People want the tools and the licences are paid for, and usage still stalls, because the seats arrived through a procurement decision before anyone designed the ways of working around them. Generic training makes it worse by teaching the tool instead of the work, so the course finishes, the tab closes, and nothing in the job has changed. A fluency track starts from the work and builds the tooling around it.
What is AI fluency?
AI fluency is a team's ability to take a piece of its own work, judge whether AI carries it, and build the workflow that proves it, without a consultant in the room.
Fluency is a property of the team rather than a certificate held by individuals, which is why the track runs per team. A marketing team, a finance team and an engineering team use the same platform in unrecognisably different ways, so training them together teaches the lowest common denominator to everyone.
Why is nobody using the licences we already pay for?
Because the licence only bought access. Out of the box, an enterprise AI seat knows nothing about your systems, your data, your terminology or your standards, so every task starts from a blank page and most people stop asking after the third mediocre answer. The gap is configuration and working habits rather than talent, and it closes quickly once the tooling is shaped around the actual work.
What does a fluency track involve?
Each track runs per team and carries 4 parts:
- Desktop set-up. The platform configured for the people who will use it: the instructions, skills, connectors into your systems, agents, automations and projects shaped around the team's actual work, so day one starts from their context rather than a blank page.
- Education. Working sessions across chat, agentic work and the connected workspace, run on the team's own tasks rather than toy examples.
- Use-case development. The team's workflows worked through to find the use cases worth building first, each with the person who owns it.
- A hackathon. The track closes with a day where those use cases get built, against your own systems and data, by the people who will run them.
The hackathon is the point of the whole track. A fluency programme for an ASX-listed marketplace ended with teams running use cases against their own systems, and a software holding group's teams left with use cases that were theirs to extend. The measure of the engagement is what still runs after we leave.
Which platform do we train on?
The recommendation follows your strategy rather than a vendor, and the same track runs on any of the three. The reasoning behind the recommendation, including where Claude loses and when a Microsoft estate should stay where it is, sits in Claude vs ChatGPT vs Copilot.
| Track | When it fits |
|---|---|
| Claude · Recommended | Best in class for most organisations and business users today, and where most of our engagements run. |
| Copilot | For Microsoft estates where the agreement and the residency rules have already settled the question. We make the seats you already pay for earn their keep. |
| ChatGPT | For teams that grew up on ChatGPT, and most did, since it came first. |
Whichever track runs, the data boundaries come first: what company, customer and personal information may enter which tools is a policy decision the board owns, and it is settled in the governance work before a connector is switched on.
Does the executive team train too?
Yes, and it matters more than any other room. Executives approve tools, set data boundaries and fund the roadmap, and those decisions go badly when the people making them have never worked with the tools they govern. On a capability engagement for an ASX-listed healthtech, education and workshops ran with the executive team alongside the build, which is the pattern we recommend: the executive track runs first or in parallel, never as an afterthought.
What changes at the end?
- Use cases in production, built by the team against its own systems during the track rather than promised for later.
- A configured platform: the instructions, skills, connectors, agents and automations stay, documented and owned in-house.
- A team that extends its own work, which is the exit condition. The track is designed to make us unnecessary, and the follow-on question is usually which team goes next.
How fluency fits the wider engagement
You can start at fluency alone, and most clients who do find it surfaces strategy questions: once a team sees what the tools carry, someone asks where this goes and who decides. That is strategy work, and it is why the engagement usually widens. Fluency is one part of a broader practice covering strategy, governance and operating model, so the capability lands inside a plan rather than around one. If a team is ready, book a conversation or write to hello@veriet.co.