AI-Driven Process Reinvention in Banking - How Governance, Legacy Systems, and Professional Identity Constrain AI-Enabled Reinvention

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely recognised as a transformative technology with the potential to fundamentally reshape organisational processes, decision-making structures, and operating models. Across industries, organisations continue to invest heavily in AI-enabled capabilities with expectations of enhanced productivity, improved decision quality, and large-scale organisational transformation. Yet despite rapid advances in AI capability, evidence of substantive process reinvention remains comparatively limited. Many organisations report significant efficiency gains while continuing to operate within largely unchanged process architectures.

This paper examines the persistent gap between technological capability and organisational transformation. Drawing upon organisational learning, institutional theory, socio-technical systems research, digital transformation scholarship, and studies of AI-enabled work, it argues that the principal barrier to reinvention is not technological constraint but the organisational systems through which technological possibilities are interpreted, evaluated, and implemented.

To explain this phenomenon, the paper develops the concept of the Process Cage: an integrative socio-technical framework describing how governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability requirements, operational substitution constraints, and identity lock-in interact to systematically channel AI-enabled opportunities towards optimisation rather than redesign. Organisational persistence is therefore conceptualised not as the consequence of a single source of inertia, but as an emergent property of multiple mutually reinforcing mechanisms.

The analysis further explores how these dynamics manifest through workload persistence, professional identity preservation, and the Workshop Paradox, whereby organisational forums explicitly intended to generate transformation frequently reproduce existing process logics. Particular attention is given to the Swiss banking sector, where regulatory obligations, legacy infrastructures, and deeply institutionalised professional structures create conditions under which optimisation is often more achievable, legitimate, and governable than reinvention.

The paper contributes to contemporary debates on AI and organisational transformation in three ways. First, it identifies a persistent divergence between AI capability and process redesign. Second, it introduces the Process Cage as a novel theoretical framework that integrates previously fragmented explanations of organisational inertia. Third, it demonstrates how organisations can become increasingly efficient without becoming fundamentally different. The paper concludes by proposing principles for AI-driven process reinvention that shift attention from accelerating existing processes towards questioning their continued necessity. The findings suggest that the long-term strategic value of AI depends less on its capacity to automate work than on an organisation’s willingness to redesign the assumptions upon which work itself is organised.

1. Introduction: The Paradox of AI in Highly Structured Organisations

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most significant technological developments in contemporary organisational life. Advances in machine learning, predictive analytics, large language models, and generative AI have dramatically expanded the range of tasks that can be automated, augmented, or performed collaboratively between humans and intelligent systems. Across industries, organisations are investing heavily in AI technologies with the expectation that they will improve productivity, enhance decision-making, reduce costs, and fundamentally transform how work is organised (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Jarrahi et al., 2023).

Within banking, these expectations have been particularly pronounced. Financial institutions have deployed AI across a growing range of activities including fraud detection, credit assessment, customer service, compliance monitoring, risk management, document processing, and operational support. The sector is frequently portrayed as being at the forefront of AI adoption due to the volume of data available, the complexity of decision-making requirements, and the substantial efficiency gains that intelligent automation appears capable of delivering (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018).

Despite this widespread adoption, however, a striking paradox has emerged. While organisations increasingly report productivity improvements from AI-enabled initiatives, there is comparatively limited evidence that AI has fundamentally altered the underlying architecture of organisational processes. Customer journeys continue to involve many of the same approval structures, compliance reviews, governance controls, handovers, and documentation requirements that existed prior to AI deployment. Work may be completed more quickly, but the broader process structures through which work is organised often remain remarkably stable.

This observation raises an important theoretical and practical question. If AI possesses the capability to transform how information is generated, interpreted, coordinated, and acted upon, why do organisations so frequently use it to optimise existing processes rather than redesign them?

Existing literature offers several partial explanations. Research on technological disruption suggests that established organisations frequently struggle to exploit transformative innovations because existing business models, capabilities, and incentive structures favour incremental adaptation over radical change (Christensen, 1997). Studies of digital transformation similarly demonstrate that technological investments often fail to generate transformational outcomes when organisations do not undertake complementary organisational change (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021; Verhoef et al., 2021). Research on AI-enabled work has further highlighted the persistence of augmentation logics, whereby AI enhances human performance without substantially altering underlying organisational arrangements (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

While these perspectives provide valuable insights, they remain incomplete. Existing explanations typically focus on individual sources of inertia such as organisational routines, technological path dependency, professional resistance, governance requirements, or investment constraints. Consequently, they explain why specific barriers to transformation exist, but they provide less insight into how these barriers interact to produce a consistent organisational outcome across contexts. The result is a fragmented understanding of a phenomenon that appears increasingly widespread: organisations enthusiastically adopting AI while simultaneously preserving inherited process architectures.

This paper argues that the central challenge is not the absence of transformative technology but the presence of organisational systems that systematically redirect transformative opportunities towards optimisation. AI is frequently introduced into organisational environments whose structures, incentives, governance arrangements, and professional identities have evolved around existing ways of working. As a result, technologies with the potential to eliminate activities, simplify workflows, or redesign customer journeys are instead absorbed into pre-existing organisational architectures. The technology changes, but the underlying logic of the process remains largely intact.

To explain this phenomenon, the paper develops the concept of the Process Cage. The Process Cage is proposed as a multi-layered socio-technical framework that explains how organisations systematically constrain AI-enabled process reinvention. The framework suggests that transformational opportunities become progressively narrowed through the interaction of five reinforcing mechanisms: governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability requirements, operational substitution assumptions, and identity-based lock-in. Individually, each mechanism appears rational and often necessary. Collectively, however, they create conditions under which redesign becomes significantly more difficult than optimisation (Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. 2002).

The concept builds upon established traditions within organisational theory, institutional theory, socio-technical systems research, and digital transformation scholarship (Scott, 2014; Orlikowski, 1992; Vial, 2019). However, it differs from existing explanations in an important respect. Rather than treating organisational inertia as the consequence of a single constraint, the Process Cage conceptualises inertia as an emergent property of interacting organisational mechanisms. The framework therefore shifts attention away from isolated barriers and towards the reinforcing system through which organisations repeatedly reproduce existing process architectures despite technological change (Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Sydow, Schreyögg and Koch, 2009).

The argument developed throughout this paper has particular relevance for banking. Banking institutions operate within highly regulated environments characterised by extensive governance requirements, strong risk management cultures, complex legacy technology landscapes, and deeply embedded professional structures (Scott, 2014; Hinings, Gegenhuber and Greenwood, 2018). These characteristics make banking an especially valuable context in which to examine the relationship between AI adoption and process transformation. While the sector has invested heavily in AI capabilities, it continues to face persistent challenges in achieving large-scale process simplification and operating model redesign (Vial, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021).

The paper makes three principal contributions.

First, it contributes to the literature on AI and organisational transformation by identifying a persistent gap between technological capability and process redesign. Rather than assuming that technological advancement naturally produces organisational transformation, the paper demonstrates how organisations can simultaneously increase productivity and preserve existing process architectures. This argument aligns with research suggesting that digital technologies often reinforce existing organisational arrangements unless accompanied by broader structural change (Orlikowski, 1992; Vial, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021).

Second, it introduces the Process Cage as an integrative theoretical framework that brings together multiple strands of organisational research into a unified explanation of why AI-enabled reinvention frequently fails to materialise. The framework extends existing discussions of organisational inertia (Hannan and Freeman, 1984) by explaining how governance, technology, finance, operations, and professional identity interact to constrain transformation. In doing so, it also draws on insights from institutional theory concerning organisational persistence and legitimacy (Scott, 2014) and from path-dependence research that highlights the self-reinforcing nature of organisational arrangements (Sydow, Schreyögg and Koch, 2009).

Third, it contributes to debates surrounding the future of banking by highlighting the risk of process fossilisation under AI enhancement. The paper argues that institutions may become increasingly efficient at executing inherited processes while becoming less willing to question whether those processes remain necessary. This distinction has significant implications for the long-term competitive impact of AI within highly regulated industries and echoes broader concerns that digital transformation initiatives may optimise existing practices without fundamentally transforming them (Vial, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021).

The remainder of the paper develops this argument in eight chapters. Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature on AI, organisational transformation, and process redesign. Chapter 3 introduces the Process Cage framework and outlines its constituent mechanisms. Chapters 4 to 6 examine how these mechanisms operate through organisational decision-making, professional identity formation, and collaborative innovation processes. Chapter 7 considers the implications of the framework for Swiss banking. Chapter 8 proposes a set of design principles intended to support AI-driven process reinvention. The final chapter reflects on the broader implications of the Process Cage for organisations seeking to realise the transformative potential of AI.

The central proposition underlying the paper is straightforward but consequential: the greatest barrier to AI-enabled transformation is often not technological capability, organisational resistance, or regulatory constraint in isolation. Rather, it is the interaction of multiple organisational mechanisms that collectively make optimisation easier, safer, and more legitimate than reinvention. Until organisations address these reinforcing dynamics, AI is likely to continue accelerating existing processes rather than transforming them.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 AI and the Promise of Organisational Transformation

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most widely discussed drivers of organisational transformation in contemporary management research. Advances in machine learning, predictive analytics, and generative AI have expanded the range of activities that can be automated, augmented, or coordinated through intelligent systems. Unlike earlier generations of digital technologies that primarily supported information storage and communication, AI increasingly performs cognitive tasks traditionally associated with human judgement, analysis, and decision-making (Faraj, Pachidi and Sayegh, 2018; Jarrahi et al., 2023).

The transformative potential of AI has attracted substantial academic and managerial attention. Organisations are investing heavily in AI-enabled solutions with the expectation that these technologies will improve productivity, enhance decision quality, reduce operating costs, and enable entirely new forms of value creation (Dwivedi et al., 2023). Recent empirical studies suggest that AI can generate significant performance improvements across a range of knowledge-intensive activities. For example, generative AI has been shown to improve productivity, increase output quality, and reduce task completion times among knowledge workers (Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, 2023; Dell’Acqua et al., 2023; Noy and Zhang, 2023).

Within banking, expectations regarding the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) have been particularly pronounced. Financial institutions increasingly deploy AI across customer onboarding, fraud detection, credit assessment, compliance monitoring, risk management, and operational support functions (Mougani et al., 2024; Manta et al., 2024). Given banking's reliance on large-scale information processing, complex decision-making, and extensive regulatory oversight, AI appears especially well suited to improving organizational performance, operational efficiency, and service delivery.

Much of the contemporary discourse surrounding AI adoption is underpinned by an implicit assumption of technological determinism: as AI capabilities advance, organizations will naturally redesign workflows, simplify operating models, and transform how work is organized and executed. Recent scholarship on agentic AI and autonomous business models reinforces this expectation, suggesting that increasingly capable AI systems may become central actors in organizational value creation, coordination, and decision-making (Bohnsack & de Wet, 2025). Similarly, research on generative AI implementation argues that realizing the full value of AI requires substantial organizational adaptation rather than merely incremental technology deployment (Breiter & Lohmann, 2025; Sherson, 2024).

However, emerging evidence suggests that this transformation narrative may be overly optimistic. Although organizations frequently report productivity improvements and efficiency gains associated with AI adoption, evidence of large-scale business process reinvention and organizational redesign remains comparatively limited. Reviews of AI-enabled business process management indicate that most deployments are concentrated on enhancing or automating existing processes rather than fundamentally redesigning them (Abbasi et al., 2024). In many cases, AI appears to improve the execution of established routines while leaving underlying organizational structures, governance mechanisms, and operating models largely intact.

This apparent disconnect between technological capability and organizational transformation echoes a longstanding theme in information systems research. Studies of the information technology productivity paradox have repeatedly demonstrated that technological investments do not automatically translate into organizational transformation or superior performance (Brynjolfsson, 1993). Rather, significant benefits typically emerge only when technology adoption is accompanied by complementary changes in organizational structures, management practices, skills, and workflows (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000). Recent work on AI-driven productivity similarly suggests that substantial technological advances can coexist with relatively modest organizational change when institutions fail to develop the complementary capabilities necessary to exploit new technologies effectively (Aouad, Lykouris, & Zhong, 2026).

Evidence from the banking sector further supports this perspective. While financial institutions continue to increase investment in generative and agentic AI, implementation costs, governance requirements, regulatory constraints, and organizational inertia may limit the extent to which these technologies produce transformational change (Kikuchi, 2026). As a result, many organizations appear to achieve localized optimization and incremental efficiency gains rather than the deep restructuring envisioned by proponents of AI-enabled transformation.

This divergence between technological capability and organizational redesign raises a fundamental question for contemporary digital transformation research: why do AI investments frequently generate process optimization and productivity improvements, yet comparatively rarely lead to the profound structural and operational transformation predicted by both industry and academic discourse?

2.2 Productivity Improvement and the Transformation Problem

The distinction between productivity improvement and organisational transformation has long occupied scholars of technological change. Although technological innovations frequently increase efficiency, improvements in task performance do not automatically translate into broader organisational redesign.

This observation is consistent with research on general-purpose technologies. Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson (2021) argue that the economic benefits of transformative technologies frequently emerge only after substantial complementary investments in organisational change. New technologies initially improve existing activities before enabling more fundamental redesign of business processes and operating models. Consequently, productivity gains often precede transformation rather than guarantee it.

Research on digital transformation reaches similar conclusions. Vial (2019) argues that digital technologies create opportunities for organisational change, but the realisation of these opportunities depends on the ability of organisations to adapt structures, processes, capabilities, and business models. Technology alone is insufficient. Organisational transformation requires deliberate redesign.

Business process reengineering scholars made a related argument several decades earlier. Hammer and Champy (1993) distinguished between automating existing processes and fundamentally rethinking how work should be organised. They argued that the greatest gains emerge when organisations question inherited assumptions rather than simply digitise existing routines. Yet many organisations continue to favour automation over redesign because automation is easier to implement, govern, and evaluate.

The implication is that productivity improvement and transformation represent distinct organisational outcomes. Technologies may accelerate existing activities while leaving the broader architecture of work unchanged. Understanding why this occurs requires engagement with theories that explain organisational persistence and inertia.

2.3 Existing Explanations of Organisational Persistence

A substantial body of literature has sought to explain why organisations struggle to achieve transformational change even when new technologies create opportunities for redesign. One influential explanation is provided by path dependency theory. Organisational decisions made in the past create structures, routines, investments, and capabilities that shape future choices. As organisations accumulate systems, procedures, and institutional commitments, alternative pathways become increasingly difficult to pursue. Existing arrangements generate self-reinforcing effects that favour continuity over disruption (Christensen, 1997).

A second explanation emerges from institutional theory. Institutions often preserve structures not because they are necessarily optimal but because they are perceived as legitimate (Scott, 2014). Organisations operating in highly regulated environments frequently adopt practices that conform to accepted norms, expectations, and governance standards. Over time, these practices become institutionalised and resistant to change.

Socio-technical perspectives provide a third explanation. Organisational outcomes are shaped not only by technologies themselves but also by the interaction between technologies, social structures, routines, and human actors (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013). Technologies are therefore embedded within existing organisational arrangements rather than introduced into empty environments. New capabilities must coexist with established practices, responsibilities, and governance systems.

Research on organisational learning offers a fourth perspective. March (1991) distinguishes between exploitation and exploration. Exploitation focuses on improving existing capabilities, whereas exploration seeks new possibilities. Because exploitative activities generate more predictable returns and lower uncertainty, organisations frequently allocate disproportionate resources to optimisation rather than experimentation. As a result, incremental improvement often dominates transformational innovation.

More recently, scholars examining AI-enabled work have identified what Raisch and Krakowski (2021) describe as the automation–augmentation paradox. Although AI technologies possess the potential to substitute for certain human activities, organisations frequently deploy them in ways that augment existing roles rather than fundamentally redefine them. AI therefore becomes incorporated into established work arrangements instead of replacing them.

Collectively, these perspectives suggest that organisational transformation is constrained not by the absence of technological opportunity but by the persistence of organisational structures, routines, incentives, and institutional arrangements that have evolved around prior technologies and operating models (Christensen, 1997; Scott, 2014; Leonardi, 2013). New technologies rarely enter organisations as blank slates; instead, they are introduced into complex socio-technical systems characterised by established governance mechanisms, performance metrics, role definitions, regulatory obligations, and cultural expectations (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013).

