AI Agents Workshop for Executives Stockholm 2026

What an AI Agents Workshop for Executives Actually Delivers

In short

An Alice Labs AI agents workshop for executives is a decision-making offsite calibrated for C-suite time budgets — not a vendor demo, not an academic seminar. Half-day (four hours) or full-day (seven hours) formats, senior-only room capped at twelve, delivered in Stockholm on-site or at client HQ. Every session ends with a prioritised agent use-case shortlist, a governance stance, and a 90-day plan.

Most executive AI events in Stockholm are one of two things: a vendor demo dressed as education, or an academic seminar dressed as strategy. Both waste C-suite time. The Alice Labs workshop is designed as neither. It is a decision offsite — four to seven hours in which a private leadership team leaves with a shortlist of agents to build, a governance stance to enforce, and a 90-day plan to execute.

The room composition is deliberate. Alice Labs caps participation at twelve executives per session, and the audience is senior-only: CEO, CFO, COO, CIO or CTO, one or two board members, and where relevant the General Counsel and CHRO. There is no mixed junior-plus-senior dilution. Every voice in the room can commit to a decision that leaves the room.

The outputs are concrete. By the time executives close their laptops, they have: (1) a prioritised shortlist of two to four agent use cases scored on value and feasibility; (2) a governance stance covering human oversight, kill-switch authority, and named overseer designation under EU AI Act Article 14; (3) a go or no-go call on each candidate use case; and (4) commitment to a 90-day plan that Alice Labs delivers in writing within five business days.

Delivery is either at the Alice Labs Stockholm office or on-site at client HQ. Full-day sessions are typically hosted at the client — participants stay in-context with their own dashboards, systems, and stakeholders. Half-day sessions are commonly held in Stockholm, where the Alice Labs team can bring in guest practitioners from the broader Nordic AI ecosystem.

The workshop sits inside the wider Alice Labs delivery model — for the strategy-plus-build arc that begins where the workshop ends, see our AI consulting Stockholm and AI training for executives Stockholm guides.

Why Stockholm Executives Are Prioritising Agentic AI in 2026

In short

The urgency is regulatory and competitive at once. EU AI Act Article 4 enforcement mechanisms activate on 3 August 2026, putting named executive accountability on any organisation deploying AI. Nordic enterprises lead EU adoption on AI in general but lag on agent-specific governance. And Stockholm hosts one of the densest AI executive-education ecosystems in Europe — AI Sweden, KTH, SSE, and Novare all run parallel programmes.

The urgency is not manufactured. Three forces are converging on Nordic executive teams in 2026, and each one on its own would justify a serious offsite. Together they make the workshop calendar the most in-demand it has ever been.

Regulatory. The EU AI Act Article 4 AI literacy obligation has been applicable since 2 February 2025, but enforcement mechanisms — including named-authority supervisory posture and penalty escalation — became live on 3 August 2026. Executives of EU deployers can no longer point at a training vendor and claim compliance. The obligation lands on the accountable executive.

Competitive. Nordic enterprises consistently lead EU league tables on headline AI adoption. But when the question narrows to agentic AI — systems that plan, act, and iterate autonomously — Nordic maturity is closer to the EU median than the leadership position suggests. The governance vocabulary lags the deployment vocabulary. Boards that discover this gap in a live incident, rather than in a workshop, discover it expensively.

Ecosystem. Stockholm hosts AI Sweden, KTH, SSE Executive Education, Novare, RISE, and dozens of applied AI vendors within a fifteen-minute walk of Norrmalm. The talent, the case studies, and the peer network are all within physical reach. This is why Nordic boards no longer travel to London or Boston for AI leadership work — the depth is here.

The workshop is designed against this specific context. It is not a translated version of a US executive programme, and it is not a generic EU AI Act briefing. It is Stockholm-native, tuned for Nordic decision culture — direct, consensus-oriented, and allergic to hype.

