Why Most AI Agents Stall Before They Pay Off — and How to Scale Them
Read 22 min
AI agents are moving into everyday business operations, but most organisations still can't show the value in their results, and few have the controls to run agents safely. This strategy explains why agent projects stall, where the real opportunities are, and how executives and department leaders can scale agents step by step over the next 6–24 months.
AI agents are software that can plan and complete tasks across your systems, not just answer questions. They are moving from experiments into daily operations. Yet most companies still can’t see the value in their profit figures, and few have the rules in place to run agents safely.
This article explains why agent projects stall and which organisations should move now. It also sets out a practical six-stage plan for the next 6–24 months, written for executives, business owners and department leaders.
The biggest takeaway: success depends less on the technology than on redesigning the work, matching controls to each agent’s level of independence, and measuring results from day one.
Estimated reading time: 22 minutes
Key Takeaways
Use is rising, returns are not. Only 37% of companies in McKinsey’s 2026 survey report any contribution from AI to operating profit, about the same as a year earlier.
Redesign beats add-on. The small group getting real value rebuilds whole workflows around AI instead of adding AI to old processes.
Oversight is the weakest link. Depending on the survey, only 13–21% of organisations say their governance of AI agents is mature or fit for purpose.
Controls should match independence. An agent that only reads data needs light checks. One that acts on its own needs monitoring, an off-switch and a named owner.
Large firms are pulling ahead. Rules for high-risk AI uses in the EU now apply from December 2027, so the window to prepare is open but closing.
Start narrow and measure. High-volume, well-defined work with a clear baseline and a clear human hand-off is the safest place to begin.
Strategic Challenge: Why Agent Projects Stall
Most leadership teams have now seen an impressive AI demo. Far fewer can point to where AI shows up in the profit and loss statement.
That gap is the real strategic problem. In McKinsey’s State of AI survey, published in August 2026, 80% of respondents said AI had made them personally more productive. Yet only 37% said AI had contributed anything to their organisation’s operating profit, almost unchanged from 2025.
The group McKinsey calls “AI high performers” — organisations that attribute at least 5% of their operating profit to AI — stayed flat at about 6% of respondents. Individual productivity is rising. Company-level results are not.
Why agents raise the stakes
AI agents make this gap more important, not less. A chatbot drafts or suggests. An agent can plan steps, use tools and take action, such as updating a customer record, sending a message or processing a refund.
That makes agents far more useful. It also means mistakes travel further, running costs grow with use, and someone must be accountable for what the agent does.
What happens if you ignore the problem?
Standing still has a cost, but rushing is expensive too. Gartner predicts that over 40% of agentic AI projects will be cancelled by the end of 2027 because of rising costs, unclear business value or weak risk controls.
In May 2026, Gartner went further. It predicted that 40% of enterprises will demote or shut down autonomous agents by 2027, because governance gaps are found only after something goes wrong in live use. Both are forecasts, not facts, but they point in the same direction.
Why AI changes the situation
Older automation followed fixed rules. It worked well when every case looked the same and broke when something unexpected happened.
Agents can handle variation. They can read an email, work out what is needed and act across several systems. That opens up work that could never be automated before. It also means the controls built for predictable software are no longer enough.
Callout — The real blocker is usually not the AI. In Mayfield’s 2026 survey of 266 senior technology leaders at large companies, 58% named data readiness and quality as their number-one barrier. That means whether the information an agent needs is accurate, accessible and well organised. It was the fifth year in a row that data and integration topped the list.
Who This Strategy Is For
Not every organisation needs to scale agents at the same speed. The right pace depends on your size, your processes and how ready your data is.
Scaling is accelerating fast. The share scaling agents in at least one function rose from 27% to 40% in a year (McKinsey). The challenge is now control and “agent sprawl”.
Inventory existing agents, then set governance by autonomy level
Growing and mid-sized companies
Agent scaling among smaller organisations stayed flat at 22%. The gap with larger competitors is widening.
One or two high-volume workflows, often using agents built into tools you already pay for
Customer service and operations leaders
Large volumes of repetitive, well-defined work are where agents have the clearest track record
Routine enquiries with a guaranteed route to a human
Finance leaders
Gartner found data extraction, accounts payable and receivable, and report creation typically deliver expected value in nine to ten months
One process with a clean baseline
Executive teams and boards
Budgets are rising while returns are flat. Boards will increasingly ask for evidence of value and control.
