INNOVAREBUSN9049 · AI in Business

Applied Analysis

Module 1 frameworks applied against real organisations, real decisions, and real failures — not restated, not illustrated, but used as analytical instruments that produce findings.

Module 1: AI Foundations — 5 cases
Module 2: How Machines Learned — 6 cases
Module 3: Business Value and Strategy — 6 cases
Module 4: Challenges in AI Implementation — 6 cases
Module 5: Ethical Considerations and Responsible AI — 6 cases
Module 6: AI Project Management — 6 cases
Module 7: AI in Marketing, Sales & Customer Experience — 6 cases
Module 8: AI in Operations & Supply Chain — 6 cases
Module 9: AI in Human Resources & Organisational Processes — 6 cases
Module 10: Managing & Exploring AI Capabilities and Adoption — 6 cases
Module 11: AI-Driven Innovation and Emerging Technologies — 6 cases
Updated: 15 August 2026
Smart search — find cases and concepts
How these cases work — applied vs illustrative

Each case uses the week's framework as an instrument — running it against a real-world scenario to produce a finding. The finding is the point, not the framework explanation.

Applied (what these cases do)
Framework → real data → finding. The Innovare Index's 10 models applied to He/Cao/Tan produces: every current model is Stage 4, yet 4 capability levels of empty space sit above them. That's a result. Robodebt run through Wilson & Daugherty produces: zero augmentation criteria passed, $1.76B cost.
Illustrative (what these cases avoid)
Explaining the framework, then giving a generic example that merely restates it. "Netflix uses recommendation algorithms — this is an example of the filter bubble." That's description, not analysis. The framework has to produce something the source material didn't already say.
Module 1 · AI Foundations · 5 cases
What is AI, how did it actually develop, and what are the ethical and human implications?

Frameworks from He, Cao & Tan (four-stage model); ANI/AGI/ASI taxonomy; Morris et al. (DeepMind AGI levels); Netflix ethics template; Wilson & Daugherty (augmentation); Pariser (filter bubble).

Module 1 · Video Walkthrough
Case 1 of 5
The Corrected Timeline
The AI taxonomy was named in 1950. The thing it describes first existed around 2012. 62 years of aspirational labelling, mapped against what systems could actually do.
ANI/AGI/ASI Corrected timeline Huang AGI claim
Case 2 of 5
The Four-Stage Matrix
He, Cao & Tan's four stages applied to 10 real index models with live pricing. All 10 are Stage 4 — and yet 4 capability levels of empty space sit above them.
He/Cao/Tan Innovare Index 19× price gap
Case 3 of 5
The Ethics Template
The Netflix ethics template applied to Coles + Palantir. Prerequisite check fails before the template even runs. $15.7M ACCC settlement as evidence. Plus the Netflix → TikTok slope.
Netflix template Coles / ACCC Algorithmic slope
Case 4 of 5
Human-AI Collaboration
Wilson & Daugherty's augmentation model applied to Robodebt: 470,000 false notices, $1.76B settlement, zero augmentation criteria passed. Plus the private sector substitution trap.
Wilson & Daugherty Robodebt Substitution trap
Case 5 of 5
The Filter Bubble
Pariser's 2011 warning vs TikTok's For You Page in 2024. He named the right mechanism, the wrong harm. 13 years from book to Australia's world-first under-16 social media ban.
Pariser TikTok / Meta Australia ban 2024
Module 2 · How Machines Learned to Think · 6 cases
From perceptrons to generative AI — the full technical story

Concepts from Storey et al. (2025) foundation models; Vaswani et al. (2017) attention mechanism; learning paradigms (supervised / unsupervised / RL / RLHF / self-supervised); AlexNet / ImageNet breakthrough; NLP and transformer evolution; EU AI Act risk tiers; alignment vs augmentation.

