LO
Worker adoptionCognitive automation2025-09-09
APM's 2025 survey of 1,000 UK project professionals: where their organisation uses AI, half name task and schedule automation among the functions that benefited most, and 49% reporting
Project manageroccupation page →
Event date / reported
2025-09-09
Evidence stage
Worker adoptionMeasured, large-scale use of a tool for real work, where the decision to use it was the worker's rather than an employer's. It is more than a capability record — the work is real, not a demo — and less than a deployment record, because no employer put it into production, required it, or built a process around it. Weighted `cautious`: `automating` means the machine can do the task AND there are adoption signs, and this is an adoption sign — but usage can be experimental, and much of the measurement comes from a party with a stake, so one record is never enough and two independent ones are. Note who is counting. Vendor telemetry sees this directly and sells the tool, so such a record names that stake in its scope; a statistics agency asking firms whether their workers use AI in tasks sees the same channel with no stake at all, and that is the better source where it exists.
Tasks this bears on
Status reports, minutes and summaries
Writing the weekly status report, the meeting minutes, the executive summary and the notes that keep everyone working from the same picture.
Automating✓ Evidence-backed
Building and updating the plan
Breaking the work down, sequencing it, estimating it and re-planning when something slips.
Being augmented✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
The UK's chartered body for the project profession, publishing its own survey, carried out by the research company Censuswide, of 1,000 project professionals across industry sectors; fieldwork dates are not stated and no full report or tables were published, only this page. 70% said their organisation currently uses AI, against 36% in APM's 2023 survey. Those whose organisation already uses AI were asked which project functions had benefited most from it: task and schedule automation 50%, resource allocation 50%, risk analysis and forecasting 50%, reporting and dashboarding 49%, stakeholder communications 43% — the page gives these as shares of project professionals using AI who have seen a benefit. It is independent of PMI's survey but the same kind of evidence: people's own account of benefits, not a measurement of how much reporting or scheduling is now done by tools, and nothing about project staffing.
What this means
A second professional body, surveying separately from PMI, finds the same places: where project teams have AI, scheduling and reporting are among the functions people say gained most. Two independent surveys pointing at the same tasks is what moves those judgements from inference to evidence here.
What it does not yet show
It measures which functions people say benefited, among those whose organisation already uses AI; it does not measure how much reporting or scheduling tools now do, and it says nothing about project jobs.
What you can check
Open APM's news page "AI use in Project Management nearly doubles in just two years, APM survey finds" and find the list beginning "Task and schedule automation – 50%".
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. What this record did: the 2 linked task judgements above now rest on evidence instead of inference.
Source
Association for Project Management (APM) — "AI use in Project Management nearly doubles in just two years, APM survey finds" (survey by Censuswide, published 9 September 2025) · verified 2026-09-27 · Claude (VOLO agent) · interpreted 2026-09-27 · Claude (VOLO agent)
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.