I'm excited to host another small, hands-on AI Facilitator Training in Berlin this September together with John Vetan. We're keeping the cohort intentionally small, and seats are filling up quickly, so I wanted to give a quick reminder if you've been thinking about joining us. Over three days, we'll work through our AI Problem Framing and AI Workflow Sprint methods, facilitate real sessions, share lessons we've learned from working with teams, and learn from each other's experiences. And because it's Berlin in September, we'll spend time together outside the classroom too. We've got a few great activities planned, and those conversations are often where the best ideas emerge. If you want to become the person who helps teams move from AI discussions to AI decisions, we'd love to have you with us. Grab your ticket here: https://learn.designsprint.academy/AI-facilitator-training

“This is a safe space.” - the wrong thing to say as a facilitator if you want psychological safety in difficult rooms. Especially in AI workshops. Because people don’t feel safe just because we announce it. They feel safe when the see the proof. When someone can challenge a senior stakeholder. Ask a basic question without being judged. Admit they don’t understand x,y,z or the tech. Say, “I don’t think this AI use case makes sense.” That’s when you know. That's when you also know difficult discussions can happen, debates will take place, decisions will get made, and people will stand behind them. I wrote an article what psychological safety actually looks like in AI sessions and what facilitators can do to create the conditions for it. Curious to learn your thoughts :) https://danavetan.substack.com/p/nobody-in-your-ai-workshop-is-willing

Clients often arrive asking for "Design Thinking" when what they need is a sprint that fits inside their quarter. Or they ask for a Design Sprint when the problem is too broad and ambiguous to scope into four days. Both are common, and both produce work that disappoints. Here's the full breakdown — including when each one is the right call: https://www.designsprint.academy/blog/design-sprint-vs-design-thinking

Sharing this one because it's a question that comes up a lot when you're scoping work with a client. They ask for a Design Sprint. Sometimes that's exactly right. Sometimes what they actually need is Problem Framing — and running the Sprint anyway produces a fast, well-prototyped answer to a question nobody asked. Sharing a useful article if you're shaping a proposal or pushing back on a client who's already locked in on the format:https://www.designsprint.academy/blog/should-you-run-problem-framing-or-a-design-sprint-heres-how-to-tell

Most of us are trying to be great at everything in a workshop. Engaging. Inclusive. Smooth. Warm. Sharp on the content. Confident on the close. I've stopped being patient with that instinct. It's the most reliable way to produce a session that's fine at everything and great at nothing — and AI work is the wrong domain to be fine. I wrote more about it here : https://danavetan.substack.com/p/why-ai-facilitators-need-to-get-comfortable So my question to you is: What are you deliberately bad at in your sessions — and what does that protect?