The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Designing towards productivity: A centralized AI assistant concept for work
Abstract
Recent research has shown that Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistance can significantly improve workers’ productivity. Software such as Zoom and GitHub have also recently introduced AI into the system, marketed to enhance users’ productivity. While each software has its platform, users tend to feel overwhelmed by the numerous workplace tools available. In this paper, we introduce the concept of a centralized platform based around an AI chatbot that can answer user queries from the company's knowledge base and act as a personal assistant to help the user with daily workplace tasks. Exploratory interviews confirmed the need for such a system and gathered users’ expectations, guiding the direction of the preliminary sketches. The concept is evaluated by productivity support's design and interaction aspects without implementing a functional AI chatbot. This research uses qualitative data from multiple rounds of moderated usability testing to identify factors impacting perceived usability. Results showed that participants recognized the system's potential benefits and the overall usability of the design. Participants also highlighted the positive user experience resulting from the capability to access third-party workplace tools for personalized productivity, the conversational and transparent task support interaction, the streamlined workflow with smart suggestions, and the usefulness of a tutorial for learning about the new concept. The research explores a potential shift in the role of workplace support chatbots from question responders to task collaborators. Further research can also look into the actual implementation of such systems, measure their impacts on users' productivity, and explore potential challenges and ethical considerations in deploying these AI assistants in real-world business settings.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2026) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599 · Cited by 671
“Their adoption has been reported across a wide range of application domains, including customer service automation [51,52], personal productivity assistance [53], organizational information retrieval [54,55], and decision support systems [56,57].”
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2025) · SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment · doi:10.70777/si.v2i3.15161 · Cited by 186
Metadata
- Authors
- Cao, T., Qing Khoo, Y., Birajdar, S., Gong, Z., Chung, C.-F., Moghaddam, Y., Xu, A., Mehta, H., Shukla, A., Wang, Z., & Akkiraju, R.
- Venue
- AHFE International
- Publisher
- AHFE International
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 143
- ISSN
- 2771-0718 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399479292
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 0.64
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- AHFE international (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Keywords
- AI assistants, labor productivity, AI chatbots, personal assistants, knowledge base, task collaboration, conversation, usability evaluation, user experience, user expectations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review