For five minutes, the whole of Sweden stood still.
At 4:50 on the morning of Sunday, 3 September 1967, every car in the country had to stop. Drivers crossed slowly to the other side of the road and waited. At 5:00 the radio gave the signal. A country that had always driven on the left pulled away on the right.
The photographs from that morning are famous. Stockholm gridlocked, people standing on car roofs, chaos that looks like the end of the world in 4:3. It's the most repeated part of the story — and the least important.
Twelve years earlier, Swedes had voted on it in a referendum. Eighty-three percent voted to stay on the left. They didn't want the change.
The Riksdag decided to do it anyway, on 10 May 1963. And instead of setting a date and hoping for the best, it gave itself four years. Four years for something that would happen in five minutes.
Those four years ran on two tracks at once.
The first track was concrete and sheet metal. Around 350,000 road signs to remove or replace, some 20,000 in Stockholm alone. Junctions rebuilt where a left turn suddenly became a right turn. Buses with doors on the wrong side — rebuilt or replaced. Traffic lights. Bus stops. Everything physical.
The second track was human habit. An information campaign that got in everywhere: television, radio, a song contest about the switch, the logo on milk cartons and on underwear. Not because someone in Stockholm had a sense of humour. Because the reflex to turn left sits deeper in a driver than any regulation, and you don't change a reflex with a memo.
Neither track would have worked alone. Perfect signage with drivers running last week's reflexes is a massacre. Perfectly briefed drivers at junctions built the other way round — exactly the same.
And now the part nobody quotes.
In the first weeks after the switch there were fewer accidents than before it. Not more — fewer. On the Monday after the changeover 125 collisions were reported, against 130–198 on previous Mondays. Motor insurance claims fell by forty percent.
The reason is mundane, and it's the most interesting thing in the whole story: everyone was paying attention. People drove slower, looked twice, didn't trust their own reflexes.
And then the attention ran out. Claims were back to normal within six weeks. By 1969 the accident figures were back where they had been before the change.
The infrastructure change stuck. The alertness didn't. Alertness isn't a state you can live in. It's a response to an event, and events end by definition.
Your company is changing which side of the road it drives on.
Nobody calls it that. They call it an AI rollout, a transformation, or just “we have to do something about this”. But the mechanism is identical: a large number of people have to start doing something daily that they currently do, by reflex, differently. And they have to do it in an environment that isn't set up for it yet.
The sentences I hear on first calls are almost identical from company to company:
„We bought licences for everyone. Fifteen people log in.”
— HR Director, manufacturing
„The board is asking about ROI on AI. I don't know where to start counting.”
— CFO, logistics
„The March training went great. It's September and nobody has been back to it.”
— L&D Manager, FMCG
„IT says it's a compliance risk. The business says competitors already have it.”
— COO, retail
„Three teams use three different tools. Nobody agreed on any of it.”
— IT Manager
„People are afraid to admit they use AI, because they don't know if they're allowed.”
— HR Business Partner
Notice that none of these are technology problems. Not one. They're organizational problems dressed as technology problems — which is exactly why buying licences doesn't fix them.
A training day does exactly what that September morning did.
It focuses the attention of an entire organization on a single point. People walk out charged, and for two weeks they test things and show each other what worked. I have run those trainings for three years, more than 1,200 people have been through them, and I still consider a training day the best opening move a company can make. Most of my clients start exactly there, and they are right to.
The catch is that a morning like that happens once.
Swedish drivers stayed alert for six weeks, and that was a change that could put you in a head-on collision. A team after one AI training day stays alert for two or three weeks, because the stakes are lower and the quarter comes back faster.
The arithmetic of attention explains that, not the quality of the day. A single event cannot hold a new reflex in an organization of hundreds, just as a single morning did not hold the caution of Swedish drivers.
What holds it is everything standing around the event. In Sweden that was four years and two tracks. In a company: twelve months and the same two tracks, with a training session every month at the centre.
That's where AI Growth Initiative comes from.
A twelve-month programme I run inside your organization on two parallel tracks: the concrete one and the habit one. In corporate terms that means IT and business.
A training day answers the question „how do we use this”. The programme answers „how should this work here twelve months from now, and who runs it after that”. The second question usually comes once the first one has an answer, which is why the programme normally follows a training rather than replacing it.
It is taken by companies that treat AI as an area of continuous improvement rather than a one-off project to tick off. Tools change every quarter, processes every six months, and people join and leave. Continuity is the only format that keeps up with that.
Because two different people decide about AI at your place, and they rarely sit in the same meeting. One asks whether it complies with GDPR and the AI Act. The other asks whether it shortens the quoting process. Both are right, and both need an answer — otherwise the project stalls and nobody can say why.
Fifteen minutes, no deck and no CRM. You tell me what isn't working at your place, and I tell you whether this programme makes sense there at all.
+48 606 146 588At the start of the month I ask what's going on at your place. Which processes hurt, what changed in the tooling, what people tried and failed at. That becomes the topic of the next session.
Online training, open to anyone who wants to come. No seat limit, no premium and standard groups. 70% of the time is work on participants' real tasks.
