top of page

By:

Rahul Kulkarni

30 March 2025 at 3:32:54 pm

The Hidden Prerequisites for AI Leverage

Multipliers don’t create direction. They amplify what already exists Over the last two weeks, we’ve done something most AI conversations avoid. We’ve slowed down. First we acknowledged the truth founders don’t usually say aloud: AI isn’t a cure. It’s a diagnostic. In Week 2, Rashmi took us inside real operations and showed where AI breaks first: SOP gaps, unclear inputs, broken handoffs. This week, I want to address the question that quietly follows both pieces: If AI is not the engine of...

The Hidden Prerequisites for AI Leverage

Multipliers don’t create direction. They amplify what already exists Over the last two weeks, we’ve done something most AI conversations avoid. We’ve slowed down. First we acknowledged the truth founders don’t usually say aloud: AI isn’t a cure. It’s a diagnostic. In Week 2, Rashmi took us inside real operations and showed where AI breaks first: SOP gaps, unclear inputs, broken handoffs. This week, I want to address the question that quietly follows both pieces: If AI is not the engine of change, then what actually creates leverage? The answer is uncomfortable, especially in a year obsessed with tools. Leverage doesn’t come from intelligence. It comes from conditions. Why tools don’t create leverage on their own Founders often ask me, “Which AI tool should we standardise on?” But that question skips a more important one: “What must already be true in our business for any tool to help?” Because AI doesn’t generate value in isolation. It multiplies whatever system it is plugged into. If the system is stable, AI accelerates outcomes. If the system is fragile, AI accelerates noise. This is why some businesses see dramatic gains from very simple AI use cases, while others struggle even after large investments. The difference isn’t ambition or intelligence. It’s readiness. Condition 1: Stable processes, not heroic execution In many SMEs, outcomes depend on who handled the work, not how the work is designed. The best performer becomes the process. Everyone else “manages somehow.” Humans are surprisingly good at compensating for this. They remember exceptions. They improvise. They fix things quietly. AI cannot. For AI to add leverage, work must be stable enough that two different people can do it the same way and get roughly the same result. Not perfect … just predictable. This doesn’t require a consulting-grade process manual. It requires one honest answer to a simple question: “If someone new joined tomorrow, would they know the one right way this is done?” If the answer is no, AI won’t help yet. It will only surface the inconsistency faster. Condition 2: Clear decision rights, not more information Most SMEs don’t suffer from lack of data or ideas. They suffer from lack of closure. Decisions float. Approvals are implicit. Founders become the final checkpoint. AI is excellent at generating options. But options without decision rights create paralysis, not speed. For AI to create leverage, three things must be clear: 1) who decides, 2) on what basis, and 3) when the decision is considered final Without this, AI increases the volume of suggestions, reports, and analysis—but execution still stalls. Leverage comes not from knowing more, but from deciding faster once the information is good enough. Condition 3: Data discipline, not “more data” Most businesses don’t have a data shortage. They have a trust problem. Ask three people the same question about price, delivery date, inventory and you’ll get three answers. Each answer has a story. Each story feels valid. AI doesn’t resolve this. It confidently responds based on whatever inputs it sees. So, the question is not, “Is our data perfect?” It’s, “Which data must be right for this decision to work?” AI leverage begins when a business agrees on: a small set of critical fields a single source of truth and clear ownership for keeping those fields accurate This discipline is boring. It’s also non-negotiable. Without it, AI becomes a well-spoken guesser and founders return to verifying everything themselves. Condition 4: Rhythm and review loops, not constant monitoring One reason founders feel exhausted is that the business has no visible rhythm. Everything is urgent. Nothing is truly reviewed. Issues surface only when they become painful. AI doesn’t fix this. In fact, it can make it worse by creating the illusion that “everything is being tracked”. Leverage comes when a business has: a weekly cadence for reviewing key work clear checkpoints where output is evaluated and predictable moments where problems are surfaced early When these rhythms exist, AI becomes useful support … summarising, flagging, highlighting. Without them, AI just adds another stream of activity to monitor. The reframe that matters AI is not an engine that pulls your business forward. It is a multiplier. Multipliers don’t create direction. They amplify what already exists. This is why two companies using the same tools can experience completely different outcomes. One has conditions in place. The other doesn’t. And this is also why rushing to “scale AI” often backfires. You can’t multiply chaos into clarity. A grounded starting point If you’re wondering where to begin, don’t start with AI strategy. Start with one workflow. Just one. Stabilise it. Clarify ownership. Define inputs. Install a review rhythm. Then and only then introduce AI into that slice of work. When AI works there, you’ll know why. And when it doesn’t, you’ll know what to fix. That’s leverage. (The writer works with founders and second-generation leaders to design operating systems where growth strengthens people, not exhausts them.)

