- Result of the engagement
- AI adoption in a team
Eight weeks after the training, 21 of 30 people were using AI regularly
The company trained 30 people, but a month later only eight were using AI regularly in their work. The owner wanted to know what to do so that the knowledge from the training would show up in daily work.
Problem
The company trained 30 people, but a month later only eight were using AI regularly in their professional tasks.
The change
The company named a person responsible, management provided the tools and one hour a week for practice, and a consultant ran short reviews of real tasks.
Effect
After eight weeks 21 people were using AI regularly. Two of the six selected uses had documented working rules and a named owner.
- Key result
- The criterion for regular use was met by 21 of 30 people, that is 70% of participants. This is an observation after a whole set of measures was introduced, without a control group.
Measurement
| Metric | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| People using AI regularly | 8 of 30 | 21 of 30 | 70% |
| Uses with rules and an owner | — | 2 of 6 | |
| Practice time provided by management | — | 1 h a week |
Basis of measurement: Four-week task records for all 30 participants before the change and after eight weeks, in the same group. Criterion: at least one completed professional task a week whose result was checked and used.
How we measured
First a definition of use was agreed: at least one completed professional task a week whose result was checked and used. Simply logging into a tool or experimenting with prompts did not meet the criterion. The first measurement used four-week task records for all 30 participants.
What we changed
The company named a person responsible for what came next. Management provided the tools needed and one hour a week for practice. A consultant ran short task reviews, helping define the expected result and how to check it. The team worked on real duties: preparing material, summaries and answers for clients.
Measurement and results
After eight weeks the records from the last four weeks were assessed in the same group. The criterion for regular use was met by 21 people, that is 70% of participants. Of the six selected uses, two already had documented working rules and a named owner, and were used weekly. Three remained in testing, and one was set aside after it turned out that checking the result took too much time.
The move from eight to 21 regular users was an observation after a whole set of measures was introduced. Without a control group it was not attributed solely to the consultations, the licences or the training. Nor was the rise in usage itself treated as proof of time saved.
What the owner gets
The owner could see who uses AI, which tasks moved into regular work and what still needs a decision. The next stage covered measuring time and quality in the two working uses. Developing the use of the tools became a process with clear accountability.
- Conclusion
- The change was not attributed solely to the consultations, the licences or the training. Nor was the rise in usage itself treated as proof of time saved.