Do Not Ask Only Whether You Are Ready for AI. Ask What an Agent Should Be Allowed to Do.
AI is no longer limited to producing an answer. An agent can use systems, make decisions, delegate work and initiate actions. That is not a decision one person or one generic maturity score can make.
IGX360 runs an evidence-based journey in four stages. Establish the organisational conditions around agentic AI. Screen whether a proposed process and use case merits deeper investment. Assess the agent's authority, controls and operating evidence in detail. Then turn the findings into a governed readiness roadmap. You can start at discovery or at screening. A use case that qualifies works through all four.
Vendor-neutral. Evidence-based. Gate-controlled. Deterministic scoring. No deployment claim.
Adoption is accelerating faster than preparedness.
AI agents turn incomplete processes, poor data, unclear decision rights and weak controls into operational problems rather than background imperfections. The 2026 evidence shows a consistent gap between ambition and readiness. The implication is not to wait. It is to separate promising use cases from premature ones and expand agent authority only as capability and control are demonstrated.
of organisations already piloting agentic AI say their business processes are highly prepared for AI agents.
Deloitte, 2026. Survey of 501 US respondents in organisations already piloting agentic AI. Source.
of technology leaders believe their organisation is fully ready for the scale of agent deployment they expect. 77% say adoption is outpacing governance.
IBM Institute for Business Value and Oxford Economics, June 2026. 2,000 executives across 33 geographies. Source.
reach maturity level three or higher in strategy, governance and agentic controls. Security and risk are the leading barrier to scaling agents.
McKinsey, State of AI Trust in 2026. Around 500 organisations; respondents responsible for AI governance, risk or investment. Source.
Stronger outcomes track the capabilities needed to scale: accountability, governance and cost visibility. Not the number of deployments.
KPMG, Global AI Pulse Q2 2026. 2,145 C-suite and business leaders across 20 countries. Source.
Four decisions, not one misleading score.
Organisational preparedness, use-case suitability, detailed agentic readiness and implementation planning are four different decisions. IGX360 addresses them through four connected stages rather than compressing them into a single number.
- 1
Organisational Readiness Discovery
Can the organisation select, govern, operate and scale agents responsibly?
A free scored online assessment of ninety-two questions across thirteen domains: strategy, governance, portfolio, process, data, architecture, security, agent authority, assurance, operations, legal, workforce and ecosystem. A score for each domain, a visibility gap where answers are not known, and prioritised actions.
Output A readiness band, the weakest domains, the open unknowns and candidate processes for screening.
Start the discovery - 2
Process and Use-Case Screening
Is this use case credible and bounded enough to justify detailed assessment?
Twenty questions across five sections screen one named process and proposed use case: purpose and process suitability, information and technical feasibility, authority and consequence, security and control, and value and ownership. Seven stop conditions override the score.
Output Do not progress, complete foundation work, investigate, or progress to a detailed assessment.
Screen a use case - 3
Detailed Agentic Readiness Assessment
At what readiness level and autonomy ceiling could this process and use case progress?
A facilitated cross-functional assessment evaluates the process and the proposed agent together across eleven dimensions. Results combine weighted maturity, an evidence confidence index, twenty-four critical gates and an indicative autonomy ceiling.
Output An evidence-based readiness decision and prioritised gaps. Not permission to deploy.
See the detailed assessment - 4
Readiness Roadmap
What must happen next, in what order, and with what evidence?
Findings become traceable actions with owners, dependencies, closure evidence, decision gates and reassessment triggers.
Output A governed path from the current position to the next responsible decision.
See the readiness roadmap
Built for AI that acts, not only AI that answers.
Short maturity wizards give a useful general indication of AI adoption. Workload assessments help architects prepare platforms. Neither question is enough when an agent can use tools, change records, influence people or start a sequence of actions. IGX360 is built around the conditions that make agency different.
- Authority. What the agent may do, may do only under conditions, and must never do.
- Human Sovereignty. Where people approve, monitor, intervene and remain accountable. Human gates as designed decision points, not workarounds.
- Identity and access. How a non-human actor is authenticated and held to least privilege.
- Process reality. How decisions, exceptions, workarounds and dependencies actually operate, not how the procedure says they do.
- Memory and delegation. How context persists and how authority flows when one agent calls another.
- Evidence. Whether a claimed capability is supported by a current record, reported separately from the capability itself.
- Critical gates. Whether indispensable controls exist, regardless of the average score.
- Recovery. Whether actions can be contained, reversed or safely handed back to people.
No model, cloud, BPM, process-mining, RPA or agent platform scores higher merely because it is present. The method evaluates the outcomes, controls and evidence the use case requires.
Transparent enough to challenge.
The questions and scores are there to help people make a better decision, not to ask them to trust a black box.
The detailed assessment uses deterministic scoring. A language model does not decide the result. Capability maturity and evidence confidence are reported separately. Critical gate logic is visible. Conditional questions appear only where agent memory, multi-agent delegation or material effects on people make them relevant. Every result records the version of the questions and scoring method used.
The method has been designed with reference to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO/IEC 42001, the European Union's risk-based AI Act framework and OWASP's agentic AI security work. It is independently developed by IGX360 and is not represented as certification or endorsement by those organisations.
The objective is better work under governed authority.
Layering an agent onto an unclear process reproduces ambiguity, delay and control gaps at greater speed. Deloitte's 2026 research found that only one in five leaders considered their organisations prepared to redesign processes for autonomous operation, while 75% believed human-agent collaboration creates more value than agent-powered automation alone.
IGX360 assesses how work should be divided between people, agents and existing systems inside an AEOM, the hybrid model where human authority is preserved and agents handle execution. The autonomy ceiling makes progress explicit, from advisory support through bounded action to governed autonomy, while accountable human authority over purpose, constraints and material change stays intact.
Agentic AI readiness is not a technology opinion or a single enterprise score.
If you need to align the organisation, begin with organisational discovery. If you already have a defined process and use case, screen it. If it qualifies, the facilitated detailed assessment and roadmap follow.