> Organizations are using agentic coding tools to build software in-house in lieu of purchasing it. Nearly a third of respondents (32 percent) report that their organizations have decided against buying one or more software products or features because they could be built internally with agentic coding tools.
People think they can do it themself... kind of like how everyone build their own database using Microsoft Access in the 90's. When all software developers needed to repair all the issues...
I am at a point in my career where I'm figuring out where I want to spend the last 15 years of it. I don't want to work in corporate for a long stretch of it. It seems to me, being a consultant to fix all those messes could be a good seam of code face to get stuck into...
Yeah, unreasonable deadlines (these are the norm) spent trying to untangle a mass of overly verbose spaghetti code, and chances are there is no budget for you to do it properly, they contracted you only for a ‘bugfix’. It’s just more technical debt on top of technical debt.
No, thank you. I’ll leave the underpaid disinfestation job to someone else.
The best fun is when you’ll be called in not to untangle the LLM mess, but to build new features on top of its nonsense architecture and API design, but expected to do it by hand because they have lost confidence in AI.
No, it's been my experience asking LLMs to explain complicated code to me. They can do a pretty good job of it. You can also ask them to write a bunch of tests and then rip out the old implementation and fix it with a new one. LLMs aren't perfect but they are really good at understanding and writing code.
It will be messes of python scripts running on some ancient version of python that you have to switch between scripts. All in a folder on some laptop with an outdated OS that you cannot update or everything will break. Business logic obviously not documented anywhere, just mountains and mountains of slop readmes that might be accurate, but also might not be.
On the other hand, if you let in-house devs own your enterprise software, in many places it's going to be months of meetings to get the smallest change implemented.
Plenty of companies run most of their internal operations on Excel and Access for exactly this reason. And most developers barely know anything about databases anyway.
We can do it ourselves. Simple custom tools are so much more effective than a conglomeration of general purpose ones. I've been ripping out SaaS offerings left and right, it's great.
Except that isn't how it played out. Most of the Access DBs, spreadsheets, and even SharePoint, Notes, and early Salesforce apps worked just fine without any help from devs. Yes, the devs got called in when those solutions needed to scale beyond a single department, but most of them never did.
It is far more plausible that we'll see that pattern again - small, department-level vibe coded apps will be around. And things that need to scale bigger will need professionals.
Microsoft comes to mind, with their anti-open-source era, their bullying of security researchers, and several other infractions. Plus I suspect they're gearing up for some shenanigans re: their auth portal.
I dunno is creating chaos that requires many expensive rewrites damaging to the industry?
I kid of course - their recommendations on management of technical teams are fly-in, fly-out out of context garbage in my experience. Usually results in poor but justified decisions from senior leaders that happen in cycles of 3-5 years.
> About four in ten respondents (37 percent) report that AI has contributed positively to their organizations’ EBIT, essentially unchanged from 2025—despite growth in the share of organizations scaling AI technologies. But respondents do cite other organization-wide benefits: most notably, improvements in innovation, competitive differentiation, customer satisfaction, and employee satisfaction.
I view this mostly as a case of uneven diffusion. Consider your priors on the tech savviness of the bottom 50% of enterprises, let alone the bottom 25%. Many companies won’t adopt AI for 5 years. Now model how a 5% difference in growth plays out; not enough to sink stragglers immediately.
The other interesting bit is a 5% increase in EBIT could be a smaller productivity increase in the margin, eg you lowered prices by 2% and some fraction of your competitors’ customers noticed.
Basically, nothing revolutionary but I think it’s an error to read this as “we don’t see ROI yet”.
The other interesting point is one of legibility; the difference between “employees using AI” and “business function has rolled out AI”.
> Among AI tools, chatbots are the most widely scaled, with 47 percent of respondents saying their organizations are scaling them across the enterprise
We should look into the details, but I read this as: ~everyone is using AI ad-hoc, the 47% is the consultant-y “leadership has stood up a measurable initiative to scale AI…”. By construction, Gartner cannot measure the on-the-ground adoption.
As expected the thread is filled with smug comments on how it is definitely not ROI positive.