Clear ownership, a value scorecard and a risk framework
When this strategy may not be right yet
Scaling agents is not the right move for everyone today. Consider pausing or piloting only if:
Your data is scattered or unreliable. Agents act on what they can see. Poor data leads to confident, wrong actions.
The process is low in volume. The cost of setting up, monitoring and governing an agent may be larger than the savings.
The decision affects people’s rights or livelihoods. Hiring, credit and similar decisions can count as high-risk uses under the EU AI Act. Get legal advice before letting an agent act on its own.
Nobody can own it. An agent without a named business owner is a risk, not an asset.
Current Landscape: Widely Used, Narrowly Scaled
The conversation inside companies has shifted. The question is no longer whether to try AI, but why so few experiments turn into lasting results.
How far have agents actually spread?
The answer depends on who you ask and how “adoption” is defined. Some surveys count pilots and trials. Others count only systems running across the whole organisation.
Survey (date, who was asked)
What it found
McKinsey State of AI (Aug 2026, 1,719 respondents in 97 countries)
About 2 in 10 organisations are scaling AI agents across the business. Large firms are moving much faster than smaller ones.
Deloitte State of AI in the Enterprise (Jan 2026, 3,235 business and IT leaders in 24 countries)
23% use agentic AI at least moderately. Respondents expect this to reach 74% within two years.
Mayfield CXO Survey (Jan 2026, 266 senior technology leaders at large companies)
42% have agents in production and a further 30% are piloting them. 91% plan to increase agent budgets in 2026.
The honest reading: agents are real and spreading, but full, organisation-wide use is still the exception.
Where agents are being scaled
According to McKinsey, agents are most often scaled in IT, knowledge management and software development. Retailers and consumer brands use them most in marketing and sales. Advanced manufacturers use them in supply chain, inventory and production.
Cost savings are most often reported in supply chain, service operations and manufacturing. Revenue gains are most often reported in marketing and sales.
How buying is changing
Agents are also changing how companies buy technology:
Build instead of buy. 32% of McKinsey respondents said their organisation decided not to buy at least one software product because it could be built in-house with AI coding tools.
A mix is the norm. 65% of Mayfield respondents combine in-house builds with vendor products. Only about 10% rely on vendors alone.
Test before you commit. 70% want to test tools in their own environment before signing a contract.
Business leaders hold the budget. Heads of business units are now the largest group of AI decision-makers (46%), ahead of CIOs and CTOs (38% each).
Costs and governance are catching up
Running costs are starting to matter. About one in five McKinsey respondents said AI operating costs, including “tokens” (the units AI providers charge for processing text), had limited their AI use.
Oversight is lagging even further behind. Only 21% of Deloitte respondents have a mature governance model for agentic AI. In a separate Gartner finding, only 13% of organisations believe they have the right AI agent governance in place. Among Mayfield respondents, 60% have early-stage or no formal AI governance.
The regulatory picture in the EU
In the EU, the AI Act’s rules for high-risk AI have been postponed, but not cancelled. The “Digital Omnibus on AI”, in force since 27 July 2026, moved the deadlines as follows:
High-risk uses listed in the Act — including recruitment, credit scoring, education, critical infrastructure and biometrics — now apply from 2 December 2027.
AI built into products already covered by EU product-safety laws now apply from 2 August 2028.
Transparency obligations were not postponed.
Businesses in EEA countries outside the EU, such as Norway, should check the local timing with their legal advisers.
Continue Reading with The Signal Pro
Get the full analysis, decision framework, and recommendations with The Signal Pro.
The change creates real openings, but only for buyers who prepare.
You can pay less for work you were already buying. Customer support is the most developed category. Resolution rates are measurable, several vendors compete openly, and published prices range from roughly $0.40 to $2.00 per resolution. If you handle high ticket volumes and have decent help content, the maths often works in your favour.
Your renewal is more negotiable than it looks. Procurement platform Tropic, drawing on more than $15 billion of software spend, found that structured negotiation cuts a vendor’s opening ask by around 55%. The final price still tends to land about 12% above the old baseline — the increase is negotiable, not avoidable.
Timing alone is worth money. The same data shows businesses starting renewal conversations six months ahead save considerably more than those starting a month out.
Unused licences become bargaining chips. If AI has taken over a workflow, the licences attached to it are still being paid for. Find them before your vendor’s account manager does and they become leverage. Find them afterwards and they are simply money you wasted.