Module 2 · Video Walkthrough
Module 2+ · Supplementary · Storey et al. (2025)
Case 1 of 6
The Learning Machine
AlphaFold, Spotify, and ChatGPT were all built differently. The difference comes down to where the training signal comes from — and it changes everything the model can and cannot do.
Supervised Unsupervised RLHF
Case 2 of 6
The Deep Revolution
Before 2012, machines needed humans to describe what features to look for. AlexNet changed that — and 700+ FDA-approved medical imaging tools followed. The error rate went from 25% to superhuman.
AI ⊃ ML ⊃ DL Deep Learning
Case 3 of 6
The Language Barrier
GitHub Copilot makes developers 55% faster — and it doesn't know what code does. LLMs predict what text looks like after your prompt. That's enough to pass bar exams. It's not enough to know when they're wrong.
Transformers LLMs Attention
Case 4 of 6
The Creative Machine
Klarna's AI handled 2.3M conversations in month one. Then quality dropped. Then they started rehiring. Foundation models generalise — until the edge cases arrive. Storey et al. call this emergence and homogenisation.
Foundation Models Emergence
Case 5 of 6
The Governance Gap
A court ruled Air Canada liable for its chatbot's false advice. The airline said the bot was a separate legal entity. The court disagreed. The EU AI Act, finalised the same year, had already built a framework for exactly this.
EU AI Act Liability Alignment
Case 6 of 6
The OpenAI Playbook
The board fired Sam Altman on a Friday. By Monday he was back. 700 employees threatened to quit. The safety-focused governance structure designed to control the world's most powerful AI lasted 96 hours against commercial reality.
Safety vs Capability Commercial AI
Module 3 · Business Value and Strategic Use of AI · 6 cases
How do organisations measure, capture, and govern the value that AI creates?

Concepts from Mesaglio / Gartner (ROI / ROE / ROF framework); Brynjolfsson & McAfee (J-curve, S-curve, electrification lag); Porter (1985) competitive strategy; Weizenbaum (1976) human judgment; federated governance; McKinsey Global AI Survey (Nov 2025); Mollick (2025) Leadership / Lab / Crowd.

Module 3 · Video Walkthrough
Module 3 · Quiz Cheat Sheet
Case 1 of 6
The Three Returns
If someone tells you their AI project delivered 60% ROI — two numbers are missing. Most organisations only report one of the three lenses that determine whether an AI project actually succeeded.
ROI / ROE / ROF Measurement
Case 2 of 6
The Adoption Curve
Why would a well-implemented AI system cause measured performance to drop in the first six to twelve months? The 30-year electrification lag suggests the dip is structural, not incidental.
S-Curve / J-Curve Technology Adoption
Case 3 of 6
The 35% Problem
Amazon's "35% of revenue from AI recommendations" appears in thousands of business articles. No one can trace it to an original methodology. What do you do with a number that's everywhere but nowhere?
Evidence Evaluation Claim Provenance
Case 4 of 6
Porter's Three Strategies
If a competitor deploys AI for cost leadership and you deploy the same AI for differentiation — both of you can be right. AI decides the speed. Porter decides the direction.
Porter 1985 Competitive Strategy
Case 5 of 6
The Five Factors
A company has budget, executive support, and the right AI model. Here is what can still kill the project. GE had all three — and retreated anyway. The technology wasn't the problem.
Implementation Factors Risk
Case 6 of 6
Human in the Loop
Not every decision should be automated. The question isn't whether AI can make the call — it's whether it should. Weizenbaum said this in 1976. It's more urgent now.
Accountability Governance
Module 4 · Challenges in AI Implementation · 6 cases
Why is enterprise AI adoption so hard — and what does it actually take to succeed?

Concepts from VUCA (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014); Technology Acceptance Model (Davis & Bagozzi, 1989); TOE Framework (Tornatzky et al., 1990); Booyse & Scheepers (2024) barriers to AI in decision-making; Mollick (2024) secret cyborgs, crowd vs lab; Russell Reynolds H2 2023 Global Leadership Monitor (N=1,287).

Case 1 of 6
The VUCA World
AI is a response to VUCA — and simultaneously one of its primary causes. The organisations succeeding treat AI as a strategic environment to navigate, not a technology project to deliver.
VUCA Strategic Implications
Case 2 of 6
The Adoption Decision
TAM explains the individual. TOE explains the organisation. If both say adoption should happen and it doesn't — what did both models miss?
TAM / TOE Technology Adoption
Case 3 of 6
The Leadership Gap
Most AI projects don't fail on the technology. They fail on leadership, strategic alignment, and change management — the three organisational challenges that never appear in the vendor demo.
Leadership Change Management
Case 4 of 6
The Technical Barrier
Three challenges are labelled technical. One actually is. Data quality is a governance problem. Talent scarcity is a culture problem. Only technology integration is genuinely about the technology.
Data Quality Technical Challenges
Case 5 of 6
Rules Nobody Has Written Yet
Governance and compliance is the #2 barrier to GenAI adoption for global CEOs. Regulation cannot keep pace with AI. The gap between capability and governance is not closing — it must be managed.
Regulation Lag Compliance
Case 6 of 6
The Secret Cyborg Problem
65% of marketers were using AI. Their managers said they saw almost none. Both were right — because employees hide AI use for six rational reasons. The adoption problem is an incentive problem.
Psychological Safety Mollick / Booyse
Module 5 · Ethical Considerations and Responsible AI · 6 cases
When AI makes decisions that affect real people — whose name is on that decision?

