AI investment has expanded rapidly, with organizations introducing copilots, agents, and generative AI across functions. Yet the business transformation many leaders anticipated can remain difficult to identify. A 2026 analysis found that nearly 40% of companies tracking AI cost savings achieved less than 10%, while 90% planned to increase their budgets. Additionally, 38% of finance leaders and 39% of CEOs considered it too early to determine whether AI was delivering value.

For Alina Kukarina, co-founder of Deeply Human Innovation, these figures point toward a broader leadership question. Her experience across digital transformation, software, and management training has led her to examine how organizations make decisions before technology enters the picture. She suggests that the natural reaction to disappointing results can be to examine the technology, the model, or employee adoption. A deeper issue can sit earlier in the process. Organizations may begin implementation before defining precisely what they are trying to improve.

That gap can be described as a “thinking gap.” Businesses typically develop financial plans, implementation schedules, and technology roadmaps, while the structured thinking that connects those elements can receive less attention. Kukarina says, “The starting question often becomes, ‘Where can we use AI?‘ A more useful starting point would be to ask, ‘What are we trying to improve, and why?‘”

The distinction matters because technology can accelerate an existing workflow with remarkable efficiency. If that workflow contains unnecessary steps, unclear ownership, weak data, or decisions that depend heavily on human judgment, automation can amplify issues that arise at scale. Kukarina points to a simple principle. “Process evaluation should precede AI evaluation. Organizations need to understand how work happens, where value is created or lost, and where human judgment remains essential before assigning technology a role,” she states.

In her approach, she considers five connected elements: Problem, People, Process, Technology, and Outcome. The problem establishes the purpose. People reveal who is affected and where judgment, expertise, and trust matter. Meanwhile, the process shows how work currently happens. Technology identifies which technology to choose and whether AI will provide meaningful assistance. The outcome defines the business and human results leadership expects to improve and needs to be defined from the outset.

This sequence also creates a stronger basis for leadership decisions, including financials. AI initiatives carry costs involving software, infrastructure, training, governance, integration, and potential mistakes. Their value can extend across customer satisfaction, employee experience, service quality, and operational performance. Kukarina argues that leaders benefit from examining those dimensions together. For example, an AI-generated response may increase speed while influencing how a customer perceives the organization, while an AI-generated employee development plan may affect trust and motivation.

Success metrics then deserve the same scrutiny as implementation plans. License counts, user numbers, and token consumption can describe activity and cost, while business impact requires a wider lens. Kukarina points to time saved, retention, employee satisfaction, reputation, and the quality of customer interactions as examples of indicators that can reveal whether technology is contributing meaningful value.

Research on AI transformation supports the importance of this broader view. Around 70% of potential AI value sits within core functions such as sales, marketing, manufacturing, supply chain, and pricing, areas where workflow redesign can have substantial implications. Another study found that workflow redesign had the strongest relationship with EBIT impact among 25 organizational attributes studied.

People therefore become part of the implementation equation from the beginning. Kukarina’s work at Deeply Human Innovation includes strategic advisory, intelligence and research, innovation programs, and ecosystem-building designed to connect technological ambition with human and organizational considerations. Her experience suggests employee reactions can provide valuable operational information. Resistance may reveal accumulated change fatigue, unclear responsibilities, insufficient preparation, or practical issues that executive planning has missed.

This perspective also informs her “Well-Being Compass,” built around four principles: proactive thinking, purpose-driven decisions, humanity-centric design, and adaptability. The framework encourages leaders to consider scenarios in which models, markets, regulations, workforce expectations, or business conditions change. It also invites them to challenge assumptions such as universal data readiness or the expectation that every new AI capability belongs somewhere in the organization.

Her philosophy extends beyond AI implementation. Deeply Human Innovation’s purpose is to embed humanity-centric thinking into the tools, teams, and systems shaping the digital world. That perspective places organizational decisions within a wider social context, where business choices can influence employees, customers, communities, and future generations.

“The quality of our tools matters, and so does the quality of the world those tools help us create,” Kukarina remarks. For leaders, that expands the AI conversation from deployment to responsibility. The strategic advantage may come from developing the discipline to decide where intelligence belongs, how people participate, and which outcomes deserve investment.

Essentially, technology can accelerate execution, but strategic judgment remains a human responsibility. For Kukarina, that judgment begins before implementation, with the questions leaders choose to ask.

Get the TNW newsletter

Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.