#SpeedRead
The Problem. $8 trillion is being poured into AI infrastructure with no clear path to return. IBM’s Arvind Krishna says the math doesn’t work, $800 billion in annual profit needed just to cover interest, with chips obsolete in five years. The only plausible return is enterprise productivity. But 70% of digital transformations fail, 40% of agentic AI projects will be cancelled by 2027, and only 1% of enterprises have reached AI maturity. The technology works. The architecture doesn’t.
The Insight. We automated tasks when we should have automated the journey from intent to outcomes. The human has become middleware carrying context between disconnected systems, keeping growth and cost locked in linear relationship. Work 3.0 is a design discipline built on one principle: work flows from intent (what outcome we’re pursuing) through orchestration (how humans and agents collaborate) grounded in ontology (knowledge that enables reasoning, not guessing). Most AI transformation touches only orchestration. That’s why it fails.
The Path. Start with one Autonomous Agentic Function (AAF) a single business function redesigned as a complete intent-to-outcomes flow. Prove the model. Scale to others. Agentic technology multiplies good architecture and bad architecture equally. The question is no longer “how do we automate this task?” but “what is the intent, and how should humans and agents collaborate to achieve the outcome?”
#MainArticle
The Economics Do Not Work. Unless We Change the Question.
Arvind Krishna, IBM’s CEO, recently offered a sobering assessment of the AI investment frenzy. Even a simple calculation, he argues, reveals there is “no way” tech companies’ massive data center investments make sense.
The numbers are staggering. Global data centers currently consume around 55 gigawatts of power of which only 14 percent is dedicated to AI. As demand grows, Goldman Sachs projects total data center power could reach 84 gigawatts by 2027. Building a single gigawatt of capacity costs approximately $80 billion. A single company committing to 20 or 30 gigawatts would spend $1.5 trillion roughly equal to Tesla’s entire market capitalisation.
If hyperscalers collectively add 100 gigawatts, that requires $8 trillion in capital expenditure.
“It’s my view that there’s no way you’re going to get a return on that,” Krishna said on the Decoder podcast, “because $8 trillion of capex means you need roughly $800 billion of profit just to pay for the interest.”
And that is before obsolescence. “You’ve got to use it all in five years,” Krishna added, “because at that point, you’ve got to throw it away and refill it.”
What is driving this frenzy? The race to AGI artificial general intelligence that matches or surpasses human capability. Krishna puts the odds of achieving AGI with current technology at one percent. “AGI will require more technologies than the current LLM path,” he said.
Yet here is what Krishna also said and what gets lost in the noise: “I think it’s incredibly useful for enterprise. I think it’s going to unlock trillions of dollars of productivity in the enterprise, just to be absolutely clear.”
This is the statement that should reframe the entire conversation.
The AI industry is investing trillions on the assumption that value will materialise. But that value does not flow automatically from capability. It flows from enterprises fundamentally redesigning how work gets done. Without that redesign, we get impressive technology deployed into architectures that cannot absorb it and $8 trillion in infrastructure waiting for returns that never arrive.
The question is not: What can AI do?
The question is: How must work itself be redesigned for an era when intelligent agents can participate in it?
This is Work 3.0 the discipline of designing work as a continuous flow from intent to outcomes.
The Hype is Deafening. The Signal is Elsewhere.
Every conference keynote promises agentic AI will transform everything. Every vendor has rebranded their product with “AI-powered” and “autonomous.” Every consulting deck projects trillions in value creation. LinkedIn feeds overflow with breathless predictions about agents replacing workers, augmenting workers, or collaborating with workers often all three in the same post.
The noise is extraordinary. And it is almost entirely focused on the wrong question.
The dominant conversation is about capability: What can AI do now? What will it do next quarter? Which model is ahead? The assumption is that once capability arrives, transformation follows. Deploy the agents. Watch the value flow.
This is a fantasy. It mistakes technology for architecture.
Eighty-eight percent of enterprises already use AI regularly. Sixty-two percent are experimenting with agents. Yet only one percent have reached AI maturity. Gartner predicts that more than 40 percent of agentic AI projects will be cancelled by 2027 not because the technology failed, but because organisations deployed capable AI into incapable architectures.
This is precisely the gap Krishna is pointing to. The technology is arriving. The trillions in infrastructure are being built. But the enterprise productivity the only plausible source of return requires something the technology alone cannot provide: a fundamental rethinking of how work is designed.
Work 3.0 is not about adding agents to existing processes. It is about rethinking how work is structured, how responsibility is allocated, how decisions are made, and how humans and agents collaborate to achieve outcomes rather than execute tasks.
The enterprises that grasp this distinction will capture the productivity gains that justify the industry’s investment. The enterprises that keep chasing capability while ignoring architecture will keep funding pilots that never scale and the $8 trillion bet will remain unredeemed.
Let me explain what Work 3.0 actually means and why it demands a fundamentally different way of thinking about enterprise transformation.
