After Copilot trial, government staff rated Microsoft's AI it less useful than expected

Australia's Department of the Treasury has found that Microsoft's Copilot can easily deliver return on investment, but staff exposed to the AI assistant came away from the experience less confident it will help them at work.

The Department conducted a 14-week trial of Microsoft 365 Copilot during 2024 and asked for volunteers to participate. 218 put up their hands and then submitted to surveys about their experiences using Microsoft's AI helpers. Those surveys are the basis of an evaluation report published on Tuesday.

The report reveals that after the trial participants rated Copilot less useful than they hoped it would be, as it was applicable to fewer workloads than they hoped would be the case.

Workers' views on Copilot's ability to improve their work also fell.

Usage of Copilot was lower than expected, with most participants using it two or three times a week, or less. reported using Copilot 2-3 times per week or less. Treasury thinks it probably set unrealistically high expectations before the trial, and noted that participants often suggested extra training would be valuable.

The trial proposed four use cases for Copilot - generating structured content, supporting knowledge management, synthesising and prioritising information, and undertaking process tasks - and participants agreed they were appropriate. But the report also found they also emerged with the belief that "Copilot was not appropriate for more complex tasks, mostly due to the limitations of the product itself."

The tasks participants felt Copilot handled best were "finding and summarising information, generating meeting minutes, knowledge management and drafting content". The report describes those as "basic administrative tasks".

But saving even a little time on such tasks can pay off: the report finds that if Copilot saves 13 minutes a week for mid-level workers, it will pay for itself.

Other findings Microsoft will likely appreciate include the unanticipated benefit that Copilot displayed helped "to contribute to accessibility and inclusion for neurodivergent and part-time staff, or those experiencing medical conditions that require time off work."

The AI assistant did so by producing automatic summaries of missed meetings and "levelling the playing field for those who struggle to navigate workplace norms or culture." Some staff therefore reported "a small increase in work confidence", with junior or recent hires more likely to express such sentiments.

Treasury's learnings from the pilot include more careful selection of staff who use Copilot, the need for more consideration of necessary training on how to use AI and the risks of doing so, and the desirability of ongoing monitoring to test AI's impact in the workplace.

Another finding suggests as-a-service AI might not be appropriate for agencies like Treasury.

"While security of protected government data and advice is of upmost importance, ideally the core functions of a generative AI product should work alongside security requirements," the report states. "It is not clear whether products are likely to evolve over time to meet Treasury's strict security needs, or whether Copilot itself will continue to evolve to incorporate external information into its outputs without feeding the algorithm with internal Treasury data."

That opinion suggests orgs that handle sensitive information will likely do better with on-prem AI infrastructure. ®