Gets a workforce genuinely capable with AI tools, rather than merely trained.
Why this one is hard to judge
Attendance is easy to report. Changed behaviour six months later is the thing that matters.
What to ask for
Ask for training material they built and how they know people actually used it afterwards.
Ask how they tailor content for people with very different starting knowledge.
Ask for an example where training did not change behaviour, and what they did next.
Ask what they measure to know training worked, beyond attendance at a session.
The mistake most hirers make
Hirers judge training candidates on how confident they are in front of a room, not on whether anyone's behaviour changed afterwards. A well-received session that changes nothing is a common, quiet failure. Ask what people actually did differently weeks later, not how the feedback forms looked.
What good looks like after 90 days
Training material that people refer back to on the job, not just once in a session. Evidence that at least one team's actual practice changed as a result. A plan for keeping content current as tools and habits move on.
How we assess it
Against a rubric that is published in full, on evidence the practitioner supplies and a reviewer checks. Where something has not been verified, the profile says so.