I think this depends on how and who is defining more. My experience in change management (anecdotal, but Wharton studies/training seem to back this) is that it's very easy to spend money on a technical solution and then poorly implement it while producing impact assessment reports that suggest otherwise. Of course this depends somewhat on context, but large corporations are inevitably made of humans and many corporations / IOs have hegemony and thus competition is not necessarily external to the organization itself. I attempted to incorporate data scientists into more than one organization in which senior managers (sometimes successfully) struggled to use the data scientist work to endorse preconceptions, aided by the fact that good data scientists are quick to point out that little is certain and we're all predisposed to see patterns we recognize over chaos and ultimately, the manager is responsible/accountable and thus wants to pick a predictable path that 'feels' more sustainable. Managers (any human in authority) often overshoot their knowledge and underestimate their impact while the 'augmented workers' may underestimate their own skill and overestimate the tech (as any good tech encourages us to do by design.) I think if we look more at an org (and treat an org and its employees more) as an octopus, with brains in multiple parts of the body as opposed to concentrated in the head, adaption can be more successful over time, but this is a hypothesis on my part that has not been tested.