Detailed AI Readiness Self-Assessment

STEP 1 OF 9

0 of 35 readiness questions answered

Your organisation

Choose your context. It informs the checks, without adding points.

Which sector best describes your organisation?

How many people work in your organisation?

Where are you with AI today?

What is the most consequential AI use you are considering?

1. Which business outcomes should AI improve, and what baseline measures support those priorities?

No agreed business outcome or baseline. Priority outcomes are agreed; baseline measures are incomplete. Owned outcomes and baseline measures are documented and reviewed. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

2. Who sponsors organisational AI adoption and can approve funding, ownership and operating changes?

No accountable sponsor or authority to commit resources. A sponsor is identified; authority or resources need confirmation. A named sponsor has agreed authority, resources and review responsibilities. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

3. How are AI priorities linked to the organisation’s strategy and agreed delivery plans?

AI priorities are disconnected from agreed business plans. Some priorities link to strategy; delivery alignment is incomplete. Priorities are linked to strategy, owned plans and review points. Not sure

4. How will benefits, quality and possible adverse effects be measured and reviewed?

No agreed success measures or review approach. Benefits or quality measures exist; adverse effects or reviews need work. Benefits, quality and adverse effects have baselines, owners and review triggers. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

5. How does leadership support bounded experimentation, learning and stopping unsuccessful work?

Experimentation has no agreed boundaries or stop decisions. Leadership supports pilots; learning and stop criteria are inconsistent. Bounded experiments have sponsors, review points, learning records and stop criteria. Not sure

How have you checked your strategy & leadership answers?

6. Which AI opportunities have been identified and prioritised, with accountable business owners?

No prioritised opportunities or accountable owners. Candidate opportunities and some owners are identified. Opportunities are prioritised with owners, suitability checks and delivery dependencies. Not sure

7. Are the relevant workflows, knowledge sources, inputs, outputs and exceptions documented?

Relevant work, sources and exceptions are undocumented. Main workflows and sources are documented; exceptions need checking. Owners maintain documented inputs, outputs, knowledge sources and exceptions. Not sure

8. Are legitimate workflow variations understood, with clear controls and exception handling?

Workflow variations and exceptions are not understood or controlled. Important variations are understood; controls are inconsistent. Legitimate variations have documented controls, owners and exception handling. Not sure

9. What evidence describes current workload, cost, quality and effort for the priority opportunities?

No usable evidence of current workload, cost, effort or quality. Some baseline evidence exists; coverage or ownership is incomplete. Representative baseline evidence is owned and maintained for priority work. Not sure

10. Where must people review outputs, approve consequential actions, handle exceptions or stop the service?

No defined human review, escalation or stop responsibilities. Review points exist; consequential actions or exceptions need clearer ownership. Human review, consequential-action approval, escalation and stopping are defined and tested. Not sure

How have you checked your processes & use cases answers?

11. Where are the relevant information sources, who owns them, and which sources are authoritative?

Sources, ownership and authoritative records are unclear. Main sources are known; some ownership or authority needs confirmation. Authoritative sources, ownership and permitted uses are documented. Not sure

12. Is the required information usable for its intended AI approach, including documents and approved knowledge?

Required information is unusable for the intended AI approach. Some information is usable; known format or coverage gaps remain. Information is demonstrably usable for the intended approach, including approved knowledge. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

13. How are data quality, provenance, freshness and corrections monitored and maintained?

Data quality, provenance and freshness are not maintained. Checks address some quality issues; provenance or corrections need work. Owners monitor quality, provenance and freshness, with a working correction process. Not sure

14. Can information be accessed through an approved route with appropriate permissions and purpose restrictions?

No approved access route for the required information. An access route exists; permissions or purpose restrictions need confirmation. Approved access, permissions and purpose restrictions are documented and tested. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

15. Do representative test examples and expected outcomes cover normal cases, errors and affected groups?

No representative tests or expected outcomes. Normal-case tests exist; errors or affected groups need better coverage. Owned tests cover normal cases, failures and affected groups with expected outcomes. Not sure

How have you checked your data readiness answers?

16. Which systems, AI services and external products will support the organisation’s priority work?

Required systems, AI services and external products are not identified. Main products are identified; dependencies or ownership are incomplete. A current system and supplier view identifies services, dependencies and owners. Not sure

17. Are integration routes, permissions, licensing limits and operational dependencies understood?

Integration routes, permissions and licence limits are unknown or unsuitable. Main routes are understood; some limits or dependencies need checking. Supported interfaces, permissions, licences and operational dependencies are confirmed. Not sure

18. Are the proposed deployment route, identities, access controls and security arrangements approved?

Deployment, identities, access or security arrangements are not approved. Proposed arrangements exist; some security or access checks remain. The appropriate deployment route and security/access arrangements are approved and tested. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

19. How are AI and non-AI alternatives compared, and what have owned, measured trials demonstrated?

AI is assumed suitable without comparing alternatives or measuring trials. Alternatives are considered; trial evidence or ownership is incomplete. Owned trials compare AI and non-AI options against agreed outcome and risk measures. Not sure

20. Who owns operation, monitoring, incidents, supplier changes and retirement after launch?

No accountable owner for operation and incidents after launch. An owner is identified; monitoring, supplier changes or retirement need work. Named owners have tested operation, incident, monitoring, change and retirement arrangements. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

How have you checked your technology & integration answers?

