---
id: "contrarian-problem-over-tech"
type: "contrarian-insight"
source_timestamps: ["§ Understand Market Trends"]
tags: ["strategy", "hype-cycle", "contrarian-insight"]
related: ["claim-business-problem-first", "quote-problem-first", "framework-ai-deployment-process"]
challenges: "The conventional wisdom that companies must urgently develop a dedicated 'AI Strategy' to avoid being left behind."
sources: ["commercial"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-commercial"
originDay: 5
articleStem: "hbr-foci-64-ai-broaden-customer-base"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/03/how-one-company-used-ai-to-broaden-its-customer-base"
sourceTitle: "How One Company Used AI to Broaden Its Customer Base"
---
# Reject 'AI Strategy' in Favor of Business Strategy (Contrarian)

**Contrarian insight.** In an era where companies rush to hire Chief AI Officers and mandate AI adoption top-down, the authors argue that having an **"AI strategy" is a mistake**. Companies should instead focus purely on **business problems and market trends**, treating AI as merely one potential tool among many. This challenges the tech-first, FOMO-driven approach dominating current corporate behavior.

This insight is the argumentative spine of the whole source: it underwrites [[claim-business-problem-first]], is voiced directly in [[quote-problem-first]], and drives step 1 of the [[framework-ai-deployment-process|Strategic AI Deployment Process]].

> **Counter-perspective (from enrichment):** Many organizations hold that a **top-down AI strategy and governance framework** is necessary to avoid fragmented, risky adoption — especially with agentic AI and regulatory scrutiny. SAP's own AI Agent Hub and "SAP Business AI" branding suggest a *coherent AI strategy already exists alongside* problem-led use cases. A strong enterprise AI strategy can coexist with a "business-problem-first" principle; rejecting "AI strategy" outright may oversimplify governance needs.


## Related across articles
- [[contrarian-better-product-fails]]
- [[contrarian-hype-does-not-equal-readiness]]