AI workshops & training for companies & teams

It is a working session, not a lecture. We take the jobs your team already does every week, pick the ones AI should handle, and build those workflows together. Your team leaves with them running.

Implementation means the work gets built during the session instead of described. By the end there are workflows running on your own data, each with a person responsible for it.

Consulting hands you a strategy. A workshop hands your team the thing itself. Your people build it with me, so they can change it next month without calling anyone.

A course teaches a general method to an anonymous audience. This is built on your team's actual work, and the output is your workflows, not a completion certificate.

Only when 3 things are true at the end. The workflow runs on real work, 1 person owns it, and somebody checks what comes out. A session that skips any of them is a nice day out, so all 3 are built in.

Training, with the strategy as a side effect. Once a team has built 5 workflows they can see which work is worth automating next, which is a better strategy document than one written in advance.

Because the gap compounds. A team that has been building workflows for 2 quarters is not 2 quarters ahead, it is ahead by everything the first workflows taught them.

I run my own company on these systems every day, and I have taught this to a large creator audience through the AI Creator Summit. The work I teach is the work I do.

Yes. Nobody writes code. The session is about the work your team does, not how models are built. Finance, marketing, operations and support all build the same way.

That is the most common starting point, and it is not a tools problem. People quietly stop using AI at work when nobody has said which tasks it is for, who owns the output, or what happens when it gets something wrong. The session answers those for your actual work, which is what moves usage.

The people who do the work, plus somebody who can say yes. Sessions without a decision maker produce good workflows that nobody is allowed to adopt.

Small enough that everyone builds something. Once a session turns into an audience it becomes a talk, which is a different product on the speaking page.

It is normal and it helps. The people who already use AI daily end up explaining things to the ones who do not, which sticks better than anything I say.

Directly, not with reassurance. The session is explicit about which parts of a job AI should never hold, and everyone leaves owning a workflow rather than being replaced by one.

Yes, and they should. Leadership builds the same way everyone else does, which is usually the first time they see how much of the week goes into work nobody chose.

Whatever your team already pays for, plus what the work actually needs. Choosing the tool first is how teams end up with licenses and no change.

Only the part that survives. A prompt that lives in somebody's notes is not a system. What gets built is the workflow around it: the context it reads, where the output goes, and who checks it.

Yes. That is where the compounding is. Once a workflow runs without somebody starting it by hand, the team gets back real hours instead of a faster way to do the same task.

Yes. Demos on invented data are why most AI training does not survive contact with a real week.

Every time. Knowing where a person has to stay in the loop is most of the judgment, and it is the part generic training skips.

Yes. A single department going deep beats a company-wide overview that changes nothing. Marketing, sales, support, operations and internal knowledge are the usual first choices.

Both. In person is better for a team's first session, because the side conversations are half the value. Online works just as well once a team has built something once.

A single focused session for 1 team, or a rollout across a quarter for several departments. The length follows the number of teams, not the number of slides.

A short call about what the team does in a normal week, and access to the tools they already use. Nothing needs cleaning up first. The mess is the material.

No. Bring what you already have. If something is genuinely missing you will know exactly why by the end of the session, which is a better time to buy it.

Yes. Sessions get scheduled around your team, not mine.

The constraint is preparation, not the calendar. Send the dates and what you want changed and you get a straight answer about what is possible.

It depends on the format, the number of departments and the preparation. Send the details and you get a number back, not a brochure.

The preparation before, the session itself, and the workflows your team leaves with. A rollout adds the sessions in between where the work gets checked.

Yes, and most companies should. One team, one session. If nothing changed in the following month, a rollout would not have changed it either.

Tell me the team, what they do by hand today, and what you want people doing differently in 90 days. That is enough to scope it.

Engagements are scoped per team rather than sold by the hour. The smallest useful version is 1 team and 1 session.

Every workflow leaves with a named owner and a review step, and the team leaves with the order to build the rest in. Most of the loss happens in the first 90 days, which is exactly what the rollout format is for.

By what the team stopped doing by hand. Pick 3 of those before the session and count them afterwards. Attendance and satisfaction scores measure nothing.

That is the point. They build the first ones with me so the next ones do not need me.

It will. Tools change and so does the work. That is why each one leaves with an owner and a review step instead of just a set of instructions.

Yes, on the speaking page. A keynote changes the room's mind. A workshop changes what the team does on Monday. They are different jobs.