Verify what changed, what the evidence now supports, and what comes next.
The Annual Review gives leadership a disciplined way to revisit AI capability after the initial diagnostic or implementation cycle. It refreshes the evidence, tracks movement against prior commitments, and turns year-over-year findings into the next improvement plan.
AI capability can change quickly. Institutional evidence needs to keep pace.
A strong baseline helps leadership decide what to build. The next quality question is whether those decisions produced the intended changes in courses, curriculum, faculty practice, student evidence, or governance.
What did leadership commit to improve?
Revisit the roadmap, owners, target measures, expected artifacts, and decisions made after the previous review.
What changed, and what can now be shown?
Examine new documents, revised courses, curriculum changes, direct measures, implementation records, and evidence of improvement.
Which gap now deserves attention?
Set the next priority based on current capability, evidence strength, remaining lag, and the decisions leadership expects to face.
The Annual Review keeps the institutional narrative anchored in current artifacts rather than relying on last year’s scorecard or a list of activities completed since the baseline.
A concise account of movement and the evidence behind it.
The review compares the current state with the prior cycle using consistent definitions and evidence rules. Leadership can see where implementation and evidence moved together, where documentation still lags, and where an intervention produced little movement.
The report also distinguishes completed activity from demonstrated improvement. A faculty workshop, revised policy, new course, or assessment redesign matters because of what it changes in the educational system and the evidence the school can now show.
- Updated capability maturity and evidence-strength ratings.
- Refreshed evidence inventory with recency, scope, owner, and validation notes.
- Progress narrative against prior priorities and commitments.
- Updated curriculum, course, faculty, and student-learning indicators where included in scope.
- Next-cycle priorities with owners, target evidence, and review timing.
Refresh the scope, verify the evidence, interpret movement, and decide.
The cadence can be annual, biennial, or aligned with a program-review cycle. The important feature is consistency: the school should know what changed, how that change is evidenced, and what decision follows.
Refresh scope
Confirm the programs, courses, priorities, changes, and leadership questions included in the new cycle.
Verify evidence
Review the new artifacts, results, implementation records, and changes tied to prior commitments.
Interpret movement
Compare current capability and evidence with the prior cycle and examine the reasons for meaningful movement or persistent lag.
Set the next plan
Document progress, choose the next priority, assign ownership, and define the evidence leadership expects to see.
Review the evidence system at the level the school needs.
The scope usually follows the original Diagnostic or implementation engagement. Schools can keep the review tightly focused or revisit a broader set of evidence when significant changes have occurred.
| Evidence area | What is updated | What leadership can decide |
|---|---|---|
| Capability & evidence position | Reviewer-rated maturity, evidence strength, evidence lag, and overall pattern. | Whether the institution has moved and where the strongest remaining gap sits. |
| Curriculum & student capability | Capability statements, curriculum maps, progression, and direct evidence where available. | Where expectations need clearer placement, reinforcement, or measurement. |
| Courses & faculty implementation | Priority course findings, revised artifacts, faculty-development outcomes, and support needs. | Whether course-level change is becoming consistent enough to support broader claims. |
| Student learning evidence | Direct measures, student artifacts, scoring results, decisions, and reassessment records. | Whether the evidence supports the intended learning inference and what should improve next. |
| Governance & institutional action | Roadmap progress, ownership, guidance, tool decisions, and quality processes. | Which responsibilities or institutional supports need attention in the next cycle. |
Show the connection between action, evidence, and the next decision.
A useful year-over-year report explains more than whether a score went up. It traces what the school intended to change, what was implemented, what new evidence appeared, and how leadership responded to the findings.
That sequence helps a dean, curriculum committee, assessment leader, or quality team see the institution as a learning system. Some initiatives will produce strong evidence quickly. Others will need another cycle before the school can make a confident claim.
The Annual Review keeps those distinctions visible so progress reporting remains credible and improvement decisions remain connected to evidence.
Use recurring review after a baseline or an existing multi-year initiative.
The cleanest starting point is a prior Navigate AI Diagnostic because the original maturity and evidence ratings create a consistent baseline. The review can also work with an existing institutional plan when there is enough documentation to establish the prior commitments and evidence expectations.
After the Diagnostic
Revisit the six domains, verify new evidence, and determine whether the roadmap produced meaningful capability and evidence movement.
After targeted implementation
Examine whether CourseReady, an Assessment Sprint, AI-Ready Graduate, or faculty-development work produced the expected artifacts and outcomes.
Before a major quality conversation
Refresh the evidence before strategic planning, curriculum review, a board conversation, program review, or another decision that depends on current information.
Keep recurring review proportional to the original scope.
Annual work should usually cost less than recreating the baseline because the definitions, evidence structure, and institutional context are already established.
$5,500–$6,500
For a contained prior scope and a focused set of year-over-year questions.
- Evidence refresh
- Updated scorecard
- Leadership readout
$6,500–$8,500
For schools revisiting the broader capability and evidence picture after a full Diagnostic.
- Expanded evidence inventory
- Roadmap and outcome review
- Next-cycle action plan
Scoped separately
For substantial program growth, multiple units, or a year with major curriculum and assessment change.
- Broader artifact review
- Additional stakeholder work
- Multi-program reporting
Ranges are indicative and finalized after scope. Annual, biennial, and program-review-aligned cadences are available.
Keep the capability and evidence story current.
A recurring review gives leadership a credible way to show what changed and to choose the next improvement priority without starting over each year.