From reactive to predictive: an AI agent-powered early warning system for future-ready manufacturers

Every year, OEMs lose billions to avoidable failures — not because the data wasn’t there, but because no one saw it in time.

In Europe’s manufacturing ecosystem, the equipment you sell today enters a complex, high-stakes aftermarket ecosystem. From spare parts planning to warranty claims and service calls, the aftermarket service lifecycle often determines not just profitability but also reputation and brand trust. Yet too many Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) remain trapped in the reactive model, responding to failures. The real opportunity lies in predicting them before they impact customers.

Why the reactive model is broken

Across the manufacturing sector, warranty and support costs regularly consume 2–5 % of revenues. At that scale, doing nothing to anticipate issues is simply not viable. Traditional workflows run reactively: a problem becomes visible only after an owner complains, a dealer raises a repair order, or a claim is submitted. By the time those issues arise, the damage is often already done; customers are inconvenienced, brand trust is eroded, and supply-chain disruptions are underway.

At Tavant, we observe the same pattern repeat itself over and over: teams spend 80% of their time identifying the issue and only 20% actually resolving it. Progress slows because the information they need is scattered across dealer repair orders, call-center notes, IoT logs, parts movements, technical service records, social posts, even photos and audio. Most of this data is unstructured (free text, images, PDFs), spread across multiple European languages, and crucially, much of it never connected back to the manufacturer at all.

This is the leakage that keeps organizations on the back foot, and it’s precisely the gap an Early Warning System (EWS) is designed to close.

What “Early Warning System” really means

A condition materializes (the true starting point), long before anyone is aware. If the owner notices, they may go to a shop. The shop decides whether the issue is covered; if not covered, the signal often never reaches the manufacturer, resulting in lost data. Even when it does, it can be weeks or months after the first hints appeared, in call transcripts on social media or in error-code streams.

Two things must be fixed:

1. Latency: shrink time-to-awareness between occurrence and OEM visibility.
2. Leakage: capture signals that currently die in dealer systems, local files, and informal channels.

The response is not another dashboard. It is a data and decision fabric designed to bring signals forward and convert them into timely action.

The architecture of proactive service

Tavant’s approach is straightforward and proven in aftermarket and service-heavy environments:

1. Unify the data you already own
   Bring dealer repair orders, customer calls, warranty claims, IoT/telematics, parts consumption, service/TSB records, and social feedback into a central service data hub with connectors and APIs to your core systems (SAP, Jira, survey platforms, and others). Think of this as creating an always-on “context layer” for service.
2. Enrich what’s messy
   A GenAI layer cleans the input, resolves entities (such as products, causal parts, and customers), translates multilingual text, corrects typos and free text, and transcribes audio. This is the difference between reading thousands of unstructured notes and receiving decision-ready signals.
3. Correlate and detect patterns
   Analytics models (including forecasting, trend detection, Pareto analysis, and anomaly detection) examine multiple sources to identify emerging issues, rather than simply confirming what’s already visible. For field teams, the output is intuitive: failure clusters grouped by product/series, causal part, geography, or symptoms.
4. Prioritize, then route
   Every cluster is scored for risk and impact, so engineering, quality, and service leaders focus on what matters now. Workflows push each item through different stages (Detect → Investigate → Monitor → Close), creating a single trail for corrective actions, countermeasure validation, and (when needed) campaigns or recalls.

The system surfaces the business outcomes quality leaders care about most:

• Data Enrichment
• Market impact ($)
• Failure Rate %
• Per Incident cost ($)
• Priority Ranking
• Root Cause Determination
• Part Consumption
• Counter Measure Validation
• Causal Part Identification
• Campaign Planning

The result is not just speed, it’s consistency. When service teams see the same cluster, the same severity score, and the same trendline, debate narrows to what to do next.

---