Nobody's AI is working
moderately well everywhere.
That is what the company number says.
It has never been true
of any organization
that has ever deployed anything.
Michael J Domanic runs AI at UserTesting.
His answer is better.
Stop producing the company number.
Every quarter, take the ten
most meaningful deployments.
Measure those.
Ten outcomes instead of one average.
The reason this works
is what an average does to a portfolio.
Most AI deployments do very little.
A few do a great deal.
Blend them and both facts disappear.
What one number reports.
↳ AI is delivering returns
↳ The investment is on track
↳ Roughly what was projected
What ten measurements report.
↳ These three changed the business
↳ These four are worth continuing
↳ These three should be killed
One answer survives a board meeting.
The other tells you
where to put next year's money.
The second list is also the only one
that improves anything.
An average cannot be acted on.
A ranked ten can.
You already know
which number your last deck reported.
That is not a measurement problem.
It is a portfolio
reported as a single position.
Which ten would you measure
if the company number went away?
Mo Johnson, MD MBA is a cardiothoracic surgeon and the founder of GPe Research. He created The Accountability Gap™ (TAG™), which names the moment the AI stops and the named owner starts. MedicoVigilance™ covers clinical AI. FinVigilance™ covers financial AI. Field Notes are short dispatches from the accountability frontier, published at tagframework.com.
Follow the work on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mo-johnson