Greater productivity does not mean higher revenue

There is a leap I find all too easy in the promises made about artificial intelligence: we will work faster and therefore earn more revenue.

There is a client missing between those two things.

I can prepare a document sooner, organise a case file faster or finish part of a project earlier. That leaves me with time available. For that time to become revenue, someone has to commission something and pay for it.

The machine can help me produce the work. What I do with that capacity is still my decision.

The same commissions, less time

Imagine an architecture practice that takes on two million euros' worth of commissions a year. It introduces AI and reduces the time it spends preparing documentation, organising information and developing initial proposals.

It has the same clients and the same agreed fees. It finishes the work sooner. Its commissions are still worth two million.

Now imagine a law firm in the same position. AI helps it organise background information and prepare drafts that its lawyers then review. It completes its existing instructions sooner. Finishing the last document does not bring a new client through the door either.

Both have freed up capacity. That has value. But I want to know what we do with it.

If we already had a waiting list of clients, we can serve them sooner. If we are short of work, we have to win it. Buying production capacity and generating demand are two different jobs.

And if we charge by the hour, working faster can even reduce what we bill for a matter. That is a reason to review how we charge. Here I am interested in the decision that comes first: what we do with the time we have just freed up.

Better quality and more review

My first choice would be to spend some of that time doing better work.

In the law firm, use a morning to check the client's documents against the account set out in a submission. Find the contradiction we had missed. Prepare more thoroughly for a negotiation. Call the client and explain the decision they face.

In the architecture practice, use that breathing room to compare two layouts, check that the drawings and written specification fit together, or explain the implications of a change to the developer before finalising the design.

The client can receive better work for the same fee. I see that as a business improvement in itself, even if that month's revenue stays the same.

It also means setting that time aside. If every gap fills up with another urgent task, the review will keep waiting. Having the capacity to review and actually reviewing are two different things.

Winning clients and making sales

If I want more revenue, I have to give selling some attention.

The law firm can revisit proposals it sent out and never followed up. Prepare a meeting with a company that needs ongoing advice. Talk to existing clients about matters they have yet to instruct it on.

The architecture practice can visit a developer, prepare a proposal for a refurbishment or update its project portfolio to pitch for a commission that suits its specialism.

These are specific tasks. Someone has to take responsibility for them and put a date in the diary.

Telling me everyone will now have more time to win clients is not enough. I want to know who will call, whom they will call, what they will offer and when we will check whether it worked.

The practice with two million euros in commissions can devote capacity to winning the next project. Until it does, it has a sales opportunity. It does not yet have more sales.

New services

Another option is to use that breathing room to develop something we do not currently offer.

A law firm could design a regular contract review service for small businesses: which documents it covers, what the client receives, how long it takes and what it costs. Then it would have to present it and persuade someone to buy it.

An architecture practice could develop a preliminary assessment service for owners considering a refurbishment of commercial premises. A visit, some alternative layouts and an initial estimate of the project's scope, with clear boundaries.

AI can help prepare materials and organise the process. The service needs a clear offer, a price and a buyer.

I would start with one specific offer. Try to sell it. Adjust it in response to questions from the first people who show interest. Developing twenty services nobody has asked for also uses up the time we saved.

Training we used to put off

The time we free up can also be used to learn.

In the law firm, set aside a session to work through a relevant judgment, discuss how it affects the matters we handle and update a template we keep using out of habit.

In the architecture practice, spend an afternoon practising with a project coordination tool on a test case. Try it together, resolve questions and establish a way of working the team can repeat.

That interests me more than accumulating unfinished courses on a platform.

I want the learning to reach the work: for the next submission to be better argued, or the next project to avoid a problem we used to resolve too late.

Training uses available capacity to improve future capacity. The result comes later. That, too, is a management choice.

Fewer hours

And there is an option I find perfectly reasonable: finish earlier.

If a law firm delivers the agreed work to the required standard, it can use some of the time saved so its lawyers no longer have to review documents at night.

If the architecture practice meets its commitments, it can organise the work so a deadline no longer takes up the team's weekend.

Maintaining revenue and reclaiming personal time strikes me as an excellent result. I do not need to dress it up as growth to defend it.

But that also takes a decision. If we keep the same hours and automatically fill every gap, we have chosen something else.

Time needs a purpose

I would start with a simple question: why do we want to work faster?

The answer can combine several options. Some time for reviewing, some for winning work and some for finishing the day at a reasonable hour. What matters is making real room for them in the diary.

Then I would look at what has changed. Are we reviewing more thoroughly? Have we submitted proposals? Has anyone bought the new service? Have we learned something we are already using? Are we working fewer hours?

Those answers tell me more than counting the documents produced.

A practice with two million euros in commissions can use AI to deliver them better, pursue the next project or stop working Saturdays. Each outcome follows from a different decision.

AI frees up capacity. I have to decide what I want to achieve with it.

Efficiency is a management decision, not an automatic outcome.