AI Governance Maturity Models measure your progress in implementing best practices for AI governance. Conduct assessments using maturity models to chart a clear course towards more stable and reliable AI risk management.
AI systems are a powerful new wave of technologies that present a plethora of business opportunities. But with new opportunities come new risks. While there are now several comprehensive and widely adopted frameworks for Responsible AI (RAI), Artificial Intelligence Governance and AI Risk Management, such as the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, how can companies assess their own policies and practices in light of these broad frameworks to lower their risks while harnessing the capabilities of AI systems?
AI Governance Maturity Models (or Responsible AI Governance Maturity Models) are designed to answer this question. A maturity model is a measurement tool for assessing how developed an organisation's capabilities and practices are within a given business function. For example, there are industry-standard maturity models in areas like cybersecurity and HR. Naturally, an AI Governance Maturity Model applies this kind of framework in the field of AI governance.
These models are important tools for evaluating how effectively a business is implementing industry-standard best practices and regulations. For example, the maturity model based on the NIST AI Risk Management Framework gives a detailed questionnaire on all facets of AI governance, such as risk measurement, documentation and monitoring. It also includes a scoring procedure to get a concrete sense of which areas of AI governance within a business need to be improved and how to do this.
As described, AI Governance Maturity Models are measuring devices for assessing an organisation's progress in implementing consensus AI governance guidelines and recommendations. While different models take on different structures, some common components include the following.
The assessment criteria describe the dimensions along which AI governance maturity is assessed. They may take the form of questions that need to be answered, statements to evaluate for degree of accuracy (such as "Completely Accurate" or "Somewhat Accurate") or rubric descriptions that are placed within tiers (such as "Optimised" or "Initial Stages").
The NIST-based maturity model, for example, takes the approach of giving statements and sub-statements about various areas of AI governance, which are then scored on a scale of 1 - 5 for the degree of accuracy. One such statement in AI transparency, for instance, states, "We document the system risk controls, including in third-party components."
The Data Ethics Maturity Model, on the other hand, gives rubrics for different areas of data ethics containing detailed overall evaluations of company policies and procedures within those areas. The evaluator then chooses which description most closely fits the company being evaluated on a scale from "Initial" to "Optimised".
The evaluations on the individual assessment criteria are aggregated and scored, with many maturity models grouping the final scores into tiers or levels of maturity. The exact scoring procedure differs between maturity models. The NIST-based maturity model includes methods for aggregating along the NIST framework's "Responsibility Dimensions," which include such values as fairness, privacy and human oversight, or along the "NIST Pillars," which are the AI governance tasks "MAP," "MEASURE," "MANAGE" and "GOVERN."
While all maturity models can help improve AI governance by pointing out areas for improvement, some maturity models also offer specific suggestions for implementing improvements. For example, the AI Ethics Maturity Continuum gives an "Action for Improvement" within each ethical value, including different actions depending on the level of value maturity and business stage.
The goal of an AI Governance Maturity Model is to help mitigate an organisation's AI risks through effective governance. The following are three specific ways in which these models achieve this goal.
It's obvious that assessing AI governance practices is key to managing AI risks. Adopting a structured approach to assessment by using maturity models offers various advantages over a more ad-hoc method of assessment. With a comprehensive maturity model, you are less likely to overlook any aspects or areas of AI governance. Moreover, a structured approach is documented and repeatable, allowing progress in AI governance to be reliably tracked over time.
Maturity models identify areas of weakness in AI governance and risk management, highlighting improvement pathways and enabling businesses to take actions to address these vulnerabilities. With structured assessments being performed on a consistent basis, progress towards AI governance maturity is measured reliably and which policy changes are most effective becomes transparent.
With the wider adoption of AI governance maturity models, businesses will have a standard measure to compare their AI governance approach with that of comparable industry peers. This incentivizes less mature organisations to accelerate the implementation of best practices and provides evidence for more mature organisations of the effectiveness of their approach to AI governance.
AI Governance Maturity Models often define tiers, or levels, of AI governance maturity and readiness. While various models define the levels differently, a useful example comes from the Data Ethics Maturity Model, which defines five levels of maturity. In order of increasing maturity, these are Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed and Optimising.
AI Governance Maturity Models are effective tools for improving overall AI governance posture when used properly. The following describes the different uses of these models and the best practices for each use.
