How to position AI workflow automation against an incumbent’s AI feature

Position against an incumbent by the buyer's workflow and switching decision. A feature comparison can miss implementation effort, trust, existing contracts, and habit. Identify the specific situation where the new product changes the customer's outcome enough to justify adoption.

Start with the decision

Build a dated comparison using actual product documentation and permissioned buyer evidence. Include the option of doing nothing. Test the claimed difference on a concrete task and record what the incumbent already does well.

The illustrative scenario

This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.

The fictional product routes purchase requests through a small operations team. A requester supplies context, a budget owner approves spending, and an administrator maintains the workflow. Exceptions are common enough to affect adoption.

Automating a step can move work to the exception queue rather than remove it. Keep proposed actions, approvals, and completed actions separate in the event history.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of AI workflow automation in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.

Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Inspect request histories, approval timestamps, exception reasons, manual overrides, and changes in process ownership. Include requests that stalled or were withdrawn. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.

Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. A narrow, evidenced position is more useful than a sweeping claim that incumbents cannot innovate. Revisit the comparison as products change and avoid publishing unsupported competitor performance or security claims. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.

Use this worksheet

Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.

1. Which buyer situation favors switching?
2. What does the incumbent already solve?
3. What switching effort exists?
4. What evidence supports the difference?
5. When is staying reasonable?

Questions specific to this scenario

• Who approves a purchase?
• Which exceptions stop the workflow?
• How are manual overrides recorded?

Inspect request histories, approval timestamps, exception reasons, manual overrides, and changes in process ownership. Include requests that stalled or were withdrawn.

A concrete next test

Follow one request that passes normally and one that needs an exception. Ask the requester, approver, and administrator what each can see and change. Record whether automation removes work or increases the burden on the person managing stalled requests.

Interpret the result

A narrow, evidenced position is more useful than a sweeping claim that incumbents cannot innovate. Revisit the comparison as products change and avoid publishing unsupported competitor performance or security claims.

Compare the full request-to-decision process with the current system. A faster initial classification can hide a slower approval or correction stage.

Sources and method

These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.

• a16z: A Framework for Finding a Design Partner
• NIST: AI Risk Management Framework