Instructor-led workshop for organisations · Managers and teams

Making Team Decisions with AI: who decides, and on what evidence

Each member of a management team now arrives at a meeting with an answer from their own AI assistant. This workshop teaches a team to use AI to prepare a decision faster, and then to decide together on the evidence: who owns the decision, who must be consulted, and what the team records.

Who should attend

Department heads and the teams that decide together: management teams, project boards and committees below board level. Run for a team that already works together.

Length

Half day or one day for one team.

Delivery

In person, led by a facilitator. Participants practise workplace decisions on StepSim, the AIR APAC decision simulator built by Exeter Labs.

Participants receive

A Record of Completion for each participant who completes the programme. A separate, optional assessment can lead to certification under AIRS-J/1, the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work. The certification is valid for two years and verified free on a public register.

Run for your group, with case files written for your sector. Dates are agreed in the proposal.

Why this programme

The problem it solves

When each member of a team brings an answer from their own AI assistant, a meeting becomes a contest between confident drafts. The team agrees too quickly, or argues about wording, and no one checks the claim each draft rests on.

AI also makes it easy for one person to act alone. They may go beyond their authority, decide before the right people agree, or not say that AI drafted the work. A team decision needs a named owner, the right people consulted, and a record of why.

What makes it different

Participants use AI to do the work, then check it

Most AI courses teach either how to use the tools or the risks of using them. This programme does both on the same task, in the same session.

Using AI

Tasks participants do with an AI assistant

  • Summarise the evidence pack before the meeting.
  • Draft two or three options, each with its costs and risks.
  • List the people affected and the objections each is likely to raise.
  • Draft the decision record and the message to the people affected.
Checking AI

What they learn to check before acting

  • Compare drafts from different people and different AI tools on the same evidence, not on how convincing they sound.
  • Find the claim that several drafts share, and check it once.
  • Bring disagreement into the open before the most senior or most confident view settles it.
  • Agree who owns the decision, who is consulted, and when it must go higher.
Outcomes

By the end, participants can

  1. Agree the real decision, and what is fixed, before anyone brings an AI answer.
  2. Record the decision, the reasons, the disagreement and what would change it, and say where AI drafted the work.

What participants take back to work

  • A decision record the team uses for its next real decision.
  • An agreed rule for who owns which decisions, and when a decision goes higher.
  • A short checklist for meetings where people bring AI drafts.
  • One agreed change to how the team decides, with an owner and a date.
For the sponsor

What your organisation receives

  • Half day: a written session report.
  • One day: each participant's written change to how they and their team check AI work, with an owner and a date.
Agenda

How it runs

STEP (Structure, Test, Engage, Perform) is the method every AIR Academy programme teaches. It is four questions a manager asks before acting on an AI answer. The four questions come from AIRS-J/1, the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work.

Half day or one day, for one team that already works together, not a mix of strangers.

In the cases the team uses an AI assistant its organisation permits to prepare the decision, then runs the meeting on what it has checked.

Compare the half day, the one day, the two days and the certification edition on the programme formats page.

Cases

Composite team decisions written for the programme: a product launch that may need to be delayed, a budget cut shared across units, a change of a key supplier.

Built on

AIRS-J/1, the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work. The programme covers all four areas, with most weight on who decides, who must agree and what is disclosed.

See a sample exercise

Three confident drafts, one shared mistake

A sample in the style of the programme's cases. All organisations, people, figures and AI tools in it are fictional.

A management team must decide whether to delay a product launch by six weeks. Three members each bring a recommendation drafted with a different AI tool.

MemberAI toolRecommendationMain reason given
Head of sales"PitchAI"Launch on timeA competitor launches in four weeks
Head of product"PlanAI"Delay six weeksTwo open quality defects
Head of finance"LedgerAI"Launch on timeA competitor launches in four weeks; delay costs the quarter
What participants are expected to find
  • Two drafts rest on the same claim about the competitor's date. It came from one news summary and no one checked it.
  • The quality defects appear in only one draft, so the meeting treats them as one person's view.
  • No draft says who owns the decision. The head of sales and the head of product each assume it is theirs.
  • Customer service, who would handle the defects, was not consulted.

What the facilitator observes

In the StepSim Practice missions, the facilitator looks at how people decide, not at whether they reached a particular answer. For an exercise like this one:

  • Whether the team checked the claim two drafts shared before deciding.
  • Whether the decision owner was named before the discussion, not after.
  • Whether disagreement was recorded with its reason.
  • How these change between the first Practice mission and the last one.

This shows what changed in how the group checked AI work during the session.

Instructors

Who leads your programme

Programme lead

Lead facilitator

AIR APAC provides the lead facilitator, who is named in your course proposal. Later deliveries can also be led by your training provider's own facilitator.

Facilitator certification

How facilitators are certified

AIR APAC certifies facilitators under section 20.6 of AIRS-J/1. Training providers can send their trainers to the facilitator programme. If your organisation has its own rules for who may train your staff, tell us in the enquiry.

Credentials

What participants receive

WhatWhat it isIn this programme
Record of CompletionA record, issued by AIR APAC, of what each person attended and practised.Included for everyone who completes.
AIRS-J/1 certification, Professional trackAIR APAC’s own credential for judgment in AI-enabled work, assessed against a public standard with a published rubric. Anyone can verify it free by code on a public register. Valid for two years.Optional. Choose the certification edition, and participants take a separate assessment within 30 days of the programme. The proposal sets out the arrangements.

How AIRS-J/1 certification works.

Questions from buyers

Before you request a proposal

Will our confidential information go into AI tools?

No. The exercises use fictional case files. Where participants work on their own tasks, they use only an AI tool their organisation permits for that information, remove identifying and confidential details first, or use a fictional version instead. Nothing they show in the session is kept or recorded, and it is never used for certification. Your organisation receives these conditions before the programme starts.

Can it be fitted to our sector, our rules and our language?

Cases are set in your sector and under your country’s rules. Tell us which in your request. With your organisation’s written consent, cases can also be based on your own organisation. Programmes run in English. If your group needs another language, name it in your request.

In person or online, and how many people?

The facilitated editions are led in person. The half day is built for 15 to 30 people. Group size for the longer editions, and any live online option, are agreed in the proposal.

How is the price set, and how soon can it run?

Each group receives a quoted price in its proposal. The price depends on the edition, the number of participants, the location, and whether the certification edition is included. No group has completed this programme yet. Case files are written for your sector and your group, and the start date is agreed in the proposal.

How will we know it worked?

Each edition opens with a StepSim Practice mission played the usual way and closes with an unseen mission of the same kind. You see what changed in how your group checks AI work. The written outputs are listed under What your organisation receives. This shows change during the programme, not results at work.

Is AIRS-J/1 certification recognised by a regulator or professional body?

No regulator, university or professional body recognises this credential. ISO/IEC 17024 is a design reference only. AIRS-J/1 certification is issued by AIR APAC under a public standard. See the credentials table.

What is AIRS-J/1?

AIRS-J/1 is the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work. It is public, with a published rubric and scoring rules, and a named Review Board governs it. It defines the four areas the programme teaches.

For training providers

Bring this programme to your clients

You keep your client. Training providers own the client relationship and invoice the client directly. AIR APAC supplies the programme design, case files written for your client’s sector, StepSim Practice missions and, for your first delivery, the lead facilitator. You agree the fit to your client, the subject expert who co-facilitates, and the commercial terms directly with AIR APAC. Facilitators who want to run StepSim sessions in their own programmes can join the facilitator programme.