Australia’s Productivity Problem & Why CFOs in Mid-Market Businesses Are Central to Solving It

Executive Summary:

Australia’s productivity challenge is no longer an abstract economic issue. It is directly shaping inflation, interest rates, labour costs, and margin pressure for mid-market businesses.

At the CEO Institute Summit series across Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne, one theme was consistent. Until productivity improves, the economy will continue cycling through inflationary pressure, higher interest rates, and government intervention.

Artificial intelligence is often positioned as the solution. Not as magic, but as a potential circuit breaker. AI creates the opportunity to increase output without adding headcount or relying on public spending.

For CFOs in Australian businesses with 50-200 employees, this creates both opportunity and risk. AI only delivers value when it creates real capacity and that capacity is redeployed into revenue, margin protection, or risk reduction.

This article explains: 

• Why productivity is the underlying economic constraint Australia keeps hitting
• Why AI must be treated as an economic lever, not a technology experiment
• Where traditional managed services models struggle to deliver productivity gains
• How productivity-led managed services, through CORE, are structurally different
• How CFOs should govern AI and productivity using P&L-aligned metrics
• Productivity is not activity reduced. Productivity is capacity created and redeployed. That distinction matters.

Australia’s Productivity Constraint in Plain Language

At the Sydney CEO Institute Summit, Paul Bloxham, Senior Economist at HSBC, framed Australia’s economic challenge clearly:

Australia has a supply and demand problem.

Government spending continues to drive demand. Productivity growth has remained weak. When demand grows faster than supply, prices rise. Inflation follows. Interest rates increase to slow the economy. That slowdown creates pressure, which often leads to further government intervention.

The cycle repeats.

This is not primarily a demand problem. It is a productivity problem.

For CFOs, productivity determines how efficiently labour, capital, and technology convert into revenue and profit. When productivity stalls, costs rise faster than output. Margins compress. Financial risk increases.

Interest rates and wage pressure are symptoms. Productivity is the constraint.

Why AI Is Being Framed as an Economic Lever

Productivity is not politically attractive, but it is economically unavoidable. This is why AI has become central to macroeconomic and boardroom conversations.

AI represents one of the few credible ways to increase output without proportionally increasing labour or public spending. Globally, significant capital is being invested in AI infrastructure. That investment reflects belief, not guaranteed outcomes.

AI only matters if it changes how work is done inside businesses. For CFOs, the relevant question is not whether AI is impressive. The question is whether AI creates capacity, whether that capacity is redeployed, and whether the impact shows up in the P&L. Time saved is not ROI unless that time is reallocated.

Why CFOs Sit at the Centre of the Productivity Question

In Australian businesses with 50–200 employees, the CFO role is rarely limited to finance.

CFOs typically own:

• Risk and compliance
• Vendor and partner selection
• Technology spend governance
• Accountability for capability gaps that cannot be filled internally

AI introduces new forms of risk. Data governance, security, regulatory exposure, and financial justification all sit within the CFO’s remit. This is why productivity cannot be delegated solely to IT or innovation teams. Productivity outcomes must be owned by finance, even if execution sits elsewhere. Execution happens through operating partners. Governance and measurement determine success.

Turning AI Into Measurable Productivity Inside the Business

The productivity gains Australia needs will not come from tools alone. They will come from how businesses align incentives, accountability, and measurement. Based on the Summit discussions and our experience with mid-market organisations, four shifts are required.

1: Expanding IT Accountability From Stability to Productivity

Historically, IT functions have been measured on stability. Systems stay online. Incidents are resolved. Security risks are minimised. These outcomes remain essential. But stability alone does not create productivity.

Technology now underpins every core function. Finance systems, CRM platforms, workflow tools, and data environments directly affect how fast teams can operate and how accurately decisions are made.

Effective IT management must now deliver: 

• Governance and compliance
• Security and resilience
• Measurable productivity enablement

A stable system that does not create capacity is not fully effective.

2: Why Traditional MSP Models Often Stall on Productivity

This is where many businesses get stuck. Traditional managed service providers are not broken. They are optimised for a different problem.

Most MSP models are designed around:

• Stability
• Ticket throughput
• Seat-based or effort-based pricing

Those incentives reward availability and responsiveness. They do not naturally reward productivity gains. When productivity improves, ticket volumes often fall. From a traditional MSP perspective, that can look like reduced activity rather than success.

This creates a structural gap. Productivity initiatives become side projects. Automation stalls. AI adoption remains experimental. This is the gap CORE exists to solve.

3: How CORE Is Structurally Different

CORE is a productivity-led managed services model, not a traditional MSP overlay. CORE is designed to align incentives around productivity outcomes.

Specifically:

• Productivity requests are treated as first-class work, not side projects
• Success is measured in capacity created, not tickets closed
• CFOs are given visibility into where automation and AI impact the P&L
• Governance, measurement, and stopping rules are explicit
• CORE maps directly to the three productivity shifts businesses need:
• Productivity-oriented IT management
• Managed services that go beyond reactive support
• Financial framing of AI and automation

This is not marketing differentiation. It is structural differentiation.

4: Measuring AI in Financial Terms

AI adoption accelerates when its financial impact is clear. At the Brisbane CEO Institute Summit, Ross shared examples where AI initiatives succeeded because they were framed around commercial outcomes.

At the end of 2025, First Focus offered an AI engagement focused purely on ROI. Over 30 submissions were received. Five were selected.

The successful submissions all answered the same questions:

• What process is changing?
• What capacity is being created?
• Where does that capacity appear in the P&L?

Time saved only mattered when it was redeployed into revenue, margin protection, or risk reduction.

Productivity equals capacity created, not activity reduced.

Making Productivity a Monthly Operating Discipline

Productivity improvement must become an operating rhythm, not a one-off initiative.

Each month, leadership teams should ask:

• What capacity did we create this month?
• Where was that capacity redeployed?
• What automation or AI initiative delivered it?
• What governance or security improvement enabled faster execution?

Strong governance does not slow AI adoption. It enables it.

AI accelerates results. It does not own them.

Final Thought for CFOs

Australia’s productivity problem will not be solved by technology alone. Businesses that win will be those that align ownership, incentives, and measurement around productivity.

CFOs own the outcome. MSPs execute the operating layer. CORE provides governance, measurement, and discipline. AI accelerates what already works.

That is how productivity moves from theory to results.

Learn More About CORE