Research and community

Research, measurement and community

Tools for quantifying AI productivity gains, a programme for independent research, and a growing community of practitioners and institutions building knowledge around this framework.

The Productivity and Delivery Extension Model records how much time AI saves and how far it extends delivery capability on individual pieces of work. This section takes the next step: turning those individual scores into aggregate measures, setting targets and building the evidence base for sector-level productivity claims.

On this page

  1. 01Calculator
  2. 02Benchmarking
  3. 03Research partnership
  4. 04Get involved
  5. 05Governance

All routes are free to participate in and open to practitioners, researchers and organisations at any stage of adoption.

01.

Productivity gain calculator

Enter the details of any AI-assisted piece of work to calculate the estimated hours saved, equivalent cost saving and annualised productivity rate. Results are indicative and based on your own inputs; they are transparent estimates and not audited figures.

Indicative, not audited

Productivity Score for this task

Estimated productivity gain

Hours saved
3.8 hrs
Cost equivalent saved
£304
Annual saving estimate
£6,080

Based on P3 (25 to 50% time saved) using the midpoint of the band. Hours saved = 10 × 38%. Day rate assumed at 7.5 working hours. These are transparent estimates; record your assumptions when using these figures in reports.

These figures are transparent estimates based on your Productivity Score range. The midpoint of each band is used for calculation. They are indicative and not audited, and should be presented as such. DTTT encourages organisations to record the assumptions behind any aggregate productivity claim.

02.

Benchmarking and sector-level measurement

Individual productivity scores become significantly more valuable when aggregated across an organisation's portfolio of work and compared against sector peers. A single P3 score tells you AI saved time on one task. A consistent average of P3 across 40 deliverables over a quarter tells you something meaningful about the organisation's operational relationship with AI.

01

Building an organisational baseline

An organisation can begin benchmarking by grading all AI-assisted work consistently using the Productivity Score over a defined period, typically a quarter. From that dataset, three measures are immediately available: average Productivity Score across all graded work, proportion of deliverables reaching P3 or above, and distribution of Delivery Extension Scores by work type. Together these form an organisational productivity baseline against which future periods can be compared and targets set.

02

Setting productivity targets

Once a baseline exists, organisations can set forward-looking targets. A well-formed target specifies a time period, a scope (all AI-assisted work, or a defined category such as content production or research), and a measurable threshold, for example, achieving an average Productivity Score of 3.2 or above across all advisory deliverables by the end of the financial year. The framework provides the instrument; organisations set the ambition level appropriate to their context.

03

Sector-level benchmarking

If multiple destination organisations report aggregate scores into a shared pool on an anonymised and opt-in basis, DTTT can publish sector-average productivity figures and give individual organisations a sense of where they sit relative to peers. This turns the framework from a private disclosure tool into a shared industry productivity benchmark, relevant not only for internal performance management but for demonstrating the value of AI investment to funders, boards and government bodies.

04

Connecting to sector productivity

Tourism faces a long-standing productivity challenge relative to many other sectors. Output per worker has historically been constrained by the labour-intensive nature of hospitality and visitor services, seasonal demand patterns and fragmented supply chains. The digital transformation of destination management has begun to address some of these constraints, but the evidence base for measuring that impact at scale remains thin.

AI adoption is one of the most significant levers now available for improving productivity across knowledge-based work in tourism, from research and strategy to marketing, communications and programme delivery. Demonstrating that impact requires consistent measurement across a range of indicators: time saved per task, volume of output per FTE, cost per unit of delivery, and the relationship between AI capability extension and the breadth of work that teams can realistically take on. These are all dimensions the DTTT Productivity Model captures directly.

Aggregate data from organisations using the framework consistently over time creates the foundation for sector-level productivity analysis. This is relevant not only to individual organisations managing performance and investment decisions, but to national tourism bodies, enterprise agencies and government departments making the case for digitisation investment, demonstrating returns to funders and informing policy on AI adoption in the visitor economy. The academic partnership programme described below is designed to support the independent research needed to make that case with rigour.

DTTT is developing a sector benchmarking model. Organisations interested in participating in the initial cohort should contact info@thinkdigital.travel.

03.

Research partnership programme

The DTTT AI Transparency Framework generates structured, consistently coded data on AI use, time savings, delivery extension and environmental impact across a growing set of organisations. This is an unusually clean dataset for a field where most productivity research relies on surveys or controlled experiments rather than real organisational output. DTTT is seeking independent academic institutions to develop the research potential of this data across two stages.

Stage 1

Model validation study

Do the Productivity Score self-assessments correlate with independently measured time savings? Are the grade boundaries well-calibrated? Does the Environmental Model's indicative scoring align with emerging first-party disclosure data?

Stage 1 establishes whether the framework is a reliable instrument, a necessary foundation before any sector-level productivity claims can be made with confidence.

Stage 2

Productivity impact study

What is the measurable effect of AI adoption on output volume, quality or cost efficiency across destination organisations? How does consistent AI use translate into improvements in sector productivity indicators? What is the relationship between Delivery Extension Score distribution and the breadth of work organisations can take on?

Stage 2 produces the independent evidence base that elevates the framework from a self-assessment tool to an industry standard with peer-reviewed credibility.

Call for research partners

DTTT is seeking academic institutions with expertise in tourism management, digital economy, or AI and the future of work to develop this research programme. DTTT provides the framework, sector network access and a growing dataset of consistently structured AI use records. The academic partner provides research design, methodological rigour and peer-reviewed output.

Relevant programmes include tourism management, hospitality and digital economy research at universities in the UK, Europe and internationally. Doctoral researchers and early-career academics with relevant interests are also welcome to make contact.

Express interest in research partnership ›

04.

Get involved

The DTTT AI Transparency Framework is most valuable when organisations are using it consistently and contributing their experience to its development. The following routes are open to practitioners, researchers and organisations at any stage of adoption. All are free to participate in.

01

Register as a framework adopter

Organisations that formally adopt the framework and apply it to their AI work can register as official adopters. Registration gives public acknowledgement of your commitment, listing on the DTTT framework adopters directory, and a direct channel into the governance process for feedback on the models.

02

Join a model working group

Each model has a working group open to practitioners applying the framework in their organisations. Working groups meet periodically to discuss emerging edge cases, proposed changes and practical implementation questions. Meetings are conducted by written circulation or videoconference.

03

Submit a case study

Organisations applying the framework to real work are invited to submit case studies for publication with attribution. Case studies help other adopters understand how the models apply across different contexts and contribute to the body of practice that will inform future versions. If you have applied the framework to a project or output and would like to share your experience, get in touch and we will discuss how best to do that.

One working group per model

Model 1

Transparency Model

Grade boundary calibration, grading consistency across output types, and scope questions on AI tool definitions.

Model 2

Productivity Model

Score calibration across work types, benchmarking methodology and aggregate reporting standards.

Model 3

Environmental Model

Methodology review as provider disclosure data improves, usage intensity thresholds and v1.0 grade boundary revision.

Model 4

Content Integrity Model

Classification logic review, AI-PERS ceiling question, audio deepfake and real-time avatar intervention codes, and procurement clause refinement.

Express interest ›

05.

How the framework is governed

DTTT is the product owner. Every model is developed openly, versioned publicly and published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence, and DTTT holds the decision on what a release contains and when it is issued. There is no standing committee.

External input is sought and recorded. Working group discussion, adopter feedback and case study evidence are the routes through which a change proposal reaches a release, and the version log states what changed, when and why. That record is the accountability, in place of a committee.

The version log ›