You can trade commitment for protection. Vendors part-way through changing their pricing want reference customers. They will often agree to price locks, waivers on mandatory AI bundles, hard spending ceilings and credit rollover in exchange for a volume commitment. That is a very different conversation from asking for a discount.
Future Signal Tip
Before your next renewal, ask the vendor to show you the return on their AI features using your usage data — not a case study from another company. If they cannot produce it, you have just found your strongest negotiating point. If they can, you have learned something useful either way.
Strategic Risks
Every one of these risks has already caught out a well-run company.
Spending runs away before value arrives. Uber encouraged staff to use AI coding tools heavily and ranked usage on internal leaderboards. It exhausted its entire 2026 budget for those tools in roughly four months. Bloomberg reported the fix in June: a cap of $1,500 per employee per month, per tool, with a usage dashboard and a process for requesting more.
You pay for AI features you never use. Vendors bundle AI into existing products and charge for it whether or not anyone touches it. Tropic’s contract data puts these increases at 20–37%, against a historical 3–9% annual uplift. CFO Dive reported the same finding: prices are rising faster than the value buyers can see.
Comparison becomes almost impossible. Credit-based pricing is not comparable between vendors. A credit at one company is not a credit at another, which quietly removes your ability to benchmark.
Prepaid credits can expire. Salesforce Flex Credits must be used before the order period ends, with no rollover. Testing in a sandbox consumes them too. Money you have already paid can simply evaporate.
The vendor writes the definition of success. Fin’s documentation describes a conversation as resolved when the agent answers and the customer either confirms it helped or leaves without asking anything further. A frustrated customer who gives up can bill identically to a happy one.
Your current pricing is not permanent. HubSpot’s April 2026 change applied to every customer with no opt-out and no grandfathered tier.
Acquisitions reset the terms. Salesforce signed an agreement to buy Fin for around $3.6 billion in June 2026, expected to close in its 2027 financial year. Roadmap, packaging and pricing can all shift after a deal closes.
Efficiency gains often disappear. Time saved tends to be absorbed by employees as a better working week rather than converted into capacity you can redeploy. It is a real effect, and almost nobody models it.
Decision Box
Act now if: you have a renewal within twelve months, you already run AI agents without spending caps, or your support and sales workflows have visibly changed.
Pilot first if: you are considering outcome-priced tools but have no baseline data yet. Start with one measurable workflow, ideally customer support.
Prepare if: your contracts run beyond eighteen months. Use the time to audit unused licences and build measurement.
Monitor if: your software spend is small and fixed, and you have no AI rollout planned this year. Revisit before your next contract.
Whatever you choose, do not sign a consumption-based contract without a written definition of what counts as billable.
Implementation Roadmap
A practical sequence for the next six to twelve months.
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5
Assess → Control → Measure → Renegotiate → Reallocate
Weeks 1-4 Weeks 4-10 Weeks 6-14 Months 3-9 Months 6-18
List every Set spending Record where Open renewals Retire unused
tool by how caps and you started 6 months tools; move
it charges usage limits before you early, armed savings into a
you per team deploy AI with evidence managed budget
Stage 1 — Assess what you actually have. List every tool by pricing model: per seat, per usage, credits, per outcome, or hybrid. Flag every renewal falling in the next twelve months. Identify licences attached to workflows that AI has already taken over.
Stage 2 — Put controls in place before you need them. Set spending limits per person, per team and per tool, with a clear route to request more. Give budget owners and end users the same usage dashboard. Decide which approvals are needed for which type of work — reviewing a contract and running an autonomous investigation cost very different amounts.
Stage 3 — Record your starting point. For each AI use case, capture what the work costs today, how long it takes, how much of it there is, and how often it goes wrong. Agree in advance which financial line this work is expected to move, and name one person accountable for it. A baseline taken after deployment is worthless.
Stage 4 — Renegotiate from evidence. Start six months out. Ask explicitly and in writing for your existing pricing. Then negotiate the terms that actually protect you — price locks, no forced AI bundles, hard spending ceilings, credit rollover, exemption for testing environments, and a written definition of a billable outcome with a process for disputing one.
Stage 5 — Reallocate deliberately. Retire the tools your audit uncovered. Move the savings into a managed AI budget rather than letting them disappear into general costs. Review quarterly: what does each outcome cost, is that cost stable, and has any saved time actually been redeployed?
