---
id: "entity-emacom"
type: "entity"
entityType: "organization"
canonicalName: "Emacom"
aliases: ["disguised name (Australian manufacturer)"]
source_timestamps: ["§ Effect #1: The “Technology-first” Trap"]
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/dont-let-ai-reinforce-organizational-silos"
source_title: "Don't Let AI Reinforce Organizational Silos"
tags: ["case-study", "manufacturing"]
related: ["concept-technology-first-trap"]
sources: ["tail2"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-tail2"
originDay: 2
articleStem: "hbr-tail-130-ai-reinforce-silos"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/dont-let-ai-reinforce-organizational-silos"
sourceTitle: "Don’t Let AI Reinforce Organizational Silos"
---
# Emacom

**Type:** Case study — disguised name for an Australian manufacturing company advised by the authors.

**Illustrates:** The [[concept-technology-first-trap]] (Effect #1). Emacom deployed siloed AI tools across four functions — IT (predictive maintenance), supply chain (demand forecasting), sales (customer service), and HR (resume screening) — each adopted technology-first and in isolation.

**Outcome:** The disconnected tools generated localized efficiency gains but completely failed to solve the company's core, cross-functional challenge of reducing operational delays. Emacom is the article's canonical example of how [[concept-department-centric-ai]] produces fragmented efficiency without strategic progress.