Sourcefit is a business process outsourcing company with offices in the Philippines, South Africa, Dominican Republic, Madagascar, United Kingdom, and Armenia. We provide custom offshore and nearshore staffing solutions that build lasting value for our clients.
START BUILDING PROCESS EQUITY TODAY!
SPEAK WITH A CONSULTANT TODAY!
Sourcefit keeps pricing competitive by focusing on three things:
GET A FREE QUOTE TODAY!
use AI at least a few times a week
Against 30% of all US employees
name limited tool access as their primary barrier
Respondents selected one answer
of named primary barriers are barriers employers and clients can address
Sourcefit interpretation
Executive summary
The most frequently selected barriers point to areas where employers and clients can support adoption: tool access, security guidance, clearer policies and training. Together, these categories account for 77.1% of selected primary barriers. Sourcefit grouped them after the survey; respondents were not asked to assign responsibility.
Sourcefit AI Adoption Pulse Survey 2026
The research record
Every headline on this page can be traced to the analytical base, fieldwork window and calculation used to produce it.
unique response records analysed
employees asked to participate
confirmed respondents
reported completion rate
fieldwork through Knit
one answer permitted per question
The evidence
53%
13.3 points above the closest US remote-capable benchmark.
Gallup reports 30% for all US employees in Q2 2026 and 40% for remote-capable roles in Q4 2025.
36%
More than double the 15% average for all US employees.
Daily use also exceeds Gallup’s 31% result for the US technology sector in Q4 2025.
30%
More than ten points ahead of the next most common answer.
Lack of applicability ranked third at 17.6%, showing that access is a more immediate constraint in this workforce.
77%
Access, security guidance, policy clarity and training.
Sourcefit grouped the answers by who is best placed to address them. Respondents were not asked to assign responsibility.
7%
A second question produced a closely aligned result of 6.8%.
Mercer reports 40% concern globally, but the questions were structured differently and are not strictly comparable.
10%
89.8% use AI to some degree
74.6% use AI at least occasionally, compared with 49% of US employees who reported never using AI in Gallup’s Q4 2025 data.
66%
The most common gains remain concentrated in individual tasks.
Writing and documentation account for 36.7%; research and analysis account for 29.5%.
2.6x
Regular use ranges from 26.9% to 71.2%.
Variation between fourteen client teams with at least 15 responses was roughly twice the spread between countries.
The comparison
The most defensible external comparison is Gallup’s US remote-capable workforce, because those employees are more likely than the general workforce to perform knowledge work with access to digital tools. Against that benchmark, 53.3% of this Sourcefit sample use AI at least a few times a week, 13.3 percentage points above Gallup’s 40%. Daily use is also 16.5 points higher, at 35.5% versus 19%.
The technology-sector comparison adds useful context. Sourcefit’s regular-use rate is 3.7 points below the US technology result, yet its daily-use rate is 4.5 points higher and its use-at-all rate is 12.8 points higher. This suggests that the offshore workforce in this sample is not waiting for AI adoption to begin. Usage is already comparable with digitally intensive workforces, although the survey does not establish why the difference exists.
For clients, the important question is therefore not whether offshore professionals will use AI. It is whether frequent individual use is supported by approved tools, appropriate controls and workflows that convert activity into measurable improvements. High adoption is a readiness signal, not proof of higher productivity, better quality or lower cost.
| Measure | Sourcefit offshore, Feb-Jul 2026 | All US employees, Gallup Q2 2026 | US remote-capable, Gallup Q4 2025 | US technology sector, Gallup Q4 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uses AI at least a few times a week | 53.3% | 30% | 40% | 57% |
| Uses AI daily | 35.5% | 15% | 19% | 31% |
| Uses AI at all | 89.8% | 52% | 66% | 77% |
| Never uses AI at work | 10.2% | 48% | 34% | 23% |
Sourcefit results: 1,968 responses collected February-July 2026. Gallup Q2 2026: 22,573 employed US adults, fieldwork 6-20 May 2026, margin of error +/-0.9 percentage points. Gallup Q4 2025: 22,368 employed US adults, fieldwork 30 October-14 November 2025, margin of error +/-1.0 point. Gallup’s never-use values are calculated as 100 minus the share who use AI at all.
Cite Table 1: Sourcefit, Offshore Workforce AI Adoption 2026, Table 1, n = 1,968; Gallup benchmarks as labelled.
