Apply · Pillar 3
AI Policy Maturity Scorecard
Assess how well your institution's AI policy development aligns with recommended practice across seven dimensions. Rate each statement 1–5; the score is a mirror for reflection, gap-finding, and prioritization, best done as a team activity, revisited each term to track progress.
, %
Priority dimensions
Score the statements below to surface your weakest policy dimensions.
1 Not Started2 Early Exploration3 In Development4 Established5 Institutionalized & Evolving
1,
Process
How will we develop our policy?Policy purpose and scope are clearly defined
Stakeholder groups (faculty, students, IT, legal, DEI) are involved in co-creation
Transparent, participatory feedback mechanisms exist
Policy undergoes shared-governance processes
A formal process exists for periodic reviews and updates
Policy owner and coordinator roles are designated
2,
Content
What should the policy include?Acceptable and prohibited uses of AI are defined across functions
Policy is technology-neutral, written around data, behavior, and risk, not specific products or vendors, and uses durable language (e.g., 'AI and emerging technologies') so it survives model churn
Where AI is a new input to a process that already has rules, existing policy (security, privacy, procurement, records, academic integrity) is extended rather than duplicated as a standalone AI policy
Capabilities that warrant specific treatment (e.g., agentic / autonomous AI) get targeted provisions without fragmenting the broader policy
Academic integrity (authorship, citation, plagiarism) is addressed in the AI context
Data protection standards (FERPA, HIPAA, GDPR) are included
Human-in-the-loop oversight is specified for critical decisions
Tool approval and restriction criteria are established
Non-instructional areas like advising and support services are covered
Bias, labor ethics, and environmental impacts are addressed
Commitment to AI literacy and training is outlined
Attribution and disclosure standards for AI-generated content are established
3,
Governance
Who decides and manages the policy?Ownership and maintenance responsibility is assigned (e.g., IT, Academic Affairs)
Conflicts between academic freedom and policy are addressed
A cross-functional AI Governance Council or equivalent is in place
Escalation paths for AI-related complaints or violations are defined
4,
Communication
How will we inform and engage the community?Policy is clearly communicated across campus audiences
FAQs, toolkits, or training aligned to the policy are provided
Multi-channel engagement (town halls, LMS banners, onboarding) is used
Tone emphasizes education and responsible experimentation
5,
Implementation
How do we make the policy operational?Policy is embedded in course syllabi, procurement, job descriptions, and LMS
Faculty are supported in setting course-specific AI expectations
Staff and administrators know how to access approved tools or request reviews
Pilot or sandbox environments are offered to explore new use cases safely
6,
Evaluation
How will we measure success or gaps?Success indicators (literacy, innovation, fewer violations) are defined
Feedback, usage data, and incidents are collected and reviewed
Benchmarking occurs against peer institutions
Annual review process includes stakeholder reporting
7,
Culture & Values Alignment
Are we staying true to our mission?Policy aligns with institutional mission, DEI goals, and ethical values
Supports academic freedom, creativity, and innovation
Centers student voice and well-being in policy framing
Frames AI as a driver of equity, inclusion, and access
This scorecard supports reflection and prioritization; it is not a compliance instrument. Pair it with the Policies & Guidelines pillar and the Governance Guide.