Written by Technical Team | Last updated 05.09.2025 | 11 minute read
Before you compare tech stacks or browse model leaderboards, you need to establish whether a potential partner understands your business strategy well enough to translate it into durable AI advantage. Many proposals skip this step, racing straight to demos. That’s a red flag. A strong AI partner should begin by interrogating your value chain, unit economics, and internal constraints, then explain—plainly—how specific AI capabilities change those dynamics. Ask them to narrate a “day in the life” of your customers and employees after the solution goes live. If the story feels generic, the partnership will too.
Probe their notion of the problem boundary. High-performing teams distinguish between a problem that is fundamentally predictive (e.g., forecasting demand), generative (e.g., summarising lengthy documents or drafting responses), optimisation-driven (e.g., routing, scheduling), or a workflow orchestration issue dressed up as AI. You want a partner who can say: “this part is AI, this part is deterministic software, and this part is process change,” then justify each choice. That clarity is a predictor of engineering discipline and faster time to value.
Interrogate how they prioritise opportunities. Good partners frame use cases using three lenses: feasibility (readiness of data and infrastructure), impact (measurable effect on cost, revenue, or risk), and time-to-benefit (how soon value lands). Ask them to score your candidate use cases and defend the order. If they propose an eye-catching but high-uncertainty moonshot first, test whether they can outline a staged path that generates intermediate value—e.g., deploy retrieval-augmented search for your knowledge base now, while you gather training data for a more complex agent later.
Finally, ensure the proposed AI aligns with your operating model. Will it centralise decision-making or empower front-line teams? Will it change incentive structures, compliance obligations, or customer communication norms? A thoughtful partner will talk candidly about adoption risk, training plans, and how to bring unions, regulators, or professional bodies with you. The biggest AI failures aren’t technical; they’re social. Choose a company that treats change management as a first-class engineering concern.
Technical due diligence is where you separate marketing polish from engineering maturity. Start with their approach to model selection. For predictive tasks, can they compare classical machine learning with modern deep learning and justify the trade-offs in interpretability, data volume requirements, and lifecycle cost? For generative tasks, can they explain when fine-tuning a foundation model is warranted versus using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) or prompt engineering? In regulated contexts, do they know when you must prefer smaller, auditable models over opaque, frontier-scale alternatives? A credible company will show you a decision tree and several worked examples from production.
Data readiness is your second axis. Ask how they will profile, cleanse, and label your data, and what they will do when data is sparse, noisy, or siloed. Look for competence in feature stores, vector databases, and data contracts. If they mention a “quick PoC” that ignores the lineage and quality questions, expect rework later. You want someone who treats data governance as code: versioned, unit-tested, and automated. For generative use cases, interrogate their corpus strategy: deduplication, chunking, embeddings, and recency updates. If they can’t talk about embedding drift or hybrid search (dense plus sparse), they are learning on your time.
Architecture choices should be framed around cost, latency, and reliability. How will they meet your latency budgets at peak traffic? Can they articulate a GPU strategy that balances burst capacity, reservation commitments, and quantisation or distillation to control cost? If your workloads must run on-premises or at the edge, do they have prior art for containerised model serving, hardware acceleration, and observability in constrained environments? For critical paths, ask how they implement circuit breakers, graceful degradation, and human-in-the-loop fallbacks when models are low-confidence.
Finally, insist on an evaluation culture. For predictive models, you’ll expect rigorous cross-validation, hold-out testing, and a clear mapping from metrics (precision/recall, F1, AUC, calibration) to business outcomes. For generative systems, demand task-specific evaluation: curated test suites, instruction-following audits, hallucination testing, bias checks, and red-teaming against prompt injection, data exfiltration, and jailbreaks. Ask for their “eval harness” and how it integrates with CI/CD so that model or prompt changes require tests to pass before promotion. If evaluation sounds bespoke and manual, you’ll ship regressions.
Essential technical artefacts to request during diligence:
A partner who can produce these artefacts quickly probably already uses them internally; a partner who promises to “assemble them for you” probably does not. Remember, you are not buying a demo—you are buying the machinery that makes good demos repeatable.
AI introduces attack surfaces that look familiar and unfamiliar at the same time. Prompt injection, training-time poisoning, data extraction, and model inversion are real threats, and they intersect with classic web vulnerabilities. The company you hire must demonstrate a secure software development lifecycle that covers both. Ask how they segregate environments, manage secrets, and harden model endpoints. Do they deploy content filters and guardrails close to the model? Are sensitive prompts and system instructions encrypted at rest and protected in logs? Can they show you how they authenticate and authorise not just users, but also agents, tools, and data connectors invoked by those agents?
Compliance should be proactively designed, not retrofitted. Expect familiarity with your jurisdiction’s privacy law, international data transfers, and sector rules. A solid partner will propose a data protection impact assessment where warranted and supply contractual artefacts such as a data processing agreement, sub-processor list, and breach notification commitments. For safety and fairness, ask about bias detection and mitigation during training and evaluation. If you operate in a highly regulated domain, the vendor should help you prepare documentation suitable for auditors: model cards, decision logs, and change histories that tie directly to release versions. If they cannot help your risk and legal teams explain the system to a sceptical regulator, you are taking on hidden liabilities.
