Related pages and concepts

Best for

Leadership teams comparing multiple AI opportunities before choosing the first workflow.

What this template helps produce

  • Evidence-backed workflow ranking
  • Pause-and-remediate gates
  • First-system decision
View template libraryOpen Architecture Assessment

Six-factor AI workflow selection scorecard

Rank candidates with evidence across impact, feasibility, risk, measurability, human review, and reversibility. A high total never overrides a missing owner, prohibited data use, or an unacceptable downside.

Score each factor from 1 (weak or unknown) to 5 (strong and evidenced). Record the evidence beside the number.

FactorDecision questionEvidence to record
ImpactWould improving this workflow materially change time, quality, revenue, service, risk, or decision clarity?Baseline volume, delay, rework, error, cost, service, or decision signal tied to a named owner.
FeasibilityAre the context, data, permissions, integrations, skills, and operating capacity available for a bounded first version?Source and system inventory, access owner, integration path, dependency list, and smallest viable scope.
RiskWhat customer, financial, legal, privacy, security, people, or operational harm could occur if the workflow is wrong or unavailable?Impact and likelihood, prohibited actions, control owner, escalation threshold, and fallback path.
MeasurabilityCan the team compare a baseline with a defined result and detect quality or risk drift after launch?Baseline, target, evaluation set, acceptance threshold, monitoring signal, and review cadence.
Human reviewCan an accountable person review the right outputs and exceptions without becoming the new bottleneck?Reviewer role, review trigger, expected volume, response time, override, and escalation evidence.
ReversibilityCan the team pause, roll back, export, replace, or retire the workflow without losing control of data or operations?Stop rule, manual fallback, rollback path, export rights, deletion and retention plan, and exit owner.

How to make the decision

  1. 01Score every factor from 1 to 5 and attach the evidence used. Unknown evidence scores 1, not an optimistic estimate.
  2. 02Do not average away material risk. A risk, human-review, or reversibility score below 3 creates a pause-and-remediate gate.
  3. 03Compare the top candidates by evidence quality and operating fit, not only by total score.
  4. 04Choose the smallest candidate that has an owner, measurable outcome, governed context, workable review path, and credible exit.

Stop gates

  • •No accountable workflow owner
  • •Prohibited or unjustified data use
  • •No review or fallback for consequential actions
  • •No measurable result or acceptance threshold
  • •No practical pause, export, rollback, or exit path

Sources behind the method

The method adapts NIST lifecycle risk decisions and Canadian security guidance into a small-business workflow screen. It is an IntelliSync prioritization method, not an official NIST or Government of Canada score.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST AI Risk Management Framework Core

A voluntary risk-management framework organized around Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage, with context, measurement, accountability, and lifecycle decisions treated as connected work.

https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/airmf/5-sec-core/