Tag Archives: AI

Causal AI

Moving Beyond Prediction to Purpose

LAST UPDATED: February 13, 2026 at 5:13 PM

Causal AI

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

For the last decade, the business world has been obsessed with predictive models. We have spent billions trying to answer the question, “What will happen next?” While these tools have helped us optimize supply chains, they often fail when the world changes. Why? Because prediction is based on correlation, and correlation is not causation. To truly innovate using Human-Centered Innovation™, we must move toward Causal AI.

Causal AI is the next frontier of FutureHacking™. Instead of merely identifying patterns, it seeks to understand the why. It maps the underlying “wiring” of a system to determine how changing one variable will influence another. This shift is vital because innovation isn’t about following a trend; it’s about making a deliberate intervention to create a better future.

“Data can tell you that two things are happening at once, but only Causal AI can tell you which one is the lever and which one is the result. Innovation is the art of pulling the right lever.”
— Braden Kelley

The End of the “Black Box” Strategy

One of the greatest barriers to institutional trust is the “Black Box” nature of traditional machine learning. Causal AI, by its very nature, is explainable. It provides a transparent map of cause and effect, allowing human leaders to maintain autonomy and act as the “gardener” tending to the seeds of technology.

Case Study 1: Personalized Medicine and Healthcare

A leading pharmaceutical institution recently moved beyond predictive patient modeling. By using Causal AI to simulate “What if” scenarios, they identified specific causal drivers for individual patients. This allowed for targeted interventions that actually changed outcomes rather than just predicting a decline. This is the difference between watching a storm and seeding the clouds.

Case Study 2: Retail Pricing and Elasticity

A global retail giant utilized Causal AI to solve why deep discounts led to long-term dips in brand loyalty. Causal models revealed that the discounts were causing a shift in quality perception in specific demographics. By understanding this link, the company pivoted to a human-centered value strategy that maintained price integrity while increasing engagement.

Leading the Causal Frontier

The landscape of Causal AI is rapidly maturing in 2026. causaLens remains a primary pioneer with their Causal AI operating system designed for enterprise decision intelligence. Microsoft Research continues to lead the open-source movement with its DoWhy and EconML libraries, which are now essential tools for data scientists globally. Meanwhile, startups like Geminos Software are revolutionizing industrial intelligence by blending causal reasoning with knowledge graphs to address the high failure rate of traditional models. Causaly is specifically transforming the life sciences sector by mapping over 500 million causal relationships in biomedical data to accelerate drug discovery.

“Causal AI doesn’t just predict the future — it teaches us how to change it.”
— Braden Kelley

From Correlation to Causation

Predictive models operate on correlations. They answer: “Given the patterns in historical data, what will likely happen next?” Causal models ask a deeper question: “If we change this variable, how will the outcome change?” This fundamental difference elevates causal AI from forecasting to strategic influence.

Causal AI leverages counterfactual reasoning — the ability to simulate alternative realities. It makes systems more explainable, robust to context shifts, and aligned with human intentions for impact.

Case Study 3: Healthcare — Reducing Hospital Readmissions

A large health system used predictive analytics to identify patients at high risk of readmission. While accurate, the system did not reveal which interventions would reduce that risk. Nurses and clinicians were left with uncertainty about how to act.

By implementing causal AI techniques, the health system could simulate different combinations of follow-up calls, personalized care plans, and care coordination efforts. The causal model showed which interventions would most reduce readmission likelihood. The organization then prioritized those interventions, achieving a measurable reduction in readmissions and better patient outcomes.

This example illustrates how causal AI moves health leaders from reactive alerts to proactive, evidence-based intervention planning.

Case Study 4: Public Policy — Effective Job Training Programs

A metropolitan region sought to improve employment outcomes through various workforce programs. Traditional analytics identified which neighborhoods had high unemployment, but offered little guidance on which programs would yield the best impact.

Causal AI empowered policymakers to model the effects of expanding job training, childcare support, transportation subsidies, and employer incentives. Rather than piloting each program with limited insight, the city prioritized interventions with the highest projected causal effect. Ultimately, unemployment declined more rapidly than in prior years.

This case demonstrates how causal reasoning can inform public decision-making, directing limited resources toward policies that truly move the needle.

Human-Centered Innovation and Causal AI

Causal AI complements human-centered innovation by prioritizing actionable insight over surface-level pattern recognition. It aligns analytics with stakeholder needs: transparency, explainability, and purpose-driven outcomes.

By embracing causal reasoning, leaders design systems that illuminate why problems occur and how to address them. Instead of deploying technology that automates decisions, causal AI enables decision-makers to retain judgment while accessing deeper insight. This synergy reinforces human agency and enhances trust in AI-driven processes.

Challenges and Ethical Guardrails

Despite its potential, causal AI has challenges. It requires domain expertise to define meaningful variables and valid causal structures. Data quality and context matter. Ethical considerations demand clarity about assumptions, transparency in limitations, and safeguards against misuse.

Causal AI is not a shortcut to certainty. It is a discipline grounded in rigorous reasoning. When applied thoughtfully, it empowers organizations to act with purpose rather than default to correlation-based intuition.

Conclusion: Lead with Causality

In a world of noise, Causal AI provides the signal. It respects human autonomy by providing the evidence needed for a human to make the final call. As you look to your next change management initiative, ask yourself: Are you just predicting the weather, or are you learning how to build a better shelter?

Strategic FAQ

How does Causal AI differ from traditional Machine Learning?

Traditional Machine Learning identifies correlations and patterns in historical data to predict future occurrences. Causal AI identifies the functional relationships between variables, allowing users to understand the impact of specific interventions.

Why is Causal AI better for human-centered innovation?

It provides explainability. Because it maps cause and effect, human leaders can see the logic behind a recommendation, ensuring technology remains a tool for human ingenuity.

Can Causal AI help with bureaucratic corrosion?

Yes. By exposing the “why” behind organizational outcomes, it helps leaders identify which processes (the wiring) are actually producing value and which ones are simply creating friction.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Why We Love to Hate Chatbots

Why We Love to Hate Chatbots

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

More and more, brands are starting to get the chatbot “thing” right. AI is improving, and customers are realizing that a chatbot can be a great first stop for getting quick answers or resolving questions. After all, if you have a question, don’t you want it answered now?

In a recent interview, I was asked, “What do you love about chatbots?” That was easy. Then came the follow-up question, “What do you hate about chatbots?” Also easy. The truth is, chatbots can deliver amazing experiences. They can also cause just as much frustration as a very long phone hold. With that in mind, here are five reasons to love (and hate) chatbots:

Why We Love Chatbots

  1. 24/7 Availability: Chatbots are always on. They don’t sleep. Customers can get help at any time, even during holidays.
  2. Fast Response: Instant answers to simple questions, such as hours of operation, order status and basic troubleshooting, can be provided with efficiency and minimal friction.
  3. Customer Service at Scale: Once you set up a chatbot, it can handle many customers at once. Customers won’t have to wait, and human agents can focus on more complicated issues and problems.
  4. Multiple Language Capabilities: The latest chatbots are capable of speaking and typing in many different languages. Whether you need global support or just want to cater to different cultures in a local area, a chatbot has you covered.
  5. Consistent Answers: When programmed properly, a chatbot delivers the same answers every time.