The main function of an AI Governance Maturity Model is conducting assessments of organisations' AI governance maturity. Here are tips for evaluators to do this effectively:
The verdicts on individual assessment criteria and aggregate scores for risk areas both help to identify weaknesses in current AI governance practices and opportunities for improvement. Maturity models can uncover a gap in metrics for assessing bias or a lack of documentation concerning data collection practices, for example. Steps can then be taken to address these gaps by implementing bias-related metrics in evaluating AI outputs and developing documentation concerning internal or external data collection.
Effective improvement plans fall out of assessments using maturity models once gaps and weaknesses are clearly identified. This is especially true when assessments are conducted effectively by documenting evidence for verdicts and involving a wide range of business units affected by AI governance practices. With specific evidence in hand once the assessment is completed and documented, the evaluators have a clear roadmap for improving AI governance and the organisational knowledge of who can implement each aspect of that roadmap.
Regardless of the particular weaknesses identified by using an AI Governance Maturity Model, there are some general best practices that help improve overall AI governance effectiveness for any organisation across all facets of AI governance.
AI governance policies affect people and organisations both internal and external to your company. It's important when developing and improving AI governance practices to get input and feedback from a diverse body of stakeholders that are, or will be, affected by your practices. Stakeholder engagement can reveal overlooked considerations and bring important voices to the table throughout the governance process.
Consistently performing assessments of your practices using AI Governance Maturity Models means reliable tracking of progress towards governance goals. It also means that governance practices will be responsive to any changes in business strategy, technological developments and regulatory updates in a timely manner.
Regular training and education is necessary both to inform stakeholders of updates to governance practices and to give employees the tools to implement these practices. Evaluators should also be trained on effectively conducting AI governance audits using maturity models. Education helps foster a culture in which AI governance is understood and taken seriously across the organisation.
Improving your AI governance posture requires knowing the challenges that you are likely to confront and possible solutions. The following are some of the most common.
Achieving AI governance maturity allows you to harness the exciting upsides of AI technologies while lowering their inevitable risks. AI Governance Maturity Models are a powerful tool to help you get there. A detailed and comprehensive model gives you a structured assessment that can be consistently used to identify gaps and develop clear improvement pathways. With effective use of AI Governance Maturity Models, you will be ready for the unexpected changes and developments AI brings.
.jpg)
AI Governance Maturity Models measure your progress in implementing best practices for AI governance. Conduct assessments using maturity models to chart a clear course towards more stable and reliable AI risk management.
AI systems are a powerful new wave of technologies that present a plethora of business opportunities. But with new opportunities come new risks. While there are now several comprehensive and widely adopted frameworks for Responsible AI (RAI), Artificial Intelligence Governance and AI Risk Management, such as the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, how can companies assess their own policies and practices in light of these broad frameworks to lower their risks while harnessing the capabilities of AI systems?
AI Governance Maturity Models (or Responsible AI Governance Maturity Models) are designed to answer this question. A maturity model is a measurement tool for assessing how developed an organisation's capabilities and practices are within a given business function. For example, there are industry-standard maturity models in areas like cybersecurity and HR. Naturally, an AI Governance Maturity Model applies this kind of framework in the field of AI governance.
These models are important tools for evaluating how effectively a business is implementing industry-standard best practices and regulations. For example, the maturity model based on the NIST AI Risk Management Framework gives a detailed questionnaire on all facets of AI governance, such as risk measurement, documentation and monitoring. It also includes a scoring procedure to get a concrete sense of which areas of AI governance within a business need to be improved and how to do this.
As described, AI Governance Maturity Models are measuring devices for assessing an organisation's progress in implementing consensus AI governance guidelines and recommendations. While different models take on different structures, some common components include the following.
The assessment criteria describe the dimensions along which AI governance maturity is assessed. They may take the form of questions that need to be answered, statements to evaluate for degree of accuracy (such as "Completely Accurate" or "Somewhat Accurate") or rubric descriptions that are placed within tiers (such as "Optimised" or "Initial Stages").
The NIST-based maturity model, for example, takes the approach of giving statements and sub-statements about various areas of AI governance, which are then scored on a scale of 1 - 5 for the degree of accuracy. One such statement in AI transparency, for instance, states, "We document the system risk controls, including in third-party components."
The Data Ethics Maturity Model, on the other hand, gives rubrics for different areas of data ethics containing detailed overall evaluations of company policies and procedures within those areas. The evaluator then chooses which description most closely fits the company being evaluated on a scale from "Initial" to "Optimised".
