<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Free resources on Dr. Hitesh Sarda</title>
		<link>https://hitesh.in/resources/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Free resources on Dr. Hitesh Sarda</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-US</language>
		
		
		
		
			<atom:link href="https://hitesh.in/resources/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>AI Readiness Assessment</title>
				<link>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-readiness-assessment/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-readiness-assessment/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Most readiness assessments score your infrastructure and your &amp;ldquo;data maturity&amp;rdquo; in the abstract, and most companies come out as &amp;ldquo;partly ready&amp;rdquo;, which tells you nothing about what to do on Monday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one asks about a single AI use case you are thinking of funding. It has 25 questions in five areas, each scored 0, 1 or 2, and it ends with what to do at each score: fix something first, run a small pilot, or scale.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>AI Use Case Prioritization Matrix</title>
				<link>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-use-case-prioritization-matrix/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-use-case-prioritization-matrix/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Every leadership team has a list of AI ideas, and the usual way to rank them is value against feasibility. That ranking keeps producing pilots that impress in the demo and stall afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This matrix adds the criteria that decide whether AI pays off: how cheap the output is to check, what a mistake costs, whether the work is hard or merely messy, whether a smaller model would do, who owns the outcome, and what it costs at production volume.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>AI Agent Governance Framework</title>
				<link>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-agent-governance-framework/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-agent-governance-framework/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Most AI governance documents are policy essays. This is a template: tables and checklists you fill in, short enough to adopt in a week and specific enough to argue with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is organized around four ideas I keep returning to. Limit an agent by what it can damage. Match its autonomy to how cheap a mistake is to catch and undo. Give it an owner, a scope and a review, as you would a new hire. And be able to say afterwards what it did.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>AI Vendor Evaluation Checklist</title>
				<link>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-vendor-evaluation-checklist/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://hitesh.in/resources/ai-vendor-evaluation-checklist/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;A standard vendor questionnaire asks about certifications and uptime. Those matter, and they are not where AI purchases usually go wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This checklist is written from the buyer&amp;rsquo;s side. It covers the risks I write about: pricing that rests on subsidized compute, metering you cannot audit, a demo that measures the vendor&amp;rsquo;s expert, a supplier who may ship your product, and what happens to your secrets when the vendor is breached.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
