A competitor reports that part of the work is now being done by AI. A press release follows, a LinkedIn post, perhaps a quarterly figure mentioning an efficiency gain. The question that then arises within a board is rarely whether the report is accurate. The question is whether it means something for the company's own strategy, and that is a different kind of question than it first appears.
An announcement is not a measurement. It is a choice by another company to make something public, at a moment that suits them, in language that suits them. That doesn't make it worthless, but it does make it something other than a fact about the sector. Three sources can be distinguished, and they do not carry equal weight.
The first is the announcement itself: what a competitor says it is doing. The second is what its products, job postings, and supplier choices show is actually happening, which is often slower and less definitive than the announcement. The third is the broader sector movement: are more parties doing this, or is it an isolated step. What suppliers that build AI into their own product announce belongs in that third category: it doesn't change your competitor, but it changes what becomes available to everyone who uses that product.
The value of such a signal lies not in the figure mentioned, if there even is one, but in the direction. A competitor that deploys AI for a task that is still entirely done by people at your company shows that this task is apparently partly transferable: someone has tried it and dares to report on it. That is useful information, regardless of whether it would turn out the same way for you.
It also shows which category a task falls into. Some work can be taken over by AI without much oversight. Other work can only be partly taken over, with a person approving or rejecting and able to substantiate that. And a third kind of work remains work for people, regardless of what a competitor announces. An announcement that does not specify which category the task falls into says less than it appears to say.
An announcement says nothing about the speed at which this spreads through an entire sector. One company has data, systems, and a team ready for it; another does not. That difference explains why the same kind of work has already been handed over at one company and still rests entirely with people at another, without either one doing anything wrong.
It also says nothing about your own assumptions. If your strategy assumes that a particular task can only be done by experienced people, then a competitor doing something different with it is reason to examine that assumption, not to drop it immediately. The distinction between "this is happening elsewhere" and "this therefore also applies to us" is precisely the distinction that a strategic stress test makes.
Following competitor announcements daily mainly produces noise: every report then feels like a reason to adjust course. Never looking means an assumption can remain in place for years while the sector around it has moved on. A fixed rhythm, for example quarterly or linked to the company's own planning cycle, keeps the signal readable without letting it take over the agenda. What also plays a role here is what the price of AI capacity is doing at that moment: an announcement that is expensive to follow today may be accessible to everyone in the sector within a year, including you.
The decision attached to this signal is not "respond to the competitor." It is: which assumption in our own strategy rested on something that apparently no longer holds. That requires precision on two levels. First at the sector level: what is changing externally, and how certain is that. Then at your own level: is your team already doing something that already makes this shift visible internally, which can be tracked via what your own people are already doing with AI. Practice often runs ahead of what the board knows about it.
The underlying question, which work at this company can genuinely be taken over by AI, is answered per task by the FTE TO AI work scan. That is a different kind of answer than a competitor's announcement can give, because it concerns your own tasks and not someone else's.
If this question touches on personnel decisions, for example because a competitor's announcement is the occasion to discuss roles, separate legal requirements apply that are not covered here.
If you want to know whether your own strategic assumptions still align with what is happening in the sector, there is a fixed way to test that, described at how to test whether your strategy still holds up, and an explanation of exactly what an assumption is and how to see whether it still holds up at this page on strategic assumptions. A first step that costs nothing is the free assumption check: a short round in which you name your key assumptions and see, for each one, when it was last confirmed. The full stress test, with sector data alongside a self-plot of your own board team, 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.