Knives out in legislature

Updated: Mar 21, 2025

Disha Salian

Mumbai: Death of celebrity manager Disha Salian in 2020 once again rocked the Maharashtra legislature on Thursday. While cabinet ministers Nitesh Rane and Shambhuraj Desai demanded that Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray be arrested in the case, BJP MLA Amit Satam in the assembly and another BJP member Chitra Wagh in the council demanded that the report of SIT to probe Salian’s death be made public.


Incidentally, amidst repeated disruptions in both the houses, some members from the treasury benches were seen speaking in favour of Aditya Thackeray, while Shiv Sena (UBT) members like Adv Anil Parab were seen supporting the BJP members’ demand that the report of the SIT probe be made public. In addition, there were allegations and counter allegations and personal accusations among members from the treasury and opposition benches which led to heated debate on occasions.


The opposition termed the attempts from the treasury benches to link Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray’s name in the case, as a ‘conspiracy’.


“I think this matter has gone to the court. We have no idea what he (Disha’s father) has said, but Aaditya Thackeray is a mature leader, a young leader. The Bharatiya Janata Party is conspiring to defame him by putting pressure on him. We don’t need to answer to this conspiracy. The court will answer,” Ambadas Danve said.


Earlier in the day, when the house gathered for the business, Minister of State for Home appraised the assembly of the status in this case. “SIT has been formed to probe in the case. Their report has not been received as yet. However, the government shall act according to directives from the court,” the minister told the house.


Another BJP minister Nitesh Rane, however, said that since Satish Salian has levelled allegations against an MVA minister, that leader be treated like a common person and that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Shiv Sena minister Shambhuraj Desai too supported the demand. “Since the allegations are grave, the person in question should be immediately arrested and the case be investigated,” he said.


Later, while speaking to media in the legislature premises, Rane asked Uddhav Thackeray to come clean on the issue. “If they say that we are politicizing the issue, Uddhav Thackeray should also tell the people why he had called, not just once but twice, to the then union minister Narayan Rane urging him to save his son?” Rane said.


He also accused the opposition of shying away from coming clean on the issue. “If they feel that we are not telling the truth, they should say so in the house. But they are shying away from doing so. Bhaskar Jadhav, who is always aggressive, was nowhere to be seen when this issue came up in the house. Sunil Prabhu too escaped the house under the pretext of a phone call. I challenge them to say that whatever I said on the issue is wrong,” Rane said.


He also said that Aditya Thackeray should resign on moral grounds till his name is cleared in the case.


BJP MLA Amit Satam demanded that the details of the SIT probe be made public so that the people would know if the probe is headed in right direction.


Interestingly, while the ruling parties were targeting the opposition in the case, senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar surprised all with his unexpected support to Thackerays. “I do not have any evidences in the case. But if her father has made any fresh allegations that needs to be investigated thoroughly. The assembly can discuss the issue at length tomorrow. In the meanwhile, members like Rane, who seem to have some evidences in the case should hand them over to the investigating agencies and help the probe,” he told the house.


Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Gaikwad and Sheetal Mhatre too toed the line and demanded that more and more evidences should come forth.


Similarly, when members of treasury benches were pushing for revealing the details of the probe till date to the public, Shiv Sena (UBT) member Anil Parab supported the demand. “Doing that shall conclusively prove the innocence of Aditya Thackeray,” he said.

Comments

bottom of page