Confirm authority
The data owner documents the permitted purpose and handling conditions. An unresolved permission question remains visible.
AI readiness assessment template for one workflow: download the free Excel workbook, follow a completed example and decide what needs to happen before a pilot.
Excel · Editable · No form or account
A high opportunity score cannot clear a critical prerequisite.
Illustrative scores. Planning guidance, not client results.
Key Takeaways
Name the inputs, expected output and people responsible for the proposed work.
Separate business opportunity from implementation readiness. Keep the rationale beside each response.
Document data authority, evaluation and human accountability before approving a pilot.
The short answer
An AI readiness test is a structured review of the prerequisites for using AI. This template evaluates one proposed workflow and turns the answers into scores, critical prerequisites and assigned next actions.
Use it when you can name a recurring task, the people doing it and the output that needs to improve. It suits an operations, IT or security leader preparing a scoped automation discussion. If you are evaluating an entire business unit, use the separate enterprise AI maturity scorecard.
GS Consulting develops secure AI automation across approved data, model processing and existing systems. This resource belongs to our enterprise AI guide series. For help choosing the workflow first, see how to identify workflows for AI automation.
An AI readiness assessment template should include a defined scope, questions with a scoring rubric, supporting evidence, critical prerequisites and an action record with owners and review dates.
Four tabs: a blank assessment, a completed example, a scope and decision record, and the response rubric. Start with the scope record, then score the same workflow. Formulas calculate the scores and flag critical prerequisites as you enter responses.
Download the Excel template No account or email required. Use Excel or a compatible spreadsheet application.Keep sensitive evidence in its approved repository. Use general labels and reference identifiers in the workbook rather than copying customer records, security findings or restricted data into it.
Define one workflow, gather evidence with its owners, answer the questions, review critical prerequisites and assign the work needed before a pilot decision.
Write down what starts the work, what information is used and what output reaches the next system. Identify the person who approves consequential actions.
Review representative inputs, the current procedure, workload measurements, permissions and examples of acceptable output with the business, data and technical owners.
Use the question specific response anchors in the Rubric tab. A zero is an actual selected answer. Leave an unanswered question blank and collect what is missing.
Check data authority, the ability to evaluate outputs, review before harmful action and accountable human ownership. A critical prerequisite takes precedence over the ordinary recommendation.
Name who will resolve each gap, what evidence will demonstrate completion and when the team will review the workflow again. Approve a bounded pilot only through the appropriate human review.
Completed example
A completed assessment connects each response to its supporting evidence and explains the next decision. In this fictional example, preparing host data for analyst review scores 84/100 for opportunity and 60/100 for readiness, but unresolved data authority prevents a pilot.
The architecture is informed by GS’s published private AI cyber-analysis implementation. Every assessment answer, score, effort estimate and evidence record below is illustrative. These are not the client’s historical assessment or measured results.
Frequent work, material consequences and a structured output support further investigation.
Data preparation, the model boundary and operating recovery still need work.
These are planning scores, not percentages of readiness or probabilities of success. The example remains on hold for AI data processing until authority is documented and the proposed scope is reviewed.
The worked copy includes an action for the data owner to document authority and an action for the technical owner to define the processing boundary. Review occurs when the required evidence is available; the example does not promise a delivery date.
Score each response from 0 to 4 using its own rubric, normalize the four questions in each dimension to 100, then calculate separate Opportunity and Implementation Readiness scores. Critical prerequisites override the score based recommendation.
The worksheet uses the same method as the live workflow readiness assessment. Expand a dimension below to see all 24 selected answers and their illustrative basis.
Selected answer: Many times each day or continuously
Illustrative basis: Illustrative queue log: new host artifacts arrive throughout each workday.
Selected answer: 161 to 500 hours
Illustrative basis: Illustrative time study: 161 to 500 skilled staff hours per month. This is a scenario assumption, not a GS client result.
Selected answer: Material effect on security, compliance, revenue, mission, or customer outcomes
Illustrative basis: Illustrative backlog review: delayed analysis can affect security operations.
Selected answer: The output and most success measures are defined
Illustrative basis: Draft output fields and turnaround measures exist; acceptance criteria still need review.
Selected answer: A documented process exists and is generally followed
Illustrative basis: A documented preparation procedure exists and is generally followed.
Selected answer: Most cases follow the same path with identifiable exceptions
Illustrative basis: Most artifacts follow the same path; exceptions are recognizable.
Selected answer: Staff generally agree when using the same information
Illustrative basis: Reviewers generally agree when given the same source information.
Selected answer: 10 to 50
Illustrative basis: Twenty fictional reference examples represent acceptable past work.
Selected answer: Reliable files, exports, queries, or APIs exist with some preparation required
Illustrative basis: Reliable file exports exist, with preparation required before analysis.
Selected answer: The data is usable after substantial cleaning
Illustrative basis: A fictional data profile finds usable inputs that need substantial cleaning.
Selected answer: Authority is unknown, prohibited, or likely inconsistent with current obligations
Illustrative basis: Permission for the proposed AI processing has not been established. Existing analyst access alone does not document that permission.
Critical prerequisite: resolve before a pilot.
Selected answer: A representative history is available for testing
Illustrative basis: A representative history is assumed available for testing once its use is authorized.
