All courses / AI Governance / Module 1 / Chapter 5
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Explain why a successful pilot is weak evidence of readiness to scale.
- Assess an organisation across the six readiness dimensions on the scale 0 absent to 4 measured, citing evidence for every score above zero.
- Identify the public-sector specifics that can stop a programme outright: legal mandate, procurement and transparency.
- Draft a use-case intake form whose screening answers route the proposal to the right assessments and forum.
Key concepts
- Readiness assessment
- A structured judgement, made before the scale decision, of whether data, platform, governance, skills and culture can carry the load. The chapter stresses that it is not a maturity ranking but a list of the things that will break.
- Readiness scorecard
- A version-controlled record scoring each dimension from 0 absent to 4 measured, with evidence and gaps. Its minimum to industrialise is 2, treated as a gate, and it is re-scored on a fixed cadence with the history kept.
- Use-case intake form
- The short form through which every proposal enters. Its screening answers are factual and not evaluative, so the provisional class, the required assessments and the review forum follow from them, and readiness dependencies stop a proposal from passing.
- Legal mandate confirmation
- A written note from the legal function, such as Nordvik Region's LM-2026-009, confirming that the governing legislation permits the processing. Its conditions become a prohibited purpose in the data contract and a review trigger in the system's declaration.
- Generative culture
- In Westrum's typology, a culture in which messengers are trained and failure leads to inquiry. It matters for AI because failures, drift and bias are discovered by people who notice a wrong output and feel safe to say so.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Scenario
A green pilot and a blocking dimension
Use the chapter's three practices for a readiness scorecard to decide what the architecture board should do.
Interactive exercise 2 · Match
Typical blocking gap per usage mode
Match each usage mode with the typical blocking gap the chapter names for readiness in that mode.
Teaching plan
| 10 min | Opening: participants describe a pilot that succeeded and then stalled at scale; the teacher collects the workarounds that the pilot team performed by hand. |
| 20 min | Teacher presentation of the six dimensions, the governance test for platform readiness, the public-sector specifics and the three practices that make a scorecard useful. |
| 30 min | Exercise in groups: score the participant's organisation on the six dimensions with evidence, then write an intake form for one proposed use case. |
| 15 min | Debrief: groups name their blocking dimensions and compare them with the chapter's table of typical blocking gaps per usage mode. |
Discussion
- The chapter says data readiness is most often overestimated and governance readiness most often underestimated. Which of the two describes your organisation better, and what is the evidence?
- Hansa Mutual's claims assistant was blocked from full roll-out by a missing exit plan, not by a technical item. Which non-technical item would most likely block a pilot in your organisation?
- An organisation can be ready for Mode 1 well before it is ready for Mode 4. How should a readiness report to the board show that difference without collapsing it into one number?
Written exercise
Exercise · 30 minutes
Score readiness and write an intake form
First, score your organisation on the dimensions data, platform, governance, skills and culture, and on the public-sector dimension if you are a public authority, using the scale 0 absent, 1 ad hoc, 2 defined, 3 operating, 4 measured. Cite one piece of inspectable evidence for every score above zero and one gap per dimension, then state the outcome and the blocking dimensions against a minimum of 2. Second, for one proposed use case, complete an intake form like Nordvik Region's UC-2026-017: intended purpose, what is out of scope, whether individuals are affected, decision involvement, special-category data, Annex III candidacy, agent actions, whether the legal mandate is confirmed, the assessments required and the review forum.
Deliverable: A scorecard with scores, evidence, gaps and blocking dimensions, and one completed intake form with routing and readiness dependencies.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
What is the chapter's governance test for platform readiness?
Show the answer
C. Whether the organisation can say, for any model, which version is approved, by whom and on what evidence
If the organisation cannot say which version of a model is approved, who approved it and on what evidence, the platform is not ready, however much compute it has.In the chapter's example scorecard for a regional health authority, why is the outcome remediate before scaling?
Show the answer
A. Because governance and the public-sector dimension score 1, below the minimum of 2
The minimum to industrialise is 2 and is treated as a gate per dimension. Governance and publicSector both score 1, so they are the blocking dimensions, whatever the other scores are.Why does the chapter prefer engineering practice to certifications as a skills indicator?
Show the answer
B. Because version control, continuous integration and automated testing predict delivery performance and are the floor for AI
Citing Forsgren, Humble and Kim, the chapter notes that those engineering capabilities predict delivery performance. They are the floor for AI, which makes practice a more honest indicator than certificates.