I’ve started using a custom GPT that has been trained on my company’s historical project data and financial reports. Before I make a "Business Analysis" recommendation, I run it through the AI to see if I’m missing a trend. Is this considered "Automation," and is it making us better at Project Management, or are we just becoming dependent on the "Algorithm"?
3 answers
It’s "Augmented Intelligence," and in 2026, it’s mandatory. In my Project Management role, I’ve automated the "Resource Allocation" logic. The AI looks at current sprint velocity, historical "scope creep" patterns, and even the "sentiment" of the team’s Slack messages to predict if a deadline is at risk. It doesn't "make" the decision, but it automates the 20 hours of data-crunching I used to do. This allows me to focus on the "Human Management"—the coaching, the conflict resolution, and the strategy. We aren't becoming dependent; we are becoming "High-Level Controllers" of very powerful analytical systems.
Does this reliance on historical data for automation prevent us from making "bold" or "unconventional" moves that the AI would flag as "High Risk"?
I’ve automated my "Meeting Minutes." The AI records, transcribes, and automatically assigns tasks in Jira based on the conversation. It’s saved us 5 hours a week!
That’s a classic, Monica. Brandon, I think as long as we treat the AI as a "Consultant" and not a "Boss," we are using it the right way.
Tyler, that's exactly where the human comes in. The AI is the "Sanity Check." If the AI says it’s high risk, you don't necessarily stop; you just prepare better. Automation is there to tell you the odds, but the human is there to take the bet. It makes our risks more calculated, not less frequent.