The thing I think about is AI is already at that spot where you don’t need a survey or a Randomised Controlled Trial to prove it makes one productive. Sometimes things are that obvious. But these kind of tests and surveys appeal to a certain kind of person who considers IMO the wrong type of things as rigorous.
It makes organizations more productive at producing code and doing other tasks, but translating that into something that affects PnL is different. Where I work it's sped up individual tasks I've worked on but I don't think it's sped up delivery timelines of any of the major projects I'm involved in. We just added additional verification work with the extra cycles the engineers have now. It's not like that work is useless. It will probably mean I have less debugging to do in the future, but when you look at how the business makes money I don't see it making a big impact.
I think it is easy for companies to waste time and money on lots of things when it is hard to measure the impact. For example, I think most people would agree that the big tech companies are bloated and have too many employees for the amount of work they have. There's not really an incentive to fix problems, and in some cases (like with headcount) there are counter-incentives (managers want to have more reports).
I think companies will get better at measuring the impact of AI and attributing it to increasing profit or decreasing costs, and that the companies that are better at this will have an advantage over those that are worse, so eventually overall efficiency will improve.
> Organizations are using agentic coding tools to build software in-house in lieu of purchasing it. Nearly a third of respondents (32 percent) report that their organizations have decided against buying one or more software products or features because they could be built internally with agentic coding tools.
People think they can do it themself... kind of like how everyone build their own database using Microsoft Access in the 90's. When all software developers needed to repair all the issues...
I am at a point in my career where I'm figuring out where I want to spend the last 15 years of it. I don't want to work in corporate for a long stretch of it. It seems to me, being a consultant to fix all those messes could be a good seam of code face to get stuck into...
It's going to be a horrible job though, the equivalent of fixing Y2K bugs in Cobol code except with code bases that even more vast and unintelligible.
You will be able to easily rewrite with better technical decisions with the assistance of LLMs in that case.
Also the Y2K folks made bank IIRC.
Yeah, unreasonable deadlines (these are the norm) spent trying to untangle a mass of overly verbose spaghetti code, and chances are there is no budget for you to do it properly, they contracted you only for a ‘bugfix’. It’s just more technical debt on top of technical debt.
No, thank you. I’ll leave the underpaid disinfestation job to someone else.
The best fun is when you’ll be called in not to untangle the LLM mess, but to build new features on top of its nonsense architecture and API design, but expected to do it by hand because they have lost confidence in AI.
The LLMs are pretty good at helping with that though.
I want to believe this is witty sarcasm, given the topic, but you never know these days.
No, it's been my experience asking LLMs to explain complicated code to me. They can do a pretty good job of it. You can also ask them to write a bunch of tests and then rip out the old implementation and fix it with a new one. LLMs aren't perfect but they are really good at understanding and writing code.
It's right though.
There exists no evidence that manually trying to fix or rewrite the system is going to be more efficient today.
And if AI improves even half as fast as it did over the last year, all bets are off for what 2028 will look like.
It will be messes of python scripts running on some ancient version of python that you have to switch between scripts. All in a folder on some laptop with an outdated OS that you cannot update or everything will break. Business logic obviously not documented anywhere, just mountains and mountains of slop readmes that might be accurate, but also might not be.
On the other hand, if you let in-house devs own your enterprise software, in many places it's going to be months of meetings to get the smallest change implemented.
Plenty of companies run most of their internal operations on Excel and Access for exactly this reason. And most developers barely know anything about databases anyway.
"decided against buying one or more software products or features"
I suspect the "or features" there is doing a lot of work.
We can do it ourselves. Simple custom tools are so much more effective than a conglomeration of general purpose ones. I've been ripping out SaaS offerings left and right, it's great.
Except that isn't how it played out. Most of the Access DBs, spreadsheets, and even SharePoint, Notes, and early Salesforce apps worked just fine without any help from devs. Yes, the devs got called in when those solutions needed to scale beyond a single department, but most of them never did.
It is far more plausible that we'll see that pattern again - small, department-level vibe coded apps will be around. And things that need to scale bigger will need professionals.
