Q832
When AI Speeds Up Decisions, Do We Risk Making Worse Ones?

AI often accelerates decision-making—approvals happen faster, recommendations are instant, and actions are triggered in real time.
But speed can sometimes mask poor assumptions, incomplete context, or weak judgment.

Think of a specific process in your domain where AI could significantly reduce decision time.
How might this increased speed improve outcomes—and where could it introduce new risks or blind spots?
What checks would you put in place to ensure faster decisions are also better?

⚠️ Only answers that are specific and connect with a relevant process will be approved.

🏆 The best answer will be selected on the basis of

• Relevance and clarity of the chosen process

• Depth of insight into speed vs. decision quality

• Practicality of the proposed safeguards

Note for website visitors—

• This platform hosts two weekly questions, one on Monday and the other on Thursday. 

• All previous questions can be found here: https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/lean-six-sigma-business-excellence-questions/. 

• To participate in the current question, please visit the forum homepage at https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/.

• The question will be open until Tuesday or Friday at 9:00 AM Indian Standard Time, depending on the launch day. 

• Responses will not be visible until they are reviewed, and only non-plagiarised answers with less than 5-10% plagiarism will be considered for winner selection. 

• If you are unsure about plagiarism, please verify your answer using a plagiarism checker tool such as https://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/ before submitting. 

• All correct answers shall be published, and the top-rated answer will be displayed first. The author will receive an honourable mention in our Business Excellence dictionary at https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/business-excellence-dictionary-glossary/ along with the related term.

• Some people seem to be using AI platforms to find forum answers. This is a risky approach, as AI responses are error-prone because our questions are application-oriented (they are never straightforward). Please take a moment to review this amusing example—https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/topic/39458-using-ai-to-respond-to-forum-questions/

• We also use an AI content detector at https://app.originality.ai/. Only answers with less than 45-50% AI-generated content will be considered for winner selection.

Domain: Space subcontractor Machining – Bidding for New RFQs, Making Bid Decisions, or Not Bidding on New RFQs

Specific process:-  Deciding on pricing for a new customer RFQ, and whether to submit that RFQ to others.

In our make-to-print company, RFQs show up without any schedule-not once in a week and sometimes as many as all 30 at once. Each is a 50-200 pages drawing pack, having specification for highly complicated titanium (TI 64) or aluminium parts (AISi10mg) with very close tolerances from 5 microns (long term contracts from 5 to 10 years and penalties that could wipe out all two years profit).

Before AI, a bid / not bid + full quote took our price team approx. 8 – 14 days:

• Well, manual review of features such as holes, deeps pockets, complex contours.

• Cycle-time estimations based on similar previous jobs, loop path calculation in excel.

• Risk assessment for newer special processes. or forged materials

• Margin discussion with Top management.

Often we used to miss the 10-day quoting window mentioned by the customer, and lost it automatically.

So in early 2025, we built in our AI quoting assistant, and trained it on 18 years worth of quotes, actual cycle times, scrapping rates, tool wear, and profit outcomes.

The same RFQ can now be analyzed in less than 1 day:

• Auto-feature recognition (part size + stock) from 3D model.

• Instant cycle-time prediction (±6% accuracy vs. actual)

• Risk score for new tolerances / materials based on historic rejection trend of product group.

• Suggested price range with simulated margin scenarios.

It really brought the turnaround time to within the same day instead of weeks. Winning rate on chased bids 34% up with a healthier revenue pipeline.

Where speed dramatically improves outcomes

• We can chase 3 times more RFQs without adding new head count.

• Faster feedback to customers builds reputation ("these guys always respond quickly").

• Early visibility lets us spot capacity gaps and adjust loading.

• Management can decide to say no to low-margin orders immediately, thus freeing capacity for better-margin work.

Unforeseen real risks and blind spots introduced by the new speed

1. Overestimation of AI risk score Even with historical data, the model will say "low risk" because of something from prior experiences. However, if the RFQ has a new geometry nobody ever saw with the deep pocket (High Depth), a new alloy variant (3D printed / forged), the AI would say "GO" because it never saw it fail before. Humans would pause to call the Senior metallurgist, but right now there is pressure on the down button to "Approve" same-day.

