The Impact of AI-Driven Design Tools on Time Efficiency in Graphic Design Project Management: A Study Using Figma

This study examines the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) features in Figma on time efficiency in graphic design project management. As digital transformation accelerates, AI-enabled tools are increasingly used to enhance workflow performance, automate tasks, and improve collaboration in project-based environments. Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Resource-Based View (RBV), this study adopts a quantitative approach to investigate the relationship between Figma AI features and time efficiency.
Data were collected from 130 respondents using a structured questionnaire and analyzed using statistical techniques, including descriptive analysis, correlation, and regression. The findings reveal a statistically significant positive relationship between Figma AI features and time efficiency, indicating that functionalities such as automation, real-time collaboration, and component reuse contribute to faster task completion, reduced delays, and improved workflow coordination.
The results highlight the growing importance of AI-driven tools in enhancing project performance within graphic design environments. The study contributes to existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the role of AI in improving time efficiency and extends theoretical insights related to technology adoption and resource utilization.
From a practical perspective, the findings offer valuable implications for designers, project managers, and organizations seeking to optimize workflows through digital tools. However, the study is limited by its cross-sectional design and focus on a single platform, suggesting the need for future research across multiple tools and contexts.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), Figma, Time Efficiency

1. Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Williams, M. D. (2020). Consumer adoption of digital technologies: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 112, 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bundy, J., Pfarrer, M. D., Short, C. E., & Coombs, W. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cardoso, P., et al. (2024). Trust in digital adoption: Human capital readiness in the age of AI. Journal of Digital Transformation and Innovation, 12(2), 88–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Ismagilova, E., et al. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Engelke, J., & Swegan, K. (2024). Ethical leadership and the cultivation of organizational resilience. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 18(1), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Financial Stability Board (FSB). (2026). Good practices for crisis management groups: 2026 Revised Edition. https://www.fsb.org/publications/crisis-management-2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. MDPI Sustainability. (2024). New ways to perform: Employees’ perspective on remote work and psychological security in the post-pandemic era. Sustainability, 16(4), 1102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2021). The technostress trifecta—Techno eustress, techno distress, and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Empowering SME Performance Through Social Media: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Malaysian Manufacturing SMEs
• Effective School Bullying Prevention Strategies: A Thematic Review
• Impact of Workplace Conflict on the Operational Performance of Deposit Money Banks in Enugu State.
• Towards Digital Financial Solutions: A Conceptual Model of SME Strategies and Strategic Development
• Effect of Work-Life Balance and Affective Commitment on Employee Performance in the Hotel Industry in Plateau State