No result found
This report needs a scored result to generate.
This is a static sample and does not depend on a scored result.
Back to the programme page
PRAXORALAB Illustrative example · fictional company, for format reference only
Board-Ready Governance Checklist
Kelburn Industrial Supplies
Example use case AI-assisted reorder-point recommendations for warehouse inventory, combining RFID stock counts with IoT demand-cadence data
Kelburn Industrial Supplies is a fictional mid-market distributor of industrial fasteners and components, running one Singapore warehouse with a small light-assembly line. The checklist below is built for its own reorder-point use case, brought into the room, not assigned from a template.
Decision & accountability · Developing
The model recommends a reorder point and trigger quantity per SKU. The Operations Manager is the named owner of any recommendation above a preset spend threshold. Below that threshold, the recommendation currently issues a purchase order automatically, and the escalation path for a wrong automatic order has not yet been written down.
Data lineage · Gap
Twelve months of point-of-sale and pick-history data is centralised and reliable. Supplier lead-time data, the second input the reorder model depends on, is still entered manually by three different buyers using three different conventions, and has not been reconciled against actual delivery dates.
Escalation & oversight · Developing
A weekly exceptions meeting reviews any SKU where the model's recommendation diverges sharply from a buyer's own judgement, but no written threshold defines "sharply," so the meeting currently runs on the buyers' shared instinct rather than a documented rule.
Measurement baseline · Gap
No stockout-rate or carrying-cost baseline was recorded before the pilot began, so an improvement claim after the RFID rollout cannot yet be credibly attributed to it.
A mixed profile across four dimensions, two developing and two flagged as gaps, is exactly the shape I would expect from a first governance pass on a live operational process rather than a hypothetical one, and it is worth being precise about what that mix does and does not mean for Kelburn. Decision and accountability scoring "developing" rather than "gap" tells me the organisation already has the harder half of governance in place: a named owner, the Operations Manager, exists for the decisions that matter most, the ones above the spend threshold. What it does not yet have is the same discipline applied to the decisions that matter less individually but compound in volume, the automatic orders below that threshold, and that asymmetry is the single most common governance gap I see across SME AI deployments: organisations govern the large, visible decision carefully and let the frequent, small one run unsupervised by default rather than by choice.
Data lineage scoring a gap is the more consequential of the two low scores, and I would say so directly in the room rather than let it sit quietly under a "developing" label it does not deserve. Three buyers, three conventions, no reconciliation against actual delivery dates: that is not a data-quality footnote, it is the input the entire reorder-point recommendation is built on. A model that recommends confidently against unreliable lead-time data does not fail loudly, it fails quietly, in the form of reorder points that are wrong by a consistent, unnoticed margin for months before anyone traces the error back to its source. Reconciling three conventions into one is unglamorous work, and it is also the item on this page I would sequence first, ahead of anything the pilot brief opposite proposes.
Measurement baseline scoring a gap is the item I want Kelburn's board to sit with the longest, because it is the one that quietly undermines every other number this programme produces. Without a stockout-rate and carrying-cost figure recorded before the pilot began, no claimed improvement after the RFID rollout can be credibly attributed to the rollout rather than to an ordinary seasonal swing, a supplier catching up on backlog, or simple noise. I would rather see this gap named plainly, as it is here, than see a baseline retrofitted after the fact to make the business case look tidier than the evidence supports. A governance checklist's job is to survive a sceptical board question, not a friendly one from whoever built the pilot, and an honest gap, dated and named, survives that question far better than a confident but unbaselined claim ever will.
PRAXORALAB Scoped, EDG-Aware Delivery Pilot Brief
The same use case as the governance checklist opposite, AI-assisted reorder-point recommendations for warehouse inventory, combining RFID stock counts with IoT demand-cadence data, scoped as a bounded, fundable pilot rather than a full-warehouse rollout.
Pilot scope
RFID tags fitted to bin locations for the top 220 SKUs by pick frequency, covering two of the warehouse's six aisles.