Chatbots Shep Hyken Cartoon

Why We Hate Chatbots

  1. AI Can’t Do Everything, but Some Companies Think It Can: This is what frustrates customers the most. Some companies believe AI and chatbots can do it all. They can’t, and the result is frustrated customers who will eventually move on to the competition.
  2. A Lack of Empathy: AI can do a lot, but it can’t express true emotions. For some customers, care, empathy and understanding are more important than efficiency.
  3. Scripted Retorts Feel Robotic: Chatbots often follow strict guidelines. That’s actually a good thing, unless the answers provided feel overly scripted and generic.
  4. Hard to Get to a Human: One of the biggest complaints about chatbots is, “I just want to talk to a person.” Smart companies make it easy for customers to leave AI and connect to a human.
  5. There’s No Emotional Connection to a Chatbot: You’ll most likely never hear a customer say, “I love my chatbot.” A chatbot won’t win your heart. In customer service, sometimes how you make someone feel is more important than what you say.

Chatbots are powerful tools, but they are not a replacement for human connection. The best companies use AI to enhance support, not replace it. When chatbots handle the routine issues and agents handle the more complex and human moments, that’s when customer experience goes from efficient to … amazing.

Image credits: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

7 Ways AI Changes Change Management

(Without Replacing It)

7 Ways AI Changes Change Management

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


How Does AI Change Change Management Without Replacing It? (Short Answer)

Seven ways AI changes change management without replacing it: (1) sensing replaces guessing, (2) enablement can become personal, (3) rehearsal before cutover, (4) portfolio load becomes visible, (5) message volume stops being the bottleneck, (6) AI densifies the change — roles and decision rights — and (7) maintenance gets instrumented. AI drafts, clusters, simulates, and surfaces patterns at machine speed. Humans still own mandate, dignity, practice design, kill dates for the old path, and stop/start honesty.

AI can speed the artifacts of change. It cannot own the human adoption challenge — and pretending it can is how organizations buy a harder landing.

Why Doesn’t Faster Change Artifact Work Mean Less Change Management?

I keep hearing the same executive shortcut: the tools feel intuitive, the demo looks easy, so we can “do less change management this time.” That is how you buy denser busywork with a friendlier UI.

AI accelerates sensing, drafting, personalization, simulation, and portfolio visibility. That does not shrink the need for change management. It densifies the work: more roles rewritten, more decision rights in play, more temptation to confuse message volume with enablement. Soft landings treat AI as a change amplifier designed with humans — not as a substitute for sponsorship, practice, maintenance, and portfolio honesty.

Way What AI changes Still human
1. Sensing Earlier resistance and confusion patterns Meaning, dignity, and who can act
2. Personal enablement Role- and journey-aware learning paths Practice, coaching, redesigned work
3. Rehearsal Cheaper scenario practice before go-live Success behavior and sponsors with levers
4. Portfolio visibility Collision maps and capacity signals Stop/start honesty and tradeoffs
5. Message volume Nearly free cascade drafts Capacity — enablement, not broadcast
6. Densified change Rewritten tasks and decision rights Job redesign and accountable judgment
7. Instrumented maintenance Drift and relapse sensing after applause BAU ownership and old-path kill dates

1. How Does Sensing Replace Guessing — Without Replacing Judgment?

What AI changes: Continuous signal from tickets, chat, surveys, usage, and search — resistance, confusion, and workaround patterns can surface earlier than a quarterly pulse.

Costume temptation: Dashboard theater. “Sentiment” as a green RAG without contact or a response anyone will fund.

Still human: Meaning, stakes, and dignity — deciding what the pattern asks of leaders, not only that a score moved.

Human-centered move: Pair sensing with a named owner who can change work, policy, or enablement — not only refresh a slide.

2. Can Enablement Become Personal While Capability Still Needs Practice?

What AI changes: Role-, journey-, and skill-aware learning paths; adaptive practice prompts instead of one cascade deck for thousands.

Costume temptation: Completions and prompt workshops mistaken for competence. Personalized spam that still leaves the old path easy.

Still human: Coaching, redesigned work, permission to stop the workaround, manager judgment.

Human-centered move: Treat personalization as a path to practice on real work — measure behavior, not module finishes. That is the enablement half of change management in 5 Steps of Human-Centered Change — sped up by AI, not retired by it.

3. Why Is Rehearsal Before Cutover Not the Same as Sponsorship?

What AI changes: Scenario practice, agent-assisted dry runs, and “what if” walkthroughs before go-live — cheaper rehearsal at scale.

Costume temptation: Beautiful simulations that never touch floor constraints. Rehearsal theater while sponsors lack levers.

Still human: Defining success behavior, psychological safety to fail in practice, and sponsors who can move budget, policy, and metrics.

Human-centered move: Rehearse the median user’s moment of truth — then fund the system changes the rehearsal exposed. Simulation without levers is still a costume.

4. How Does Portfolio Visibility Change Change Management?

What AI changes: Collision maps, capacity estimates, and initiative overlap become easier to surface across the change portfolio.

Costume temptation: Pretty heatmaps while every pet project remains “priority.” Visibility without stop authority.

Still human: Portfolio honesty — stop/start rules, protecting frontline capacity, naming what the organization will not absorb.

Human-centered move: Treat AI portfolio views as evidence for tradeoffs, not as permission to stack more change. Seeing the load is not the same as choosing what to stop.

5. When Message Volume Stops Being the Bottleneck, What Becomes the Test?

What AI changes: Drafting cascade emails, FAQs, talking points, and “personalized” announcements is nearly free.

Costume temptation: More communication mistaken for more change. AI as an infinite broadcast engine.

Still human: Capacity — time, coaching, redesigned incentives, retirement of the old way.

Human-centered move: Raise the bar. If enablement is not funded, do not celebrate message velocity. Informed is still not enabled — a truth that survived every new channel, including this one. For the belief patterns underneath the costume, see 8 Change Myths Leaders Still Believe in 2026.

6. How Does AI Densify Change — Roles, Judgment, and Decision Rights?

What AI changes: Introducing AI rewrites tasks, who decides, who is accountable, and where human judgment must sit. That is denser change than “a new tool.”

Costume temptation: “Intuitive agents adopt themselves.” Change-management budgets cut because the vendor demo felt easy.

Still human: Job redesign, accountability for model-assisted decisions, deep-work policy, and recovery power when the agent fails.

Human-centered move: Package every material AI bet with work redesign and change muscle — not a go-live date alone. For the designed split of cognitive labor, see The AI Soft Landing and 11 Human Endeavors AI Should Free (Not Replace).

7. How Does Instrumented Maintenance Still Need Human Owners?

What AI changes: Post-go-live drift detection — usage drop-off, shadow-process return, help-desk themes — can be sensed continuously after applause.

Costume temptation: Hypercare dashboards with nobody in BAU responsible for reinforcement or killing the old path.

Still human: Maintenance ownership, celebration of retired workarounds, and metric realignment that makes the new way the easy way.

Human-centered move: Instrument for relapse and name the BAU owner before cutover cake. Launch without maintenance is still a relapse with better branding. The full visual method behind planning, enablement, and maintenance lives in Charting Change.

How Do You Split Change Labor Between AI and Humans Before the Next Review?

Before the next AI-assisted transformation review, run five go/no-go questions:

  1. What are we sensing — and who can act on it?
  2. Are we personalizing practice or only broadcasting faster?
  3. What did rehearsal force us to redesign?
  4. What will we stop so portfolio load is real?
  5. Who owns reinforcement after go-live — and what old path dies on a date?

