BioMD AI Ready Assessment
Know if you are ready before you sign.
A two-to-four-week, multi-rater assessment of whether your workforce, workflows, data, and board are ready for a specific AI deployment. You get a scored report, the gaps that would sink the rollout, and a sequenced plan to close them.
Fee confirmed after a 30-minute scoping call. No procurement cycle needed for most organizations.
Who this is for
You have a named AI tool and a date. An ambient scribe, a predictive model, a triage assistant, a documentation platform. The vendor says it is ready. You are not sure your people are.
Hospitals, health authorities, homecare and senior living operators, and clinic networks use it to decide when to go live, which sites to start with, and what to ask the vendor for before signing. Some use it to choose between two tools. Digital health companies use it on the buyer's side to make their own implementation land; that version is on the vendor page.
What you receive
Sample page from a readiness report. Illustrative data, not a real client.
- A scored readiness report by domain and by site or service line, with rater agreement so you know whether leadership and the frontline see the same organization
- A weakest-link floor so one unready domain cannot be averaged away by five strong ones. The floor is usually the finding that changes the go-live date
- The specific gaps that put this deployment at risk, in the words of the raters who flagged them
- A sequenced plan with what to do in which order, who owns it, and what to renegotiate with the vendor
- A 60-minute results briefing for the sponsoring executive and the implementation lead. Founding clients get 90 minutes with the full executive team
- Your benchmark position against every later Canadian administration of the instrument, updated as the database grows
The six domains
72 items. Anchored in validated readiness-for-change theory (ORIC) and the NASSS framework for technology adoption in health.
- Leadership commitment and change capacity
- Workforce fluency and trust
- Clinical and operational workflow fit
- Data, infrastructure, and cybersecurity
- Governance, ethics, and patient participation
- Implementation and evaluation capability
Each domain is rated by the people who would actually live with the tool, not only the people who chose it. Items are role-tagged so a charge nurse answers about handoffs and a CIO answers about integration, and no one answers about things they cannot see.
How the four weeks run
Most of the work is ours. Yours is about six hours of leadership time and 20 minutes per rater.
Scope
Week 1
Scoping call, then a half-day with the sponsor and implementation lead: which tool, which sites, which raters, what a bad outcome would look like.
Administer
Weeks 1 to 2
Raters complete the instrument online in about 20 minutes, in one or two sittings. We chase the stragglers so you do not have to.
Score and interview
Weeks 2 to 3
Scoring, agreement analysis, and six to eight short interviews to understand the gaps behind the numbers.
Report and brief
Weeks 3 to 4
Written report and the sequenced plan, then the results briefing. You leave with something to take to your vendor and your board.
Founding client terms
Three organizations, before December 31, 2026.
The instrument is being content-validated by a Delphi expert panel now and is not yet reliability-tested. The first three clients are the pilot sample, and that is the only honest reason for a discount.
You receive: the full assessment at CA$9,000 instead of the CA$12,000 to 18,000 standard range, a 90-minute executive results briefing instead of 60, the sequenced plan, and a permanent benchmark position against every later administration.
You give: a case study, named or anonymized (your choice, agreed in writing at signing), your de-identified ratings in the validation study, an hour of feedback on the process, and access to 15 to 25 raters.
The date holds whether or not the seats fill. Once reliability testing is complete, the terms cannot be justified and will not be offered again.
What it is not
It is not a vendor evaluation, a security audit, or a privacy impact assessment; those are separate and you probably need them too. It is not a technical integration review. And it is not yet a psychometrically validated scale in the full sense: content validation by a Delphi expert panel is underway, and reliability testing follows through the founding-client pilots. We describe it exactly that way in every report, and we would rather you hear it from us than notice it later.