Generative AI (GenAI) is being deployed by 72% of supply chain organizations, but most are experiencing middling results for productivity and ROI, according to a survey by Gartner, Inc.
Productivity gains from the use of GenAI for individual, desk-based workers are not translating to greater team-level productivity. Additionally, the deployment of GenAI tools is increasing anxiety among many employees, providing a dampening effect on their productivity.
“Early GenAI deployments within supply chain reveal a productivity paradox,” says Sam Berndt, Senior Director in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice. “While its use has enhanced individual productivity for desk-based roles, these gains are not cascading through the rest of the function and are actually making the overall working environment worse for many employees. CSCOs need to retool their deployment strategies to address these negative outcomes.”
Key Takeaways:
- Chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) deploying GenAI need to shift from a sole focus on efficiency to a strategy that incorporates full organizational productivity. This strategy must better incorporate frontline workers, assuage growing employee anxieties from the use of GenAI tools and focus on use-cases that promote creativity and innovation, rather than only on saving time.
- As part of the research, Gartner surveyed 265 global respondents in August 2024 to assess the impact of GenAI in supply chain organizations. In addition to the survey, Gartner conducted 75 qualitative interviews with supply chain leaders to gain deeper insights into the deployment and impact of GenAI on productivity, ROI and employee experience, focusing on both desk-based and frontline workers.
- Gartner’s data showed an increase in productivity from GenAI for desk-based workers, with GenAI tools saving 4.11 hours of time weekly for these employees. The time saved also correlated to increased output and higher quality work. However, these gains decreased when assessing team-level productivity. The amount of time saved declined to 1.5 hours per team member weekly, and there was no correlation to either improved output or higher quality of work.