Selected answer: The task involves repeatable reasoning over accessible digital inputs with a definable output
Illustrative basis: The proposed task reasons over digital artifacts with a definable output.
Selected answer: The output can use a clear machine readable schema with validation rules
Illustrative basis: A draft JSON schema defines the required analysis fields and validation rules.
Selected answer: A benchmark and acceptance thresholds can be created
Illustrative basis: An expert benchmark and acceptance thresholds can be created; testing is still required.
Selected answer: The result is advisory, prioritization, or triage output that must be reviewed before consequential action
Illustrative basis: Output is advisory. An analyst must review it before any consequential action.
Selected answer: Data categories and handling rules are defined
Illustrative basis: Data categories and handling rules are defined for this fictional scope.
Selected answer: Requirements are understood, but the architecture is not selected
Illustrative basis: Local processing is preferred, but the architecture has not been selected.
Selected answer: Some access controls and logs are available
Illustrative basis: Some access controls and logs exist; complete operating controls remain to be designed.
Selected answer: Human approval points and escalation paths are defined
Illustrative basis: Human approval points and escalation paths are defined.
Selected answer: APIs, databases, queues, or supported integrations are available
Illustrative basis: Supported database or API interfaces are assumed available for the destination.
Selected answer: Business and technical owners are identified
Illustrative basis: Business and technical owners are identified for the example.
Selected answer: Basic scheduling and logging are available
Illustrative basis: Basic scheduling and logging exist; recovery and alert handling need development.
Selected answer: One workflow, defined users, and specific data sources have been identified
Illustrative basis: One workflow, a defined analyst group and specific input categories are identified.
35% Business Value + 30% Process and Knowledge + 35% AI Suitability
round(88 × 0.35 + 69 × 0.30 + 94 × 0.35) = 8435% Data Readiness + 35% Security and Governance + 30% Integration and Operations
round(50 × 0.35 + 63 × 0.35 + 69 × 0.30) = 60Each dimension is rounded before the weighted calculation. For example, Business Value totals 14 of 16 available points: 14 ÷ 16 × 100 = 87.5, rounded to 88. The four critical response checks are DR3, AS3, AS4 and SG4. A selected zero on any of those questions requires a critical prerequisite to be addressed. These four automatic checks are a limited aid. An unflagged result does not establish that every permission, security or operating requirement is satisfied.
| Opportunity | Readiness | Planning recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Any | Any | A critical prerequisite overrides the ordinary result. |
| Below 60 | Below 60 | Redesign or deprioritize the workflow. |
| Below 60 | 60 or above | Technically feasible, but the business case is weak. |
| 60 or above | Below 60 | High potential, but preparation is required. |
| 60 to 79 | 60 to 79 | Conditional candidate for a controlled pilot. |
| 60 to 79 | 80 or above | Good candidate for a controlled pilot. |
| 80 or above | 60 to 79 | Strong opportunity with readiness gaps. |
| 80 or above | 80 or above | Strong candidate for a controlled pilot. |
These weights and thresholds are GS planning choices. They are not validated industry benchmarks, probabilities of success or an independent determination that a workflow is ready for production.
One useful organizational grouping is strategy, data, technology, people and governance. Frameworks use different names and counts; there is no single mandatory five pillar structure.
For example, Microsoft’s organizational assessment describes seven pillars, while Cisco’s assessment uses six. The count matters less than whether the questions cover the proposed work.
The GS workflow template uses six dimensions. Business Value tests whether the work merits investment. Process and Knowledge examines repeatability. Data Readiness checks usable and authorized inputs. AI Suitability addresses output structure and evaluation. Security and Governance covers the processing boundary and accountability. Integration and Operations examines how the workflow will run and recover.
There is no universal five stage readiness standard. GS’s separate enterprise maturity planning model uses ad hoc, controlled pilot, operational, scaled and governed, and adaptive.
Those stages describe demonstrated organizational capability. They do not replace the workflow assessment’s question: does this proposed use have the prerequisites to proceed? An organization with mature shared services can still propose a workflow with unapproved data or an output nobody can evaluate.
Use the enterprise AI maturity guide and scorecard to compare business units or assess recurring practices. Use this template to prepare one proposed workflow for a decision.
Resolve critical prerequisites first, then assign the evidence and engineering work needed for a bounded pilot. Preserve the assessment so the next review can show what changed.
Complete the template with general descriptions. GS Consulting can help review the gaps and define the next implementation step.
Keep sensitive or restricted information out of the contact form.The template reproduces GS Consulting’s existing 24 question workflow assessment. Its scoring weights, thresholds and critical prerequisites are documented above and in the workbook.
This is a derived planning tool. Self reported answers need evidence and appropriate review. It provides no legal, security, compliance, certification, procurement or investment determination. A completed workbook does not authorize production use, establish savings or remove the need to test the actual workflow.
Methodology: GS Consulting. Published October 24, 2026. The workbook contains the blank template, response rubric, scope and decision record, and fictional worked copy.
Yes. Download the Excel workbook without a form or account. It includes the blank template, completed example, scope and decision record, and response rubric. You can also use the online assessment and view your results before choosing whether to request a review.