The AI marketplace has become a deafening carnival of competing vendors, each promising to revolutionise your business with their particular brand of artificial intelligence. Every software company, from established enterprise giants to scrappy startups, has suddenly discovered they have “AI capabilities” to sell you. The noise is overwhelming. The options are paralysing. And increasingly, the consequences of choosing poorly are becoming painfully public.
When AI Goes Spectacularly Wrong
Let’s talk about Deloitte Australia’s recent disaster – a cautionary tale that should make every organisation pause before implementing AI tools without proper safeguards and strategic consideration.
In October 2025, Deloitte Australia was forced to issue a partial refund to the Australian government for a $440,000AUD report that contained AI-generated errors, including a fabricated quote from federal court judgement and references to non-existent academic research papers. The 237-page report, which was commissioned to review the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations’ welfare compliance framework and IT system, was riddled with hallucinated content that a Sydney University researcher exposed as “full of fabricated references.”
The report quoted academics, software engineering experts and legal experts who didn’t exist, cited studies that were never published, and included an invented quote attributed to a federal court judge. After the errors were discovered, Deloitte disclosed it had used Azure OpenAI GPT-4o in producing parts of the report.
Think about that for a moment…
One of the world’s most prestigious consulting firms – a Big Four consultancy that trades entirely on reputation, rigour, and reliability – submitted a government report containing fabricated sources and fake citations.
For a global consulting firm built on trust, accuracy and accountability, publishing AI-generated falsehoods undercuts its credibility in ways that will be difficult from which to recover.
The problem wasn’t that Deloitte used AI. The problem was they used it without proper process, verification, or accountability. Someone generated content, skipped the verification step, and submitted it to a government client whose decisions affect millions of citizens and billions in welfare payments.
This is what happens when organisations rush to implement AI tools without strategy, without training, and without proper consideration of their actual requirements.
The Marketplace Chaos: Too Many Tools, Not Enough Thinking
Walk into any business technology conference today and you’ll be bombarded with AI promises. Every vendor has pivoted to AI. Every product now comes with “AI-powered features.” The marketplace has become a shouting match where everyone claims their tool will transform your business, increase productivity, and solve problems you didn’t even know you had.
The reality is far messier.
We’re seeing three dangerous patterns emerging across organisations trying to navigate this AI gold rush:
Pattern One: The Bolt-On Approach
Major software vendors are frantically adding AI functionality to existing products, regardless of whether it makes strategic sense. Microsoft Copilot is the prime example – a capability grafted onto the Microsoft 365 suite that promises to revolutionise how you work with documents, emails, and spreadsheets.
But here’s the question nobody’s asking loudly enough: does your organisation actually need AI assistance with these tasks? Have you identified specific workflow bottlenecks that AI would solve? Or are you implementing it because Microsoft is heavily marketing it and you’re worried about being left behind?
The bolt-on approach often fails because it’s solving problems the vendor thinks you have, not problems you’ve actually identified. You’re implementing AI for AI’s sake, not because it addresses genuine business requirements or fits into your existing workflows and methodologies.
Pattern Two: The Free-for-All
Even worse than implementing the wrong tool is implementing no tool at all – and instead allowing staff to use whatever free AI services they can find online. This is where organisations face genuine risk around intellectual property and security concerns.
When employees start copying sensitive company information, client data, or proprietary methodologies into ChatGPT or other publicly available AI tools, you’ve lost control of your information security. These free tools don’t exist in your security perimeter. The data you feed them may be used to train future models. You have no audit trail, no governance, and no protection.
We’ve seen companies discover – too late – that staff have been using free AI tools to draft contracts containing confidential terms, to analyse competitive intelligence that shouldn’t leave the organisation, and to generate content using proprietary business knowledge. The IP and security implications are staggering, yet many organisations remain blissfully unaware of the extent to which their staff are already using these tools.
Remember this key IT mantra – if the product is free, then you’re the product.
Pattern Three: The Panic Implementation
Perhaps most dangerous is the organisation that rushes to implement AI tools simply because competitors are doing it, because leadership has read about it in the newspaper, saw it spoken about at a networking event, or because there’s a vague sense that “we need to be doing something with AI.”
These panic implementations rarely succeed because they lack the fundamental prerequisite for any successful technology adoption: a clear understanding of what problem you’re trying to solve and whether this particular tool is the right solution for your specific requirements.
The Churn Is Real
We’re already seeing the consequences of these rushed, unfocused AI implementations. Organisations are experiencing tool churn – implementing AI solutions, discovering they don’t deliver value, and scrambling to find alternatives. Staff are confused about which tools they should be using. Training budgets are wasted on platforms that are abandoned within months. And worse, the failed implementations are creating AI fatigue and cynicism that will make future (potentially valuable) AI adoption even harder.
The pattern is depressingly familiar: a vendor promises transformation, an organisation implements without proper requirements analysis or change management, staff struggle to integrate the new tool into existing workflows, adoption remains low, ROI never materialises, and the tool is quietly shelved while everyone pretends it never happened.
This isn’t just wasted money – it’s wasted opportunity and damaged credibility for AI initiatives that might actually deliver value.
The Way Forward: Focus on Your Actual Needs
So how do you avoid becoming the next cautionary tale? How do you navigate the marketplace noise and find AI solutions that actually work for your organisation?
The answer is frustratingly simple: focus.
Focus on understanding your specific requirements before evaluating tools. Focus on your existing systems and workflows. Focus on your people’s actual needs rather than vendor promises. Focus on problems you’ve identified rather than solutions vendors are pushing.
