See how AI capability is developing and what the evidence can support.
The AI Fluency and Assurance Diagnostic helps business-school leaders move beyond a collection of initiatives. It provides a verified baseline across strategy, student capability, course design, faculty support, assessment, and continuous improvement.
Activity counts cannot show whether the pieces form a coherent capability.
Many schools can name faculty experiments, revised policies, new courses, or student workshops. Those examples show movement, but they do not tell leadership how widely the practices operate or whether the school can support its claims with current evidence.
The diagnostic answers two questions separately. Implementation maturity examines how consistently a practice operates across the defined scope. Evidence strength examines what the school can substantiate through policies, curriculum maps, course artifacts, student work, results, and improvement records.
That separation gives leadership a more useful picture. A school may be doing substantial work without having organized the evidence. It may also have polished documents that describe practices that remain uneven in the classroom.
Why an independent review helps
An outside reviewer can compare the claim with the artifact, test whether the evidence reflects the stated scope, and identify where local success has not yet become an institutional pattern.
“We are doing a lot.”
- Self-report only
- Activity counts
- One blended score
- Limited artifact review
“Here is what the evidence supports.”
- Claimed and reviewer-rated maturity
- Named artifacts and scope
- Evidence strength by practice
- Prioritized evidence lag
Six domains show how the institutional system fits together.
The review follows the path from leadership priorities to student evidence. Each domain matters on its own, but the strongest institutional story appears when strategy, curriculum, courses, faculty support, assessment, and improvement reinforce one another.
| Domain | What it evaluates | Typical evidence | Relevant AACSB areas |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy & Governance | Priorities, ownership, decision rights, guidance, roadmaps, approved tools, and access. | Strategic plans, charters, guidance, budgets, and implementation records. | 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 employer input. | 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. | Standard 5 |
| Course & Assessment Readiness | Whether expectations, learning design, assessment evidence, and human oversight are intentional. | Syllabi, assignments, rubrics, guidance, and course-review findings. | 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. | 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. | Standards 1, 4, 5, 7 |
Five things your school leaves with.
The final package gives leadership a baseline, the evidence behind it, and a practical route forward. The findings are written for deans, assessment leaders, curriculum committees, and faculty-development teams.
Move from scope to leadership decisions in four to six weeks.
The process is designed to limit burden while still testing the evidence behind the school’s claims. Most of the work uses existing documents, focused interviews, and a structured leadership readout.
Scope
Set the programs, courses, stakeholders, questions, and evidence in scope.
Self-rate and gather
The team rates practices and names the artifacts behind each claim.
Review the evidence
Navigate AI verifies artifacts, assigns reviewer ratings, and calculates evidence lag.
Decide the next move
Leadership reviews findings, priorities, support routes, measures, and the roadmap.
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.
$7,500-$10,000
For the first external partner schools contributing structured feedback to the pilot.
- Core diagnostic and evidence request
- Leadership scorecard and roadmap
- Feedback session
$10,000-$15,000
The full evidence-verified review for a defined school or program scope.
- Reviewer-rated findings
- Evidence inventory and crosswalk
- Leadership readout
$15,000-$25,000
Deeper analysis for schools needing curriculum, course, and stakeholder evidence.
- Stakeholder interviews
- Curriculum and multi-course review
- Facilitated working session
Ranges are indicative and finalized after scope. The instrument remains in pilot validation.
Choose the next step from a credible baseline.
The free Pulse Check can provide an initial orientation. A briefing can help determine whether the full diagnostic is warranted.