Half a day with a group of executives, on the distinction almost every organization runs over: automating a task is not the same thing as delegating a decision. Whoever leaves this session can say, about a concrete process, how far the AI can go and what has to stay in someone's hands.
It works best with people who decide together: a whole committee pays off more than scattered individuals from different areas.
The masterclass exists to solve the problem that shows up before any program: within the same leadership team, each person uses the word autonomy with a different meaning, and that is why the decisions cannot be compared.
It serves the organization about to choose a tool, a vendor, or a usage policy, and that wants its committee deciding with the same judgment. Half a day costs less than a wrong twelve-month decision.
When the cohort is going to take the program, the masterclass levels the base and frees the following sessions for the decision work. ⚠️ It is not a prerequisite: the program stands on its own, and saying so is more honest than bundling.
The sequence is deliberate: first it dismantles what the cohort thinks it knows, then it hands over the instrument, and only then does it practice — with a case almost everyone gets wrong on the first attempt.
What has in fact changed in recent years, separated from what has changed only in the pitch of whoever is selling. With a source and a date on every number.
The scale that separates the tool that suggests from the one that decides, and the criterion that sets where to stop in each process. It is the longest block, and it is what justifies the other five.
The failures have a known, predictable shape — including the one of agreeing with whoever is asking. Demonstrated live, not described on a slide.
The questions an executive asks a vendor or an internal team, and what makes an answer acceptable.
The cohort receives a number that looks impeccable and has to decide whether to approve it. Almost every group approves on the first round. What happens next is the whole session in ten minutes.
Every participant leaves with their own autonomy map: a real process of theirs, classified, with the ceiling defined and the control that has to remain named explicitly.
Half a day builds common judgment. It does not build practice, and selling the opposite would be the wrong start to a relationship.
The cohort starts classifying processes the same way, recognizing the typical failures, and asking a vendor the right questions. Each person leaves with a real process already classified.
Holding a veto in front of someone who disagrees, leading a team with real fear of the change, and building a position outside your own area all require practice in cycles, with cases that come back. That is the work of the full program, not of a single session.
Designed for a group from the same organization. It works best with people who decide together: a whole committee pays off more than scattered individuals from different areas.
As with the program, the proposal is built by scope — number of participants, format, and which decisions are on the organization's table at that moment.
It does when everyone leaves classifying processes the same way. The conversation starts with how many people take part and which decisions they sign off on.
I want this masterclass