Ratiocard
A vendor-neutral procurement scorecard that reconciles customer-approved support metrics with dated public references, exposes definition and cohort differences, and produces a one-page evidence pack for human vendor review.
The research confirms public AI-support benchmark reports and a manual procurement scorecard article but found no reviewed vendor-neutral scorecard product. Required ticketing interfaces are confirmed in the research context but were unverified in the earlier stage and require customer-specific access validation.
Ratiocard should separate benchmark assertion, source methodology, customer metric definition, source extract, normalized comparison, uncertainty, service-quality evidence, worker-impact evidence, analyst finding, procurement recommendation, approval, contract decision, deployment change and realized outcome. Headline ratios are not universally comparable.
Cost-per-resolution depends on labor allocation, vendor fees, escalation, retries, refunds, quality and excluded contacts. Deflection is not resolution, containment is not customer success and cost reduction is not audited savings. The scorecard cannot approve or terminate vendors or make workforce decisions automatically.
Support operations, finance and procurement teams evaluating AI-support deployments across vendors.
Current benchmark publication and public deployment reversals support urgency.
Board simplicity must coexist with metric comparability, customer quality and worker impact.
The timing trigger is clearer than the historic barrier.
Multiple benchmark sources and a clear procurement buyer make a neutral evidence pack practical.
Public benchmarks may be self-reported or incomparable; source access, cost allocation, quality, workforce impact and procurement authority complicate the scorecard.
Discussion
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.