Define comparison criteria
The work assignment is to prioritise use cases by value and feasibility rather than hype. Define purpose, owner and permitted operating boundary before the first test.
The domain review baseline covers value, clarity, data, governance and ownership. Assumptions and missing information remain visible in the result.
Compare using the same task
- Describe the expected value and concrete workflow for each use case.
- Assess clarity, data availability, governance and ownership using identical criteria.
- Justify individual ratings and visibly flag uncertainty or missing information.
- Prioritise a pilot and assess its outstanding prerequisites independently of the score.
Document the selection rationale
Each use case has the same assessment baseline with justified individual ratings and a named owner. The pilot decision additionally lists outstanding prerequisites and required approvals.
Avoid: reading a high score as automatic approval. A high total score cannot automatically resolve unclear data, missing governance or absent accountability.
Decision matrix
| Decision point | Proceed when | Stop when |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison baseline | Documented: value, clarity, data, governance and ownership. | Scope, data or accountability remains unresolved. |
| Task test | Each use case has the same assessment baseline with justified individual ratings and a named owner. The pilot decision additionally lists outstanding prerequisites and required approvals. | There is only an unevaluated demo without acceptance evidence. |
| Decision boundary | Owner, approval, fallback and next review date are defined. | Avoid: reading a high score as automatic approval. A high total score cannot automatically resolve unclear data, missing governance or absent accountability. |
Keep it verifiable
Primary sources
- NIST: AI Risk Management Framework coreSource checked:
- FinOps Foundation: Unit economicsSource checked:
