AI training on your workflows, not on a generic course

AED 8,000 to AED 50,000 covers most of what we are asked to build. The number moves on how many roles and sessions, whether the usage audit and policy drafting are included, how many people, and whether follow-up sessions are in scope. Anything quoted before those are known is a guess. We scope first, then price, and the scope document is yours whether or not you proceed. These are market ranges rather than a fixed rate card — the proposal carries the real figure.

No, and it is worth being clear because most search results for this are individual courses and certifications. This is training bought by a company for its teams, built around that company's own workflows and documents. If you are an individual wanting to learn AI, a public course or an online certification will serve you better and cost far less.

Where these tools genuinely help your team's specific work, how to verify output before using it, where they are unreliable, what may and may not be put into them, and which tools are sanctioned. Hands-on with your own documents throughout. What is deliberately not covered is how the technology works internally, because it does not change what anyone does.

Being straight: it is not an established principle. Several articles define it incompatibly — a share of tasks to automate, a productivity target, a confidence threshold — and it appears in search suggestions because content sites wrote about it rather than because practitioners use it. If someone quotes it at you as a standard, ask which version they mean and where it comes from.

Three, in order. Knowing which tasks are worth using these tools for and which are not. Being able to describe a task clearly enough to get a usable result. And verifying output before relying on it. The third matters most and is taught least.

Yes, and we would recommend it. Training without a policy leaves people enthusiastic and unclear on what is sanctioned, which is how unmanaged usage continues. A short policy people actually read beats a long one nobody opens.

Two to three hours per role, hands-on. Longer sessions cover more and are retained less. The follow-up a month later is shorter and frequently more useful, because by then people have real questions.

Eight to twelve for hands-on work. Beyond that people stop practising and start watching. We would rather run three sessions than one large one.

Yes, and materials in both languages where the team needs it.

The follow-up session shows what people actually tried. Beyond that, whether unsanctioned tool usage falls, whether the tasks you identified are being done faster, and whether people are checking output. We agree what to look at before delivering.

On specific tasks, measurably. Across the board, less than the claims circulating suggest, and anyone promising a broad productivity figure is quoting a study rather than knowing your business. The honest expectation is meaningful gains on drafting, summarising and document work, and very little elsewhere.

Yes, and it is usually the right starting point. An anonymous survey of what tools people use and with what material. It is short work and it regularly finds exposure leadership did not know about.