KPMG's new AI bot has cut interview scheduling time by almost 60% and saved more than 1,000 hours for the talent acquisition team
When KPMG's vice chair of talent and culture Sandy Torchia set out to integrate AI into the company's talent strategy, she wanted to solve two major problems: allowing job candidates to ask questions at any time of day, and freeing up time for her team to tackle more strategic questions.
Torchia's efforts have culminated in Kai, an AI assistant built by hiring software company Paradox. A little over a year after its launch, she says the bot has already cut the time it takes for hiring managers to schedule interviews with job applicants by roughly 58%, dropping from one hour to just 25 minutes.
'The notion of freeing up time to focus on more strategic initiatives is so important,' Torchia tells Fortune. 'It's not only giving them back hours, but it's increasing job satisfaction because they're able to reduce the time it takes to complete an administrative task that isn't super rewarding and focus on something else.'
Kai is designed for candidates to be able to ask questions after hours, and answers basic questions about benefits, hours, or details about the hiring process. In the first year, Kai handled more than 23,000 inquiries from candidates, with 33% of them coming in after 5 p.m. The bot also takes into account the person's location, experience, and interest in roles, to suggest open positions at KPMG. Around 21.5% of those who interact with Kai in this way end up showing interest in the roles it recommends.
Adam Godson, founder and CEO of Paradox, says that the KPMG bot is working well because it addresses a narrow issue, and adds companies should be careful about overhauling their entire system.
'It's not about automating as much of the process as you can,' says Godson. 'It's about picking the spots where automation makes sense. You can use AI for everything, but candidates don't want that, and recruiters don't want that, which is why you focus on the places where there [is] inefficiency or slowness, and fix that first.'
KPMG still prefers to screen all candidates manually, and chooses who gets an interview through traditional methods. Torchia says some important parts of the job process are best done in person or over Zoom, such as having discussions around company culture.
'It's still super important to have a human in the loop,' she says. 'Because you can learn about our culture by asking questions, but you're not going to experience it until you talk to someone.'
Brit Morsebrit.morse@fortune.com
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This CEO laid off nearly 80% of his staff because they refused to adopt AI fast enough. 2 years later, he says he'd do it again
Eric Vaughan, CEO of enterprise-software powerhouse IgniteTech, is unwavering as he reflects on the most radical decision of his decades-long career. In early 2023, convinced that generative AI was an 'existential' transformation, Vaughan looked at his team and saw a workforce not fully on board. His ultimate response: He ripped the company down to the studs, replacing nearly 80% of staff within a year, according to headcount figures reviewed by Fortune. Over the course of 2023 and into the first quarter of 2024, Vaughan said IgniteTech replaced hundreds of employees, declining to disclose a specific number. 'That was not our goal,' he told Fortune. 'It was extremely difficult … But changing minds was harder than adding skills.' It was, by any measure, a brutal reckoning—but Vaughan insists it was necessary, and says he'd do it again. For Vaughan, the writing on the wall was clear and dramatic. 'In early 2023, we saw the light,' he told Fortune in an interview, adding that he believed every tech company was facing a crucial inflection point around adoption of artificial intelligence. 'Now I've certainly morphed to believe that this is every company, and I mean that literally every company, is facing an existential threat by this transformation.' Where others saw promise, Vaughan saw urgency—believing that failing to get ahead on AI could doom even the most robust business. He called an all-hands meeting with his global, remote team. Gone were the comfortable routines and quarterly goals. Instead, his message was direct: Everything would now revolve around AI. 'We're going to give a gift to each of you. And that gift is tremendous investment of time, tools, education, projects … to give you a new skill,' he explained. The company began reimbursing for AI tools and prompt engineering classes, and even brought in outside experts to evangelize. 'Every single Monday was called 'AI Monday,'' Vaughan said, with his mandate for staff that they could only work on AI. 'You couldn't have customer calls, you couldn't work on budgets, you had to only work on AI projects.' He said this happened across the board, not just for tech workers, but also for sales, marketing, and everybody at IgniteTech. 