Does Impact Glocal use a standard AI roadmap for Indigenous institutions?
No. The institution’s priorities, authority, relationships, information governance, operating context, and chosen partners determine the work.
Indigenous institutions
AI adoption involving Indigenous institutions, communities, or information cannot be approached as a generic technology exercise. Relationships, authority, institutional priorities, data governance, community impact, and appropriate delivery partners shape whether work should proceed.
Impact Glocal’s role is to listen, clarify, and support institution-defined decisions—not to impose a standard adoption model. Engagement scope should reflect the institution’s governance and the people who hold relevant authority.
Where specialist cultural, legal, privacy, data-governance, procurement, or technical expertise is required, it should be identified before implementation and brought into the work through agreed partnerships.
Identify who holds authority over the decision, information, process, and community engagement.
Do not assume that general organizational consent resolves collective, cultural, or data-governance considerations.
For First Nations contexts, determine with the appropriate authorities whether OCAP® principles or other governance requirements apply.
Set clear boundaries for external suppliers, information storage, secondary use, model training, access, and exit.
No. The institution’s priorities, authority, relationships, information governance, operating context, and chosen partners determine the work.
Leadership should clarify the purpose, affected people, decision authority, information governance, risks, required expertise, and conditions under which the initiative would pause or stop.
No. Governance requirements vary. Appropriate institutional and community authorities should determine which principles, laws, policies, and protocols apply.