Concepts from Mikalef et al. (2022) dark side of AI; Buolamwini & Gebru (2018) Gender Shades; Carroll et al. (2020) CARE Principles; IBM Responsible AI framework; EU AI Act (2024); Australia NAIC Essential Practices (2025); Tsoukalas & Falk (2025) AI Layoff Trap; Royal Commission into Robodebt (2023).

Module 5 · Short Video
Module 5 · Long Form · Whose Name Is On That Decision?
Case 1 of 6
The Kitchen Table
380,000 debt notices. $1.8 billion paid back. No one went to jail. Robodebt ran for three years because nobody's name was on the decision — and that is still the default state for most AI systems in the world.
Accountability Robodebt
Case 2 of 6
The Bias Upstream
Error rates below 1% for lighter-skinned men. Up to 34.7% for darker-skinned women. The algorithm didn't introduce the bias — someone made four decisions before it ran a single calculation.
Bias Types Gender Shades
Case 3 of 6
The Eight Principles
Australia published eight AI Ethics Principles in 2019. Robodebt ran until 2021. Each principle maps to a named failure. The principles were not wrong — they were just not a requirement that anything would change.
8 Principles Voluntary vs Mandatory
Case 4 of 6
Governance with Teeth
In 2020, IBM's Ethics Board vetoed the company's entire facial recognition business. A framework that can cancel a revenue line has authority. The question is whether that authority reaches all the way down to the delivery team.
IBM Ethics Board Four Pillars
Case 5 of 6
The Voluntary Era Closes
2019: voluntary principles. 2024: mandatory EU law. December 2026: Australian legislation. The direction of travel is not ambiguous — and the time to build a governance framework that can withstand regulatory scrutiny is before the legislation, not in response to it.
EU AI Act NAIC / ADM 2026
Case 6 of 6
The Layoff Trap
Sixty pages of mathematical proof that each CEO's individually rational decision produces a collective economic catastrophe. Equitable AI is not a values question organisations can solve by trying harder — it requires structural policy intervention.
Dominant Strategy CARE Principles
Module 6 · AI Project Management · 6 cases
AI projects don't fail on the technology — so what actually decides whether they succeed?

Concepts from Miller (2025) framework for avoiding harms, losses & damages; the PM lifecycle & PDCA (Deming/Shewhart); project charters, SMART/OKRs/KPIs, Scrum for AI; the Atlassian set case; RAND (2024) & Bernard Marr on why ~80% fail; Goodhart's Law; model drift; the EU AI Act (Art. 72 & 99). Real wrecks: the Deloitte welfare report, Commonwealth Bank, and Zillow.

Module 6 · Short Video
Module 6 · Long Form · Why AI Projects Fail
Case 1 of 6
The Report That Made Itself Up
A $440,000 government report, written with AI, invented around twenty of its own sources. The failure was never the technology — it was the project charter and initiation discipline that were skipped.
Project CharterInitiation
Case 2 of 6
The Number That Lied
A bank cut 45 jobs on one AI metric — and the metric was wrong. SMART goals, OKRs vs KPIs, the AI KPI taxonomy, Goodhart's Law, and why ~80% of AI projects fail.
SMART / OKRs / KPIsGoodhart's Law
Case 3 of 6
The Model That Kept Overpaying
Zillow wrote off $500M+ and cut a quarter of its staff because the world moved and the model didn't. Model drift, monitoring & control, and the five activities of proper project closure.
Model DriftClosure
Case 4 of 6
Whose Name Is On the Harm?
The required Miller (2025) reading in full: moral agents, the moral buffer, the four-stage lifecycle, the four planning frameworks, harms/losses/damages, stakeholder salience, bias, and RACI — with the practitioner critique.
Moral BufferMiller Framework
Case 5 of 6
The Tool That Disappears
The Atlassian set case: AI woven into Jira and Confluence for a 30% faster turnaround. Seven best practices, three challenges, Scrum for AI, and the five guiding questions answered.
Atlassian CaseScrum for AI
Case 6 of 6
Govern Before You Build
The answer to a dangerous AI isn't a cleverer one — it's governance first. Risk management, Miller's mitigation methods, the EU AI Act's teeth (Art. 72 & 99), and the environmental cost most projects never price.
EU AI ActRisk & Sustainability
Module 7 · AI in Marketing, Sales & Customer Experience · 6 cases
The upside of AI marketing is real — so where does it quietly mislead, and what should you actually measure?