AI changes the speed of change artifacts. Humans still own whether the median person can succeed — and whether the organization will let them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does AI replace change management?

No. AI can accelerate sensing, drafting, personalization, simulation, and portfolio visibility, but it cannot own mandate, dignity, practice design, sponsorship with levers, or stop/start honesty. Treating AI as a substitute for change management usually densifies role and decision-rights change while starving enablement.

How does AI change change management?

AI changes change management by making sensing continuous, enablement more personalizable, rehearsal cheaper before cutover, portfolio collisions more visible, broadcast nearly free, AI itself a denser work redesign, and post-go-live drift easier to instrument. The human job shifts toward judgment, redesign, and ownership — not away from change management.

Why do organizations still need change management with AI?

Organizations still need change management with AI because introducing models rewrites tasks, accountability, and judgment seams. People still need practice, permission to stop workarounds, aligned metrics, sponsors who can change the system, and BAU owners after go-live. Intuitive demos do not equal adopted behavior.

What is AI-assisted change management?

AI-assisted change management uses models to draft communications, cluster employee signals, personalize learning paths, simulate scenarios, and surface portfolio load — while humans own interpretation, enablement design, tradeoffs, sponsorship, and reinforcement. AI speeds the artifacts; humans own the adoption challenge.

How do you soft-land an AI transformation?

Soft-land an AI transformation by pairing every material AI bet with work redesign and change muscle: named owners who can act on signals, practice over completions, rehearsal that funds redesign, portfolio stop/start honesty, enablement funded beyond broadcast, clear decision rights for model-assisted work, and instrumented maintenance with a kill date for the old path.

Image credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini and Cursor to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Win Your Way to an AI Job

Anduril’s AI Grand Prix: Racing for the Future of Work

LAST UPDATED: January 28, 2026 at 2:27 PM

Anduril's AI Grand Prix: Racing for the Future of Work

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The traditional job interview is an antiquated artifact, a relic of a bygone industrial era. It often measures conformity, articulateness, and cultural fit more than actual capability or innovative potential. As we navigate the complexities of AI, automation, and rapid technological shifts, organizations are beginning to realize that to find truly exceptional talent, they need to look beyond resumes and carefully crafted answers. This is where companies like Anduril are not just iterating but innovating the very hiring process itself.

Anduril, a defense technology company known for its focus on AI-driven systems, recently announced its AI Grand Prix — a drone racing contest where the ultimate prize isn’t just glory, but a job offer. This isn’t merely a marketing gimmick; it’s a profound statement about their belief in demonstrated skill over credentialism, and a powerful strategy for identifying talent that can truly push the boundaries of autonomous systems. It epitomizes the shift from abstract evaluation to purposeful, real-world application, emphasizing hands-on capability over theoretical knowledge.

“The future of hiring isn’t about asking people what they can do; it’s about giving them a challenge and watching them show you.”

— Braden Kelley

Why Challenge-Based Hiring is the New Frontier

This approach addresses several critical pain points in traditional hiring:

  • Uncovering Latent Talent: Many brilliant minds don’t fit the mold of elite university degrees or polished corporate careers. Challenge-based hiring can surface individuals with raw, untapped potential who might otherwise be overlooked.
  • Assessing Practical Skills: In fields like AI, robotics, and advanced engineering, theoretical knowledge is insufficient. The ability to problem-solve under pressure, adapt to dynamic environments, and debug complex systems is paramount.
  • Cultural Alignment Through Action: Observing how candidates collaborate, manage stress, and iterate on solutions in a competitive yet supportive environment reveals more about their true cultural fit than any behavioral interview.
  • Building a Diverse Pipeline: By opening up contests to a wider audience, companies can bypass traditional biases inherent in resume screening, leading to a more diverse and innovative workforce.

Beyond Anduril: Other Pioneers of Performance-Based Hiring

Anduril isn’t alone in recognizing the power of real-world challenges to identify top talent. Several other forward-thinking organizations have adopted similar, albeit varied, approaches:

Google’s Code Jam and Hash Code

For years, Google has leveraged competitive programming contests like Code Jam and Hash Code to scout for software engineering talent globally. These contests present participants with complex algorithmic problems that test their coding speed, efficiency, and problem-solving abilities. While not always directly leading to a job offer for every participant, top performers are often fast-tracked through the interview process. This allows Google to identify engineers who can perform under pressure and think creatively, rather than just those who can ace a whiteboard interview. It’s a prime example of turning abstract coding prowess into a tangible demonstration of value.

Kaggle Competitions for Data Scientists

Kaggle, now a Google subsidiary, revolutionized how data scientists prove their worth. Through its platform, companies post real-world data science problems—from predicting housing prices to identifying medical conditions from images—and offer prize money, and often, connections to jobs, to the teams that develop the best models. This creates a meritocracy where the quality of one’s predictive model speaks louder than any resume. Many leading data scientists have launched their careers or been recruited directly from their performance in Kaggle competitions. It transforms theoretical data knowledge into demonstrable insights that directly impact business outcomes.

The Human Element in the Machine Age

What makes these initiatives truly human-centered? It’s the recognition that while AI and automation are transforming tasks, the human capacity for ingenuity, adaptation, and critical thinking remains irreplaceable. These contests aren’t about finding people who can simply operate machines; they’re about finding individuals who can teach the machines, design the next generation of algorithms, and solve problems that don’t yet exist. They foster an environment of continuous learning and application, perfectly aligning with the “purposeful learning” philosophy.

The Anduril AI Grand Prix, much like Google’s and Kaggle’s initiatives, de-risks the hiring process by creating a performance crucible. It’s a pragmatic, meritocratic, and ultimately more effective way to build the teams that will define the next era of technological advancement. As leaders, our challenge is to move beyond conventional wisdom and embrace these innovative models, ensuring we’re not just ready for the future of work, but actively shaping it.

Anduril Fury


Frequently Asked Questions

What is challenge-based hiring?

Challenge-based hiring is a recruitment strategy where candidates demonstrate their skills and problem-solving abilities by completing a real-world task, project, or competition, rather than relying solely on resumes and interviews.

What are the benefits of this approach for companies?

Companies can uncover hidden talent, assess practical skills, observe cultural fit in action, and build a more diverse talent pipeline by focusing on demonstrable performance.

How does this approach benefit candidates?

Candidates get a fair chance to showcase their true abilities regardless of traditional credentials, gain valuable experience, and often get direct access to influential companies and potential job offers based purely on merit.

To learn more about transforming your organization’s talent acquisition strategy, reach out to explore how human-centered innovation can reshape your hiring practices.

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons, Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

We Must Hold AI Accountable

We Must Hold AI Accountable

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

About ten years ago, IBM invited me to talk with some key members on the Watson team, when the triumph of creating a machine that could beat the best human players at the game show Jeopardy! was still fresh. I wrote in Forbes at the time that we were entering a new era of cognitive collaboration between humans, computers and other humans.

One thing that struck me was how similar the moment seemed to how aviation legend Chuck Yeager described the advent of flying-by-wire, four decades earlier, in which pilots no longer would operate aircraft, but interface with a computer that flew the plane. Many of the macho “flyboys” weren’t able to trust the machines and couldn’t adapt.

Now, with the launch of ChatGPT, Bill Gates has announced that the age of AI has begun and, much like those old flyboys, we’re all going to struggle to adapt. Our success will not only rely on our ability to learn new skills and work in new ways, but the extent to which we are able to trust our machine collaborators. To reach its potential, AI will need to become accountable.