'That culture needed to be built. That was… that was the key.' This was a major investment, he added: 20% of payroll was dedicated to a mass-learning initiative, and it failed because of mass resistance, even sabotage. Belief, Vaughan discovered, is a hard thing to manufacture. 'In those early days, we did get resistance, we got flat-out, 'Yeah, I'm not going to do this' resistance. And so we said goodbye to those people.' The pushback: Why didn't they get on board? Vaughan was surprised to find it was often the technical staff, not marketing or sales, who dug in their heels. They were the 'most resistant,' he said, voicing various concerns about what the AI couldn't do, rather than focusing on what it could. The marketing and salespeople were enthused by the possibilities of working with these new tools, he added. This friction is borne out by broader research. According to the 2025 enterprise AI adoption report by WRITER, an AI platform that specifically helps enterprise clients with AI integration, one in three workers say they've 'actively sabotaged' their company's AI rollout—a number that jumps to 41% of millennial and Gen Z employees. This can take the form of refusing to use AI tools, intentionally generating low-quality outputs, or avoiding training altogether. Many act out due to fears that AI will replace their jobs, while others are frustrated by lackluster AI tools or unclear strategy from leadership. WRITER's Chief Strategy Officer Kevin Chung told Fortune the 'big eye-opening thing' from this survey was the human element of AI resistance. 'This sabotage isn't because they're afraid of the technology … It's more like there's so much pressure to get it right, and then when you're handed something that doesn't work, you get frustrated.' He added that WRITER's research shows that workers often don't trust where their organizations are headed. 'When you're handed something that isn't quite what you want, it's very frustrating, so the sabotage kicks in, because then people are like, 'Okay, I'm going to run my own thing. I'm going to go figure it out myself.'' You definitely don't want this kind of 'shadow IT' in an organization, he added. Vaughan says he didn't want to force anyone. 'You can't compel people to change, especially if they don't believe.' He added that belief was really the thing he needed to recruit for. Company leadership ultimately realized they'd have to launch a massive recruiting effort for what became known as 'AI Innovation Specialists.' This applied across the board, to sales, finance. marketing, everywhere. Vaughan said this time was 'really difficult' as things inside the company were 'upside down … We didn't really quite know where we were or who we were yet.' A couple key hires helped, starting with the person who became IgniteTech's chief AI officer, Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu. That led to a full reorganization of the company that Vaughan called 'somewhat unusual.' Essentially, every division now reports into the AI organization, regardless of domain. This centralization, Vaughan says, prevented duplication of efforts and maximized knowledge sharing—a common struggle in AI adoption, where WRITER's survey shows 71% of the C-suite at other companies say AI applications are being created in silos and nearly half report their employees left to 'figure generative AI out on their own.' No pain, no gain? In exchange for this difficult transformation, IgniteTech reaped extraordinary results. By the end of 2024, the company had launched two patent-pending AI solutions, including a platform for AI-based email automation (Eloquens AI), with a radically rebuilt team. Financially, IgniteTech remained strong. Vaughan disclosed that the company, which he said is in the nine-figure revenue range, finished 2024 at 'near 75% EBITDA'—all while completing a major acquisition, Khoros. 'You multiply people … give people the ability to multiply themselves and do things at a pace,' he said, touting the company's ability to build new customer-ready products in as little as four days—an unthinkable timeline in the old regime. What does Vaughan's story say for others? On one level, it's a case study in the pain and payoff of radical change management. But his ruthless approach arguably addresses many challenges identified in the WRITER survey: lack of strategy and investment, misalignment between IT and business, and the failure to engage champions who can unlock AI's benefits. The 'boy who cried wolf' problem To be sure, IgniteTech is far from alone in wrestling with these challenges. Joshua Wöhle is the CEO of Mindstone, a firm similar to WRITER that provides AI upskilling services to workforces, training hundreds of employees monthly at companies including Lufthansa, Hyatt, and NBA teams. He recently discussed the two approaches described by Vaughan—upskilling and mass replacement—in an appearance on BBC Business Today. Wöhle contrasted the recent examples of Ikea and Klarna, arguing the former's example shows why it's better to 'reskill' existing employees. Klarna, a Swedish buy-now pay-later firm, drew considerable publicity for a decision to reduce members of its customer support staff in a pivot to AI, only to rehire for the same roles. 