AI Governance Maturity Model: 4 Levels Explained

HIPAA Compliance Checklist for 2025

AI adoption is accelerating, but governance maturity is not keeping up. While enterprises are deploying generative AI, automated decision systems, and AI-powered SaaS tools at record speed, most organizations don’t know their true AI governance maturity level. Some have policies on paper, others rely on ad hoc controls, and many haven’t mapped their risks at all.

One 2025 report found that while 93% of organizations use AI in some capacity, only 7% have “fully embedded” AI governance frameworks.

This is where an AI Governance Maturity Model becomes essential. It helps teams benchmark their current stage, understand capability gaps, and move toward responsible AI at scale.

In this blog, we break down the four levels of the AI governance maturity model, explain their characteristics, and help you evaluate where your organization stands today.

‍

TL;DR

AI governance maturity reflects how well your organization manages AI risk, compliance, and accountability.
Most companies fall into one of four stages from ad hoc to optimized governance.
Assessing maturity helps identify risk blind spots and strengthen responsible AI practices.
Mature organizations have clear policies, monitoring systems, documentation, and defined ownership.
The maturity model provides a roadmap to scale AI adoption safely and sustainably.

Concerned about undetected SaaS security gaps?

Our checklist enables your team to identify vulnerabilities and implement measures to protect sensitive data effectively.

Download Resource

1. What Is an AI Governance Maturity Model?

‍

An AI Governance Maturity Model is a structured framework that evaluates how effectively an organization manages the risks, policies, and oversight required for responsible AI. It helps teams understand:

How formalized their AI governance practices are
Whether accountability and review processes exist
How well risks are managed across AI systems and vendors
What improvements are needed to move to the next maturity stage

It’s a valuable tool for CIOs, CISOs, legal, compliance, procurement, and AI teams trying to scale AI responsibly.

A. Why Maturity Matters in AI Governance

AI is being adopted faster than governance can keep up, creating gaps that expose organizations to risk. Maturity matters because:

AI deployment is outpacing policy development - Teams adopt AI tools, even embedded ones inside SaaS platforms, before governance controls exist.
AI creates new, unpredictable risks - Hallucinations, insecure prompts, data leakage, IP exposure, and biased outputs all require structured oversight.
Regulators are tightening requirements - With frameworks like the EU AI Act, NIST RMF, and ISO AI standards, organizations without mature governance face compliance challenges.
Leadership needs clarity - A maturity model helps executives understand where the organization stands and where investment is required.

B. Common Challenges Organizations Face Today

Supporting infrastructure is also lacking: only 4% of organizations said their data/infrastructure environment is “fully AI-ready”.

Most enterprises, regardless of industry or size, tend to experience the same early-stage hurdles when it comes to AI governance. The pattern is almost universal:

Shadow AI quietly spreads before leadership even notices

Employees start experimenting with ChatGPT, embedded AI features, and automated workflows long before policies exist. What begins as productivity hacks turns into a patchwork of untracked AI usage that no one fully understands or controls.

No central oversight means everyone evaluates AI differently

Marketing might review AI tools based on features, IT checks security, legal looks at compliance, but none of these evaluations talk to each other. AI approval becomes a fragmented, inconsistent process where risks slip through the cracks.

Ownership is unclear and often debated internally

Is AI governance a responsibility of IT? Security? Compliance? Data teams? Procurement? In many organizations, each department assumes someone else is managing the risks, leaving AI oversight scattered and ineffective.

AI behaviors are rarely monitored once deployed

Tools are adopted, prompts are shared, automations are built, but ongoing monitoring is almost nonexistent.

No one tracks hallucination rates, drift, bias, or vendor model changes. Teams rely on “it seems to work” instead of verifiable performance.

AI-driven decisions aren’t documented or auditable

Without proper documentation, organizations can’t explain:

how an AI tool reached a decision
whether a model changed
what data was used
who approved it

This creates compliance gaps and increases exposure during audits.

And the biggest issue?

Without a defined AI governance maturity framework, these challenges continue unchecked. Governance becomes reactive, addressing issues after something goes wrong rather than proactive, intentional, and measurable.

‍

2. What are the Four Stages of AI Governance Maturity

‍

Below is the structured, Gartner-inspired four-level model for assessing AI governance maturity.

A. Level 1 — Ad Hoc (Unmanaged)

Organizations at this level have no formal AI governance in place.

Characteristics include:

No AI policy, no responsible AI guidelines
Teams independently adopt generative AI and AI tools
Risk exposure is high and largely unknown
No documentation, audit trail, or approval workflows
Issues are handled reactively, only after something goes wrong

Typical signs: Shadow AI everywhere, no inventory of AI systems, no awareness of risks.

B. Level 2 — Developing (Basic Governance)

At this stage, organizations begin implementing basic structures.

Characteristics include:

Early AI usage policies (often generic and high-level)
Departments start logging AI tools, though inconsistently
Introduction of basic risk classification or checklists
No central governance body yet
Oversight is partial, not organization-wide

Typical signs: Some awareness, but governance varies across teams and is not yet unified.

C. Level 3 — Defined (Structured Governance)

Organizations have formal, standardized governance processes.