Common Mistakes
Treating the AI increase as part of a routine renewal. Vendors prefer this, because one number is harder to challenge than two. Price the base platform and the AI capability as separate decisions.
Signing before defining the billable event. This is the most expensive mistake available, and it happens because the definition sits in documentation rather than in the contract. Ask for it in writing, including what happens with partial outcomes and how you dispute a charge.
Rolling out AI tools with no spending limits. Uber is the well-documented version of a very common failure. Enthusiastic adoption plus per-use billing plus no caps equals a budget gone in a third of the year. Caps are not a brake on adoption — they are what makes wide adoption survivable.
Measuring the wrong thing. Counting logins, prompts or hours saved feels like progress and proves nothing. Boards are now asking which line of the profit and loss account changed. Very few organisations can answer.
Assuming outcome pricing is automatically cheaper. It is cheaper when your outcomes are simple and your content is good. It is expensive when your queries are complex, because you pay for every one the agent handles.
Confusing outcome pricing with transparent pricing. Fin publishes $0.99 on its website. Sierra publishes nothing at all, and independent estimates put a first year in the low hundreds of thousands. Both charge per outcome.
Success Metrics
Measure a small number of things properly rather than everything badly.
What to track
Why it matters
A reasonable target
Cost per outcome, and its spread
Averages hide the expensive cases that break your budget
Stable month to month, with the spread narrowing
Renewal increase vs the vendor’s opening ask
Tells you whether your negotiation worked
Around 55% reduction from the ask, landing near 12% above your old price
Share of software spend that is variable
Shows how much of your budget you can no longer forecast
Known and deliberate, not accidental
Consumption forecast accuracy
Early warning for the next budget overrun
Within 10% of plan each month
Prepaid credits expiring unused
Straightforward waste
Zero
Use cases with a recorded baseline
You cannot prove a return without one
100% before spending is approved
Verified resolution rate
Headline rates come from the vendor’s own definition
Sample and check resolved items yourself
Reopened cases after a billed resolution
The clearest sign your outcome definition is wrong
Falling over time
If you run a software business yourself, add one more: the share of new revenue that does not depend on your customers’ headcount. ServiceNow’s disclosed figure of 50% is a useful benchmark.
Future Outlook
What is already confirmed. Gartner expects consumption-based pricing to account for more than 35% of new corporate legal technology spending by 2028, and warned general counsel on 3 September 2026 that unprepared teams face budget shocks. Deloitte’s 2026 predictions describe the same move toward hybrid pricing across business software generally, and expect as many as 75% of companies to invest in AI agents by the end of this year. Both Deloitte and EY have published formal accounting guidance on how to recognise revenue from outcome-based AI pricing — a good sign that this is now a permanent structural change rather than an experiment.
What the industry expects. Hybrid pricing continues to spread as the default. Consolidation continues, with large platforms buying AI-native capability. The buyer’s negotiating window stays open for several more renewal cycles, since Gartner’s exposure estimate runs to 2030 rather than next year.
Our own reading, offered as interpretation rather than fact. Expect arguments about what counts as a billable outcome to become a visible commercial issue during 2027, as per-resolution billing reaches scale. Expect standard contract language for measuring outcomes to emerge, in the way that service-level agreements standardised for cloud hosting. And expect at least one vendor to retreat from pure outcome pricing back toward hybrid, because a flat fee per outcome only works while the mix of easy and difficult cases stays stable.
The Future Signal
The stock market spent early 2026 asking the wrong question. It asked whether AI would destroy software companies. The more useful question was always what software companies would start charging for instead.
The answer turned out to be unglamorous. Not a revolution in pay-for-results, but a steady move to a base fee plus a meter. That is closer to how you buy electricity than how you bought software.
The strategic implication runs deeper than procurement. When you paid per person, your software cost was a function of your hiring decisions — visible, predictable and set once a year. When you pay per unit of work, your software cost becomes a function of your operations, changing daily, driven by decisions made by people who have never seen a contract.
Very few businesses are set up for that. Most finance functions can tell you the headcount to the person and cannot tell you what a support ticket costs to resolve.
Leaders should focus on two things: knowing what a unit of work costs before they sign anything that bills by the unit, and making sure someone owns that number. What can safely be ignored is the noise about whether software is finished as an industry. It is not. It is changing what it sells, and the businesses that understand what they are buying will pay less for it.
What Businesses Should Do Next
Take these in order. The first three cost nothing but time.
