There is no single model that fits everyone. But some questions keep coming back when AI has to work in practice, and the answers usually show quite quickly where the work should start.
Does the leadership know what AI is concretely meant to improve, and is there someone who owns the agenda with both mandate and budget? When the answer is no, AI usually ends up as an IT project no one feels responsible for.
Can the leaders explain why, and can they lead people through the change? Especially the middle managers, who often get the task of making it work without having been part of deciding it.
Habits and unwritten rules often decide the outcome. Not culture in general, but very concretely: how do you react when someone suggests doing things a new way?
There has to be time to experiment, and permission for it not to work on the first try. An intro course at launch rarely reaches far enough when ways of working have to change.
The question everything else is ultimately measured on. The effect shows in the way concrete tasks get solved, and it disappears again if no one follows up.
The format itself matters less than the content, but in practice the work most often takes the form of sparring with the leadership, workshops or talks, or a longer programme where I follow along the way.
The sparring is confidential and is about direction, priorities and the leadership task itself. We use workshops when a group needs to reach a shared picture of where you stand and who does what. I give talks for everyone from leadership groups to whole organisations, always grounded in your reality rather than generic examples.
We shape the longer programmes together, based on where the chain actually breaks for you.
Write a few lines about what you are facing. Or take the readiness test first, if you want a quick picture of where you stand.
Send a message