The three pillars, the AI-marketing definition, five impact areas & five IBM benefits; generative content and the Coca-Cola AI ad; the set Coca-Cola case audited; Sora, deepfakes & C2PA provenance; the sales funnel’s real history (Lewis, 1898; falsified by Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999) and Google’s “messy middle”; AI & customer experience — Netflix, journey mapping, CommBank & Kathryn Sullivan, Klarna, Sierra & Lorikeet; and the required Kumar, Ashraf & Nadeem (2024) reading — dynamic capabilities, six themes, ethics 5.28/7, algorithmic bias, and the APP 1.7 disclosure date (10 Dec 2026).

Module 7 · Long Form · No Takesies Backsies
Case 1 of 6
The Map & Making the Ad
The whole module on one page — three pillars, the definition, five impact areas and five IBM benefits — plus the Coca-Cola AI ad that started the fight of 2024, and the TED talk’s neuromyth.
Definitions & BenefitsGenerative Content
Case 2 of 6
The Set Case: Coca-Cola, Audited
The required case in full — five applications, the Digital Academy, the $463bn headline — then the audit: its central evidence is a July 2022 manufacturing article from before ChatGPT.
Set CaseEvidence Audit
Case 3 of 6
The Tool That Vanished: Sora
The module showcases Sora as the future of AI video. Here’s the arc it never shows — announced 2024, shut down April 2026 — and why the same power makes deepfakes.
Text-to-VideoDeepfakes / C2PA
Case 4 of 6
The Map From 1898: Sales
AI in sales runs on a diagram that looks scientific and is really an 1898 copywriting heuristic — falsified 25 years ago. Predictive analytics, the messy middle, and an AI-sales hype check.
Funnel & PipelineMessy Middle
Case 5 of 6
When the Machine Talks to Your Customer
The pillar with no human in between. Netflix-grade personalisation and journey mapping — plus the 45 CommBank jobs cut on a wrong AI metric and reversed, and what “done right” looks like.
CX & Journey MapCommBank / Klarna
Case 6 of 6
Does the Reading Hold Up?
The required Kumar, Ashraf & Nadeem (2024) reading taught plainly — dynamic capabilities, six themes, ethics at 5.28/7 — then weighed, with algorithmic bias and the APP 1.7 disclosure date the module omits.
Dynamic CapabilitiesBias & Disclosure
Module 8 · AI in Operations & Supply Chain · 6 cases
The textbook makes AI in supply chains sound solved — so what’s proven, what’s hype, and where do the experts actually disagree?

How a supply chain really works (SCOR’s six processes) and why a small wobble becomes a huge swing (the bullwhip effect, Forrester 1961 / Lee 1997); the real AI toolbox — forecasting, inventory, predictive maintenance, routing, negotiation, visibility — and machine learning vs genuinely generative AI; the one peer-reviewed study that went inside six factories (Cannas et al., 2024) and found AI landing on the factory floor, not the clever planning layer; a three-question audit for any vendor statistic, and the five walls that keep AI from being everywhere (data quality is blocker #1); Walmart honestly — the Pactum negotiation bot, the scrapped Bossa Nova shelf-robots, the quiet Element platform; and the frontier the textbook skips — who built these ideas and whether they still hold, OR vs AI (“predict, then optimise”), the modern stack (digital twins, deep reinforcement learning, causal & agentic AI, knowledge graphs), the real movers & shakers (Kinaxis, Blue Yonder, o9, Amazon SCOT, Palantir, Symbotic), the ~95% failure reality, and resilience vs efficiency under geopolitics.

