@zarazhangrui: If you've adopted AI at your company but haven't seen any tangible results, read this 1990 article: "The Dynamo and the…
Summary
This tweet draws a parallel between the slow productivity gains from early electricity adoption and current AI adoption, arguing that true benefits come from redesigning workflows rather than simply bolting AI onto existing processes. It references Paul David's 1990 article 'The Dynamo and the Computer'.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 06/10/26, 11:49 AM
If you’ve adopted AI at your company but haven’t seen any tangible results, read this 1990 article: “The Dynamo and the Computer” by Paul David.
When electricity first arrived, factories that “adopted” it barely got faster. They just swapped the steam engine for an electric one and ran everything else exactly as before: same machine layout, same workflow, same management. Electricity in, no real gains out.
The most common mistake with any new technology is to drop it into the old organization and then declare the transformation done.
The real leap came decades later, when each machine got its own small motor. Suddenly machines no longer had to be lined up around one central drive shaft. They could be rearranged around the actual flow of work.
The productivity gains didn’t come from electricity. They came from REDESIGNING THE ENTIRE FACTORY around it.
AI is the same. Bolting it onto your existing process gets you a faster steam engine. The payoff comes when you redesign the work itself.
(link to paper in comments)
Similar Articles
If you are just getting started with AI the results feel great. If you have been at it a while, you know what comes next.
The author observes that while AI boosts individual productivity, companies often fail to realize bottom-line gains because organizational bottlenecks and slow decision-making prevent the compounded benefits of automation.
Are we overestimating how quickly AI capability turns into real productivity?
The article questions whether AI's demonstrated capability automatically translates into real-world productivity, highlighting gaps like workflow ownership, reliability, and integration into complex human systems.
@vasuman: https://x.com/vasuman/status/2070629226664153173
The article argues that enterprise AI adoption fails because companies add tools employees must learn, instead of embedding AI into existing workflows to automate outcomes without requiring behavior change.
AI's Measured Impact on Engineering Velocity (4 minute read)
Abi Noda of DX and Brian Houck of Microsoft share early findings from DX's research on AI's impact on engineering velocity, revealing a modest 10-15% increase in PR throughput, far below the 10x hype. They discuss why coding is only a small part of developer work, the risk of 'false velocity', and opportunities for AI beyond coding.
Everyone builds AI workflows. Almost no one sticks with them. Here’s why.
A founder shares his experience with AI tool adoption, noting that most people collect tools without achieving real results. He advocates focusing on one critical business problem and iterating until the workflow genuinely works, citing his own success reducing client reporting time from 4-5 hours to under 45 minutes.