- Who is this for?
- CIOs, transformation leaders and transport operations managers
- Question addressed
- Compare AI agents, RPA, OCR and APIs for a transport use case.
Key takeaways
- The right choice depends on the type of variability, not on a marketing hierarchy.
- An API is often the best route when a reliable contract is available.
- User-interface interaction is useful when the system does not expose the required action.
- Semantic understanding does not remove the need for deterministic controls.
Four distinct roles
| Building block | Primary role | Point to watch |
|---|---|---|
| OCR | Recognise the visual or textual content of a document | Reading a character is not enough to determine the right field or action. |
| API | Exchange data with a system under a defined contract | Coverage depends on the functions actually exposed. |
| RPA | Replay a deterministic sequence | A changing interface or use case can break the scenario. |
| AI operator | Connect context, decisions, actions and verification | Scope, access rights and rule validation must be explicit. |
A combined example in order intake
OCR can read the attached PDF. Mapping logic associates the information with business fields. The operator identifies the request as an amendment rather than a new order. An API creates the record if the TMS exposes that action; otherwise, a validated user-interface interaction can populate the screen. A deterministic control then verifies the values recorded.
No single building block replaces the others. The value comes from orchestrating them and from stopping when the observed state does not match the expected state.
A selection framework that is more useful than slogans
- workflow volume and frequency;
- stability of formats and screens;
- availability and coverage of an API;
- degree of semantic variability;
- impact of an error;
- requirements for evidence, recovery and supervision;
- long-term maintenance costs.
The right question to ask a provider
Ask which building block acts at each stage, how the outcome is verified and which event causes the workflow to stop. A demonstration that shows only the final result proves neither the robustness of record matching nor the handling of exceptions.
For Vigilo, the interaction method is selected for the workflow and qualified in the target environment. A missing API can be addressed within a validated scope, but this approach is not presented as inherently superior to an available, reliable API.
Frequently asked questions
Direct answers
Does an AI agent replace RPA?
Not necessarily. A stable sequence can remain deterministic while the operator handles understanding, context and exceptions.
Does OCR understand a document?
It primarily recognises its content. Mapping to fields, controls and decisions belong to the surrounding workflow.
Why use a user interface if an API is available?
Only when the API does not cover the action, the project constraints justify it and the interaction can be controlled reliably.
Sources and methodology
This resource describes Axonovia's product approach based on transport workflows. The examples are illustrative and do not constitute a performance commitment or a universally applicable contractual rule.
- NIST — AI Risk Management FrameworkGeneral AI risk management framework, consulted for its governance and measurement principles.
Product review: Axonovia team · next review recommended before 31 August 2027 or following a material change in scope.