AI Bootcamp for Teams

Half day · full day · two days · in person or online

You bought the licences. Half your team has opened it twice.

Not resistance. Not a tooling problem. They got access and a policy PDF, and nobody ever sat down and pointed the thing at their actual Tuesday.

So here's what I do. Your people, their own real work, in the room. They leave having actually used it - not having heard about it. And they leave able to spot when it is confidently talking rubbish.

Three sizes. Pick by what is actually broken, and I'll tell you straight if you've picked the wrong one.

Talk to me about your team See the three sizes
8.82Avg satisfaction /10
113Respondents behind that score
6Cohorts at a Fortune 100
2019Training leaders since

From the corporate programmes I've run inside a Fortune 100 company. Client names stay private unless they tell me otherwise.

Arvindh Sundar

Who runs this

I'm Arvindh Sundar. Not an AI vendor. Not an engineer. I'm a facilitator who runs his own business on these tools every single day, which is a very different qualification.

Six corporate cohorts delivered inside a Fortune 100, two of them AI enablement. I design the games I run, so when a table pushes back at 2pm I can rebuild the exercise on the spot. My programmes average 8.82 out of 10.

And when somebody in your room says "yes, but that would not work for what I do" - I can usually show them, live, that it would. That is my favourite part of the day.

Training since 2019 6 cohorts at a Fortune 100 8.82/10 avg satisfaction Runs his own business on AI daily

What an unused AI rollout actually looks like

You have probably got four of these right now. Not one of them shows up on a licence dashboard as anything except a number going sideways.

  • Licences bought, a policy circulated, a launch email sent, and adoption flat after month one.
  • Two or three enthusiasts using it brilliantly, and everyone else quietly not.
  • People pasting things they shouldn't into tools you didn't approve, because nobody told them where the line is in a way that stuck.
  • Someone sends a report AI wrote, nobody checked it, and it's wrong in a way that's now embarrassing.
  • A generic vendor course was run. Everyone attended. Nothing changed.
  • Your senior people won't say out loud that they don't know how to use it, so nobody fixes it for them.

Three sizes. Pick by what is actually broken.

Same spine every time. Hands on, their own real work, no code, no jargon. What changes is how far we go.

Half day · 3 hours

They start using it

For a team that has access and isn't using it. Short enough that you can actually release people, and it runs in batches across a large population.

  • The difference between a question and a brief, practised on their own task
  • A repeatable prompting method they can still remember in three weeks
  • A serious game in the middle, where the room runs a small system together and discovers what their local optimisation did to everyone else
  • The tells of a confident wrong answer, and where your policy line sits in their real terms
  • Each person rebuilds one repeat task before they leave
They leave with: one repeat task genuinely faster, and a prompt library the group wrote themselves.
Full day · 6 hours

They start trusting it

For a team that uses it but can't tell good output from fluent nonsense. Everything in the half day, with room for the part three hours can't reach.

  • Everything in the half day, unhurried
  • Thinking in systems, not prompts - why most people's setup resets every Monday
  • What these models actually are, in plain English, and why that explains the failure modes
  • A second, harder task rebuilt with feedback in the room
  • Where a decision must not be outsourced, worked through on their own live examples
They leave with: a shared prompt library and an agreed policy line for their function, written by them.
Two days

They rebuild how they decide

For when the tool was never the real problem. Your managers can already spot what's wrong. What they can't do is get anyone to act on it. This is that, with AI doing the heavy lifting throughout.

  • Separating the thing that's annoying them from the thing causing it, with AI working the evidence
  • Reading a messy, multi-source pile the way the real world hands it over
  • Structured divergence before convergence, so a room of eight produces eight angles
  • Mapping who actually has to say yes, and building the case in their language
  • The impact case in the language finance uses - the difference between "good idea" and a budget line
  • 30/60/90 commitments, written and said out loud, with names against them
They leave with: a real problem from your business, worked to a case they can take into a steering committee.
About the two-day

This one is built on my leadership decision-making programme, whose strongest day scored 8.37 out of 10 across 19 respondents. I've rebuilt it so AI is the spine of both days rather than a tool that shows up occasionally. The rebuilt version is new - the 8.37 belongs to the programme it grew out of, and I'd rather tell you that than let a number do work it hasn't earned.