A separate session: strategy, priorities for the next quarter, a process audit, tooling decisions. This is where the programme stops being a training and becomes a plan.
Between sessions: what actually changed in AI and what to do with it at your place. Plus a group where you ask a question on Wednesday afternoon instead of waiting four weeks.
Certifications and universities I learned at — and teach at:
Scroll sideways to see the full table
| Single trainings | AI Growth Initiative | |
|---|---|---|
| When to pick it | When you want one team up to speed quickly | When you want continuous improvement across the company |
| Cost over a year | 4 trainings × PLN 6,000 = PLN 24,000 | PLN 60,000, or PLN 120,000 with two trainers |
| Time with me | 4 days spread across the year | 96 or 144 hours on a monthly rhythm |
| Continuity | High energy for 2–3 weeks after each day | A fresh foothold every month |
| Compliance and tooling | Covered in the room, decisions stay with you | A dedicated track from month one |
| Access between sessions | 2 weeks of email support after each training | Newsletter and closed community all year |
| Measuring results | Session scores and participant feedback | Metrics agreed up front, reported quarterly |
| What's left after a year | The skills of everyone in the room, plus handouts | AI policy, a chosen stack and an internal lead |
Write directly. No form, no details to fill in. I reply within 24 hours.
przemek@pbx.agencyPLN 5,000 net / month
I run the programme myself, switching between the IT track and the business track. The version for organizations where the two sides already talk to each other and need a shared rhythm.
PLN 10,000 net / month
Each track gets its own trainer: one works with IT, the other with business, both in constant contact. The version for organizations where those two sides are a quarter out of sync and decisions stall because of it.
Both versions run month to month, with no minimum term and no cancellation fee. Prices are net.
If it were one training a month, it would be. It's eight hours of work with your organization every month plus everything that happens in between: setting the topic against your real processes, tooling and compliance decisions, the newsletter, answers in the community. Over a year that's PLN 60,000 net for twelve months of continuous work. Four ad-hoc trainings cost PLN 24,000 and give you four strong days. If that is what you need, buy four training days, it's cheaper and I'd rather tell you straight. The programme makes sense when you want continuity, and when you want the capability to stay in the company without me.
The number of trainers, and the fact that both tracks genuinely run in parallel. In the base version I run the programme alone and switch between IT and business. At PLN 10,000 net a month two trainers work with you: one assigned to IT (compliance, GDPR and the AI Act, stack selection, data security), one to business (processes, adoption, use cases, resistance). Together that's 12 hours a month instead of eight, and once a month both sit down for a joint review and come back to you with one recommendation rather than two. It's the version for organizations where IT and business are a quarter out of sync and every week of delay costs money.
No, because it starts somewhere else. In the first session we establish what your people already know and actually use, and we go on from there. Companies that have had a training are usually the best fit for this programme: they've had the first impulse, they know where AI helped them, and they can see where rules, tooling or a day-to-day owner were missing. The programme adds those three things plus a rhythm in which the capability keeps growing instead of plateauing.
Licences aren't adoption. The picture I see most often: a company pays for several hundred seats, a dozen or so people log in, and procurement asks why we're renewing. The tool is usually the smallest problem — what's missing is rules (what may go into a model), process (where exactly this shortens work) and someone to ask on a Wednesday afternoon. If you already have the licences, so much the better: we spend nothing on new tools and pull value out of the ones you're already paying for.
Three people, and less time than you'd expect. Someone from HR or L&D as the host of the programme — they gather needs and keep the dates. One person from IT for the compliance and tooling conversations. And a board sponsor who makes decisions once a quarter. Realistically: two to three hours a month on your side outside the sessions themselves.
Then I bring the topic. Before each month I ask what's going on at your place, and that becomes the session. And if genuinely nothing is in the air, I have modules that work in any organization: working with documents, no-code automation, AI in meetings and reporting, data hygiene and security. There has never been a month with nothing to talk about.
The training component usually can, but a monthly subscription can be awkward to fit the paperwork, and I won't promise you something I don't control. I don't file the applications myself — that's a separate specialism. I refer you to a partner who has handled BUR, KFS and EU funds for years, and on the first call we check what can be put under a subsidy and what is simply cleaner to invoice.
Then we stop. There's no minimum term and no cancellation penalty — it runs month to month. I know how that sounds for something I sell as a twelve-month programme, but I have a simple problem with the alternative: if I had to hold you with a clause, the programme isn't delivering. I'd rather you had a reason to stay every month.
Sweden did not change which side of the road it drove on, on 3 September 1967.
It changed it over the four years before — sign by sign, bus by bus, campaign by campaign. On the third of September it merely crossed over. That was the last and shortest part of the job.
Many companies start on the third of September and finish there too. Licences, a training day, an announcement about transformation, and then surprise that a month later everyone is driving the old way. Each of those moves makes sense on its own. What is missing is whatever was meant to connect them.
I suggest starting with the four years. Compressed into twelve months.
Tell me where you are. I'll reply within 24 hours and say plainly whether I see a fit — including when I don't.