A competitor reports that a process now runs "with AI". A press release, a job vacancy that disappears, a product page that changes. At that moment you still don't know whether this concerns a task that AI takes over completely, a task where an employee reviews and approves or rejects AI outcomes, or an announcement primarily intended for investors and customers. These three situations look identical from the outside. They mean something different for the question of whether your own assumption about that competitor still holds.
The shift isn't in the announcement itself, but in what is no longer true afterward. A strategy that assumes a competitor is slow in a certain process, that a certain service remains labor-intensive, or that a price level is sustainable because everyone has the same cost structure — that assumption lapses the moment AI takes over a task somewhere in the chain. No one calls you to report it. The assumption simply remains in the plan, with a date that keeps getting older.
Useful signals rarely come from a single source. A job vacancy that disappears or changes in content says something about which task within a company no longer needs a full-time person — how you track vacancies that disappear or change explains what that does and doesn't demonstrate. A supplier building AI into its own product changes what your competitors will soon be able to purchase instead of developing themselves — to be tracked via how you track suppliers building AI into their product. And the price of AI capacity itself is moving, which means a task that was too expensive to automate last year may not be this year — see how you track the price of AI capacity. Only when you put these three side by side does an announcement become a signal rather than a news item.
Tracking daily mainly produces noise: every announcement then feels urgent. Never tracking means you only drop the assumption when a customer, an auditor, or a revenue figure tells you to. A fixed, recurring check — quarterly, tied to the moment when you're already looking at strategy anyway — is sufficient for most management teams to notice a shift before it translates into revenue or margin. The frequency depends on how quickly AI is being concretely deployed in your sector on the tasks that determine your own competitive position, not on how quickly the topic makes the news.
An announcement that a competitor is deploying AI means that a task has shifted category somewhere: from human work to AI with human oversight, or from oversight to full takeover. It doesn't automatically mean that competitor's costs are falling, that quality is changing, or that your own position is weakening. That depends on how large that task was within the overall process, and on what the competitor does with the freed-up capacity. Freed-up hours can go toward more volume, toward a lower price, or nowhere at all — that last option happens more often than announcements suggest.
What it does justify is a targeted question directed at your own list of assumptions: if this task has demonstrably shifted at a competitor, which assumption in our own plan still assumes that this isn't happening? That is a different question from "should we deploy AI too", and this page does not answer that latter question — which work in your own company can genuinely be taken over by AI is answered by FTE TO AI's work scan, per task, not per announcement.
The decision tied to this signal is usually not a personnel decision. It is a decision about the assumption itself: withdraw it, tighten it, or give it a new expiry date. Only once that assumption directly touches on the deployment of your own staff do your own statutory requirements around employership and employee co-determination apply — you assess that separately, not based on a competitor's announcement.
The difference between companies that track this signal and companies that don't rarely lies in access to information. Announcements are public. The difference lies in whether someone within management has the task of linking them to the list of assumptions, and whether that same management also knows what has already shifted internally — how you track what your own people are already doing with AI is often the first place where that shift becomes visible, sooner than at the competitor. Without viewing these two together, every external signal remains an isolated fact.
The strategic question is not whether you can track this signal — anyone can, given enough time. The question is whether your strategy is still based on assumptions that these signals have already overtaken. If you want to know whether your own plan is aging faster than you think, read what to do when the market changes faster than your plan or test directly whether your strategy still holds.
A first step that costs nothing is the free assumption check: a short round in which you name your most important assumptions and see, for each one, when it was last confirmed. The full strategic pressure test, with sector data, a self-plot for the management team, and an ongoing list of assumptions, is under construction.
Stel uw vraag. Vaak zit de echte vraag een laag dieper — daar mag ik naar vragen.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.