Module 8 · Long Form · What AI Actually Does in Supply Chains
Case 1 of 6
The Machine & the Whip
How a supply chain actually works — SCOR’s six processes — and why a tiny wobble in demand becomes a huge swing upstream: the bullwhip effect, and the cost-speed-resilience triangle every decision sits on.
SCOR ModelBullwhip Effect
Case 2 of 6
The Toolbox
The six real jobs AI does in operations — forecasting, inventory, predictive maintenance, routing, negotiation, visibility — plus the honest line between plain machine learning and genuinely generative AI.
Six AI JobsML vs GenAI
Case 3 of 6
The Required Reading, Audited
The one peer-reviewed study in the set — Cannas et al. (2024), six firms, 17 cases — and what it actually found: AI lands on the factory floor, not the clever planning layer. Then the honest audit of its small sample.
Set ReadingEvidence Audit
Case 4 of 6
Do the Numbers Hold Up? & The Walls
Do the giant vendor percentages survive scrutiny? A three-question audit for any AI stat — then the five walls that keep AI from being everywhere, with data quality the number-one blocker.
Stat AuditThe Barriers
Case 5 of 6
Walmart, Honestly
The required Walmart case told straight — Pactum’s company-reported ~68%, the scrapped Bossa Nova robots, the quiet Element platform — all five discussion questions answered, and the power question the slides skip.
Set CasePower & Fairness
Case 6 of 6
The Frontier & the Other Side
The other side of the textbook: who built these ideas and whether they still hold, OR vs AI (“predict, then optimise”), the modern stack, the real movers & shakers, the ~95% failure rate, and resilience vs geopolitics.
Modern StackThe Other Side
Module 9 · AI in Human Resources & Organisational Processes · 6 cases
The textbook says AI makes HR fairer and faster — so why did the hiring algorithms end up in court, and who is accountable when a model says no?

How AI enters HR — recruiting, performance management and employee engagement (Oracle, IBM, KPMG, Gartner) — and where it went to court: Mobley v. Workday's agent-liability theory, iTutorGroup, Amazon's scrapped tool. The algorithmic boss and digital Taylorism (Microsoft's rolled-back Productivity Score, the Cornell resistance finding, the Progress Principle); wellbeing-washing and the ghost-jobs economy; the KPMG four-step / Gartner playbook and who it is selling to; then the organisation half — People/Process/Technology, the TOE readiness framework, the InfoTech roadmap and scaling; the required reading (Murire 2024) audited, the Australian disclosure rules from Dec 2026, and the spine that ties it together: it's people, not the AI.

Module 9 · Short · The Algorithmic Boss
Module 9 · Long Form · The Algorithmic Boss (Short-Doc)
Case 1 of 6
The Hiring Machine
AI's first HR job is screening people — recruiting, the platforms (Workday, HireVue, Eightfold), and the lawsuits the deck skips: Mobley v. Workday's agent-liability theory, iTutorGroup, Amazon's scrapped tool.
3 HR AreasAgent Liability
Case 2 of 6
The Algorithmic Boss
When the manager is a metric: performance management and workplace surveillance, digital Taylorism, Microsoft's rolled-back Productivity Score, and the humane counter — the Progress Principle.
Digital TaylorismAugmentation
Case 3 of 6
The Engagement Illusion
Wellbeing dashboards, sentiment scores and jobs that were never real — the gap between measuring engagement and creating it, and the surveillance it rides on.
Wellbeing-washingGhost Jobs
Case 4 of 6
The Workforce Playbook
The consultancy frameworks the course teaches — KPMG's four steps and Gartner's advice — who wrote them and why, and the future-of-work risks.
KPMG 4 StepsGartner
Case 5 of 6
The Organisation Machine
AI beyond HR: People/Process/Technology, the TOE readiness framework, the AI roadmap, and why most pilots never scale — an organisation problem, not a model one.
TOE FrameworkScaling AI
Case 6 of 6
It's People, Not the AI
The required reading (Murire 2024) audited, the Australian disclosure rules from Dec 2026, and the accountability spine that ties the module together.
Murire 2024Accountability
Module 10 · Managing & Exploring AI Capabilities and Adoption · 6 cases
The frameworks are thirty years old and the tools are two years old — so what still holds, what is just vendor gloss, and why does running everything through AI make everyone answer the same?

How organisations actually manage and adopt AI. The seven aspects of managing AI and Drucker's definition, taught through Air Canada's liable chatbot; the two theory lenses — Teece's dynamic capabilities (sense/seize/reconfigure), read through Kodak, and Cohen & Levinthal's absorptive capacity, read through Zillow's half-billion-dollar collapse; the required reading (Hossain et al. 2025) and its six leader capabilities, with managers — not technologists — leading the transformation (Iansiti & Lakhani); the EY responsible-AI case audited against its nine principles and $100M fine, plus IBM / NIST / EU AI Act governance (and the 2026 deferral to Dec 2027); and the other side — augmentation done rigorously (Bainbridge, Zuboff, Brynjolfsson, Autor, Klein, Elish) and the consensus-machine evidence (Doshi & Hauser, Kleinberg, StoryScope) that says consensus is not a strategy.

Module 10 · Long Form · The Consensus Machine
Case 1 of 6
Managing the Machine
The seven aspects of managing AI, Drucker's definition, and the knowledge it runs on — taught through the chatbot that invented a policy and made the airline liable.
7 AspectsGovernance
Case 2 of 6
Sense, Seize, Reconfigure
Teece's dynamic capabilities — the first theory lens — taught through Kodak, the company that invented the digital camera and couldn't reconfigure to it.
Dynamic CapabilitiesKodak
Case 3 of 6
The Absorption Problem
Cohen & Levinthal's absorptive capacity — the second lens — taught through Zillow's half-billion-dollar algorithm that nobody could question.
Absorptive CapacityZillow
Case 4 of 6
The Leader's Six Capabilities
The required reading (Hossain et al. 2025), its true root (Adner & Helfat), and why managers — not technologists — lead the transformation.
Hossain 2025Role of Managers
Case 5 of 6
Responsible AI, Audited
The EY case, the governance regimes (IBM's four risks, NIST, EU AI Act), and the gap between a glossy responsible-AI story and the enforcement behind it.
EY CaseNIST / EU AI Act
Case 6 of 6
The Consensus Machine
The other side of the whole module: augment vs replace done rigorously, the quiet voices behind the clichés, and why running strategy through the same AI converges everyone to the mean.
Consensus EngineThe Other Side
Module 11 · AI-Driven Innovation and Emerging Technologies · 6 cases
The word everyone owns and no one defines — what “innovation” really means, why the tool that dazzles us on the frontier is a small specialist model and not a giant brain, and the question underneath all of it: good for whom?

The two definitions of innovation — the OECD/Oslo-Manual measure versus IDEO's human-centred need, kept honest by MIT's user-innovation lens (von Hippel, Aulet); the industrial arc from steam to Industry 5.0 (human-centric, sustainable, resilient — European Commission 2021), grounded in the Factory of the Future at Flinders; the innovation helix (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff) extended to civil society, and Society 5.0; the science spine — protein folding, AlphaFold (Nobel 2024), rational drug design, the 1060 chemical space and the drug-cost funnel — and why the frontier runs on checked specialist tools; the eight emerging technologies sorted into real, frontier and marketing; and the other side — job displacement, bias, accountability and the self-driving question, weighed with Khogali & Mekid: good for whom?

Module 11 · AI-Driven Innovation & Emerging Technologies
Case 1 of 6
No One Owns the Word
Two definitions of innovation and three lenses — the OECD measure, IDEO's unmet need, and MIT's lead user — with no single authority to referee.
Oslo vs IDEOThree Lenses
Case 2 of 6
The Fifth Revolution
From steam to people: the industrial arc, and why Industry 5.0 is the first chapter whose goal was never ‘more’ — human-centric, sustainable, resilient.
Industry 5.0Factory of the Future
Case 3 of 6
Innovation Is a Team Sport
The triple and quadruple helix, Society 5.0, and why the ‘lone genius’ is a myth that leaves the people it is for out of the model.
Quadruple HelixSociety 5.0
Case 4 of 6
Discovery, Not Invention
AlphaFold, rational drug design, the 1060 chemical space and what a cure really costs — and why the frontier runs on checked specialist tools, not one big brain.
AlphaFoldDrug Funnel
Case 5 of 6
Eight Technologies, Reality-Checked
The eight emerging technologies sorted into real, frontier and marketing — and why ‘AI as infrastructure’ is a frontier, not yet a foundation.
Real / Frontier / HypeInfrastructure?
Case 6 of 6
Good For Whom?
The other side: job displacement, bias, accountability and the self-driving question — weighed with Khogali & Mekid through utilitarianism and social-impact theory.
Khogali & MekidThe Other Side
Key Terms & Concepts — click any term
▼ Show
Taxonomy Framework Ethics / Risk Concept Model type
Flinders University · BUSN9049 AI in Business · Module 1–10 Applied Analysis · 2026