Consequently, organisations often respond to technological advances by adapting them to existing structures rather than redesigning those structures around new technological possibilities (March, 1991; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000; Levinthal et al., 1993). This tendency is particularly pronounced in large, mature, and highly regulated industries such as banking, where reliability, risk management, and regulatory compliance are prioritised alongside innovation (Scott, 2014; Mougani et al., 2024). Under such conditions, organisations may find it both economically and politically easier to use new technologies to improve the efficiency of existing processes than to undertake the more disruptive task of reconfiguring organisational architectures, decision rights, workflows, and workforce arrangements (Christensen, 1997; March, 1991).

As a result, technological capability alone may be insufficient to generate transformational change. Instead, transformation appears to depend on an organisation's willingness and ability to challenge established assumptions, reallocate resources away from existing routines, and redesign complementary organisational systems (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000; Bohnsack and de Wet, 2025). The central challenge, therefore, is not whether AI is capable of enabling new forms of organising, but why organisations so frequently deploy it in ways that reinforce existing organisational logics rather than create fundamentally new ones (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Abbasi et al., 2024).

2.4 The Limits of Existing Explanations

Existing explanations of organisational persistence offer valuable but partial insights into why transformation remains difficult in practice. Most theoretical traditions privilege a dominant explanatory mechanism and, in doing so, tend to isolate what is in reality a densely interdependent system of constraints.

Path dependency theory foregrounds the enduring influence of historical investment patterns and sunk costs, which lock organisations into prior technological and structural trajectories (Arthur, 1989). Institutional theory, by contrast, emphasises legitimacy pressures and the role of external norms in shaping what is perceived as an acceptable organisational form (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Socio-technical systems perspectives highlight the embedded interdependence between technical infrastructures and social arrangements, stressing the difficulty of altering one without destabilising the other (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Bostrom and Heinen, 1977). Organisational learning theory draws attention to exploitation biases and competence traps, whereby organisations refine existing routines at the expense of exploration (March, 1991). More recent AI augmentation research extends these accounts by focusing on human–technology complementarities and the ways in which automation is shaped by existing role structures and cognitive divisions of labour (Jarrahi, 2018).

Taken individually, each perspective identifies a meaningful dimension of organisational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1984). However, contemporary organisations do not encounter these mechanisms in isolation. Rather, transformation efforts are typically subject to multiple reinforcing constraints operating simultaneously. Governance frameworks delimit what counts as an approved solution; legacy architectures restrict feasible implementation pathways; financial models privilege incremental, quantifiable returns; operational logics prioritise augmentation over substitution; and professional identities stabilise existing conceptions of expertise and value (Scott, 2014; Christensen, 1997; March, 1991; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Leonardi, 2013).

The limitation of much of the existing literature is therefore not a lack of explanatory depth at the level of individual mechanisms, but a lack of theoretical integration across them. Although the field has produced a rich catalogue of barriers to change, less attention has been given to how these mechanisms interact systemically to reproduce stable organisational outcomes (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013). As a result, prevailing accounts often explain persistence in terms of discrete causal factors while offering less clarity on why organisations repeatedly converge on optimisation trajectories even when more radical redesign becomes technologically feasible (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Abbasi et al., 2024).

What remains under-theorised is thus the interactional structure of inertia itself: how heterogeneous mechanisms co-evolve and mutually reinforce one another to shape organisational direction (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013; Scott, 2014).

2.5 Towards an Integrative Explanation

The rise of artificial intelligence intensifies the need for a more integrated explanation of organisational persistence because it alters not only the speed of organisational processes but also the nature of the tasks being automated. Unlike earlier waves of information technology, which primarily enhanced communication, record-keeping, or transactional efficiency, contemporary AI systems increasingly perform interpretive and generative functions, including analysis, recommendation, and decision support (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). In principle, these capabilities create conditions for not only process improvement but also fundamental process redesign (Bohnsack and de Wet, 2025; Breiter and Lohmann, 2025).

However, empirical observations across banking and other knowledge-intensive sectors suggest that this transformational potential is only partially realised. AI systems are frequently associated with gains in efficiency and accuracy, yet they rarely lead to substantial simplification or restructuring of underlying organisational architectures (Mougani et al., 2024; Abbasi et al., 2024). Instead, existing processes tend to persist, now executed with greater speed, granularity, or analytical support (Abbasi et al., 2024; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

This recurring pattern indicates that the constraint on transformation is unlikely to reside in any single mechanism. Rather, it suggests the presence of a broader systemic configuration in which governance structures, technological infrastructures, financial evaluation models, operational assumptions, and professional identities interact in ways that channel AI-enabled possibilities back towards incremental improvement rather than structural reinvention (Scott, 2014; Leonardi, 2013; March, 1991; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000).

From this perspective, organisational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1984) is more appropriately understood not as a sum of independent barriers but as an emergent property of an interconnected system of reinforcing mechanisms. Transformation is not prevented by isolated constraints; it is redirected by their combined and mutually stabilising effects (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013; Scott, 2014).

2.6 Research Gap and Theoretical Positioning

The central gap in the existing literature is therefore not the absence of explanations for organisational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1984), but the absence of an integrative theoretical framework capable of explaining how multiple forms of inertia combine to systematically shape the direction of AI-enabled transformation. Existing theories provide robust accounts of why organisations resist change; however, they are less equipped to explain why organisations may simultaneously adopt AI at scale while preserving inherited process architectures with remarkable consistency.

This paper addresses this gap through the development of the Process Cage framework proposed by Kamm (2026). The framework conceptualises organisational persistence as the emergent outcome of interacting governance, technological, financial, operational, and identity-based mechanisms that collectively privilege optimisation over reinvention. It does not seek to displace established theories; rather, it synthesises insights from organisational learning (March, 1991; Levinthal et al., 1993), institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), socio-technical systems research (Trist and Bamforth, 1951), business process redesign, and AI augmentation literature into a unified explanatory model.

In doing so, the Process Cage provides a conceptual basis for understanding a persistent empirical paradox: why AI can substantially improve organisational performance while leaving underlying process architectures largely intact.

The following chapter develops the Process Cage framework in detail and elaborates the mechanisms through which it channels AI-enabled opportunities away from radical redesign and towards incremental optimisation.

3. The “Process Cage” Mechanism

3.1 Introduction

The preceding chapter argued that the dominant theoretical traditions used to explain organisational persistence—path dependency (Arthur, 1989), institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), socio-technical systems perspectives (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Bostrom and Heinen, 1977), organisational learning theory (March, 1991), and AI augmentation research (Jarrahi, 2018)—each provide important but partial accounts of why technological capability does not automatically translate into organisational transformation. While these perspectives identify distinct mechanisms of inertia, they tend to treat them as analytically separable rather than examining how they interact within organisational systems to produce stable and recurring outcomes.

Building on this limitation, this chapter develops the Process Cage as an integrative framework for explaining why organisations frequently deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to optimise existing processes rather than redesign them. The framework extends prior work on socio-technical embeddedness and institutional constraint by proposing that transformational opportunities are not merely obstructed by isolated barriers, but progressively shaped through the interaction of multiple reinforcing organisational mechanisms. These mechanisms collectively privilege continuity over reinvention, even in contexts where technological capabilities increasingly support more radical forms of change (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014).

The central argument is that organisational persistence should not be understood as the product of a single dominant constraint. Rather, it emerges from the interaction of multiple co-evolving structures, including governance systems, technological infrastructures, investment logics, operational assumptions, and professional identities. These mechanisms are individually rational and often functionally necessary, yet their combined effect is to make optimisation more legible, less risky, and more institutionally legitimate than process redesign (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; March, 1991).

The Process Cage therefore provides an explanation for a persistent empirical paradox identified in the AI literature: organisations increasingly adopt technologies capable of performing interpretive and decision-support functions (Jarrahi, 2018), yet these same organisations often preserve inherited process architectures, achieving efficiency gains without commensurate structural transformation.

3.2 Defining the Process Cage

The Process Cage can be defined as:

A reinforcing socio-technical system of organisational constraints that systematically redirects AI-enabled opportunities for process reinvention towards the optimisation of existing process architectures.

This definition incorporates three interrelated theoretical commitments grounded in the existing literature on organisational inertia (Kamm, 2026, Hannan & Freeman 1984).

First, the framework does not assume intentional resistance to change. In contrast to explanations that implicitly or explicitly attribute inertia to organisational reluctance, the Process Cage is consistent with institutional accounts of behaviour in which organisations actively pursue legitimacy and improvement while simultaneously reproducing established forms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In this sense, persistence is not the result of deliberate opposition to transformation but an emergent outcome of structurally conditioned action.

Second, the framework shifts analytical emphasis from technologies to the socio-technical systems in which they are embedded. Consistent with socio-technical theory (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Bostrom and Heinen, 1977) and AI augmentation research (Jarrahi, 2018), the key issue is not whether AI is adopted, but how organisational structures shape the form of its integration into work systems. Although AI technologies expand the range of possible organisational configurations (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014), their realised use is filtered through existing infrastructures, routines, and role definitions.

Third, the framework conceptualises organisational persistence as an emergent property of interacting mechanisms rather than a single causal force. In line with organisational learning theory, particularly the distinction between exploration and exploitation (March, 1991), organisations tend to favour refinement of existing routines over uncertain exploration. However, the Process Cage extends this insight by arguing that such tendencies are reinforced by institutional pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), technological path dependencies (Arthur, 1989), and socio-technical interdependencies (Trist and Bamforth, 1951), which together narrow the range of feasible and legitimate transformation pathways.

Accordingly, the Process Cage redirects analytical attention from discrete barriers to change towards the systemic configuration of constraints within which AI-enabled transformation is evaluated, governed, and ultimately enacted.

3.3 The Logic of Constraint Accumulation

At the centre of the Process Cage is a process of constraint accumulation through which initially expansive AI-enabled redesign possibilities are progressively narrowed as they move through organisational decision-making structures. AI initiatives typically begin with the potential for substantive process redesign. New capabilities associated with artificial intelligence create the technical possibility of eliminating activities, reducing coordination complexity, compressing customer journeys, and revisiting long-standing assumptions about how work should be organised (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Jarrahi, 2018). At this initial stage, transformation is often framed in relatively open-ended terms, with significant scope for reconfiguration.

However, these possibilities do not enter organisations as abstract design freedoms. Instead, they are immediately interpreted and evaluated through pre-existing organisational structures shaped by institutional norms, technological infrastructures, and established routines (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Orlikowski, 1992). As a result, transformational potential is filtered through embedded systems of governance, technology, finance, operations, and professional practice.

Each organisational domain introduces constraints that are individually rational and functionally legitimate. Governance systems prioritise accountability, auditability, and regulatory compliance, consistent with institutionalised expectations of control and transparency (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Technology functions prioritise architectural stability, security, and integration with legacy systems, reflecting the path-dependent nature of socio-technical infrastructures (Arthur, 1989; Leonardi, 2013). Financial functions prioritise measurable returns, risk containment, and predictable investment outcomes, reinforcing exploitative over exploratory logics of decision-making (March, 1991). Operational functions prioritise continuity, reliability, and implementation feasibility, reflecting the need to maintain service stability. Professional groups prioritise standards of competence, legitimacy, and accountability, ensuring alignment with established role structures and domains of expertise (Jarrahi, 2018).

Individually, these logics are not opposed to innovation. Indeed, each is essential to organisational functioning. However, the central mechanism of the Process Cage emerges from their accumulation. As AI-enabled proposals move through successive evaluation layers, each stage progressively reduces the scope of acceptable redesign. What may initially appear as an opportunity for structural transformation is gradually reframed into a bounded optimisation initiative focused on improving existing processes rather than replacing them.

The outcome is not the rejection of innovation but its systematic reinterpretation. Organisations adopt AI technologies, but do so in ways that preserve underlying process architectures, consistent with broader patterns of institutional stability and path-dependent change (Arthur, 1989; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

3.4 The Five Layers of the Process Cage

The Process Cage operates through five interacting and mutually reinforcing mechanisms.

3.4.1 Governance Preservation

The first layer concerns governance preservation. Contemporary organisations, particularly those operating in regulated sectors such as banking, are structured through extensive frameworks of accountability, risk management, auditability, and compliance. These governance systems are designed to ensure consistency, traceability, and control, and they reflect deeply institutionalised expectations regarding organisational legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

When AI systems are introduced, organisations typically seek to embed them within existing governance arrangements rather than reconfiguring governance structures to accommodate new technological possibilities (Scott et al., 2014; Orlikowski, 1992). As a result, innovation is evaluated through established control mechanisms, documentation standards, and approval processes (Scott et al., 2014; Mougani et al., 2024).

This leads to a form of structural adaptation in which technologies are redesigned to conform to governance requirements, rather than governance being restructured to exploit technological capabilities (Leonardi, 2013; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000). Governance preservation therefore reinforces continuity in process logic, even when AI systems could enable more fundamental redesign (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Bohnsack and de Wet, 2025).

3.4.2 Technological Path Dependency

The second layer concerns technological path dependency (Hanseth & Lyytinen 2010). AI systems are rarely implemented in greenfield environments; instead, they must be integrated into existing infrastructures composed of legacy platforms, historical data structures, and accumulated technical debt (Christensen, 1997; Leonardi, 2013; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000).

Socio-technical research has long emphasised that technologies are embedded within organisational systems and cannot be understood independently of them (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013). This embedding creates structural constraints on what forms of redesign are technically and operationally feasible.

As a result, even when AI enables new forms of process design in principle, implementation is often constrained by the need to maintain compatibility with existing systems. Organisations therefore tend to adapt AI solutions to fit established architectures rather than redesigning architectures around emerging capabilities. This produces technological accommodation rather than structural transformation, reinforcing path-dependent trajectories of change (Arthur, 1989).

3.4.3 Financial Provenability

The third layer concerns financial provenability (Knight, 1921). Investment decisions are typically governed by evaluation frameworks (Brealey, Myers and Allen, 2020) that prioritise measurable returns, predictable outcomes (Hyndman and Athanasopoulos, 2021), and defensible business cases (Boardman et al., 2018). Within such frameworks, optimisation initiatives are structurally advantaged over transformational redesign (Hillier and Lieberman, 2021). The benefits of process improvement—such as reduced processing time or increased accuracy—can often be estimated using historical data (Casella and Berger, 2002) and established performance metrics (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). By contrast, process elimination or redesign introduces uncertainty (Knight, 1921), requires assumptions about future states (Schoemaker, 1995), and produces outcomes that are more difficult to specify in advance (Dumas et al., 2018).

Consistent with organisational learning theory, this creates a systematic bias towards exploitation over exploration, as organisations favour strategies with higher predictability and lower perceived risk (March, 1991). Financial provenability therefore shapes innovation portfolios in ways that privilege incremental enhancement of existing processes rather than radical restructuring.

3.4.4 Operational Substitution Constraints

The fourth layer concerns operational substitution constraints. AI initiatives are frequently framed in terms of how they can improve the performance of existing activities rather than whether those activities are still necessary. This reflects deeply embedded assumptions about operational continuity and service reliability. Existing processes are often treated as fixed organisational requirements, while AI is positioned as a tool for enhancing their execution.

This framing shapes the structure of design inquiry, which tends to focus on questions such as how AI can improve task efficiency, accuracy, or speed, rather than whether entire process steps could be removed or reconfigured. In doing so, AI becomes integrated into existing workflows as an augmentation layer rather than a substitute for underlying process structures (Jarrahi, 2018). The result is process intensification rather than process simplification: work becomes faster and more data-driven, but its fundamental architecture remains largely unchanged.

3.4.5 Identity Lock-In

The fifth layer concerns identity lock-in. Organisations are not purely technical systems but social structures in which individuals derive legitimacy, status, and meaning from their professional roles. Professional identities are often closely tied to specific tasks, forms of expertise, and established decision rights. These identities are reinforced through organisational processes that define what counts as competence and value.

