Because the alternative to saving money with AI is providing better services with AI - if it can be done. And the people to do that are the people doing the job.
If a human clerk handling applications or something makes an error 1 in a 100 applications and an AI system has the same error rate but is far cheaper. Then quality stays the same.
Because now you exluded the option of having the employee choose which applications to have Ai process and which need human review - the option that delivers the most quality
No? Where have I excluded that option?
If for normal volumes 100 employees are need to process. And with AI only 50 are needed, then it’s still cost saving?
I’m making up numbers because I don’t have the actual numbers and 2x is easy for the example, insert whatever numbers you like.
The issue with that statement is that putting double the employees on a project doesn’t always improve its quality.
If we go with the numbers we have been going with and a employee with AI is twice as productive then adding AI effectively doubles the time available. This only leads to a quality increase if work was being cut short. If each employee already got the required time necessary to handle a application with full quality then you haven’t increased quality but the capacity. If the now increased capacity is far above normal volume it is a waste to have so much excess capacity.
If we accept that employees spend the same amount of time as without AI but now the error rate is reduced then yes. I don’t think that is the case but I don’t have the numbers so who knows.
Because the alternative to saving money with AI is providing better services with AI - if it can be done. And the people to do that are the people doing the job.
Why are those mutually exclusive?
If a human clerk handling applications or something makes an error 1 in a 100 applications and an AI system has the same error rate but is far cheaper. Then quality stays the same.
Because now you exluded the option of having the employee choose which applications to have Ai process and which need human review - the option that delivers the most quality
No? Where have I excluded that option? If for normal volumes 100 employees are need to process. And with AI only 50 are needed, then it’s still cost saving?
If we’re making up numbers my point is that with 100 employees using AI you get 2x the quality than 50 employees using AI
I’m making up numbers because I don’t have the actual numbers and 2x is easy for the example, insert whatever numbers you like.
The issue with that statement is that putting double the employees on a project doesn’t always improve its quality.
If we go with the numbers we have been going with and a employee with AI is twice as productive then adding AI effectively doubles the time available. This only leads to a quality increase if work was being cut short. If each employee already got the required time necessary to handle a application with full quality then you haven’t increased quality but the capacity. If the now increased capacity is far above normal volume it is a waste to have so much excess capacity.
Hardly, you need to maintain the same numbers to double check the work of AI. Haven’t improved throughput, but this guarantees better quality
If we accept that employees spend the same amount of time as without AI but now the error rate is reduced then yes. I don’t think that is the case but I don’t have the numbers so who knows.