2. Margin deterioration by speed pressure Sales loves the velocity of things and starts to pressure, "just take the AI's predicted middle price." say two contracts were awarded already, 4 - 6% below a cautious human judgment would have accepted profitable, but thinner than comfortable.

3. Loss of tribal knowledge The senior estimators would spend hours on a single RFQ arguing and surfacing war stories ("remember that 2019 batch with the same radius? Cracked on every part"). The AI has the data but not the nuance or the fear memory. Speed kills such critical conversations.

4. Customer playing on the system Primes were realising we are responding ridiculously fast now. One has started sending "fake" RFQs with impossible tolerances just to force us to burn engineering time analysing them. Minimum quote from 3 suppliers tying up our pricing team while negotiating with slower competitors.

Practical safeguards we have currrently implemented

1."human pause" compulsory on high-risk flags. If AI novelty score >35% of raw data used for training or predicted margin <12%, it goes automatically into a 2-hour cross-functional review (engineering + costing + operations). No same-day bids allowed.

2. Bid-win / loss auto-corrections Every awarded contract goes through a 30-day actual-verses-predicted evaluation by CFT Team. Whenever the AI went wrong by more than 10% on cycle time or risk, we feed that back into AI model and change weights. Keeps humble the AI model.

3. Dual track quoting for the big programs For any lifetime value greater than €15 million, we keep AI and traditional human estimates going in parallel for the first three months. Forced calibration and kept old tribal knowledge alive.

4. Clarity of velocity quota, not unlimited Sales bonus capped at the number of quotes per month now will not allow their flooding the system with trash RFQs, just because we can handle the volume.

The bottom line of the quoting desk Yes, there is a superpower in the speed brought by AI; it records works that we would totally miss otherwise. But the real risk is neither with bad data nor any other, but with human temptation toward treating "fast" as the equivalent of "good enough" and stop thinking.

Not to slow down AI, safeguards are there but to ensure that we, bottlenecks, do not run ahead of one's judgment.

Yes, we definitely risk making worse decisions when AI speeds up decisions. This is only true if the system has risk controls, friction, and accountability built in.

The following is a detailed analysis that takes into account the main risks, with real-world examples and ways to reduce them.

1️⃣ The Main Risk Principle

Speed makes both accuracy and mistakes worse.

AI doesn't just help you make decisions faster; it also

Shortens the time spent thinking about it

Takes away human intuition checkpoints

Shortens feedback loops

If the model is correct, things get better quickly.
If the model is wrong, damage happens faster than people can respond.

2️⃣ Why making decisions faster can be worse ⚠️ Risk #1: Losing context

AI looks for patterns, not situations.

Credit scoring is one example.

AI turns down a loan in 200 ms

The model sees risk features.

Misses:

Loss of a temporary job

Emergency in the medical field

Cultural background

👉 The decision is quick but doesn't take into account the situation.

⚠️ Risk #2: Bias in Automation

People trust systems that are quick and sure of themselves more, even when they're wrong.

Example: AI for Medical Triage

AI says the patient is low risk

Doctor doesn't review enough because:

Time stress

Bias against authority

Condition that is rare was missed

📉 Speed takes the place of scrutiny.

⚠️ Risk #3: Wrong Accuracy

AI outputs often look perfect:

0.873 risk score

92% sure

But these are not facts; they are guesses based on probabilities.

Risk Result

People who make decisions confuse accuracy with certainty.

Edge cases are not taken into account.

3. Real-World Failure Cases: Case 1: Hiring Algorithms

Screening goes faster ✔

But:

Bias grew stronger

Candidates who met the requirements were filtered out.

Risk to reputation and the law goes up

🚗 Case 2: Driving on its own

Decisions in milliseconds

Edge cases, like construction zones and strange people walking

Result:

Fatal mistakes because of scenarios that weren't modelled

Case 3: Trading with Algorithms

More trades faster

Crashes in a flash

Failures that happen one after the other

Risk in the system = speed + feedback loops

4. The Risk Curve (Very Important)
Faster Decision-Making ↑ ──────────────▶
Benefit goes up until a certain point, then risk goes up a lot.


There is a zone of best speed.
Beyond that point, the cost of making a mistake is greater than the time saved.

5️⃣ The Real Problem: Took Away "Decision Friction"

People naturally add:

Doubt

Second looks

Moral doubt

By default, AI gets rid of these.

