See what your school has built, what the evidence supports, and what to strengthen next.
The AI Capability & Evidence Diagnostic gives business-school leaders a verified baseline across the educational system. It follows the path from institutional direction to student capability, course practice, assessment evidence, faculty support, and continuous improvement. It is designed for schools that already have AI activity and need a clearer view of how far that work has developed.
The review separates implementation maturity from evidence strength, then identifies where the two have fallen out of alignment. Leadership can see where progress is real, where documentation needs to catch up, and where the underlying capability still needs work.
AI progress is easier to describe than to verify.
A dean may hear about a new course, a revised policy, a faculty workshop, or a promising pilot and reasonably conclude that the school is moving. Those examples are useful signals. They still leave important questions unanswered. Leadership needs to know how broadly the practice operates, whether students can demonstrate the intended capability, and what evidence supports the institutional claim.
The diagnostic examines two dimensions separately. Implementation maturity asks how deeply a practice has been embedded across the agreed scope. Evidence strength asks what the school can substantiate. The review looks for current artifacts that match the claim, such as policies, curriculum maps, course materials, student work, direct measures, and documented improvement.
The distance between those dimensions is the evidence lag. A large lag may mean the school has meaningful practice that has not been documented. It can also reveal claims that have moved ahead of what the current artifacts can support.
Why independence matters here
An outside review creates a neutral baseline before the findings enter broader institutional conversations. Leadership can then use the results in planning, curriculum, board, quality, or accreditation work with a clearer understanding of what the evidence supports. Navigate AI tests the claim against the artifact, examines whether the evidence matches the stated scope, and documents the basis for each reviewer rating.
“Where are we on AI?”
- Useful for orientation
- Often driven by self-report
- Can surface priorities and concerns
- May combine activity and evidence
“What can we substantiate?”
- Claimed and reviewer-rated maturity
- Named artifacts tied to the practice
- Evidence strength and scope
- Prioritized evidence lag
One score cannot tell leadership where the real problem sits.
The diagnostic preserves the distinction between implementation and proof. That makes the result more actionable because a capability problem requires a different response from an evidence problem.
Implementation maturity
How consistently is the practice operating across the defined scope? The review looks for movement from isolated activity toward established, integrated, and institutionalized practice.
Evidence strength
What artifacts substantiate the claim? Evidence is judged on whether it is current, relevant to the stated practice, and strong enough to support the interpretation leadership wants to make.
Evidence lag
Where has implementation moved further than the evidence, or where do formal documents suggest more consistency than the underlying practice currently shows? The gap helps set the next priority.
Six domains connect institutional direction to student evidence.
The review follows the path from leadership priorities to the learning evidence the school can actually use. Each domain contributes to the institutional picture, while the connections among them show whether AI capability is becoming a coherent educational system.
| Domain | What it evaluates | Typical evidence | Relevant quality context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy & Governance | Priorities, ownership, decision rights, guidance, roadmaps, approved tools, and access. | Strategic plans, charters, guidance, budgets, and implementation records. | AACSB Standards 1–2 |
| Curriculum & Competencies | What students should be able to do with AI and where those capabilities develop. | Competency statements, curriculum maps, course outcomes, and stakeholder input. | AACSB Standard 4 |
| Assurance of Learning | Whether AI-relevant capability is directly measured and findings lead to improvement. | Measures, rubrics, student artifacts, results, decisions, and reassessment. | AACSB Standard 5 |
| Course & Assessment Readiness | Whether expectations, learning design, assessment evidence, and human oversight are intentional. | Syllabi, assignments, rubrics, guidance, and course-review findings. | AACSB Standards 4, 5, 7 |
| Faculty Capability | Whether faculty are prepared, supported, consistent, and producing usable course changes. | Readiness data, revised artifacts, cohort outcomes, peer support, and recognition. | AACSB Standards 3, 7 |
| Measurement & Improvement | Whether indicators, review cycles, stakeholder input, and updates are sustained over time. | Dashboards, review minutes, updated maps, improvement records, and annual reports. | AACSB Standards 1, 4, 5, 7 |
Five deliverables leadership can use.
The final package gives leadership the baseline, the evidence behind it, and a practical route forward. The deliverables are written for deans, assessment leaders, curriculum committees, and faculty-development teams who need to make different decisions from the same institutional picture.
Move from scope to leadership decisions in four to six weeks.
The process is designed to reduce unnecessary burden while still testing the evidence behind the school’s claims. Most of the work uses documents the school already has, focused stakeholder input, and a structured leadership readout.
Set the scope
Define the programs, courses, stakeholders, decisions, and evidence included in the review.
Self-rate and gather
The institutional team rates the practices and names the artifacts behind each claim.
Review the evidence
Navigate AI examines the artifacts, assigns reviewer ratings, and documents evidence strength and evidence lag.
Decide the next move
Leadership reviews the findings, agrees on priorities, and selects the most useful institution-led or Navigate-supported next step.
The baseline should lead to a more focused intervention.
The diagnostic is designed to reduce the temptation to solve every AI problem at once. The evidence points leadership toward the part of the educational system that now deserves attention.
Strengthen learning evidence
Use CourseReady AI or the AI Assessment Evidence Sprint when the central issue is course quality, direct measures, process evidence, or the visibility of student judgment.
See evidence-focused solutions →Build missing capability
Use AI-Ready Graduate or the Faculty AI Fluency Studio when the school needs clearer student expectations, curriculum progression, or stronger faculty implementation.
See capability-building solutions →Verify improvement
Use the Annual AI Capability & Evidence Review to refresh the scorecard, examine new artifacts, and document year-over-year movement.
See the Annual Review →Match the review depth to the decision in front of you.
Every engagement uses the same two-axis evidence model. Scope expands when leadership needs stakeholder interviews, curriculum mapping, multi-course review, or a facilitated planning session.
$6,500–$8,500
For early external partner schools contributing structured feedback to the pilot and validation process.
- Core diagnostic and evidence request
- Leadership scorecard and roadmap
- Structured feedback session
$9,500–$12,500
The full evidence-verified review for a defined business-school or program scope.
- Reviewer-rated findings
- Evidence inventory and quality crosswalk
- Leadership readout and roadmap
$14,500–$19,500
Deeper analysis for schools needing broader curriculum, course, and stakeholder evidence.
- Focused stakeholder interviews
- Curriculum and multi-course review
- Facilitated leadership working session
Ranges are indicative and finalized after scope. The instrument remains in pilot validation.
Start with the evidence you already have.
The free Pulse Check can provide an initial orientation. A short briefing can help determine whether a full independent evidence review or a more focused engagement makes the most sense.