More than 80% of AI projects fail -- twice the rate of non-AI IT projects[1]. Only 5% of AI pilot programs achieve rapid revenue acceleration[2]. And 42% of companies abandoned most of their AI initiatives in 2025, up from 17% in 2024[3]. Behind these statistics is a consistent pattern: organizations that treat AI as a technology procurement exercise rather than a capability-building exercise fail at predictable rates.
This case study documents how one PE-backed healthcare services company completed a 90-day AI capability transfer engagement that moved its operations team from zero AI proficiency to independent operation of three production AI systems -- without ongoing vendor dependency.
Client Profile (Anonymized):
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|---|
| Organization Type | PE-backed healthcare services company |
| Annual Revenue | $145 million |
| Employees | 420 (including 28 physicians) |
| PE Sponsor | Lower mid-market fund, Year 4 of hold period |
| Previous AI Attempts | 2 failed implementations (CRM automation, revenue cycle optimization) totaling $380,000 in sunk costs |
| Stated Objective | Build internal AI operational capability within 90 days |
The company had invested $380,000 across two AI initiatives over the prior 18 months. Both followed a conventional consulting pattern: external vendor assessed the opportunity, built a proof-of-concept, presented results to the executive team, and departed with a recommendation to proceed to full implementation. Neither proof-of-concept advanced to production. The CRM automation project stalled when the internal team could not maintain the model after the vendor's engagement ended. The revenue cycle optimization project was abandoned when the data pipeline it required exceeded the IT team's capacity to support.
The PE sponsor's operating partner, facing a 3-year exit horizon, needed operational AI capability -- not another proof-of-concept. The mandate was explicit: build internal capability that the company owns and operates independently, producing measurable operational improvement within 90 days.
Two failed AI implementations had generated skepticism across the organization. The operations team viewed AI as an executive enthusiasm that produced consultant presentations but not operational value. The IT team viewed AI projects as unfunded mandates that consumed their bandwidth without corresponding resource allocation. The clinical staff viewed AI as irrelevant to their daily practice. This organizational skepticism is not unique -- only 15% of U.S. employees report that their workplace has communicated a clear AI strategy[4], and 31% of workers admit to undermining company AI efforts[5].
The company employed no data scientists, no machine learning engineers, and no staff with formal AI training. The IT team of four managed EHR systems, network infrastructure, and help desk support. They had neither the skills nor the bandwidth to operate AI systems. Research indicates that 76% of firms lack sufficient AI-skilled staff[6], and the shortage of data literacy is cited by 35% of organizations as a top obstacle to AI adoption[7].
The company's data existed in four primary systems: an EHR, a practice management system, a CRM, and a financial reporting tool. These systems were not integrated. Data quality was inconsistent -- duplicate patient records, inconsistent physician coding, and incomplete financial data were common. This pattern maps directly to the primary root cause of AI failure: 85% of AI projects fail due to poor data quality or lack of relevant data[8]. Only 12% of organizations report data of sufficient quality and accessibility for AI[9].
The two prior engagements had followed a model that research increasingly identifies as structurally flawed: external consultants build systems that internal teams cannot maintain. Global spending on generative AI consulting reached $3.75 billion in 2024, nearly tripling 2023 levels[10]. Yet companies are increasingly bypassing McKinsey, Deloitte, and PwC for AI work, frustrated by limited hands-on AI experience among consultant teams[10]. The fundamental issue is that traditional consulting creates dependency, not capability. When the engagement ends, the knowledge exits with the consultant, and the organization pays for the same work again.
Talyx deployed a 90-day capability transfer engagement structured around a dual-track model: Track 1 focused on deploying production AI systems, while Track 2 -- receiving the majority of effort -- focused on building internal team capability to operate those systems independently.
Activities: - Conducted an AI Readiness Assessment evaluating data infrastructure, staff capability, process documentation, and organizational alignment across a 42-point diagnostic framework - Identified three high-impact, achievable AI use cases selected for both operational value and training suitability: (1) physician productivity benchmarking automation, (2) patient appointment no-show prediction, and (3) referral pattern intelligence - Executed a Data Readiness Sprint: cleaned, normalized, and integrated data across the four primary systems for the three selected use cases - Deployed the first production use case (physician productivity benchmarking) within 18 days, generating immediate operational value while demonstrating to skeptical staff that AI could produce tangible results
Deliverable: One production AI system (physician productivity benchmarking) operational; data integration architecture established; AI Readiness Assessment completed.