List your software by how it charges you. Per seat, per usage, credits, per outcome, hybrid. Most businesses have never done this and are surprised by the result.
Mark every renewal in the next twelve months. Anything more than six months away goes to the top of the list, because that is where the savings are.
Find your unused licences. Look specifically at workflows where AI has changed how the work gets done.
Put spending caps on any AI tool billed by use — per person and per tool, with a way to request more. Do this before the first surprise, not after.
Record a baseline for every AI use case before you deploy: current cost, current time, current volume, current error rate.
Ask for the outcome definition in writing on any consumption or outcome-priced contract, including partial outcomes and how you dispute a charge.
Name an owner for each AI use case — someone accountable for a specific financial result, not a project sponsor.
Review quarterly. Cost per outcome, forecast accuracy, and whether saved time has actually been redeployed.
Pre-Renewal Checklist
Work through this before your next software contract conversation.
I know how this vendor charges — per seat, per use, per credit, or per outcome
I know what happens to unused credits at the end of the term
I have the definition of a billable outcome in writing
I know how partial or disputed outcomes are handled
I have asked for my existing pricing explicitly, in writing
I have asked for a spending ceiling to be written into the contract
I have checked whether testing environments consume paid usage
I have identified licences we no longer need
I have asked the vendor for return-on-investment evidence based on our own usage
I started this conversation at least six months before renewal
Frequently Asked Questions
Is per-seat pricing actually finished? No. It remains a good fit for software that holds your records and manages permissions — your CRM, finance and HR systems. What is fading is per-seat pricing for tools that simply perform tasks. Most vendors are moving to a mix of both rather than abandoning seats.
Will outcome-based pricing save my business money? Sometimes. It works well when your work is high-volume and reasonably simple, and when you have good documentation for an AI agent to draw on. It works badly when your cases are complex, because you pay for every one the agent handles. Model your real volumes against each pricing option before you decide.
What is the single most important thing to negotiate? The definition of a billable outcome. The headline price matters far less than what triggers a charge. Get it in the contract, not just the documentation.
Our vendor is raising prices for AI features we do not use. Is that normal? It is common. Vendors bundle AI into existing products and price accordingly. It is also negotiable — procurement data shows structured pushback substantially reduces the opening ask.
How do I stop AI spending running away? Caps and visibility, installed before the rollout. Set a monthly limit per person and per tool, with a documented way to request more, and give people a dashboard showing what they are spending.
Should a small business worry about this? Less urgently, but the same principles apply and the outcome-priced tools are often the most accessible ones. A support agent at under a dollar per resolution can be genuinely affordable for a small team — as long as you understand what triggers the charge.
Can we prove a return on AI investment? Only if you recorded a baseline before deploying. This is the most common gap. Very few organisations can currently connect AI spending to a change in profit, which is exactly why AI budgets are coming under scrutiny.
Our vendor is being acquired. What should we do? Treat your current terms as current rather than permanent. Ask your account team what is guaranteed through your renewal period, in writing, and get it before the deal closes.
Conclusion
The challenge is straightforward to state and awkward to solve. Software used to charge you for people. It is starting to charge you for work. Your budgeting, your contracts and your approval processes were all built for the first model.
The recommended approach is not to resist the change or rush into it, but to prepare properly for it. Know how each of your tools charges you. Put spending limits in place before your first overrun rather than after. Record where you started before you deploy anything. Then negotiate from evidence, six months early.
The biggest takeaway is that the money is not saved in the negotiation. It is saved in the preparation that makes the negotiation possible.
The next logical step is the smallest one: spend an hour listing your software by how it bills you, and mark every renewal falling in the next twelve months. Almost every business that does this finds something it did not expect — and finding it before your vendor does is worth more than any discount you will be offered.
The Future Signal
An independent AI intelligence publication helping business leaders make smarter technology decisions through trusted research, practical comparisons, and curated AI tools.
Related AI Tools
Microsoft Copilot
8.2
AI built into Word, Excel, Outlook and Teams, grounded in your organisation's own data.
AI changes fast, but your decisions shouldn’t rely on headlines or hype. Explore more expert comparisons and practical guides—or join The Future Signal to receive one curated AI briefing each week that highlights what actually matters for business.
We use cookies and similar technologies to improve your browsing experience, analyze website traffic, and remember your preferences. With your consent, we may also use cookies to measure the performance of our content and affiliate partnerships. You can accept all cookies, reject non-essential cookies, or customize your preferences at any time. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.