AI disrupts these arrangements by altering the relationship between expertise and task execution. When AI systems begin to perform activities traditionally associated with human judgement, organisations face implicit challenges to established role definitions and professional boundaries (Jarrahi, 2018). As a result, there is a tendency to favour AI implementations that preserve existing roles and hierarchies rather than fundamentally redefining them. Identity lock-in therefore reinforces process persistence by stabilising the social foundations upon which organisational structures are built.

3.5 The Reinforcing Nature of the Process Cage

The explanatory power of the Process Cage lies not in any single mechanism but in the interaction among all five layers (Weick, 1976; Arthur, 1989).
Governance preservation reinforces technological conservatism by requiring stability and traceability (Weill and Ross, 2004). Technological path dependency constrains feasible redesign options and increases the cost of architectural change (David, 1985; Arthur, 1989). Financial provenability privileges incremental, measurable improvements over uncertain transformation (Knight, 1921; Brealey, Myers and Allen, 2020).

Operational substitution constraints stabilise existing workflows by framing them as fixed requirements (Dumas et al., 2018). Identity lock-in reinforces these dynamics by anchoring organisational legitimacy in established roles and practices (Whetten, 2006). Together, these mechanisms form a mutually reinforcing system that progressively narrows the space of acceptable redesign (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Importantly, this does not prevent innovation. Organisations may still adopt advanced AI systems, invest heavily in digital capabilities, and achieve significant productivity improvements (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014).
The Process Cage therefore does not predict stagnation. Rather, it predicts a specific pattern of change: technological advancement accompanied by limited structural transformation (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). Organisations become more efficient without becoming fundamentally reorganised. This distinction is crucial for explaining how organisations can simultaneously appear highly innovative while remaining structurally stable (Christensen, 1997).

3.6 Theoretical Implications

The Process Cage contributes to existing literature in three principal ways.

First, it shifts analytical focus from isolated barriers to change towards interacting systems of constraint. Organisational persistence is conceptualised as an emergent outcome of multiple reinforcing mechanisms rather than a single dominant explanation.

Second, it provides a systemic explanation for the observed gap between AI adoption and organisational redesign. While existing theories explain why change is difficult (Arthur, 1989; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; March, 1991), the Process Cage explains why organisations consistently converge on optimisation even when transformation is technologically feasible (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014).

Third, it reframes organisational inertia (Hannan & Freeman 1984) as a rational but collectively constraining outcome. Persistence is not interpreted as resistance, incompetence, or technological limitation. Instead, it emerges from the interaction of individually rational behaviours that collectively stabilise existing structures.

This perspective helps explain why AI initiatives frequently generate significant performance improvements while producing comparatively limited change to underlying operating models.

3.7 From Framework to Mechanism

The Process Cage is best understood as a dynamic mechanism rather than a static condition. Its effects become visible through the evaluation, adaptation, and implementation of AI initiatives. Transformational possibilities are not eliminated at the outset but are progressively reshaped as they pass through successive organisational layers of governance, technology, finance, operations, and identity.

The following chapters examine these dynamics in greater detail. Chapter 4 explores how efficiency gains generated by AI are often reabsorbed into existing systems rather than producing structural simplification. Chapter 5 analyses how professional identity and expertise contribute to the stabilisation of established process architectures. Chapter 6 examines how these mechanisms manifest empirically in organisational decision-making, particularly through the phenomenon of the Workshop Paradox (Smith and Lewis, 2011; Lewis 2000; Smith and Tracy 2016). Together, these chapters demonstrate how the Process Cage operates in practice and why AI frequently enhances organisational performance without delivering equivalent levels of structural reinvention.

4. Why AI Does Not Reduce Workload in Practice

4.1 Introduction

One of the most frequently reported outcomes of artificial intelligence (AI) adoption is increased productivity. Across a growing body of empirical research, AI systems have demonstrated the ability to accelerate task completion, improve quality, enhance decision support, and increase organisational output (Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, 2023; Dell’Acqua et al., 2023; Noy and Zhang, 2023). These findings have reinforced expectations that AI will reduce workload, simplify operations, and create substantial efficiency gains across knowledge-intensive industries.

Yet organisational experience often reveals a more complex reality.

While AI may significantly reduce the effort required to perform individual tasks, organisations frequently report little corresponding reduction in overall workload. Employees continue to experience high work volumes, operational complexity remains persistent, and process architectures often remain largely unchanged. In many cases, organisations simultaneously report productivity improvements and increasing demands on employees.

This apparent contradiction raises an important question. If AI allows work to be completed more quickly and efficiently, why does workload frequently remain stable—or even increase?

This chapter argues that the answer lies not in the technology itself but in the organisational systems within which it is embedded. Consistent with the Process Cage framework introduced in Chapter 3, efficiency gains generated by AI are rarely translated directly into simplification. Instead, they are absorbed, redistributed, and repurposed through existing organisational structures. The result is a phenomenon in which productivity increases while underlying workload remains remarkably resilient.

Understanding this dynamic is essential because it reveals how organisations can appear transformational at the task level while remaining fundamentally unchanged at the process level.

4.2 The Assumption of Efficiency Conversion

Much of the discourse surrounding AI implicitly assumes a linear relationship between productivity and workload reduction.

The logic appears straightforward. If a task that previously required one hour can now be completed in thirty minutes, organisations should require fewer resources to perform the same activity. Over time, accumulated efficiencies should reduce labour requirements, simplify workflows, and lower operational costs.

This assumption reflects a longstanding belief in management theory that technological improvements naturally generate organisational efficiency. Under this view, improvements in task performance are expected to translate directly into improvements in organisational performance.

However, organisational history repeatedly demonstrates that this relationship is far from automatic.

Technological innovations frequently increase productive capacity without reducing overall levels of work. Instead, organisations often use efficiency gains to expand output, increase service levels, introduce new requirements, or pursue additional objectives. Consequently, productivity improvements may alter the allocation of work without reducing the total amount of work performed.

The key distinction is therefore between efficiency gains and efficiency realisation. Technologies may create the potential for simplification, but organisational systems determine how those gains are ultimately utilised.

4.3 The Rebound Effect in Organisational Work

A useful theoretical lens for understanding this phenomenon is the concept of the rebound effect.

Originally developed within energy economics, the rebound effect describes situations in which efficiency improvements fail to produce expected reductions in resource consumption because increased efficiency changes behaviour (Greening, Greene and Difiglio, 2000). When a resource becomes cheaper or easier to use, demand often increases, partially offsetting the original efficiency gain.

A similar dynamic can be observed in organisational contexts. When AI reduces the cost of producing reports, analysing information, reviewing documents, or generating recommendations, organisations often respond by increasing expectations regarding output. Employees may be asked to produce more analyses, review more cases, support more customers, or manage larger workloads than before.

In this way, efficiency gains become converted into increased organisational expectations rather than reduced effort. The result is an organisational rebound effect. Rather than simplifying work, AI frequently expands the volume of work that organisations expect to be performed.

Importantly, this process is rarely the result of explicit managerial decisions. Instead, it emerges gradually as organisations adapt to newly available productive capacity. Activities that were previously constrained by time or effort become easier to perform, encouraging expansion rather than elimination.

The consequence is that employees may experience little reduction in workload despite substantial improvements in individual .

4.4 From Task Efficiency to Process Expansion

The rebound effect becomes particularly significant when examined at the process level (Jevons, 1865; Saunders, 1992). AI technologies often generate measurable improvements within specific tasks (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). Documents can be reviewed faster. Communications can be drafted more quickly. Information can be retrieved more efficiently. Risk assessments can be conducted at greater scale (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018).
However, organisational processes rarely consist of isolated tasks (Dumas et al., 2018).
Processes involve interdependent activities, governance requirements, approval structures, handovers, controls, and coordination mechanisms (Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973).

Improvements within one activity do not necessarily reduce the complexity of the overall process. Indeed, efficiency gains frequently create pressure for process expansion (Sorrell, 2009). For example, if AI enables compliance reviews to be conducted more rapidly, organisations may respond by reviewing a larger number of cases. If reporting becomes easier, additional reporting requirements may emerge (Goodhart, 1984). If customer interactions become more efficient, expectations regarding service responsiveness may increase.

Consequently, AI often enables organisations to do more of the same work rather than fundamentally different work (Baumol, 2012). The distinction is critical.
A process may become significantly more productive while remaining structurally identical. The organisation performs the same sequence of activities, follows the same governance procedures, and preserves the same operating assumptions. Only the speed of execution changes. This represents optimisation rather than reinvention.

4.5 The Expansion of Organisational Control

A second mechanism contributing to workload persistence is the expansion of organisational control.

Paradoxically, technologies introduced to simplify work frequently generate new forms of oversight, monitoring, governance, and risk management (Power, 1997; Zuboff, 1988). Rather than reducing organisational complexity, digital systems often increase visibility into work processes, enabling more extensive forms of supervision and accountability.

This tendency is particularly evident in highly regulated environments such as banking and financial services, where technological adoption is closely coupled with compliance requirements and model risk governance (Merton, 1995; Financial Stability Board, 2017). As AI systems assume greater responsibility for analysis, recommendation, and decision support, organisations typically introduce additional controls to ensure transparency, accountability, and regulatory compliance.

These controls take the form of new governance structures designed to monitor model performance, validate outputs, document decision pathways, and manage operational risk (Raji et al., 2020; Rudin, 2019). In practice, this reflects a broader shift toward what has been described as algorithmic management, where computational systems not only perform work but also reshape how work is observed, evaluated, and supervised (Kellogg, Valentine and Christin, 2020; Lee et al., 2015).

Consequently, some of the efficiency gains generated by AI are offset by the emergence of additional supervisory and compliance-related activities. Employees may spend less time executing core tasks while spending more time documenting, validating, explaining, or overseeing system outputs.

The overall workload therefore often remains stable, even as its composition and structure change. Efficiency improvements at the task level are absorbed into expanded layers of control rather than translating into a net reduction in organisational effort.

4.6 The Augmentation Trap

A further explanation can be found in the automation–augmentation paradox identified by Raisch and Krakowski (2021). Although AI possesses the potential to substitute for certain activities, organisations frequently deploy it in ways that augment human work rather than replace it. Human actors remain embedded within existing processes, often retaining responsibility for review, approval, escalation, and final decision-making. From a risk-management perspective, such arrangements are understandable. However, they also create a phenomenon that may be described as the augmentation trap.

Instead of replacing activities, AI becomes layered onto existing workflows. New technological capabilities are added while established structures remain intact. Employees continue performing many of the same tasks while simultaneously managing interactions with AI systems. This creates dual systems of work. Humans perform oversight while AI performs analysis. Humans validate outputs generated by automated systems. Humans coordinate exceptions created by algorithmic processes. As a result, organisations may increase process complexity rather than reduce it. The augmentation trap therefore illustrates one of the central mechanisms through which the Process Cage preserves existing architectures despite technological advancement.

4.7 Workload Persistence as Evidence of the Process Cage

The persistence of organisational workload should not be interpreted as evidence that AI has failed to deliver value. On the contrary, many AI initiatives generate substantial improvements in productivity, accuracy, responsiveness, and operational efficiency (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). The more significant observation is that these gains frequently do not translate into corresponding reductions in organisational complexity or simplification of underlying process architectures (Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj and Grover, 2003; Dumas et al., 2018).

From the perspective of the Process Cage framework, this outcome is not anomalous but predictable. Efficiency gains generated by AI are absorbed by a system of reinforcing organisational mechanisms that favour continuity over redesign. Governance structures often transform newly available capacity into additional oversight, monitoring, and control activities (Power, 1997; Weill and Ross, 2004; Raji et al., 2020). Technological path dependencies encourage organisations to embed AI within existing infrastructures rather than reconfigure those infrastructures around emerging capabilities (Arthur, 1989; David, 1990; Henfridsson and Bygstad, 2013). Financial evaluation frameworks privilege incremental and measurable improvements over more uncertain forms of structural redesign (Knight, 1921; Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Boardman et al., 2018). Operational assumptions frame AI primarily as a tool for augmentation, reinforcing existing workflows rather than questioning their necessity (Jarrahi, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). At the same time, professional identities and established role structures create pressures to preserve human involvement in activities that have historically defined expertise, accountability, and organisational legitimacy (Barley, 1986; Abbott, 1988; Whetten, 2006).

The cumulative effect of these mechanisms is that efficiency gains are frequently redirected towards enhancing the performance of existing systems rather than simplifying them. Organisations become more capable, more productive, and often more technologically sophisticated, yet the underlying architecture of work remains largely intact (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021; Orlikowski, 1992). This distinction helps explain why institutions can simultaneously report successful AI adoption and limited organisational transformation (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). The technology evolves, but the process architecture through which work is organised persists (Dumas et al., 2018).

4.8 Implications for Organisational Transformation

The analysis developed in this chapter carries important implications for how organisations assess the success of AI-enabled transformation. Contemporary transformation programmes frequently evaluate outcomes through metrics such as productivity improvement, time reduction, automation rates, and cost efficiency (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018; Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021). While these indicators provide valuable evidence of operational performance, they may overlook a more fundamental question: whether the organisation has become structurally simpler as a result of technological adoption (Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj and Grover, 2003; Dumas et al., 2018).

The distinction is important because efficiency gains do not necessarily imply transformation. As argued throughout this paper, the mechanisms of the Process Cage often redirect the benefits generated by AI into existing organisational structures rather than allowing them to produce substantive redesign (Power, 1997; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Under such conditions, processes become faster, more accurate, and more scalable, yet their underlying architecture remains largely unchanged (Orlikowski, 1992; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). Complexity is accommodated and managed rather than eliminated (Simon, 1962).

This dynamic is particularly relevant within banking and other highly regulated sectors, where governance requirements, risk management frameworks, compliance obligations, and operational controls create strong incentives to preserve established organisational arrangements (Merton, 1995; Power, 1997; Financial Stability Board, 2017). In such environments, AI may deliver significant performance improvements while simultaneously reinforcing existing process architectures (Raji et al., 2020).

Consequently, organisations seeking genuine transformation must look beyond conventional measures of efficiency and productivity. Evaluating the success of AI initiatives requires consideration of whether technology enables the removal of process stages, the elimination of redundant activities, the simplification of governance structures, and the redesign of operating models (Dumas et al., 2018; Venkatraman, 1994). From this perspective, the central measure of transformation is not simply whether work can be performed more efficiently, but whether less work is required in the first place (Hammer, 1990). Without such changes, AI may substantially enhance organisational capability while leaving the fundamental structure of work largely intact.

4.9 Conclusion

This chapter has examined the paradox that AI frequently improves productivity without reducing workload. Drawing on research concerning rebound effects, organisational control, and AI augmentation, it argued that efficiency gains generated by AI are often absorbed into existing organisational systems rather than translated into simplification. Increased productive capacity encourages expanded expectations, additional oversight, and greater process throughput, while established governance structures preserve underlying process architectures.

The persistence of workload is therefore not merely an implementation issue. It is a structural consequence of the organisational mechanisms described by the Process Cage framework. Understanding this dynamic is critical because it reveals why organisations can achieve significant AI-driven performance improvements without experiencing equivalent levels of organisational transformation. The challenge is not simply to make work faster, but to determine whether the work itself remains necessary.

The following chapter extends this argument by examining another dimension of organisational persistence: the role of professional identity and expertise in sustaining existing process architectures despite technological change.

5. Organisational Identity and Role-Based Resistance to Redesign

5.1 Introduction

The previous chapter demonstrated that artificial intelligence (AI) frequently improves productivity without producing equivalent reductions in organisational workload (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). Efficiency gains are often absorbed into existing organisational systems, allowing processes to become faster while preserving their underlying structure (Dumas et al., 2018; Orlikowski, 1992).

However, organisational persistence cannot be explained solely through governance requirements, technological constraints, or operational considerations. Organisations are also social systems in which processes are closely intertwined with professional identities, status structures, and shared understandings of expertise (Scott, 2014; Greenwood et al., 2017).

