The Optimal Flowlearn
Artificial intelligence
Cross-tool programme

Strategic AI adoption

Learn to prioritise AI opportunities, define pilots and decide how to review their use through criteria covering value, feasibility, data and business responsibilities.

Introductory8 h · 4 × 2 hSpanish & English
Contact

Find your starting point

A good fit when you need to choose where to apply AI and agree a pilot, its owners and criteria for evaluating what you learn.

Another option to consider

Generative AI fundamentalsIf you want a shared foundation on uses and limits before making decisions, choose generative AI foundations.
Hours and sessions
8 hours live · 4 sessions of 2 h.
Group size
Up to 12 participants per trainer as a reference, adjusted to the practice and feedback.

What you will learn

  1. 01

    Compare and prioritise use cases using explicit value, feasibility and expected quality criteria.

  2. 02

    Define a pilot with scope, use limits, owners and evaluation questions.

  3. 03

    Prepare data and human review agreements before extending its use across the team.

A proposed programme

Move from “we want to use AI” to a pilot proposal that helps decide where to start. Work on an everyday task: preparing meeting minutes and actions. Compare a manual template, an existing product and a custom solution, then define what to measure, who reviews and when to continue, adjust or stop the test. The case and tools are agreed for each edition.

We adapt the selection and depth of the modules to the group's starting point and goals.

01

Choose where to start

Work problems, opportunities and limits for prioritising cases beyond generic promises.

You will work on

  • Describe the work problem, its frequency, the people involved and the current method before choosing technology.
  • Compare a non-AI option, an existing product and a custom solution by data, expected quality, review effort and maintenance.
  • Prioritise a focused task and record what is missing to justify the choice, without estimating savings that have not been measured.
Practice
Compare three ways of preparing meeting minutes and actions, separating known information from hypotheses the pilot must test.
How you will check it
A defensible comparison that supports choosing an initial case or retaining the non-AI option when it makes more sense.
02

Design a pilot

Scope, resources, expected learning and criteria for continuing, adjusting or stopping.

You will work on

  • Define the sample, authorised data, resources, human review and decisions the test is not allowed to make.
  • Define a comparison with the current method that includes preparation, correction and review as well as generation.
  • Agree observable criteria for continuing, adjusting or stopping and who will make that decision using the results.
Practice
Prepare a pilot brief for a sample of fictional notes: short minutes, agreements and actions, with human review before sharing.
How you will check it
A focused pilot describing its comparison, required quality and decision evidence, without publishing or deploying a system.
03

Lead adoption

Responsibilities, training, result reviews and agreements for using information.

You will work on

  • Assign a process owner, output reviewer and person checking data and access for the selected tool.
  • Address a team objection about review time and prepare a short routine for collecting difficulties and improvements.
  • Agree how to record results, resolve an issue and review any extension or change of tool.
Practice
Defend the pilot to a participant playing a process user, then revise the proposal using their questions about effort and reliability.
How you will check it
An improved brief with responsibilities, review habits and extension conditions the team understands and can challenge.

Decide whether AI improves meeting minutes, including review time

Teaching example

Prepare a pilot brief for a company task, such as reviewing documents or drafting reports. Compare alternatives, explain its priority and define quality criteria, limits and review ownership. The case is chosen for each edition; any relevant demonstration is adapted to the client's tool.

Fictional classroom case. A services team prepares minutes with agreements, owners and actions, but its notes are scattered. Eva owns the process and decides on the pilot; Leo reviews the minutes. We work with six sets of fictional notes and a template, without recording real meetings.

Starting point
The team wants to reduce the work of preparing and reviewing minutes without losing decisions or assigning tasks to the wrong person. It needs to decide whether to change the manual template, use an existing product or request a custom solution.
First attempt
The first proposal chooses the tool before comparing alternatives, measures only text-generation time and asks the whole team to adopt it. One person objects: “If I have to check every agreement and action, it may take longer than it does now”.
What we review
The trainer asks participants to turn that objection into an evaluation question. They compare against the manual template, include preparation and review in total time and define how to check agreements, owners and outstanding matters. The proposal is narrowed to a small test with a reviewer and no automatic distribution; the custom option needs development and maintenance estimates before a decision.
Result
The brief assigns the decision to Eva and review to Leo. It proposes checking every agreement and action against the notes, adding no commitments and marking outstanding matters. It asks whether the assistant reduces total time compared with the manual template, including preparation and review. Continue if that quality is maintained with less effort; adjust if the template or sources make review difficult; stop if quality or improvement cannot then be sustained. These are criteria for a future test, not achieved results.