Talk to me about your team

What your people can actually do afterwards

Every one of these gets practised on their own work during the session, not demonstrated on a slide.

  • Turn a vague ask into a brief that gets a usable answer - the single change that fixes most of what people complain about.
  • The "make it ask you questions first" move - four words, and it quietly doubles the quality of everything that comes back.
  • Hand over a two-hour reading pile and get the decision-ready version back before the coffee's cold.
  • Spot a confident lie - the specific tells that show an answer is fluent and wrong, so nobody signs off on one.
  • Know where the line is - what should never go into these tools, in your policy's terms, not a generic warning.
  • See the whole system, not their one step - the game does this, and it's the part people quote back to me months later.
Steal this today

Before anyone on your team asks an AI tool anything, have them type: "Ask me 3 questions before you start." That one habit fixes most of the junk answers people complain about, because now it is working from their context instead of guessing. Send it round this afternoon and watch what happens. No charge :)

What you get as the sponsor

  • Sizes that fit real calendars. Three hours is the length people actually get released for; two days is what you book when the problem is worth it.
  • Batch-by-batch tuning. What batch one struggles with changes batch two. Each batch gets rebuilt on what the last one found hard - which is the argument for one person running them rather than a bench of facilitators.
  • Artifacts that outlive the room - a prompt library in your own vocabulary, an agreed policy line, written commitments with names on them.
  • Feedback data per batch, shared honestly, including the criticisms.
  • Built around your approved tools and your real policy limits, including what's explicitly off the table.
  • A debrief with me on what the room revealed - where the work is actually getting stuck.
A team collaborating around a workshop table with game materials

Honestly, who this is and isn't for

This is for you if

  • You've given people AI access and adoption has stalled.
  • Your population is non-technical and mixed in seniority.
  • You want behaviour change, not attendance numbers.
  • You'll let real work into the room.

This is not for you if

  • Your audience is engineers wanting technical depth.
  • You want a recorded module people click through alone.
  • You need certification more than you need usage.
  • Nobody is allowed to bring real work in.

Tell me what is actually broken

Three things is all I need. Roughly how many people, which AI tools they are allowed to use, and what you have already tried. I will come back with the size I would recommend and a number. And if none of the three fit your problem, I will tell you that instead - it happens, and I would rather say it early.

Message me about your team Or use the contact form

Pricing scales with the size you pick, the number of batches and the group size, so I quote per rollout rather than publish one number. Worth telling me the full picture up front - multi-batch prices differently from a single session.

Running this for yourself rather than a team? The founder weekend is over here.

Straight answers

Which size should we pick?
Half day if your team has access and isn't using it. Full day if they use it but you don't trust what comes out. Two days if the real problem was never the tool - it's that good recommendations never get acted on. Tell me which of those sounds like your week and I'll tell you honestly which one fits, including if it's the cheapest one.
Which AI tool do you teach?
Whichever one your people are actually allowed to use. The method transfers across tools. Tell me your approved stack and your real policy limits and I'll build the session around those, including making the "never put this in" list concrete rather than abstract.
Can you run this for a few hundred people?
Yes, in batches - that's what the half day is built for. The content gets tuned between batches based on what each one struggles with, so the programme keeps getting sharper rather than being delivered off a script.
Is three hours really enough?
For getting a non-technical team from not-using to using, yes - and the shortness is load-bearing, because a full day is the length that gets postponed twice and then cancelled. What it can't do is turn people into power users. That's what the other two sizes are for.
In person or online?
Both work. In person is better for the game and essential for the two-day. Online is better for spreading half-day batches across locations without travel cost. For a large rollout, a mix is usually the sensible answer.
How is this different from a vendor's AI training?
A vendor teaches their product. I teach the judgment and the moves, on your people's own work, and I'm not selling you a licence at the end. There's also a serious game in the middle, which product training doesn't do, and it's the part participants remember longest.
Do people need accounts before the session?
Yes - they should be able to log in to your approved tool before they walk in, or you lose the first twenty minutes to password resets. I'll send a short pre-session checklist.
What does it cost?
It depends on the size, the batch count and the group size. Message me with those three and I'll send a quote the same week - no long discovery process to get to a number.

With love from Bengaluru, this is Arvindh saying over and out.