The EU AI Act Article 4 Literacy Obligation — What Boards Must Know

In short

Article 4 of the EU AI Act, applicable since 2 February 2025 and enforceable from 3 August 2026, requires providers and deployers of AI systems to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy among staff and any other people operating or using AI on their behalf. It is an obligation of effort rather than result — but it is auditable, and named-authority supervision is now active. Boards must know their exposure, their overseer designation, and their documentation posture.

Article 4 is the first EU AI Act obligation that lands directly on the leadership team rather than on the compliance function. The text is short — a single article — but its reach is broad: providers and deployers of AI systems must take measures to ensure, to their best extent, a sufficient level of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf. That covers every executive who signs a procurement contract, every manager who approves a use case, and every operator who touches the interface.

The obligation has been in force since 2 February 2025. What changed on 3 August 2026 is the enforcement layer. National competent authorities now have live supervisory posture. Penalty structures apply. And crucially, Article 4 is treated as an obligation of effort — meaning boards cannot be fined simply because a staff member did not achieve a specific literacy score. But they can be fined if there is no defensible programme in place, no documentation trail, and no named accountable executive.

The workshop walks executives through five concrete decisions Article 4 forces:

• Named overseer designation. Which C-suite title carries formal accountability for the AI literacy programme? For most Nordic enterprises, it is landing on the CIO, CTO, or Chief Data Officer — but it can equally sit with the CHRO where the framing is workforce enablement.
• Scope of covered staff. Article 4 is not limited to AI engineers. It includes anyone who operates or uses AI on the organisation's behalf, which for most enterprises means substantially the whole workforce by end of 2026.
• Literacy taxonomy. What does "sufficient" mean for a customer service agent versus a portfolio manager versus a board director? The workshop maps a role-based taxonomy the client can defend.
• Documentation posture. How is the programme evidenced? Records of training delivery, curriculum content, participation logs, and refresh cadence.
• Board briefing cadence. The board itself has literacy obligations. How often, in what format, and against what curriculum are they refreshed?

None of this is legal advice — always consult qualified counsel for jurisdiction-specific compliance determinations. But the workshop gives executives the framework to have that legal conversation from a position of clarity rather than confusion.

AI Agents vs Copilots vs Automation — The Executive Vocabulary Reset

In short

Every vendor pitch this year will use the word 'agent'. Most will mean something different. The workshop teaches executives four distinct concepts they need to separate: agent (perceive-plan-act-learn with tool use), copilot (human-in-loop assistant), RPA (deterministic scripted automation), and agentic workflow (orchestrated multi-agent chain). Being able to hold these apart is the single largest lever on procurement quality in 2026.

The vocabulary is deliberately confused by vendors. Every enterprise software company has repositioned as an "AI agent" platform in the last twelve months, and the term covers everything from a chat interface with a memory buffer to a fully autonomous multi-step system with tool use. Executives who cannot separate these four concepts end up buying the wrong thing at the wrong price.

The workshop teaches the executive-grade taxonomy:

• Agent. A system that perceives its environment, plans a sequence of actions toward a goal, acts on that plan (typically by invoking external tools or APIs), and learns from feedback. The defining property is autonomy inside a defined scope. An agent handling tier-1 customer support tickets is deciding, not just suggesting.
• Copilot. A human-in-the-loop assistant. The system suggests; the human decides and acts. GitHub Copilot, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and most current productivity AI products sit here. Lower risk, lower automation, but lower ROI ceiling.
• RPA. Deterministic scripted automation. UiPath, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere. Not AI in any meaningful sense — the script executes the same steps every time regardless of context. Excellent for stable, high-volume tasks; brittle in the face of variance.
• Agentic workflow. An orchestrated chain of multiple agents, tools, and human checkpoints. Not a single agent — a system of agents. The frontier of enterprise deployment in 2026, and the source of most of the interesting ROI stories (and most of the interesting failures).