This chapter examines how organisational identity contributes to the persistence of existing process architectures. It argues that AI-driven redesign often encounters resistance not because individuals oppose innovation, but because transformational change challenges the social foundations upon which organisational roles are constructed (Barley, 1986; Abbott, 1988). Processes do not merely organise work; they define who performs that work, how expertise is recognised, and how legitimacy is established within organisations (Bechky, 2003; Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010).

From this perspective, resistance to redesign should be understood not as irrational opposition to technological change but as a predictable response to disruptions in professional identity and organisational meaning (Fleming and Spicer, 2003; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). The chapter therefore extends the Process Cage framework by demonstrating how identity-based mechanisms reinforce process persistence even when technological alternatives become available (Whetten, 2006; Ravasi and Schultz, 2006).

5.2 Professional Identity and Organisational Stability

Organisations are not sustained solely through formal structures, processes, and technologies. They are also maintained through systems of meaning that shape how individuals understand their roles, responsibilities, and contributions (Weick, 1995; Scott, 2014). Professional identities provide an important source of organisational stability because they influence how expertise is recognised, how authority is distributed, and how legitimacy is constructed within institutional settings (Abbott, 1988; Suchman, 1995).

Professional identity refers to the way individuals define themselves in relation to a particular occupation, domain of expertise, or organisational role (Ibarra, 1999). These identities are not merely personal characteristics. They are socially constructed and reinforced through education, training, professional communities, organisational norms, and career progression (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Barley and Tolbert, 1997). Over time, they become deeply embedded within both individual self-conceptions and organisational structures.

Within complex organisations, professional identities frequently serve as coordinating mechanisms. Individuals understand what is expected of them, which decisions fall within their authority, and how their expertise contributes to organisational objectives (Bechky, 2006; Orlikowski, 2002). Such arrangements create predictability and coherence, allowing organisations to manage complexity through specialised knowledge and differentiated responsibilities (Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973).

Importantly, professional identities also provide legitimacy. Stakeholders often place trust in organisations because decisions are made by recognised experts operating within established professional frameworks (Suchman, 1995; Greenwood et al., 2011). Compliance officers provide assurance regarding regulatory obligations. Risk managers contribute credibility to governance processes. Relationship managers embody expertise in customer engagement. Organisational confidence is therefore frequently linked to confidence in the professionals who occupy these roles (Freidson, 2001).

The stabilising effects of professional identity are particularly important in environments characterised by uncertainty and risk. Organisations frequently rely upon recognised expertise to justify decisions, allocate responsibility, and maintain stakeholder trust (Scott, 2014; Power, 1997). Professional roles therefore become embedded not only within operational processes but also within broader systems of governance and accountability.

However, the same characteristics that promote stability can also contribute to organisational persistence. Because professional identities are linked to existing structures of authority and legitimacy, changes that alter the nature of expertise may create tension within established organisational arrangements (Barley, 1986; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). Transformational technologies such as artificial intelligence are especially significant in this regard because they challenge assumptions regarding who performs valuable work, how expertise is exercised, and where decision-making authority should reside (Faraj, Pachidi and Sayegh, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

Professional identity thus occupies a central position within the Process Cage. It represents a social mechanism through which organisational structures are reproduced over time, helping explain why institutions frequently preserve existing arrangements even when alternative technological possibilities emerge (Whetten, 2006; Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010).

5.3 Expertise as a Source of Organisational Legitimacy

The relationship between expertise and organisational legitimacy has long occupied a central position within organisational theory (Weber, 1978; Scott, 2014). Modern institutions derive much of their authority from the belief that specialised knowledge enables better decisions, more reliable outcomes, and greater accountability (Suchman, 1995; Abbott, 1988). Expertise therefore functions not merely as a productive resource but as a foundation of organisational legitimacy itself (Freidson, 2001).

In many organisations, professional expertise is embedded within formal structures that allocate authority according to recognised competence (Mintzberg, 1979; Galbraith, 1973). Decision rights, reporting relationships, governance mechanisms, and career pathways frequently reflect assumptions regarding who possesses relevant knowledge and how that knowledge should be applied (Barley, 1986; Barley and Tolbert, 1997). Organisational architecture becomes intertwined with professional expertise (Orlikowski, 1992).

This relationship is particularly visible in highly regulated and knowledge-intensive sectors. Banking, healthcare, law, engineering, and public administration all depend upon specialised forms of expertise that provide assurance to stakeholders and support institutional credibility (Scott, 2014; Power, 1997). The presence of recognised professionals signals competence, responsibility, and adherence to accepted standards of practice (Suchman, 1995; Greenwood et al., 2011).

Over time, expertise becomes institutionalised. Processes are designed around professional roles. Governance frameworks assume the involvement of particular specialists. Organisational legitimacy becomes dependent upon visible demonstrations of expert judgement (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). What begins as a functional requirement gradually evolves into a structural feature of the organisation.

This institutionalisation creates an important source of stability but also introduces constraints on transformation. Because expertise is linked to legitimacy, proposals that alter the role of recognised professionals may be perceived as threatening not only operational effectiveness but also organisational credibility (Merton, 1957; Scott, 2014). As a result, technological innovations that redistribute knowledge or automate expert activities frequently encounter resistance that extends beyond concerns regarding performance alone (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Jarrahi, 2018).

Understanding this relationship is critical for analysing the organisational implications of AI. The challenge posed by AI is not simply that it performs tasks previously undertaken by professionals. More fundamentally, it alters assumptions regarding the relationship between expertise, authority, and legitimacy (Orlikowski, 2000; Faraj, Pachidi and Sayegh, 2018). In doing so, it challenges one of the social foundations upon which organisational structures have historically been constructed.

5.4 AI and the Reconfiguration of Expertise

Historically, many organisational structures emerged because expertise was scarce, difficult to acquire, and costly to distribute (Arrow, 1974; Thompson, 1967). Information asymmetries created demand for specialists capable of interpreting data, evaluating risk, and making informed judgements (Akerlof, 1970; Stiglitz, 2002). Organisational hierarchies and professional roles evolved in part as mechanisms for managing these limitations (Galbraith, 1973; Mintzberg, 1979).

Artificial intelligence increasingly changes these conditions. Advanced analytical systems can process vast quantities of information, identify patterns, generate recommendations, and support decision-making at scales previously unattainable (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb, 2018). Activities that once required extensive professional experience can now be augmented by intelligent systems capable of performing sophisticated analytical tasks in real time (Jarrahi, 2018; Davenport and Ronanki, 2018).

This development has significant implications for organisational design. If expertise can be distributed more broadly through technological systems, the rationale for certain organisational structures may weaken (Simon, 1962; Williamson, 1981). Activities historically concentrated within specialist functions may become accessible to wider groups of actors. Decision-making processes may become more decentralised (Zammuto et al., 2007). Traditional boundaries between professional domains may become increasingly permeable.

Yet such possibilities do not automatically translate into organisational redesign. Existing institutions frequently interpret AI through the lens of established professional structures (Orlikowski, 2000; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Rather than reconsidering how expertise is organised, organisations often position AI as a tool that supports existing experts. The technology enhances current roles without fundamentally altering their position within organisational systems (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 1992).

This pattern reflects the broader tendency identified throughout the paper. New technological capabilities are frequently absorbed into inherited organisational architectures rather than used to challenge them (Leonardi, 2011; Dumas et al., 2018). AI may alter how expertise is exercised while leaving the institutional arrangements surrounding expertise largely unchanged.

Consequently, the transformative potential of AI is often constrained not by technological limitations but by the persistence of assumptions regarding how expertise should be structured and legitimised within organisations (Scott, 2014; Suchman, 1995).

5.5 The Preservation of Professional Roles

One of the most visible manifestations of Identity Lock-In is the preservation of professional roles despite significant changes in the underlying activities those roles perform (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 2000). As AI systems assume responsibility for increasing numbers of analytical and administrative tasks, organisations frequently seek ways to maintain existing role structures rather than redesign them (Jarrahi, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

This tendency is understandable. Professional roles represent more than collections of tasks. They embody career paths, status hierarchies, governance responsibilities, and sources of institutional legitimacy (Abbott, 1988; Freidson, 2001; Scott, 2014). Altering these structures may create uncertainty regarding accountability, authority, and organisational identity (Suchman, 1995; Greenwood et al., 2011). Consequently, institutions often prefer adaptation over redesign.

The result is a pattern in which AI is integrated into existing workflows while established professional arrangements remain largely intact (Orlikowski, 1992; Dumas et al., 2018). Specialists continue to review recommendations generated by intelligent systems. Managers retain approval authority over increasingly automated processes. Professional oversight is expanded even as technological systems perform greater proportions of the underlying work (Power, 1997; Raji et al., 2020).

Such arrangements may be entirely appropriate in many contexts. However, they also illustrate how organisations preserve continuity in the face of technological change (Leonardi, 2011; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Rather than redefining roles around emerging capabilities, institutions frequently redefine technology around existing roles (Orlikowski, 2000).

The preservation of professional roles therefore functions as an important mechanism of organisational persistence. It enables institutions to adopt new technologies while maintaining familiar structures of expertise, authority, and legitimacy (Whetten, 2006; Scott, 2014). In doing so, it contributes to the broader tendency for optimisation to prevail over reinvention, even when opportunities for more fundamental transformation are present (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021).

5.6 Identity Lock-In as a Mechanism of the Process Cage

The preceding sections have argued that professional identities, expertise structures, and legitimacy systems play a significant role in shaping organisational behaviour (Scott, 2014; Suchman, 1995). These dynamics become particularly important when organisations encounter technologies capable of altering traditional relationships between knowledge, authority, and decision-making (Orlikowski, 1992; Faraj, Pachidi and Sayegh, 2018). While AI creates opportunities to redistribute expertise and redesign organisational structures, such opportunities frequently encounter resistance rooted not in technical limitations but in the social foundations of organisational life (Barley, 1986; Leonardi, 2011).

The concept of Identity Lock-In is introduced to explain this phenomenon.

Identity Lock-In refers to the tendency of organisations to preserve existing process architectures because those architectures support established professional identities and legitimacy structures (Whetten, 2006; Power, 1997). Under conditions of Identity Lock-In, organisational actors may support technological innovation while simultaneously resisting changes that threaten the social arrangements through which expertise and authority are recognised (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Greenwood et al., 2011). As a result, technologies become integrated into existing systems without fundamentally altering the structures that define professional value (Orlikowski, 2000).

This mechanism differs from traditional explanations of organisational resistance. Resistance is often portrayed as an intentional effort to oppose change or protect personal interests (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Identity Lock-In operates in a more subtle manner. Individuals may genuinely support innovation and recognise the potential value of AI. However, they continue to evaluate proposed changes through institutional frameworks that define what constitutes legitimate expertise and responsible decision-making (Suchman, 1995; Scott, 2014).

Consequently, redesign proposals that preserve existing professional arrangements often appear more attractive than those that require substantial role reconfiguration (Barley and Tolbert, 1997). Existing governance structures remain intact because recognised experts continue to occupy familiar positions within decision processes (Power, 2007). Established review mechanisms are maintained because they reinforce accepted models of accountability. Professional hierarchies persist because they provide continuity and legitimacy in environments characterised by uncertainty (Merton, 1995; Scott, 2014).

Identity Lock-In therefore functions as a powerful stabilising force within organisations. It does not prevent technological change from occurring, but it shapes how that change is interpreted and implemented (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2011). AI systems become tools that support established expertise rather than catalysts that transform how expertise is organised (Jarrahi, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

Within the broader Process Cage framework, Identity Lock-In represents the social dimension of organisational persistence. Governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability, and operational substitution constraints explain how structural forces favour continuity (Arthur, 1989; Knight, 1921; Power, 1997; Dumas et al., 2018). Identity Lock-In explains why these structures are often supported and reproduced by the individuals who operate within them (Whetten, 2006; Scott, 2014). Together, these mechanisms create a self-reinforcing system that systematically channels transformation towards optimisation.

5.7 Identity Lock-In in Banking

The influence of Identity Lock-In becomes particularly visible within banking, where professional expertise has historically occupied a central position in organisational legitimacy (Merton, 1995; Power, 1997). Financial institutions depend upon specialised knowledge in areas such as risk management, compliance, relationship management, credit assessment, portfolio construction, and regulatory interpretation (Mullineux and Murinde, 2003; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). These forms of expertise provide assurance to customers, regulators, shareholders, and broader society that decisions are being made responsibly and competently (Suchman, 1995; Scott, 2014).

The significance of professional expertise within banking extends beyond operational effectiveness. Expertise is deeply embedded within governance structures, organisational hierarchies, and institutional identities (Weber, 1978; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Professional judgement is frequently treated as a critical safeguard against risk, uncertainty, and regulatory failure (Knight, 1921; Power, 2007). Consequently, banking organisations often define legitimacy through the visible involvement of recognised specialists (Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence, 2004).

Artificial intelligence introduces significant challenges to these arrangements. Many activities traditionally associated with professional expertise can now be supported or partially automated through advanced analytical systems (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Jarrahi, 2018). Credit risk assessments can be augmented by predictive models (Fuster et al., 2022). Compliance reviews can be supported by automated monitoring technologies (Raji et al., 2020). Investment analysis can be enhanced through machine learning systems capable of processing information at unprecedented scale (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018).

Yet the adoption of these technologies rarely results in the elimination of professional roles. Instead, institutions frequently preserve existing structures by positioning AI as a support mechanism for established experts (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Human review remains central to decision-making. Additional oversight procedures are introduced. New governance committees emerge to monitor technological systems. Existing role structures are adapted rather than fundamentally redesigned (Power, 1997; Barley, 1986).

This response is understandable given the importance of accountability and trust within banking (Merton, 1995; Suchman, 1995). However, it also illustrates the operation of Identity Lock-In. The preservation of expertise-based legitimacy encourages organisations to maintain inherited structures even when technological capabilities create opportunities for alternative arrangements (Whetten, 2006; Greenwood et al., 2011).

The result is a recurring pattern in which AI increases organisational capability without substantially altering underlying role architectures. Professional identities remain intact, governance systems continue to rely on familiar expertise structures, and processes evolve through enhancement rather than reinvention (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021). Banking therefore provides a particularly revealing example of how Identity Lock-In contributes to broader patterns of organisational persistence.

5.8 Implications for AI-Driven Transformation

The existence of Identity Lock-In carries important implications for organisations seeking to realise the transformative potential of AI. Most discussions of technological transformation focus primarily on technical capabilities, investment decisions, governance frameworks, or implementation methodologies (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Fichman, Dos Santos and Zheng, 2014). While these factors are undoubtedly important, they do not fully explain why opportunities for redesign frequently fail to materialise.

Transformation is ultimately a social as well as a technological process (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2011). Organisations cannot fundamentally redesign work without also reconsidering how expertise, authority, and legitimacy are distributed (Abbott, 1988; Suchman, 1995). As long as professional identities remain tightly coupled to existing process architectures, technological innovation is likely to reinforce rather than replace inherited structures (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 2000).

This observation suggests that successful transformation requires more than technological adoption. Organisations must also create conditions under which professional identities can evolve alongside technological capabilities (Ibarra, 1999; Scott, 2014). Rather than defining expertise through the execution of specific activities, institutions may increasingly need to emphasise interpretation, judgement, relationship management, ethical oversight, strategic thinking, and organisational learning (Faraj, Pachidi and Sayegh, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

Such a shift allows expertise to remain valuable even as technological systems assume responsibility for a growing number of operational tasks (Jarrahi, 2018). The objective is not to eliminate professional roles but to redefine them in ways that are compatible with emerging organisational realities (Leonardi and Treem, 2020).

Importantly, this process requires deliberate organisational effort. Professional identities do not change automatically in response to technological innovation. They are embedded within training systems, career pathways, performance metrics, governance structures, and institutional cultures (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Barley and Tolbert, 1997; Scott, 2014). Organisations seeking reinvention must therefore address these social dimensions explicitly rather than assuming that technological capability alone will produce transformation (Feldman and Pentland, 2003).

The implications extend beyond individual organisations. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into knowledge-intensive industries, questions regarding expertise and legitimacy are likely to become central strategic concerns (Greenwood et al., 2017; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Institutions that successfully redefine professional value may be better positioned to realise transformational opportunities than those that seek to preserve inherited role structures indefinitely.

