Start with the queue, not the chatbot
A backlog, inbox or hand-off often reveals a better first AI project than a generic assistant. Map volume, exceptions and ownership before choosing a model.
Short, useful guidance for leaders turning AI interest into governed, measurable work.
A backlog, inbox or hand-off often reveals a better first AI project than a generic assistant. Map volume, exceptions and ownership before choosing a model.
If nobody records cycle time, rework, error rate or user effort before launch, the pilot may produce excitement without evidence.
Do not add a vague approval step at the end. Define exactly which outputs, risks and confidence signals require a named person to decide.
A useful company assistant must know not only where information lives, but who may see it and when an uncertain answer should stop.
A smooth demonstration proves very little. Collect difficult, incomplete and ambiguous cases early, then decide whether the system should answer, ask or escalate.
Match model capability to the task. Classification, extraction and drafting may need different quality, speed, privacy and cost trade-offs.
The people doing the work should shape the boundaries, test representative cases and understand what the system cannot do.
A proof of value should create a decision. If quality, data, risk or adoption cannot support expansion, stopping is evidence—not failure.
Which specific workflow and baseline will change?
What data leaves our approved environment?
How are errors, uncertainty and human escalation handled?
How will value, adoption and ongoing cost be measured?
Who owns the process and the final decision?
Do we have representative examples and difficult exceptions?
What failure would matter to customers, employees or compliance?
What evidence would make us expand, revise or stop?
Want these principles applied to a real workflow? Complete the readiness check or describe the problem.