The turn
The leading constraint is limited access to tools at 30.4%, followed by data security or compliance concern at 20.0%. Unclear policies account for a further 14.2% and lack of training or support for 12.5%. Together, those four employer or client-addressable categories represent 77.1% of the primary barriers selected by respondents.
That pattern matters because it places the main adoption constraint outside the individual employee. Only 17.6% selected limited relevance to their work, while access, governance and support dominate the response. Sourcefit assigned the 77.1% grouping after the survey, so it should be read as an operational interpretation rather than a responsibility judgement made by respondents.
For clients, sequencing is critical. Teams need access to approved tools and clear data-use boundaries before broad training can produce value. Training people on applications they cannot access, or encouraging experimentation without defined controls, is likely to create frustration and unmanaged risk rather than sustained adoption.
| Primary barrier | Share | Who is best placed to address it? |
|---|---|---|
| Limited access to tools | 30.4% | Employer or client |
| Data security or compliance concern | 20.0% | Employer or client |
| AI rarely feels applicable to my work | 17.6% | Depends on the role |
| Unclear policies or guidelines | 14.2% | Employer or client |
| Lack of training or support | 12.5% | Employer or client |
| Client restrictions | 5.3% | Requires agreement with the client |
| Employer or client can address | 77.1% | Total of the four relevant rows above |
Based on 1,968 responses. Respondents selected one primary barrier, so the percentages show the answer each person ranked first, not every barrier they may experience. The final column and 77.1% total are Sourcefit’s interpretation, not answers supplied by respondents.
Cite Table 2: Sourcefit, Offshore Workforce AI Adoption 2026, Table 2, n = 1,968, single-select question.
Sequence matters: showing use cases to people who cannot obtain a licence creates frustration. Provide tools and publish data-use guidance before commissioning training.
Workforce confidence
Only 6.6% selected concern that AI could negatively affect their role. A separate question produced a closely aligned result of 6.8%, while 23.2% were still unsure about the next 12 to 24 months. The two concern measures point in the same direction, but uncertainty remains material and should not be treated as confidence.
The contrast with Mercer’s 40% global employee concern figure is striking but not directly comparable because the questions, samples and survey settings differ. Variation within the Sourcefit sample is more actionable: concern ranged from 0% to 22.6% across fourteen client teams with at least fifteen responses. A single organisation-wide average can therefore conceal meaningful account-level differences.
For clients, low overall concern creates useful headroom for responsible change. It suggests that many teams may be receptive to role-specific AI support, while the account variation argues for targeted communication rather than a uniform programme. Managers should identify where uncertainty is concentrated, explain how roles may evolve and pair new tools with clear human-review expectations.
| Group | Share | Source and interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Employees concerned about AI job loss | 40% | Mercer Global Talent Trends 2026; global |
| Sourcefit offshore professionals concerned AI could negatively affect their role | 6.6% | 1,968 responses; each person chose one of five answers |
The questions differ and the measures are not strictly comparable. Concern ranged from 0% to 22.6% across fourteen client teams with at least 15 responses, suggesting support should be targeted to the teams that need it.
Cite Table 3: Sourcefit, Offshore Workforce AI Adoption 2026, Table 3, n = 1,968; Mercer comparison is contextual, not like for like.
The next value curve
AI is already producing useful results for a clear majority of respondents. 26.2% say it clearly improves productivity and quality, while a further 48.4% find it useful in some situations. Together, that means 74.6% are seeing at least some practical value from AI in their work.
The pattern of that value is equally important. Writing and research account for 66.2% of the applications respondents found most helpful, tasks that can often be performed through a browser without redesigning the underlying service operation. Adoption appears to have moved faster than integration.
For clients, the next advantage is likely to come from applying AI inside repeatable workflows such as customer support, data handling and quality review. These uses are harder to implement, but they can be evaluated against operational measures including service quality, turnaround time, accuracy and rework.
| Application | Share | What it takes to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Writing or documentation | 36.7% | Can be used from a browser |
| Research or analysis | 29.5% | Can be used from a browser |
| Customer support | 14.1% | Some connection to the working process |
| Not helpful | 8.8% | Not applicable |
| Data handling | 6.0% | Needs to be built into a workflow |
| Quality review or validation | 4.8% | Needs to be built into a workflow |
Based on 1,968 responses. Each person selected one application. 66.2% of respondents selected writing or documentation, or research or analysis, as the application where AI had been most helpful.
