We share feedback from teams who have completed our engagements. The results are specific to their situations — yours will reflect your own context.
Back to Home"We brought Glia Systems in for the Documentation Practices Review after an internal audit raised questions about how we were recording model decisions. The session was straightforward and the written summary gave us three specific things to change. We made those changes, and when the follow-up audit came six months later, the record quality difference was notable."
"The Internal Process Workshop was useful. I was a little uncertain beforehand about whether two sessions would be enough, and honestly it was tight — but the facilitator kept things moving well and we ended up agreeing on a process that the team has actually kept to. The templates were ready three days later as agreed."
"We went with the three-month Governance Advisory engagement. What I appreciated most was the pace. We were not pushed to implement things before we were ready. The governance handbook they delivered is the document we now use to onboard anyone involved in our AI projects — which tells you something about how usable it is."
"I expected the Documentation Review to be fairly surface-level given it is a single-session engagement. It was not. The practitioner asked questions that surfaced gaps we had not thought to look at. The checklist we received is still our reference point when starting a new AI project."
"We used the Workshop to sort out our AI review process across three departments that had each been doing things differently. Getting everyone in the same room with a structured facilitator made a significant difference. The resulting process guide was adopted within two weeks. The only note I would add is that scheduling two sessions across busy calendars took longer than expected."
"Our board had asked us to demonstrate how we govern AI internally. We had no coherent answer. After three months with Glia Systems, we had a governance handbook that our board accepted as a solid foundation. Nothing overbuilt — just clear, honest documentation of how we review and record our AI work."
A credit risk team had deployed two machine learning models over the prior year. Neither had a consistent record of data sources, tuning decisions, or who had approved changes. An internal audit had flagged this as a gap without giving specific guidance on how to address it.
Glia Systems ran a single Documentation Practices Review session with the team lead and two data scientists. The session reviewed existing records (partial) and agreed on a minimal but consistent record format. A written summary and two record templates were delivered three days later.
Within six weeks, both models had full retroactive records. A follow-up internal audit found documentation quality significantly improved. The team has since applied the same templates to three additional projects without further advisory support.
"The templates were exactly what we needed — specific enough to be useful, simple enough to maintain."
Three product teams were each reviewing AI features differently — one used informal Slack threads, one had a formal but rarely completed sign-off doc, and one had no consistent practice at all. When leadership requested a cross-team AI review summary, there was nothing to compile.
The Internal Process Workshop brought representatives from all three teams together. Session one mapped current practices. Session two agreed on a shared lightweight review process and a common record format that all three teams found workable. Delivered with a process guide and starter templates.
All three teams adopted the shared process within two weeks. The leadership team received its first consolidated AI review summary the following month. The process has continued without modification for four months since the workshop.
"We went in with low expectations and left with a process all three teams actually agreed on. That alone was worth it."
The organisation's board had requested evidence of how AI tools used in client engagements were reviewed and governed. The team had no structured answer. They had been discussing an internal governance policy for over a year but had not moved past an early draft.
Glia Systems ran the three-month Governance Advisory Engagement. Month one mapped the AI tools in use and the existing (informal) review practices. Month two designed a governance structure with clear roles. Month three refined, tested, and finalised the governance handbook.
The organisation presented the governance handbook to its board two weeks after delivery. The board accepted it as an appropriate internal framework. The handbook has since been shared with two institutional clients who requested evidence of AI governance practices.
"We had been stuck on this for a year. Three months later we had something our board could actually point to."
A short conversation is the most direct way to understand which engagement suits where your organisation is right now.
Get in Touch