If AI isn’t the problem, what is? Maybe trust from frontline teams

What you’ll learn:

If fed the right data, AI can certainly deliver impressive results, but only if your frontline teams trust the information they're being given.
To achieve real trust in AI, your entire organization needs a clear, shared understanding of what's happening on your plant floor.
Clear citations allow frontline teams to quickly confirm if AI suggestions align with real-world conditions.

I watched last week as a technician ignored a critical AI alert, and he was right to do it. The system was wrong. The technician was right. This occurs every day in plants that rushed to implement AI. Manufacturing leaders everywhere feel pressure to "do something with AI." But here's the uncomfortable truth: AI recommendations are worthless if your team doesn't trust them.

Over the past year, I've heard from dozens of manufacturing teams who've learned this lesson the hard way. I visited a plant recently that had made a significant investment in a sophisticated predictive maintenance system. Everything seemed great on paper, but within weeks the operators there had abandoned the tool completely. When I asked why, one technician shrugged and said, "The AI recommendations felt random. We couldn't see where they were coming from, so we stopped trusting them."

This technician's experience isn't unique. If fed the right data, AI can certainly deliver impressive results, but only if your frontline teams trust the information they're being given. And trust comes directly from transparency. If your AI provides recommendations without clearly citing its sources or explaining its logic, your teams won't trust it enough to act on those insights.

Consider this scenario: A sensor on a critical pump triggers an overheating alert. Without context, this looks like just another false alarm. But what if your AI provides immediate visibility into the exact sensor reading, previous maintenance activities, and operator notes about similar past incidents? Suddenly, the recommendation feels reliable and actionable.

Building a shared operational reality

To achieve real trust in AI, your entire organization needs a clear, shared understanding of what's happening on your plant floor. Many teams still rely on siloed databases, disconnected spreadsheets, and handwritten logs, which rarely "talk" to each other. This fragmented approach means frontline teams and managers often have different understandings of reality, making the recommendations from AI tools feel arbitrary and unreliable.

Podcast: AI's role in Kaizen, Lean, technology and continuous improvement

There's a better way. Think of it as creating one source of truth for your entire operation. Every bit of information—whether from machines or people—goes into the same system, in the same format. Nothing gets lost in translation. Nothing gets siloed. Everyone sees the same reality, at the same time. This simple shift eliminates the confusion that kills trust in AI systems.

This unified environment requires good, clean, and comprehensive data from both machines and people. Machine-generated data like sensor readings offer objective measures (the "what"), but human-generated insights, such as operator notes, observations, and historical performance logs, provide the essential context (the "why") that sensors alone can't capture.

What is your company doing about cybersecurity?

Combining these two data streams creates a powerful, holistic view. Operators, technicians, and managers see the exact same information at the same time, enabling immediate verification of the logic behind each AI-driven recommendation.

In a high-stakes environment like manufacturing, where human safety and machine integrity are on the line, your AI solutions must go beyond "best guesses" by referencing credible data sources such as OEM equipment manuals, standard operating procedures, and past performance records.

Clear citations allow frontline teams to quickly confirm if AI suggestions align with real-world conditions. If they don't, operators can easily flag these issues, helping to continually improve both data quality and AI accuracy over time.

This is where the real benefit kicks in. You move beyond simply predicting failures to prescribing exact solutions. Imagine this: Instead of a vague alert that something might fail, your technician gets: "Replace pump bearing No. 4 using procedure MX-127. Parts in Bin C. Similar repairs take 47 minutes."

That's not just an alert, it's a recipe for action—and technicians who get recipes for action don't ignore alerts. They trust them. They use them. And your operation keeps running.

I've seen firsthand how transformative this transparency can be for frontline teams. While onsite at a food processing facility earlier this year, a supervisor told me how her team had struggled at first with trusting AI alerts, causing frustrating and costly delays.

"The system would tell us a mixer needed maintenance, but nobody could explain why, so we'd ignore it until it actually failed," she explained. But after rolling out a unified data platform based on a publish-subscribe architecture, clearly linking each AI recommendation to specific, reliable data sources, the dynamic shifted dramatically.

The alerts evolved from vague warnings to prescriptive guidance: "Check mixer No. 3—vibration patterns match previous bearing failures in units No. 1 and No. 5. Recommended action: Replace the lower bearing assembly using procedure MX-239." This level of specificity eliminated guesswork and accelerated resolution.

Her team not only stopped dismissing alerts but began proactively addressing issues with precise, targeted actions. "Now our technicians arrive at the machine knowing exactly what to fix and how to fix it," she told me. "Our mean-time-to-repair has been cut in half."

Creating a culture of verification

This isn't a one-and-done technology fix—it's a culture shift. Your frontline workers aren't just users of this system, they're active participants in making it smarter. Every time they verify or correct an AI recommendation, they're teaching the system. And unlike most training programs that cost you money, this pays dividends immediately through better decisions and faster repairs.

If there's a discrepancy with an AI output, they need simple tools to flag and correct the issue, feeding that valuable insight back into the system. Over time, this verification loop continuously refines data quality, improves AI accuracy, and strengthens trust.

As technicians verify and act on these prescriptive recommendations, the system learns which repair procedures work best for specific failure modes. Over time, this creates a powerful knowledge base that can recommend increasingly precise interventions.

At one manufacturing plant, this evolution allowed them to move from generic maintenance procedures to situation-specific work instructions tailored to each equipment's unique history and operating context. Their maintenance effectiveness increased dramatically because technicians weren't just alerted to problems—they were guided through the optimal solutions.

Practical steps for building genuine trust

Here’s what manufacturing leaders can do today to build real trust with AI systems:

Honestly evaluate your current data landscape. Identify data gaps, fragmented sources, and inconsistencies holding you back. Start by mapping where critical operational knowledge exists: How much is in databases versus spreadsheets versus your veteran employees' heads? Who actually uses each data source, and for what decisions?
Implement a unified, real-time platform with transparent citations and prescriptive capabilities. Ensure every AI recommendation references clear, credible sources like sensor readings, OEM documentation, historical logs, and technician input. Then link these insights to specific actions, parts, and procedures that technicians can immediately execute. The goal isn't just to tell them what's wrong—it's to show them exactly how to fix it.
Involve frontline workers in validation from day one. Give your team simple, efficient ways to flag and correct AI outputs. Their feedback will continuously improve the accuracy of your AI models and increase team trust.

Here's the bottom line: While your competitors waste time arguing about whether their AI alerts are legitimate, your team will be fixing problems before they cause downtime. While others generate AI recommendations that get ignored, yours will drive immediate action. The difference isn't in the algorithms—it's in the trust. And trust isn't a nice-to-have in manufacturing AI, it's the whole game.

The clock is ticking on AI implementation, but this is a race where the tortoise often beats the hare. Build trust first. Create a shared reality. Link insights directly to actions.

Do this now, and when your competitors are still trying to convince their teams to take AI seriously, yours will already be reaping the benefits of an AI system that works because people actually trust it and use it.