Skip to content

Responsible AI resourceMenuHomeModel policyDecisionsResearch & approachGet support

Leadership guide/Presidents & leaders

Presidents & leaders

Turn institutional intent into direction.

Give the work a purpose, an accountable sponsor and a route to decisions. Match the scope to the people, expertise and capacity available.

Download your briefing↓

College leaders reviewing a student service workflow.
DirectionA mandate, a sequence of work and named responsibility for implementation.Start with the guidance below, then bring the companion document into your next discussion.Get the editable document→

In this guideYour responsibilitiesProject sequenceRelated decisionsDownload PDF→

Read, share and use with your team.

The work to lead.

Set a bounded mandate

Define the institutional problem, the policy scope, the decisions needed and the first deliverables. Identify existing rules and governance bodies that already own part of the work. Give the task force authority to prepare recommendations and resolve only those matters actually delegated to it.

Resource the responsibilities

Approval queues, accessible services and meaningful human review require time and expertise. Identify the people who will perform privacy, security, academic, procurement, accessibility and legal review. Provide routes to shared, district or qualified external expertise when capacity is limited.

Resolve conflicts with options

When a disagreement reaches leadership, require a description of the affected people, applicable constraints, credible alternatives and consequences. Record the decision, its rationale, owner and review conditions. A decision should be visible to the people expected to implement it.

A recommended project sequence

Move toward an approval-ready package.

Week 1

Establish the mandate

Confirm purpose, scope, authority, participants and existing obligations.

Result: A charter, decision owners and approval route.

Weeks 2–3

Compare and resolve

Read the model policy against current rules. Prioritize consequential uses and information safeguards. Resolve the substantive choices.

Result: A reconciled policy draft and a short list of decisions needing authority or specialist input.

Weeks 4–5

Test the operating model

Walk through advising, learning, vendor, incident and access cases. Test whether the rule, owner and remedy are clear.

Result: Implementation responsibilities, review findings and resolved inconsistencies.

Weeks 6–8

Prepare for approval

Complete consultation and specialist review. Prepare communications, support and staged implementation.

Result: An approval-ready package, implementation plan and standing review arrangements.

Planning recommendation: six to eight weeks to an approval-ready package when scope and capacity are established. A focused update may take less time; fragmented rules or extensive consultation may take longer. Board calendars, bargaining, specialist review and institutional approval determine the actual schedule.

Take the next decision.

Purpose & institutional valueWhat should AI help your institution accomplish?→Governance & institutional authorityWho recommends, who decides and who remains accountable?→Tools, use cases & vendorsWhat exactly does an approval authorize?→Human capability & workforce relevanceWhat do people need to be able to do responsibly?→