re-ai-gov Join the waiting list Take the free check

Responsible AI Governance

Do you know which AI applications are running in your organization, and who is responsible for them?

The IT list is not what is actually used: shadow AI with company data forms the largest part and is registered nowhere. Accountability, human oversight and monitoring are often not in place. Many organizations do not know whether they are a provider or a deployer, and what follows from that, and when. Without that overview, every governance effort is based on an incomplete picture.

1

Use-case inventory

An overview per department through a survey tool and short employee questioning, supplemented with desk research into procurement, licenses and IT signals.

2

Classification and obligations

Role and risk level per application from the aiacta datasets, with a timeline of what is required now and what can be planned.

3

Governance templates and reporting

A set of templates for policy, an oversight decision log, escalation paths and monitoring, plus a one-page board report and a subscription to track changes.

Per applicationwhat, which data, who, supplier, which decision
Two classificationsrole as provider or deployer, and risk level
One set of templatespolicy, oversight decision log, escalation paths, monitoring
One pageboard report

What it delivers

The Responsible AI Scan maps out, through a survey tool and guided desk research, which AI applications exist, including the applications no one formally approved. Each application is then classified by role and risk level from the aiacta datasets, with a timeline of what is required now and what can wait. This is followed by a governance framework in the form of a set of templates that aligns with the existing risk structure, so no second process arises alongside the first. There is a one-page board report, and a horizon-scanner subscription to track changes over time.

How it works

Survey

the survey tool goes out to departments and employees

Inventory and classification

applications are collected and classified via aiacta read-first

Gap and obligations report

what is required now and what can be planned

Templates, board report and subscription

fill in the governance templates, report to the board, and track through the scanner subscription

What this explicitly is not

  • Not an AI Act compliance tool for a register, classification and literacy under the AI Act, aiacta.eu is the home; that boundary does not shift.
  • Not a completed engagement the scan structures what exists, it does not prove a track record.
  • Not a second process alongside the existing structure the templates are meant to align with what is already there, not to exist next to it.

Three outcomes

Every report ends in three routes. You choose; we deliver the analysis, not the engagement.

1

Do it yourself

Do it yourself: register, templates and timeline in your own hands, with literacy through the aiacta seats.

2

Partly guided

Partly guided: a partner for the oversight design and embedding into the existing risk structure.

3

Outsource it

Outsource: the full governance engagement with a partner, with the scan as the record.

The next step

The bridge to the work scan

Every application found runs on tasks. FTE TO AI's work scan shows which tasks can still be added, with the oversight design per task this governance requires. FTE TO AI's category-2 oversight designs and this scan's oversight decision log are the same building block.

Go to the work scan →

This scan is under construction

We are building the datasets on which the analysis rests. Let us know you're watching, and you'll hear as soon as the first measurements open up.

Andrewde assistent van de Responsible AI Scan

Vraag maar. Governance begint bij weten wat er draait — ook wat niemand heeft goedgekeurd.

Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.