By function
HR and People teams
The function that owns the change, trained for it
People teams sit on both sides of AI adoption: heavy users of the tools on documents and data, and the function accountable for how the whole organisation is trained, supported and treated as work changes. Both sides need deliberate skill.
1.Policy, handbook and letter drafting with a human accountable
The situation
A large share of HR output is structured writing: policies, consultation letters, role profiles, internal comms. Drafting is slow; the risk of an unreviewed AI draft going out under the company's name is real.
In practice
Drafting with AI against the organisation's own templates and tone, then editing into a defensible final version - with a clear rule about which documents never leave without a human rewrite, and employee data kept out of the tools entirely.
2.Decisions about people stay with people
The situation
Screening tools promise shortlists and sentiment scores. Some of this is useful triage; some of it is a discrimination claim waiting for a test case - and the team needs to know which is which.
In practice
Identifying the tasks that require a human decision maker, recognising bias in AI-assisted work, and recording how AI was involved in any process that touches an individual's employment.
3.Commissioning training against a measured gap
The situation
L&D is asked to 'do something on AI' with no baseline, a vendor pitch in every inbox, and a budget that has to be defended later.
In practice
Running a training-needs assessment first, scoping measures proportionately to role and risk, commissioning against the measured gap, and insisting on the attendance and assessment records that let the programme be described accurately afterwards.
4.Supporting the people the change worries
The situation
Every adoption programme produces a group who hear 'efficiency' and understand 'redundancy'. Ignoring that is how adoption stalls politely.
In practice
Managers learn to hold the conversation honestly - what changes, what does not, and the skills path for people whose current tasks the tools take - so anxiety is addressed rather than managed around.
Start with the measurement, not the course list
The 7 courses cited above are a starting point. The assessment scores your teams across five dimensions and recommends training against the gaps it actually finds.