95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

Full disclosure: I'm currently in a leadership role on an AI engineering team, so it's in my best interest for AI to be perceived as driving value.

Here's a relatively straightforward application of AI that is set to save my company millions of dollars annually.

We operate large call centers, and agents were previously spending 3-5 minutes after each call writing manual summaries of the calls.

We recently switched to using AI to transcribe and write these summaries. Not only are the summaries better than those produced by our human agents, they also free up the human agents to do higher-value work.

It's not sexy. It's not going to replace anyone's job. But it's a huge, measurable efficiency gain.

What’s the actual business value of a “summary” though? A transcript is the record. A tag or structured note (“warranty claim,” “billing dispute,” “out of scope”) is actionable. But a free-form blob of prose? That’s just narrative garnish - which, if wrong or biased, is worse than useless.

Imagine a human agent or AI summarises: “Customer accepted proposed solution.” Did they? Or did they say “I’ll think about it”? Those aren’t the same thing, but in the dashboard they look identical. Summaries can erase nuance, hedge words, emotional tone, or the fact the customer hung up furious.

If you’re running a call centre, the question is: are you using this text to drive decisions, or is it just paperwork to make management feel like something is documented? Because “we saved millions on producing inaccurate metadata nobody really needs” isn’t quite the slam dunk it sounds like.