The Failure We Do Not Discuss
We have spent two decades automating work. We have remarkably little to show for it.
Seventy percent of digital transformations fail. Ninety percent of back-office cost cuts return within four years. Despite 92 percent of companies planning to increase AI investment, only one percent have reached AI maturity. The gap between what we spend and what we achieve is not an execution problem. It is an architectural one.
We have been automating the wrong thing.
Work 1.0 and 2.0 automated tasks discrete activities without connection to purpose. Work 3.0 must automate the entire journey from intent to outcomes: starting with what we are trying to achieve, orchestrating how we achieve it, and measuring whether we actually achieved it.
The difference is not semantic. It is structural.
The Middleware Problem
Here is what no one says aloud in transformation meetings: the human being has become middleware.
In every enterprise, there are people whose primary job is not to think, create, or decide but to carry context between systems that refuse to talk to each other. They copy data from one screen to another. They reconcile numbers that should already match. They read an output from System A, interpret it, and input the result into System B. They are human APIs.
We did not design it this way. It emerged. Each system was built for a purpose. Each automation solved a local problem. But no one designed the whole. So humans became the integration layer the only entities capable of understanding why the work matters and how the pieces connect.
This is expensive. A single KYC review costs banks $1,500 to $3,000. Month-end close consumes entire teams for weeks. Customer service agents spend more time navigating systems than serving customers.
But expense is not the real problem. The real problem is that it does not scale.
Double your business in Work 1.0 or 2.0, and you roughly double your operations headcount. Growth and cost are locked in a linear relationship. This is the opposite of what technology was supposed to deliver. We were promised leverage. We got sophisticated task automation and human middleware.
Why Work 2.0 Hit a Ceiling
Work 2.0 the era of RPA, chatbots, and workflow automation promised to free humans from repetitive work. It delivered fragments of that promise.
Bots can copy fields. Chatbots can answer FAQs. Workflow engines can route tickets. But the moment complexity enters the moment context matters, the moment judgment is required, the moment an exception appears the system stops and waits for a human.
Why? Because Work 2.0 systems execute tasks without understanding intent. They have no concept of outcomes.
They do not know why they are copying that field. They do not understand what a successful outcome looks like. They cannot adapt when circumstances change. They have no model of the intent they are serving or the constraints they must respect. They are disconnected fragments, not a coherent flow from purpose to result.
So they do exactly what they are programmed to do. And when the world deviates from the program, they halt. Or worse, they proceed blindly and create errors that humans must later fix.
This is not intelligence. It is automation without understanding. And it is why 40 percent of agentic AI projects will be cancelled by 2027, according to Gartner not because the technology failed, but because organisations are deploying agents into architectures that were never designed to connect intent to outcomes.
What Work 3.0 Actually Means
Work 3.0 is not a technology upgrade. It is a design philosophy built on a single principle: work flows from intent to outcomes.
The core shift: from systems that execute tasks to systems that pursue outcomes. From asking “what steps should be performed?” to asking “what result must be achieved?”
In Work 3.0, every workflow begins with intent a Job to be Done that expresses purpose, not procedure. “Onboard this customer compliantly and efficiently.” “Resolve this service issue in a way that retains the customer.” “Close the books accurately by the fifth business day.”
Agents in Work 3.0 understand these intents. They can decompose them into dynamic plans. They can adapt those plans when context changes. They can evaluate whether outcomes were achieved. And they can learn from the gap between intention and result closing the loop that transforms intent into outcomes and outcomes into improved intent.
This is only possible because of a foundational layer that Work 1.0 and 2.0 never built: ontology.
Ontology is the structured representation of what things mean and how they relate. What is a customer? What is a contract? What is a risk? What rules govern their interactions? Without ontology, agents are guessing pattern-matching on surface features without understanding substance. With ontology, agents reason connecting goals to plans to outcomes through a shared model of reality.
The difference is architectural. And the consequences are structural.
The Architecture of Intent to Outcomes
Work 3.0 operates on three layers that make the flow from intent to outcomes possible:
The Intent Layer: What are we trying to achieve? Not tasks, but outcomes. Not activities, but jobs to be done. This is where business purpose lives and where most automation projects fail because they skip it entirely. Intent is the starting point: “acquire qualified customers,” “manage risk within tolerance,” “serve customers in ways that build loyalty.”
The Orchestration Layer: How does intent become action? Who does what, in what sequence, with what handoffs? This is where humans and agents collaborate where responsibility is allocated, where decisions are routed, where exceptions are escalated. In Work 1.0, this layer lived entirely in human heads. In Work 3.0, it is encoded, dynamic, and adaptive. Orchestration transforms intent into coordinated activity.
The Knowledge Layer: What grounds the journey from intent to outcomes? What do things mean? What rules apply? What constraints must be respected? This is ontology the foundation that makes reasoning possible. Without it, the intent layer has no grounding and the orchestration layer has no coherence. Knowledge ensures that agents pursue outcomes through understanding, not guesswork.
