See exactly where
your AI program stands.

Most AI readiness assessments measure tools. They ask which platforms you have licensed, how many models you have deployed, and whether your team has taken the vendor's training. Those measurements correlate weakly with whether AI is actually producing business outcomes. The MIT NANDA Initiative's 2025 study found 95% of enterprise generative AI pilots failed to deliver P&L impact, and the failures cut across the full spread of tool inventories.[1]

The SynthesisArc AI Readiness Snapshot measures something different. It measures the seven organizational properties that BCG's 2025 widening-gap research (1,250 CXOs across 59 countries) found separate the 4 to 5% of companies capturing full AI value from the 60% seeing minimal return.[2] Those properties are operational, not technological. They predict outcomes, not investments.

Concretely, the assessment surfaces three things in four minutes. First, your archetype: one of five diagnostic profiles that names where your organization sits relative to peers. Second, your financial exposure range: a dollar-value estimate of what your current readiness gap is costing you, calculated against benchmarks from McKinsey, BCG, and the EU AI Act final regulation.[3][4] Third, your first three moves: per-dimension actions sequenced by impact and feasibility, sourced from the same evidence manifest the rest of our methodology runs on.

The AI readiness assessment market is dominated by vendor-built tools. Microsoft offers a Readiness Wizard tied to the Azure stack. Cisco publishes the AI Readiness Index, an annual report franchise anchored to Cisco infrastructure.[5] Both are well-built. Both are vendor-anchored by design, and they measure what you should buy from the vendor.

That is fine when the question is "should we buy more from this vendor". It is not fine when the question is "where does our AI program actually break". Vendor-anchored assessments under-measure two things specifically. They under-measure governance gaps, because governance is rarely sold as a product. And they under-measure vendor independence, because the vendor selling the assessment cannot, by structural conflict, ask whether the buyer should be less dependent on the vendor.

The SynthesisArc snapshot is built around the opposite premise. We have no platform license to defend. We measure governance as its own dimension, scored against NIST AI RMF and EU AI Act conformity requirements.[4][6] We measure vendor independence as its own dimension, scored against industry research showing 98% of public-cloud enterprises now run multi-cloud strategies and 40%+ of agentic AI projects are expected to be canceled by 2027 over escalating costs and unclear business value.[7][8] Both gaps are independently expensive. Both are systematically under-asked.

The other common failure mode of AI readiness assessments is that they produce a single composite score. A score feels precise but rarely changes behavior, because the recipient cannot tell whether the gap is in data, in governance, in change management, or in vendor lock-in. The snapshot produces an archetype plus seven dimensional scores, so the first move is obvious from the first read.

The free snapshot is the trailer. The two-week INSIGHTS engagement is the feature. Here is what shifts when an organization moves from the 4-minute diagnostic into the full INSIGHTS assessment.

In Week 1, we map every AI-touched workflow in your operation. That includes workflows where AI is already deployed, workflows where AI was piloted and abandoned, and workflows where AI has been discussed but not started. For each workflow, we quantify three numbers: the current cost (in dollars, hours, or error rate), the gap (what better looks like), and the dollar value of closing it. McKinsey's economic-potential research provides the ceiling for what is possible (30 to 45% cost reduction in customer operations, 20 to 45% in software engineering, full-adoption potential),[3] and we discount against your realized adoption capacity from Category 7 of our manifest.

In Week 2, we sequence the roadmap. Every initiative gets a 90-day plan, a measurement plan, a governance plan, and an ownership plan. Initiatives are ranked by speed-to-value and by regulatory exposure (EU AI Act Annex III high-risk obligations come into force on 2 August 2026, and that date frames sequencing for any organization with EU operations).[4] The output is a 40-page roadmap document and a 1-page board summary.

Pricing for INSIGHTS is a fixed engagement fee with a 30-day money-back guarantee. If the roadmap does not produce a defensible business case for at least one funded initiative, the engagement fee returns. To date, no client has invoked the guarantee. To learn more, see INSIGHTS or How We Work.