Activities: - Deployed the second and third production use cases (no-show prediction and referral pattern intelligence) - Initiated a structured training program for a designated 4-person internal AI Operations Team (2 operations staff, 1 IT staff, 1 clinical coordinator) - Training covered: prompt engineering for operational analytics, data pipeline monitoring and maintenance, model output interpretation and quality assurance, and escalation protocols for anomalous results - Established an AI Operations Manual documenting every procedure required to operate, monitor, and maintain the three production systems - Introduced the Rapid AI Fluency Assessment to benchmark internal team members' AI comprehension and identify targeted training needs
Deliverable: Three production AI systems operational; internal team training program at midpoint; AI Operations Manual drafted.
Activities: - Transitioned operation of all three AI systems to the internal team under supervised conditions - The internal team executed daily operations -- running models, interpreting outputs, producing reports, troubleshooting errors -- while the Talyx team observed, provided feedback, and intervened only when necessary - Conducted weekly competency assessments to measure the internal team's progress toward independent operation - Refined the AI Operations Manual based on real operational experience, documenting edge cases and decision protocols encountered during supervised operation
Deliverable: Internal team operating all three systems with decreasing supervision; competency metrics on track; Operations Manual finalized.
Activities: - Administered a formal certification assessment: each internal team member demonstrated independent operation of all three AI systems, including routine operation, error diagnosis, escalation judgment, and output quality assurance - Conducted a Post-Engagement Autonomy Assessment evaluating the team's ability to operate without external support - Delivered the final AI Operations Manual (Version 2.0) incorporating all supervised-operation refinements - Established a 30-day post-handoff monitoring protocol with defined escalation criteria (no issues escalated during this period)
Deliverable: Four certified internal AI operators; complete documentation; 30-day post-handoff stability confirmed.
| Metric | Before (Baseline) | After (90-Day Assessment) | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production AI systems | 0 | 3 | From zero to operational |
| Internal staff with AI operational capability | 0 | 4 certified operators | New capability |
| Physician productivity reports | Manual, quarterly (12+ hours/cycle) | Automated, weekly (45 minutes/cycle) | 94% time reduction |
| No-show prediction accuracy | No system | 78% accuracy (30-day window) | New capability |
| Referral pattern visibility | Anecdotal | Systematic, quantified | New capability |
| AI project failure rate | 100% (2 of 2) | 0% (3 of 3 deployed, operational) | Complete reversal |
| Ongoing vendor dependency | Required for maintenance | None -- internally operated | Full independence |
Physician productivity benchmarking: Automated productivity reporting identified 4 physicians performing below the 25th MGMA percentile for their specialty. Targeted interventions -- schedule optimization, panel rebalancing, and administrative burden reduction -- generated a projected $420,000 in annualized revenue improvement.
No-show prediction: The 78% accurate prediction model enabled proactive scheduling interventions (confirmation calls, overbooking adjustments, waitlist activation) that reduced the effective no-show rate from 14.2% to 9.8%. For a practice generating $145 million in annual revenue, each percentage point of no-show reduction represents approximately $200,000 in recovered revenue. The 4.4 percentage-point improvement translated to approximately $880,000 in annualized revenue recovery.
Referral pattern intelligence: Systematic mapping of referral flows identified two referring physician relationships that had declined 40% over 6 months without the operations team's awareness. Intervention to restore these relationships recovered an estimated $260,000 in annualized referral-driven revenue.
Total annualized impact: $1.56 million in combined revenue improvement and recovery from three AI systems built in 90 days.
Cost comparison: The 90-day engagement cost represented approximately 40% of the $380,000 previously spent on two failed AI implementations that produced no operational value. The successful engagement delivered a positive ROI within the first quarter of independent operation.
Three Production AI Systems -- Physician productivity benchmarking, patient no-show prediction, and referral pattern intelligence. All three are operated, maintained, and refined by the internal team without external support.
Certified AI Operations Team -- Four internal staff members certified in AI system operation, data pipeline maintenance, model output interpretation, and quality assurance. Cross-training ensures no single point of failure.
AI Operations Manual (Version 2.0) -- Detailed documentation covering daily operations, weekly monitoring protocols, monthly calibration procedures, error diagnosis and resolution, and escalation criteria. The manual is maintained as a living document by the internal team.
Data Integration Architecture -- A normalized data pipeline connecting the company's four primary systems, designed to support future AI use case expansion without repeating the data preparation effort.
AI Use Case Evaluation Framework -- A methodology for identifying, scoring, and prioritizing future AI use cases based on operational impact, data readiness, and implementation complexity. The internal team has already identified two additional use cases for self-directed implementation.
Organizational AI Fluency -- Beyond the four certified operators, the engagement produced broader organizational awareness of AI's practical capabilities and limitations. Executive leadership, clinical staff, and operations teams share a common vocabulary and realistic expectations about AI's role in their operations.
Research from MIT and industry analysis consistently indicates that successful AI initiatives allocate approximately 10% of effort to algorithms, 20% to technology and data, and 70% to people and processes[11]. The two prior failed implementations had inverted this ratio -- investing heavily in technology while neglecting the organizational capability required to operate it. The capability transfer engagement corrected this imbalance, dedicating the majority of effort to training, documentation, and supervised operation.
