量化企业AI转型差距，评估其价值创造与风险。
The AI Transformation Gap Index (AITG): An Empirical Framework for Measuring AI Transformation Opportunity, Disruption Risk, and Value Creation at the Industry and Firm Level
- 构建动态行业能力边界，衡量企业当前与前沿的AI差距。
- 将转型差距映射为可量化的财务价值、执行风险与竞争威胁。
- 适用于投资决策、战略规划者，尤其关注AI落地实效的企业。
尽管资本大量投入AI项目，但目前缺乏可验证的实证框架来衡量企业在AI准备度和部署水平上相对于竞争对手的位置，也无法将该位置转化为可审计的财务结果。实践中，私募股权团队、管理咨询公司和企业战略部门依赖定性判断和临时的成熟度标签，这些工具在跨行业间不可比，且缺乏可观测的经济数据支撑。本文提出人工智能转型差距指数（AITG），一个综合实证框架，用于衡量企业当前AI部署与其随时间变化、受行业约束的能力前沿之间的距离，并将该距离映射为美元计价的价值创造、不确定性下的执行可行性以及竞争颠覆风险。五个模块协同工作：跨行业标准化（IASS）、动态能力上限（AFC）、基于轨迹的企业评分（IFS）、CES瓶颈价值分解（VCB）及行动不作为的竞争力危险度量（ADRI）。框架在22个行业垂直领域校准，并应用于14家上市公司公开文件。回溯性建构效度检验显示，AITG得分与观测到的息税折旧摊销前利润（EBITDA）利润率扩张的斯皮尔曼等级相关系数为0.818（n=10），方向一致但不足以证明因果关系。一个反直觉发现是：最大的AI转型差距并未带来最高的价值密度，因实施摩擦、CES瓶颈和时间滞后会削弱宽差距的理论潜力。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Despite the scale of capital being deployed toward AI initiatives, no empirical framework currently exists for benchmarking where a firm stands relative to competitors in AI readiness and deployment, or for translating that position into auditable financial outcomes. In practice, private equity deal teams, management consultants, and corporate strategists have relied on qualitative judgment and ad-hoc maturity labels; tools that are neither comparable across industries nor grounded in observable economic data. This paper introduces the AI Transformation Gap Index (AITG), a composite empirical framework that measures the distance between a firm's current AI deployment and a time varying, industry constrained capability frontier, then maps that distance to dollar denominated value creation, execution feasibility under uncertainty, and competitive disruption risk. Five linked modules address this gap: cross industry normalization (IASS), a dynamic capability ceiling that evolves with frontier capabilities (AFC), trajectory based firm scoring with integrated execution risk (IFS), a CES bottleneck value decomposition mapping gap scores to enterprise value (VCB), and a competitive hazard measure for inaction (ADRI). I calibrate the framework for 22 industry verticals and apply it to 14 public companies using public filings. A retrospective construct validity exercise correlating AITG scores with observed EBITDA margin expansion yields Spearman rho_s = 0.818 (n = 10), directionally consistent with predictions though insufficient for causal identification. A counterintuitive result emerges: the largest AI transformation gaps do not produce the highest value density, because implementation friction, CES bottlenecks, and timing lags erode the theoretical upside of wide gaps.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。