How Organizations Can Align Process Management With AI — and What Georgia’s Experience Reveals

In the January–February 2025 issue of Harvard Business Review, a series titled “AI and Organizational Transformation” explored how artificial intelligence (AI) can be integrated into organizational life not merely as an automation tool but as the foundation for systemic change.

Thomas H. Davenport and Thomas C. Redman, in their article “How to Marry Process Management and AI,” argue that companies cannot achieve real value from AI if they simply automate existing tasks without redesigning the processes themselves. They emphasize that technology must be adapted to people, and people must learn to use technology in ways that amplify rather than diminish their own capabilities.

1. James Wilson and Paul R. Daugherty, in “The Secret to Successful AI-Driven Process Redesign,” underline that successful transformation occurs only when AI initiatives are not confined to management. True change requires involvement at every level of the organization, a culture of experimentation, and a fundamental rethinking of decision-making. Their evidence shows that firms that democratize access to AI—allowing employees to experiment and integrate it into their daily work—achieve higher productivity and stronger innovation capacity.

Julian De Freitas, in “Why People Resist Embracing AI,” focuses on the human factor—why employees fear technological change and mistrust new systems. His research finds that while 79% of executives believe AI will have a decisive impact on their organizations in the coming years, only 20% say it is currently embedded in daily workflows. The main barriers are lack of skills, uncertainty about responsibility, and fear of being replaced.

Together, these three articles form a coherent message: successful AI integration requires process redesign, employee participation, and a culture of trust.

When applied to Georgia, this framework fits remarkably well with local findings. According to the 2025 study “How Generative AI Is Going to Affect the Georgian Labor Market” (Free Policy Briefs, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics), around 26% of Georgia’s workforce is in occupations with medium-to-high exposure to generative AI—meaning a significant share of their work tasks could be either automated or substantially enhanced. Another 15% fall into medium exposure, while 59% are in low-exposure jobs dominated by physical or service-based labor.

The study uses the International Labour Organization’s task-based methodology and data from Geostat’s 2023 Labor Force Survey. It concludes that Georgia’s automation potential is relatively low compared with Europe and Central Asia, yet its augmentation potential—AI improving rather than replacing human work—is considerably higher.

These results resonate closely with HBR’s conclusions. Davenport and Redman’s argument for process redesign is highly relevant in Georgia, where most companies employ digital tools but seldom alter the underlying workflow. AI is increasingly used for text generation and reporting, yet the structure of work remains largely unchanged.

Wilson and Daugherty’s concept of democratization—giving everyone access to AI tools—also has direct implications. In Georgia, digital transformation tends to concentrate in Tbilisi: about 36% of employees in the capital have high AI exposure, compared with only 18% in rural regions, reflecting the persistent digital-skills divide.

De Freitas’s insights on human resistance are likewise visible in the Georgian context. Skepticism toward AI is rarely ethical; it is primarily practical—stemming from limited training, time constraints, and uncertainty about usefulness. In the public sector, many employees see AI as “extra work” rather than a productivity aid, largely due to a lack of clear guidance and support.

Taken together, these insights suggest that AI transformation in Georgia is less a technological challenge and more a managerial and cultural one. The technology is available, but process redesign, skill renewal, and trust-building are still at an early stage.

The sectors most exposed—finance, education, and public administration—are precisely those where AI is most likely to enhance rather than replace human labor. This presents an opportunity for policymakers and business leaders to focus on using AI to improve quality, speed, and transparency rather than reduce headcount.

As the Harvard Business Review authors emphasize, the key to sustainable transformation is a balanced partnership between humans and technology. Georgia’s labor-market evidence reinforces this message: generative AI does not pose an existential threat, but a chance for purposeful reinvention—if the country unites structural change, education, and management vision into a coherent strategy.

This article was prepared by the BTUAI, drawing on the original Harvard Business Review article “How to Marry Process Management and AI” (January–February 2025), and supported by data from the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, FREE Policy Briefs (October 2025), and Geostat’s Labor Force Survey (2023).