As part of the bidding process, I was given a short, paid, time-limited assignment where I was required to use AI. I was asked to read a body of material, complete several convergent tasks, and show the prompts I used to get there. On one level, the exercise was simple: a small project designed to signal whether I could handle a larger one. But the deeper test wasn’t just whether I could do the work. It was whether I could do the work this way.
I won the business.
But the experience stayed with me because it clarified something that has been building for a while: In some parts of the market, AI fluency is no longer a side skill. It’s becoming part of how professional capability is judged.
I don’t think I won because I had the strongest résumé. I was likely competing against other experienced professionals. I don’t think I won on price, either. I think I won because I could demonstrate something the client now considered valuable: not just subject-matter expertise and experience, but the ability to use AI effectively inside a disciplined, professional process.
That is a different standard than the one many of us were working under even a year ago.
What Prompted the Shift?
Not long ago, AI still felt like something to explain carefully. A client might ask whether you used it out of curiosity, skepticism, or concern. In some cases, the subtext was, Please tell me a machine isn’t doing the work I am paying for. In others, it was simply, Do you understand this technology?
That ambiguity is fading.
In some settings, clients are beginning to assume that capable professionals know how to use these tools. More than that, they are beginning to evaluate for it as a working capability.
Can you absorb a body of material quickly? Can you frame the problem clearly? Can you use AI to accelerate the process without lowering the quality of thinking? Can you work transparently? Can you get to a stronger answer faster?
The prompts matter too. The client didn’t just want the answer. They wanted to see how I approached the problem, how I structured the work, how I refined the output, and how I used the tools available. The prompts were evidence of method. In essence, the market now cares about what you know AND how you work.
Implications for Innovation Practitioners
For years, many organizations have evaluated talent and partners based on familiar signals: experience, credentials, sector knowledge, strategic framing, and communication skills. Now these are increasingly being joined by another question: Can this person operate effectively in an AI-enabled environment?
That doesn’t mean using a chatbot or producing machine-written work and calling it innovation. It means knowing how to use AI to accelerate research, expand options, test assumptions, pressure-test ideas, and move from ambiguity to insight more quickly. It means using tools to improve the process, not to replace the thinking.
For innovation practitioners, their work has always depended on synthesis, pattern recognition, reframing, and rapid iteration. AI can strengthen those capabilities when it’s used well. It can also create noise, false confidence, and generic thinking when it’s used poorly. In other words, the advantage isn’t AI alone, it’s judgment combined with AI.
For Independent Consultants and Solopreneurs
If you work independently, this shift matters immediately.
You don’t need to use AI in every final deliverable. In many cases, you shouldn’t. But if you are still treating AI as optional to your process, you may be treating your competitiveness as optional too.
The benefit isn’t speed, though speed matters. It’s the ability to move through more information, test more angles, sharpen ideas more quickly, and arrive at stronger outputs with less friction. Used well, AI doesn’t replace expertise, but it gives expertise leverage.
In today’s market, you may never know why you lost a client or didn’t land a new one. Clients rarely say, We hired someone else because they showed us a more capable AI process. They simply choose someone else. The market rarely declares a new standard before it starts enforcing it.
For independents, then, AI fluency is moving from advantage to expectation.
For Innovation Agencies
For agencies, the implications are broader. AI doesn’t just affect workflow. It puts pressure on the logic of billing and value creation.
If research, synthesis, ideation, drafting, and iteration can all happen faster, what exactly is the client paying for when work is still priced through the old language of time and effort? This is where AI is likely to create the most friction. Not because agencies become less useful, but because they will need to explain their usefulness differently.
The firms that adapt best will be the ones that get clearer about what clients are really buying. Not hours. Not visible effort. Judgment. Better options. Strategic clarity. Better pattern recognition. Faster learning. Better decisions.
In that sense, AI may accelerate a shift that was already underway: away from billing for activity and toward pricing for value.
If your business depends on helping clients see around corners, frame opportunities, and move faster, then AI should strengthen your offer. But it will also make weak process, inflated timelines, and vague value propositions harder to defend.
For Corporate Innovation Practitioners
Inside large organizations, this shift may still feel uneven. There are legal policies to navigate, tools to approve, governance questions to settle, and real concerns about quality, risk, and intellectual property. That is understandable. But it can also create a false sense that there is more time than there really is.
Outside the company, the market is moving faster. Independent workers and smaller firms are already upskilling because they have to. They are learning by necessity. They are building capability because demand is already rewarding it. That doesn’t mean internal teams should rush toward every tool without discipline. It does mean they should pay attention to where the pressure is showing up first.
For corporate practitioners, the takeaway isn’t panic. It’s preparation. Even if your current role doesn’t yet require strong AI fluency, future roles almost certainly will. Whether through internal change, external competition, or career transition, the expectation is likely to arrive.
The Key Takeaway: The Speed of Adaptability
The most important lesson I took from that assignment is that the client wanted evidence of adaptability.
They wanted proof that I could absorb material quickly, work within constraints, use the tools intelligently, and still apply judgment. That is different from asking whether someone is “good at AI.” Plenty of people can generate acceptable output. Far fewer can use these tools in a disciplined way that improves thinking, strengthens process, and produces better results.
The lesson here isn’t that experience no longer matters. It’s that experience alone is no longer enough. In some corners of the market, AI fluency is no longer experimental or optional. It’s becoming part of how readiness, adaptability, and value are judged.
The question is no longer whether AI belongs in the workflow. The more useful question is whether you, your team, or your partners know how to use it in a way that improves the work.
Because increasingly, that is what the market is testing for.
Click here for more columns by Gail Martino; if you enjoy this content, please consider connecting with Gail Martino on LinkedIn.
