would go back to being manual. Or, the entire business would be on a standstill for a day.

Wouldn't that be considered a crucial item for the business?

Pretty much as crucial as the building they were working in.

However, the strangeness was that because it sat as a system cost under an operating budget, it was treated as something considerably more negotiable than the physical infrastructure the business operated from.

Accounting classification aside - operationally, was there really that much difference? Turn off either the system or the building tomorrow and people aren't getting much work done.

(On a similar note: how do most company treat "internet connection" expenses? Under IT? Just curious.)

So, similarly, right now we are seeing the AI hype, where businesses are looking for AI specialists in marketing, AI in transformation, AI engineers, AI leaders. Hey, this is good - it's a new field, and not many people have really gone into the full exploration and skill-enhancement needed for this new field.

However, from a holistic, business-transformation approach - shouldn't AI not be the end goal, but really, as one of the possible implementation tools and method to transform the business itself?

I.e.

Not: "we need AI" or "we must have AI".

But:

"We need to bring our business and workflows to the best it can be and we need to see what are the tools and means to make that happen, and one of them is AI".

I think in a couple of years, "AI" may start going the way of "digital marketing".

Not because AI becomes less important. Quite the opposite. Because it becomes sufficiently normal that separating "AI transformation" from transformation itself starts becoming strange.

I.e.

Probably not starting with: "we need AI", but instead, with: "What should this business be capable of doing?"

What does the best shape of the business look like? What does ideal workflow to get there look like? What needs to change in the people, processes, data and systems to make that possible?

And then: what are the best tools, methods and means to get us there?

Sometimes the answer will be AI, sometimes integration, and sometimes changing processes. Or sometimes, even an Excel sheet, because that's what really works best for that situation.

And sometimes it'll be getting people from different departments to sit down and actually talk to each other.

The transformation is the objective. AI is one of the means.