Your leadership team has spent six weeks wrestling with a decision that will shape the next five years of your organisation. You're weighing whether to open a new logistics hub in Brisbane, renegotiate long-term supplier contracts or double down on your existing Sydney facility. Each option touches fuel prices, port congestion, industrial relations, carbon targets and service level commitments for your largest customers. Everyone has an opinion, but nobody feels completely sure.

You already use fast AI chat models to summarise reports and draft board papers. They're useful, but when you ask for an actual recommendation they give generic answers that try to satisfy every stakeholder at once. You get lists of pros and cons, not a defensible position. When your CFO asks how confident the model is, or which assumptions matter most, the response feels vague. Nobody wants to take a billion‑dollar bet on a paragraph that sounds clever but can't show how it reached its conclusions.

Reasoning-focused models like OpenAI's o1 family aim to close that gap. Instead of answering immediately, they spend more time thinking through intermediate steps, checking work and exploring alternative scenarios before they commit to an answer. OpenAI describes o1 as its first dedicated reasoning model, with a preview released on 12 September 2024 and a full version launched for ChatGPT users on 5 December 2024 (Metz, 2024; OpenAI, 2024). These models are slower and more expensive than general chat models, but they handle complex, multi-step problems far more reliably.

For Australian organisations, this isn't just a technical curiosity. It's the start of a shift from AI as a clever assistant that drafts text to AI as a serious decision-support partner. Used well, reasoning models can help you interrogate scenarios, stress-test strategies and uncover edge cases that traditional reporting would miss. Used carelessly, they can burn budget, frustrate users with latency and create a false sense of certainty if you treat them as oracles.

By January 2025, MIT Technology Review reported that OpenAI had released o3-mini, a faster, cheaper reasoning model that was made available to the free tier of ChatGPT alongside Microsoft Copilot, giving a much wider audience access to deliberate reasoning workflows and trimming latency by roughly 24% while costing about 37% less than o1-mini per input token (MIT Technology Review, January 2025). That moment marked a turning point: their best reasoning stacks were no longer confined to Pro subscriptions.

This article explains how reasoning models differ from fast chat models, where they genuinely add value, how to design content and data that lets them think effectively, and what it really costs to put them into production for high-stakes decisions in Australia. Let's look at where these models genuinely help and where they're more trouble than they're worth.

1. Reasoning Models vs Fast Chat Models

Large language models have always performed some kind of internal reasoning, but early systems such as GPT‑3.5 and the first GPT‑4 deployments were tuned to respond quickly and conversationally. They compressed a huge amount of reasoning into a single pass, which made them fast but brittle on complex tasks. Researchers showed that explicitly asking models to think step by step could dramatically improve performance on maths and logic benchmarks (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022).

Reasoning-focused models formalise this idea. Instead of treating chain-of-thought prompting as an optional trick, they build extended internal deliberation into the model and its runtime. OpenAI's o1 models allocate significantly more test-time compute to each query so the system can explore solution paths, backtrack and self-correct before returning an answer (Robison, 2024). Google and Anthropic have taken similar steps, with Gemini's later generations and Claude 3.5 emphasising deliberate reasoning and tool use rather than pure chat speed (Google, 2024; Anthropic, 2024).

Technical differences

Several technical shifts distinguish reasoning models from fast chat systems.

First, they use more test-time compute. Instead of generating a response in a single forward pass through the network, they run longer sampling procedures, search trees or internal scratchpads that let them consider many intermediate states. Research on test-time scaling shows that allocating more compute to difficult questions can push accuracy closer to human expert levels on maths and programming benchmarks, without retraining the base model (Snell et al., 2024).

Second, they expose internal reasoning traces, at least conceptually. Even when the full chain of thought isn't shown to the user for safety reasons, the model often generates hidden intermediate steps that can be inspected in controlled settings or logged for audit. This gives teams better visibility into how the system decomposed a problem, which assumptions it made and where it might have gone wrong.

Third, reasoning models are trained and evaluated on harder benchmarks. OpenAI reports that o1 outperforms earlier GPT‑4 variants on advanced maths, coding and science tasks, including competitions like the MATH dataset and HumanEval coding benchmark (Hendrycks et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). That doesn't mean they never fail, but it does mean they're explicitly tuned for situations where a shallow pattern match isn't enough.

Finally, they often integrate more tightly with tools. Reasoning models are typically paired with code interpreters, search APIs and domain-specific tools so they can execute actions during their internal deliberation rather than relying purely on static training data. This is crucial for decisions that depend on up-to-date market data, regulatory changes or organisation-specific metrics.

