{"resourceId":"aaup-on-the-field-ai-procurement-playbook-202609","versions":[{"version":"external-e86d08943013fe2ae90461663f8d4d76c8a1e38b05d99b2a376061aa419fb0ef","resource":{"id":"aaup-on-the-field-ai-procurement-playbook-202609","title":"AAUP On-the-Field playbook pushes workers into AI procurement mapping, RFI/RFP influence, and CBA tech clauses","organization":"American Association of University Professors (with Collaborative Research Center for Resilience / NYU Law clinic)","sector":"Higher education labor / shared governance / technology procurement","geography":"United States (higher-education focused playbook with cross-sector examples)","publishedAt":"September 2026 (AAUP 2026-09 toolkit path)","publicationDate":"2026-09-01","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"American Association of University Professors","sourceLabel":"Association procurement playbook On the Field: Strategies for Confronting AI at Work","sourceUrl":"https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/2026-09/On-the-Field-Strategies-for-Workers-2026.pdf","evidenceClass":"public-sector-association","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","accessibility-workforce","operating-model","data-security","knowledge-work"],"finding":"AAUP's 2026 On the Field playbook (hosted under the association's September 2026 AI activism toolkit path) gives workers and unions a stage-based strategy for intervening in AI and technology procurement before, during, and after contract award. Thirteen plays cover procurement power mapping; collective-bargaining contract audits; raising awareness of tech harms; designing tech-focused bargaining demands; redefining the employer problem; drafting RFIs/RFPs; public advocacy; vendor and technology evaluation; leveraging worker decision-making; demanding ongoing transparency; addressing harms; planning pauses/moratoria; and strikes or scrapping AI. Higher-education illustrations include Michigan LEO-GLAM and University Staff United joint technology committees, other campus CBA references (CUNY, Yale, Brown, Oregon State, Maine AFUM), and the SEIU668 Pennsylvania generative-AI labor-management group that raised PII concerns and saw pilots slowed. The document argues early problem-definition and RFI/RFP influence prevent surveillance and automation harms that audits alone cannot unwind.","sledRelevance":"Campus-operations labor and procurement-constraint evidence for administrative AI acquisition—not instructional AI policy alone. Why now: never archived; distinct from the archived AAUP/AFT Tech Audit Guide by focusing on procurement-stage plays; newly relevant alongside Pitt contract/indemnification friction and URI gateway centralization.","evidence":"Opened AAUP HTTPS PDF and confirmed toolkit linkage describing it as a higher-ed procurement playbook. Association guidance with cited CBA examples; not measured deployment outcomes.","architectureImplications":"Expect unions/shared governance to demand evaluation access to vendor materials, logging/kill-switch evidence, and limits on secondary surveillance uses when campuses procure admin AI gateways, SOC tools, or ERP AI modules.","governanceImplications":"Build notice-and-comment or labor-management review into AI procurement timelines; document decision-maker knowledge before deployment; treat pilots as high-leverage intervention points.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Playbook elevates PII/public-service confidentiality (SEIU668 example) as bargainable constraints that can pause generative-AI pilots lacking adequate protections.","caveats":"Advocacy playbook without campus outcome metrics; exact day-of-month not printed on cover (September 2026 path); cross-sector plays need HE adaptation.","streamIds":["campus-operations"],"roles":{"sales":"Public-campus buyers facing active faculty/staff AI bargaining need procurement processes that survive shared-governance scrutiny—not stealth pilots. AAUP's On-the-Field playbook equips workers to map procurement, shape RFIs/RFPs, evaluate vendors, and bargain tech committees, with HE examples from Michigan and SEIU668 PII pauses. Bound discovery to whether unions have information-request rights and where AI pilots sit in the procurement stage. Do not promise labor acquiescence, frame the playbook as anti-technology absolutism, or claim it is a finished campus policy.","engineering":"Fit is procurement and architecture packages that expose decision rights, data flows, override/kill-switch, and secondary-use limits early—because workers are being coached to ask