Enable
A lunch-and-learn does not change a workflow.
39%
of workers will need reskilling in AI-related skills by 2030.
World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs 20251People can attend a session, enjoy the demos, and return to the same packet, the same queue, and the same definition of done. Training that is not attached to a step in the work is forgotten by the following Monday.
How I see it
Train the workflow, not the tool
Useful training is built from the team's cases. Take a real request, a real document set, and a real system of record. Show the old path and the new path. Have people produce the new artifact in the room.
The curriculum is short. How to gather context. How to draft or classify. How to check the result. What must never be pasted into a tool. When to stop and escalate. The tool features that do not serve the case can wait.
Managers attend for the standard, not for the keystrokes. They need to know what they will accept next week. If they will still accept the old artifact, the training is optional.
Training pairs with adoption. Adoption sets the step and the expectation. Training makes the step possible. Neither replaces workflow redesign when the process itself is the cost.
How the engagement runs
What you actually buy.
A service is a sequence with an artifact at each step. It is not a transformation program you purchase as a bundle.
Change the expected path
The new artifact is how the work is done, not an optional assistant beside the old way.
Done is redefined for a named step.
A license count or a lunch-and-learn.
Train on live cases
People produce the new artifact on real work, with boundaries and a quality standard.
Completed cases meet the standard.
A generic demo of the tool.
Make managers accept the new done
If managers still accept the old packet, training will not hold.
The old path is no longer a successful submission.
Inspiration for the whole firm and no change in what gets approved.
Do not buy this for
These engagements fail for predictable reasons.
Teaching prompt tricks in the abstract
Clever prompts fade. A standard packet for a known case stays.
Mixing every function in one room
Sales cases and finance cases are different jobs. Generic rooms produce generic notes.
Stopping at the first session
The second week is when the ugly cases appear. Training needs a place to bring those cases back.
Before we start
Questions that decide whether to engage.
Which completed artifact should look different after the training?
If there is no artifact, there is no training target.Are the examples from this team's work?
Stock examples teach curiosity. They do not teach the job.What data and actions are out of bounds?
If this is fuzzy, people will either freeze or take hidden risk.Who reviews the first week of real output?
Unreviewed first output becomes the unofficial standard.What happens to people who keep submitting the old way?
If nothing happens, the training was a meeting.
How we size it
Training that holdspeople who produce the new artifact on live cases × quality that meets the named standard
Attendance is not the metric. Completed cases on the new path are.
This is the wrong engagement if
Do not start this engagement yet.
- There is no named step or artifact to train toward.
- The company wants a one-hour inspiration session for the whole firm.
- Managers will not change what they accept.
- The real need is a redesigned process, and training would only help people cope.
A useful next step
Bring one team's live cases.
We will train the new artifact on that work, with boundaries and a manager standard, not a generic demo.
Discuss an AI opportunity