Some friction is useful, not a waste of time.

6️⃣ How to Make AI Systems That Are Aware of Risks 🛡️ Pattern 1: Different speeds for making decisions
Type of Decision Speed
Not very riskyCompletely automated
AI and human review: medium risk
A lot of riskLed by people

For example

Fraud alert: auto-flag

Account closure: approval from a person

Pattern 2: Automation with a Confidence Gate
If confidence is greater than 95%, the decision is made automatically.
70–95%: Human review; less than 70%: Manual decision


Speed is something you earn, not something you think you have.

🛡️ Pattern 3: Explain Before You Do

Make the model do the following:

Show the most important things that contributed

Make uncertainty stand out

Counter-signals on the surface

If you can't explain, the decision takes longer.

🛡️ Pattern 4: Kill Switches and Circuit Breakers

Used in:

Systems for trading

AI that is important for safety

Automation on a large scale

When an anomaly is found, the system slows down.

7️⃣ Most Missed Key Risk Insight

The price of a bad choice goes up faster than the price of a good one.

Especially in:

Health care

Fairness

Money

Hiring

Policy for the public

8️⃣ The Wrong Question Is

❌ "How quickly can AI make a decision?"
"Which choices need to be made quickly?"

9️⃣ Rule of Risk-First Design

AI should speed up decisions that are clear and slow down decisions that aren't.

It's not a good idea to speed up AI when you're not sure what to do.

🔚 Last Thoughts

Yes, quicker AI choices can lead to worse choices.

Not because AI is bad, but because:

Speed takes away safety measures

Errors grow quickly

People put things off too easily.

Mature AI systems don't aim for the fastest speed.

It is:

The best speed with a low risk.

"Decision latency" is eliminated by AI, but "decision opacity" and "overconfidence" are added as new limitations.

In the past, decisions in the automotive sector have been made slowly, not because people wanted inefficiency but rather because it was a safety measure. Engineers, quality managers, supply-chain planners, and safety officers analyzed data from multiple angles before acting. This process was eliminated after implementing AI in process. Now a day’s decisions are made in milliseconds instead long waiting hours. Although this improvement significantly supports the results, unfortunately this also adds undetectable risks. The crucial question here is whether all quicker decisions made by AI are always better ones.

Automobile manufacturing Industry

AI-Driven Production Line Decision Making

Think about a car manufacturing company produces car braking systems. Brake parts are vital to safety, in real world driving situations. small deviation can cause catastrophic failure and leads to big human life loss. Traditional method where Engineers inspect batches and detect anomalies and decide whether to stop the production or continue. This traditional method consumes lot of time but it allowed engineers to apply contextual reasoning, it helps to understand supplier constraints, machine maintenance or outside world factors.

After AI-based inspection systems got introduced, cameras, sensors and machine learning models helps to analyze every brake component that are produced by machines. AI doesn’t wait for complete batch to over, the moment it detects the defect in the middle of production, it automatically adjusts the machine parameters, reroutes parts or even it halts the complete production line. Earlier human decisions which took long time now it’s made instantly.

How AI’s faster decisions improve outcomes.

AI decision-making improves outcomes first by preventing defect propagation. In Automobile manufacturing industry defects don’t remain isolated. During parts manufacturing any fault happens and unnoticed for few hours, tens of thousands parts may already assembled in the vehicle. AI’s speed prevents this cascade and acting instantly, it ensures defects are addressed before they reach assembly, logistics or dealerships.

Secondly, in real time humans cannot respond to complex variable interactions but AI’s speed does that. For example, brake pad quality may degrade only when particular supplier’s material is used during certain humidity and machine temperature. Human only can able to identifies these correlations only after spending lot of time on data analysis but AI’s can able to identifies such information within minutes and adjust the parameters immediately. Here, AI’s speed not only saves the time but also decision accuracy is made on time.

Thirdly, AI’s decisions reduce the emotional and organizational biases. Whereas when human makes decisions they may face management pressure, cost concerns and fear of being wrong. AI doesn’t get influence by these pressures. Based on the threshold and other criterial meet AI act decisively. In this context, speed removes human hesitation that could otherwise allow safety issues to persist.

