Diligence · Operating decision guide
How to evaluate an AI transformation partner
Otomat editorial · Revised
A neutral selection exercise covering actual staffing, task evidence, security scope, portability, total cost and fit.
Give candidates the same decision brief
Describe the workflow, current constraint, authorized data, risk, internal capacity and intended outcome. Compare a model provider, existing integrator, specialist, internal build or larger advisory firm on the same scope. Each can fit; category claims are weak evidence.
Ask candidates which part they would decline, what they depend on and when they would stop. A clear boundary is often more useful than an expansive capability list. Confirm the proposed staff will actually deliver, and assess key-person dependence and backup coverage.
Inspect a representative test
Use synthetic or approved minimized data. Ask the candidate to complete normal and exception tasks, show source grounding, deny a prohibited action and explain failure behavior. Agree evaluation rules before seeing the result. A polished demonstration is insufficient without independent tasks and a visible review burden.
- Operating fit: who owns the goal, adoption and finance bridge?
- Technical fit: who maintains integrations, tests and deployment?
- Security fit: what is in scope, and which specialist owns the rest?
- Exit fit: what can the client export, replace and restore?
- Commercial fit: what capacity, client effort, exclusions and change costs are priced?
Use gates before weighted scores
First apply hard requirements: lawful data use, constrained actions, accountable delivery and obtainable exit assets. Only compare preferences after those gates pass. Score evidence quality and uncertainty separately; an unsupported assertion should remain unknown rather than receive an average score.
Reference check the actual team and scope
Where permission allows, ask a reference what was accepted, what remained open, how exceptions were handled and whether the client could maintain the system. Do not infer results from confidential names, logos or a supplier’s aggregated claims. Negotiate a bounded initial mandate with evidence-led continuation.
Use the working tools
Blank templates are ungated. Adapt them to the workflow; inputs are not submitted.
Sources and limits
These are Otomat’s proposed operating methods and original decision artifacts. External references inform risk management; they do not certify this method or establish client results. Linked sources were selected for this review; their live revision dates may change.
For anonymous documentation and proposal patterns, see delivery evidence and its boundaries.
Related decisions
Bring a workflow to the discussion
Share the business goal and constraints through the mandate process. Do not send sensitive production data in the initial brief.
Scope an Operating Mandate