IoT read points at each aisle entrance, logging stock movement in near real time rather than the current weekly manual cycle count.
Built on the existing ERP's purchase-order workflow, not a parallel system running alongside it.
Data & integration points
The RFID reader network feeds directly into the same demand-cadence model the reorder-point recommendation already uses, rather than a separate dashboard nobody checks.
Cycle-count reconciliation scheduled weekly for the first eight weeks, to validate RFID read accuracy against a physical count before the model trusts it unsupervised.
Failure modes checked for
Read misses on tagged items shelved against metal racking, the most common cause of under-reported stock in comparable RFID rollouts.
Tag durability under the warehouse's forklift traffic and ambient dust.
EDG grant readiness
Qualifying cost categories: RFID hardware, systems-integration labour, and the eight-week reconciliation testing above.
Enterprise Development Grant cost-share estimated at fifty percent of qualifying pilot cost, contingent on a written project scope and milestone schedule, not a verbal go-ahead.
The two-aisle, 220-SKU scope above is a deliberate constraint, not a modest one, and it is worth explaining why I would resist Kelburn's understandable instinct to tag the whole warehouse in one pass. I have commissioned RFID rollouts before, including an asset-tracking system with its own self-service kiosk, and the failure mode that kills a pilot's credibility is never the technology itself, it is scoping it too wide to actually validate before the board loses patience. Two aisles and the top 220 SKUs by pick frequency is large enough to produce a real, defensible accuracy figure, and small enough that the eight-week reconciliation against physical counts is something the warehouse team can actually sustain without it becoming the thing that quietly stops happening in week five.
The read-miss risk against metal racking is the failure mode I would flag as non-negotiable to test for, not a theoretical caveat included for completeness. Metal shelving attenuates RFID signal in ways that are highly specific to a given warehouse's racking layout, and a pilot that skips this check and discovers the problem at full-scale rollout has turned a solvable placement problem into a credibility problem for the whole programme. This is the same discipline I applied on the pharmaceutical vision-QC line: test the failure mode that is specific to your physical environment before you trust the system with anything unsupervised, because a system that works perfectly in a vendor's demo warehouse and fails quietly in yours is worse than a system that never worked at all, because it fails without telling anyone.
The EDG readiness note is where I want to be direct about sequencing: cost-share is contingent on a written project scope and milestone schedule existing before submission, not after. Too many SME automation pilots I have seen treat the grant application as a formality to file once the pilot is already running, and then discover the qualifying-cost categories do not line up with what was actually spent, because the scope was never written down precisely enough to match against. The scope above is written to be submitted, not summarised after the fact, which is also why it deliberately does not promise a specific improvement number yet. That number belongs on the governance checklist's baseline, not on this pilot brief, and conflating the two is exactly the kind of confident-but-unbaselined claim that undermines an EDG application under review.
Kelburn Industrial Supplies, its warehouse layout and its RFID pilot figures are invented for this sample only, to show the shape of the output, not a real client's actual plan. In the session, this pilot brief is scoped from the process a participant brings, not assigned from a template.
PRAXORALAB Checked Against Each Other
The governance checklist and the pilot brief above, for the same process, read side by side in the closing session. Some rows confirm each other; some surface a gap neither document showed on its own.
| Process point | Governance checklist says | Pilot brief says | Where they land |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who can trigger a purchase order without a human check | Operations Manager is named owner for any recommendation above the spend threshold; below it, no escalation path is documented for a wrong automatic order. | The ERP integration already lets a high-confidence, Tier-1 recommendation fire a purchase order automatically once RFID confirms the stock count. | Gap surfaced |
| Reliability of the data both plans depend on | Supplier lead-time data is entered manually by three buyers, unreconciled against actual delivery performance. | RFID accuracy will be reconciled against weekly physical counts for eight weeks before the model trusts it unsupervised. | Agreement |
| The ROI claim the business case will eventually make | No stockout-rate or carrying-cost baseline was recorded before the pilot began. | The 90-day roadmap targets a stated reduction in carrying cost once the RFID rollout is complete. | Gap surfaced |
| Documentation the EDG grant application actually needs | An audit-trail requirement already sits inside the checklist's escalation and measurement items. | EDG cost-share is contingent on a written project scope and milestone schedule. | Agreement |
| Who reviews a recommendation that looks wrong | A weekly exceptions meeting, chaired by the buyers, with no written threshold for what counts as divergent. | RFID reconciliation exceptions are reviewed by the systems integrator during the first eight weeks, not by the buyers or the Operations Manager. | Gap surfaced |
The pilot's automatic-trigger logic runs straight into the undocumented escalation path the governance checklist flagged first. The pilot cannot go live unsupervised until governance Item 1 is closed.