The consequence of confusion is expensive. A vendor selling "agents" whose product is in fact a copilot will price it as an agent — three to five times the copilot rate — because the buyer cannot tell the difference. The workshop gives executives the vocabulary to interrogate vendor claims in the language vendors actually use.

For a deeper technical framing see our AI agents in the enterprise guide and our agentic AI implementation playbook.

The Six Decisions a Nordic C-Suite Must Make Before Deploying Agents

In short

Six governance decisions must be made — and documented — before any agent goes live in an EU-domiciled enterprise: (1) risk classification under EU AI Act Annex III; (2) human oversight model under Article 14; (3) data residency choice between Sweden, EU, and global; (4) vendor lock-in versus open-weight strategy; (5) named overseer designation with formal accountability; and (6) kill-switch and rollback authority. The workshop walks the client's own use cases through each one.

The six-decision framework is the workshop's most-used artefact. Every candidate use case the client brings gets walked through it, and every decision is made in the room with the accountable executive present. No follow-up committee, no take-it-away posture. The decision either gets made or the use case is dropped from the shortlist.

Decision 1 — Risk classification under EU AI Act Annex III. Does the use case fall into a prohibited category (Article 5), a high-risk category (Article 6 and Annex III), or a general-purpose category? The answer drives every downstream obligation. Agents used in employment, credit scoring, education, and critical infrastructure sit high-risk by default.

Decision 2 — Human oversight model under Article 14. High-risk systems require effective human oversight. What form does it take? Human-on-the-loop (real-time intervention), human-in-the-loop (per-decision approval), human-out-of-the-loop (post-hoc audit only). Each has cost and control trade-offs.

Decision 3 — Data residency. Where does the data flow? Sweden-only deployment gives the tightest sovereignty posture but the narrowest vendor set. EU-only unlocks broader options while staying inside GDPR and the Data Governance Act. Global unlocks the frontier US models but requires SCC-based transfers and enhanced due diligence.

Decision 4 — Vendor lock-in versus open-weight strategy. Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft closed frontier models offer the strongest capability today but concentrate strategic risk. Open-weight models (Mistral, Llama, Qwen) deployed inside client cloud reduce lock-in at the cost of slightly lower ceiling. Most Nordic clients end up with a hybrid.

Decision 5 — Named overseer designation. Which specific individual by title holds formal accountability for this agent? This is Article 4 discipline applied to a specific system, and it is the decision executives most want to defer. Defer it, and enforcement will assign accountability for you.

Decision 6 — Kill-switch and rollback authority. Who can shut this agent off? Under what conditions? How fast? What is the rollback plan when it is off? The workshop treats this as a fire drill — if the answer is not documented and rehearsed, the agent is not production-ready.

Workshop Agenda — Half-Day Format (4 Hours)

In short

The half-day format compresses a full agentic AI decision arc into four hours: state of agentic AI in the Nordic lens (45 min), live agent demo plus governance walk-through (60 min), portfolio prioritisation exercise on the client's own use cases (60 min), EU AI Act compliance stance-setting (60 min), and 90-day commitments (15 min). Designed for leadership teams already aligned on direction who need to convert alignment into decisions.

The half-day is the most-booked format in 2026. It fits inside a single leadership offsite morning, leaves the afternoon for the team to debrief, and produces the same written 90-day plan as the full-day format. It works when the leadership team is already broadly aligned that agentic AI matters and just needs the room to convert that alignment into commitments.