Recognizing Data Bias

With humans, we work diligently to construct safe and constructive learning environments. We design curriculums, carefully selecting materials, instructors and students to try and get the right mix of information and social dynamics. We go to all this trouble because we understand that the environment we create greatly influences the learning experience.

Machines also have a learning environment called a “corpus.” If, for example, you want to teach an algorithm to recognize cats, you expose it to thousands of pictures of cats. In time, it figures out how to tell the difference between, say, a cat and a dog. Much like with human beings, it is through learning from these experiences that algorithms become useful.

However, the process can go horribly awry. A famous case is Microsoft’s Tay, a Twitter bot that the company unleashed on the microblogging platform in 2016. In under a day, Tay went from being friendly and casual (“humans are super cool”) to downright scary, (“Hitler was right and I hate Jews”). It was profoundly disturbing.

Bias in the learning corpus is far more common than we often realize. Do an image search for the word “professional haircut” and you will get almost exclusively pictures of white men. Do the same for “unprofessional haircut” and you will see much more racial and gender diversity.

It’s not hard to figure out why this happens. Editors writing articles about haircuts portray white men in one way and other genders and races in another. When we query machines, we inevitably find our own biases baked in.

Accounting For Algorithmic Bias

A second major source of bias results from how decision-making models are designed. Consider the case of Sarah Wysocki, a fifth grade teacher who — despite being lauded by parents, students, and administrators alike — was fired from the D.C. school district because an algorithm judged her performance to be sub-par. Why? It’s not exactly clear, because the system was too complex to be understood by those who fired her.

Yet it’s not hard to imagine how it could happen. If a teacher’s ability is evaluated based on test scores, then other aspects of performance, such as taking on children with learning differences or emotional problems, would fail to register, or even unfairly penalize them. Good human managers recognize outliers, algorithms generally aren’t designed that way.

In other cases, models are constructed according to what data is easiest to acquire or the model is overfit to a specific set of cases and is then applied too broadly. In 2013, Google Flu Trends predicted almost double as many cases there actually were. What appears to have happened is that increased media coverage about Google Flu Trends led to more searches by people who weren’t sick. The algorithm was never designed to take itself into account.

The simple fact is that an algorithm must be designed in one way or another. Every possible contingency cannot be pursued. Choices have to be made and bias will inevitably creep in. Mistakes happen. The key is not to eliminate error, but to make our systems accountable through, explainability, auditability and transparency.

To Build An Era Of Cognitive Collaboration We First Need To Build Trust

In 2020, Ofqual, the authority that administers A-Level college entrance exams in the UK, found itself mired in scandal. Unable to hold live exams because of Covid-19, it designed and employed an algorithm that based scores partly on the historical performance of the schools students attended with the unintended consequence that already disadvantaged students found themselves further penalized by artificially deflated scores.

The outcry was immediate, but in a sense the Ofqual case is a happy story. Because the agency was transparent about how the algorithm was constructed, the source of the bias was quickly revealed, corrective action was taken in a timely manner, and much of the damage was likely mitigated. As Linus’s Law advises, “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”

The age of artificial intelligence requires us to collaborate with machines, leveraging their capabilities to better serve other humans. To make that collaboration successful, however, it needs to take place in an atmosphere of trust. Machines, just like humans, need to be held accountable, their decisions and insights can’t be a “black box.” We need to be able to understand where their judgments come from and how they’re decisions are being made.

Senator Schumer worked on legislation to promote more transparency in 2024, but that is only a start and the new administration has pushed the pause button on AI regulation. The real change has to come from within ourselves and how we see our relationships with the machines we create. Marshall McLuhan wrote that media are extensions of man and the same can be said for technology. Our machines inherit our human weaknesses and frailties. We need to make allowances for that.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Flickr

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Solving the AI Trust Imperative with Provenance

The Digital Fingerprint

LAST UPDATED: January 5, 2026 at 3:33 PM

The Digital Fingerprint - Solving the Trust Imperative with Provenance

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

We are currently living in the artificial future of 2026, a world where the distinction between human-authored and AI-generated content has become practically invisible to the naked eye. In this era of agentic AI and high-fidelity synthetic media, we have moved past the initial awe of creation and into a far more complex phase: the Trust Imperative. As my friend Braden Kelley has frequently shared in his keynotes, innovation is change with impact, but if the impact is an erosion of truth, we are not innovating — we are disintegrating.

The flood of AI-generated content has created a massive Corporate Antibody response within our social and economic systems. To survive, organizations must adopt Generative Watermarking and Provenance technologies. These aren’t just technical safeguards; they are the new infrastructure of reality. We are shifting from a culture of blind faith in what we see to a culture of verifiable origin.

“Transparency is the only antidote to the erosion of trust; we must build systems that don’t just generate, but testify. If an idea is a useful seed of invention, its origin must be its pedigree.” — Braden Kelley

Why Provenance is the Key to Human-Centered Innovation™

Human-Centered Innovation™ requires psychological safety. In 2026, psychological safety is under threat by “hallucinated” news, deepfake corporate communiques, and the potential for industrial-scale intellectual property theft. When people cannot trust the data in their dashboards or the video of their CEO, the organizational “nervous system” begins to shut down. This is the Efficiency Trap in its most dangerous form: we’ve optimized for speed of content production, but lost the efficiency of shared truth.

Provenance tech — specifically the C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) standards — allows us to attach a permanent, tamper-evident digital “ledger” to every piece of media. This tells us who created it, what AI tools were used to modify it, and when it was last verified. It restores the human to the center of the story by providing the context necessary for informed agency.

Case Study 1: Protecting the Frontline of Journalism

The Challenge: In early 2025, a global news agency faced a crisis when a series of high-fidelity deepfake videos depicting a political coup began circulating in a volatile region. Traditional fact-checking was too slow to stop the viral spread, leading to actual civil unrest.

The Innovation: The agency implemented a camera-to-cloud provenance system. Every image captured by their journalists was cryptographically signed at the moment of capture. Using a public verification tool, viewers could instantly see the “chain of custody” for every frame.

The Impact: By 2026, the agency saw a 50% increase in subscriber trust scores. More importantly, they effectively “immunized” their audience against deepfakes by making the absence of a provenance badge a clear signal of potential misinformation. They turned the Trust Imperative into a competitive advantage.

Case Study 2: Securing Enterprise IP in the Age of Co-Pilots

The Challenge: A Fortune 500 manufacturing firm found that its proprietary design schematics were being leaked through “Shadow AI” — employees using unauthorized generative tools to optimize parts. The company couldn’t tell which designs were protected “useful seeds of invention” and which were tainted by external AI data sets.

The Innovation: They deployed an internal Generative Watermarking system. Every output from authorized corporate AI agents was embedded with an invisible, robust watermark. This watermark tracked the specific human prompter, the model version, and the internal data sources used.

The Impact: The company successfully reclaimed its IP posture. By making the origin of every design verifiable, they reduced legal risk and empowered their engineers to use AI safely, fostering a culture of Human-AI Teaming rather than fear-based restriction.

