You have a problem. Now match it to an approach. This step covers four decisions: which AI method, what data you need, what could go wrong, and whether to build or buy.
The AI menu lists twelve approaches with real government examples. Filter by problem type or data requirement to find candidates worth investigating.
Twelve approaches with the kinds of problems each one is good at, the data each one needs, and a few examples of governments that have used them in practice.
For each priority problem, note one or two candidate approaches from the AI menu and any data gap you would need to close first. The menu is a guide, not a limit, so add your own approaches if you have them.
| Priority problem | Candidate approach | Data gap to close? |
|---|---|---|
Many of the case studies started small. Think about automating one repetitive task, building a single dashboard, or using an LLM to summarise one type of document. Starting smaller is best to produce something with real, immediate impact. Given the scale governments work at, even a tiny change can result in large gains.
Different approaches need very different amounts and quality of data. Check this against your reality before committing.
| Approach | Data bar | What you need | If you don’t have it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Text analysis, search, chatbots | Low | Documents, policies, reports. Even paper records work after digitisation. | Start with what you have. You may be able to create an impactful solution just by bringing together your documents and extracting insights. |
| Anomaly detection | Medium | A substantial sample of transaction or operational records, in consistent format, so that patterns and outliers can be identified. | Sort out the data layer first. This may mean data centralisation, cleaning, or dashboards before applying AI. |
| Prediction & classification | High | Structured historical data with past decisions or outcomes (labels). | Build a labelling process or pick a different approach. |
| Computer vision, remote sensing | High | Imagery (satellite, aerial, drone, ground). May require a specialist partner. | Consider remote-sensing partners and subject matter experts. |
This is a core decision governments have to make, and the answer depends on each given context. Choose the option that best fits your capacity and context.
| Question | Your response |
|---|---|
| Is there a proven off-the-shelf solution already working in a comparable context? | |
| If buying: What demonstration requirements and agency control requirements do you need? | |
| If building: Do you have realistic in-house or partner capacity (engineers, PMs)? | |
| How will you avoid vendor lock-in? | |
| What are the invisible costs of each option? (local context gaps, training, dependency) | |
| What are the visible costs of each option? (vendor prices, LLM use costs, engineer salaries) |
Check each risk before committing to an approach. Each of these risks has options for mitigation. Do not discard a project just because it may have some risks. Evaluating tradeoffs and being mindful of risks creates a strong and defensible approach when you build.
What happens when it is wrong? Is there a human check?
With those three decisions in place you are ready to scope the pilot.
Continue to Step 4 →