The four-hour agenda:

• 00:00 to 00:45 — State of agentic AI (Nordic lens). A tight briefing on where the frontier is, what has shipped in the last quarter, and what is landing in the next two. Nordic-specific case patterns from Alice Labs' 100+ implementations, not US case studies translated. Ends with the vocabulary reset (agent, copilot, RPA, agentic workflow).
• 00:45 to 01:45 — Live agent demo and governance walk-through. A working agent handling a realistic enterprise task, with the room watching the perceive-plan-act loop in real time. Every three to five minutes the facilitator pauses to surface a governance decision that got made silently — human oversight point, kill-switch trigger, data-residency choice.
• 01:45 to 02:45 — Portfolio prioritisation on the client's own use cases. The client brings four to eight candidate use cases into the room. The workshop walks them through the six-decision framework and scores them on value and feasibility. The output is a shortlist of two to four to move forward.
• 02:45 to 03:45 — EU AI Act compliance stance-setting. The shortlisted use cases get walked through Article 4 literacy obligations, Article 6-7 risk classification, and Article 14 human oversight. The room makes a stance-level commitment on each — deploy, pilot, defer, or drop.
• 03:45 to 04:00 — 90-day commitments. Each committed use case gets a named sponsor, a next-step owner, and a review date. The full written 90-day plan lands in the client's inbox within five business days.

The room never opens laptops except for the demo. Phones stay away. The senior-only room composition and the four-hour ceiling mean the format cannot be diluted by observers or side-conversations.

Workshop Agenda — Full-Day Format (7 Hours)

In short

The full-day format is designed for boards taking a first strategic position on agentic AI. It adds three modules to the half-day core: a hands-on agent build-along for non-technical executives, a unit-economics financial model comparing agent cost against headcount cost, and a change-management and internal comms plan. Includes lunch with case studies drawn from Alice Labs' 100+ implementations.

The full-day is booked when the board itself is in the room and taking a first strategic position, or when a management team wants the deeper hands-on experience before committing capital. It runs seven hours end to end with a working lunch and two coffee breaks.

The additions over the half-day format are three modules:

• Hands-on agent build-along. Non-technical executives assemble a working agent using a supervised low-code frame — typically a document-analysis or tier-1 support agent for the client's own business. The point is not to produce production code; it is to demystify what an agent actually is at the mechanical level. Executives who have built one, even a toy one, negotiate with vendors differently.
• Financial model — unit economics of agent versus headcount. A working spreadsheet the CFO takes home. Inputs: agent variable cost per task, throughput ceiling, quality-adjusted output, fixed cost of the platform, and the fully-loaded cost of the headcount alternative. Outputs: break-even volume, sensitivity analysis on model pricing changes, and the annual impact under conservative and aggressive scaling. This is the artefact that turns the workshop into a board-ready capital allocation memo.
• Change-management and internal comms plan. How does the enterprise tell its own staff that agents are being deployed? What is the narrative for the workforce, for regulators, for customers, for investors? The workshop drafts a two-page comms plan the CHRO and Chief Communications Officer can take forward.

Lunch is served in the room, and the working-lunch slot is used for a facilitator-led walkthrough of two anonymised case studies drawn from the Alice Labs 100+ implementations portfolio — one Nordic financial services agentic KYC deployment, one industrial maintenance triage system. Client names are not disclosed; the mechanics, the governance decisions, and the measured outcomes are.

Who Should Be in the Room — And Who Should Not

In short

The workshop is hard-capped at twelve executives, senior-only. Ideal composition: CEO plus CFO plus COO plus CIO or CTO plus one or two board members, with optional General Counsel and CHRO. Not ideal: mixed audiences with junior operators, because decision velocity collapses when senior participants edit themselves in front of subordinates. Alice Labs will not run mixed-seniority rooms — it is a hard rule, not a preference.

The room composition rule is worth stating explicitly because clients push back on it, and Alice Labs holds the line. The workshop is senior-only, capped at twelve participants. There are no observers, no note-takers, no rotating attendees. The people in the room at 09:00 are the same people in the room at 16:00.

The ideal composition for a management workshop:

• CEO (mandatory)
• CFO (mandatory)
• COO or head of operations (mandatory)
• CIO or CTO — whoever owns the AI portfolio (mandatory)
• One or two independent board members (recommended)
• General Counsel (recommended where regulated sector)
• CHRO (recommended where workforce impact is material)

The reason for the senior-only rule is mechanical, not snobbish. Executives edit themselves in front of subordinates. A CEO in a mixed-seniority room will not volunteer that she does not understand a technical concept, so the concept never gets unpacked, so the decision that depends on the concept never gets made. Junior staff in the room have the opposite problem — they cannot commit their own function to a decision, so any question that touches their scope stalls until the room breaks.