AI’s Speed Starts Creating Worse Decisions

Same speed that AI helps to improves the outcomes sometime it can amplify mistakes too. When AI makes an incorrect decision, it does not fail slowly—it fails instantly and at scale. When the parameter is wrongly calibrated or data is noisy, AI may come to conclusion as defect even small variation deducted. As the system is fully automated, AI may shut down the entire production line within seconds without any second thought. Once we said human verification slows down now it becomes an immediate operational crisis which leads to massive downtime and financial loss to company.

Another risk emerges from AI’s lack of contextual understanding. However, decisions made in the automotive industry frequently involve trade-offs that go beyond just quality. AI rejects complete supplier batch because of small deviations which are acceptable for non-critical vehicle parts. When AI makes decision without context knowledge may completely stop the production and result in delay new cars release, which also takes away from market competitiveness. Although technically the AI decision looks correct.

AI’s Speed result in Bias

AI system is trained using historical data. AI may inherit biases if that data includes historical supplier problems or inefficiencies in the process. Such biases may eventually be questioned in a slower, human-driven process. Because AI makes decisions so quickly and frequently, biased patterns are institutionalized before anyone is aware of them. For instance, even after quality improvements have been made, AI may aggressively reject components from a supplier if it discovers that the supplier has a history of producing defects. AI decisions are done faster which allow for natural correction through observation and process.

Loss of Human Judgment Caused by Over-Trust in AI

Lost human engagement is one of the most hazardous effects of quick AI decisions. Engineers gradually adjust to AI’s result and stops engaging and started to trust AI’s result. Experience-based knowledge deteriorates and manual inspections decline. AI may fail due to a lack of training data when an uncommon or unprecedented circumstance occurs, such as a new material, severe weather, or a change in regulations. Humans are supposed to step in at that point, but their ability to make decisions has diminished. Understanding has been replaced by speed.

Uncommon events leading to False Confidence

Always important events must be automated by systems. AI’s big strength is identifying common patterns but it lacks in decision when uncommon scenarios occurs. Example breaking parts may function properly in all tested circumstances but it may fail in extreme cold temperature and high altitudes. Because AI never trained with such data it may make misjudgment and approve the test result confidently. In this case human is involved before making decision they might asked a question “what if” such condition arise. When uncertainty is still there, speed gives the appearance of certainty.

The Actual Trade-Off

Real problem is when AI alters the nature of decision-making itself instead of just speeding it up. Before AI, more time is taking which allows to have discussion, reasoning and judgment. Company must force to reintroduce control mechanism in every stage which AI eliminates this restriction. In this case speed turns from benefit to a liability.

In the automotive industry, choices impact the people’s lives, the goal is to achieve speed not maximum speed. AI should implement in such way low-impact decisions like parameter tuning can be done quickly, whereas high risk and impact decisions like safety-critical it can call for human support. The sad news here is wrong decision not only leads to business fail, also not able to recognize the boundaries between speed and judgement.

Final conclusion

When AI is well trained with proper data and more frequently, AI-driven speed provides accurate outcomes. When issues are uncommon, not clear or contextually not understandable then AI’s decision are progressively worse. The real challenge in automotive industry is not to decide between speed and safety, rather to create a system that use speed decision to support judgment rather than replace it.

Domain: Finance and Banking Processes

 

We all know that AI agents and solutions speeds up the decision making in Finance and Banking operations. AI solutions helps in providing instant recommendations, quickens the actions and speeds up the approval process, etc.

 

Processes that took long hours or few days (like credit approvals, fraud decisions, payment releases, exception handling) can now be completed in few seconds or few minutes. We all know that this speed has improved efficiency and customer experience.

 

At the same time, this also has introduced the risk that decisions are made –

 

·      Before critical or important context is fully understood

·      Before it’s well-informed

·      Before it’s properly governed

·      With poor assumptions

·      Weak judgement

 

Let’s look at few examples from the Finance and Banking domain.

Example 1: Credit Approval

In Credit approval processes, AI has helped in increasing the speed and improved the outcomes.

