For government, funders & partners
More Emiratis are in private-sector work than ever before, and the next question is whether they stay.
Policy moved the numbers, and moved them quickly. Whether those roles become careers is a different problem, and it needs a delivery layer rather than another incentive.
Who this is for
This is for those accountable for whether national talent policy produces lasting employment.
You can already see participation. What is harder to see is what happened next — who was still in post at twelve months, whose role went anywhere, and which interventions made the difference rather than merely coinciding with it.
What you get
You get evidence about what works, rather than reports about what was delivered.
Attendance and completion are easy to count and tell you very little. We measure conversion: readiness gained, placements that fit, probation passed, people still there a year on, and roles that grew.
How it works
We publish the method before we have the result.
Every measure carries a definition in public before it carries a number, so the figure can be argued with when it arrives. Where we cannot yet prove something, we say so plainly. That is a slower way to build a case, and a much harder one to dismiss.
What happens next
Here is what happens after you get in touch.
- We agree what would count as success. Before anything is commissioned, and in writing.
- We commission something narrow. One cohort, one sector, deep employer involvement.
- The methodology is published first. So the result cannot be shaped after the fact.
- You see what happened. Including the parts that did not work, which are usually the more useful half.
- We widen what held. Sector by sector, rather than all at once.
- The evidence outlives the programme. Longitudinal data on what creates a durable career is the thing nobody currently holds.
On responsible AI
A matching system trained on who has been hired before will quietly recreate the disadvantage we exist to remove.
So recommendations stay explainable, high-impact decisions keep human oversight, models and assessments are checked for bias, and participants can see and correct what is held about them. We use these tools to widen who becomes visible, not to build a more efficient filter.
Questions you might have
Before you get in touch
- How is this different from what already exists?
- Most of the ecosystem optimises its own step. We are accountable across the handovers between them, which is where the value is lost.
- Do you duplicate Nafis?
- No. Nafis sets requirements, incentives and national infrastructure. We convert those into readiness, evidence and retention.
- What would you want us to fund?
- Something narrow enough to prove. A defined cohort in a defined sector, with the method agreed in advance.
- How do we know it worked?
- By the measure we agreed before it started, reported against a published definition.
- What if it does not work?
- Then that is the finding, and it gets published too. A programme that can only report success is not producing evidence.
- Can we commission independent evaluation?
- We would welcome it. Independent evaluation is something we want rather than tolerate.
- Who owns the data?
- Participants consent to what is collected and can withdraw. Aggregate findings are shared with partners under the terms we agree.
- Is this replicable beyond the UAE?
- The model should travel across the GCC, but that is a claim to earn rather than to make now.
- What is the smallest useful engagement?
- One cohort with twelve-month follow-through. Anything shorter measures activity rather than outcome.
- What do you need from us to start?
- A sector, a view on what success would look like, and the patience for a twelve-month answer.
Next step
Commission something measurable.
A defined cohort, a defined sector, and a methodology published before the result — so the finding means something whichever way it goes.