How can a business tell whether workplace AI is producing a meaningful result rather than another encouraging adoption chart? In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Scott Pope, Director of Value Advisory at Nexthink, about a problem facing many technology leaders. AI tools are reaching employees quickly, but deployment, usage, and business value are often treated as though they describe the same thing. They do not. A company can distribute thousands of licenses and report active users without knowing whether work became faster, easier, less expensive, or less frustrating. Scott argues that AI value has to be defined before a rollout begins. Productivity may matter most to a chief executive or HR leader, while a CFO may focus on cost and an IT support manager may watch ticket volumes. Each stakeholder is working with a different currency of value. Without a baseline, the business cannot measure the gap between its starting point and the result it hopes to achieve. That distinction matters because familiar IT measurements can create a misleading picture. Scott says a decline in support tickets does not automatically prove that the employee experience improved. People may have stopped reporting problems, created workarounds, or accepted friction as part of the job. Infrastructure can appear healthy while employees continue to lose time at the device, application, or workflow level. We discuss why digital employee experience, often shortened to DEX, has moved from a specialist IT concern into a wider business conversation. Work happens where employees interact with laptops, virtual desktops, mobile devices, applications, and services. Monitoring servers and cloud platforms remains useful, but it does not reveal every delay, failed interaction, or workaround experienced by the person trying to complete a task. Scott explains how observability can help organizations understand which AI tools employees are using, where adoption is deep or shallow, and which teams may need support. He is also careful to distinguish visibility from proof of value. Knowing that an employee opened an AI application is a starting point. It does not show whether the tool saved time, improved a decision, reduced cost, or produced a better customer result. The conversation also considers why one AI tool will not suit every role. Different teams work with different information, processes, risks, and desired outcomes. A persona based approach can help a business decide which technology fits the work rather than asking every employee to adopt the same product. It can also reveal where people need timely guidance instead of a training session delivered once and quickly forgotten. For Scott, the people question is where many programs become difficult. Providing access to software has become relatively straightforward, but changing established behavior takes communication, evidence, and a reason employees can recognize in their own work. Leaders often explain what AI could do for the business while giving less attention to the personal value for the person expected to use it. The opportunity is a workplace where technology problems are identified earlier, employees receive help at the moment they need it, and AI investments can be connected with measurable results. The risk is that businesses mistake purchasing and activity for progress while adoption becomes uneven and employees quietly carry the cost of poor implementation. Does your organization know what its AI tools are changing for employees, and which measure would give you the clearest answer? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts.
