Why Companies Spend Millions on AI—but Have to Justify a Cake
ExplainersFriday, 10 July 2026 at 20:52
Companies are strikingly strict about small people-focused expenses, yet greenlight tech investments worth tens or even hundreds of millions with far fewer questions. That may say more about our decision-making than about the technology itself.
Imagine sending a cake to a hundred customers during an online event. Finance will likely ask for the business case immediately. What’s the return? Can we measure it? Is it worth it?
Fair questions on their own. But why don’t we ask the same when an organization decides to pour hundreds of millions into AI, software, or digital transformation?
Why tech keeps getting a free pass
In many companies, a familiar pattern appears: technology is almost automatically framed as a future-proof bet. AI boosts efficiency. Automation lowers costs. New software makes you more innovative.
Sometimes those assumptions hold. But they’re scrutinized far less than people investments. A training program for employees? First, a detailed ROI model.
Enhancing customer experience with a personal touch? Prove it pays off.
A new multimillion-euro AI platform? That “strategic” label often dissolves resistance.
The missing question: what else could you do?
Every investment has an opportunity cost. Money spent here can’t be spent there.
That lens is oddly absent from many large tech programs.
If an organization invests €300 million in AI, you should also be able to ask:
- What if we invested that money in top talent?
- What if we doubled customer support?
- What if we attracted world-class creative talent?
- What if we systematically upskilled our people?
This doesn’t mean AI is a bad bet. Far from it—AI can create massive value. But we rarely make the comparison on equal terms.
We’re measuring the wrong things
Even more striking: companies demand surgical precision on the ROI of human investments, while many big organizational choices barely get evaluated at all.
Take the open-plan office. For years, businesses rolled it out en masse to “boost collaboration.” Later studies showed employees actually communicated less in person, struggled to focus, and relied more on digital messages over face-to-face talks.
Yet many organizations stuck with the concept. Some ideas are so seductive that evidence barely dents them.
AI needs the same tough questions
Today’s AI boom shows the same pattern. Leaders don’t want to fall behind. Competitors are investing. No one wants to explain in five years why they were “late.”
That creates a psychology where investing in AI feels safe by default. Not investing feels risky.
That’s not objective analysis. It’s risk perception.
The question shouldn’t be: “Should we invest in AI?”
The better question is: “Is this the best way for this budget to create value?”
Tech is a tool, not the finish line
AI is undeniably reshaping how organizations operate. Productivity rises. Processes get smarter. New use cases appear at speed.
But technology isn’t a magic fix. The biggest gains almost always come from smart tech paired with smart people.
A great team with good AI tools will usually outperform an average team with the priciest software. Yet many organizations still act as if technology creates value on its own.
The strongest bet might still be people
Maybe the real blind spot in modern organizations isn’t underinvesting in AI.
Maybe it’s undervaluing human creativity, customer relationships, and craftsmanship.
You can buy an AI model.
You can’t buy customer trust.
You can’t buy creativity. Or a strong culture.
That’s exactly why every major tech investment deserves the same tough scrutiny as any other. Not because AI lacks value, but because sound leadership demands honest trade-offs.
So the most revealing question isn’t how much you spend on AI—but what you’re giving up to fund it.
Loading