The board-only version of the workshop is worth flagging separately. When the audience is non-executive directors — chair, senior independent director, audit chair, risk chair — the workshop tilts harder into governance, fiduciary framing, and challenge posture on management's AI roadmap. That format is typically half-day and runs in a boardroom or Stockholm off-site venue.

Nordic Case Patterns — What Alice Labs Has Seen Across 100+ Implementations

In short

Alice Labs' 100+ production AI implementations since 2023 cluster into four recurring Nordic patterns: financial services agentic KYC review, industrial maintenance triage, public sector case handling under GDPR and the EU AI Act, and SaaS tier-1 support with structured human handoff. The workshop walks through the pattern that most closely matches the client's own portfolio — anonymised on client identity, specific on mechanics and measured outcomes.

Pattern recognition is the most under-priced benefit of an experienced facilitator. Alice Labs' 100+ shipped implementations since 2023 give the workshop a library of what has actually worked, what has failed, and what has quietly under-delivered in Nordic enterprise contexts specifically. Four patterns come up most:

• Financial services — agentic KYC review. Onboarding and periodic KYC refresh, with an agent handling document analysis, sanctions-list checks, and adverse-media screening across Swedish, Nordic, and EU jurisdictions. Human oversight at every high-risk determination. The measured outcome that gets executives' attention is not headcount reduction — it is cycle-time compression on onboarding, which has direct revenue impact.
• Industrial — agentic maintenance triage. Predictive-plus-diagnostic agents for heavy manufacturing and process industry, ingesting sensor telemetry, operator reports, and maintenance logs to prioritise work orders. The Nordic angle is regulatory — Sweden and Finland both have strong operator-safety frameworks that constrain how autonomous the agent can be in a physical-plant context.
• Public sector — agentic case handling under GDPR and the EU AI Act. Case-handler agents for social insurance, tax administration, and municipal services. The pattern that works is agent-drafts-then-human-decides, never agent-decides. The governance rigor required is materially higher than in private-sector deployments.
• SaaS — agentic tier-1 support with structured handoff. Customer support agent handling common ticket categories end-to-end, with explicit handoff triggers to human support when the ticket exceeds defined complexity, sentiment, or regulatory scope. The Nordic SaaS pattern is that handoff quality matters more than autonomous ceiling — customers accept an agent that hands off cleanly and reject one that fails silently.

The workshop tells one of these stories in detail, chosen to match the client's portfolio. Names are never disclosed. Mechanics, governance decisions, cost model, and measured outcomes are all discussed openly.

How This Workshop Differs from AI Sweden, SSE, and Novare Programs

In short

Alice Labs is complementary to Stockholm's open-enrollment executive programmes, not a substitute. AI Sweden's 'AI for Executives' is a six-day multi-university programme spanning KTH, Uppsala, and Gothenburg — broad literacy across a cohort. SSE's 'AI for Business Leaders' is a three-day open-enrollment cohort at Stockholm School of Economics. Novare's 'AI for Leaders' is a multi-month leadership track. Alice Labs is private, half-day or full-day, agent-specific, and structured on the client's own use cases.

The honest comparison matters because Stockholm has one of the strongest executive AI education markets in Europe, and no single programme fits every need. The Alice Labs workshop is designed to sit alongside — not compete with — the open-enrollment offers. Many Alice Labs clients have attended one or more of the following before booking the workshop.

AI Sweden — AI for Executives. A six-day programme built in partnership with KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Uppsala University, and the University of Gothenburg. Broad AI literacy across a cohort of executives from multiple companies. Excellent for foundational literacy and for peer learning across industries. Best fit: an executive team early in their AI journey wanting a wide aperture.