The ROÍ will be happening any day now, we promise. Please hire more McKinsey consultants who say they’re AI experts.
Is there a company that has been more damaging to the software industry than these jokers?
Microsoft comes to mind, with their anti-open-source era, their bullying of security researchers, and several other infractions. Plus I suspect they're gearing up for some shenanigans re: their auth portal.
I dunno is creating chaos that requires many expensive rewrites damaging to the industry?
I kid of course - their recommendations on management of technical teams are fly-in, fly-out out of context garbage in my experience. Usually results in poor but justified decisions from senior leaders that happen in cycles of 3-5 years.
Oracle maybe?
I can take believe I'm saying this but, Oracle at least provides a useful product.
Apple?
The one who invested in LLVM?
The one who normalised needing approval from the device maker to run code.
How so?
I'm about as much of an Apple hater as anyone else, but you're probably thinking of user interface design (or CUPS).
> About four in ten respondents (37 percent) report that AI has contributed positively to their organizations’ EBIT, essentially unchanged from 2025—despite growth in the share of organizations scaling AI technologies. But respondents do cite other organization-wide benefits: most notably, improvements in innovation, competitive differentiation, customer satisfaction, and employee satisfaction.
I view this mostly as a case of uneven diffusion. Consider your priors on the tech savviness of the bottom 50% of enterprises, let alone the bottom 25%. Many companies won’t adopt AI for 5 years. Now model how a 5% difference in growth plays out; not enough to sink stragglers immediately.
The other interesting bit is a 5% increase in EBIT could be a smaller productivity increase in the margin, eg you lowered prices by 2% and some fraction of your competitors’ customers noticed.
Basically, nothing revolutionary but I think it’s an error to read this as “we don’t see ROI yet”.
The other interesting point is one of legibility; the difference between “employees using AI” and “business function has rolled out AI”.
> Among AI tools, chatbots are the most widely scaled, with 47 percent of respondents saying their organizations are scaling them across the enterprise
We should look into the details, but I read this as: ~everyone is using AI ad-hoc, the 47% is the consultant-y “leadership has stood up a measurable initiative to scale AI…”. By construction, Gartner cannot measure the on-the-ground adoption.
This McKinsey? https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-a...
Do I understand correctly that means there is no AI ROI to show off yet? If correct that’s pretty bad, no?
There’s a concept of an ROI
Vibe ROI-ing
Directionally, we'll have ROI by 2100 if we build 1000x more data centers. Growth mindset!
For the internet in many cases it took a decade or longer too, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox
[dead]
i look forward to mckinsey being replaced by ai.
No need, you can replace them with a single sentence.
Do the most unethical profit-maximizing thing, but also account for the eventual lawsuits and loss of goodwill in your calculation.
I wouldn't trust anything McKinsey publishes.
As expected the thread is filled with smug comments on how it is definitely not ROI positive.
The thing I think about is AI is already at that spot where you don’t need a survey or a Randomised Controlled Trial to prove it makes one productive. Sometimes things are that obvious. But these kind of tests and surveys appeal to a certain kind of person who considers IMO the wrong type of things as rigorous.
It makes organizations more productive at producing code and doing other tasks, but translating that into something that affects PnL is different. Where I work it's sped up individual tasks I've worked on but I don't think it's sped up delivery timelines of any of the major projects I'm involved in. We just added additional verification work with the extra cycles the engineers have now. It's not like that work is useless. It will probably mean I have less debugging to do in the future, but when you look at how the business makes money I don't see it making a big impact.
Based on what you said, would you think firms would dial down AI use in the coming years? If not it stands to reason that it did have big impact.
I think it is easy for companies to waste time and money on lots of things when it is hard to measure the impact. For example, I think most people would agree that the big tech companies are bloated and have too many employees for the amount of work they have. There's not really an incentive to fix problems, and in some cases (like with headcount) there are counter-incentives (managers want to have more reports).
I think companies will get better at measuring the impact of AI and attributing it to increasing profit or decreasing costs, and that the companies that are better at this will have an advantage over those that are worse, so eventually overall efficiency will improve.
Who’s paying you? In every thread you come off as so desperate