Both plans independently name data trust as the binding constraint, from two different inputs, lead time and stock count, and converge on the same fix: reconcile before automating.
The pilot's own improvement target has nothing to be measured against. The baseline governance flagged as missing is a precondition for the pilot's own ROI claim, not a separate governance nicety.
The governance checklist's own record-keeping discipline turns out to satisfy most of what the EDG application needs. Building it once serves both purposes.
Two different people are reviewing two different kinds of exception without a shared definition of "divergent." Neither plan alone would have caught that the other's review process exists.
Reading the five rows above in sequence, the pattern that matters is not which side "won" each comparison, it is that three of the five rows only surface a problem when both documents are read together. Row one is the clearest case: neither the governance checklist alone nor the pilot brief alone shows a broken process. The checklist correctly names an owner for large decisions; the pilot brief correctly builds an efficient automatic trigger for small ones. It is only in the closing session, holding both documents side by side, that the automatic trigger turns out to be running directly through the exact escalation gap the checklist flagged. This is precisely the failure mode this programme exists to catch, and it is also the reason I would resist any client instinct to skip the joint session as a formality once both halves are individually complete.
Row five is the one I would push Kelburn hardest on before either document leaves the room as final. Two review processes, run by two different people, checking two different kinds of exception, sound like redundancy, extra safety. In practice, without a shared definition of what counts as a divergent recommendation, they are two blind spots wearing the appearance of double coverage. An exception the systems integrator considers within normal RFID reconciliation tolerance might be exactly the kind of divergence the buyers' weekly meeting exists to catch, and neither process is currently positioned to notice the other missed it. That gap does not close by adding a third meeting; it closes by writing one shared definition both reviews use.
From the delivery side, row two is the result I am most reassured by, not because the data problem is solved, it isn't yet, but because both documents found the same root cause independently, from two completely different starting points. Governance was checking whether the model's inputs were documented; delivery was checking whether the pilot's readings were accurate enough to trust unsupervised. Neither team was looking for the other's problem, and they landed on the same fix anyway: reconcile the input before you automate anything downstream of it. That kind of convergent finding is a stronger signal than either finding alone, and it is exactly the value this joint session is built to produce.
Row three is the one I want on record as a delivery commitment, not just a governance observation. My roadmap's 90-day carrying-cost target was written before I sat across from the checklist's baseline gap, and reading it now, I would not defend that target as it stands. A stated improvement with nothing documented to measure it against is not a delivery plan, it is a hope with a number attached to it, and I would rather Kelburn's board see that stated plainly here than discover it eighteen months from now when someone asks what the pilot actually achieved. The fix is straightforward and belongs in phase one of the combined plan on the next page, not somewhere later in the pilot: the baseline gets recorded before the RFID rollout, not reconstructed after it, because a number reconstructed after the fact to fit a target is not evidence, it is a story that happens to agree with itself.
Every row in this comparison, and both documents behind it, are invented for Kelburn Industrial Supplies to show the shape of a joint session's output, not a real client's actual findings. In the session, this comparison is built from the two documents a participant's own process actually produces.
PRAXORALAB Governed, Feasible AI Business Case
The checklist, the pilot brief and the comparison above, brought together into one sequenced plan Kelburn Industrial Supplies's board can actually approve capital against.