Leading Companies and Startups to Watch

As we navigate 2026, the landscape of provenance is being defined by a few key players. Adobe remains a titan in this space with their Content Authenticity Initiative, which has successfully pushed the C2PA standard into the mainstream. Digimarc has emerged as a leader in “stealth” watermarking that survives compression and cropping. In the startup ecosystem, Steg.AI is doing revolutionary work with deep-learning-based watermarks that are invisible to the eye but indestructible to algorithms. Truepic is the one to watch for “controlled capture,” ensuring the veracity of photos from the moment the shutter clicks. Lastly, Microsoft and Google have integrated these “digital nutrition labels” across their enterprise suites, making provenance a default setting rather than an optional add-on.

Conclusion: The Architecture of Truth

To lead innovation in 2026, you must be more than a creator; you must be a verifier. We cannot allow the “useful seeds of invention” to be choked out by the weeds of synthetic deception. By embracing generative watermarking and provenance, we aren’t just protecting data; we are protecting the human connection that makes change with impact possible.

If you are looking for an innovation speaker to help your organization solve the Trust Imperative and navigate Human-Centered Innovation™, I suggest you look no further than Braden Kelley. The future belongs to those who can prove they are part of it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between watermarking and provenance?

Watermarking is a technique to embed information (visible or invisible) directly into content to identify its source. Provenance is the broader history or “chain of custody” of a piece of media, often recorded in metadata or a ledger, showing every change made from creation to consumption.

Can AI-generated watermarks be removed?

While no system is 100% foolproof, modern watermarking from companies like Steg.AI or Digimarc is designed to be highly “robust,” meaning it survives editing, screenshots, and even re-recording. Provenance standards like C2PA use cryptography to ensure that if the data is tampered with, the “broken seal” is immediately apparent.

Why does Braden Kelley call trust a “competitive advantage”?

In a market flooded with low-quality or deceptive content, “Trust” becomes a premium. Organizations that can prove their content is authentic and their AI is transparent will attract higher-quality talent and more loyal customers, effectively bypassing the friction of skepticism that slows down their competitors.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Just Because You Can Use AI Doesn’t Mean You Should

Just Because You Can Use AI Doesn't Mean You Should

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

I’m often asked, “What should AI be used for?” While there is much that AI can do to support businesses in general, it’s obvious that I’m being asked how it relates to customer service and customer experience (CX). The true meaning of the question is more about what tasks AI can do to support a customer, thereby potentially eliminating the need for a live agent who deals directly with customers.

First, as the title of this article implies, just because AI can do something, it doesn’t mean it should. Yes, AI can handle many customer support issues, but even if every customer were willing to accept that AI can deliver good support, there are some sensitive and complicated issues for which customers would prefer to talk to a human.

AI Shep Hyken Cartoon

Additionally, consider that, based on my annual customer experience research, 68% of customers (that’s almost seven out of 10) prefer the phone as their primary means of communication with a company or brand. However, another finding in the report is worth mentioning: 34% of customers stopped doing business with a company because self-service options were not provided. Some customers insist on the self-service option, but at the same time, they want to be transferred to a live agent when appropriate.

AI works well for simple issues, such as password resets, tracking orders, appointment scheduling and answering basic or frequently asked questions. Humans are better suited for handling complaints and issues that need empathy, complex problem-solving situations that require judgment calls and communicating bad news.

An AI-fueled chatbot can answer many questions, but when a medical patient contacts the doctor’s office about test results related to a serious issue, they will likely want to speak with a nurse or doctor, not a chatbot.

Consider These Questions Before Implementing AI For Customer Interactions

AI for addressing simple customer issues has become affordable for even the smallest businesses, and an increasing number of customers are willing to use AI-powered customer support for the right reasons. Consider these questions before implementing AI for customer interactions:

  1. Is the customer’s question routine or fact-based?
  2. Does it require empathy, emotion, understanding and/or judgment (emotional intelligence)?
  3. Could the wrong answer cause a problem or frustrate the customer?
  4. As you think about the reasons customers call, which ones would they feel comfortable having AI handle?
  5. Do you have an easy, seamless way for the customer to be transferred to a human when needed?

The point is, regardless of how capable the technology is, it doesn’t mean it is best suited to deliver what the customer wants. Live agents can “read the customer” and know how to effectively communicate and empathize with them. AI can’t do that … yet. The key isn’t choosing between AI and humans. It’s knowing when to use each one.

Image credits: Google Gemini, Shep Hyken

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Top 100 Innovation and Transformation Articles of 2025

Top 100 Innovation and Transformation Articles of 2025

2021 marked the re-birth of my original Blogging Innovation blog as a new blog called Human-Centered Change and Innovation.

Many of you may know that Blogging Innovation grew into the world’s most popular global innovation community before being re-branded as Innovation Excellence and being ultimately sold to DisruptorLeague.com.

Thanks to an outpouring of support I’ve ignited the fuse of this new multiple author blog around the topics of human-centered change, innovation, transformation and design.

I feel blessed that the global innovation and change professional communities have responded with a growing roster of contributing authors and more than 17,000 newsletter subscribers.

To celebrate we’ve pulled together the Top 100 Innovation and Transformation Articles of 2025 from our archive of over 3,200 articles on these topics.

We do some other rankings too.

We just published the Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025 and as the volume of this blog has grown we have brought back our monthly article ranking to complement this annual one.

But enough delay, here are the 100 most popular innovation and transformation posts of 2025.

Did your favorite make the cut?

1. A Toolbox for High-Performance Teams – Building, Leading and Scaling – by Stefan Lindegaard

2. Top 10 American Innovations of All Time – by Art Inteligencia

3. The Education Business Model Canvas – by Arlen Meyers, M.D.

4. What is Human-Centered Change? – by Braden Kelley

5. How Netflix Built a Culture of Innovation – by Art Inteligencia

6. McKinsey is Wrong That 80% Companies Fail to Generate AI ROI – by Robyn Bolton

7. The Great American Contraction – by Art Inteligencia

8. A Case Study on High Performance Teams – New Zealand’s All Blacks – by Stefan Lindegaard

9. Act Like an Owner – Revisited! – by Shep Hyken

10. Should a Bad Grade in Organic Chemistry be a Doctor Killer? – by Arlen Meyers, M.D.

11. Charting Change – by Braden Kelley

12. Human-Centered Change – by Braden Kelley

13. No Regret Decisions: The First Steps of Leading through Hyper-Change – by Phil Buckley

14. SpaceX is a Masterclass in Innovation Simplification – by Pete Foley

15. Top 5 Future Studies Programs – by Art Inteligencia

16. Marriott’s Approach to Customer Service – by Shep Hyken

17. The Role of Stakeholder Analysis in Change Management – by Art Inteligencia

18. The Triple Bottom Line Framework – by Dainora Jociute

19. The Nordic Way of Leadership in Business – by Stefan Lindegaard

20. Nine Innovation Roles – by Braden Kelley

21. ACMP Standard for Change Management® Visualization – 35″ x 56″ (Poster Size) – Association of Change Management Professionals – by Braden Kelley

