Can your organisation actually absorb AI? An independent, evidence-based read on your capacity to adopt it, across the seven things that determine whether an initiative survives contact with the business.
Your board has asked what your position on AI is, and the answers coming back do not agree with each other. Someone has a vendor proposal, someone else has a pilot running, and a third group has quietly started using tools nobody approved.
The processes a system would sit inside have never been documented. The data exists, but nobody can say how accurate it is without going and checking. There is no agreed owner for a decision about AI, and a workforce that has watched two previous technology programs arrive and quietly stall. Before you commit money to an AI initiative, it is worth knowing which of those things is true of you.
The AI Readiness Assessment is neutral on AI vendors, and deliberately not a technical review.
Each scored one to five against defined maturity levels, then weighted into a single position.
| Dimension | The question behind it | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Process | Are the processes an initiative would sit inside documented and stable enough to redesign? | 20% |
| Data | Can you answer questions about your own operation without someone assembling a spreadsheet? | 20% |
| Strategy & accountability | Is a named executive accountable for AI, and is something written down? | Weighted |
| People | Can your people question a number a system produces? | Weighted |
| Technology | Does information move between your systems without human retyping? | 10% |
| Governance | Could you tell a board what AI you use, who approved it and how it is controlled? | 10% |
| Change capacity | Given everything already underway, could you land another change? | 10% |
Strategy and accountability and people carry the balance of the weighting. The full weighting set, the maturity descriptors behind each score and the gate thresholds are set out in the offering document, which you receive before you commission anything.
Process and data carry the most weight. Technology carries the least. Organisations rarely fail at AI because they chose the wrong technology.
We review your documentation and interview eight to sixteen people, from the executive to the analyst who assembles your management reports.
We walk one or two live processes rather than relying on how they are described.
We test our provisional findings with your leadership group before anything is finalised.
Each dimension is scored one to five and weighted into a single position, with gates so a fatal weakness cannot be averaged away by strength elsewhere.
The first privately to your sponsor, so no result is met first in front of peers. The second to your leadership team, because every gap needs an owner who is in that room.
Every score carries an evidence rating, showing whether it rests on a document we sighted, on two or more of your people describing the same thing independently, or on a single uncorroborated account, which is capped and flagged. The result is measured against a defined standard of what has to be true for an AI initiative to succeed, not against your peers. We hold no peer benchmark and will not imply one.
Total time from your organisation is roughly two and a half working days across three weeks, and no individual gives more than about two hours apart from your sponsor and your coordinator.
| Deliverable | Detail |
|---|---|
| Readiness report | 18 to 24 pages. Overall position and score, findings against each dimension, where your executive and operational views diverge, and what to do next. |
| Scoring workbook | Excel, populated with your own results. Every criterion score, its evidence rating and the weighting, so the result can be audited. |
| Prioritised gap list | Ten to fifteen gaps, each with a severity, an indicative effort, an owner by role, a sequence position, and whether it must be closed before an AI initiative or alongside one. |
| Executive summary | Two standalone pages, to circulate to a board or investment committee. |
| Two findings presentations | Ninety minutes each, live. Sponsor privately first, then the leadership team. |
Every band uses the same framework, method and deliverables. What changes is the number of interviews and the breadth of evidence. All figures in Australian dollars, excluding GST.
| Band A | Band B | Band C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organisation size | Up to 250 FTE | 251 to 1,000 FTE | Over 1,000 FTE, or more than one legal entity |
| Sites in scope | 1 to 2 | Up to 4 | 5 or more |
| Interviews | 8 | 12 | 16 |
| Duration | Two to three weeks | Two to three weeks | Two to three weeks |
| Price ex GST | $22,000 | $27,000 | $33,000 |
Fixed fee, not a day rate with an open end. Both presentations are included in every band. Larger organisations are scoped individually. Delivery within the Perth metropolitan area carries no travel charge; outside it, travel and accommodation at cost plus $2,500 per additional consultant day. Additional interviews beyond the band inclusion are $750 each, and additional presentation sessions $2,500 each.
The two-day AI Bootcamp costs $18,500, close enough to Band A that budget should not decide between them. They answer different questions.
This assessment looks inward at capability. It does not identify AI opportunities, put a value on them or build a business case, and it does not evaluate, recommend or shortlist any technology, platform or supplier.
An organisation can be entirely ready and have nothing worth doing, or have substantial opportunity and be unable to execute. Those are two questions and we do not sell them as one.
We also do not issue the framework for you to complete yourselves, because a self-completed version measures what your executives believe rather than what is true, and that gap is usually the most useful finding in the report. There is no free or self-serve version, and the previous online scorecard has been retired.
We will walk the seven dimensions with you and give an honest read, including telling you when an assessment is not warranted. Nothing to complete beforehand.