21. What concerns and needs have affected staff or other users raised about AI adoption?

Affected staff or users have not been consulted. Some concerns are recorded; engagement or response is incomplete. Affected groups are involved, with owned responses to their needs and concerns. Not sure

22. How are changes to work, accountability, human oversight and communication agreed with affected teams?

Changes to work, accountability and oversight have not been agreed. Some changes are discussed; communication or oversight needs clarification. Affected teams agree changes, accountability, oversight and communication. Not sure

23. What skills do business, technology and governance owners need to operate the proposed AI safely?

Required business, technical and governance skills are not understood. Skill needs are partly mapped; important gaps remain. Role-based skills and gaps are documented with named development owners. Not sure

24. Is practical training, time and support planned for the people expected to use and oversee AI?

No practical training, time or support is planned. Some training is planned; role coverage, time or support is incomplete. Practical role-based training, time and ongoing support are funded and owned. Not sure

25. What do previous change programmes show about adoption, support and lessons to reuse?

Previous change lessons are unavailable or not used. Some lessons are recorded; use in the current plan is inconsistent. Relevant adoption and support lessons are documented and used in current plans. Not sure

How have you checked your people, skills & change answers?

26. Is an approved AI policy in place covering permitted tools, data use, responsibilities and human review?

No approved AI policy or agreed usage rules. Guidance exists; tool, data, responsibility or review coverage is incomplete. An owned, approved and communicated policy covers tools, data, responsibilities and review. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

27. Are applicable obligations identified for the actual jurisdictions, data, sectors and uses being considered?

Relevant obligations for the actual uses and locations are not identified. Some obligations are mapped; ownership or scope needs checking. Relevant owners maintain a scoped obligations register and review changes. Not sure

28. Is the proposed processing route permitted for each relevant data class, supplier and location?

The proposed processing route is known to be unpermitted. Permission checks are partly complete; restrictions or approval remain unresolved. Relevant owners have confirmed the permitted data classes, suppliers, purposes and locations. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

29. Who is accountable for each AI use, its risk decision, evidence, human escalation and periodic review?

No accountable AI-use owner or risk-review responsibility. Owners exist; evidence, escalation or periodic review is incomplete. Accountable owners maintain risk decisions, evidence, escalation and periodic reviews. Not sure

Who will confirm this control or close the gap?

30. Are suppliers, externally supplied AI and material model changes reviewed for security, privacy and operational risk?

Suppliers, external AI and material changes are not reviewed. Some supplier reviews exist; privacy, security or operational coverage has gaps. Proportionate supplier and material-change reviews are owned, recorded and kept current. Not sure

How have you checked your governance, risk & compliance answers?

31. Is proportionate funding available for discovery, evidence gathering, a bounded pilot and later operation?

No funding for proportionate discovery, testing and operation. Some funding is available; later operation or evidence work is uncertain. Proportionate discovery, evidence, pilot and operating costs are funded with review gates. Not sure

32. Have lifecycle costs been estimated, including licences, usage, integration, evaluation, monitoring and support?

Lifecycle costs have not been estimated. Initial costs are estimated; evaluation, usage or ongoing support needs work. Owned estimates include licences, usage, integration, evaluation, monitoring and support. Not sure

33. Are expected benefits, delivery assumptions, review points and stop conditions realistic and measurable?

Benefits or delivery assumptions have no measurable review or stop criteria. Some assumptions are measurable; review points or stop criteria are incomplete. Realistic measurable benefits, assumptions, review points and stop conditions are agreed. Not sure

34. How will improvements be realised and owned, including quality, capacity, service and risk outcomes?

No owner or plan for realising improvements. Some benefit owners exist; quality, capacity or risk outcomes need clarification. Owners track how quality, capacity, service and risk improvements will be realised. Not sure

35. Who can approve spending and changes, and what is the route for accepting or declining an investment?

Spending authority and investment decisions are unclear. An approval route exists; change or decline decisions need clarification. Named authorities use a documented route to approve, change or decline investment. Not sure

How have you checked your budget & value answers?

Step 1 of 9: Your organisation

Results are calculated in your browser. Nothing is submitted until you choose an email or review option. Scores reflect your answers, not independently verified evidence. Unknown answers identify points to confirm, rather than proven weaknesses. Any formal findings require a separate evidence-based review.

Your answers stay in this browser unless you choose to email your report or submit it to Mason & Co for review. Email delivery does not request a callback or subscribe you to marketing.

Read our privacy policy

Want Mason & Co to review your report?

Submit your answers, results and contact details for an initial discussion. Our team will contact you to discuss your results and next steps. Any paid evidence review is scoped and agreed separately.

Please do not include confidential client, patient or employee information. Read our privacy policy.

Zoho One

Enterprise AI

Your industry

Prepare for a detailed AI readiness review

Your organisation

Want Mason & Co to review your report?