How to Assess the AI Readiness of Your Information Security Team

To help companies remain competitive amidst changing markets, the Solutions Review editors have outlined how companies can assess the AI readiness of their information security teams.

Integrating artificial intelligence into information security operations is the latest in a long line of fundamental shifts in how organizations defend against threats. However, the success of these new and developing AI-driven security initiatives depends heavily on the readiness of the teams responsible for implementing and managing these technologies. Assessing AI readiness requires a systematic evaluation across multiple dimensions outside technical competency.

Understanding AI Readiness in Security Contexts

AI readiness in information security encompasses the organizational capacity to effectively deploy, operate, and optimize AI-powered security tools while maintaining human oversight and decision-making authority. That readiness manifests across cognitive, technical, operational, and cultural dimensions that determine whether an AI initiative will enhance or hinder security outcomes.

The cognitive dimension involves the team’s understanding of AI systems’ capabilities, limitations, and failure modes. Security professionals must develop intuition about when AI recommendations should be trusted, questioned, or overridden. This requires an in-depth familiarity with concepts like model drift, adversarial attacks against AI systems, the statistical nature of AI decision-making, and the potential pitfalls of failing to address AI ethics.

Technical readiness extends beyond basic AI literacy and expands into practical skills in data engineering, model validation, and system integration. Security teams must understand how to prepare data for AI consumption, evaluate model performance in security contexts, and integrate AI outputs into existing security workflows without introducing new vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile, operational readiness encompasses the processes, procedures, and governance structures needed to deploy AI technologies responsibly within security operations. This includes incident response procedures when AI systems fail, processes for continuous model monitoring, and frameworks for maintaining human accountability in AI-assisted decision-making.

Cultural readiness is the final step and involves the team’s willingness to embrace AI as a force multiplier rather than a replacement for human expertise. Here, Empathetic AI (EAI) frameworks become crucial, as they help organizations overcome the natural resistance to automation while maintaining healthy skepticism about AI capabilities and outfitting security professionals with the training and support they need to use the technology effectively.

Let’s dive a bit deeper into each of those stages.

Cognitive Assessment Framework

The cognitive assessment should begin with evaluating the team’s understanding of AI fundamentals within security contexts. This goes beyond general AI awareness to focus on security-specific applications and challenges.

To get started, you must test the team’s grasp of supervised versus unsupervised learning in security contexts. Can they articulate when each approach is appropriate for different threat detection scenarios? Do they understand the implications of training data quality on model performance? A mature team should recognize that anomaly detection models require evaluation criteria different from the classification models used for traditional malware detection. Here’s a breakdown of the key areas to examine:

• Assess understanding of AI attack vectors and defensive considerations. Security teams working with AI must understand how adversaries can target AI systems through techniques like model poisoning, adversarial examples, and data poisoning attacks. Evaluate whether team members can identify potential attack surfaces introduced by AI systems and develop mitigation strategies.
• Examine the team’s ability to interpret and act on AI-generated insights. Present scenarios where AI systems provide recommendations with varying confidence levels and assess how to respond. A ready team should demonstrate sophisticated judgment about when to act on AI recommendations, when to seek additional validation, and when to override AI suggestions based on contextual factors the model cannot process.
• Evaluate understanding of bias, fairness, and ethical considerations in security AI applications. Can the team identify potential sources of bias in threat detection models? Do they understand how historical security data might perpetuate biased response patterns?

Technical Competency Evaluation

Technical assessments must address both foundational skills and security-specific AI applications. The evaluation should be practical and scenario-based rather than purely theoretical to ensure teams have the know-how required to get the most value from the new technologies. Here are the pillars companies should be targeting in their technical competency evaluations:

• Data engineering capabilities: Security AI systems require massive amounts of high-quality, properly formatted data, and teams must be able to identify relevant data sources, clean and normalize security data, and create appropriate training datasets.
• Model selection and validation skills: Present real security use cases and assess the team’s ability to select appropriate AI approaches. Can they articulate why deep learning might suit some threat detection scenarios while traditional machine learning approaches might work better for others? Do they understand the trade-offs between model complexity and interpretability in security contexts?
• Integration and deployment capabilities: Evaluate the team’s ability to integrate AI systems with existing security infrastructure, manage model versioning and updates, and maintain system performance under production loads. This includes understanding containerization, API design, and real-time processing requirements.
• Model monitoring and maintenance skills: Security environments change rapidly, and AI models must adapt accordingly. Assess the team’s ability to detect model drift, evaluate ongoing performance, and implement model updates without disrupting security operations.

Operational Readiness Assessment

Operational readiness evaluations focus on the processes, procedures, and governance structures that enable effective AI deployment and management. These assessments determine whether technically sound AI initiatives will succeed or fail once deployed in a production environment. It’s less about the technology or the user’s ability, but rather, the capability of an operation to handle the new tools and processes. Companies should focus their examinations on these areas:

• Incident response procedures for AI system failures: Traditional incident response focuses on external threats, but AI systems introduce new categories of internal failures that teams must know how to manage.
• Change management processes: Adapting to AI systems is significantly different from traditional software updates, as AI model updates can alter system behavior in difficult-to-predict ways. Teams should assess whether they have appropriate testing procedures, rollback capabilities, and validation processes for AI system changes.
• Documentation and knowledge management practices: Models can behave unexpectedly, and institutional knowledge about model behavior, edge cases, and workarounds must be captured and maintained so teams can document AI system behavior, maintain runbooks for everyday issues, and transfer knowledge about AI system operations.
• Compliance and audit readiness: AI systems in security contexts are subject to regulatory requirements or internal audit processes, so teams must be able to document AI decision-making processes, maintain audit trails, and demonstrate compliance with all relevant standards.