Cite Table 4: Sourcefit, Offshore Workforce AI Adoption 2026, Table 4, n = 1,968, single-select question.
Sourcefit analysis of its 2026 offshore workforce AI adoption survey
Sourcefit analysis of its 2026 offshore workforce AI adoption survey
Sourcefit perspective: For managed offshore teams, this creates a practical path forward: combine an AI-ready workforce with process design, governance and performance management. The objective is not adoption for its own sake, but better and more consistent delivery for the client.
The account effect
Regular AI use varies by 2.6x across comparable client teams, from 26.9% to 71.2%.
This spread is commercially important because employees share the same employer while working within different client environments. The result points decision-makers towards differences in tool access, policy, workflow design and management practice rather than treating geography as the default explanation.
The table is anonymised and descriptive. It does not rank client performance or establish why teams differ. It does identify where a buyer can investigate provision, permission and workflow design with much greater precision.
| Anonymised account | Uses AI daily or several times weekly | Position vs client-managed average |
|---|---|---|
| Account A | 71.2% | Above 51.6% reference |
| Account B | 68.0% | Above |
| Account C | 62.5% | Above |
| Account D | 53.6% | Above |
| Account E | 47.8% | Below |
| Account F (n = 145) | 43.4% | Below |
| Account G | 42.9% | Below |
| Account H | 40.0% | Below |
| Account I | 39.0% | Below |
| Account J | 38.7% | Below |
| Account K | 37.0% | Below |
| Account L | 34.2% | Below |
| Account M (n = 125) | 33.6% | Below |
| Account N | 26.9% | Below |
| Client-managed average | 51.6% | Reference |
Comparable accounts have at least 15 respondents. Account labels protect client confidentiality. The 2.6x range is 71.2 divided by 26.9.
Cite Table 5: Sourcefit, Offshore Workforce AI Adoption 2026, Table 5, fourteen anonymised client accounts with at least 15 responses.
The largest adoption gap may not sit between countries. It may sit between operating environments.
Sourcefit analysis
Five actions for offshore workforce buyers
Audit entitlements before commissioning training
Compare licences, seats and configurations across offshore and onshore teams. Access was the top primary barrier at 30.4%; training ranked fifth at 12.5%.
Publish a data-use classification guide
State what data may enter a general-purpose AI tool, what may not and where employees can ask when the boundary is unclear.
Assess readiness at account level
Regular AI use ranged from 26.9% to 71.2% across fourteen client accounts with at least 15 responses. Review each account’s tool access, policies and workflows to understand its needs.
Target occasional users
21.3% use AI occasionally. Target this group with approved tools, clearer guidance and relevant use cases.
Put the next pilot in quality review
Test one high-volume service line against an operational metric. Low reported value may mean limited experimentation or poor tool performance; the survey cannot distinguish between them.
From evidence to execution
The survey turns AI readiness into a practical operating agenda.
Give comparable teams comparable approved tools and entitlements.
Publish clear boundaries for data, review and accountability.
Move beyond browser tasks into repeatable service processes.
Baseline quality, speed, rework and escalation before scaling.
The commercial opportunity is not simply more AI use. It is a managed operating model that converts established employee adoption into reliable client outcomes.
What is holding your offshore team back?
Review access, policy, security guidance and training in the right order with a Sourcefit workforce specialist.
From finding to action
Bring your team locations, role types, current tools and the first workflow you want to improve.
Identify gaps between the technology available to onshore and offshore teams.
Clarify what employees can use, which data needs protection and where questions should go.
Choose a practical pilot tied to the way work is delivered and checked.
Sequence access, guidance and role-specific training around the people doing the work.
Questions answered
Not in this Sourcefit sample. 53.3% used AI at least a few times a week, versus 30% of all US employees and 40% of US remote-capable employees in the cited Gallup studies.
Limited access to tools was the largest primary answer at 30.4%, followed by security or compliance concern at 20.0%.
6.6% selected concern about negative role impact and 6.8% expected AI may reduce or eliminate parts of their role. The Sourcefit survey asked people to choose one answer from a list, so the result is not strictly comparable with Mercer’s 40% global figure.
Writing or documentation and research or analysis account for 66.2% of stated value. Data handling and quality review were least cited.
Sourcefit grouped 77.1% of primary barriers as issues employers or clients can address through tool access, policy, security guidance or training. Respondents were not asked to assign responsibility.