Choose the option after understanding the work

Without AI

  • Minutes template

    Current method and a checklist

  • Total time to compare

    Prepare, correct and review

Existing product

  • Leo reviews the minutes

    Agreements and actions against the notes

  • Eva decides on the test

    Quality and effort: continue, adjust or stop

Custom solution

  • Justify what is missing

    A need the other options do not address

  • Estimate before building

    Data, development and maintenance

Teaching illustration of a fictional case. Comparing alternatives and designing a pilot does not demonstrate savings or include building or deploying a solution.

Before calling it complete

  • The three alternatives address the same problem; the manual method remains valid and a custom solution needs estimates before it is built.
  • Leo will check agreements and actions without adding commitments; the comparison will ask about total manual versus assistant time, without treating savings as achieved.
  • Eva will decide to continue, adjust or stop using the defined criteria; the brief records feedback, permitted data and conditions before extending.

Four sessions to put it into practice.

Reference edition · 8 h live

Reference edition: 8 live hours across 4 sessions of 2 hours. Training prepares a comparison and pilot brief. The case and any demonstration using the client's tool are agreed beforehand. The operational pilot and measurement of real results are arranged separately.

  1. Session 12 h

    Choose a work problem

    Describe the task, current method and three alternatives; separate known information from hypotheses.

    By the end

    A justified priority and an initial comparison.

  2. Session 22 h

    Design the test and comparison

    Define data and sample, identify what to review and prepare quality and total-time measures.

    By the end

    A pilot brief with scope, resources and a comparison with the current method.

  3. Session 32 h

    Prepare the team and its agreements

    Assign owners, work through a realistic objection and agree human review and feedback collection.

    By the end

    Working guidance that responds to the people using the process.

  4. Session 42 h

    Defend and review the decision

    Review the brief with feedback, apply continue, adjust or stop criteria and decide what would be needed before extending it.

    By the end

    A defensible pilot proposal with limits and next steps, without promised results.

If your team needs to go further

  • Running a real pilot, building a custom solution, integrating systems or operating them requires a separate scope.
  • Developing a complete company-wide strategy, designing the technical architecture or reviewing all company systems and processes requires a separate scope.

Learn with someone who develops projects for companies.

Borja Martínez

Borja Martínez

The Optimal Flow consultant

Over two years of experience developing projects for companies across industries and sizes.

Borja is the planned trainer for this programme. Dates, language and his availability are confirmed when the edition is agreed.

Once you have a foundation, go further.

Extensions with their own scope, agreed separately from the initial training.

Continuation · 6 h

Internal champions: teach and support colleagues

Help colleagues learn a work task: prepare a short explanation, observe their attempt and give useful feedback. Choose the AI or work-systems application for each edition.

View programme →

With guidance, practice and support.

Each delivery includes working materials, feedback on practical work and assessment against the agreed objectives.

See materials, support and terms

Materials you can keep

Downloadable, versioned guides, exercises and review criteria for internal use.

To prepare and complete the delivery

A short recommendation, an editable communications kit and a group learning report.

TOF’s own certificate

A certificate of achievement after the agreed assessment. It is not a vendor certification.

A month of email support

On the content covered, up to two accumulated hours for the whole group.

Your team carries out the practice. Implementation services are agreed separately. See the scope →

Keep learning

Other options for the task you want to work on. Each link explains what that programme adds.

Work systems

Project management with AI

If you choose a project management use case, explore drafting plans and progress updates with verifiable information.

View course
GTM & sales

Sales with technology and AI

If your chosen use case is in sales, work on meeting preparation and follow-ups with authorised data.

View course

What does your
team need to learn?

Tell us what you want to work on, how many people would take part and where you are based. We will prepare a proposal with scope, sessions and a budget.

Contact

Would you like to ask about FUNDAE?

We check eligibility for each company and edition, subject to requirements and available training credit in Spain. Funding is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Official FUNDAE information ↗

Discuss eligibility
The Optimal FlowlearnCross-tool programme

Strategic AI adoption

Learn to prioritise AI opportunities, define pilots and decide how to review their use through criteria covering value, feasibility, data and business responsibilities.

8 live hours4 sessions of 2 hoursIn Spanish or English

Reference edition: 8 live hours across 4 sessions of 2 hours. Training prepares a comparison and pilot brief. The case and any demonstration using the client's tool are agreed beforehand. The operational pilot and measurement of real results are arranged separately.

Who it is for

Executives, department heads and people deciding on technology adoption. No programming or prior knowledge of a specific tool is required.

