How do you compare corporate training proposals?
Short answer
Corporate AI training proposals look alike because most of them say the same thing: we will introduce the tools. The difference shows up in four questions. One: will the day be spent on your team’s own work, or on ready-made scenarios? Two: who will be in the room on the day — the person who wrote the proposal, or somebody else? Three: does your data go into the tool, and if not, how will the work be done? Four: when the day ends, is there a slide deck, or a flow the team will keep using the next morning? Price is not a comparable number until those four are settled.
Why do proposals look alike?
They use the same headings because headings are cheap. "AI awareness", "productivity", "ready for the future" — anyone can write those and none of them describe how the day will go. Laid side by side on a procurement desk, three proposals appear to promise the same thing, and price becomes the only remaining difference.
Price becoming the only difference is a bad outcome for the buyer, because the cheapest proposal is usually the most generic one: ready-made curriculum, ready-made examples, low preparation cost. The four questions below genuinely separate proposals from one another.
Question 1 — Whose work will fill the day?
Asked plainly: "where will the examples we work on during the day come from?" If the answer is "from your processes, chosen together beforehand", there is preparation. If the answer is "we have examples suited to your sector", there is a ready-made curriculum.
The second is not bad — it is cheap and quick. But if you expect something on the desk to be different the next morning, the team has to work on their own tasks. That has a cost and it shows in the proposal: they ask you for time up front.
A related signal: if they can send you a ready curriculum PDF, the content is not being built around your company. We cannot send one, because we need to understand what you do first.
Question 2 — Who will be in the room?
The person who writes the proposal not being the person who delivers the training is common and not a problem in itself. The problem is learning it at contract stage. Ask directly: "who will run this day, and can I see their previous work?"
There is a second question that usually gets skipped: who answers the questions coming from the management side? During the day you get "what will this cost us", "which process should we automate", "should we keep this in-house" — and those belong to someone who has worked on that side, not to a trainer. In our case the split is explicit: I build the content, Uğur handles the management and technology side.
Question 3 — Where does the company’s data go?
The answer should have two layers. First, during the training: which document goes into the tool, which does not, and how examples get produced if it does not. Second, after the training: does the guide left with the team write that boundary down?
An answer of "do not worry, we use secure tools" is not enough. The person on the team has to be able to decide for themselves the next morning, and for that they need a rule, not a reassurance.
Question 4 — What is left when the day ends?
Concretely: "what will we have in our hands at the end?" A slide deck and an attendance list is one answer; a working flow embedded in the team’s own work, plus an internal guide they wrote themselves, is another.
A proposal promising the second requires more preparation and usually a longer day. That is the legitimate reason for a proposal to be expensive — not a line that says "more comprehensive".
Leave price for last
With the four answers in hand, price becomes a meaningful number: if one of two proposals offers a prepared day spent on the team’s own work, it does not have to cost the same as the other.
We quote corporate workshops on a proposal basis because the content is built around the company. Write to us with how many people are on the team, what they do and what you want to solve; the quote is meaningful after that.
Frequently asked
Does remote or on-site give better results?
Both work. What decides is not the format but whether the team touches its own work during the day. In a remote day everyone has to be working on their own screen; when it is only a broadcast being watched, the result turns into a presentation.
A month later the team has forgotten it — what now?
What gets forgotten is usually not knowledge but reflex, and reflex does not settle in a single day. What helps most is that the flow built on the day genuinely keeps being used and that the team’s own internal guide sits somewhere shared. If a one-off day leaves behind a flow nobody uses, a month later is inevitable.
Can we start with a small pilot group?
Yes, and it usually makes sense. The one condition is that the pilot group is made up of people doing the same job; a pilot with one person from each department makes the result impossible to read.
Why will you not give a price up front?
Because the content is built around the company. A number given before team size, format and preparation needs are clear will mislead either you or us. Write to us about what you do and we will put a proposal together.
