A deep dive into Harvard research on the future of complex decision-making
Good judgment is supposed to be one of the last human advantages. We trust experienced people to read between the lines, understand context, weigh imperfect information, and make nuanced calls that machines cannot. It’s a reassuring idea, but it’s also one that new research has put under serious pressure. In “Who Is a Better Matchmaker? Human vs. Algorithmic Judge Assignment in a High-Stakes Startup Competition,” a team including Jacqueline Lane of the HBS AI Institute, asked a pointed question: could an AI algorithm assign expert judges to startup ventures as well as a seasoned human administrator? To find out, they built one, deployed it in an actual competition, and measured its performance. As the results show, the balance between human expertise and algorithmic scale may finally be tipping away from humans.
Why This Matters
Any organization that routinely matches people to problems, such as assigning consultants to client engagements, routing complex customer cases to the right specialists, evaluating grant applicants, or even pairing mentors with early-career employees, faces a structurally similar opportunity as in the Innovation Challenge. This study suggests that a well-designed AI, especially if it is trained for its specific domain and evaluated against real-world outcomes, can match expert human performance while dramatically reducing the time and coordination costs involved. For business leaders and executives, this shows a clear AI use case to make high-volume judgment processes faster and more consistent without sacrificing quality.
Link to the HBS AI Institute Insight Article
Link to the Research Paper
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date with HBS AI Institute news and research