Behavioural differences

From a user's perspective, the most obvious change is latency. Where a fast chat model like GPT‑4o might respond to a short prompt in two or three seconds, reasoning models often take ten to thirty seconds for complex tasks, and in some cases longer (Robison, 2024). They may show a visible thinking phase before returning any text.

The second difference is depth of analysis. When you ask a fast model to evaluate three strategic options, it tends to produce a balanced list of pros and cons that feels generic. A reasoning model is more likely to break the problem into sub-questions, evaluate each scenario against explicit criteria and then argue for a preferred option. It can still be wrong, but its answer usually reflects a more structured thought process.

Third, reasoning models are more consistent across repeated runs on the same complex question. Fast models can swing between different answers depending on sampling randomness. Deliberate reasoning and self-checking tends to narrow that variance, which matters when you want to build repeatable workflows or audit decisions over time (Kadavath et al., 2022).

The trade off is cost and complexity. Reasoning models consume more tokens and often run at higher per-token prices than fast models. The Verge reported that o1-preview's API pricing is several times higher than GPT‑4o for the same number of tokens (Robison, 2024). Organisations need clear criteria for when that premium is justified so they're not paying reasoning prices for quick, low-risk questions.

2. Use Cases Where Deep Reasoning Delivers Value

Not every task needs a reasoning model, and you don't want to upgrade everything just because it's new. If you ask a system to summarise a short email or generate social media copy, a fast chat model is quicker and cheaper. The value of o1-style models appears when you need to synthesise complex information, reason across multiple constraints or explore counterfactual scenarios. Several domains stand out for Australian organisations where it's worth paying for deeper thinking.

Finance and risk

Financial institutions already use machine learning for credit scoring, fraud detection and algorithmic trading. Reasoning models extend this by helping teams interrogate complex scenarios rather than just scoring individual transactions.

For example, a bank exploring changes to its mortgage portfolio can use a reasoning model to simulate how different rate paths, unemployment scenarios and property price movements interact over time. The model can generate narrative explanations, highlight tail risks and cross-reference regulatory capital rules. McKinsey has shown that banks using advanced analytics in risk functions can reduce credit losses and improve capital efficiency, but they also stress the need for strong model governance to avoid overfitting and hidden bias (McKinsey, 2021).

Australian superannuation funds and insurers face similar challenges. They must balance long-term liabilities, climate risk scenarios and regulatory constraints under APRA standards. A reasoning model can help investment committees explore scenario narratives, stress-test asset allocations and document why certain trade offs were chosen. However, those recommendations still need human actuaries and risk officers to validate the assumptions and ensure compliance with local prudential standards.

Healthcare and clinical decision support

Healthcare is one of the most promising but sensitive areas for reasoning models. Clinicians already use decision-support tools that encode guidelines and risk scores, but these systems are rigid and often fail when patients present with multiple comorbidities or atypical histories. The World Health Organization emphasises that AI for health should augment, not replace, clinical judgement and must respect principles of transparency, accountability and equity (WHO, 2021).

Reasoning models can help by synthesising complex clinical notes, guidelines and research into structured options. For instance, a model might help a multidisciplinary team explore treatment plans for an oncology patient who has other chronic conditions, highlighting potential drug interactions and quality-of-life trade offs. Research on large language models for clinical reasoning shows promising results on exam-style questions but also reveals systematic errors when models hallucinate guidelines or misinterpret lab values (Nori et al., 2023).

In Australia, any use of reasoning models in diagnosis or treatment planning must fit within the Therapeutic Goods Administration's framework for software as a medical device and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care's clinical governance standards (TGA, 2021; ACSQHC, 2024). That means clear human oversight, traceable decision logs and rigorous validation against local guidelines.

Logistics, supply chain and infrastructure

Supply chain teams constantly trade off cost, resilience and service levels. Traditional optimisation tools solve well-defined routing or inventory problems, but they struggle when the problem spans many layers of the business. Reasoning models can sit above these optimisation engines, exploring scenario narratives and explaining what might happen under different shocks.

For example, a logistics provider serving Australian retailers might ask a reasoning model to explore the impact of a new distribution centre in Western Sydney versus incremental investment in regional depots. The model can integrate outputs from network optimisation tools, fuel price forecasts, industrial relations risk and state government infrastructure plans, then articulate trade offs in plain language for executives. DHL's research on AI in logistics highlights that combining optimisation algorithms with AI-driven scenario analysis can improve resilience and responsiveness, provided data quality and governance are strong (DHL, 2018).

