Rate your team honestly across six capabilities. Get back a specific train, hire or outsource decision for each gap.
Find exactly where your team's AI capabilities fall short. Get a clear recommendation for each gap — train, hire, or outsource.
Rate your team's current capability in each area (1 = none, 5 = strong):
When an AI project stalls, the diagnosis offered is normally technical. The actual cause is more often that nobody in the building can specify what good looks like, clean the data, or judge whether an output is acceptable. Tools are cheap and getting cheaper. The ability to direct them is not.
| Capability | What it stops you doing if missing |
|---|---|
| Prompt engineering | Getting consistent, usable output rather than impressive one-offs |
| Data organisation | Anything at all — this is the most common hard blocker |
| Tool selection and setup | Choosing well, and avoiding a stack of half-configured subscriptions |
| Integration and APIs | Connecting AI to the systems where your work actually happens |
| Judging output quality | Knowing whether it is working, which is how projects quietly fail |
| Change management | Making the new way stick after the novelty fades |
Rate what your team can do today, not what they could learn. The tool is only useful if the input is uncomfortable. Optimistic self-assessment here produces a clean report and a failed project.
Change management scores lowest for most small and mid-sized businesses, and it is consistently the one dismissed as soft. It is the difference between a tool that is used and a licence that gets cancelled at renewal. If you found gaps in both integration and change management, address change management first — a system nobody adopts returns nothing however well it is built.
If several gaps point toward bringing someone in, read what an AI consultant actually does first. The four types are not interchangeable, and matching the wrong one to your gap is the most expensive error in this market.
All eight run in your browser, free, with no account.
Editorial profiles of thirteen people shaping AI consulting — what they built, what they publish, and what the public record says, every claim linked to its source.
Read the profiles