People Review: see how your managers decide when AI gives the answer.
A fixed-scope review of one function or business unit. We map which decisions AI now shapes and who approves them, watch your managers decide in a simulation, and give you a written report and a training plan.
The problem this review solves
Managers now approve work that an AI tool helped to produce: forecasts, supplier comparisons, customer replies, reports. Most organisations cannot see how carefully those managers check the AI's work, or who is responsible when an AI recommendation is wrong. Training everyone the same way does not fix this, because different roles make different mistakes.
A fictional example. A sales team accepts an AI forecast for a new market. The forecast used last year's prices. Three managers approved it, and each one believed another had checked the figures.
Who it is for
- Heads of HR, learning or talent who need to decide what AI training each group of managers needs.
- Heads of a business function, such as sales, procurement, finance or operations, whose managers approve decisions that use AI.
- One function or business unit at a time. A larger organisation starts with one, then decides whether to extend.
What we do
One function or business unit, agreed in writing at the start.
Scope
With the sponsor, agree the function, the decisions in scope, the managers who take part, and the dates.
Map the decision roles
List the decisions in the function where AI now plays a part, who makes each one, who approves it, and what the AI is used for.
Watch decisions in a simulation
Each manager works through a StepSim mission chosen for the function. They receive an AI recommendation, check the evidence, decide, and leave a written record of what they checked and why.
Review how approval works today
Short interviews with the sponsor and a few managers about how AI work is checked and signed off in practice, compared with the written policy.
Report and brief
A written report and a one-hour briefing for the sponsor and the leadership team.
What you receive
- A decision-role map: the decisions in scope, who makes and approves each one, and where AI is used.
- A summary of what managers did in the simulation: what they checked, what they did not check, and where they disagreed. It is a record of one exercise, not a measure of how they work every day.
- The gaps between the written approval policy and what happens in practice.
- Training priorities and a practice plan for each group of managers.
- A one-hour briefing for the sponsor.
What the group checked before accepting the AI recommendation
| Check | What the group did (14 managers) | What to practise |
|---|---|---|
| Asked which question the AI had answered | 9 of 14 did this before deciding | Restate the question before reading the answer |
| Checked the figures the recommendation rests on | 5 of 14 opened the source figures | Test the two or three figures the result depends on |
| Brought in the person who must agree | 3 of 14 named who else had to agree | Name the people who must agree before committing |
| Recorded the decision with an owner and a date | 6 of 14 wrote an owner and a date | Close each decision in writing |
Who does the work
You contract with AIR APAC Pte. Ltd., which is responsible for the review and its report. The review is led by Indhran Seghar, director of AIR APAC, with one lead for the whole engagement from the scoping call to the final briefing. The people behind AIR APAC
If the review shows that your managers need better tools, for example a decision log built into your own systems, Exeter Labs, the product company of AIR APAC, can do that work under a separate agreement, or you can use your own team or any other supplier. Using Exeter Labs is never a condition of the review. Because Exeter Labs is part of AIR APAC, AIR APAC will not review its work for you as an independent party. Your contract names who does each task and who owns each deliverable.
Your information
Managers use fictional case files, not your company's records. Each manager's decision record is held in StepSim, which Exeter Labs runs for AIR APAC. Before the review starts, the contract states how long the records are kept, when they are deleted, and whether the sponsor sees each manager's own record or only the results for the group. Managers are told this before they begin. The report does not grade or rank anyone.
What this review does not do
- It does not predict how well any person will perform in their job.
- It is not a psychometric test and gives no score, grade or ranking of people or of the organisation.
- It does not certify anyone. Certification against AIRS-J/1 is a separate assessment.
- It does not promise a gain in productivity.
- Training that follows the review, such as From Answers to Decisions, is agreed and priced separately.
Length and fee
Usually two to three weeks for one function, depending on how quickly managers can take part in the simulation.
The fee is fixed and agreed in writing before work starts. It depends on the scope: the number of managers who take part. We quote it in writing after a free scoping call of about 45 minutes. Training that follows the review is priced separately.
The review is complete when you have received the items listed under What you receive and the briefing has taken place.
AIR APAC also publishes research on organisations. We do not sell a review to an organisation while our research is measuring it, and no research result is used to sell a review. How AIR APAC keeps research separate from sales
People Review
Request a scoping call
Tell us the function, roughly how many managers approve decisions that use AI, and when you want to start.