Evaluating an automation pilot

Start with the decision the pilot must support

A pilot should resolve a specific uncertainty. Can the system prepare a useful record from the documents received? Can the integration reduce repeated entry without introducing unresolved discrepancies? Can an agent investigate a request within the agreed access and operating limits?

Name the process owner, define where the test begins and ends, and describe the output that owner would accept. Record the systems, users and types of material included. This makes the scope and the eventual conclusion understandable.

Agree what would justify proceeding, what would require a change and what would stop the work. A pilot may demonstrate a useful narrow application even when the original broader idea needs revision.

Collect a baseline that describes the existing work

Observe the current process using a defined sample and period. Record the work people do to prepare, check, correct and complete an item. Include waiting time where it affects the business requirement.

Keep the comparison groups meaningful. Document length, request complexity, missing information, user experience and workload can change the result. A pilot using carefully selected examples cannot be treated as evidence for every case the business receives.

Where practical, evaluate alternative designs on the same representative cases. Keep sensitive material within the agreed access and retention arrangements. Record exclusions so that a stronger headline does not hide a narrower task.

Measure accepted work and the effort around it

Completion counts alone can conceal the checking and recovery that follows. Define a small set of measures that the process owner can inspect, with a consistent rule for what each measure includes.

Accepted outputs

How many eligible items meet the agreed quality criteria without further correction? Define the denominator and any excluded cases.

Human handling

Time spent preparing, reviewing, correcting and recovering each completed item. Separate these activities when the distinction affects the decision.

Elapsed time

Time from the agreed starting event to completion, including time waiting for information or approval.

Exceptions

The reasons items stop, the person responsible, time unresolved and whether the issue recurs.

Operating cost

Model and tool usage, hosting, integration charges, monitoring, support and the people needed to keep the process working.

Compare the cost of a usable result

A low price per model call does not establish a low cost per completed business task. One item may require multiple calls, external tools, human review or repeated investigation. Another may be completed by application rules without a model call.

Estimate the cost using the observed workflow. Record model usage and tool charges alongside the operating and human activities included in the comparison. Do not treat engineering effort or maintenance as free because it sits outside a token invoice.

Use the accepted output as one useful unit of comparison, while retaining the quality and exception measures beside it. A single blended number can hide an unacceptable error or an unresolved operational dependency.

Use the evidence to define the next scope

Review the results with the people responsible for the process and the implementation. Explain where the system worked, where it required intervention and which conditions were not tested. Include failures and corrections in that record.

The next decision may be a limited release, a change to the workflow, a different technical pattern or a decision to stop. Define the remaining access, monitoring, support and training work before treating the pilot as an operating service.

A useful handover includes the evaluation material, the agreed acceptance criteria and the responsibilities for monitoring and changing the implementation. Future changes to data, models or connected systems should have a route back through appropriate verification.