How AI reduces decision time:

Creating credit scoring model to reduce the time taken to approve loans

·      Quickly evaluating credit history and transaction behaviour

·      Approve or reject loan application in real time

How AI introduces new risks or blind spots:

At the same time, speeding up the credit decisions with the help of AI model may lead to poor assumptions, incomplete context, weak judgment, bringing in new risks and blind spots as below –

·      Not accounting for temporary income disruptions

·      Not accounting for life events

·      Increase in short-term loan volumes

·      Increase in long-term default risk

·      Fast rejections affecting customers

·      Increase in customer appeals

What checks to put in place:

To mitigate the above mentioned risks or blind spots, checks such as –

·      Confidence thresholds

·      Human in the loop for borderline cases

·      Periodic outcome based validation

These mechanisms will help that speed does not create risks.

Example 2: Invoice Approval

AI has helped a lot in speeding up invoice validation & approvals by automating the process.

How AI reduces decision time:

·      Automatically matching invoice to purchase orders

·      Automatically matching invoice to contracts

·      Reduces cycle time

·      Allows users to focus on exceptions

How AI introduces new risks or blind spots:

At the same time, faster approvals can increase the errors bringing in new risks and blind spots as below –

·      AI system may learn to approve invoices with minor tax discrepancies due to historical tolerances

·      Increase in audit findings

·      Small findings leading into material risk

·      Post payment corrections

What checks to put in place:

To mitigate the above mentioned risks or blind spots, checks or controls such as –

·      Exception trend monitoring

·      Dynamic risk scoring

·      Human in the loop for final approvals

·      Periodic rule based re-evaluation

These mechanisms will help that faster processing does not create risks or weaker controls.

Conclusion:

AI agents and solution can significantly improve financial decision making when it eliminates unnecessary delays without eliminating meaningful judgment.

The risk arises when organizations try to equate faster decisions with better ones and not reassessing the assumptions that are part of the models and data.

AI systems must have human in the loop and deliberate checks. In finance and banking processes, the goal is not simply to decide faster, but to decide faster with discipline.

 

A Retail Banking Example of When Quicker Credit Decisions May Not Be Better

Credit card and personal loan approvals in retail banking are one procedure where AI can significantly shorten decision times. These judgements, which involved manual underwriting, bureau reviews, and rule checks, used to take hours or days. Applications can now be approved or rejected in a matter of seconds using AI-based credit rating models.  

At first glance, this speed clearly improves outcomes. Customers get instant responses, drop-off rates reduce, sales productivity improves, and banks can process much higher volumes without adding staff. In competitive markets, faster approvals also translate directly into higher acquisition.

  However, if not managed appropriately, I have observed that this same speed can subtly introduce additional risks and blind spots.

Where speed enhances results


In high-volume, low-risk segments, speed is most beneficial. For paid clients with a spotless bureau background, straight-through processing eliminates needless human labour and delays that don't really provide value. Decisions made more quickly help lessen operational weariness because teams aren't scrambling to finish backlogs at the end of the month. 

In these cases, faster is genuinely better.

Where speed creates blind spots

The risk emerges when speed replaces judgement rather than supporting it.

Historical data is used to train AI models. The model will duplicate past assumptions, out-of-date economic situations, or biassed approval patterns in that data, but it will do so much more quickly. Instant choices can conceal information that a human underwriter would typically look into for borderline profiles, such as self-employed applicants or new credit clients. 

Another risk is false confidence.When approvals happen instantly, business teams may stop questioning outcomes altogether. Over time, weak signals — early delinquency, concentration risk in certain customer segments, or over-approval during economic upswings — may go unnoticed because the system “seems to be working.”

In short, AI can make bad decisions faster and at scale if assumptions are wrong.

What checks are needed to ensure speed does not hurt quality

Based on experience, I would put three safeguards in place.

First, I would clearly define where AI is allowed to decide autonomously and where it must pause. For example, low-risk profiles can be fully automated, but edge cases should still trigger human review — even if that slows them slightly.

Second, I would implement outcome-based monitoring, not just model accuracy metrics. Early delinquency trends, approval-to-default ratios by segment, and sudden shifts in portfolio quality are stronger signals than model confidence scores alone.

Third, I would ensure periodic human challenge sessions, where risk, operations, and business teams review AI decisions together.The goal is not to audit the model, but to ask uncomfortable questions: “Would we still approve this customer if a human were deciding?” That dialogue often surfaces blind spots early.

