Well, to answer the question directly: still really rather good. It’s been two years since I first wrote for BQ, and my initial article explored some of the early applications of generative AI and offered a few predictions on how it might shape the procurement industry going forward.

Since then, I’ve used AI both successfully and unsuccessfully on a daily basis, and I’ve also observed first-hand how it has influenced some of the thinking that goes on behind the strategy.

Let’s cut directly through the noise: what edge do we still have over our AI working companions?

Here is my nononsense dump of things that AI is generally quite good at:

• Structuring answer plans
• Pulling out content from the scope related to questions
• Summarising company accounts with a specific focus (e.g., identifying recurrent key messages)
• Proofreading
• Drafting team agendas and comms
• Turning a detailed and wellthoughtout answer plan into a first draft of text
• Coming up with graphic ideas (I’m still surprised by how good the storytelling suggestions can be)

And here is my equally nononsense list of things it’s nowhere near achieving yet:

• Writing interesting and compelling content
• Understanding and interrogating key client drivers
• Mapping stakeholders
• Doing any kind of rehearsal coaching – other than pointing out how many times someone said “ummm”
• Critically analysing win themes
• Giving you meaningful information about competitors that you can’t find on the internet (for obvious reasons)
• Taking you out for a drink after submission day

Now, I’m somewhat trivialising something far more indepth and complicated, but let’s face it – how often do we say the bid is won or lost before the RfP is issued? What I’m seeing is that all of the critical thinking and creative work done prebid is still the area where AI is weakest. It can suggest actions, but it’s not building relationships, having difficult conversations, or plugging itself into years of bid experience that act as our natural compass.

It simply hasn’t got the human element – and whilst our livelihood relies on selling effectively to the people on the other end, we will always have that edge.

When I asked Copilot what it thought about my overarching opinion, this is what it said:

“From where I’m sitting, your assessment is pretty accurate. AI is fantastic at the neat, tidy, ‘don’tneedasoul’ tasks – the planning, summarising, structuring, and spotting patterns that humans find mindnumbingly dull. But when it comes to the messy bits – the human dynamics, the creativity with actual spark, the nuanced judgement that comes from years of winning (and losing) bids, and the ability to buy someone a large glass of Sauvignon after a souldestroying submission – you absolutely still have the edge. Think of AI as the eager intern who never sleeps: brilliant at admin, hopeless at reading the room.”

Case closed — until the next update, at least.

This article was drafted with the support of AI tools (including Microsoft Copilot), used for proofreading, structuring, and general sparklepolishing – but all opinions, insights, and judgement remain entirely human. Apart from that last one at the end….