By the end you will be able to

  • Compare and prioritise use cases using explicit value, feasibility and expected quality criteria.
  • Define a pilot with scope, use limits, owners and evaluation questions.
  • Prepare data and human review agreements before extending its use across the team.

Four sessions to put it into practice

  1. Session 1 · 2 h

    Choose a work problem

    Result: A justified priority and an initial comparison.

  2. Session 2 · 2 h

    Design the test and comparison

    Result: A pilot brief with scope, resources and a comparison with the current method.

  3. Session 3 · 2 h

    Prepare the team and its agreements

    Result: Working guidance that responds to the people using the process.

  4. Session 4 · 2 h

    Defend and review the decision

    Result: A defensible pilot proposal with limits and next steps, without promised results.

Before we begin

Bring a known challenge or process and enough authorised context to discuss it. No programming, product expertise or tool purchase is required. If a demonstration is agreed, we check its features and access. Training prepares decisions, rather than a complete strategy or audit.

Work through decisions using fictional notes and a pilot brief. You may bring a known process and authorised context. Using a tool is not required; any demonstration is adapted to the client’s setup, with features, access and data handling checked. Programming and integrations are not required; the work does not replace a full strategy or audit.

Your trainer

Borja Martínez
The Optimal Flow consultant

Over two years of experience developing projects for companies across industries and sizes.

Borja is the planned trainer for this programme. Dates, language and his availability are confirmed when the edition is agreed.

Course online · theoptimalflow.com/en/training/courses/strategic-ai-adoptioninfo@theoptimalflow.comVersion 1 · Document reviewed: 13 October 2026
The Optimal FlowlearnStrategic AI adoption

What we will work on

Choose where to start

  • Describe the work problem, its frequency, the people involved and the current method before choosing technology.
  • Compare a non-AI option, an existing product and a custom solution by data, expected quality, review effort and maintenance.
  • Prioritise a focused task and record what is missing to justify the choice, without estimating savings that have not been measured.

Practice: Compare three ways of preparing meeting minutes and actions, separating known information from hypotheses the pilot must test.

Design a pilot

  • Define the sample, authorised data, resources, human review and decisions the test is not allowed to make.
  • Define a comparison with the current method that includes preparation, correction and review as well as generation.
  • Agree observable criteria for continuing, adjusting or stopping and who will make that decision using the results.

Practice: Prepare a pilot brief for a sample of fictional notes: short minutes, agreements and actions, with human review before sharing.

Lead adoption

  • Assign a process owner, output reviewer and person checking data and access for the selected tool.
  • Address a team objection about review time and prepare a short routine for collecting difficulties and improvements.
  • Agree how to record results, resolve an issue and review any extension or change of tool.

Practice: Defend the pilot to a participant playing a process user, then revise the proposal using their questions about effort and reliability.

A fictional classroom case

Decide whether AI improves meeting minutes, including review time

Fictional classroom case. A services team prepares minutes with agreements, owners and actions, but its notes are scattered. Eva owns the process and decides on the pilot; Leo reviews the minutes. We work with six sets of fictional notes and a template, without recording real meetings.

By the end of the exercise: The brief assigns the decision to Eva and review to Leo. It proposes checking every agreement and action against the notes, adding no commitments and marking outstanding matters. It asks whether the assistant reduces total time compared with the manual template, including preparation and review. Continue if that quality is maintained with less effort; adjust if the template or sources make review difficult; stop if quality or improvement cannot then be sustained. These are criteria for a future test, not achieved results.

Extensions agreed separately. Running a real pilot, building a custom solution, integrating systems or operating them requires a separate scope. Developing a complete company-wide strategy, designing the technical architecture or reviewing all company systems and processes requires a separate scope.

What accompanies the programme

  • A downloadable, versioned guide, exercises and review criteria; keep a copy for internal use.
  • A short recommendation, editable kit and group learning report. Responsibilities, a prior access check, handover and recipients are agreed for each delivery.
  • TOF’s own certificate of achievement after passing the agreed assessment. It is not a vendor certification.
  • Email support on the content covered for one calendar month after the last session. A maximum of two accumulated hours for the whole group, with a response time of up to two working days.

Clients provide licences unless expressly agreed otherwise. Recordings are agreed in advance. Implementation, work carried out independently by TOF, production deployment and ongoing maintenance are quoted separately. Delivery link access is agreed per delivery. Later updates and specific support require agreement. Structured documents and text alternatives; participation needs reviewed before starting.

Full format and terms → theoptimalflow.com/en/training/how-we-teach
Course online · theoptimalflow.com/en/training/courses/strategic-ai-adoptioninfo@theoptimalflow.comVersion 1 · Document reviewed: 13 October 2026