Did you use AI for any of this?

On productivity guilt, the time-and-materials trap, and what it takes to feel proud of the AI we’re already using.

Ed MehmedAdvisor, Quallie.Ai

Ed Mehmed · September 2025 · 5 min

You are a consultant, designer or strategist, and then you hear those words you dread in question form, no, not “have you done your timesheets?”, but from a client, asking “did you use AI for any of this?” You have built your reputation on delivering on promises and integrity, yet you feel something unfamiliar bubble up inside, and before you can stop yourself your mouth has betrayed a previously impeccable record, only to stain it with a white lie.

On the way home you berate yourself, asking the voice in your head why you said no. Were you embarrassed? At the time it felt like cheating. Productivity guilt, perhaps?

Does it undermine your recommendation, or their enjoyment, alignment, excitement and belief in “the work”? I doubt it. Workers across organisations are all dabbling with various AI tools and platforms, some even in direct violation of their company data security protocols. So what is going on here, I wonder?

Whether we like it or not, AI is here, and it doesn’t have to be the beginning of the end, or a dystopian race to the bottom. For most of us (we are not designing workflow tools or agents) it is about blending AI productivity tools into our practice and daily work patterns. That should not raise any eyebrows, and certainly should not drive productivity guilt.

The time-and-materials trap

Did those early motor car drivers feel terrible for the people walking to work, or for those who could still afford a horse-drawn carriage? I doubt it. Did they have productivity guilt? No way.

Perhaps the rub is that consulting, unlike the commute, and professional services in general, is still largely a time-and-materials business model. So productivity gains infer that someone is now doing more with less. Yet why aren’t prices for work plummeting?

Either work moves to a value-based pricing model, asking what solving this problem is worth to your business and what impact it will drive; or the makeup of the team now requires more senior time to oversee junior human and digital workers. Perhaps a mix of the two. And low-value work will accelerate into its death spiral.

What if an AI-enabled team is delivering client work that is simply better? More robust, more inclusive, more viral, more impactful.Ed Mehmed

My friends Marco Rovagnati and Domingo Barros at Quallie.Ai have built a strategic insights analysis platform, used and loved by mid-sized agencies, boutiques and in-house research and innovation teams, that is on the side of good work. A humble, quiet friend, empowering consultants to focus on the bits of the job they love, and that clients are happy to pay for.

The team are laser focused on their strategic insights tribe, just like Slack was with theirs back in the day, and continues to be loved by developers, start-ups, venture builders and agencies with strong cultures. In platform land, speaking clearly to your tribe and converting users into fans through magic experiences is the only strategy in town.

Letting go of synthesis

I’ve already let go of my super-power of synthesis, and confessed that I now need to build new muscles in the gym. It turns out AI is better than me at synthesis, and that is okay. I am better with words, better at handling challenging questions in the room, better at driving commitment and alignment from teams to new thinking, better at fighting to preserve the creative and commercial integrity of that thinking as it makes its way to market. In your face, AI.

So next time a client asks if you have used AI, say hell yeah. What self-respecting consultant isn’t? And what would it say about me if I wasn’t?

PS. Respect those data rules; they exist for good reason. PPS. If you’re wondering what being on the side of good work actually means, that is exactly what we’re building at Quallie.Ai.