Industrial AI Scoreboard

Industrial services (maintenance, field services, asset operations)

A technology description — "we're implementing a copilot / an agent / a platform."

A real problem statement, but it isn't written down and it changes depending on who you ask.

A written problem statement, signed by the P&L owner who lives with the problem.

No baseline. We'd be comparing against a feeling.

An anecdote or an estimate someone produced in a meeting.

A number exists, but nobody signed it and the measurement method isn't written down.

A sponsor-signed baseline with the measurement method on paper, taken before the pilot started.

An internal target people agree on verbally.

A written pass/fail threshold, agreed before any build started.

Nothing stops it. Pilots here don't end — they fade.

An informal judgment call by whoever is paying attention that quarter.

Written kill criteria, with a named decision-maker and a decision date.

The vendor. The use case arrived with the proposal.

IT or an innovation team, without the P&L owner in the room.

The P&L owner, in writing, before any vendor was contacted.

Spreadsheets, shared drives, and people's heads.

In systems, but siloed — getting it out is a manual export and a favor.

In named systems, extractable, with a named owner for each source.

No. We'd have to take the output on faith or throw it out.

Yes. Traceability to source is a requirement we impose, not a feature we hope for.

Known bad. The floor codes things to close the ticket, not to describe what happened.

Spot-checked. Mixed results, no systematic fix.

Audited within the last 12 months; the error rate is a number we know.

Known duplicates and mismatches; reconciliation is somebody's spreadsheet.

Mostly consistent; exceptions get handled by hand.

One governed identity per thing, and a process that keeps it that way.

A named person — on top of their full-time day job.

A named owner with allocated hours and the system access to actually do it.

The vendor, entirely. We reviewed the price.

The vendor drafted; we edited around the edges.

We wrote the scope; the vendor priced it.

We wrote the problem statement and the acceptance test; the vendor bid against them.

The demo looks good and the team seems happy.

Our criteria — but the vendor runs the measurement.

A written acceptance test our own team can run without the vendor in the room.

We pay in full either way — or I don't actually know.

We can decline the next phase. The pilot money is gone regardless.

Some payment is held back against delivery milestones.

A meaningful tranche is tied to a pre-agreed, measured outcome.

Nobody — or the vendor's own reference customers.

Internal IT, who may be the ones who want the tool.

Counsel or procurement — on commercial terms only, not on the claims.

An independent party with no stake in the implementation going ahead.