22. Designing an Innovation Lab: A Step-by-Step Guide – by Art Inteligencia

23. FutureHacking™ – by Braden Kelley

24. The 6 Building Blocks of Great Teams – by David Burkus

25. Overcoming Resistance to Change – Embracing Innovation at Every Level – by Chateau G Pato

26. Human-Centered Change – Free Downloads – by Braden Kelley

27. 50 Cognitive Biases Reference – Free Download – by Braden Kelley

28. Quote Posters – Curated by Braden Kelley

29. Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire – by Braden Kelley

30. Innovation or Not – Kawasaki Corleo – by Art Inteligencia


Build a common language of innovation on your team


31. Top Six Trends for Innovation Management in 2025 – by Jesse Nieminen

32. Fear is a Leading Indicator of Personal Growth – by Mike Shipulski

33. Visual Project Charter™ – 35″ x 56″ (Poster Size) and JPG for Online Whiteboarding – by Braden Kelley

34. The Most Challenging Obstacles to Achieving Artificial General Intelligence – by Art Inteligencia

35. The Ultimate Guide to the Phase-Gate Process – by Dainora Jociute

36. Case Studies in Human-Centered Design – by Art Inteligencia

37. Transforming Leadership to Reshape the Future of Innovation – Exclusive Interview with Brian Solis

38. Leadership Best Quacktices from Oregon’s Dan Lanning – by Braden Kelley

39. This AI Creativity Trap is Gutting Your Growth – by Robyn Bolton

40. A 90% Project Failure Rate Means You’re Doing it Wrong – by Mike Shipulski

41. Reversible versus Irreversible Decisions – by Farnham Street

42. Next Generation Leadership Traits and Characteristics – by Stefan Lindegaard

43. Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2024 – Curated by Braden Kelley

44. Benchmarking Innovation Performance – by Noel Sobelman

45. Three Executive Decisions for Strategic Foresight Success or Failure – by Robyn Bolton

46. Back to Basics for Leaders and Managers – by Robyn Bolton

47. You Already Have Too Many Ideas – by Mike Shipulski

48. Imagination versus Knowledge – Is imagination really more important? – by Janet Sernack

49. Building a Better Change Communication Plan – by Braden Kelley

50. 10 Free Human-Centered Change™ Tools – by Braden Kelley


Accelerate your change and transformation success


51. Why Business Transformations Fail – by Robyn Bolton

52. Overcoming the Fear of Innovation Failure – by Stefan Lindegaard

53. What is the difference between signals and trends? – by Art Inteligencia

54. Unintended Consequences. The Hidden Risk of Fast-Paced Innovation – by Pete Foley

55. Giving Your Team a Sense of Shared Purpose – by David Burkus

56. The Top 10 Irish Innovators Who Shaped the World – by Art Inteligencia

57. The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Effective Change Leadership – by Art Inteligencia

58. Is OpenAI About to Go Bankrupt? – by Art Inteligencia

59. Sprint Toward the Innovation Action – by Mike Shipulski

60. Innovation Management ISO 56000 Series Explained – by Diana Porumboiu

61. How to Make Navigating Ambiguity a Super Power – by Robyn Bolton

62. 3 Secret Saboteurs of Strategic Foresight – by Robyn Bolton

63. Four Major Shifts Driving the 21st Century – by Greg Satell

64. Problems vs. Solutions vs. Complaints – by Mike Shipulski

65. The Power of Position Innovation – by John Bessant

66. Three Ways Strategic Idleness Accelerates Innovation and Growth – by Robyn Bolton

67. Case Studies of Companies Leading in Inclusive Design – by Chateau G Pato

68. Recognizing and Celebrating Small Wins in the Change Process – by Chateau G Pato

69. Parallels Between the 1920’s and Today Are Frightening – by Greg Satell

70. The Art of Adaptability: How to Respond to Changing Market Conditions – by Art Inteligencia

71. Do you have a fixed or growth mindset? – by Stefan Lindegaard

72. Making People Matter in AI Era – by Janet Sernack

73. The Role of Prototyping in Human-Centered Design – by Art Inteligencia

74. Turning Bold Ideas into Tangible Results – by Robyn Bolton

75. Yes the Comfort Zone Can Be Your Best Friend – by Stefan Lindegaard

76. Increasing Organizational Agility – by Braden Kelley

77. Innovation is Dead. Now What? – by Robyn Bolton

78. Four Reasons Change Resistance Exists – by Greg Satell

79. Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation – Revisited – by Braden Kelley

80. Difference Between Possible, Potential and Preferred Futures – by Art Inteligencia


Get the Change Planning Toolkit


81. Resistance to Innovation – What if electric cars came first? – by Dennis Stauffer

82. Science Says You Shouldn’t Waste Too Much Time Trying to Convince People – by Greg Satell

83. Why Context Engineering is the Next Frontier in AI – by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

84. How to Write a Failure Resume – by Arlen Meyers, M.D.

85. The Five Keys to Successful Change – by Braden Kelley

86. Four Forms of Team Motivation – by David Burkus

87. Why Revolutions Fail – by Greg Satell

88. Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023 – Curated by Braden Kelley

89. The Entrepreneurial Mindset – by Arlen Meyers, M.D.

90. Six Reasons Norway is a Leader in High-Performance Teamwork – by Stefan Lindegaard

90. Top 100 Innovation and Transformation Articles of 2024 – Curated by Braden Kelley

91. The Worst British Customer Experiences of 2024 – by Braden Kelley

92. Human-Centered Change & Innovation White Papers – by Braden Kelley

93. Encouraging a Growth Mindset During Times of Organizational Change – by Chateau G Pato

94. Inside the Mind of Jeff Bezos – by Braden Kelley

95. Learning from the Failure of Quibi – by Greg Satell

96. Dare to Think Differently – by Janet Sernack

97. The End of the Digital Revolution – by Greg Satell

98. Your Guidebook to Leading Human-Centered Change – by Braden Kelley

99. The Experiment Canvas™ – 35″ x 56″ (Poster Size) – by Braden Kelley

100. Trust as a Competitive Advantage – by Greg Satell

Curious which article just missed the cut? Well, here it is just for fun:

101. Building Cross-Functional Collaboration for Breakthrough Innovations – by Chateau G Pato

These are the Top 100 innovation and transformation articles of 2025 based on the number of page views. If your favorite Human-Centered Change & Innovation article didn’t make the cut, then send a tweet to @innovate and maybe we’ll consider doing a People’s Choice List for 2024.

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 1-6 new articles every week focused on human-centered change, innovation, transformation and design insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook feed or on Twitter or LinkedIn too!

Editor’s Note: Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all the innovation & transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have a valuable insight to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, contact us.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Outcome-Driven Innovation in the Age of Agentic AI

The North Star Shift

LAST UPDATED: January 5, 2026 at 5:29PM

Outcome-Driven Innovation in the Age of Agentic AI

by Braden Kelley

In a world of accelerating change, the rhetoric around Artificial Intelligence often centers on its incredible capacity for optimization. We hear about AI designing new materials, orchestrating complex logistics, and even writing entire software applications. This year, the technology has truly matured into agentic AI, capable of pursuing and achieving defined objectives with unprecedented autonomy. But as a specialist in Human-Centered Innovation™ (which pairs well with Outcome-Driven Innovation), I pose two crucial questions: Who is defining these outcomes, and what impact do they truly have on the human experience?

The real innovation of 2026 will show not just that AI can optimize against defined outcomes, but that we, as leaders, finally have the imperative — and the tools — to master Outcome-Driven Innovation and Outcome-Driven Change. If innovation is change with impact, then our impact is only as profound as the outcomes we choose to pursue. Without thoughtful, human-centered specifications, AI simply becomes the most efficient way to achieve the wrong goals, leading us directly into the Efficiency Trap. This is where organizations must overcome the Corporate Antibody response that resists fundamental shifts in how we measure success.

Revisiting and Applying Outcome-Driven Change in the Age of Agentic AI

As we integrate agentic AI into our organizations, the principles of Outcome-Driven Change (ODC) I first introduced in 2018 are more vital than ever. The core of the ODC framework rests on the alignment of three critical domains: Cognitive (Thinking), Affective (Feeling), and Conative (Doing). Today, AI agents are increasingly assuming the “conative” role, executing tasks and optimizing workflows at superhuman speeds. However, as I have always maintained, true success only arrives when what is being done is in harmony with what the people in the organization and customer base think and feel.

Outcome-Driven Change Framework

If an AI agent’s autonomous actions are misaligned with human psychological readiness or emotional context, it will trigger a Corporate Antibody response that kills innovation. To practice genuine Human-Centered Change™, we must ensure that AI agents are directed to pursue outcomes that are not just numerically efficient, but humanly resonant. When an AI’s “doing” matches the collective thinking and feeling of the workforce, we move beyond the Efficiency Trap and create lasting change with impact.

“In the age of agentic AI, the true scarcity is not computational power; it is the human wisdom to define the right ‘North Star’ outcomes. An AI optimizing for the wrong goal is a digital express train headed in the wrong direction – efficient, but ultimately destructive.” — Braden Kelley

From Feature-Building to Outcome-Harvesting

For decades, many organizations have been stuck in a cycle of “feature-building.” Product teams were rewarded for shipping more features, marketing for launching more campaigns, and R&D for creating more patents. The focus was on output, not ultimate impact. Outcome-Driven Innovation shifts this paradigm. It forces us to ask: What human or business value are we trying to create? What measurable change in behavior or well-being are we seeking?

Agentic AI, when properly directed, becomes an unparalleled accelerant for this shift. Instead of building a new feature and hoping it works, we can now tell an AI agent, “Achieve Outcome X for Persona Y, within Constraints Z,” and it will explore millions of pathways to get there. This frees human teams from the tactical churn and allows them to focus on the truly strategic work: deeply understanding customer needs, identifying ethical guardrails, and defining aspirational outcomes that genuinely drive Human-Centered Innovation™.

Case Study 1: Sustainable Manufacturing and the “Circular Economy” Outcome

The Challenge: A major electronics manufacturer in early 2025 aimed to reduce its carbon footprint but struggled with the complexity of optimizing its global supply chain, product design, and end-of-life recycling simultaneously. Traditional methods led to incremental, siloed improvements.

The Outcome-Driven Approach: They defined a bold outcome: “Achieve a 50% reduction in virgin material usage across all product lines by 2028, while maintaining profitability and product quality.” They then deployed an agentic AI system to explore new material combinations, reverse logistics networks, and redesign possibilities. This AI was explicitly optimized to achieve the circular economy outcome.

The Impact: The AI identified design changes that led to a 35% reduction in material waste within 18 months, far exceeding human predictions. It also found pathways to integrate recycled content into new products without compromising durability. The organization moved from a reactive “greenwashing” approach to proactive, systemic innovation driven by a clear, human-centric environmental outcome.

Case Study 2: Personalized Education and “Mastery Outcomes”

The Challenge: A national education system faced stagnating literacy rates, despite massive investments in new curricula. The focus was on “covering material” rather than ensuring true student understanding and application.

The Outcome-Driven Approach: They shifted their objective to “Ensure 90% of students achieve demonstrable mastery of core literacy skills by age 10.” An AI tutoring system was developed, designed to optimize for individual student mastery outcomes, rather than just quiz scores. The AI dynamically adapted learning paths, identified specific knowledge gaps, and even generated custom exercises based on each child’s learning style.

The Impact: Within two years, participating schools saw a 25% improvement in mastery rates. The AI became a powerful co-pilot for teachers, freeing them from repetitive grading and allowing them to focus on high-touch mentorship. This demonstrated how AI, directed by human-defined learning outcomes, can empower both educators and students, moving beyond the Efficiency Trap of standardized testing.

Leading Companies and Startups to Watch

As 2026 solidifies Outcome-Driven Innovation, several entities are paving the way. Amplitude and Pendo are evolving their product analytics to connect feature usage directly to customer outcomes. In the AI space, Anthropic‘s work on “Constitutional AI” is fascinating, as it seeks to embed human-defined ethical outcomes directly into the AI’s decision-making. Glean and Perplexity AI are creating agentic knowledge systems that help organizations define and track complex outcomes across their internal data. Startups like Metaculus are even democratizing the prediction of outcomes, allowing collective intelligence to forecast the impact of potential innovations, providing invaluable insights for human decision-makers. These players are all contributing to the core goal: helping humans define the right problems for AI to solve.

Conclusion: The Human Art of Defining the Future

The year 2026 is a pivotal moment. Agentic AI gives us unprecedented power to optimize, but with great power comes great responsibility — the responsibility to define truly meaningful outcomes. This is not a technical challenge; it is a human one. It requires deep empathy, strategic foresight, and the courage to challenge old metrics. It demands leaders who understand that the most impactful Human-Centered Innovation™ starts with a clear, ethically grounded North Star.

If you’re an innovation leader trying to navigate this future, remember: the future is not about what AI can do, but about what outcomes we, as humans, choose to pursue with it. Let’s make sure those outcomes serve humanity first.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is “Outcome-Driven Innovation”?

Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI) is a strategic approach that focuses on defining and achieving specific, measurable human or business outcomes, rather than simply creating new features or products. AI then optimizes for these defined outcomes.

How does agentic AI change the role of human leaders in ODI?

Agentic AI frees human leaders from tactical execution and micro-management, allowing them to focus on the higher-level strategic work of identifying critical problems, understanding human needs, and defining the ethical, impactful outcomes for AI to pursue.

What is the “Efficiency Trap” in the context of AI and outcomes?

The Efficiency Trap occurs when AI is used to optimize for speed or cost without first ensuring that the underlying outcome is meaningful and human-centered. This can lead to highly efficient processes that achieve undesirable or even harmful results, ultimately undermining trust and innovation.

Image credits: Braden Kelley, Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

9 Habits of Human-Centered Innovators That Still Matter in the Age of AI

9 Habits of Human-Centered Innovators That Still Matter in the Age of AI

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


Which Innovation Habits Still Matter in the Age of AI? (Short Answer)

Nine habits of human-centered innovators still matter in the age of AI: start with humans doing the job, define the problem before accelerating answers, match method to mandate, prototype to falsify behavior, design for Tuesday (adoption), kill weak bets on purpose, protect contiguous time for judgment, measure behavior not activity, and innovate with the people who must live the change. AI tempts teams to skip each habit because generation is cheap. Skipping them produces innovation cosplay at higher RPM — more demos, less impact.

Soft landings are designed. These habits are how innovators design them without waiting for a keynote.

Speed Is Not the Habit

I have watched rooms fill with the same excitement twice — once when sticky notes arrived, and again when the model could generate a persona, a journey map, and a clickable demo before lunch. The second room felt more advanced. It was often less honest.

AI did not retire human-centered innovation. It made contact with reality more urgent. Models can invent users who never existed, roadmaps that answer the wrong question beautifully, and pilots that prove the demo while the operating model stays frozen. Generation got cheap. Impact is still expensive — in the right way: humans, mandate, adoption, and judgment.