Australian infrastructure projects, from rail upgrades to renewable energy hubs, face similar complexity. Reasoning models can support project offices by evaluating schedule risks, contract strategies and stakeholder impacts across long time horizons, while keeping a record of the assumptions behind each recommendation.

Policy, regulation and strategy

Public policy decisions often involve conflicting objectives and uncertain evidence. Governments must weigh economic growth against environmental targets, short-term political pressure against long-term resilience. Reasoning models can help policy teams explore structured scenarios, highlight second-order effects and compare how different stakeholder groups are likely to experience a proposed change.

For instance, a state government exploring congestion pricing in a capital city could ask a reasoning model to walk through different price levels, exemptions and investment options, integrating evidence from transport studies and community consultation. The model might not produce a single correct answer, but it can surface edge cases, fairness concerns and implementation risks that might otherwise appear late in the process.

In Australia, any use of AI in public decision-making must align with the Australian Government's AI Ethics Principles and emerging guidance on trustworthy AI, which emphasise fairness, transparency and contestability (Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2024). Reasoning models can support these aims by making assumptions explicit and generating alternative views, but agencies must still ensure human accountability.

Legal analysis and contract review

Legal teams already use AI tools for document review and case law search. Reasoning models extend this by constructing arguments, testing counter-arguments and exploring how a judge or regulator might interpret ambiguous clauses. Early studies of AI-assisted contract review show that models can flag unusual risk allocations and suggest negotiation points, but they also highlight that hallucinated case law remains a serious risk if outputs aren't independently verified (Surden, 2023).

For Australian law firms and in-house counsel, reasoning models are particularly attractive in complex, multi-jurisdictional matters where many statutes and precedents intersect. They can help teams prepare alternative interpretations, identify which facts are likely to be pivotal and draft questions for discovery. However, professional obligations under the Legal Profession Uniform Law and rules of evidence mean that any AI-assisted analysis must be checked thoroughly before being relied on in court or given as formal advice.

Engineering and complex systems

Engineering teams designing large systems, from power grids to software architectures, frequently deal with ambiguous requirements, interdependent components and failure modes that only appear under unusual conditions. Reasoning models can act as sounding boards that explore design options, stress-test assumptions and suggest test cases.

For example, software architects can use reasoning models to evaluate microservice boundaries, data partitioning strategies and resilience patterns, drawing on public best-practice guides from cloud providers (AWS, 2023). Researchers have shown that large language models can assist with program synthesis and bug fixing, but they can also introduce subtle errors if teams accept suggestions uncritically (Chen et al., 2021; Barke et al., 2023).

In safety-critical engineering domains such as rail signalling or aviation, Australian standards and regulators require rigorous verification and validation processes. Reasoning models may help generate design alternatives and test scenarios, but final decisions must still rest with qualified engineers following standards such as ISO 61508 or equivalent sector-specific frameworks.

3. Designing Content and Data for Reasoning Models

Reasoning models are only as good as the information and structure you give them. If you don't set that structure up front, even the best model will wander. Many organisations try o1 or similar systems by pasting a vague question into a chat window, then conclude that the model isn't much better than a fast chat model. To unlock their strengths, you need to design prompts, context and data flows deliberately.

Structured problem presentation

Reasoning models thrive when you give them a clear brief and a well-structured description of the problem. In practical terms, that means:

Stating the decision to be made in one or two sentences.
Listing constraints and hard requirements explicitly.
Providing relevant background documents or data, ideally via retrieval rather than long paste blocks.
Defining success criteria, such as risk thresholds, target ranges or stakeholder priorities.

This mirrors good human decision practice. Frameworks like decision briefs and pre-mortems translate naturally into prompts. You might ask the model to propose two or three options, assess each against agreed criteria and then argue for a preferred choice, while also outlining failure modes.

Context windows and retrieval

Reasoning models with large context windows can ingest long documents, but dumping everything into a single prompt still wastes tokens and increases latency. It's usually better to combine retrieval-augmented generation with reasoning. You let a retrieval system select the most relevant sections of internal documents, then feed those chunks into the model as evidence.

As context windows expand into the millions of tokens for some models, information architecture becomes even more important. Research on large context windows shows that models still struggle when important details are buried in the middle of long documents or repeated inconsistently (Li et al., 2024). Australian organisations should treat their policy libraries, product documentation and data dictionaries as first-class inputs to AI, not dusty intranet pages.