The evaluations on the individual assessment criteria are aggregated and scored, with many maturity models grouping the final scores into tiers or levels of maturity. The exact scoring procedure differs between maturity models. The NIST-based maturity model includes methods for aggregating along the NIST framework's "Responsibility Dimensions," which include such values as fairness, privacy and human oversight, or along the "NIST Pillars," which are the AI governance tasks "MAP," "MEASURE," "MANAGE" and "GOVERN."
While all maturity models can help improve AI governance by pointing out areas for improvement, some maturity models also offer specific suggestions for implementing improvements. For example, the AI Ethics Maturity Continuum gives an "Action for Improvement" within each ethical value, including different actions depending on the level of value maturity and business stage.
The goal of an AI Governance Maturity Model is to help mitigate an organisation's AI risks through effective governance. The following are three specific ways in which these models achieve this goal.
It's obvious that assessing AI governance practices is key to managing AI risks. Adopting a structured approach to assessment by using maturity models offers various advantages over a more ad-hoc method of assessment. With a comprehensive maturity model, you are less likely to overlook any aspects or areas of AI governance. Moreover, a structured approach is documented and repeatable, allowing progress in AI governance to be reliably tracked over time.
Maturity models identify areas of weakness in AI governance and risk management, highlighting improvement pathways and enabling businesses to take actions to address these vulnerabilities. With structured assessments being performed on a consistent basis, progress towards AI governance maturity is measured reliably and which policy changes are most effective becomes transparent.
With the wider adoption of AI governance maturity models, businesses will have a standard measure to compare their AI governance approach with that of comparable industry peers. This incentivizes less mature organisations to accelerate the implementation of best practices and provides evidence for more mature organisations of the effectiveness of their approach to AI governance.
AI Governance Maturity Models often define tiers, or levels, of AI governance maturity and readiness. While various models define the levels differently, a useful example comes from the Data Ethics Maturity Model, which defines five levels of maturity. In order of increasing maturity, these are Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed and Optimising.
AI Governance Maturity Models are effective tools for improving overall AI governance posture when used properly. The following describes the different uses of these models and the best practices for each use.
The main function of an AI Governance Maturity Model is conducting assessments of organisations' AI governance maturity. Here are tips for evaluators to do this effectively:
The verdicts on individual assessment criteria and aggregate scores for risk areas both help to identify weaknesses in current AI governance practices and opportunities for improvement. Maturity models can uncover a gap in metrics for assessing bias or a lack of documentation concerning data collection practices, for example. Steps can then be taken to address these gaps by implementing bias-related metrics in evaluating AI outputs and developing documentation concerning internal or external data collection.
Effective improvement plans fall out of assessments using maturity models once gaps and weaknesses are clearly identified. This is especially true when assessments are conducted effectively by documenting evidence for verdicts and involving a wide range of business units affected by AI governance practices. With specific evidence in hand once the assessment is completed and documented, the evaluators have a clear roadmap for improving AI governance and the organisational knowledge of who can implement each aspect of that roadmap.
Regardless of the particular weaknesses identified by using an AI Governance Maturity Model, there are some general best practices that help improve overall AI governance effectiveness for any organisation across all facets of AI governance.
AI governance policies affect people and organisations both internal and external to your company. It's important when developing and improving AI governance practices to get input and feedback from a diverse body of stakeholders that are, or will be, affected by your practices. Stakeholder engagement can reveal overlooked considerations and bring important voices to the table throughout the governance process.
Consistently performing assessments of your practices using AI Governance Maturity Models means reliable tracking of progress towards governance goals. It also means that governance practices will be responsive to any changes in business strategy, technological developments and regulatory updates in a timely manner.
Regular training and education is necessary both to inform stakeholders of updates to governance practices and to give employees the tools to implement these practices. Evaluators should also be trained on effectively conducting AI governance audits using maturity models. Education helps foster a culture in which AI governance is understood and taken seriously across the organisation.
Improving your AI governance posture requires knowing the challenges that you are likely to confront and possible solutions. The following are some of the most common.
Achieving AI governance maturity allows you to harness the exciting upsides of AI technologies while lowering their inevitable risks. AI Governance Maturity Models are a powerful tool to help you get there. A detailed and comprehensive model gives you a structured assessment that can be consistently used to identify gaps and develop clear improvement pathways. With effective use of AI Governance Maturity Models, you will be ready for the unexpected changes and developments AI brings.
