In brief
- A platform is useful when several applications genuinely need shared foundations.
- Must-have requirements for data, access and operations should be fixed before product demonstrations.
- A large model catalogue matters less than measurable quality and practical portability.
- A pilot must prove identity, data flow, monitoring and exit, not merely generate an answer.
Which shared purpose should the platform serve?
A platform brings together reusable capabilities such as model access, identity, data integration, tool management, evaluation and monitoring. First identify which concrete applications need these capabilities during the next twelve to twenty-four months.
One use case does not automatically justify a broad platform. Conversely, several isolated projects create unnecessary duplication when each recreates the same access, data connections and controls.
- Prioritised applications and user groups
- Shared models, data sources and tools
- Binding identity, quality and governance rules
- Expected teams, volume, regions and operating hours
Which requirements belong in the comparison?
Separate mandatory criteria from desirable features. An exclusion concerning data location or identity integration must not be offset by many less important functions. Express requirements as testable scenarios rather than broad claims.
| Mandatory gate | Testable scenario | Pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| Data and contract | Trace the exact service data flow including logs, support and subprocessors | Region, retention, training, deletion and contract meet the binding requirement |
| Identity and permissions | Connect SSO and test inherited document access with two different roles | The platform never exposes more data than the source system permits |
| Quality and security | Run internal normal, edge and attack cases repeatedly | Every minimum threshold is met and no defined critical failure occurs |
| Operations | Simulate a model change, quota, outage, alert and support escalation | Owners receive actionable logs and the fallback path works |
| Exit | Move configuration, test cases, data and application logic to an alternative | The export is technically usable and contractually free of unclear residual dependency |
What must a selection pilot prove in practice?
A prepared demo rarely reveals difficult boundaries. Ask candidates to implement the same representative use case with your languages, permissions and data conditions. The pilot should include failure cases and operational tasks.
- Step 1
Quality
Run internal test cases repeatedly and assess critical failures separately.
- Step 2
Integration
Connect single sign-on, roles, one real data source and one controlled tool call.
- Step 3
Operations
Test logs, cost, model versions, outages and support paths in practice.
- Step 4
Exit
Export or transfer data, configuration, test cases and application code to an alternative.
What does a weighted decision between two candidates look like?
Once mandatory gates have passed, remaining differences are rated on a fixed scale from 1 to 5. This anonymised scorecard deliberately shows why a high total cannot override an exclusion. Every score points to a test, contract term or operational record.
| Criterion | Weight | Candidate A | Candidate B | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality on internal cases | 30 % | 4/5 | 5/5 | Repeatable evaluation with the identical test set |
| Data and security | 25 % | 5/5 | 4/5 | Data flow, contract and technical security test |
| Integration and permissions | 20 % | 3/5 | 4/5, but permission inheritance is missing | SSO, role and document-access test |
| Operations and support | 15 % | 4/5 | 3/5 | Outage exercise, logs and support case |
| Fully loaded cost and exit | 10 % | 2/5 | 4/5 | Three-year cost model and export test |
| Weighted result | 100 % | 77/100; all gates passed | 83/100; excluded because permission inheritance is missing | Recorded decision with accepted trade-offs |
How does selection become a sustainable decision?
Business, architecture, security, privacy, procurement and operations should assess the same documented criteria from their respective responsibilities. The decision records not only the winner but assumptions, open risks and accepted dependencies.
- Freeze weighting and exclusion criteria before final scoring
- Map contractual claims to the exact product, plan and operating mode
- Name owners and budgets for the platform and initial applications
- Reassess after the pilot, a contractual change or major architecture change
Example: one platform for three initial applications
A company plans knowledge search, document processing and a service copilot. Two platforms meet the quality requirements. The pilot shows that only one inherits existing permissions down to document level, sends logs to central monitoring and supports model changes with the same evals. Export of configuration and data is tested contractually and technically before broader rollout.
What to remember
Choose a platform for a clear shared purpose. Prove mandatory criteria with internal cases and test data flow, operations and exit as practically as the visible AI capabilities.
Sources and further reading
These primary sources provide further detail on definitions, technical foundations or responsible use.
Content reviewed