What the research says
Published studies of generative AI at work, including Statistics Canada's survey of Canadian businesses, each shown with its sample, its task and its caveat. None of these figures is an iSystematic result.
The rule
iSystematic publishes figures from published studies, never its own results. Each figure shows what was measured, on whom, in which task, and the caveat that has to sit beside it.
At least one counter-finding is always shown beside the gains. These figures describe generative AI in studies; they say nothing about the effect of an iSystematic workflow, solution or pack.
Every figure links to its original source. The register is rechecked against the originals each quarter, and a new study is added only after the original has been read.
Where studies found gains
Four studies that measured time, output or quality with generative AI, from controlled experiments to a survey of US workers.
Published studies, not our results. Ours will come from documented pilots.
Where studies found the opposite
Two results that cut against the gains: experienced developers who were slower with AI than they believed, and consultants who were less often right when the task lay outside the AI's capability.
Published studies, not our results. Ours will come from documented pilots.
In healthcare
One randomised trial of ambient AI scribes, which draft clinical notes. It measured physicians, not front desks.
Published studies, not our results. Ours will come from documented pilots.
In software engineering
One controlled experiment on a single coding task. It is not representative of small-business work, and iSystematic cites it only for enterprise engineering work.
Published studies, not our results. Ours will come from documented pilots.
Adoption in Canada
Statistics Canada's survey of how many Canadian businesses use AI, and what the businesses that use it say it changed.
Published studies, not our results. Ours will come from documented pilots.
How to read a figure
A figure from a study is only as useful as the three things printed beside it.
The sample
Who was measured, how many, and how they were chosen. A randomised trial, a staggered rollout and a self-reported survey carry different weight.
The task
What people were doing when they were measured. A result on a short writing task says little about long, unfamiliar work, and a coding experiment says little about a front desk.
The caveat
What limits the result, as the source itself says: one firm, one tool, self-reported time, a preprint. Read it before quoting the number.
How iSystematic's own figures will come
iSystematic's own figures will come only from documented pilots, measured before and after: task time including human review, draft acceptance, corrections, escalations, duplicates, failures and cost. This page shows none yet.
We will publish what the measurement shows, including no change or a worse result, and never select only the good results. Each result will state the number of organisations, the task and the period, and will sit beside the published studies, never merged with them. A result is published only with the client's permission.
Where to go next
Pilot
iSystematic's Pilot puts one solution live for one team for six weeks, measured against a baseline from day one: the only route to a published result.
Read more →Automation Assessment
iSystematic's Automation Assessment: two weeks, a fixed fee, ten candidate tasks scored, three recommended solutions and a plan to measure the baseline.
Read more →How we build
How iSystematic builds: every solution uses the same deposited frameworks. See what each part decides, what the client keeps, and each specification's DOI.
Read more →Workflows
iSystematic workflows run in your own Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity or Grok account: a free card first, then a pack, a setup call and monthly care if needed.
Read more →Insights
iSystematic's writing currently lives on nabeelkhan.com as dispatches, beside the books and frameworks it draws on. This page links there instead of copying.
Read more →