Intelligence Impact Quotient (IIQ): A Framework for Measuring Organizational AI Impact

Static benchmarks measure what AI agents can do at a fixed point in time but not how they are adopted, maintained, or experienced in deployment. We introduce AgentPulse, a continuous evaluation framework scoring 50 agents across 10 workload categories along four factors (Benchmark Performance, Adoption Signals, Community Sentiment, and Ecosystem Health) aggregated from 18 real-time signals across GitHub, package registries, IDE marketplaces, social platforms, and benchmark leaderboards. Three analyses ground the framework. The four factors capture largely complementary information (n=50; $ρ_{\max}=0.61$ for Adoption-Ecosystem, all others $|ρ| \leq 0.37$). A circularity-controlled test (n=35) shows the Benchmark+Sentiment sub-composite, which contains no GitHub-derived signals, predicts external adoption proxies it does not aggregate: GitHub stars ($ρ_s=0.52$, $p<0.01$) and Stack Overflow question volume ($ρ_s=0.49$, $p<0.01$), with VS Code installs ($ρ_s=0.44$, $p<0.05$) reported as illustrative given that only 11 of 35 agents have non-zero installs. On the n=11 subset with published SWE-bench scores, composite and benchmark-only rankings are nearly uncorrelated ($ρ_s=0.25$; 9 of 11 agents shift by at least 2 ranks), driven by a strong negative Adoption-Capability correlation among closed-source high-capability agents within this subset. This is precisely why we rest the framework's validity claim on the broader n=35 test rather than the SWE-bench overlap. AgentPulse surfaces deployment signal absent from benchmarks; it is a methodology, not a ground-truth ranking. The framework, all collected signals, scoring outputs, and evaluation harness are released under CC BY 4.0.

AI tools are increasingly integrated into real-world workflows. However, existing measures of reliance on these tools focus on AI output adoption or on self-reported indicators, rather than how task effort is distributed between users and tools. Here, we introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool. Offloading Score is simulation-based -- we construct a counterfactual workflow by estimating how the user would have completed the task without the tool, and then computing the fraction of steps saved by using the tool. We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study ($n=40$) with developers performing programming tasks using AI tools. We vary time pressure to test whether reliance measures capture the known increase in reliance under time pressure. We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings ($+43\%$, $p=0.018$), while usage-based and self-reported baseline measures of reliance do not distinguish the conditions. We complement this with descriptive insights showing that higher reliance manifests as greater delegation of subtasks to the tool and more direct reuse of AI outputs. Finally, we demonstrate an approach of using offloading score in combination with target outcomes of a task (e.g., code understanding) to identify when reliance may be (in)appropriate. Our framework offers two contributions: an instrument users can apply to measure and reflect on their own reliance, and a quantitative signal that agent designers can utilize to mitigate overreliance.

This paper presents an empirical analysis of AbbVie Intelligence's measurable impact on employee work activities across 192 distinct occupations in 2024 and 2025. Drawing on 598,744 de-identified AI conversations classified according to the O*NET Intermediate Work Activity (IWA) taxonomy, we compute occupation-level AI Applicability Scores that quantify the extent to which AI tools can meaningfully assist or automate real work at scale. Three convergent analyses are conducted: (1) longitudinal year-over-year trends from 2024 to 2025, (2) a quasi-experimental pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie Intelligence version 3 platform release in August 2025, and (3) a pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie AI Learning Summit held in November 22025. Results demonstrate statistically significant improvements across all three dimensions. Mean AI Applicability Scores rose substantially from 2024 to 2025; the platform release product a +10.0% gain (p<0.001); and the AI Learning Summit produced a +6.68% gain (p<0.001). These findings establish that both technological platform enhancements and structured enterprise AI eduction programs independently and substantially expand the reach of AI across the AbbVie workforce.