Identity Lock-In therefore highlights a critical lesson for AI-driven transformation: the future of work is not determined solely by what technology can do, but by how organisations choose to redefine the meaning and value of human expertise (Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2011).

5.9 Conclusion

This chapter has introduced Identity Lock-In as the fifth and final mechanism of the Process Cage. Building upon insights from organisational identity theory, professionalisation research, and institutional theory, the chapter has argued that organisational persistence is shaped not only by structural constraints but also by deeply embedded systems of professional meaning and legitimacy.

The analysis demonstrated that professional identities provide important sources of organisational stability. Expertise structures coordinate activity, support decision-making, and reinforce institutional credibility. However, these same characteristics can contribute to process persistence when technological innovations challenge established assumptions regarding how expertise should be organised and exercised.

Artificial intelligence is particularly significant in this regard because it alters traditional relationships between knowledge, analysis, and decision-making. Activities once associated exclusively with specialised professionals can increasingly be supported or performed by intelligent systems. Yet organisations frequently respond by preserving existing role architectures and legitimacy structures, integrating technology into established arrangements rather than redesigning those arrangements around new capabilities.

The concept of Identity Lock-In explains this tendency. By linking professional identity to organisational persistence, the chapter extends the Process Cage framework beyond structural and technological considerations to include the social foundations of institutional continuity. Governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability, operational substitution constraints, and Identity Lock-In together form a mutually reinforcing system that favours optimisation over reinvention.

The significance of this argument extends beyond professional roles themselves. It suggests that transformational change cannot be understood solely as a technical or managerial challenge. Transformation also requires institutions to reconsider the identities, assumptions, and legitimacy structures upon which existing processes have been built.

The following chapter develops this insight further through the introduction of the Workshop Paradox. While the Process Cage explains the mechanisms that constrain transformation, the Workshop Paradox demonstrates how those mechanisms become visible during organisational innovation activities. By examining how transformational possibilities are progressively narrowed during workshops and redesign initiatives, the next chapter provides an observable illustration of how the Process Cage operates in practice.

6. The Workshop Paradox: Where Innovation Collapses into Optimisation

6.1 Introduction

The preceding chapters argued that artificial intelligence (AI) frequently fails to produce transformational organisational change, despite significantly expanding the technical possibilities for process redesign (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Jarrahi, 2018). The Process Cage framework explained this outcome through the interaction of governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability, operational substitution constraints, and identity lock-in, which collectively redirect AI-enabled opportunities towards optimisation rather than reinvention (Arthur, 1989; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; March, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013).

This chapter examines how these mechanisms become visible in organisational practice through transformation workshops (Kamm, 2026). Workshops are widely used in organisations as structured interventions designed to stimulate innovation, challenge assumptions, and generate alternative ways of organising work. They are typically framed as protected spaces in which participants can step outside routine constraints and engage in creative exploration. In principle, therefore, they should provide favourable conditions for organisational reinvention.

However, empirical organisational experience often suggests a different pattern. Despite being designed to enable transformational thinking, many workshops ultimately converge on incremental improvements to existing processes. Participants identify automation opportunities, remove inefficiencies, and streamline activities, yet rarely question the underlying architecture of work itself. Over time, initially expansive discussions contract into optimisation-oriented outcomes.

This chapter conceptualises this recurring pattern as the Workshop Paradox. The Workshop Paradox refers to the tendency for organisational forums explicitly designed to generate transformation to reproduce existing process architectures. Rather than acting as vehicles of reinvention, workshops frequently become micro-environments in which the Process Cage reasserts itself in concentrated form.

The significance of this paradox extends beyond workshop design. It provides a visible, empirically observable illustration of how organisational constraints shape innovation processes and how transformational ambition can be redirected towards optimisation even in settings explicitly structured to avoid such outcomes.

6.2 Workshops as Arenas of Organisational Sensemaking

Transformation workshops are frequently presented as structured interventions designed to stimulate innovation, challenge assumptions, and generate new approaches to organisational problems (Bessant and Maher, 2009; Kolb, 1984). Facilitators often encourage participants to think creatively, suspend established constraints, and imagine alternative futures (Owen, 1997). As a result, workshops are commonly viewed as temporary spaces in which organisations can step outside routine patterns of behaviour and explore transformational possibilities.

However, organisational theory suggests that such a view may be overly optimistic. Rather than existing outside organisational reality, workshops are more accurately understood as arenas of collective sensemaking in which participants interpret emerging possibilities through the cognitive and institutional frameworks they already possess (Weick, 1995; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Individuals do not enter workshops as neutral observers. They arrive carrying professional experiences, organisational assumptions, role-based responsibilities, and deeply embedded understandings of how work is structured and evaluated (Feldman and Pentland, 2003).

This perspective is consistent with the sensemaking literature, which argues that organisational actors continuously construct meaning through interpretation rather than objective analysis (Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld, 2005). Decisions are rarely made through purely rational assessment of all available alternatives. Instead, actors evaluate possibilities through existing frames of reference that define what appears legitimate, feasible, and desirable (Goffman, 1974; Cornelissen and Werner, 2014). Consequently, the range of solutions considered during a workshop is influenced not only by technological capability but also by the social and institutional contexts within which participants operate (Scott, 2014).

The implications for organisational transformation are significant. Workshops may appear to create opportunities for unrestricted innovation, yet the interpretive frameworks participants bring into the room continue to shape what they perceive as realistic options (Kahneman, 2011; Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000). Governance specialists evaluate proposals through compliance considerations. Technology leaders focus on integration and architecture. Operations managers prioritise continuity and service reliability. Financial stakeholders emphasise measurable returns and implementation risk. Each perspective is individually rational, yet together they reproduce many of the assumptions that structure everyday organisational decision-making (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Viewed in this way, workshops do not temporarily suspend organisational reality. Rather, they condense it. The same institutional logics that influence strategic decisions throughout the organisation become concentrated within a highly visible decision-making forum (Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury, 2012). The workshop therefore serves as a revealing microcosm through which broader organisational dynamics can be observed.

6.3 The Initial Expansion of Possibility

Most transformation workshops begin with a period of conceptual expansion. Participants are encouraged to identify inefficiencies, question inherited assumptions, and explore opportunities created by emerging technologies (Owen, 1997; Bessant and Maher, 2009). During this phase, organisational constraints appear temporarily weakened and the perceived space of possibility broadens considerably.

Artificial intelligence often amplifies this effect. Because AI challenges traditional assumptions regarding information processing, analytical capability, and decision support, participants frequently begin to imagine futures that would previously have appeared unrealistic (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb, 2018). Activities once considered unavoidable may suddenly appear optional. Organisational boundaries may seem more flexible. Long-standing processes may become open to reconsideration (Jarrahi, 2018).

Questions raised during this stage often extend beyond incremental improvement. Participants may ask whether approval chains remain necessary, whether customer journeys can be radically simplified, whether compliance activities can be redesigned from first principles, or whether entire organisational functions could be reconfigured (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018; Zammuto et al., 2007). The conversation shifts from efficiency to possibility.

This phase is important because it demonstrates that organisations are generally capable of imagining alternatives to existing structures. The persistence of established processes cannot therefore be explained solely by a lack of creativity or an inability to conceive of different organisational arrangements (Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000). Under appropriate conditions, participants routinely generate ideas that challenge deeply embedded assumptions regarding how work should be organised.

Yet this period of expansion is typically short-lived. The same organisational actors who generate transformational possibilities also possess responsibilities that require them to evaluate risk, feasibility, accountability, and implementation practicality (March and Simon, 1958; Simon, 1978). As discussions move beyond conceptual exploration towards concrete decision-making, the nature of the conversation begins to change. The workshop transitions from possibility generation to possibility evaluation, and it is at this point that the mechanisms of the Process Cage begin to exert increasing influence (Power, 1997; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

6.4 The Progressive Narrowing of Possibility

s The defining feature of the Workshop Paradox is not the absence of transformational ideas but their gradual contraction as they encounter organisational reality (Weick, 1995; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). As workshop discussions move from imagination towards implementation, participants begin introducing questions that are entirely reasonable from their respective professional perspectives (March and Simon, 1958; Scott, 2014).

How would regulators respond to this change? How would accountability be maintained? How would the solution integrate with legacy systems? What would be the implementation cost? How would success be measured? How would decision rights and responsibilities be affected? (Power, 1997; Galbraith, 1973).

Each question appears sensible when considered independently. Indeed, ignoring such considerations would often be irresponsible. However, their collective effect is profound. Every additional constraint reduces the range of acceptable alternatives and redirects attention towards options that are easier to justify within existing organisational frameworks (Simon, 1978; Williamson, 1981).

This narrowing process is rarely visible to participants because it occurs incrementally. No individual rejects transformation outright. No participant explicitly argues against innovation. Instead, proposals are progressively refined, adjusted, qualified, and adapted until they fit comfortably within established structures of governance, technology, finance, operations, and professional legitimacy (Barley and Tolbert, 1997; Greenwood et al., 2011).

What initially appeared to be an opportunity for redesign gradually becomes an exercise in optimisation. Transformational possibilities are not eliminated through confrontation but through accommodation. Ideas survive only to the extent that they can be reconciled with the assumptions embedded within existing organisational systems (Orlikowski, 2000; Dumas et al., 2018).

This process mirrors the broader dynamics of the Process Cage. Just as organisational transformation is constrained by the interaction of multiple reinforcing mechanisms, workshop outcomes are shaped by the cumulative effect of individually rational evaluations that collectively favour continuity over redesign (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

6.5 From Reinvention to Optimisation

The culmination of this narrowing process is a transition from reinvention to optimisation (March, 1991). Although the language of transformation may remain present throughout the workshop, the substance of proposed changes often shifts towards improving existing structures rather than replacing them (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014).

This distinction is fundamental. Reinvention involves questioning the necessity of inherited assumptions and redesigning organisational arrangements around new possibilities. Optimisation accepts those assumptions as largely valid and seeks to improve performance within existing boundaries (Simon, 1962; Galbraith, 1973).

In practice, optimisation-oriented outcomes frequently appear highly successful. Approval processes become faster. Compliance reviews become more efficient. Customer interactions become more responsive. Reporting activities become more automated. Organisations often realise substantial productivity gains through such initiatives, and these improvements should not be dismissed (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018).

However, the underlying architecture of work frequently remains intact. Activities are accelerated rather than eliminated. Decision rights are preserved rather than reconsidered. Governance structures are digitised rather than redesigned (Power, 1997; Orlikowski, 1992). The process survives even as its execution changes.

This outcome helps explain why organisations often report significant innovation achievements while exhibiting relatively limited structural transformation (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021). Innovation and reinvention are not synonymous. An organisation may become substantially more technologically advanced without fundamentally altering how work is organised.

The Workshop Paradox therefore reveals a critical organisational tendency. Forums explicitly designed to generate transformation frequently produce outcomes that reinforce existing architectures because the criteria used to evaluate ideas are themselves rooted in those architectures (Scott, 2014; Suchman, 1995).

6.6 The Workshop as a Microcosm of the Process Cage

The analytical significance of the Workshop Paradox lies in its ability to make the Process Cage visible. Many organisational constraints operate gradually and are difficult to observe when dispersed across everyday decision-making processes. Workshops concentrate these dynamics into a single setting, allowing the interaction of multiple mechanisms to become more apparent (Weick, 1995; Zammuto et al., 2007).

Governance preservation becomes visible when participants seek to maintain auditability, accountability, and regulatory compliance (Power, 2007). Technological path dependency emerges through discussions concerning system integration, data quality, legacy architecture, and implementation feasibility (Arthur, 1989). Financial provenability shapes which ideas appear attractive by favouring measurable and predictable outcomes (Knight, 1921). Operational substitution constraints reinforce assumptions regarding continuity and service reliability (Dumas et al., 2018). Identity lock-in surfaces when redesign proposals challenge established expertise, responsibilities, or professional boundaries (Whetten, 2006).

Importantly, these mechanisms do not operate independently. Their influence is mutually reinforcing. Governance concerns increase the importance of established processes. Existing technology architectures make radical redesign appear more costly. Financial evaluation frameworks reward incremental improvements. Professional identities support familiar structures. Together, these forces create a self-reinforcing system that progressively narrows the space of acceptable transformation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Greenwood et al., 2011).

The workshop therefore functions as a compressed representation of broader organisational reality. It demonstrates how institutional stability is reproduced not through explicit resistance to change but through the interaction of structures that collectively privilege continuity (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Observing workshop dynamics provides a practical means of understanding how organisations absorb disruptive technologies while preserving inherited architectures.

In this respect, the Workshop Paradox serves as one of the clearest empirical manifestations of the Process Cage framework.

6.7 Why Rational Actors Reproduce Existing Systems

One of the most important implications of the Workshop Paradox is that transformational failure does not require incompetence, conservatism, or hostility towards innovation. Organisations may contain highly capable individuals who are genuinely committed to change, yet still struggle to achieve reinvention (March and Simon, 1958; Simon, 1978).

This occurs because the constraints shaping decision-making are grounded in rational organisational objectives. Governance systems reduce risk. Financial scrutiny improves resource allocation. Operational controls protect service quality. Professional expertise enhances judgement and accountability (Scott, 2014; Power, 1997). Each mechanism contributes positively to organisational performance.

The difficulty arises when structures designed to promote stability become the primary filters through which transformational opportunities are evaluated. Under such conditions, proposals that align closely with existing arrangements are more likely to survive than proposals that require fundamental redesign (Williamson, 1981; Simon, 1962). The outcome is not irrational conservatism but rational adaptation.

This perspective challenges common explanations of organisational inertia. Resistance to change is often attributed to cultural barriers, managerial shortcomings, or employee reluctance. While such factors may occasionally play a role, they do not adequately explain why similar patterns emerge across organisations that differ substantially in culture, leadership, and strategic intent (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

The Process Cage offers an alternative explanation. Organisational persistence emerges because individually rational behaviours collectively reproduce existing systems (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Transformation becomes difficult not because actors reject innovation but because they evaluate innovation through structures optimised for continuity.

This insight is critical because it shifts attention away from individual attitudes and towards the organisational conditions that shape decision-making itself.

6.8 Implications for AI-Driven Transformation

The Workshop Paradox carries important implications for organisations seeking to realise the transformational potential of AI (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb, 2018). Most importantly, it suggests that innovation forums cannot be assumed to generate transformational outcomes simply because they are labelled as transformational.

Organisations frequently invest considerable effort in workshops, design-thinking exercises, innovation programmes, and future-state planning initiatives (Bessant and Maher, 2009). Yet if the same institutional logics that govern everyday decision-making remain active throughout these activities, outcomes are likely to converge towards optimisation regardless of participants’ intentions (Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury, 2012).

This observation highlights the importance of distinguishing between two fundamentally different questions. The first asks how AI can improve an existing process. The second asks whether the process should exist in its current form at all (Simon, 1962). While both questions are valuable, they lead to very different forms of organisational change.

The first encourages optimisation. The second creates the possibility of reinvention.

For organisations seeking transformational outcomes, the challenge is therefore not simply generating new ideas but creating conditions in which inherited assumptions can be questioned before feasibility constraints are applied (Weick, 1995; Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000). This may require redesigning workshop methodologies, separating ideation from evaluation, and deliberately challenging process-centric modes of thinking.

Ultimately, the significance of the Workshop Paradox extends beyond workshop design. It provides insight into how organisations interpret technological possibility and why AI-driven transformation so frequently results in enhanced performance without equivalent levels of structural change (Jarrahi, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

6.9 Conclusion

This chapter introduced the concept of the Workshop Paradox to explain why organisational forums explicitly intended to foster transformation frequently produce optimisation-oriented outcomes (Weick, 1995; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Although workshops are commonly presented as environments for creative exploration and strategic reinvention, the analysis has shown that they remain deeply influenced by the organisational logics participants bring with them (Scott, 2014).

Drawing on organisational sensemaking theory and the Process Cage framework, the chapter demonstrated how transformational possibilities initially expand before being progressively narrowed through governance considerations, technological constraints, financial evaluation criteria, operational assumptions, and professional identities (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Power, 1997; Arthur, 1989; Knight, 1921; Whetten, 2006). Individually, these considerations are rational and often necessary. Collectively, however, they create a powerful filtering mechanism that redirects innovation towards enhancement of existing structures rather than fundamental redesign.

