Certified: The ISACA AAIA Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on a quiet but powerful truth about governance: a policy that nobody understands is not really a policy in practice, it is just a document. New learners often assume that once a policy is written and approved, people will naturally follow it, especially if it sounds reasonable. In the real world, people follow what they remember, what their peers do, and what seems easiest in the moment, and that is why awareness programs matter. An awareness program is the set of training, messaging, reminders, and practical guidance that helps people know what the policy expects of them and how to behave day to day. For A I, this is especially important because many tools are easy to adopt quickly, and people may not realize when they are crossing a line from harmless experimentation into risky or noncompliant use. The goal today is to learn how to evaluate whether an awareness program truly matches the organization’s A I policies and procedures, meaning whether it teaches the right people the right behaviors at the right time, and whether it can be shown with evidence.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A good place to start is by separating awareness from education, because they overlap but are not the same. Awareness is about ensuring people know the rules and can recognize situations where the rules apply. Education is about building deeper understanding and skills that allow people to do complex tasks well. Many organizations focus on awareness because it is faster, but then they expect awareness content to produce expert behavior, which leads to gaps. In A I governance, awareness should help someone know when they are allowed to use an A I tool, what kinds of data are prohibited, what approvals are required, and what to do when something seems wrong. Education might help reviewers assess risk evidence or help builders understand limitations and monitoring. Beginners should understand that evaluation depends on matching content to responsibilities, because a one-size message cannot cover all roles effectively. If the policy expects different roles to perform different actions, the awareness program should reflect those differences. When it does not, people improvise, and the policy fails in practice.

To evaluate alignment, you first need to identify the behaviors that policies and procedures require, and then check whether training and messaging actually teach those behaviors. Policies often include requirements like documenting intended use, obtaining approvals for high-impact use, following data handling rules, conducting assessments, monitoring outputs, and reporting incidents. Procedures translate those into steps and decision points, such as when a review happens and who signs off. An awareness program matches the policy when it makes those requirements obvious and memorable to the people who must carry them out. If the policy prohibits sharing sensitive data with certain A I services, the awareness content should explicitly teach that rule and explain why it exists. If procedures require an approval before production deployment, the awareness content should describe the approval trigger and the practical path to obtain it. Beginners should notice that alignment is not about repeating the policy word for word; it is about teaching people what to do in real situations. The easiest way to detect mismatch is to compare what the policy requires with what the training actually mentions.

Role coverage is one of the most common sources of mismatch, so it is worth evaluating carefully. Many awareness programs focus on general users, but A I governance often requires specific responsibilities from builders, product owners, reviewers, procurement staff, and leadership. If builders are expected to document data sources and monitor performance, but their training is the same as a general user training, they may not understand what evidence is required. If product owners are expected to define intended use and enforce scope, but they are never trained on scope boundaries and change triggers, they may approve expansions casually. If reviewers are expected to challenge risk assumptions, but they are not trained on what counts as sufficient evidence, their reviews may be shallow. Beginners should also consider third-party management roles, because if procurement or vendor management staff are expected to assess A I services, they need specific awareness of what to check. A program aligned to policy will have different content or emphasis for different roles, even if it shares a common baseline message. When role coverage is missing, the policy becomes unevenly applied, and that creates unmanaged behavior.

Timing is another major factor, because awareness that arrives at the wrong time will not change behavior. Many programs rely on annual training, but A I tools can be adopted in a week, and risky use can emerge quickly. A policy might require approval before using A I with sensitive data, but if someone learns that rule months after they started using a tool, the damage may already be done. Beginners should think of timing as learning at the moment of need, which is when guidance is most likely to be followed. Evaluating timing includes checking whether awareness is provided during onboarding, during access granting to A I tools, during project initiation when teams propose an A I use case, and during major policy updates. It also includes checking whether reminders exist at decision points, such as when a team is about to deploy or when they request to use a new dataset. An aligned program is designed around real workflows, not just calendar schedules. If awareness is only periodic and not connected to decision moments, it is likely to miss the people and situations where policy violations occur.

Content specificity is where many awareness programs fail to match policies, because they speak in generalities. A policy might have specific rules about what data can be used, what uses are prohibited, and what approvals are required, but awareness content might reduce this to be careful and protect privacy. That kind of message is too vague to guide behavior under pressure, especially for beginners who do not yet have a strong intuition for risk. An aligned awareness program uses simple, concrete guidance that matches the policy’s actual requirements. It also teaches common misconceptions, such as the mistaken belief that an A I output is always correct or that internal use is automatically safe. It explains how to handle uncertainty, such as when someone is not sure whether data is allowed or whether a use case is high-impact. Beginners should notice that good awareness content is not long and complicated; it is clear, practical, and easy to recall. If awareness content avoids the policy’s concrete rules, it is likely mismatched.