Prompt patterns for deep reasoning

Several prompt patterns work particularly well with reasoning models:

Decompose and solve: Ask the model to break a problem into sub-questions and solve each step before synthesising a recommendation.
Assumption surfacing: Ask the model to list key assumptions behind its answer and mark which ones are most fragile.
Counterfactuals: Ask what would change if specific constraints were relaxed, such as budget caps or regulatory requirements.
Adversarial review: Have the model generate a recommendation, then prompt it as a sceptical reviewer to challenge its own reasoning.

Using consistent prompt templates lets teams compare outputs across decisions and build institutional memory. It also makes it easier to audit how a decision was reached if regulators or boards ask for evidence later.

When to use reasoning vs fast models

You don't need a full reasoning model for every task. A simple decision framework helps teams choose the right tool:

Use fast models when the task is short, low risk and primarily about rephrasing or lightly transforming information, such as summarising a meeting transcript or drafting a follow-up email.
Use reasoning models when the task involves high stakes, many interdependent variables or long time horizons, such as capital allocation, pricing strategy or major policy changes.
Use a hybrid approach when you need both. For example, you might use a fast model to generate initial options, then a reasoning model to stress-test and refine the shortlist.

Teams should also consider user experience. For frontline staff making quick judgements, a thirty-second wait may be unacceptable. In those settings, you can run a fast model by default and escalate to a reasoning model only when the case crosses certain thresholds.

4. Cost and Latency Trade Offs

Reasoning models cost more in two ways. They typically have higher per-token prices and they consume more tokens per query because of their extended internal deliberation. They also keep users waiting longer, which can hurt adoption if you deploy them in interactive workflows without planning.

Pricing and budget impact

OpenAI's public pricing shows that o1's API is several times more expensive per thousand tokens than GPT‑4o, its general chat model (Robison, 2024). Other providers follow a similar pattern. Reasoning-oriented endpoints sit at the premium end of their pricing tables because they use more compute and often run on the latest hardware.

Later releases such as o3-mini offset some of that premium: the updated model was introduced in January 2025 as a faster and cheaper reasoning endpoint available even to free ChatGPT users, slashing the per-input-token rate by about 63% compared to o1-mini while still preserving deliberate reasoning chains (MIT Technology Review, January 2025). That makes it easier to route experimental or high-value queries to reasoning models without triggering sticker shock for finance teams.

For Australian teams that pay in Australian dollars, exchange rate volatility adds another layer. Budgets denominated in AUD can fluctuate month to month as the AUD‑USD rate moves, even if token usage stays flat. Local cloud billing arrangements and reserved capacity discounts can soften this, but finance teams still need to model a range of cost scenarios rather than a single point estimate.

One practical approach is to classify workloads into tiers:

Everyday assistance: Low-risk tasks handled by cheaper models.
Important but routine: Tasks where a mix of fast and reasoning calls is acceptable.
High-stakes reasoning: Scenarios reserved for o1 or equivalent, with clear approval and monitoring.

By routing only high-value queries to reasoning models, organisations can keep total spend manageable while still benefiting from improved decision quality where it matters most.

Latency and user experience

Users will forgive slow responses if they feel the system's genuinely thinking on their behalf, but they need clear expectations. Research on human-computer interaction suggests that waits longer than ten seconds without feedback feel frustrating, while progress indicators and partial results can make longer waits tolerable (Nielsen, 1993).

Design patterns that help include:

Showing an explicit thinking state with an estimated range for completion.
Letting users queue complex questions and receive results via email or notifications when ready.
Providing quick, approximate answers from a fast model while the reasoning model works in the background, clearly labelled as preliminary.

Backend architectures also matter. Reasoning models can benefit from asynchronous execution, job queues and careful concurrency controls to avoid spikes in demand overwhelming API limits. Australian organisations that operate across multiple time zones should monitor peak usage windows and consider regional deployments to keep latency reasonable for users outside the east coast.

Cost-benefit analysis for Australian businesses

The real question isn't whether o1 is expensive in isolation, but whether it improves decisions enough to justify its cost. Studies of AI adoption in Australia suggest that organisations already see substantial revenue benefits from AI when it's implemented systematically. The National AI Centre reported average revenue uplifts of around A$361,000 for businesses adopting AI, with benefits concentrated in firms that integrated AI into core processes rather than isolated pilots (National AI Centre, 2023).