The Workshop Paradox therefore provides a visible illustration of the broader argument developed throughout this paper. Organisations do not typically reject transformation outright. Instead, transformational possibilities are gradually adapted until they fit comfortably within established systems of legitimacy, accountability, and control (Suchman, 1995; Scott, 2014). The result is a recurring pattern in which technological advancement produces significant improvements in performance while leaving underlying process architectures largely intact.

Understanding this dynamic is important because it reveals that the challenge of AI-driven transformation extends beyond technology itself. The critical issue is how organisations evaluate, interpret, and institutionalise new possibilities. Workshops make these dynamics visible, but the same mechanisms operate throughout organisational life (Orlikowski, 2000; Zammuto et al., 2007).

The following chapter applies these insights to the Swiss banking sector. By examining how the mechanisms of the Process Cage manifest within one of the world's most highly regulated and institutionally complex industries, the analysis demonstrates why AI adoption frequently produces optimisation rather than reinvention, even in environments characterised by substantial technological investment and innovation ambition.

7. Implications for Swiss Banking

7.1 Introduction

The Swiss banking sector provides a particularly revealing context in which to examine the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and organisational transformation (Scott, 2014; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). While AI-driven innovation is occurring across virtually all industries, banking combines a unique set of characteristics that intensify many of the organisational dynamics identified by the Process Cage framework (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Greenwood et al., 2011). Extensive regulatory oversight, highly developed risk-management systems, long-lived technology infrastructures, and deeply institutionalised professional roles create conditions under which process optimisation is often considerably easier to achieve than process reinvention (Power, 1997; Arthur, 1989; Barley, 1986).

This context is significant because banking is frequently portrayed as one of the industries most likely to benefit from AI (Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb, 2018; Jarrahi, 2018). Financial institutions possess large volumes of structured and unstructured data, undertake complex analytical tasks, and operate numerous information-intensive processes that appear well suited to intelligent automation (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). AI applications have consequently expanded across fraud detection, anti-money laundering (AML), customer onboarding, credit assessment, portfolio management, compliance monitoring, customer service, and operational support functions.

Yet despite substantial investment and increasing technological capability, evidence of large-scale process simplification remains comparatively limited (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021). Customer onboarding journeys continue to involve multiple validation stages, compliance reviews remain heavily layered, governance structures continue to expand, and organisational complexity remains persistent. In many institutions, AI has accelerated process execution without fundamentally altering the architecture through which work is organised (Orlikowski, 2000).

The Swiss banking sector is especially important because it amplifies the very mechanisms that constitute the Process Cage (Power, 2007; Scott, 2014). Regulatory legitimacy plays a central role in organisational decision-making (Suchman, 1995). Core banking platforms often represent decades of accumulated technological investment (Arthur, 1989). Financial evaluation processes favour incremental and defensible returns (March, 1991). Operational resilience requirements encourage continuity rather than experimentation. Professional expertise remains a critical source of institutional legitimacy (Abbott, 1988; Freidson, 2001). Together, these characteristics create an environment in which AI-enabled transformation is not prevented, but systematically channelled towards enhancement of existing structures.

This chapter argues that Swiss banking should not be viewed merely as an example of the Process Cage. Rather, it represents a particularly concentrated manifestation of the phenomenon (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2014). By examining how governance requirements, legacy infrastructures, investment logics, operational assumptions, and professional identities interact within the sector, the chapter demonstrates why AI frequently produces efficiency gains without corresponding levels of organisational reinvention. The analysis also highlights a strategic risk that extends beyond individual institutions: the possibility that banks become increasingly effective at executing inherited processes while becoming progressively less willing to question whether those processes remain necessary.

7.2 The Strategic Context of Swiss Banking

Swiss banking occupies a distinctive position within the global financial system, historically associated with stability, discretion, and sophisticated wealth-management capabilities (Scott, 2014; Suchman, 1995). The sector has evolved under conditions that prioritise trust, risk control, and institutional continuity, all of which are central to long-term organisational legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). These characteristics have contributed significantly to its long-term success, while also creating organisational conditions that can complicate transformational change (Greenwood et al., 2011).

The contemporary competitive environment is placing increasing pressure on traditional banking operating models. Digital-native competitors, fintech firms, embedded finance providers, and platform-based financial ecosystems are reshaping customer expectations regarding speed, convenience, transparency, and personalisation (Zammuto et al., 2007; Vial, 2019). At the same time, declining margins, rising compliance costs, and growing technological complexity are increasing pressure on banks to improve operational efficiency while maintaining high standards of governance and risk control (Power, 2007).

Artificial intelligence is frequently presented as a solution to these challenges (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). The technology promises improved decision quality, lower operational costs, enhanced customer experiences, and greater scalability across a wide range of banking activities (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). However, AI simultaneously challenges many of the assumptions upon which existing banking structures have been built. Historically, organisational complexity was often justified by limitations in information processing, communication speed, and analytical capacity (Simon, 1962; Galbraith, 1973). AI increasingly relaxes these constraints (Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb, 2018).

This creates a strategic dilemma. Banks can use AI to improve the execution of existing processes, or they can use it as an opportunity to reconsider whether those processes remain necessary in their current form (March, 1991). The first path emphasises optimisation. The second requires reinvention. While both approaches may generate value, they differ fundamentally in their implications for long-term organisational evolution.

The central argument of this chapter is that the structural characteristics of Swiss banking create strong incentives to pursue the first path (Scott, 2014). Consequently, many AI initiatives deliver measurable improvements while leaving deeper organisational assumptions largely untouched. The strategic challenge facing banking leaders is therefore not simply whether to adopt AI, but whether organisational conditions exist that allow AI-enabled redesign to occur.

7.3 Governance Preservation in a Highly Regulated Environment

Among the five dimensions of the Process Cage, governance preservation is arguably most visible within banking (Power, 1997; Scott, 2014). Modern financial institutions operate within dense ecosystems of regulation, supervision, internal controls, audit requirements, and risk-management frameworks that collectively shape how organisational change is evaluated and implemented (Power, 2007; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). These structures exist for legitimate reasons, as banks perform systemically important functions, manage significant financial risks, and operate under public expectations of stability, transparency, and accountability (Scott, 2014). Consequently, organisational innovation must occur within a governance environment that prioritises control as much as performance (Meyer and Rowan, 1977).

The introduction of AI creates a particular challenge within this context. Many AI applications derive value from their ability to identify patterns, generate recommendations, or automate decisions at scales that exceed traditional human capabilities (Jarrahi, 2018; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). However, the organisational legitimacy of banking decisions is often closely linked to explainability, traceability, and accountability (Suchman, 1995). Financial institutions must frequently demonstrate not only that a decision was correct, but also how that decision was reached and who remains responsible for its outcome.

As AI capabilities expand, organisations therefore face a tension between technological possibility and governance legitimacy. The theoretical potential for autonomous decision-making may be substantial, yet governance systems often require meaningful human oversight, documented review processes, and clearly identifiable accountability structures (Power, 2007). Rather than redesigning governance arrangements around new technological capabilities, banks typically adapt AI systems to existing control frameworks. Human approval stages are retained, validation requirements are added, and additional documentation obligations emerge to support regulatory assurance (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

Paradoxically, technologies introduced to simplify work may therefore generate new governance activities. Model validation committees, AI risk assessments, ethics reviews, monitoring frameworks, and explainability requirements create additional layers of organisational activity designed to ensure responsible deployment (Power, 2007; Vakkuri et al., 2020). From a governance perspective, these developments are rational and often necessary. From a transformational perspective, however, they illustrate how AI-enabled opportunities become progressively reframed within established structures of control.

The result is a recurring pattern in which AI increases organisational capability while simultaneously expanding the governance apparatus surrounding its use. Process execution becomes faster and more sophisticated, yet the underlying architecture of accountability remains largely unchanged. Governance preservation therefore functions not as a barrier to AI adoption, but as a mechanism through which AI adoption is channelled towards optimisation rather than reinvention.

7.4 Legacy Systems and Technological Path Dependency

The transformative potential of AI is often discussed as though organisations operate on blank technological canvases (Orlikowski, 2000). In practice, however, banks are among the most technologically path-dependent institutions in the modern economy (Arthur, 1989). Their operating environments are shaped by decades of accumulated investments in core banking platforms, transaction-processing systems, customer databases, reporting infrastructures, and regulatory technologies (Barley, 1986; Scott, 2014). These systems represent not only technical assets but also repositories of organisational knowledge, operational routines, and institutional memory (Leonardi, 2011).

The significance of this legacy infrastructure extends beyond technical considerations. Organisational processes have frequently evolved in close alignment with existing technological architectures, such that technology and organisation become mutually constitutive over time (Orlikowski, 2000; Zammuto et al., 2007). Data structures influence reporting processes, reporting processes influence governance arrangements, and governance arrangements shape operational responsibilities. Over time, technology and organisation become mutually reinforcing socio-technical systems (Leonardi, 2011).

AI initiatives therefore encounter constraints that are often invisible within popular discussions of digital transformation. Although a process may appear conceptually redesignable, implementation frequently requires integration with existing systems whose architecture reflects historical assumptions about how work should be organised (Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). Consequently, organisations tend to adapt AI capabilities to inherited infrastructures rather than redesign infrastructures around emerging capabilities (Baskerville et al., 2019).

This tendency is particularly evident in customer onboarding, anti-money laundering monitoring, credit assessment, and regulatory reporting processes. AI may substantially improve individual activities within these workflows, yet the broader architecture often remains anchored to systems that were designed under fundamentally different technological conditions (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). The organisation consequently experiences technological enhancement without corresponding structural redesign (Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021).

The strategic implication is significant. The more deeply embedded a technological architecture becomes, the more difficult it becomes to exploit the full transformational potential of emerging technologies (Arthur, 1989). AI may alter what is technically possible, but path dependency influences what becomes organisationally feasible. Within Swiss banking, this dynamic contributes substantially to the persistence of established process architectures despite continuing advances in technological capability.

7.5 Financial Provenability and the Preference for Incremental Change

The investment logic governing most banking organisations further reinforces the tendency towards optimisation (March and Simon, 1958; Williamson, 1981). Decisions regarding technology investment are rarely evaluated solely on the basis of strategic potential. Instead, proposals must generally satisfy requirements concerning return on investment, risk exposure, implementation feasibility, and expected business outcomes (Bower and Gilbert, 2005; Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

These evaluation frameworks create an inherent asymmetry between optimisation and reinvention. Incremental improvements typically produce benefits that are measurable, predictable, and defensible (March, 1991). Reductions in processing time, increases in productivity, lower error rates, and operational cost savings can often be estimated using historical performance data. Such initiatives fit comfortably within established investment methodologies and financial control systems (Brealey, Myers and Allen, 2017).

Transformational redesign presents a different challenge. The benefits associated with eliminating process stages, redefining organisational responsibilities, or restructuring operating models frequently depend upon assumptions regarding future organisational states (Knight, 1921). These outcomes are inherently more uncertain and often cannot be validated using existing performance measures. As a result, they may appear less attractive within conventional investment frameworks despite possessing greater long-term transformative potential.

This dynamic reflects March’s (1991) distinction between exploitation and exploration. Banking institutions are structurally incentivised to pursue opportunities characterised by predictability and measurable outcomes, while exploration involves uncertainty, ambiguity, and delayed returns. Exploration remains possible, but it competes against evaluation systems designed primarily to reward certainty.

Consequently, AI portfolios often become concentrated around use cases that improve existing processes rather than redesign them (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). The organisation accumulates numerous optimisation successes while relatively few initiatives challenge fundamental assumptions about how work should be organised. Financial provenability therefore acts as a powerful filtering mechanism through which transformational opportunities are progressively narrowed into incremental improvements.

7.6 Professional Expertise and Identity Lock-In

Banking differs from many industries because operational continuity is itself a strategic objective (Scott, 2014; Berger and Bouwman, 2009). Customers expect uninterrupted access to services, regulators expect resilience under adverse conditions, and financial stability depends upon reliable process execution (De Haan and Amtenbrink, 2011). These expectations create strong organisational incentives to prioritise continuity when evaluating technological change (Power, 2007).

Within such environments, existing processes are frequently treated as fixed requirements rather than as design choices. The central question becomes how AI can improve current activities rather than whether those activities remain necessary. This framing reflects what Nelson and Winter (1982) describe as path-dependent organisational routines, and it has profound implications for organisational transformation because it narrows the scope of inquiry before redesign discussions even begin.

The distinction can be illustrated through customer onboarding and compliance processes. Traditional approaches often focus on accelerating document review, improving identity verification, or enhancing risk-scoring accuracy (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). While these improvements may deliver significant operational value, they rarely challenge the broader architecture within which these activities occur. The process remains fundamentally unchanged; only its execution becomes more efficient.

Operational continuity therefore encourages a form of organisational conservatism that is rarely ideological and often entirely rational (March and Simon, 1958). Institutions seek to minimise disruption, preserve service quality, and avoid unintended consequences. However, the cumulative effect is that AI becomes embedded within inherited workflows rather than acting as a catalyst for redesign (Orlikowski, 2000).

From the perspective of the Process Cage, this mechanism is particularly important because it demonstrates how transformation can be constrained even in organisations that are highly committed to innovation. The issue is not a lack of technological ambition. Rather, it is the assumption that continuity itself constitutes a non-negotiable design principle. When this assumption remains unchallenged, optimisation naturally becomes the dominant outcome.

7.7 The Risk of Process Fossilisation

Professional expertise occupies a uniquely important position within Swiss banking (Abbott, 1988; Freidson, 2001). Activities such as wealth management, credit assessment, compliance review, risk management, and client advisory services derive much of their legitimacy from specialised knowledge and professional judgement. Organisational authority is frequently linked to recognised expertise, and career structures are built around the acquisition and demonstration of that expertise over time (Scott, 2014).

AI introduces a significant challenge to these arrangements because it increasingly performs activities traditionally associated with professional judgement (Jarrahi, 2018; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). Analytical tasks, information synthesis, pattern recognition, document review, and recommendation generation can now be performed at scales and speeds that were previously unattainable. While these capabilities create opportunities for substantial productivity gains, they also raise questions concerning the future role of expertise within organisational systems.

The issue extends beyond employment concerns. Professional identities are deeply embedded within organisational structures (Bechky, 2006). Decision rights, governance responsibilities, reporting relationships, and performance management systems are often designed around assumptions regarding who possesses relevant expertise and how that expertise should be exercised. When AI alters the relationship between expertise and task execution, these institutional arrangements are placed under pressure.

As a result, organisations frequently adopt AI in ways that preserve existing role structures. Human actors remain responsible for validation, escalation, interpretation, and final approval even when technological systems perform substantial portions of the underlying analytical work (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Such arrangements may be justified on governance grounds, but they also serve an important identity-preserving function.

Identity lock-in therefore contributes to organisational persistence by stabilising the social foundations upon which process architectures rest (Kellogg, Valentine and Christin, 2020). Processes survive not merely because they perform operational functions, but because they reinforce established understandings of expertise, legitimacy, and professional value. In this sense, technological transformation encounters not only technical and governance constraints but also deeply embedded social structures that shape how organisational change is interpreted and accepted.

7.8 Beyond Optimisation: Strategic Implications for Banking Leaders

The analysis presented throughout this chapter suggests that the central challenge facing Swiss banking is not whether AI will be adopted. Adoption is already occurring across virtually every major banking function (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018; Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021). The more important question concerns the form that adoption will take and the extent to which it enables genuine organisational reinvention.

The Process Cage framework predicts that institutions will continue to generate significant productivity gains through AI while achieving comparatively modest levels of structural transformation (March, 1991; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Governance systems will favour controlled implementation (Power, 2007). Legacy infrastructures will constrain redesign options (Arthur, 1989). Investment frameworks will prioritise measurable improvements (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Operational assumptions will reinforce continuity (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Professional identities will preserve established role structures (Abbott, 1988). Collectively, these dynamics create strong incentives for optimisation-oriented outcomes.

