World Model Readiness
Engraved organisation instrument

For your company

Organisation & People

Module · Bought is not the same as used

The Change & Adoption Readiness Check

The graveyard of AI projects is full of tools that worked and nobody used. This module tests whether adoption is engineered or assumed: whether incentives point the right way, the works council was brought in early, staff fears were addressed honestly, training fit the actual job, and feedback changes the tool.

Question 1 of 5 · Incentives point right

Do the people expected to use the AI benefit from using it, or only lose time?

A tool that saves the company money but costs the individual user time loses to the old way every day. Adoption follows the personal benefit, not the corporate case.

Question 2 of 5 · Works council on board

Was the works council or Betriebsrat involved before the rollout, not after?

In a co-determination culture, a council brought in after the decision is a council that can block it, and a workforce that has learned to distrust it. Early involvement is both a legal duty and an adoption asset.

Question 3 of 5 · Fears are addressed

Has anyone honestly addressed whether the AI threatens people's jobs?

The unspoken question in every rollout is whether this replaces me. Left unanswered, it becomes quiet resistance; vague reassurance convinces no one who is actually worried.

Question 4 of 5 · Training fits the job

Is training built around how people actually do their work, or a generic tool demo?

A feature tour teaches the tool; it does not teach the job. Training anchored in the user's real tasks is the difference between a tool people can use and shelfware.

Question 5 of 5 · Feedback changes things

When users report what does not work, does anything actually change?

Feedback collected and ignored is worse than none: it teaches people that speaking up is pointless. A visible closed loop turns users into co-owners of the tool.

For the statistics · one click each

Three questions for the public picture

These do not affect your score. They feed the anonymised, aggregated statistics; groups under 8 respondents are never shown.

What share of your licensed AI seats are actually used weekly?

Under 20 percent
20 to 50 percent
50 to 80 percent
Over 80 percent
We do not track it

How was your works council or Betriebsrat involved in AI rollouts?

We have no works council
Not involved
Informed after the decision
Consulted early
Co-determined the rollout

How was your last AI tool introduced to staff?

No rollout yet
Mandated top-down
Announced, self-serve
Piloted with volunteers
Co-created with users

Your context

Used to calibrate the report. Company size and sector remain in the anonymized dataset; your email does not.

What the five levels look like

Every dimension in this assessment is scored 1 to 5. This is what the levels mean, dimension by dimension. The graded report diagnoses where your own answers land and what to do about it.

Incentives point right

  1. 1Pure extra work
  2. 2No clear benefit
  3. 3Neutral
  4. 4Saves them time
  5. 5Rewarded for using it

At the low end: A tool that costs its users time and saves only the company money will lose to the old way every day. Make sure the people using it are the people who gain from it. What good looks like: When users are rewarded for adoption, uptake takes care of itself. Keep the benefit visible and personal, not just a line in the company case.

Works council on board

  1. 1Not involved
  2. 2Informed late
  3. 3Consulted
  4. 4Involved early
  5. 5Co-designed the rollout

At the low end: In a co-determination culture, a works council brought in after the decision is a council that can block it, and a workforce that distrusts it. Involve them before you commit. What good looks like: A works council that co-designed the rollout is your strongest adoption channel. They carry a legitimacy management cannot buy; keep them in the loop as it scales.

Fears are addressed

  1. 1Ignored
  2. 2Vague reassurance
  3. 3Acknowledged
  4. 4Openly discussed
  5. 5Addressed with commitments

At the low end: Unspoken job fears do not disappear; they turn into quiet resistance. Name the question directly: does this replace people, and answer it honestly. What good looks like: Addressing fears with concrete commitments is what earns real buy-in. Keep the promises visible; adoption dies the moment staff feel misled.

Training fits the job

  1. 1None
  2. 2One-off demo
  3. 3Generic training
  4. 4Role-specific
  5. 5Role-specific + ongoing

At the low end: A tool nobody knows how to use in their actual workflow becomes shelfware. Build training around real tasks, not a feature tour. What good looks like: Role-specific, ongoing training is what makes a tool stick. Refresh it as the tool and the work change, so competence does not decay.

Feedback changes things

  1. 1No channel
  2. 2Complaints vanish
  3. 3Collected, ignored
  4. 4Acted on sometimes
  5. 5Visible closed loop

At the low end: When feedback has nowhere to go, users stop giving it and start working around the tool. Open one channel and, more importantly, act on it visibly. What good looks like: A visible closed loop turns users into co-owners of the tool. Keep showing the changes their feedback drives; that visibility is the engine of adoption.