NewKerala.com

40% of AI Time Savings Lost to Rework, Reveals New Productivity Paradox

A new global report reveals a significant productivity paradox where nearly 40% of the time employees save using AI is lost to correcting its mistakes. The burden of this rework falls disproportionately on younger employees and daily users, who must review AI outputs as carefully as human work. A major disconnect exists, as most leaders prioritize skills training but only a fraction of struggling employees have access to it, with job roles largely unchanged for the AI era. The research concludes that successful organizations treat saved time strategically, reinvesting in people and enabling strategic thinking instead of just more tasks.

Key Points: AI Productivity Paradox: 40% of Time Savings Lost to Rework

  • 85% save 1-7 hrs weekly with AI
  • 40% of AI time savings lost to rework
  • 46% of heaviest rework done by 25-34 age group
  • 89% of firms haven't updated most job roles for AI
2 min read

Nearly 40% of AI time savings are lost to rework: Report

New report finds AI creates a false sense of productivity as 40% of time saved is lost to fixing AI errors, highlighting a training and job structure gap.

"too many AI tools push the hard questions of trust, accuracy, and repeatability back onto individual users - Gerrit Kazmaier"

Mumbai, January 15

New global research released by Workday reveals a significant "productivity paradox" where organizations are failing to capture the full value of artificial intelligence. While the study, titled "Beyond Productivity: Measuring the Real Value of AI," found that 85% of employees report saving between one and seven hours per week using AI tools, nearly 40% of those time savings are currently being lost to rework. This loss stems from employees having to fix mistakes, rewrite content, and verify outputs from generic AI tools, creating what the report describes as a "false sense of productivity".

The burden of this rework is not distributed evenly across the workforce. According to the data, employees aged 25-34 bear the heaviest load, making up 46% of those dealing with the highest levels of AI correction. Furthermore, those who use the technology most frequently are under the most strain; 77% of daily AI users report reviewing AI-generated work just as carefully as, or even more carefully than, work produced by humans. This friction suggests that while AI increases capacity, it is not yet consistently delivering better results because job structures and skills training have not evolved at the same pace.

A significant disconnect exists between leadership priorities and the actual employee experience regarding AI readiness. Although 66% of leaders identify skills training as a top priority, only 37% of the employees struggling with the most rework report having access to such training. Additionally, 89% of organizations have updated fewer than half of their job roles to reflect new AI capabilities, meaning many "employees are using 2025 tools inside 2015 job structures". Currently, companies are more likely to reinvest AI-driven savings back into technology (39%) rather than into the development of their people (30%).

Gerrit Kazmaier, president of product and technology at Workday, noted that "too many AI tools push the hard questions of trust, accuracy, and repeatability back onto individual users". He emphasized that the goal should be for AI to handle the "complex work under the hood" so that employees can focus on judgment and creativity.

The research indicates that the most successful organizations treat saved time as a strategic resource, with employees who see positive outcomes being far more likely to have received increased skills training and to use their extra time for strategic thinking rather than just taking on more tasks.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

A
Arjun K
The stat about 89% of organizations not updating job roles is the real issue. We're told to use AI to be more productive, but our KPIs and daily tasks are still the same as 5 years ago. So the "saved" time just gets filled with more work or fixing the AI's mistakes. Where is the strategic thinking?
R
Rohit P
As someone in that 25-34 age bracket mentioned, I can confirm the burden. We're the ones expected to be "tech-savvy" and figure these tools out, but with zero formal training. Management buys the software, throws it at us, and expects magic. Investing in people (30%) should be the priority, not more tech (39%).
S
Sarah B
The point about trust and accuracy being pushed back to the user is key. In fields like legal or finance here in India, the consequences of an AI hallucination on a contract or compliance report are huge. We can't afford to blindly trust the output. It becomes an assistant we have to constantly supervise.
K
Karthik V
It's a classic case of "jugaad" mentality applied to technology. Companies want a quick fix for productivity without doing the hard work of restructuring processes and training staff. The tool is only as good as the system and people using it. More training, please!
M
Michael C
While the report highlights valid challenges, I think it's a phase. Early adoption always has friction. The companies that will win are the ones who, as the article says, treat saved time as strategic and reinvest in upskilling. The potential for AI in the

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50