This trajectory is not necessarily undesirable. Incremental improvement has historically been a source of competitive advantage within banking, and many optimisation initiatives generate substantial economic value (Porter, 1985). Nevertheless, a long-term strategic risk remains. Institutions may become increasingly effective at executing inherited processes while becoming progressively less capable of questioning whether those processes remain appropriate under new technological conditions.

The greatest opportunity presented by AI may therefore lie not in automating existing activities, but in enabling organisations to reconsider the assumptions upon which those activities were originally constructed (Orlikowski, 2000). This requires moving beyond questions of efficiency towards questions of organisational necessity. Rather than asking how technology can improve existing processes, banks must increasingly ask whether those processes would be designed in the same way if they were being created today.

Viewed through this lens, the future competitiveness of Swiss banking may depend less on the sophistication of its AI systems than on its willingness to challenge the institutional, technological, and professional structures that shape how those systems are deployed (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The organisations that achieve the greatest long-term advantage are likely to be those that use AI not merely to optimise inherited architectures, but to rethink them.

7.9 Conclusion

This chapter has examined the implications of the Process Cage framework within the context of Swiss banking. While artificial intelligence is frequently presented as a transformative force capable of fundamentally reshaping financial institutions, the analysis suggests that the relationship between technological capability and organisational transformation is considerably more complex. The Swiss banking sector demonstrates that the existence of transformative technological potential does not automatically result in transformational organisational outcomes.

Drawing upon the five dimensions of the Process Cage—governance preservation (Power, 2007), technological path dependency (Arthur, 1989), financial provenability (March, 1991; Kaplan and Norton, 1996), operational substitution constraints (Nelson and Winter, 1982), and identity lock-in (Abbott, 1988; Kellogg, Valentine and Christin, 2020)—the chapter has shown how organisational structures systematically shape the manner in which AI is adopted and deployed. These mechanisms do not prevent innovation. On the contrary, Swiss banks continue to invest heavily in AI, digitalisation, advanced analytics, and automation technologies (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). Significant gains in productivity, accuracy, responsiveness, and operational effectiveness are being achieved across a wide range of activities.

However, these improvements frequently occur within the boundaries of existing organisational architectures. Governance frameworks channel innovation towards solutions that preserve accountability and regulatory legitimacy (Scott, 2014). Legacy infrastructures constrain the range of feasible redesign options (Leonardi, 2011). Investment processes favour initiatives that generate measurable and predictable returns (Brealey, Myers and Allen, 2017). Operational priorities reinforce continuity and resilience (March and Simon, 1958). Professional identities encourage the preservation of established expertise, decision rights, and role structures (Freidson, 2001). Collectively, these forces create powerful incentives for optimisation while limiting the scope of reinvention.

The Swiss banking sector is therefore particularly revealing because it concentrates many of the institutional conditions that reinforce organisational persistence. As a result, it illustrates a broader phenomenon that extends beyond banking itself. Organisations may become increasingly sophisticated in their use of AI while remaining fundamentally committed to inherited assumptions regarding how work should be organised. Technological advancement and structural continuity can therefore coexist, creating institutions that appear highly innovative yet remain remarkably stable in their underlying design (Orlikowski, 2000).

This observation carries important strategic implications. The long-term value of AI may not lie solely in its ability to execute existing processes more efficiently, but in its capacity to challenge assumptions about why those processes exist in the first place. If organisations focus exclusively on optimisation, they risk using AI to reinforce complexity rather than eliminate it. By contrast, organisations willing to question inherited structures may be able to translate technological capability into genuine organisational reinvention.

The chapter therefore reinforces the central argument of this paper: the primary obstacle to AI-driven transformation is not technological limitation but organisational adaptation. The Process Cage explains how institutions absorb disruptive technologies into existing structures and why optimisation so often prevails over redesign. Understanding these dynamics is essential for leaders seeking to move beyond incremental improvement and towards more fundamental forms of transformation.

The following chapter turns from diagnosis to action. Having established the mechanisms through which organisational structures constrain AI-enabled reinvention, Chapter 8 explores how organisations might deliberately create conditions that weaken the Process Cage and enable more transformative approaches to process design.

8. Toward AI-Driven Process Reinvention

8.1 Introduction

The preceding chapters argued that artificial intelligence (AI) frequently enhances organisational performance without producing equivalent levels of structural transformation. Through the Process Cage framework, this paper demonstrated how governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability, operational substitution constraints, and identity lock-in collectively redirect opportunities for process reinvention towards optimisation (Arthur, 1989; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; March, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992; Leonardi, 2013; Jarrahi, 2018).

The central implication of this analysis is that technological capability alone is insufficient to generate organisational transformation. While contemporary AI systems significantly expand the technical possibilities for redesigning workflows, decision processes, and organisational architectures (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Jarrahi, 2018), these possibilities are consistently filtered through existing institutional, socio-technical, and organisational constraints. As a result, increasing technological sophistication may primarily accelerate existing processes rather than fundamentally reconfigure them.

The challenge facing organisations is therefore not only how to implement AI, but how to create conditions under which AI can enable genuine process reinvention. This chapter develops a framework for AI-driven process reinvention derived from the theoretical arguments established throughout this paper. Rather than offering a prescriptive methodology, it identifies a set of design principles intended to surface and counteract the reinforcing mechanisms of the Process Cage.

Importantly, the objective is not to eliminate governance, expertise, operational discipline, or financial accountability. These remain essential organisational capabilities, particularly in complex and regulated environments. Instead, the aim is to ensure that these necessary structures do not unintentionally foreclose transformational possibilities.

8.2 From Optimisation Logic to Reinvention Logic

The central argument developed throughout this paper is that organisations frequently approach AI through an optimisation logic rather than a reinvention logic (March, 1991; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Although the distinction may appear subtle, it has profound implications for organisational outcomes.

An optimisation logic assumes that existing processes are fundamentally valid and seeks to improve their execution. Questions focus on efficiency, productivity, accuracy, speed, and cost reduction (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). AI is therefore positioned as a tool for enhancing established activities, consistent with incremental innovation pathways in established organisational systems (Nelson and Winter, 1982). The underlying architecture of work remains largely unquestioned.

A reinvention logic begins from a different premise. Rather than assuming that existing processes should be preserved, it treats organisational structures as design choices that can be reconsidered in light of new technological possibilities (Orlikowski, 2000). The central question shifts from how work can be performed more efficiently to whether the work should exist in its current form at all.

Historically, many organisational processes evolved under technological constraints that no longer apply (Arthur, 1989). Multiple approval stages compensated for limited information access. Extensive documentation requirements addressed communication delays. Layered review structures emerged because analytical capabilities were expensive and scarce. AI increasingly alters these conditions by reducing the cost of information processing, pattern recognition, and decision support (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014).

Yet the persistence of inherited processes demonstrates that technological capability alone is insufficient to generate redesign (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Reinvention requires a deliberate shift in managerial thinking. Organisations must become willing to question assumptions that have become institutionalised through years of successful operation (Scott, 2014).

The challenge is therefore not simply technological adoption but cognitive reframing. Transformation begins when organisations stop asking how AI can improve existing processes and start asking how work would be organised if those processes were being designed today. This shift from optimisation logic to reinvention logic represents the first step in escaping the constraints of the Process Cage.

8.3 Principle One: Design from Outcomes Rather Than Activities

A defining characteristic of the Process Cage is that organisational redesign efforts frequently begin with existing activities (Hammer, 1990; Davenport, 1993). Workshops, process reviews, and transformation programmes typically map current workflows and then examine how technology can improve individual tasks. While this approach often generates valuable efficiencies, it also reproduces inherited assumptions regarding how work should be organised (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Orlikowski, 2000).

A more transformational approach begins with outcomes rather than activities (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Outcome-based design asks what customers, regulators, shareholders, and employees ultimately require from a process. Once desired outcomes have been established, organisations can reconsider which activities remain necessary and which exist primarily because of historical precedent (Porter, 1985).

Consider customer onboarding. Traditional redesign efforts often focus on accelerating document verification, reducing manual data entry, or improving compliance reviews (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018). Outcome-based design begins instead with the desired end state: a compliant, verified, low-risk customer relationship. The question then becomes whether the sequence of activities currently used to achieve that outcome remains optimal given contemporary technological capabilities (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014).

This distinction is important because many organisational activities survive not because they create value but because they have become embedded within organisational routines and institutionalised practices (March and Simon, 1958; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). AI creates opportunities to challenge such assumptions by reducing the need for intermediating activities that historically connected information, expertise, and decision-making (Jarrahi, 2018).

Organisations seeking reinvention should therefore treat processes as hypotheses rather than fixed realities. Every activity should be required to justify its existence relative to the outcome it serves. Such an approach does not guarantee simplification, but it creates conditions under which simplification becomes possible.

8.4 Principle Two: Separate Governance from Process Architecture

One of the strongest forces sustaining the Process Cage is the tendency to treat governance requirements as inseparable from existing process structures (Power, 1997; Scott, 2014). Organisations often assume that particular approval stages, reviews, committees, and control mechanisms are required because governance obligations demand them.

In practice, governance requirements and process architectures are not identical (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Regulators typically require accountability, transparency, auditability, and risk management (Power, 2007). They rarely prescribe the precise sequence of activities through which these objectives must be achieved. Over time, however, organisations frequently conflate governance outcomes with specific organisational arrangements through institutionalisation processes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

This distinction becomes particularly important in the context of AI. Emerging technologies create opportunities to achieve governance objectives through different mechanisms than those used historically (Jarrahi, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). Continuous monitoring may replace periodic reviews. Automated controls may reduce the need for manual verification. Real-time transparency may substitute for extensive documentation procedures (Vakkuri et al., 2020).

Escaping the Process Cage therefore requires organisations to separate the question of what governance outcomes are required from the question of how those outcomes are delivered (Scott, 2014). Once this distinction is recognised, a much broader range of redesign possibilities becomes visible.

The goal is not to weaken governance. Rather, it is to prevent inherited governance structures from unnecessarily constraining organisational reinvention.

8.5 Principle Three: Create Protected Spaces for Radical Redesign

The Workshop Paradox demonstrated that conventional transformation forums frequently reproduce the very assumptions they seek to challenge. Participants introduce governance concerns, technological constraints, financial considerations, and identity-based assumptions that progressively narrow the space of acceptable redesign (Weick, 1995; Kaplan, 2008; Cornelissen and Werner, 2014).

This suggests that transformational thinking requires environments specifically designed to suspend, rather than immediately apply, existing constraints. Research on organisational learning and innovation suggests that exploration is often inhibited when evaluative and exploitative logics dominate too early in the innovation process (March, 1991; Edmondson and Harvey, 2018).

Protected redesign spaces are organisational forums in which participants are temporarily encouraged to ignore current structures and explore what a process would look like if designed from first principles. The purpose is not to generate immediately implementable solutions but to expand the range of conceivable alternatives (Brown, 2008; Liedtka, 2015).

Such exercises often reveal how deeply existing assumptions shape organisational thinking. Activities previously regarded as essential may disappear entirely when examined from an outcome perspective. Organisational boundaries may become more fluid. Decision rights may be reassigned. Entire process stages may prove unnecessary (Dorst, 2011; Martin, 2009).

Importantly, constraints are not removed permanently. Governance, feasibility, and implementation considerations remain essential. However, introducing them too early frequently prevents genuinely transformational ideas from emerging. Research on creativity and innovation consistently finds that premature evaluation narrows idea generation and reduces the likelihood of breakthrough solutions (Amabile, 1996; Hargadon and Bechky, 2006).

Organisations seeking reinvention must therefore separate possibility generation from feasibility evaluation (Brown and Wyatt, 2010; Liedtka, 2015). Failure to do so risks reproducing optimisation-oriented outcomes regardless of technological capability.

8.6 Principle Four: Measure Complexity Reduction Rather Than Productivity Alone

Most AI initiatives are evaluated through metrics such as productivity improvement, automation rates, cycle-time reduction, and cost savings (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018; Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson, 2021). While these indicators provide valuable information, they do not necessarily capture whether organisational transformation has occurred.

An organisation can become substantially more productive while remaining equally complex (Gilbert, 2005; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021).

The Process Cage predicts precisely this outcome. AI-generated efficiencies are absorbed into existing systems, increasing capability without reducing structural complexity. Productivity therefore becomes an incomplete measure of transformational success (March, 1991; Benner and Tushman, 2003).

Organisations should complement conventional performance metrics with measures that assess simplification directly. Examples may include reductions in process stages, handovers, approval layers, governance interventions, decision points, and organisational dependencies (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Osborne and Strokosch, 2013).

These indicators encourage a different orientation towards transformation. Rather than asking whether work is performed faster, organisations begin examining whether less work is required altogether (Hammer, 1990).

Such measures are particularly valuable because they reveal whether AI is enabling redesign or merely accelerating inherited structures. In doing so, they provide a practical mechanism for identifying whether organisations are genuinely escaping the Process Cage.

8.7 Principle Five: Redefine Professional Value Beyond Task Execution

Identity lock-in represents one of the most difficult barriers to organisational reinvention because it concerns meaning rather than mechanics. Professional roles are frequently defined through the performance of specific activities and socially constructed understandings of expertise (Pratt, Rockmann and Kaufmann, 2006; Ibarra, 1999). When AI begins performing those activities, organisations face uncertainty regarding how expertise should be recognised and valued (Jarrahi, 2018).

Attempts to preserve existing roles often lead to augmentation strategies that maintain inherited process architectures (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). While such approaches may be appropriate in some contexts, they can also limit opportunities for redesign.

A more sustainable response involves redefining professional value beyond task execution. Rather than evaluating expertise solely through the ability to perform particular activities, organisations can increasingly emphasise judgement, interpretation, ethical oversight, relationship management, strategic thinking, and organisational learning (Drucker, 1999; Schön, 1983; Susskind and Susskind, 2015).

This shift is significant because it allows professional identities to evolve alongside technological capabilities. Individuals are not displaced from organisational systems; rather, their contribution is redefined (Ibarra, 1999; Pratt, Rockmann and Kaufmann, 2006).

Successful transformation therefore depends not only on redesigning processes but also on redesigning assumptions regarding what constitutes professional expertise. Without such adaptation, identity lock-in is likely to continue reinforcing process persistence even as technological capabilities advance.

8.8 Principle Six: Institutionalise Organisational Forgetting

Organisations are exceptionally effective at accumulating processes, controls, governance structures, and routines. They are often considerably less effective at removing them (Hedberg, 1981; Starbuck, 1996).

As a result, complexity tends to increase over time regardless of technological advancement. New capabilities are added while existing structures remain intact. AI is frequently absorbed into this pattern, generating additional layers of capability without corresponding reductions in organisational architecture (Miller, 1993; Gilbert, 2005).

Escaping the Process Cage therefore requires mechanisms that support organisational forgetting (Martin de Holan and Phillips, 2004). Organisational forgetting does not imply the abandonment of valuable knowledge. Rather, it refers to the deliberate removal of activities, structures, assumptions, and routines that no longer create value under contemporary conditions (Hedberg, 1981; Tsang and Zahra, 2008). Institutions routinely invest in innovation, yet comparatively few invest in systematic simplification. The consequence is that inherited structures accumulate faster than they disappear (Starbuck, 1996).

Creating formal review mechanisms for process elimination, governance simplification, and role redesign can help counteract this tendency. Such practices create opportunities to challenge assumptions that have become rganizati through repetition and historical success (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Tsang and Zahra, 2008).

In this sense, reinvention requires not only learning new capabilities but also unlearning obsolete rganizational arrangements (Hedberg, 1981).

8.9 Towards a Post-Process Organisation

Taken together, the principles outlined in this chapter suggest a broader shift in rganizational design philosophy. For more than a century, organisations have been built around the management of information scarcity, communication delays, and limited analytical capacity (Chandler, 1977; Galbraith, 1973). Processes emerged as mechanisms for coordinating activities under these constraints.

AI increasingly changes these underlying conditions (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Autor, 2022).