Deploying the first production system within 18 days -- physician productivity benchmarking that immediately surfaced actionable insights -- was strategically essential. It converted abstract AI potential into tangible operational value, shifting the internal narrative from "AI projects fail here" to "this one works." Research indicates that companies where leaders express confidence in workforce capabilities achieve 2.3x higher transformation success rates[12]. The quick win created that confidence.
The engagement's most valuable period was Phase 3 -- supervised operation. During this phase, the internal team encountered real operational challenges (data quality anomalies, unexpected model outputs, edge cases not covered in initial training) while expert support was available. This experiential learning cannot be replicated through documentation or classroom training alone. Organizations that skip supervised operation -- moving directly from consultant-built systems to independent operation -- encounter the failure patterns that characterize 80% of consulting-led transformations[13].
The engagement's most significant long-term outcome is the internal team's ability to expand AI usage independently. Within 60 days of handoff, the team had identified and begun scoping two additional AI use cases without external assistance. This expanding capability -- where each successful implementation increases the team's confidence and competence to pursue the next -- is the compounding return that distinguishes capability transfer from traditional consulting. Organizations with strong data literacy programs show 35% higher productivity and 25% better decision quality[14].
Organizations that have attempted AI implementations and encountered failure -- or that have avoided AI altogether due to the perceived complexity and risk -- face a capability gap, not a technology gap. The technology is available. The missing element is the organizational capability to identify, deploy, and operate AI systems that produce measurable operational value.
If the following conditions describe the current operating environment, the capability transfer approach documented in this case study may be directly applicable:
Talyx delivers AI capability transfer for PE-backed companies, healthcare platforms, and mid-market organizations. The engagement model produces operational AI systems and certified internal teams within a defined timeframe, with complete capability transfer. No ongoing dependency, no recurring consulting fees, no knowledge that exits when the engagement ends. To evaluate whether this approach addresses the current capability gap, contact the Talyx team.
Talyx's AI capability transfer is an engagement model in which an external team deploys operational AI systems while simultaneously training the client's internal staff to operate those systems independently. The engagement concludes with certified internal operators, complete documentation, and production AI systems that the client owns and maintains without ongoing external support. Organizations working with Talyx own 100% of methodology, systems, and data. This model contrasts with traditional AI consulting, where external teams build systems that require continued vendor involvement for maintenance and operation.
Research identifies five primary root causes of AI failure: (1) misunderstood problem definition -- stakeholders miscommunicate what the AI needs to solve; (2) inadequate training data -- the organization lacks data to train effective models; (3) technology-first mentality -- focus on the latest technology rather than solving real user problems; (4) insufficient infrastructure -- no adequate systems to manage data or deploy completed models; and (5) problem too difficult -- AI applied to problems beyond current capabilities[1]. Additionally, organizational factors account for the majority of failures: only 15% of employees report a clear AI strategy from leadership, and 31% of workers actively undermine AI efforts.
Talyx's capability transfer engagements typically span 8 to 16 weeks depending on the number of AI systems to be deployed, the complexity of the data environment, and the starting competency level of the internal team. The 90-day engagement documented in this case study is representative of a standard Talyx scope: 3 production AI systems, a 4-person internal team, and a moderately complex data environment with 4 primary systems.
The client receives: (1) production AI systems operating in their environment; (2) certified internal staff trained to operate, maintain, and troubleshoot those systems; (3) detailed documentation covering all operational procedures; (4) a data integration architecture designed to support future AI use cases; and (5) a framework for independently identifying and deploying additional AI use cases. The client does not receive a strategy document, a proof-of-concept, or a recommendation to proceed to the next phase.
Managed AI services provide ongoing AI system operation by an external vendor, typically under a recurring subscription or retainer model. The vendor retains operational control, and the client depends on the vendor for system function. Capability transfer produces a fundamentally different outcome: the client operates the systems independently, with no ongoing vendor dependency. Research indicates that companies investing in capability building achieve 1.5x higher revenue growth and 1.6x greater shareholder returns compared to those that outsource capability[15].
[1] RAND Corporation, 2024 [2] MIT NANDA Initiative, 2025 [3] S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2025 [4] Gallup, 2024 [5] Writer/Workplace Intelligence, 2025 [6] Industry survey, 2024 [7] Informatica CDO Insights, 2025 [8] Gartner, 2025 [9] Informatica, 2024 [10] National CIO Review, 2025 [11] MIT/Fortune, 2025 [12] NTT DATA, 2024 [13] B-works, 2024 [14] DataCamp, 2024 [15] McKinsey, 2024
Schedule a strategic briefing to discuss how Talyx can build intelligence infrastructure for your organization.
Schedule a Briefing