Characteristics include:

Governance committees, ethics boards, or review councils
Documented approval workflows for new AI tools
Vendor AI assessments and risk scoring
Bias testing, security reviews, compliance alignment
Clear ownership: legal, IT, security, procurement, and data teams collaborate
Processes are measurable, repeatable, and auditable

Typical signs: Leadership visibility is high; vendors face structured evaluations; internal AI deployment follows policy.

D. Level 4 — Optimized (Advanced Governance)

This is the highest maturity stage, proactive, automated, and scalable.

Characteristics include:

Continuous monitoring for drift, bias, and performance changes
Clear accountability and audit trails
Centralized AI inventory with automated enforcement
Documentation for every high-risk model
Training programs for employees on safe AI usage
Integration of regulatory requirements into workflows
AI governance is embedded into business and technical processes

Typical signs: Real-time monitoring, automated controls, advanced responsible AI programs, and enterprise-wide compliance readiness.

‍

Aiming to improve Identity & Access Management?

Our eBook outlines eight key areas and solutions to enhance access security and maintain compliance

Download Resource

3. How to Identify Your Organization’s Maturity Level?

‍

Before you can improve AI governance, you need to know where you truly stand. But here’s the reality: most organizations believe they’re more mature than they actually are.

Maybe you have an AI policy. Maybe IT “approves” tools. Maybe teams say they follow the rules.

But when you look closer, things often tell a different story.

Identifying your maturity level is like turning the lights on in a room you thought you knew well, suddenly, you see the hidden corners, the overlooked details, and the systems running behind the scenes.

Here’s how you uncover the truth.

A. Conduct an AI Inventory

Imagine walking through your organization with a flashlight. You peek into different departments and discover:

Marketing quietly uses five AI writing tools.
Sales adopted an AI assistant embedded inside their CRM.
Engineering is running its own LLM instance.
Finance relies on spreadsheets enhanced with AI formulas from tools no one approved.
And HR? They’ve plugged ChatGPT into onboarding workflows for “efficiency.”

This is normal.

Shadow AI is usually far bigger than leadership expects.

A proper AI inventory is not just a list, it’s a reality check.
It reveals:

The AI tools employees use openly
The AI hidden inside SaaS platforms
The custom scripts or models built by engineering teams
The vendor AI systems connected to sensitive data
The unapproved AI apps employees experiment with

Once everything is visible, governance stops being theoretical and becomes actionable.

B. Review Existing Policies — Compare Intent vs. Reality

Next, it’s time to compare what’s written with what’s actually happening.

Many organizations proudly point to their “AI Use Policy” and believe governance is handled. But when you read it closely, it often looks like a generic template downloaded from the internet, barely enforced, and rarely understood by employees.

As you review policies, ask:

Do teams know this policy exists?
Does it spell out what’s allowed, not allowed, and high-risk?
Are there approval workflows or do people just use whatever tool helps them get work done faster?
Is risk classification defined or left to individual judgment?
Is compliance involved, or are decisions made in silos?

You’ll often discover a gap between what leadership believes and what employees actually do.
That gap is your true maturity level.

C. Assess Risk Controls — Look for the “Seatbelts”

Think of AI use like driving a car. The car may be powerful, but without seatbelts, airbags, and speed limits, risk skyrockets.

Your assessment should uncover:

Are there controls for sensitive data uploads?
Do teams validate model outputs for accuracy or bias?
Are vendors assessed for security and compliance?
Are logs captured for AI activities?
Is there any monitoring at all or only after incidents happen?

If risk controls feel “optional,” you’re still early in the maturity journey.

D. Evaluate Ownership and Accountability — Who’s Actually in Charge?

Ask any team, “Who owns AI governance here?”

The answer usually varies:

IT says Security owns it
Security says Compliance owns it
Compliance says business units must own their tools
And business units point back to IT

Clear ownership is the strongest predictor of governance maturity.

If accountability is blurred, maturity is low. If roles are documented, cross-functional, and active, maturity rises.

E. Analyze Monitoring & Auditing Capabilities — Are You Flying Blind?

Even if policies exist and tools are approved, maturity depends on visibility:

Can you detect misuse?
Do you track model drift?
Is AI activity logged across tools?
Can you produce an audit trail for regulators?

Organizations often think they have oversight, until they try to generate a report and realize nothing is centrally monitored.

Monitoring separates “we think we’re compliant” from “we can prove we’re compliant.”

Identifying your maturity level isn’t about passing or failing. It’s about understanding where you are today, so you can finally build a governance program that keeps pace with how quickly AI is transforming your organization.

‍

Want to ensure robust SaaS contracts?

Our checklist guides you to review key terms like renewals and security for complete confidence.

Download Resource

4. Conclusion

Your AI governance maturity level reflects how prepared your organization is to manage AI safely and responsibly. As AI adoption grows, governance can no longer be reactive or fragmented.

By using a clear maturity model - Ad Hoc, Developing, Defined, and Optimized, organizations can assess where they stand today, identify capability gaps, and build a roadmap toward proactive, scalable responsible AI.

Structured governance isn’t just a compliance requirement, it’s the foundation for sustainable, trustworthy AI adoption.

‍