As information becomes more accessible, analysis becomes more scalable, and decision support becomes more sophisticated, many traditional rganizational assumptions become open to reconsideration (Jarrahi, 2018; Raisch and Krakowski, 2021). The challenge is not whether processes will disappear entirely, but whether process-centric models of rganization remain the most effective way of coordinating work.

A post-process rganization is not one without structure. Rather, it is an rganization in which structures are continually re-evaluated against outcomes rather than preserved through historical precedent (Hammer, 1990; Laloux, 2014). Such organisations treat simplification as a strategic objective, redesign as a recurring capability, and technological change as an opportunity to question inherited assumptions.

While this vision remains aspirational, it highlights the broader significance of the Process Cage framework. The ultimate purpose of understanding rganizational constraints is not merely to explain persistence, but to identify pathways through which persistence can be overcome.

8.10 Conclusion

This chapter has explored how organisations might respond to the constraints identified by the Process Cage framework. The analysis has argued that the persistence of existing process architectures is not primarily a consequence of technological limitation, but of rganizational structures that systematically favour rganization over reinvention (March, 1991; Benner and Tushman, 2003).

The six principles presented in this chapter provide a framework for challenging these dynamics. By shifting attention from activities to outcomes, separating governance objectives from inherited process structures, creating protected spaces for radical redesign, measuring simplification directly, redefining professional value, and rganizationaling rganizational forgetting, organisations can begin creating conditions more conducive to transformational change (Hammer, 1990; Argyris and Schön, 1978; Liedtka, 2015).

Importantly, these principles should not be interpreted as prescriptions for abandoning governance, expertise, or operational discipline. The objective is not to remove rganizational safeguards but to prevent them from becoming unintended barriers to reinvention. Effective organisations require both stability and adaptability (March, 1991; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). The challenge is achieving an appropriate balance between the two.

The broader contribution of this chapter is therefore conceptual rather than procedural. It demonstrates that escaping the Process Cage requires changes in rganizational thinking as much as changes in technology. Transformation emerges when institutions become willing to question assumptions that have become embedded within governance systems, operating models, and professional identities (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Weick, 1995).

The paper now turns to its final conclusions. Having examined the emergence of the Process Cage, its operation within rganizational systems, its manifestation in Swiss banking, and potential pathways beyond it, the final chapter reflects on the theoretical contributions of the framework and its implications for future research into AI-driven rganizational transformation.

9. Conclusion: The Core Risk of Enterprise AI

This paper began with a paradox. Artificial intelligence is widely portrayed as a transformative technology capable of fundamentally reshaping how organisations create value, coordinate work, and make decisions. Yet despite unprecedented advances in machine learning, generative AI, and intelligent automation, many organisations continue to exhibit remarkable structural continuity. Processes become faster, decisions become more informed, and outputs become more efficient, while the underlying architecture of work remains largely unchanged.

The central argument advanced throughout this paper is that this outcome should not be understood as a failure of technology. Rather, it reflects the operation of organizational systems that systematically privilege organizational over reinvention. Existing theories of organizational persistence—including path dependency, institutional theory, socio-technical systems perspectives, organizational learning, and AI augmentation research—offer important but partial explanations of this phenomenon. This paper has argued that their explanatory power increases substantially when these perspectives are understood as interacting components of a broader socio-technical system.

To address this theoretical gap, the paper introduced the concept of the Process Cage. The Process Cage explains how governance preservation, technological path dependency, financial provenability requirements, operational substitution constraints, and identity lock-in interact to progressively narrow the range of acceptable organizational change. Individually, each mechanism serves legitimate organizational purposes. Collectively, however, they create a reinforcing system that transforms opportunities for redesign into initiatives focused on incremental improvement. As a result, organisations frequently adopt AI while simultaneously preserving the process architectures that AI might otherwise enable them to reconsider.

Several broader implications emerge from this analysis. First, productivity improvement should not be conflated with organizational transformation. Efficiency gains, however substantial, do not necessarily indicate that organisations have simplified work, reduced complexity, or redesigned operating models. Indeed, the findings suggest that AI frequently enables organisations to perform existing activities more effectively while leaving the underlying structure of those activities intact.

Second, the paper highlights the importance of professional identity and organizational legitimacy as underappreciated determinants of technological change. AI challenges not only tasks and workflows, but also established assumptions concerning expertise, authority, accountability, and value creation. Consequently, successful transformation requires organisations to redesign the social foundations of work alongside its technical infrastructure.

Third, the paper contributes a process-oriented explanation of why transformation initiatives frequently fail to achieve transformational outcomes. Through the concept of the Workshop Paradox, it demonstrates how organizational actors acting rationally and in good faith can collectively reproduce inherited systems even when pursuing innovation. Transformation is therefore often constrained not by resistance to change, but by the institutional logics through which change is evaluated.

The implications are particularly significant for banking. Regulatory requirements, governance obligations, legacy technology landscapes, and trust-based operating models strengthen many of the mechanisms identified by the Process Cage. While these characteristics support stability, accountability, and risk management, they also increase the likelihood of process organizational, whereby institutions become increasingly efficient at executing inherited processes while becoming progressively less willing to question their continued relevance.

The broader contribution of this paper extends beyond banking. As AI capabilities continue to advance, organisations face a strategic choice. They can use AI primarily to accelerate existing ways of working, or they can use it as an opportunity to reconsider why those ways of working exist in the first place. The distinction is critical. The greatest value of AI may not lie in its capacity to automate activities, but in its capacity to expose assumptions that have become embedded within organizational structures, governance systems, and professional identities.

Ultimately, the core risk of enterprise AI is not technological failure. It is organizational success without organizational reinvention. Institutions may become increasingly productive, increasingly data-driven, and increasingly automated, while remaining fundamentally constrained by inherited process architectures. In such circumstances, AI becomes a mechanism for preserving the past rather than creating the future.

The central conclusion of this paper is therefore both simple and consequential: the transformative potential of AI depends less on what the technology can do than on what organisations are willing to redesign. Organisations that treat process architecture itself as a legitimate object of innovation will be best positioned to realise the strategic possibilities of AI. Those that do not may find themselves becoming exceptionally efficient at executing processes that no longer need to exist.

References

Abbasi, M., et al. (2024). A Review of AI and Machine Learning Contribution in Predictive Business Process Management.

Abbott, A. (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Akerlof, G.A. (1970) ‘The market for “lemons”’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), pp. 488–500.

Agrawal, A., Gans, J. and Goldfarb, A. (2018) Prediction Machines. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Arthur, W.B. (1989) ‘Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events’, The Economic Journal, 99(394), pp. 116–131.

Arrow, K.J. (1974) The Limits of Organization. New York: W.W. Norton.

Aouad, A., Lykouris, T., & Zhong, W. (2026). Human-AI Productivity Paradoxes: Modeling the Interplay of Skill, Effort, and AI Assistance.

Barley, S.R. (1986) ‘Technology as an occasion for structuring’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), pp. 78–108.

Barley, S.R. and Tolbert, P.S. (1997) ‘Institutionalization and structuration’, Organization Studies, 18(1), pp. 93–117.

Baskerville, R., Myers, M.D. and Yoo, Y. (2014) ‘Digital first: The ontological reversal and new challenges for information systems research’, MIS Quarterly, 38(3), pp. 647–662.

Bechky, B.A. (2003) ‘Sharing meaning across occupational communities’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), pp. 311–350.

Bechky, B.A. (2006) ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips’, Organization Science, 17(1), pp. 3–21.

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N. (2013) ‘Digital business strategy’, MIS Quarterly, 37(2), pp. 471–482.

Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R. and Weimer, D.L. (2018) Cost–Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bohnsack, R., & de Wet, M. (2025). AI is the Strategy: From Agentic AI to Autonomous Business Models.

Bostrom, R.P. and Heinen, J.S. (1977) ‘MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes’, MIS Quarterly, 1(3), pp. 17–32.

Brealey, R.A., Myers, S.C. and Allen, F. (2020) Principles of Corporate Finance. 13th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Breiter, A., & Lohmann, M. (2025). Generative AI in the Financial Sector: Strategic, Technological and Organizational Implementation.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 23–48.

Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66–77.

Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2014) The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D. and Syverson, C. (2021) ‘The productivity J-curve: How intangibles complement general purpose technologies’, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1), pp. 333–372.

Brynjolfsson, Erik, Li, D. and Raymond, L.R. (2023) Generative AI at Work. Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Casella, G. and Berger, R.L. (2002) Statistical Inference. 2nd edn. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.

Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.

David, P.A. (1990) ‘The dynamo and the computer’, American Economic Review, 80(2), pp. 355–361.

Davenport, T.H. (2013) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T.H. and Ronanki, R. (2018) ‘Artificial intelligence for the real world’, Harvard Business Review, 96(1), pp. 108–116.

Dell’Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K.C., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F. and Lakhani, K.R. (2023) Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 24-013.

Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999) ‘Challenging “resistance to change”’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), pp. 25–41.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160.

Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J. and Reijers, H.A. (2018) Fundamentals of Business Process Management. 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer.

Dwivedi, Y.K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E.L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A.K., Baabdullah, A.M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M., Al-Busaidi, K.A., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D. and Wright, R. (2023) ‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy’, International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.

Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Greening, Lorna A., Greene, D.L. and Difiglio, C. (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption — the rebound effect. Energy Policy.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E.R. and Lounsbury, M. (2011) ‘Institutional complexity and organizational responses’, Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), pp. 317–371.

Faraj, S., Pachidi, S. and Sayegh, K. (2018) ‘Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm’, Information and Organization, 28(1), pp. 62–70.

Faraj, Samer, Pachidi, S. and Sayegh, K. (2018) Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization.

Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003) ‘Reconceptualizing organizational routines’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), pp. 94–118.

Fichman, R.G., Dos Santos, B.L. and Zheng, Z.E. (2014) ‘Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum’, MIS Quarterly, 38(2), pp. 329–353.

Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003) ‘Working at a cynical distance’, Organization, 10(1), pp. 157–179.

Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism: The Third Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gavetti, Giovanni (2012) Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy.

Gioia, D.A., Patvardhan, S.D., Hamilton, A.L. and Corley, K.G. (2013) ‘Organizational identity formation and change’, Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), pp. 123–193.

Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L. and Difiglio, C. (2000) ‘Energy efficiency and consumption: The rebound effect’, Energy Policy, 28(6–7), pp. 389–401.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (eds.) (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1984) ‘Structural inertia and organizational change’, American Sociological Review, 49(2), pp. 149–164.

Hanseth, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010) ‘Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: The case of building internet’, Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), pp. 1–19.

Henfridsson, O. and Bygstad, B. (2013) ‘The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution’, MIS Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 907–931.

Hillier, F.S. and Lieberman, G.J. (2021) Introduction to Operations Research. 11th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T. and Greenwood, R. (2018) ‘Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective’, Information and Organization, 28(1), pp. 52–61.

Hyndman, R.J. and Athanasopoulos, G. (2021) Forecasting: Principles and Practice. 3rd edn. Melbourne: Otexts.

Ibarra, H. (1999) ‘Provisional selves’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), pp. 764–791.

Jarrahi, M.H. (2018) ‘Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making’, Business Horizons, 61(4), pp. 577–586.

Jarrahi, M.H., Lutz, C., Newlands, G., Lee, M.K., Wolf, C.T., Kinder, E. and Sutherland, W. (2023) ‘Generative AI and the future of work: A human-centred perspective’, International Journal of Information Management, 73, 102720.

Kamm, A. (2026) AI Process Transformation: Why Banks Stall Where They Should Lead.

Kaplan, Sarah and Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2013) Temporal Work in Strategy Making. Organization Science.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellogg, Katherine C., Valentine, M.A. and Christin, A. (2020) Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals.

Kikuchi, T. (2026). The Innovation Tax: Generative AI Adoption, Productivity Paradox, and Systemic Risk in the U.S. Banking Sector.

Knight, F.H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lee, M.K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E. and Dabbish, L. (2015) ‘Working with machines: the impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers’, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1603–1612.

Leonardi, P.M. (2011) ‘When flexible routines meet flexible technologies’, MIS Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 147–167.

Leonardi, P.M. (2013) ‘Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality’, Information and Organization, 23(2), pp. 59–76.

Leonardi, P.M. and Treem, J.W. (2020) ‘Behavioral visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication’, Organization Studies, 41(12), pp. 1601–1625.

Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993) ‘The myopia of learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), pp. 95–112.

Lewis, M.W. (2000) ‘Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide’, Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 760–776.

Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001) ‘Cultural entrepreneurship’, Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), pp. 545–564.

Manta, O., et al. (2024). Industry 4.0 transformation: Analysing the impact of artificial intelligence on the banking sector through bibliometric trends. Electronics, 13(9), 1693.

March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 71–87.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2004) ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields’, Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), pp. 657–679.

Martin de Holan, P. and Phillips, N. (2004). ‘Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting’, Management Science, 50(11), pp. 1603–1613.

Merton, R.C. (1995) ‘Financial innovation and the management and regulation of financial institutions’, Journal of Banking & Finance, 19(3–4), pp. 461–481.

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp. 340–363.

Mullineux, A. and Murinde, V. (2003) Handbook of International Banking. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Mougani, A., et al. (2024). Generative AI in banking: Empirical insights on integration, challenges and opportunities in a regulated industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 43(4), 871–896.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Noy, Shakked and Zhang, Whitney (2023) Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative AI. Science.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2013) ‘Organizational ambidexterity’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp. 324–338.

Orlikowski, W.J. (1992) ‘The duality of technology’, Organization Science, 3(3), pp. 398–427.

Orlikowski, W.J. (2000) ‘Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations’, Organization Science, 11(4), pp. 404–428

Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.

Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Power, M. (2007) Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Raisch, S. and Krakowski, S. (2021) ‘Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox’, Academy of Management Review, 46(1), pp. 192–210.

Raji, I.D., Smart, A., White, R.N., Mitchell, M. and Gebru, T. (2020) ‘Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing’, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 33–44.

Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006) ‘Responding to organizational identity threats’, Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), pp. 433–458.

Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. (2002) ‘Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), pp. 265–295.

Rudin, C. (2019) ‘Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead’, Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, pp. 206–215.

Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003) ‘Shaping agility through digital options’, MIS Quarterly, 27(2), pp. 237–263.

Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1995) ‘Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking’, Sloan Management Review, 36(2), pp. 25–40.

Scott, W. Richard (2014) Institutions and Organizations.

Sherson, J. (2024). A hybrid intelligent change management approach to generative AI adoption.

Simon, H.A. (1962) ‘The architecture of complexity’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), pp. 467–482.

Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2011) ‘Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing’, Academy of Management Review, 36(2), pp. 381–403.

Smith, W.K. and Tracey, P. (2016) ‘Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands’, Strategic Organization, 14(4), pp. 455–466.

Stiglitz, J.E. (2002) Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics. Nobel Prize Lecture.

Suchman, M.C. (1995) ‘Managing legitimacy’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 571–610.

Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003) ‘Managing managerial identities’, Human Relations, 56(10), pp. 1163–1193.

Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G. and Koch, J. (2009) ‘Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box’, Academy of Management Review, 34(4), pp. 689–709.

Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951) ‘Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting’, Human Relations, 4(1), pp. 3–38.

Vakkuri, V., Kemell, K.K., Jantunen, M. and Abrahamsson, P. (2020) ‘Implementing Ethics in AI’, Information and Software Technology, 122, 106274.

Verhoef, Peter C. et al. (2021) Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research.

Vial, Gregory (2019) Understanding digital transformation: A review and research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems.

Warner, Karl S.R. and Wäger, Maximilian (2019) Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation. Long Range Planning.

Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weick, K.E. (1976) ‘Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 1–19.

Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage..

Weill, P. and Ross, J.W. (2004) IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Whetten, D.A. (2006) ‘Strengthening the Concept of Organizational Identity’, Journal of Management Inquiry.

Williamson, O.E. (1981) ‘The economics of organization’, American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), pp. 548–577.

Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J. and Faraj, S. (2007) ‘Information technology and the changing fabric of organization’, Organization Science, 18(5), pp. 749–762.

Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2010) ‘Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field’, Organization Studies, 31(2), pp. 147–171.

Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books.

Contact

Reach out via email for inquiries.

Email

Subscribe to newsletter

info@grcadvisory.ch

© 2025. All rights reserved.