Skip to main content
Research register
Protocol developmentDraft protocol 0.1

The AI Implementation Friction Field Study

A proposed field study of the operating, technical, economic, and organizational conditions that stop AI initiatives from moving from experimentation into reliable use.

Proposed interviews
60
Target sample for the initial field cycle
Adoption stages
06
From curiosity through monitored production use
Barrier codes
12+1
Twelve primary categories plus an open “other” code
Quality-review target
10%
Target share of interview records scheduled for protocol review

Central question

What the study is designed to answer

Where do established organizations lose confidence, momentum, or economic clarity when they try to move AI from an experiment into an accountable operating workflow?
  1. 01

    Which failure modes appear before an AI initiative reaches production?

  2. 02

    How do executive sponsors and day-to-day operators describe the same barrier differently?

  3. 03

    Which workflows have measurable value but weak ownership, data, or integration readiness?

  4. 04

    What evidence makes an AI-enabled workflow trustworthy enough for repeated use?

  5. 05

    Which 90-day measures are meaningful to the leaders accountable for the investment?

Method

Planned evidence collection

  1. 01

    Structured interviews with operators and functional leaders using a consistent research guide.

  2. 02

    Separate research records, consent choices, and commercial follow-up permissions.

  3. 03

    Participant-reported estimates labeled as reported rather than independently observed.

  4. 04

    Adoption-stage and barrier coding with counts published alongside percentages.

  5. 05

    Anonymized synthesis by default; identifiable examples require a separate written release.

Quality control

Checks before analysis

  1. 01

    Observed interviewer calibration before fieldwork

  2. 02

    Early-record review before additional interviews count toward the target

  3. 03

    Independent coding of a shared sample and reconciliation of differences

  4. 04

    Explicit confidence notes and evidence provenance on each research record

  5. 05

    Published limitations, recruitment method, denominator, and missing-data treatment

Planned report

Outputs if the field cycle proceeds

01

Participant and method summary

02

Distribution of adoption stages

03

Barrier counts by operating context

04

Workflow categories with the highest reported friction

05

Operator trust conditions and 90-day success measures

06

Anonymized field observations and sample limitations

Related engagement

Need a decision-specific research mandate inside your organization?

Submit a decision brief