---
id: "action-redesign-business-processes"
type: "action-item"
source_timestamps: ["§ What to Do Instead"]
tags: ["process-engineering", "employee-engagement"]
related: ["concept-individual-vs-process-productivity", "framework-effective-ai-implementation"]
speakers: ["Thomas H. Davenport", "Laks Srinivasan"]
action: "Initiate process redesign efforts that treat AI as an enabler, actively involving existing employees."
outcome: "Systemic process-level efficiency gains rather than isolated, individual task improvements."
sources: ["execution"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-execution"
originDay: 8
articleStem: "hbr-foci-62-layoffs-ai-potential-not-performance"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/01/companies-are-laying-off-workers-because-of-ais-potential-not-its-performance"
sourceTitle: "Companies Are Laying Off Workers Because of AI’s Potential—Not Its Performance"
---
# Redesign Business Processes with AI as Enabler

**Action:** Do not simply overlay AI onto existing workflows. Initiate a dedicated business-process-redesign effort that treats AI as an *enabler* of entirely new ways of working — and involve existing employees to leverage their domain expertise in ideating better workflows.

**Why:** This is the only path from individual gains to systemic value — the translation gap of [[concept-individual-vs-process-productivity]] and [[claim-translation-difficulty]]. It requires the prerequisite in [[prereq-process-engineering]].

**Outcome:** Systemic, process-level efficiency gains rather than isolated task improvements.

Step 3 of [[framework-effective-ai-implementation]]; the open methodological challenge is [[question-translating-productivity]]. **Enrichment:** BCG (reshape workflows end-to-end) and McKinsey (operating-model/workflow redesign as the true barrier) both converge on this.


## Related across articles
- [[claim-process-redesign-required]]
- [[action-redesign-interorganizational-processes]]