# Systems Thinking with AI (Glaringly Obvious)

**URL:** <https://forum.zurb.com/t/systems-thinking-with-ai-glaringly-obvious/238>\
**Category:** Proving biz impact\
**Created:** [September 14, 2025, 4:29pm UTC](https://forum.zurb.com/t/systems-thinking-with-ai-glaringly-obvious/238 "2025-09-14T16:29:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Helge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea666f/32.png) [@Helge](https://forum.zurb.com/u/Helge)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 3:46am UTC](https://forum.zurb.com/t/systems-thinking-with-ai-glaringly-obvious/238/3 "2025-09-15T03:46:46Z")

</div>

Hi @Bryan

What we found in our work is that design signals (as you frame them) work if they are based on research / knowledge that gives them context where they become meaningful.

e.g. we found measuring ‘time-on-site’ on it’s own and using it to assume any kind of value can be misleading.

But, when our research told us that physicians wanted two things from our experiences:

1. To learn
2. To learn it as fast as possible

The we could use time-on-site as a measure and assume that if #1 had happened (they learned something) then reducing #2 would mean increasing value to our customers.

So I would agree, if the design signals are given meaning first through underlying research.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.zurb.com/t/systems-thinking-with-ai-glaringly-obvious/238)._