Cultural and Organizational Factors

While often overlooked, assessing the cultural and organizational readiness for AI adoption is one of the most important things a business can do. AI is a tool designed to help humans, so if a company’s human workforce is unable or ill-equipped to utilize that tool, they won’t use it. Companies can avoid these common failure points for AI initiatives by assessing and tracking the following factors:

• Resistance to automation: Security professionals often have strong opinions about automated decision-making, particularly in high-stakes environments. As such, you should assess the team’s attitudes toward AI assistance versus replacement, their comfort with AI-generated recommendations, and their willingness to cede certain decisions to automated systems.
• Human-AI collaboration: Effective collaboration between humans and AI involves understanding when to rely on AI recommendations, provide human oversight, and intervene in AI decision-making.
• Learning agility: Assess the team’s willingness and ability to continuously update their skills, adapt to new AI capabilities, and incorporate emerging AI techniques into their security practices.
• Risk tolerance and decision-making under uncertainty: AI systems operate probabilistically, and security teams must become comfortable making decisions based on confidence levels and statistical likelihood rather than deterministic rules. This represents a significant cognitive shift for many security professionals.

Methodologies for AI Readiness Assessments

Theoretical knowledge assessment alone provides an incomplete picture of AI readiness. Security teams may demonstrate a strong conceptual understanding of AI yet fail to apply the appropriate techniques in high-pressure operational environments. Practical assessment methodologies must therefore simulate real-world conditions, time constraints, and decision-making pressures that characterize actual security operations.

These assessments should reveal not just what team members know, but how they perform when AI systems behave unexpectedly, when data quality degrades, or when AI recommendations conflict with human intuition. The most effective assessments combine multiple evaluation approaches to create a comprehensive picture of individual competencies and team-level collaboration patterns. Teams should focus on these types of assessment methodologies:

• Scenario-based evaluations provide the most realistic assessment of AI readiness. These realistic security scenarios require interaction with AI systems and should include normal operations, edge cases, and failure modes.
• Hands-on technical challenges should test practical skills with real security datasets and AI tools. Rather than theoretical knowledge tests, provide users with access to security data and AI platforms that evaluate their ability to develop, deploy, and maintain AI solutions for specific security challenges.
• Peer review and collaborative assessments reveal team dynamics and knowledge gaps. Have team members evaluate each other’s AI-related work and provide feedback on AI implementation approaches. This can demonstrate individual competencies and team-level readiness factors.
• External benchmarking against industry standards and peer organizations provides objective comparison points. While specific metrics may vary, comparing assessment results against established AI readiness frameworks helps identify areas for improvement.

How to Address Identified Gaps

Gap remediation requires targeted interventions based on assessment results. Since different skill gaps require different approaches and timelines, each remediation process should be strategic rather than reactive, recognizing that AI readiness gaps often interconnect in complex ways that demand coordinated interventions.

For example, a knowledge gap in understanding model bias may be compounded by cultural resistance to AI automation and procedural gaps in model validation processes. Attempting to address these gaps independently might prove ineffective, as unresolved cultural issues undermine technical training efforts, while inadequate processes can negate improved individual competencies. The following are some recommended ways to address and resolve potential gaps in the workforce:

• Targeted training programs can address knowledge gaps, but these must be practical and security-focused rather than generic AI education. Develop training that combines AI concepts with real security use cases and hands-on experience with security-specific AI tools.
• Skill gaps require hands-on practice and mentorship. Pair experienced team members with those developing AI skills and create opportunities for practical application of AI techniques in low-risk scenarios.
• Process gaps need new procedures and governance structures. Developing these structures may require collaboration with other organizational functions, such as compliance, legal, and risk management, to ensure AI governance aligns with broader organizational requirements.
• Cultural gaps often require the most time and careful attention. Address concerns about AI’s impact on job security, communicate clearly about AI’s role as a tool rather than a replacement, and create opportunities for team members to experience AI benefits firsthand.

Future Considerations

The integration of AI into security operations will likely accelerate, making AI readiness assessment increasingly critical. As the technologies evolve, future assessments may also need to address emerging capabilities like large language models for security analysis, autonomous response systems, and AI-powered threat hunting platforms. Organizations should prepare for potential regulatory scrutiny of AI security implementations if they hope to stay agile.

Ultimately, assessing AI readiness in information security teams requires a comprehensive approach encompassing cognitive, technical, operational, and cultural dimensions. Success hinges on an organization’s ability (and willingness) to move beyond superficial AI awareness and develop deep, practical competencies that enable effective AI deployment and management in security contexts.

The assessment process itself should be viewed as an opportunity for team development rather than simply an evaluation exercise. By identifying specific gaps and developing targeted remediation strategies, organizations can build AI-ready security teams that enhance rather than compromise security outcomes. As AI becomes increasingly central to security operations, the teams that invest in systematic readiness development will gain significant advantages in the current and future information security marketplace.

Want more insights like this? Register for Insight Jam, Solutions Review’s enterprise tech community, which enables human conversation on AI. You can gain access for free here!