Runwork
All Use Cases

Measure capability, not people

Measure it wrong and people stop telling you anything true

The people report names people for what they built and how far it reached. It measures nobody: no hours, no activity score, no ranking of anybody.

Powered By

Adoption & Training Team Dashboard
Skills
Continuity Workspaces
Chats & Insights

The Challenge

  • You are asked to build AI capability, and every tool you are offered measures activity instead
  • The easiest number to collect is how busy somebody looks, which is the number that damages trust
  • You cannot tell whether the team is learning or just typing more
  • Training gets booked for everybody because there is no way to tell who needs which part
  • The person who has genuinely got good at this stays invisible unless they mention it themselves

The Runwork Solution

  • The people report names somebody only for what they built and how far it reached, never for how much they worked
  • You can see how many people are building things their colleagues go on to reuse
  • You can see how long it takes for one person's work to reach the rest of the team
  • Where individuals do appear, it is for something they made, never for how much they worked
  • Weekly nudges reach each person about their own next step, so development is aimed rather than booked for everyone

What your team gets

Named for what you built, and nothing else

The collaboration section lists a person and how many colleagues their work reached. That is the only column a person appears in, and it is the kind of visibility people are glad to have.

Learning, not typing

Somebody using AI constantly and saving nothing looks different from somebody who used it twice and left two things the team now depends on. Only one of those is capability.

Development aimed at a person

Each person gets a nudge about their own next step. The people who are already ahead are not sat through beginner material to keep the programme even.

The quiet one, credited

The person doing the most useful work often never mentions it. Their name reaches the leadership team anyway, attached to the thing itself rather than to a score.

Where individuals do appear

There is a per-person view of adoption scores, and it is limited to workspace owners and admins. It exists because a team average hides the person who stopped in week two.

What is never measured

No hours, no activity score, no measure of how busy anybody is, and no reading of what people wrote in their conversations.

A Day in the Life

The question you were given. Make the company better at AI. The tools you were offered measure logins and message counts, which tell you who is busy and nothing about who is learning.

Monday. A report you can actually circulate. The people view shows what the team built and how far it spread. Where somebody is named, it is next to something they made and the number of colleagues it reached, so it goes to the leadership team without turning into a conversation about monitoring.

Tuesday. Two people who look identical on a usage chart. One is in the AI all day and has left nothing behind. The other used it twice and both times produced something four colleagues now use. Only one of those is capability, and only one kind of measurement can tell them apart.

Wednesday. Development that is not a booking. Each person is getting a note about their own next step. You are not running the same session for people at five different stages to make the numbers look even.

Thursday. Somebody gets credit who never asked for it. The person whose work the team leans on has not mentioned it once. Their name is on it, which is the kind of visibility people want rather than the kind they dread.

And nobody was watched. Nothing counted hours, nothing scored how busy anyone looked, and nothing read what people wrote. What was measured is what the team made and how far it travelled.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this monitor employees?
No, and the honest version is more specific than a yes or a no. People ARE named in the people report, in one place: a collaboration section listing a person and how many colleagues their work reached. That is attribution for something they built. What does not exist anywhere is a measure of the person: no hours, no activity score, no ranking, and nothing that reads the content of anybody's conversations. There is also a per-person view of adoption scores, limited to workspace owners and admins.
Why does a per-person view exist at all?
Because a team average hides the person who started in June and stopped in July, and that person is the one an enablement lead needs to find while there is still time to help. The distinction that matters is what it can be used for: it shows what somebody has built and set up, so the only thing a person can be seen for is having made something.
Can an individual opt out?
Not individually. It is a workspace-level setting, decided once for the workspace rather than person by person, so if it is on it is on for the team. Say that plainly when you introduce it. People find out either way, and a policy explained upfront lands very differently from one discovered later.
Can I see this broken down by department?
No. There is no concept of departments in the workspace, so nothing here produces an org-chart-shaped view and we would rather tell you that now than have you plan a rollout around it. What you can see is the team as a whole, and, on the admin view, individual members.
What do I do with the report?
Two things it is built for. Find where capability is concentrated, meaning how many people are building things their colleagues reuse rather than how many have logged in. And find where work is being done and nothing is being left behind, which is the gap between activity and capability and the one worth acting on.

Related Use Cases

Learn From Teammates Who Uses AI Share AI Skills

Start keeping what your team figures out.

Start a 14-day free trial. No credit card required.

Start Free Trial Explore More Use Cases