'We're near the point where [AI is] more intelligent than most people doing knowledge work. But that's precisely why augmentation beats automation,' Wöhle wrote on LinkedIn. A representative for Klarna told Fortune the company did not lay off employees, but has instead adopted several approaches to its customer service, which is managed by outsourced customer-service providers who are paid according to the volume of work required. The launch of an AI customer-service assistant reduced the workload by the equivalent of 700 full-time agents—from roughly 3,000 to 2,300—and the third-party providers redeployed those 700 workers to other clients, according to Klarna. Now that the AI customer service agent is 'handling more complex queries than when we launched,' Klarna says, that number has fallen to 2,200. Klarna says its contractor has rehired just two people in a pilot program designed to combine highly trained human support staff with AI to deliver outstanding customer service. In an interview with Fortune, Wöhle said one client of his has been very blunt with his workers, ordering them to dedicate all Fridays to AI retraining, and if they didn't report back on any of their work, they were invited to leave the company. He said it can be 'kinder' to dismiss workers who are resistant to AI: 'The pace of change is so fast that it's the kinder thing to force people through it.' He added that he used to think that if he got all workers to really love learning, then that could help Mindstone make a real difference, but he discovered after training literally thousands of people that 'most people hate learning. They'd avoid it if they can.' Wöhle attributed much of the AI resistance in the workforce to a 'boy who cried wolf' problem from the tech sector, citing NFTs and blockchain as technologies that were billed as revolutionary but 'didn't have the real effect' that tech leaders promised. 'You can't really blame them' for resisting, he said. Most people 'get stuck because they think from their work flow first,' he added, and they conclude AI is overhyped because they want AI to fit into their old way of working. 'It takes a lot more thinking and a lot more kind of prodding for you to change the way that you work,' but once you do, you see dramatic increases. A human can't possibly keep five call transcripts in their head while you're trying to write a proposal to a client, he offers, but AI can. Ikea echoed Wöhle when reached for comment, saying that its 'people-first AI approach focuses on augmentation, not automation.' A spokesperson said Ikea is using AI to automate tasks, not jobs, freeing up time for value-added, human-centric work. The WRITER report notes that companies with formal AI strategies are far more likely to succeed, and those who heavily invest in AI outperform their peers by a large margin. But, as Vaughan's experience shows, investment without belief and buy-in can be wasted energy. 'The culture needed to be built. Ultimately, we ended up having to go out and recruit and hire people that were already of the same mind. Changing minds was harder than adding skills.' For Vaughan, there's no ambiguity. Would he do it again? He doesn't hesitate: He'd rather endure months of pain and build a new, AI-driven foundation from scratch than let an organization drift into irrelevance. 'This is not a tech change. It is a cultural change, and it is a business change.' He said he doesn't recommend that others follow his lead and swap out 80% of their staff. 'I do not recommend that at all. That was not our goal. It was extremely difficult.' But at the end of the day, he added, everybody's got to be in the same boat, rowing in the same direction. Otherwise, 'we don't get where we're going.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The US May Have Already Lost the AI Race to China Due to a Key Weakness
You might have heard of an "AI race" heating up between the US and China, a bitter rivalry between two global adversaries that could shape the direction of world history. At least, that's how some in the US feel. While China has repeatedly tried to establish a geopolitical friendship with the richest nation in the world, officials and pundits in the US have doubled down, reframing artificial intelligence as the 21st century's nuclear bomb. In the meantime, China may have gotten a massive lead — by actively investing in its power grid, while the United States' is quickly running out of capacity to power immensely power-hungry AI models. As Fortune reports, Americans who've had a look at China's technological development firsthand found that the two country's aren't even in the same league, given China's next-level power grid. "Energy is considered a solved problem," wrote Rui Ma, editor