Regular use ranged from 26.9% to 71.2% across fourteen client teams with at least 15 responses, a 2.6x range.
2,060 employees were surveyed and 1,968 response records were analysed. Fieldwork ran from February to July 2026.
Definitions and calculations
Daily plus several times a week: 35.5% + 17.8% = 53.3%.
Anything other than never: 100% – 10.2% = 89.8%.
Daily, several times a week or occasionally, 74.6%.
Employed by Sourcefit and managed day to day by a client: 1,860 of 1,968 records.
A client account with at least 15 respondents. Fourteen accounts qualify.
30.4% + 20.0% + 14.2% + 12.5% = 77.1%.
36.7% + 29.5% = 66.2% of first-ranked applications.
71.2% divided by 26.9% = 2.6x.
The disclosure
We include the details that strengthen the findings and those that limit them.
Employees answered eight questions through Knit between February and July 2026. The survey covered frequency of AI use, where it helps, perceived effects on productivity and quality, acceptable-use confidence, barriers, job security and expected role impact. Respondents selected one answer for each question and no incentive was offered.
The sampling process began with the full Knit employee list. Sourcefit removed one EOR account, client users, tests and duplicate records, then checked the remaining records against the HR employee list to confirm active employment. The final analytical base contains 1,968 unique response records, of which 1,860 were employees managed day to day by clients and 108 were Sourcefit managers or internal staff.
This is a large operational sample, but it is not a global workforce benchmark. It comes from one employer and 87.4% of analysed respondents were based in the Philippines. Country comparisons are therefore descriptive, while findings about client-managed teams are more central to the study. The confirmed-respondent count and unique-record count are separate measures and should be reported exactly as shown in the table.
Completion reached 94.71%. System access was gated on survey completion late in the fieldwork period, increasing participation and reducing voluntary-response bias. The trade-off is that some employees may have answered quickly to regain access. By July 15, before the access gate was activated, approximately 82.6% of employees had completed the survey. This gives useful context but does not remove that limitation.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Employees asked to participate | 2,060 |
| Confirmed respondents | 1,951 |
| Completion rate | 94.71% |
| Unique response records analysed | 1,968 |
| Employees managed day to day by clients | 1,860 |
| Sourcefit managers and internal staff | 108 |
| Philippines share | 87.4% |
| South Africa | 101 people |
| Dominican Republic | 36 people |
| Madagascar | 18 people |
| North America | 2 people |
| No location recorded | 91, excluded from country comparisons |
This is a single-employer, single-select survey based on self-reported experience.
|
|
Read before citing
All respondents work for Sourcefit under one set of internal policies. The results describe this workforce and may offer useful signals for offshore delivery, but they do not represent every offshore professional.
No operating output was measured. The figures show whether employees believe AI has helped, and those views may be optimistic.
Sourcefit and Gallup define frequent use in a similar way, although the surveys were run at different times. The Mercer concern comparison is not strictly comparable because the questions were asked differently.
87.4% of responses came from the Philippines. South Africa supports cautious comparison. Samples from the Dominican Republic and Madagascar are too small for firm conclusions, and North America’s two responses should not be cited.
The completion report records 1,951 confirmed respondents, while the results report analyses 1,968 unique response records. The 17-record difference remains unresolved, and its effect on the results has not been established. The reported completion rate of 94.71% is based on 1,951 of 2,060 employees.
The sources
Need a chart, data cut or interview?
Sourcefit can provide citation-ready context, additional cuts where disclosure thresholds allow, and comment for editorial use.
What’s next
Sourcefit is a global outsourcing and staffing solutions provider with more than 2,000 employees across the Philippines, South Africa, the Dominican Republic, Madagascar and Northern Ireland.
The company serves midmarket and enterprise clients across more than 20 industries and 50 role types. This research was published because offshore professionals are frequently discussed in forecasts about AI but rarely included in primary research about it.
Ahead of the curve is a starting position, not a finish line.
This report provides research information and does not constitute legal, regulatory, security or investment advice. Evaluate AI use against your contracts, data classifications and applicable requirements.
Preferred citation
Sourcefit, Offshore Workforce AI Adoption 2026, analysis of 1,968 unique response records from a surveyed population of 2,060 Sourcefit employees, fieldwork February to July 2026. Written by Abigail Jacobs, published 30 July 2026, updated 20 August 2026.
