Workday wants a slice of customers’ labour budget that its AI agents could replace
Workday wants customers to pay for its AI agents from labour and outsourcing budgets as well as IT budgets, arguing that automation could reduce spending on outsourced services. The shift could also change how the company charges: its chief executive expects AI agent fees to rise with usage, alongside the existing employee-based software subscriptions.
At Workday’s annual investor conference in Las Vegas, Chief AI Officer Joel Hellermark said self-service agents had raised resolution rates for common tasks by 25 per cent. The company has expanded AI access to HR and finance systems through tools that operate within its permissions, approval and audit controls, and can draw on data shared with platforms including Snowflake, Databricks and Salesforce. Chief executive Aneel Bhusri said AI is also helping Workday grow without matching increases in hiring, and that he wants responsibility for AI centralised to speed development.
- Workday wants AI charges to draw on labour and outsourcing budgets.
- Its CEO expects agent fees to rise with usage.
- Workday says self-service agents raised common-task resolution by 25 per cent.
New here? Start with this
Workday sells software that organisations use to manage human resources and finance, including tasks such as handling staff requests and processing expenses. Its systems are used by employees and managers, and can connect with data held by other business software providers.
AI agents are tools designed to carry out tasks or answer requests with less direct human input. In HR and finance, they may use company data to respond to routine queries, subject to access rules and approval checks. Automating some work could affect how much organisations spend on staff or outside service providers.
The issue matters because companies often weigh software costs against the cost of doing work themselves or paying contractors. Workday’s approach also raises questions about how customers are charged for AI, and how software firms organise and grow their own businesses as they adopt it.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Workday can argue that if its agents resolve routine HR and finance tasks or reduce outsourced work, customers should be able to fund them from the budgets they replace. Usage-based fees could align charges with the value customers receive, while keeping agents within existing permissions and audit controls may allow automation without abandoning oversight.
The case against
Customers can argue that shifting AI costs into labour or outsourcing budgets may obscure the technology’s total cost and make savings harder to verify, especially if fees rise with usage. Automating work could also affect jobs and increase dependence on a vendor’s systems, so buyers may reasonably demand clear evidence of returns, strong controls and scrutiny of how much authority agents receive.