Define the first useful scope.
Start with a bounded group of systems or one business process. Identify the sponsor, operational owners, reviewers and the people affected by the use of AI. Review existing registers, policy documents and supplier information to establish what is reliable and what needs checking.
The output is an agreed problem statement, priority use cases, dependencies and a clear list of work outside the initial phase. This prevents a small inventory project from silently becoming an enterprise monitoring programme.
Agree the record and decision model.
Define the information required at intake, the statuses a record can hold and the evidence expected at each decision. Specify who may approve, restrict, return or escalate a request. Decide how supplier changes, incidents and overdue reviews reopen an assessment.
Integration and migration requirements need their own review. Confirm available interfaces, data quality, permissions and error-handling expectations before promising an automated connection or moving existing records.
Test the process using realistic scenarios.
Acceptance should cover complete journeys, not just individual screens. Try an incomplete supplier submission, a disputed classification, a conditional approval and a material change after approval. Check that the appropriate people can act and that the resulting records are understandable.
- Agree acceptance criteria and evidence owners in advance.
- Use representative test information with appropriate permissions.
- Record defects, decisions and unresolved dependencies.
- Confirm how records and responsibilities transfer into normal operation.
Make ownership continue after launch.
Handover should identify the operating owner, support contacts, review schedule and process for requesting changes. Training should explain both how to use the agreed workflow and when a matter needs specialist review. A configured tool does not remove the need for judgement.
A later review can compare actual use with the agreed scope: are requests reaching the right reviewers, is evidence current, and are exceptions being resolved? Any expansion should have its own requirements and acceptance decision.