If a reasoning model helps an infrastructure company avoid a single poorly structured contract, or helps a bank avoid a mispriced risk segment, the savings can dwarf annual API costs. The challenge is to identify those leverage points and measure outcomes. That means tracking not just model usage, but also decision quality metrics such as project overruns avoided, write-offs reduced or customer churn improvements attributable to better decisions.

5. Tooling and Evaluation for Reasoning Quality

Because reasoning models handle high-stakes questions, they demand more rigorous evaluation than fast chat models used for low-risk content generation. You need evidence that the system helps experts reach better decisions, not just that it sounds smart.

Benchmark performance and limitations

Public benchmarks like MATH, GSM8K and HumanEval are useful indicators of progress, but they don't fully capture the messy, domain-specific problems that organisations care about (Hendrycks et al., 2021; Cobbe et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). Reasoning models that top academic leaderboards can still hallucinate regulation, misread financial statements or misinterpret local policy.

Teams should treat benchmark scores as a starting point. When evaluating reasoning models for a particular use case, create custom test sets that reflect real tasks. For example, a compliance team might assemble historical cases where decisions were tricky, then compare how different models analyse those cases. A logistics team might use past disruption events to test whether a model spots critical vulnerabilities.

Human-in-the-loop evaluation

Human experts need to remain in the loop both during evaluation and in production. Studies of AI-assisted decision-making show that people can be overconfident in AI suggestions, especially when the system is usually right (Buçinca et al., 2021). To counter this, organisations can:

Ask evaluators to rate not just correctness, but also explanation quality and clarity about uncertainty.
Include adversarial tests where the model is given misleading or incomplete context to see how it behaves.
Encourage experts to write rationales for when they agree or disagree with the model, building a library of patterns over time.

Evaluation should also distinguish between different failure types. A model that occasionally says it doesn't know may be safer than one that confidently fabricates answers. Governance frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework stress the importance of identifying and mitigating specific risks rather than chasing generic accuracy scores (NIST, 2023).

Monitoring in production

Once a reasoning model is in production, monitoring should track:

Usage volumes by team and use case.
Average and tail latencies for different query types.
Escalation rates where humans override or discard AI recommendations.
Patterns in errors or complaints, especially from front-line staff or customers.

Technical monitoring should sit alongside governance monitoring. For high-stakes applications, boards and risk committees should receive periodic summaries of how reasoning models are used, what incidents have occurred and what mitigations are in place. This aligns with emerging expectations in Australian prudential regulation and global frameworks like the EU AI Act, which require ongoing oversight of high-risk AI systems (European Parliament, 2024).

6. Transparency, Governance and Human Oversight

Reasoning models raise the stakes for governance because they're often deployed where decisions have significant financial, legal or human consequences. Australian organisations can't treat them as experimental toys. They need clear accountability structures and evidence that decisions remain contestable.

Explainability and documentation

Perfect transparency is unrealistic for large neural networks, but you can still improve explainability at several levels:

Prompt and context logs that show what information the model saw when forming its answer.
Versioning of models, prompts and retrieval pipelines so teams can reconstruct the environment that produced a particular recommendation.
Structured outputs that highlight key factors, assumptions and trade offs explicitly rather than hiding them in long paragraphs.

OpenAI's reasoning models generate internal thinking tokens that aren't always exposed to end users, but organisations can still log high-level reasoning steps and summaries to support audits (OpenAI, 2024). For regulated sectors, those logs form part of an evidence trail that can be reviewed by regulators, auditors or courts if a decision is challenged.

Human control and escalation

Governance frameworks consistently emphasise that humans must retain meaningful control over AI-supported decisions. The EU AI Act requires human oversight for high-risk AI systems, including the ability to override or interrupt outputs (European Parliament, 2024). Australian guidance points in a similar direction, stressing human accountability for outcomes even when AI is involved (Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2024).

In practice, this means:

Defining which decisions AI can support, which it can propose and which it must never make autonomously.
Setting thresholds for automatic escalation to human review, such as decisions above a certain dollar value or affecting vulnerable groups.
Training staff to challenge AI outputs, not just accept them. That includes teaching them how models can fail, and giving them safe channels to raise concerns.

Reasoning models can actually support better oversight if they're prompted to surface uncertainties and alternative views rather than present a single, confident answer. Teams should design prompts that encourage caution rather than bravado.

Compliance with Australian regulation

Australian organisations deploying reasoning models must navigate several regulatory layers:

Privacy law, including Privacy Act reforms that strengthen requirements around automated decision-making transparency and individual rights (OAIC, 2024).
Sector-specific regulation, such as APRA prudential standards for financial services, TGA rules for medical devices and ACCC guidance on unfair practices and misleading conduct.
Emerging AI-specific standards, such as voluntary AI safety guidelines and potential future accreditation schemes.