Habit AI temptation Without it
1. Start with humans Synthetic personas Empathy theater at machine speed
2. Define the problem first Instant “solutions” Faster wrong
3. Match method to mandate Orphan AI pilots Methods without power
4. Falsify a behavior Applause demos Demo day as destination
5. Design for Tuesday Model proof only Forever pilots
6. Kill weak bets Infinite cheap experiments Pilot purgatory
7. Protect judgment time Denser busyness Hard landing
8. Measure adopted outcomes Token vanity metrics Metric mirage
9. Innovate with adopters Expert-in-a-box generation Ideas that die on Tuesday

1. Why Must Human-Centered Innovators Still Start With Humans Doing the Job?

The habit: Talk to customers, employees, and partners in their language — jobs-to-be-done, friction, dignity costs — before the model writes the persona.

AI temptation: Synthetic users, scraped reviews, and generated “empathy maps” that feel researched because the prose is fluent.

On Tuesday: Field time, ride-alongs, frontline shadowing. Evidence that could not have been invented in the building. If your insight could have been written without leaving the office, it is fiction with better fonts.

Without it: Empathy theater at machine speed — and a roadmap that optimizes for a human who never existed.

2. Why Define the Problem Before You Accelerate the Answers?

The habit: Spend scarce human attention on problem definition, constraints, and stakes — then use AI to explore options inside that frame.

AI temptation: Instant roadmaps, feature lists, and “solutions” that answer the wrong question beautifully. Speed flatters the wrong problem.

On Tuesday: One crisp problem statement owned by a sponsor. Kill ideas that solve a different problem, even if the demo is gorgeous.

Without it: Faster wrong. The age of AI does not punish bad problem definition less. It scales it.

3. How Do Innovators Match Method to Mandate in the Age of AI?

The habit: Only run workshops, sprints, and experiments you are empowered to decide, ship, or stop.

AI temptation: Impressive AI pilots that nobody has authority to operationalize — autonomy for the model, no levers for the humans who must change the work.

On Tuesday: Decision rights written before kickoff. Facilitators paired with sponsors who have budget, policy, or metric levers — not just applause at the readout.

Without it: Innovation cosplay. Methods without power. A lab that photographs well and changes nothing.

4. What Does It Mean to Prototype to Falsify a Behavior?

The habit: Build the smallest test that can prove or kill a named human behavior hypothesis — not a portfolio piece.

AI temptation: Gorgeous clickable demos and agent demos that win the room and teach nothing about what people will do when the markers dry.

On Tuesday: One measurable behavior — complete in one try, abandon the workaround, time-to-confidence. Learn from what people do, not what they clap for.

Without it: Demo day becomes the destination. Learning never gets a chance to embarrass the idea.

5. Why Design for Tuesday Instead of Demo Day?

The habit: From day one, plan owners, handoffs, incentives, and what dies when the new way works. Adoption is design, not an afterthought.

AI temptation: Pilot theater that proves the model, not the operating model. Green lights on the demo; red experiences for the median user.

On Tuesday: A named workflow owner after go-live. A retirement plan for the old path. Success means the median person succeeds without heroics.

Without it: Forever pilots. Go-live with cake. Transformation that never becomes a new way of working.

6. Why Is Killing Weak Bets Still a Core Innovation Habit?

The habit: Few bets, explicit kill criteria, and social permission to stop. Stopping is a skill, not a failure.

AI temptation: Infinite cheap experiments that never end because “we’re still learning.” Learning without a decision date is tourism.

On Tuesday: Time boxes, go/no-go dates, and a visible cemetery of stopped ideas — honorable exits that free attention for what still deserves oxygen.

Without it: Idea cemeteries and pilot purgatory with better graphics. Activity that never graduates to impact.

7. How Do Human-Centered Innovators Protect Contiguous Time for Judgment?

The habit: Use AI to absorb fragmentation and glue work — then defend the reclaimed blocks for insight, empathy, decision making, and collaboration.

AI temptation: Fill every saved minute with more tickets, more prompts, denser busyness. Utilization stays green; thinking gets thinner.

On Tuesday: Calendar policy as part of the innovation bet. Depth metrics, not only output volume. Soft landing is a habit, not a slogan.

Without it: A hard landing — faster humans, less human work, and innovation that never gets contiguous minutes to notice what matters.

8. What Should Innovators Measure Instead of Activity?

The habit: Track what humans do and what the organization adopts — retention, effort, cycle time, cost-to-serve, journey success — not ideas generated or demos shipped.

AI temptation: Vanity dashboards: prompts run, tokens used, prototypes produced. Analytics that celebrate motion.

On Tuesday: A dual scorecard. Activity may inform. Outcomes decide. If the number cannot name a human behavior, it is theater with charts.

Without it: Metric mirage. Teams optimize for what photographs in the steering committee, not what lands on Tuesday.

9. Why Innovate With the People Who Must Live the Change?

The habit: Co-create with adopters and frontline owners. Treat innovation as a team sport — not a lone-genius myth or a lab-only sport.

AI temptation: Expert-in-a-box generation that skips the people whose Tuesday must change. The model sounds decisive; the organization is not invited.

On Tuesday: Dual recognition for insight and change. Frontline power funded, not only automated. The people who will live the new way help design it.

Without it: Brilliant ideas that die on contact with the median manager — and employees who know what customers deserve but are not allowed to deliver it.

How Do You Check Innovation Habits Before an AI-Assisted Sprint?

Before the next AI-assisted innovation sprint, run five go/no-go questions. If you cannot answer them, you are buying speed without a landing:

  1. Who did we talk to — real humans doing the job, in their words?
  2. What problem are we empowered to change — decide, ship, or stop?
  3. What behavior are we falsifying — not what demo are we showing?
  4. Who owns Tuesday after the demo — workflow, incentives, old path retired?
  5. What will we stop if the evidence says stop — and is stopping allowed?

If you want the patterns these habits prevent, see 7 Types of Innovation Theater and 7 Ways Design Thinking Gets Misused. For the work redesign behind habit seven, read The AI Soft Landing. For the funding gate that keeps weak bets from becoming budget lines, use 11 Questions Before Funding Any Innovation Pilot.

AI made generation cheap. Human-centered innovation still makes impact expensive — in the right way: contact with reality, mandate, adoption, and judgment. Keep the habits. Use the tools. Design the landing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What habits do human-centered innovators practice?

Human-centered innovators start with people doing the job, define the problem before accelerating solutions, match methods to decision rights, prototype to falsify behavior, design for adoption, kill weak bets, protect time for judgment, measure adopted outcomes, and co-create with the people who must live the change.

Do innovation habits still matter with AI?

Yes — more than before. AI makes personas, demos, and roadmaps cheap, which makes skipping contact with reality, mandate, and adoption more expensive. Without these habits, teams get innovation theater at higher speed: more output, less impact.

How should you use AI in human-centered innovation?

Use AI inside a human-defined problem frame — to explore options, draft artifacts, and absorb glue work — after talking to real users and clarifying decision rights. Prototype to test behavior, protect reclaimed time for judgment, and measure adoption, not token or demo volume.

What separates real innovators from innovation theater?

Real innovators optimize for impact that lands: real humans in the evidence, mandate to change the system, behavior-based learning, adoption owners after the demo, kill criteria, and outcomes that name what people do. Theater optimizes for activity that photographs — labs, decks, and demos without power or Tuesday.

Does AI replace design thinking or human-centered design?

No. AI can accelerate parts of the craft — drafting, clustering, prototyping — but it does not replace talking to humans, defining the right problem, matching method to mandate, or designing for adoption. Used without those habits, AI becomes a faster costume for the same theater.

Image credits: Unsplash

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini and Cursor to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.