THE PRACTICAL GUIDES
AI governance consulting in Australia: agree the handover
When commissioning AI governance consulting, describe the decisions your team needs to make after the consultant leaves. A policy can set boundaries; a system register can show what exists; an operating process determines who approves changes and responds when something goes wrong. Specify all three in the brief.
This guide helps an Australian business agree practical outputs and test the handover. We reviewed the linked government resources and two existing directory providers on 18 October 2026. Use our governance directory for service discovery. The commissioning worksheet below is an editorial framework, with a fictional example for practice.
Choose the engagement around the decisions you face
- Staff already use several AI tools: ask for a scoped inventory, usable staff rules and a process for requesting another tool or use.
- You are about to deploy one defined system: ask for an assessment of that use, the decision owner, operating controls and the evidence required before release.
- Your organisation needs continuing oversight: specify who reviews changes, how often decisions are revisited and which work continues after the initial engagement.
These purchases can overlap. Write the included systems, teams and review period into the scope so a supplier can distinguish initial setup from ongoing work.
Use the current Australian resources as a starting point
The National AI Centre's AI systems register resource offers Word and spreadsheet templates. It covers systems and uses, accountable people and the relevant governance level, including AI features inside ordinary software. The Centre also explains that a register supports, rather than replaces, deeper assessment and risk management.
Its implementation guidance addresses more complex uses through accountability, impacts, risk management, information sharing, testing and human control. Ask a supplier to identify which current guidance it uses and how that will appear in your working documents. A generic framework reference does not define the deliverables or certify compliance.
Two advertised provider approaches to compare
SMB adoption · process and staff foundations
AAHB Rewired
AAHB Rewired describes a business-process approach for Australian small and medium businesses, covering process documentation, staff capability, AI usage policies and monitoring as adoption grows. For this type of engagement, ask which inventory and policy outputs are included, who interviews staff and whether the handover includes a working approval process.
Separate an introductory discussion from paid delivery. Confirm the fee, systems covered and support period in a proposal. See the provider profile.
Executive oversight · a defined project or continuing advice
Advanced AI Mechanics
Advanced AI Mechanics advertises executive and board advisory, retained engagements and fixed-scope work. The latter is described as 4–12 weeks with written outputs and acceptance criteria; governance is among the advertised disciplines. Ask which decisions the advisor will help your organisation make, who implements the controls and what evidence the closing handover contains.
The published scope is oriented towards boards, executives and enterprise work. Test its fit with your organisation and obtain a specific fee proposal. See the provider profile.
These examples show different advertised engagement shapes. The reviewed pages do not establish a comparable price for the same brief, and we have not commissioned or independently audited either provider's work.
Specify a small set of outputs your team can maintain
- An inventory with a clear boundary: name the departments, tools and uses covered, the sources consulted and unresolved gaps. An editable register needs an owner and a change process.
- Rules staff can apply: use examples from the actual work to explain permitted data, approval steps, review expectations and where to ask questions. Agree who keeps those rules current.
- A decision record for each scoped use: record the intended task, affected people, assessment, evidence, open issues, restrictions and the person who accepts or rejects the proposed use.
- A response route: demonstrate how someone reports an unexpected result, who can pause the use and how a decision to resume is recorded.
- A maintenance handover: provide editable files, supporting evidence, owner training and triggers for reassessment. Separate any recurring review fee from the initial project price.
Try the handover with a fictional meeting assistant
Imagine a small operations team wants an assistant to turn internal meeting notes into draft actions. Use invented notes for the exercise. Give the supplier a blank copy of the proposed register and ask your nominated owner to complete the following without the consultant typing for them:
- Describe the precise use and the team responsible for it.
- Record the tool, approved workspace, proposed inputs and the people who will check drafts.
- Find the policy rule for a meeting containing information outside the approved boundary.
- Record the approval decision, its conditions and a reason to revisit it.
- Show how to report an incorrect draft, pause the use and identify who decides the next step.
The acceptance test is whether your owner can use and update the agreed process. If the team cannot find the relevant rule or decision maker, return that gap to the supplier before sign-off. Keep uncertainty visible instead of filling a register cell with an unsupported assurance.
For the next buying decision, use the proposal comparison worksheet to align scope, fees and exclusions. If staff need to practise the process, specify exercises and follow-up through the team-training guide. If a new system still needs testing, connect the controls to your pilot and handover plan.
Editorial guidance with linked sources. Reviewed 2026-10-18.