Most “AI transformation” efforts focus only on the orchestration layer adding agents to existing workflows without clarifying intent or building knowledge foundations. This is why they fail. You cannot bolt reasoning onto an architecture designed for task execution. You must design the complete path from intent to outcomes.
The Unit of Change: The Autonomous Agentic Function
Enterprises cannot transform overnight. But they can transform function by function.
The practical unit of Work 3.0 is the Autonomous Agentic Function (AAF) a single business function redesigned as a complete flow from intent to outcomes, grounded in ontology.
Consider what Sales looks like as an AAF. In Work 2.0, salespeople manually research prospects, qualify leads, update CRMs, prepare proposals, and chase follow-ups. Automation handles fragments an email sequence here, a lead score there but the human remains the middleware, carrying context across every step. There is no coherent flow from intent (“acquire profitable customers”) to outcome (“closed deals that create value”).
In an AAF, the intent is explicit: convert qualified prospects into customers profitably. Agents understand this intent. They research autonomously, drawing from multiple sources. They qualify based on fit, intent, and timing not just a score, but a reasoned assessment grounded in what the organisation knows about successful customers. They draft tailored proposals. They identify optimal engagement timing. They measure outcomes and learn from the gap between intent and result.
The salesperson’s role transforms. Less time on administration and context-carrying. More time on relationships, negotiation, and strategic accounts. The human moves from middleware to management setting intent, providing judgment, handling exceptions that require human insight, and refining the system based on outcomes.
One AAF proves the model. The second moves faster because the ontology is in place. The third faster still. When multiple AAFs share ontology and coordinate across boundaries, the enterprise becomes an Autonomous Agentic Organisation (AAO) where work flows intelligently from intent to outcomes without humans serving as the integration layer.
The Ten Questions That Define Work 3.0 Design
Every Work 3.0 system must answer ten questions that span the journey from intent to outcomes:
- What is the intent the outcome we are pursuing, not just the task to execute?
- What is the share of responsibility between humans and agents and how will that share evolve as agents earn trust?
- What is the execution sequence who initiates, who hands off, what triggers the next step?
- How will work actually be done what methods, what interfaces, what interactions between humans, agents, and systems?
- How will decisions be taken what criteria, what thresholds, what logic, and how will it be traceable?
- How will edge cases be handled what triggers escalation, how is ambiguity recognised, how are novel situations routed?
- What ontology grounds it what do entities mean, how do they relate, what rules govern the path from intent to outcomes?
- How is compliance embedded built into constraints, not bolted on as checkpoints?
- How is knowledge governed who can access, modify, and assure quality?
- How does the system learn how do outcomes feed back to sharpen intent and improve the entire flow?
These are not abstract considerations. They are design requirements. Skip any one of them, and the path from intent to outcomes will break in predictable ways.
The Competitive Reality
Eighty-eight percent of enterprises now report regular AI use. Sixty-two percent are experimenting with agents. Twenty-three percent are scaling them. By 2028, Gartner predicts that 33 percent of enterprise applications will include agentic AI up from less than one percent in 2024.
The technology is arriving. The question is whether organisations have the architecture to connect intent to outcomes.
Those deploying agents into Work 2.0 architectures will see the same pattern as previous automation waves: local gains, scaling failures, projects cancelled for unclear value. The technology will be blamed, but the architecture will be the cause. Agents without intent are just faster task executors. Agents without ontology cannot reason toward outcomes.
Those designing for Work 3.0 building intent-to-outcomes architectures grounded in ontology, deploying function by function as AAFs will break free from linear cost scaling. They will redeploy human capacity from middleware to management. They will build organisations where the flow from purpose to result improves with every cycle.
The gap between these two paths will widen quickly. Agentic technology is a multiplier. It multiplies the effectiveness of good architecture and the dysfunction of bad architecture.
The Invitation
Work 3.0 is not about adding AI to existing processes. That is Work 2.5 at best and it will underperform.
Work 3.0 is about asking a more fundamental question: How do we design work as a continuous flow from intent to outcomes with humans and agents each contributing where they add most value?
Not: how do we automate this task? But: what is the intent, and what outcome would fulfill it?
Not: where can we add a bot? But: what ontology would allow agents to reason about this domain to understand intent and pursue outcomes intelligently?
Not: how do we scale this process? But: how do we design this function so that the path from intent to outcomes improves with every iteration?
The enterprises that take these questions seriously will build something their competitors cannot easily copy: an operational architecture where work flows naturally from purpose to result, where outcomes feed back to sharpen intent, and where the entire system learns continuously.
The enterprises that keep automating tasks while humans carry context will keep adding bodies. And they will keep wondering why transformation never quite delivers.
Work 3.0 is not a destination. It is a design discipline for the age of agentic AI. The time to adopt it is now.