Closing thought

AI undeniably improves decision speed in credit approval processes, and in many cases that speed is beneficial. But speed also reduces the natural friction where humans question, reflect, and challenge assumptions. The real risk is not fast decisions — it is unquestioned fast decisions.

The best outcomes come when AI accelerates routine judgement, while humans remain responsible for deciding where speed should slow down.  

When AI Speeds Up Decisions, Do We Risk Making Worse Ones?

AI and its applied models built will enable decision-making options and iterations to be easy and accessible to fairly large and non-expert domain stakeholders as well. That also throws up a situation where AI-driven decision-making removes the silos for decision-makers but also drives a question , where a particular unconscious AI-driven bias can lead the decision-maker to align with solutions that may bypass an expert-driven tool gates necessary to safeguard from such biases and irrelevant benchmark KPIs.

While AI solutions and processes are lightning-fast vs a Human expert engaged to deliver the same. AI solutions if modelled on unsupervised learning with the base supervised models not authenticated and validated for their accuracy and precision judgement for the data it is handling , the AI output may throw up the below scenarios that, if not identified and made mainstream, can be catastrophic for an organisation's process, certainly in the short term but can have long-term repercussions.

 

Scenario 1: Fear of Missing Out – When committed to make an AI shift and drive the initiatives , stakeholders and decision makers may want to enable most of the processes by AI and not seen to be left behind in the industry and in their functional roles. At times, the promptness to be Deliver AI first leaders , can lead the decision makers to become oblivious to some of the side impact their decisions may have , if not felt immediately but over a period of time. Some recent examples of Tech Giants (FAANG) in a race to roll out the latest GenAI models have faced scrutiny from the experts for either providing biased , inappropriate or hallucinated responses to the most basic queries around historical and world events, landing organisations in a controversial and damage control measures.

 

Scenario 2: First Mover Advantage Syndrome – With AI becoming the most referenced technology shift across industries, every organisation is strategising for the next 3-5 years, keeping AI at the pedestal of future change and outcome. Proven AI agentic models in an industry do provide the initial adopters an advantage to navigate through the change management internal to their organisation and external, to the stakeholders, customers, investors and stock option holders a sense of being Industry first and making the most of the initial hype around the benefits that AI may bring in to their expected outcomes. But executing those changes at speed and not equally paying attention to the impact it may have on allied processes within and outside the operational environment of AI , can give rise to situations which may not be ideal for an organisation. Example – The FAANG group poaching the AI talent across industries and at exorbitant, unheard-of salary packages , at times in the millions, creates an imbalance not just in the value an individual brings to the whole mix but also in the impact it has on lower-strata jobs, where thousands of job losses are being projected and, in fact, people are being laid of in anticipation of the impact that AI deployment may have in future.

                                                                                      Hiring of these high profile candidates and then FAANG companies trimming down the same team in a matter of month or weeks , highlight the fact that in order to attain speed , even the most reputed and innovative organisations are failing to make the right decisions.

🏆 Q832 Evaluation — “When AI Speeds Up Decisions, Do We Risk Making Worse Ones?”

Top 3

1. Adil Khan — Best fit to the prompt. Very specific process (RFQ bid/price decisions), shows where speed helps (hit quote windows, capacity visibility) and where it hurts (novelty risk, margin erosion, loss of “war-story” checks). Safeguards are practical and measurable. ✅

2. Apoorv — Strong banking example (instant credit decisions). Clear “speed wins vs blind spots” framing + solid safeguards (human review bands, outcome monitoring, challenge sessions). ✅

3. Sri — Two concrete finance processes (credit approval + invoice approval). Clearly identifies blind spots and proposes realistic controls (confidence thresholds, HIL, trend monitoring, periodic validation). ✅

✅ Also approved

• Mohammad Riyadh — Good risk framing and safeguards, but lighter on one single anchored process.

• Nageshwaran — Strong safety-critical example (brake parts) with balanced “speed vs context” and relevant checks.

• Sandeep Saha — Good principles, but too generic and not anchored tightly to one process.

• Sundeep Kailwoo — Interesting points, but largely generic and drifts into industry commentary rather than one process.

❌ Not approved

• Venkatesh Lakshmipathy — Too generic and assumes “data = always correct,” with no process-specific risks or safeguards beyond “provide correct facts.”

• Sandeep Saha - High AI content