A well-run AI programme is a delivery discipline, not an art project. Before you sign, you should understand how the company will manage scope, quality, and stakeholder expectations. Ask to see their standard delivery templates: statements of work, sprint rituals, definition of done for models and data pipelines, and a pathway from proof-of-concept to production. The answers you want are concrete: feature flags for partial rollouts, A/B tests to validate uplift, and clear gates for moving from sandbox to live environments. If they tell you “we’ll know it when we see it,” you won’t.
Pricing deserves forensic clarity. Total cost of ownership includes not just engineering time but also training runs, inference tokens or compute, data labelling, monitoring, and ongoing enhancements. Insist on a model where infrastructure costs are transparent and attributable to your workloads. Ask how they will forecast spend as context windows grow, traffic fluctuates, or the model mix changes. For fixed-price deliverables, check the change-control mechanism; for time-and-materials, insist on an outcome-oriented backlog and regular value reviews so you’re not merely funding activity.
Service levels and support make or break trust. Require explicit uptime targets for critical components (APIs, vector stores, feature stores, model endpoints), escalation matrices, and recovery objectives. Make sure non-functional requirements—latency, throughput, batch windows—are specified in the same breath as features. If they promise “24/7 support,” ask for response and resolution targets by severity, and evidence of an on-call rota with trained engineers. For production incidents, the partner should commit to post-mortems with corrective actions and owners.
Operational and commercial questions to put on the table:
Contractual hygiene matters just as much as engineering hygiene. Intellectual property terms should distinguish background IP (pre-existing tools and accelerators), foreground IP (what’s built for you), and licensing of third-party models or datasets. Negotiate rights to use, modify, and self-host the deliverables, as well as step-in rights or escrow if the vendor disappears. If they incorporate open-source components, require clarity on licences and obligations. Warranty and indemnity language should address infringement claims and data breaches, not just “best efforts.” When a vendor is reluctant to discuss these topics in detail, they are signalling risk you will eventually own.
Delivery cadence deserves scrutiny too. Great teams demo early and often, share dashboards that expose progress and risks, and invite your engineers into their repositories and observability tools. Ask whether you will have read-only access to their project boards, CI/CD pipelines, and monitoring from week one. Transparency enables course correction and builds trust; opacity produces surprises. If you cannot see the sausage being made, you cannot control quality.
AI initiatives often drown in anecdotes—cool demos, subjective “wow” moments, and isolated productivity stories. That’s not enough for a CTO accountable for budgets and outcomes. From the outset, insist on a rigorous value framework. Define the primary economic lever: cost reduction per transaction, increased conversion, reduced handling time, mistake rate reduction, or risk mitigation quantified as expected loss. Then agree on instrumentation that captures leading indicators (e.g., model confidence scores, coverage) and lagging outcomes (e.g., revenue uplift) with clear causal links. Your partner should be as fluent in experiment design as they are in neural networks, setting up randomised trials or, when that’s impossible, quasi-experimental designs to isolate impact from noise.
Turn PoCs into production systems by treating them as data-collection and learning exercises, not as disposable prototypes. A good company will design even an early pilot to generate the telemetry you’ll need later: user journey analytics, feedback loops, error taxonomies, and labels that accumulate into training or fine-tuning datasets. They will also recommend operational guardrails: confidence thresholds that trigger human review, playbooks for model failure modes, and business rules that bound the system. This mindset converts uncertainty into a pipeline of improvements rather than brittle hacks.
Plan for model and prompt lifecycle management from day one. Models degrade as behaviour, language, or seasonality shifts; prompts accumulate cruft as you accrete exceptions. Your partner should implement continuous evaluation, data drift detection, and scheduled refreshes. For generative systems, that may mean re-embedding the corpus, rebuilding indices, or migrating to newer model versions with canary testing. For predictive systems, it may mean retraining on sliding windows, recalibrating probabilities, or swapping features that correlate with unstable signals. The point is to budget for decay and renewal so that value doesn’t evaporate six months after launch.
Sustainability goes beyond models. Consider organisational capability. The right company will help you stand up the disciplines you’ll need: MLOps practices, data product ownership, prompt engineering patterns, and an internal guild that shares experiments and avoids duplicated effort. They will propose a training plan for engineers, analysts, and non-technical users, and leave behind documentation that reads like a service manual, not a sales brochure. If they prefer to remain a permanent operator rather than enabling your team, challenge that stance—or make sure the economics work long term.
The most effective CTOs use questions as diagnostics. A genuine AI development partner will be excited to answer them, ideally by showing artefacts rather than telling stories. While every organisation is different, the pattern is consistent: start with strategy, interrogate the technical plan, lock down security and compliance, codify delivery and costs, and erect a measurement framework that survives contact with reality. If you encounter vagueness at any step, assume it will grow in production, not shrink.
You should leave your discovery sessions with a crisp narrative: the business problem and its value, the model and data design, the security envelope, the delivery plan and commercials, and the way success will be observed and improved. With that in hand, you’re not just hiring an AI development company—you’re selecting a partner in continuous transformation. Choose the one that can explain their choices, change their mind when the data demands it, and leave your organisation stronger than they found it.
Is your team looking for help with AI development? Click the button below.
Get in touch