Another important evaluation point is whether the awareness program reflects procedures, not just policy principles. Policies often state what must happen, but procedures show how it happens, such as who to contact, what approvals look like, and what documentation is required. If awareness content tells people to follow the policy but never explains the procedure path, people will take shortcuts because they do not know what to do. Beginners can think of this like being told to follow school rules without being told where the rules are posted or who to ask for clarification. A strong awareness program includes enough procedural knowledge that people can act, such as knowing that certain uses require review and knowing where to raise questions or report concerns. It also clarifies what happens after reporting, because if people believe reporting will be ignored or will get them in trouble, they will stay silent. Alignment means the awareness program teaches the actual workflow that the procedures define, at least at a high level, so people can follow it without needing inside knowledge.

Evaluating awareness alignment also requires checking whether awareness teaches the decision boundaries that policies rely on. Many A I policies use categories like high-risk, sensitive data, prohibited use, or external sharing, and if people cannot correctly classify their situation, they cannot follow the policy. An awareness program should therefore include simple explanations and examples that help people recognize those categories. For example, it might explain that high-impact use includes systems that influence decisions about individuals, such as hiring or access to services, and that these uses require stronger approvals. It might explain that sensitive data includes certain personal identifiers or confidential business information, and that using such data with unapproved tools is prohibited. Beginners should notice that examples are not just educational; they are policy enforcement aids, because they help people map abstract rules to real actions. Without classification guidance, people tend to interpret categories in self-serving ways, such as assuming their work is low risk. A program aligned to policy makes classification easier and more consistent.

Evidence of awareness is another key part of evaluation, because a program is only useful if it can be shown that people actually received and understood it. Evidence can include completion records, acknowledgments, assessment results, and records of targeted communications. Beginners should also understand that completion does not equal comprehension, so stronger programs include simple checks for understanding, such as short assessments that confirm people can apply key rules. Evidence should also reflect role-based requirements, meaning the organization can show that the right groups received the right training. If a policy requires reviewers to perform certain assessments, the organization should be able to show those reviewers were trained on what evidence to look for. If a policy requires users to follow data handling rules, the organization should be able to show those users were trained and acknowledged the rules. An audit-focused view asks not only whether training exists, but whether there is proof that it reached the people it must reach. Without evidence, the organization cannot demonstrate the policy was communicated effectively, which weakens compliance and accountability.

A subtle but important alignment check is whether awareness content stays current with policy changes and with the tools people are actually using. A I environments evolve quickly, and policies may be updated as new risks emerge or new regulations appear. If awareness content is not updated, people may follow outdated guidance that no longer matches the policy. Similarly, if awareness content talks about one kind of A I use while the organization has adopted new tools with different risks, the guidance may feel irrelevant and be ignored. Beginners should notice that relevance drives attention, and attention drives behavior. An aligned program has a maintenance process that updates content when policies change and refreshes messaging when new tools or new use cases appear. It also uses feedback from incidents and near misses to strengthen awareness where misunderstandings are common. When awareness is treated as a living program rather than a one-time training, it stays aligned with real operational needs.

It is also useful to evaluate whether the awareness program supports the culture the policy assumes. Many policies assume people will report concerns, follow approval processes, and avoid prohibited behavior even when it is convenient. If the organization’s culture punishes people for slowing down or for raising concerns, awareness messaging alone will not fix that. An aligned awareness program reinforces that reporting and caution are expected and supported, and it explains that the purpose is preventing harm and protecting trust. Beginners should understand that governance works best when it is normal to ask questions and to pause when uncertain. Awareness can help create that norm by repeatedly communicating that uncertain situations should be escalated rather than hidden. It can also reduce fear by clarifying what happens after a report and emphasizing learning and improvement. If the program never addresses the human barriers to following policy, such as fear of embarrassment or fear of getting in trouble, it may not match the policy’s goals. Evaluating alignment includes considering whether the program helps people act responsibly under real pressures.

A practical way to spot mismatch is to look for policy requirements that are missing from awareness content, and awareness themes that are not anchored to policy. If a policy requires approval before using A I in certain contexts, but awareness content never mentions approval triggers, that is a mismatch. If a policy prohibits certain data sharing, but awareness content only says protect privacy without describing what not to share, that is a mismatch. If awareness content warns about hallucinations and accuracy, but the policy focuses on data handling and approvals, the program may be educational but not policy-aligned. Alignment means the awareness program teaches the behaviors that the policy expects and reinforces the procedural paths that allow people to comply. Beginners should also look for whether awareness content teaches what to do when something goes wrong, such as reporting incidents, because policies often require that but training sometimes ignores it. Mismatch creates a predictable outcome: people remember the awareness themes, follow those loosely, and miss the policy requirements that actually control risk.

The central message is that evaluating whether awareness programs match A I policies and procedures is about comparing expected behavior to taught behavior, and comparing taught behavior to real workflows. A matched program covers the right roles with role-appropriate guidance, delivers training and reminders at the moments decisions are made, and teaches concrete rules and classifications that allow consistent compliance. It also reflects procedures so people know how to act, not just what values to hold, and it maintains evidence that the right people received and understood the content. When awareness is aligned, policies become real because people can follow them reliably. When awareness is mismatched, policies become fragile because people improvise, misunderstand boundaries, and fail to escalate concerns. If you learn to evaluate alignment thoughtfully, you can identify where governance is likely to fail not because rules are missing, but because the rules were never translated into day-to-day understanding.