
Research from the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) found that private investment in generative AI reached $33.9 billion in 2024. The largest share went to the companies building the models, supplying the compute, and manufacturing the chips on which both depend. This has been the case since 2020, It is the more visible and loudest aspect of the AI economy. The other aspect of it runs quietly underneath it, and concerns the industry-specific systems that translate the general capabilities of the models into a working process. Applications, vertical products, and workflows redesigned around a model rather than decorated with one, are going to determine whether the enterprise value everyone has been promised will actually arrive. That is to say, the value of using AI lies in the money companies recover when those models are wired into a real business process. By that measure, most value has only been partly obtained.
The majority of the organizations using generative AI in at least one function, still report no measurable effect on earnings at the enterprise level. Which is explained by one variable: what was the technology used for specifically? Is it being used for functions that can show quick productivity gains and time saving workflows? or is it being used for processes that take time to mature and materialize?
The OECD's firm-level research on the adoption of Artificial Intelligence confirms this. Firms achieve the greatest productivity gains when they redesign processes around AI rather than applying the technology to existing ways of working. Without that organisational change, AI often delivers incremental improvements rather than fundamental gains. Return arrives only when a company is willing to rebuild the process itself, which is slow, unglamorous, and not always immediately visible.
Two examples illustrate the difference. Klarna, the Swedish payments company, reported in early 2024 that an AI assistant integrated into its customer service operations was handling the workload of around 700 full-time agents and resolving queries in minutes, compared with an average response time of 11 minutes previously. The improvement came not simply from deploying a better chatbot, but from redesigning the support process around the capabilities and limitations of the model.
IBM’s Watson for Oncology shows how "innovation" is not automatically synonymous with "improvement". Marketed to hospitals in the mid-2010s as a system designed to support cancer treatment decisions, the tool struggled when clinicians found that its recommendations did not always align with the needs of individual patients. The issue was not the technology itself, but the gap between the system and the way clinical decisions were actually made.

The distinction between a general model and a system adapted to the way a specific industry operates is where durable business value is likely to emerge. Andreessen Horowitz has argued that foundation models may become more like infrastructure than traditional software businesses, with greater value accruing to companies that build AI products around specific workflows, proprietary data and industry expertise. The investment flowing into legal AI, clinical documentation and industrial applications reflects this shift: investors are looking beyond the underlying models toward companies that can embed AI into valuable business processes.
The advantage of vertical AI comes from what it adds beyond the underlying model. Harvey, the legal AI company, is not competing by building another general-purpose language model. It applies AI to specific legal workflows, incorporating the documents, citation practices and professional standards that shape work inside law firms. The same principle applies in healthcare. A clinical documentation product that drafts a physician's notes from a recorded consultation creates value because it incorporates the coding rules, billing requirements and compliance obligations of the healthcare system in which it operates. The advantage lies in this industry-specific layer: the knowledge, processes and constraints that a general model does not provide and that European companies must navigate carefully as the EU AI Act introduces new requirements for high-risk AI deployments.
For much of the history of enterprise software, companies relied on broad horizontal platforms combined with specialised tools for particular functions. Those specialist products succeeded because they understood one job better than a general-purpose suite could. That dynamic is changing because the underlying capabilities of AI models are becoming increasingly accessible. The advantage is shifting from the model itself to how well the technology fits a specific workflow — something vertical AI systems are designed to provide.
For European firms, the implication is practical and demanding. The value will not come from acquiring the same models available to everyone else, but from the harder work of adapting those systems to real business processes. That means selecting tools that match the needs of a specific organisation and then redesigning how work is carried out around them. Companies that treat AI as a software purchase risk remaining among the majority of firms reporting limited financial impact. Those that treat it as an operational transformation are more likely to capture the gains. The next phase of AI adoption will be shaped by the companies willing to do the detailed implementation work that turns general technology into specific business value.