- Write the missing escalation rule for any automatic purchase order below the spend threshold, before the RFID pilot goes live.
- Record the stockout-rate and carrying-cost baseline before any further change to the reorder model.
- Reconcile the three buyers' supplier lead-time conventions into one dataset with one definition.
- Roll out RFID tagging and read points across the two-aisle pilot scope.
- Run the eight-week reconciliation against physical counts before trusting the model unsupervised.
- Submit the EDG application using the governance checklist's own audit-trail documentation as supporting evidence.
- Re-run the governance checklist and the pilot brief against each other a second time, now with real pilot data instead of assumptions.
- Present the combined business case, baseline improvement, and EDG-funded cost share to Kelburn's board for a scale-or-stop decision.
- If scaling, extend the RFID pilot to the remaining four aisles under the same escalation and reconciliation rules, not a new set written from scratch.
The reason this plan runs foundation, then pilot delivery, then joint review, and not the reverse, is that weeks one to three produce three artefacts nothing later in the plan can substitute for: a written escalation rule for automatic orders, a recorded baseline, and one reconciled lead-time dataset. Skip straight to the RFID rollout without those, and the pilot inherits the exact governance gap row one of the comparison page identified, an automatic trigger running through an undocumented escalation path, except now it is running on live purchase orders rather than a paper exercise. I have watched organisations attempt that reversed sequence before, treating governance as paperwork to backfill once the technology is already live, and the result is a pilot that has to be paused mid-rollout to fix exactly the problem that was cheap to fix on paper in week one and expensive to fix once purchase orders are already flowing through it.
What makes this plan a governed business case rather than two separate initiatives running in parallel is specifically the closing item in weeks ten to thirteen: re-running both documents against each other a second time, with real pilot data rather than the assumptions both were written on. The first joint session, the one that produced the comparison page, was necessarily built on a governance checklist scored before the pilot existed and a pilot brief scoped before real RFID data existed. Neither side yet knows whether the eight-week reconciliation actually validates the model's trust in the sensor data, or whether the new escalation rule survives contact with a genuinely ambiguous purchase-order decision. A single checked-once document is a snapshot; checking it twice, once on assumptions and once on evidence, is what turns this from a plausible plan into a business case a board can actually approve capital against.
What I would flag to Kelburn's board as the plan's real risk is not technical, it is the middle phase quietly losing priority once the pilot appears to be running smoothly. Weeks four to nine are where the eight-week reconciliation against physical counts happens, and that reconciliation is unglamorous, repetitive work that produces no visible milestone most weeks. It is also the only evidence that will exist, by week ten, for whether the RFID data can be trusted with an automatic purchase-order trigger at all. If that reconciliation gets shortened under time pressure, the joint review in weeks ten to thirteen has nothing real to check the governance checklist against, and the whole point of this programme, checking a governance plan against a delivery plan rather than assuming either one, quietly collapses back into two documents that were never actually tested against each other.
The EDG submission timing in phase two is the other item I would protect deliberately. Submitting once the written scope and milestone schedule exist, using the governance checklist's own audit-trail documentation as supporting evidence, means the grant application and the governance work are not two separate compliance exercises competing for the same person's time in the same week, they are one piece of documentation serving two purposes. That is, in my experience commissioning grant-funded systems before, the difference between a submission that takes an afternoon because the underlying discipline already exists and one that takes a month because someone is reconstructing a paper trail after the fact. Phase three's scale decision, extending to four more aisles under the same rules rather than writing a new set from scratch, only works if phases one and two were actually followed in order, not compressed to make an earlier deadline look met.
Every score, quote and figure on these four pages is invented for Kelburn Industrial Supplies, a fictional company, so the format of what a participant leaves with can be judged before enquiring. It is not a real client's deliverable, and no organisation named Kelburn Industrial Supplies is a Praxora Lab client. The programme itself checks your own organisation's own process, in the room, on the day.
One day, two facilitators, run by Terence Kok and Veronica Loh.