of the US publication Tech Buzz China. "Everywhere we went, people treated energy availability as a given," she continued. "This is a stark contrast to the US, where AI growth is increasingly tied to debates over data center power consumption and grid limitations." AI is a notoriously energy-intensive technology. The data centers powering large language models like ChatGPT are immense labyrinths of computer chips, which suck down resources like power and water in order to keep up with demand. As Fortune notes, this effectively makes electricity the key bottleneck for expanding AI infrastructure. That's caused some critical shortages in the US. Short on energy and hopped up on fantasies of an arms race, American companies are resorting to all kinds of bizarre strategies to get their juice. Elon Musk's xAI, for example, is running 35 portable methane gas generators in the parking lot of one of its main datacenters in Memphis, encircling nearby communities in a cloud of noxious smog. China has no such problems. In 2024, China was responsible for nearly 65 percent of the world's renewable energy construction, installing so many solar panels and wind turbines that it caused the country's CO2 emissions to drop for the first time — despite record-high demands for energy. Whether or not the US can catch up remains to be seen. President Donald Trump previously made an off-the-cuff remark about attaching coal power plants to data centers directly. It's an unfortunate conundrum in an age when energy demand in the US has never been higher. In the meantime, China keeps chugging along, seemingly unperturbed by any energy bottlenecks — and the Trump administration's posturing. More on AI: AI Datacenters Are Raising Nearby Residents' Electric Bills Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Much Richer Is Warren Buffett Than Donald Trump?
No matter how you define wealth, there's no doubt that even rich people have vastly different degrees of it. Warren Buffett: Check Out: For example, Donald Trump was rich before he won a second term to the White House, and has grown that wealth even more since taking office. But you could still multiply his wealth by a factor of 28 and it wouldn't be as big of a fortune as that of Warren Buffett. How Much Richer Is Buffett? Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and legendary 'Oracle of Omaha,' has a net worth of $142.8 billion, according to the latest estimates from according to the latest estimated from Forbes. That ranks him as the ninth richest person in the world. The richest, Elon Musk, has a net worth of $413.8 billion. In contrast, Forbes pegs Trump's net worth at $5.7 billion — which places him as the 755th richest person in the world. Trump and Buffett are both rich under just about any definition. To put their net worths in perspective, consider this: Michael Dell ranks as the 11th richest person in the world with a net worth of $128.2 billion. But if Trump could magically add Dell's wealth to his own, it still would fall well short of Buffett. Be Aware: Buffett's Road to Riches One reason Buffett is so much richer than Trump is he has spent decades as one of the world's savviest investors, building Berkshire Hathaway into a financial powerhouse whose biggest holdings include iconic brands such as Apple, Coca Cola, Bank of America and Chevron. The 94-year-old plans to step down as Berkshire CEO at the end of the year, but will remain as chairman. Buffett came from a fairly modest background in Nebraska, and got bitten by the investment bug early, buying his first stock at age 11, Forbes reported. One thing he learned is that stocks can be a sure path to wealth — if you follow the right investment strategy. In Buffett's case, that strategy includes investing for the long term, putting money only into companies and businesses he understands, and focusing on value stocks rather than high flyers. Trump's Road to Riches Trump made most of his money in real estate — a business that he learned from his father, Fred, a millionaire real estate developer in New York City. According to a Forbes analysis of Trump's wealth, he first became a billionaire in 1988. He dropped off Forbes' billionaire list from 1990 to1996, but returned in 1997 and has been on it ever since. Here's a look at Trump's net worth since returning to billionaire status in 1997: 1997: $1.4 billion 2000: $1.7 billion 2005: $2.7 billion 2010: $2.4 billion 2015: $4.5 billion 2020: $2.5 billion 2025 (latest estimate): $5.7 billion As the above chart shows, Trump's net worth has reached its highest point ever since he began his second term in the White House. According to Forbes, he has presided over the 'most lucrative post-presidency in American history, selling his supporters NFTs, coffee-table books and, most importantly, shares of a money-losing social-media venture.' More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on How Much Richer Is Warren Buffett Than Donald Trump? Sign in to access your portfolio
