Diagnosis and situation map
What we work
How the AI team uses today. No judgment. with honesty.
Partial result
Inventory of real uses in the center.
It is that the center has, at the end of the program, a first real version of its institutional position before AI. Something that can be used, defended and updated. Not something that is archived.
Because without that position, every teacher improvises. And the students navigate between different rules according to who they have class. That’s not a tool problem. It is a shared criteria problem.
Ethiceye builds that criteria with you. from within.
When Ethiceye leaves, the judgement remains
What we work
How the AI team uses today. No judgment. with honesty.
Partial result
Inventory of real uses in the center.
What we work
Critical Thinking, Delegation, Academic Integrity, AI Act.
Partial result
Shared conceptual framework.
What we work
Real cases of the context of the center. Concrete decisions.
The partial result
Documented individual criteria.
What we work
Points of agreement, points of debate, common minimums.
Partial result
Draft institutional position.
What we work
Collective validation. Presentation. Process closure.
Partial result
Institutional position signed and ready to use.
— An institutional position before AI: what use is considered legitimate, how it is documented, how real learning is evaluated.
— An action protocol for when an incident occurs (students using AI without criteria, inappropriate use of data, etc.).
— The cloister aligned around a common minimum. No unanimity: shared criteria.
— Documentation of the training that complies with article 4 of the AI Act.
— A real base from which to update when the regulations change or new tools appear.
✓ VET and university educational centers that already have the problem on the table.
✓ Cloisters with different levels of AI adoption (some use it, others do not, none with common criteria).
✓ Institutions that want to comply with the AI Act and need to document the training.
✓ Centers that want to be referents in the responsible person, not those who react late.
— Centers seeking training in specific tools (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini).
— Teams that only need a training certificate with no real process behind.
— Institutions that have not yet identified the problem.
The program generates training documentation that complies with Article 4 of the AI ACT (documented competences of personnel operating AI systems). We are currently working on the homologation for a teacher’s scale. If this point is critical for your center, we talk about the diagnostic call: we design the process so that the documentation is as useful as possible for your institution.
That is exactly the ideal starting point. The program does not assume a previous technical level: part of a real diagnosis of how each person uses AI today. Diversity of levels is not an obstacle, it is the work material. The centers with the greatest heterogeneity usually generate the most robust criteria because they have had to negotiate and agree from different positions.
The program is fully adapted. There is no fixed script. Diagnostic session 1 serves exactly to understand which tools the center uses, which specific cases have already occurred and what type of position the cloister needs. The work cases of the central sessions are always from the context of the center, not generic examples. The final deliverable is also adapted: a private university needs to address the AI Act and academic integrity; a VET center, the evaluation protocol and the students.
It is the most important question. And the answer is in how the process is designed: the criteria is built by the team, not Raquel. She facilitates and accompanies. But the institutional position that comes out at the end of the program is from the cloister: with its language, its agreements, its limits. That’s why it stays when the accompaniment ends. In addition, the deliverable includes an update protocol for when tools or regulations change.
Price according to the size of the equipment and format (face-to-face/online). No hidden costs. Free personalized proposal in 48h.
We understand your real situation. No commitment.
You receive personalized proposal in 48–72h with final price.
5 sessions. Your team comes out with shared criteria and institutional position.