AI Fluency Standard.
An evidence-based assessment of how employees use AI. Four dimensions combine into one score out of 800, showing where each person is today and where to focus next.
Four bands. A practical next step.
0–800 pointsEmerging
Occasional personal use, with no verification habits.
People reach for ChatGPT or Copilot for first drafts and summaries on their own initiative. No company data, no repeatable process, and no check on the output — quality depends entirely on the individual.
Build verification habits
Choose a repeatable task. Check the output against trusted sources and record where human review is needed.
The right target depends on the role. Not every employee needs to reach Advanced.
See the scoring methodologyAI capability. A common standard.
Our proprietary scoring model turns evidence of AI capability into a number leadership can act on. Built in-house, developed in higher education, and now applied to company teams.
From a judgment call
to a common score.
Credit scores gave lenders a shared way to assess risk, beyond individual relationships and subjective judgment.
The same idea.
A new kind of capability.
The Fluency Score brings a common measure to AI capability. Compare functions, identify gaps, and know where to invest.
One score. The full picture.
Four equally weighted dimensions. 200 points each. A composite out of 800 that shows both the headline result and the capability behind it.
AI Fluency Score
Illustrative result
Advanced
The headline tells you where someone stands. The breakdown tells you why.
Behind the number
4 dimensionsTechnical AI Depth
188 / 200How well someone operates AI tools, prompts, models, and controls.
Applied AI Fit
176 / 200How effectively AI improves real work within someone's function.
Risk–Reward Competency
164 / 200Judgment on hallucination, bias, privacy, and when not to trust AI.
AI Mini-Case Analysis
192 / 200Decision quality in open-ended business scenarios, beyond multiple choice.
See where your team stands.CAD $100 per employee. One assessment.
Create company accountA score you
can trace.
The portfolio-evidence approach developed in higher education, applied function by function. Follow the work from the first submission to the investment decision.
Illustrative outputsCollect evidence
Real work product, from documents to workflows and shipped tools. Evidence differs by function; the scoring rubric stays consistent.
Evidence packet By function - AI-assisted campaign briefMarketing
- Documented team workflowOperations
- Shipped internal toolEngineering
Score each dimension
Responses are auto-graded against four 200-point rubrics, calibrated to human expert graders. The four sub-scores combine into one result out of 800.
Individual result Four dimensions 720 / 800AdvancedTechnical AI Depth188 / 200Applied AI Fit176 / 200Risk–Reward Competency164 / 200AI Mini-Case Analysis192 / 200See the distribution
Individual scores roll up by function, exposing the range of capability that a company average can hide.
Function distribution Operations 416 / 800Function average2403204004806400800Five sample scores. The average alone hides the spread.
Identify the gaps
Compare each function with its target. The gap map shows where to invest; the sequenced roadmap sets out what closing those gaps requires.
Investment priorities Points to target Function Now Target Gap Operations 416 600 184 Marketing 464 600 136 Engineering 632 700 68 Operations has the largest gap in this example. Targets depend on the role and business need.
How points and rubrics work
- Four sub-scores, 200 points each
- Every employee is scored across the four dimensions above. The four sum to one composite out of 800, so leadership sees both the headline number and the dimension driving it.
- Scenario-weighted items
- Points reward decision quality, not recall of tool names. Harder scenarios carry more points, and difficulty escalates until the employee's ceiling is found.
- Faculty-calibrated rubric
- Open-ended case responses are graded against a rubric calibrated by Ivey / DAN Management faculty, keeping scores comparable across employees and companies.
Start with your team's evidence.
Know where to act next.
Built to be checked.
Adaptive assessment. Expert-calibrated grading. Ongoing reliability checks.
Where validation standsA published academic validation study is a near-term objective, not a result we claim today.
Adaptive item selection
The computerized-adaptive assessment adjusts the difficulty of the next item after each answer. Scenario-weighted items reward decision quality, not recall of tool names, and place employees on the 0–800 scale in a sitting of up to 60 minutes.
Human-calibrated, LLM-assisted grading
Open-ended scenario responses and portfolio evidence are scored against the sub-score rubrics using LLM-assisted grading, calibrated against human expert graders from our university deployments. Human-graded evidence is the ground truth the model is checked against. The rubric is calibrated by Ivey / DAN Management faculty.
Reliability and validation
We track agreement between machine and calibrated human graders, test-retest reliability across quarterly re-scores, and item-level difficulty and discrimination as the response corpus grows. A published study with an academic partner, covering inter-rater reliability coefficients and predictive validity against job performance, is a near-term objective.
AI Fluency Standard™. Trademark filed in Canada; international filing in progress.
Your board-ready
AI roadmap.
One report connects the investment decision to the work ahead: where each function stands, where it needs to go, and what to do next.
AI capability roadmap
Report previewIllustrative data, targets, and actions
Current score distribution
Evidence-scored capability by function, on the 0–800 scale.
Engineering
Marketing
Operations
Targets reflect the role and the business need. Advanced is not the goal for every function.
Sequenced closing plan
Example priorities and accountable teams
- 01
Align the tools
Select approved tools and define where they fit in each team's work.
Function leads + IT - 02
Close priority skill gaps
Focus practice and training on the capabilities furthest from the target band.
Function leads + L&D - 03
Put controls in place
Set review requirements, data-handling rules, and accountability for AI-supported work.
Risk + governance
Support beyond the report.
Turn the roadmap into a learning rhythm with monthly scenarios, answer explanations, company-level insight, and verified reassessment.
Explore learning plansCAD $100 per employee. One-time assessment.
From baseline to board-ready metrics in days.
Four steps that connect an official baseline with targeted learning, practice, and verified progress.
Verified baseline
Employees take the role-specific Verified AI Fluency Assessment. Each official result is reported as a Verified AI Fluency Score out of 800.
Company-wide view
Individual scores roll up into the Company Progress dashboard, showing strengths, gaps, and function-level patterns.
Targeted learning
Monthly scenarios and answer explanations help each employee build the capabilities their baseline identified.
Practice and verify
Practice Reviews in months 3 and 6 support learning, followed by a Verified Reassessment in month 6 to measure progress.
The dashboard behind the learning.
The Company Progress Plan brings your teams' scores, the 0–800 distribution across bands, practice cadence, and month-six reassessment into one view — connecting what people are learning with the progress leadership needs to see.
This is what your dashboard looks like once your team is onboarded.
Measure. Learn. Verify.
Know where your people stand.
Help them move forward.
Start with a verified baseline. Build capability with purpose. Return to the score and see what changed.
Create company accountCAD $100 per employee / No subscription required