Know Your Systems
Before implementing any AI tool, you need intimate knowledge of your current systems, processes, and workflows. What works well? What creates bottlenecks? Where do staff waste time on repetitive tasks that could genuinely benefit from automation? Where do errors occur that AI might help prevent?
You can’t improve what you don’t understand. And you certainly can’t choose the right AI tool if you haven’t properly mapped your current state and identified specific pain points that technology could address.
Know Your People
The best AI tool in the world is useless if your staff don’t adopt it. Understanding your team’s capabilities, working styles, and tolerance for change is crucial to successful implementation.
Do your staff already follow structured methodologies that AI could enhance? Or are you trying to implement AI to create structure where none exists – a recipe for failure? Are they technically confident enough to integrate new tools into their workflows? Do they understand the limitations of AI and when human judgement remains essential?
Any AI implementation that ignores the human element is doomed from the start.
Know Your Requirements
This seems obvious, but it’s staggering how many organisations skip this step. What exactly do you need the AI tool to do? What specific outcomes are you trying to achieve? What would success look like, and how would you measure it?
Generic answers like “increase productivity” or “improve efficiency” aren’t good enough. You need concrete, measurable requirements that any potential solution can be evaluated against.
The RohanRFP Success Story: When Focus Delivers Results
Let’s talk about what focused AI implementation looks like in practice.
We’ve seen organisations using RohanRFP achieve brilliant performance uplift and genuine return on investment in the tender space – but not because RohanRFP is some magic solution that works for everyone. It works because it’s been implemented by organisations that already have a tender process and methodology they’re following.
These organisations know their systems. They’ve established workflows for how tenders are researched, written, reviewed, and submitted. They’ve identified specific pain points in their tender process – perhaps the time it takes to analyse requirements, or the difficulty of maintaining consistency across different bid writers, or the challenge of quickly accessing relevant past experience.
RohanRFP works for these organisations because it’s designed specifically for the tender domain. It understands the unique requirements of bid writing – the need to address every question, to maintain compliance with formatting requirements, to draw on past project experience, to collaborate across teams, to manage multiple reviews and approvals.
It’s not a general-purpose AI tool trying to do everything. It’s a focused solution designed to uplift and supercharge an existing tender methodology, turning a structured approach into even better business outcomes.
The organisations seeing success with RohanRFP aren’t using it to create a tender process from scratch. They’re using it to make their existing process faster, more consistent, and more effective. They’ve identified specific requirements, evaluated whether RohanRFP meets those requirements, and implemented it as part of a deliberate strategy to improve tender performance.
That’s what focused AI implementation looks like. It’s not sexy. It’s not revolutionary. It’s just sensible, strategic thinking about what your organisation actually needs and which tools genuinely address those needs.
Choosing Your Stallholder in the Marketplace
The AI marketplace isn’t going to get quieter. If anything, the noise will intensify as more vendors pile in and existing players fight for market share. The shouting will get louder. The promises will get bolder. The fear of missing out will become more acute.
Your job is to walk through that marketplace with clear focus on your actual requirements. Listen to the pitches, but evaluate them against your specific needs rather than getting swept up in the hype. Ask hard questions about how tools will integrate with your existing systems. Demand evidence of success with organisations similar to yours. Insist on understanding the limitations as well as the capabilities.
Most importantly, resist the panic implementation. The organisations that succeed with AI aren’t the ones who implement first – they’re the ones who implement thoughtfully.
The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think
The Deloitte example should serve as a sobering reminder of what’s at stake when organisations rush to implement AI without proper safeguards, training, and strategic consideration. This wasn’t a small startup making rookie mistakes – it was one of the world’s most respected consulting firms suffering reputational damage that will take years to repair.
As one industry analyst noted, the failure wasn’t using AI – it was abdicating accountability by treating AI as a substitute for analysis rather than a partner in it.
Your organisation faces similar risks every time you implement an AI tool without proper process and oversight. The stakes might not be as public as a government report, but they’re just as real – failed implementations, wasted resources, security breaches, IP losses, and staff cynicism about technology that could genuinely help them.
Focus or Fail
The title of this piece isn’t hyperbole. In a marketplace drowning in AI noise, organisations face a stark choice: maintain focus on your actual requirements and implement tools that genuinely address them, or fail by implementing tools that sound impressive but don’t deliver value.
The focused approach isn’t glamorous. It requires doing the hard work of understanding your current state, identifying specific pain points, evaluating solutions against concrete requirements, and implementing with proper training and change management. It means sometimes saying no to tools that vendors promise will transform your business, because you know they won’t address your actual needs.
But the focused approach works.
We see it in organisations using RohanRFP to deliver measurably better tender outcomes. We see it in companies that have carefully evaluated their requirements and implemented AI tools that genuinely fit their workflows and enhance their existing methodologies.
The alternative – the rush to implement, the panic adoption, the free-for-all approach – leads to the churn we’re already seeing across the market. Tools that promise everything and deliver nothing. Implementations that create confusion rather than clarity. AI fatigue that makes future adoption even harder.
In the AI marketplace, focus isn’t just an advantage – it’s the difference between success and failure. Choose your tools as carefully as you’d choose any strategic investment. Your organisation’s productivity, security, and future success depend on it.
The marketplace will keep shouting. Your job is to stay focused on what you actually need – and walk past the rest of the noise.
To find out more visit:
Recent Comments