If you need to decide what your organization's AI direction should be across several business units, a strategy engagement is probably the right fit. If you already have AI tools in place and want a clear read on why adoption is not showing up in the work, plus a prioritized plan, a fixed-scope audit is the smaller and faster step. Many organizations need the second before the first, and some need only the second.
I run an AI enablement audit, so you should weigh my view with that in mind. This post tries to describe both options fairly, including what the audit does not do.
What an AI strategy consultant does
A strategy engagement answers big, open questions. Where should AI create value in this business? Which functions come first? What should be built, bought or left alone? How does it connect to the operating model, the workforce plan and the budget?
The work is usually scoped to your situation and runs over weeks or months, with interviews, analysis, options and a recommended direction. It often involves senior stakeholders across the business. Pricing depends on scope and the firm, so you will normally get a quote rather than a rate card.
A strategy engagement fits when:
- You are deciding whether and where to invest in AI at all.
- The question spans multiple functions, products or markets.
- You need executive alignment on direction and a business case.
- You have the time and budget for a longer engagement and for internal stakeholders to take part.
Good strategy consultants do things an audit does not. That is not a ranking, it is a difference in job.
What an AI enablement audit does
The audit I offer is deliberately narrow. It starts from the assumption that you already have tools and asks how well they are working for the people who use them.
The format is a two-hour working session. You then receive a written assessment covering five dimensions, and a prioritized 90-day roadmap, within five business days. The price is $500, once. There is no discovery-call loop before it.
The five dimensions:
- Strategy: whether targets are defensible and an executive owns them.
- Tooling: what is deployed, where tools overlap, and where there are gaps.
- Adoption: actual usage by role, not just access.
- Enablement: whether training and documentation match the behavior change you need.
- Governance: guardrails and risk posture.
A fixed-scope audit fits when:
- Tools are already deployed and results are uneven or unclear.
- You want a clear, written picture quickly, without a long engagement.
- You need a sequenced next quarter, not a multi-year direction.
- You want to know what to fix before spending more on tools or consultants.
Side by side
- Question answered. Strategy: where should we go? Audit: where are we, and what should we do in the next 90 days?
- Starting point. Strategy: can begin with no tools in place. Audit: assumes tools are in place.
- Time. Strategy: typically weeks to months. Audit: a two-hour session, then the written assessment within five business days.
- Cost. Strategy: scoped and quoted. Audit: $500, once.
- Output. Strategy: a direction, business case and plan, often at the enterprise level. Audit: a written assessment and 90-day roadmap.
- Who takes part. Strategy: often many stakeholders. Audit: the people who can describe how tools are really used.
What the audit does not do
Being clear about limits is the point of a fixed scope. The audit does not:
- Set a multi-year AI strategy or build an enterprise business case.
- Select vendors, run procurement or negotiate contracts.
- Implement or configure tools, or build automations.
- Deliver the training itself. It tells you what training and documentation are missing.
- Provide legal or regulatory advice. Governance findings are about guardrails and risk posture, and your counsel decides what the law requires of you.
- Perform a technical security review of your systems.
If you need any of those, they are separate work, and a strategy firm or specialist may be the better fit.
What to ask anyone you hire, including me
Whichever route you take, a few questions keep the engagement honest.
- What exactly will I have in my hands at the end? A named deliverable with a delivery date is better than a description of activities.
- What is out of scope? The answer should be specific. Vague scope is where cost and timelines drift.
- Who needs to be in the room, and for how long? The real price of any engagement includes your own people's time.
- What happens after? Find out whether follow-on work is optional or assumed, and what it would cost before you start.
How to decide
Ask three questions.
- Do we already have AI tools in use? If no, you are probably deciding direction first, which points to strategy work or a simple internal planning exercise.
- Is our problem "what should we do" or "why isn't it working"? The first is strategy. The second is closer to an audit.
- How much time and budget can we commit right now? A fixed, low-cost step is easier to approve and finishes quickly. A larger engagement needs sponsorship.
The two also work in order. A short audit can sharpen the brief you give a strategy firm, or show that the next step is training and not another tool. If you want to self-check first, the AI readiness checklist covers the five dimensions in yes/no form, and the AI governance framework post goes deeper on the fifth.
Next step
To go further on AI enablement, see The AI Enablement Standard. New posts on this topic are announced in the newsletter.