A practical governance approach is to treat reasoning models as part of an organisation's broader risk and compliance program, not just an IT project. That means involving legal, risk, compliance and frontline teams early, documenting intended uses and limitations, and updating risk registers as capabilities evolve.

7. The Future of Reasoning AI (2025–2026)

Reasoning models are still young. OpenAI's o1 series, Google's latest Gemini releases and Anthropic's Claude 3.5 represent first-generation attempts to make AI think more deliberately. Google’s November 2025 Gemini 3 launch, for example, highlights how vendors are now pairing multimodal reasoning with “generative interfaces” that assemble dynamic, magazine-style responses and embedded agents that can orchestrate multi-step workflows inside the app, showing that reasoning capability is already morphing into immersive decision-workspaces (MIT Technology Review, November 2025). Over the next one to two years, several trends are likely.

Faster, cheaper reasoning

Vendors are already working on making reasoning more efficient so that it becomes usable in more interactive settings. Research on dynamic test-time compute suggests that models can allocate more effort only when inputs are difficult, keeping simpler tasks fast and cheap (Snell et al., 2024). As hardware improves and inference techniques mature, Australian organisations should expect the cost and latency gap between reasoning and fast models to narrow.

That doesn't mean the premium disappears entirely. High-end reasoning capabilities will probably remain more expensive than basic chat models, just as high-performance compute clusters cost more than standard servers. But the threshold where it makes sense to use them will move closer to everyday workloads.

Richer tool use and multimodal reasoning

Future reasoning models will be more tightly integrated with tools, data warehouses and multimodal inputs. Instead of reasoning only over text, they will combine structured data, charts, geospatial information and even video feeds. Google and others already highlight multimodal reasoning in their model roadmaps (Google, 2024).

For Australian organisations, this opens possibilities such as:

Combining satellite imagery, weather data and grid telemetry to support renewable energy planning.
Analysing CCTV footage, transaction logs and access control data together for security investigations.
Using speech and text transcripts from contact centres to reason about systemic customer pain points.

These capabilities will amplify both the upside and the governance challenge. Multimodal data raises new privacy, consent and bias questions that organisations must address.

Collaborative reasoning with humans and agents

Reasoning models will increasingly work alongside human teams and other AI agents rather than operating as solitary black boxes. Multi-agent systems can assign different roles to models, such as proposer, critic and safety reviewer, and then combine their outputs. Research on deliberative AI and debate-style setups suggests that structured disagreement can improve reliability on difficult problems (OpenAI, 2023; Du et al., 2023).

For businesses, this could look like AI workspaces where a reasoning model drafts a plan, a second model checks for compliance or equity issues and humans orchestrate the process. Australian teams will need to design collaboration patterns that fit their culture and regulatory obligations.

Capability uplift inside organisations

Finally, the greatest long-term impact may be on how organisations think, not just what models can do. Teams that learn to frame problems precisely, capture assumptions and run structured experiments with reasoning models will build a durable advantage. Those that treat o1 as a smarter chatbot may see little benefit.

Skills that matter include:

Prompt and workflow design for complex decisions.
Data stewardship and knowledge management so models have high-quality context.
Governance literacy so product owners can align AI initiatives with regulatory expectations.

Australian businesses that invest in these skills now will be better placed to adopt later generations of reasoning models without costly rework.

Key Takeaways

Reasoning models like OpenAI's o1 spend more time thinking through intermediate steps, which makes them slower and more expensive than fast chat models but significantly better on complex, multi-step problems.
The biggest value appears in domains such as finance, healthcare, logistics, policy, legal analysis and complex engineering, where decisions involve many interdependent variables and long time horizons.
To get useful answers, organisations must design prompts, context and data flows carefully, using structured decision briefs, retrieval and deliberate prompt patterns instead of ad hoc questions.
Cost and latency are real constraints. Teams should route only high-value, high-stakes queries to reasoning models and design user experiences that make longer waits acceptable.
Evaluation and governance need to match the stakes. That means domain-specific test sets, human-in-the-loop review, production monitoring and alignment with frameworks like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, EU AI Act and Australian AI Ethics Principles.
Over the next two years, reasoning models will likely become faster, cheaper and more tightly integrated with tools and multimodal data, rewarding Australian organisations that invest early in decision-focused AI capability rather than treating these systems as novelty chatbots.

---

Sources