Executive and Board track
AI competency, measured for executive and board leadership
The only track that measures oversight rather than use. A director does not need to operate these tools. They need to know what to ask, what an adequate answer sounds like, and which risks cannot be delegated to the people being overseen.
Who sits this track
Executive teams, non-executive directors, and board committee members.
Nine tracks exist because the competencies that matter to a clinician are not the ones that matter to a teacher. The framework, the three proficiency levels and the scoring are shared. The items are not.
The judgment this track measures
Scenario items ask what a person would do, not what a term means. These are the situations the executive and board items are built around.
- Knowing what to ask management about an AI program, and what a weak answer sounds like
- Setting risk appetite for adoption you will not personally supervise
- Disclosure obligations when AI is material to the business
- Recognizing when an AI investment case is a narrative rather than a plan
- Oversight duties that cannot be delegated downward
- Length
- 40 items, plus the readiness checklist.
- Time
- 20 to 25 minutes. No time limit.
- Levels
- Acquire, Deepen, Create.
- Status
- In development
- Result
- Not pass or fail. A baseline and a set of gaps.
What this track answers to
Every track is aligned to the shared frameworks, and additionally anchored to the professional guidance governing its own audience rather than borrowed from another sector.
Not published yet, and said so on purpose
Common questions
Is the Executive and Board track available today?
Not yet. The Executive and Board Leadership track is in development, which means framework research and item writing are underway. Register interest and we will tell you when it is published.
How long does it take?
Most people complete the assessment in 20 to 25 minutes. There is no time limit.
Is it pass or fail?
No. The assessment returns a proficiency level and domain scores. There is no passing score. The purpose is to establish a baseline and identify areas for development.
How is this different from the other tracks?
The only track that measures oversight rather than use. A director does not need to operate these tools. They need to know what to ask, what an adequate answer sounds like, and which risks cannot be delegated to the people being overseen.
Do participants choose their own track?
No. The access code an organization issues is bound to one track, and entering it puts the participant on the right instrument automatically.
Who sees my results?
Your results appear on screen as soon as you finish. Whether the organization that issued your code also receives them is set by that organization and disclosed to you before you begin.
What is it validated against?
Every track is content-validated before publication by an independent panel of at least six subject matter experts, none of them the item authors, and is accepted at a scale-level S-CVI/Ave of 0.90 or above.
Sources
- UNESCO AI Competency Framework for TeachersUNESCO, September 2024. 15 competencies across five dimensions and three progression levels.
- Lynn, Nursing Research, 1986Determination and quantification of content validity. The origin of the four-point ordinal CVI scale and its acceptance thresholds.
- Polit and Beck, Research in Nursing & Health, 2006The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.
- NACD AI governance guidanceNational Association of Corporate Directors. Board oversight of artificial intelligence.
- OECD AI PrinciplesOECD, adopted 2019 and updated 2024. The first intergovernmental standard on AI, with 47 adherents.