Why preparation matters
One person may complete ORAVORN, but the assessment should not rest solely on one person's reading of the organisation. It asks for a grounded account of how the organisation actually works, and no single individual is likely to see all of it. A chief executive may understand the board-level conversation around AI but have less direct sight of how decisions are interpreted by those expected to carry them out. A frontline manager may know how AI tools are being used in practice but have little access to the governance discussions that shaped their introduction. Each view matters, but each also leaves something out.
It is worth taking some time before answering. Gathering evidence and testing initial assumptions can improve the accuracy of the final submission. It also reduces the likelihood that recommendations will be based on an account that is incomplete or overly favourable.
Bring in more than one perspective
Before completing the assessment, speak to three to five people who see the organisation from different positions, including people outside senior leadership. Try to include someone close to the point where AI is being used in practice. If there has already been an AI pilot, trial or informal experiment, however small, involve someone who experienced its implementation directly, rather than relying only on the person who authorised it.
This is not a request for several people to complete ORAVORN separately. One person still submits the assessment. What matters is that the responses draw on more than that person's assumptions. For example, whether raising an AI concern leads to visible change is easier to judge after speaking to someone who has raised one. Leadership intentions alone cannot show what happened in practice.
Avoid completing it only from a leadership perspective
A leadership view is necessary, but it is not the same as a whole-organisation view. Senior leaders are often closest to intentions, decisions, strategy and policy. They may be less close to how those decisions are interpreted, adapted or experienced elsewhere in the organisation. This difference does not necessarily indicate poor leadership. It can arise from the way information moves through organisational levels.
For that reason, include at least one perspective from outside the leadership team before completing the assessment. This may reveal differences between the organisation's formal account of how it operates and the everyday experience of those working within it.
Ground responses in actual AI initiatives, not general impressions
Where your organisation has direct experience with AI, use it. Even a small pilot, trial or informal experiment presents a more reliable information than a general impression. Ask what actually happened: how concerns were handled, how the initiative was communicated, and whether support continued beyond the initial launch.
If no AI initiative has taken place, say so. That is useful information, and the assessment is designed to capture it without forcing a guess.
Talk through disagreement rather than resolving it by averaging
If the people you consult disagree about how a question should be answered, do not immediately gloss over the difference. The disagreement itself may provide diagnostic information. If your leadership team believes AI governance decisions have a clear owner and your operational team does not know who that owner is, that gap is precisely the kind of finding ORAVORN is built to surface.
In the Leadership Alignment construct, for example, there is an important distinction between disagreement that has been worked through and disagreement that is being contained without resolution. Skipping that conversation may cause the assessment to favour the more comfortable response and produce recommendations based on an inaccurately settled account of the organisation.
Where disagreement remains unresolved, reflect it in the response you choose. Select the option that best represents the current situation, rather than the one that makes the tension disappear.
A note on preparation
These steps are not a formal condition for completing ORAVORN, and one person can still submit the assessment. However, consulting others, examining evidence and discussing areas of disagreement make the responses more trustworthy. Without those steps, the results are more likely to reflect the position of one person or group rather than conditions across the organisation.