those questions in RFPs. Prerequisites include written procurement maps and vendor fact sheets. Constraints: advocacy framing and variable CBA leverage. Proof of value is an RFP addendum covering AI data use, human gates, and audit access accepted by procurement and shared governance.","delivery":"Delivery inserts labor/shared-governance checkpoints into AI intake, prepares vendor Q&A for Play 8-style evaluation, and tracks pilot pause criteria when PII or job impacts are unresolved. Ownership sits with procurement and HR/labor relations jointly with CIO. Acceptance should include documented worker/committee review before award and contract clauses for ongoing transparency. Risks include adversarial delay theater, incomplete disclosure to committees, and pilots that expand beyond bargained scope."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Campus AI procurements proceed without worker visibility, creating later bargaining conflicts, privacy incidents, and stalled pilots.","stakeholders":["CIO","Procurement","HR/labor relations","Faculty/staff unions","Shared governance bodies"],"discoveryQuestions":["What CBA clauses cover technology notice or committees?","At what procurement stage are current AI pilots?","Can unions request vendor contracts and data-flow docs?","Have any AI pilots been paused over PII or jobs?"],"valueHypothesis":"Transparent procurement with early worker input can reduce later stoppages—AAUP offers process plays, not proof of faster deployment.","potentialEngagement":"Five-week AI procurement resilience review: map intake stages, draft RFP AI addendum, and align labor-management checkpoint calendar.","unsupportedClaims":["Guaranteed strike avoidance","Guaranteed faster procurement","Playbook as binding campus law"]},"engineering":{"fit":"AI solutions whose architecture and contracts answer worker evaluation questions on data, oversight, bias, and kill-switch before award.","architectureIntegration":"Attach AI vendor fact sheets, data-flow diagrams, logging/override designs, and secondary-use controls to RFI/RFP packages.","prerequisites":["Procurement process map","CBA/info-request path","Privacy review capacity","Vendor questionnaire"],"constraints":["Advocacy source","Variable union density","Pilot rules may bypass full RFP scrutiny"],"security":"Require disclosure of training/retention, subprocessors, and unattended remote-access risks; mandate human gates for consequential admin actions.","proofOfValue":["Completed vendor evaluation rubric","Documented kill-switch/override design","PII handling accepted by privacy/labor reviewers"]},"delivery":{"work":"Embed committee review in intake, run vendor Q&A, negotiate transparency/audit clauses, and define pause triggers for unresolved harms.","dependencies":["Procurement","Labor relations","Privacy/CISO","Application owners","Legal"],"ownership":"Procurement lead with HR/labor relations co-ownership for bargaining impacts; CIO for technical standards.","skillsAdoption":"Train procurement and IT owners to answer Play 8-style vendor questions; brief committees without dumping raw marketing PDFs.","governanceCheckpoints":["Pre-RFI problem definition with workers","Pre-award vendor evaluation","Post-award monitoring report to committee"],"acceptanceCriteria":["AI RFP addendum used on next admin AI buy","Committee review recorded before award","Contract transparency clause present"],"risks":["Process delay without decision rules","Symbolic committees without data access","Scope creep after pilot"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-28T22:05:00-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-09-28T22:12:00-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Centers worker voice on job quality, surveillance, and service quality; aims to prevent AI-driven speedups and displacement in administrative roles.","procurementImplications":"Treat RFI/RFP drafting and vendor evaluation as mandatory shared-governance touchpoints for administrative AI; pilots should not permanently evade competitive scrutiny.","operatingModelImplications":"Shifts AI introduction from IT-only purchase to staged labor-aware procurement with pause authority when PII or working-condition harms appear.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/2026-09/On-the-Field-Strategies-for-Workers-2026.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"This playbook gives workers and anyone curious an introduction to strategies related to the procurement process of AI technology at work","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}