SSE Executive Education — AI for Business Leaders. A three-day open-enrollment programme at Stockholm School of Economics, with strong faculty from SSE's own economics and strategy departments. Cohort learning, peer network, and a leaning into strategy framing rather than technical mechanics. Best fit: senior executives wanting the SSE alumni network and a strategy-heavy lens.

Novare — AI for Leaders. A multi-month leadership track combining education with mentoring and applied projects. Longer commitment, deeper personal development. Best fit: individual leaders investing in career-stage transformation rather than an intact team commitment.

Alice Labs — private AI Agents Workshop. Different by design. Private, single-client, agent-specific, and built to produce a shortlist of deployable agent use cases plus a 90-day plan by the time executives leave the room. Half-day or full-day, not multi-week. Best fit: a leadership team ready to convert alignment into capital-allocation decisions on their own portfolio.

Two of the four offers can be layered — many Alice Labs clients have sent individual executives through AI Sweden or SSE and then run the Alice Labs workshop as the collective commitment moment for the intact leadership team.

Pricing, Logistics, and What's Included

In short

Alice Labs quotes fixed-fee, transparent proposals for the workshop — never black-box RFP responses. Half-day format includes the 45-minute pre-workshop diagnostic, the four-hour session, and the written 90-day plan. Full-day format additionally includes the financial model, the build-along module, and the change-management plan. Delivered in English or Swedish, at the Alice Labs Stockholm office or on-site at client HQ across the Nordics and EU.

Transparent pricing is a brand principle at Alice Labs, and it applies to the workshop as much as to consulting engagements. Every workshop quote is a fixed fee, itemised, and does not depend on downstream consulting spend. Executives can and do book the workshop, leave with the 90-day plan, and execute it internally without further Alice Labs involvement. That is the point.

What is included at each format:

• Half-day workshop (four hours). Fixed fee, up to twelve executives. Includes the 45-minute pre-workshop diagnostic call with the sponsor, the four-hour in-room session, the written 90-day plan delivered within five business days, and the option of a 30-minute check-in call at week eight.
• Full-day workshop (seven hours). Fixed fee, up to twelve executives. Includes everything in the half-day plus: the hands-on agent build-along module, the unit-economics financial model spreadsheet, the change-management and internal comms plan, working lunch, and a 45-minute follow-up call at week twelve.
• Board-only variant. Fixed fee, up to eight non-executive directors. Half-day format tilted into governance and fiduciary framing. Includes a briefing memo the chair can circulate before the session.

Language is English by default. Swedish is available on request and does not carry a language surcharge. Materials, the 90-day plan, and follow-up documentation can be delivered bilingually where the leadership team spans Swedish and international speakers.

Venue is either the Alice Labs Stockholm office (Norrmalm) or the client's own headquarters. On-site delivery is preferred for full-day formats. Travel to Oslo, Copenhagen, Helsinki, or elsewhere in the Nordics and EU is billed at cost with transparent line items — no premium markup.

Pre-Workshop Diagnostic — Why We Refuse to Show Up Cold

In short

Every Alice Labs workshop begins with a 45-minute pre-workshop diagnostic call with the executive sponsor, at no extra cost. The call reviews two to three candidate use cases the sponsor has in mind, scans the existing AI inventory, and assesses governance readiness. This preparation is why the workshop can produce decisions in the room rather than more questions — Alice Labs arrives already knowing the client's context.

The 45-minute pre-workshop diagnostic is a Alice Labs standard, not an upsell. It runs at no extra cost, one to two weeks before the workshop, between the client's executive sponsor and the Alice Labs delivery lead who will facilitate the session. The purpose is to arrive prepared enough that the workshop hours can be spent making decisions instead of onboarding facilitators.

The diagnostic covers four areas:

• Candidate use cases. The sponsor names two to three specific use cases already under discussion internally. Alice Labs pre-screens them for feasibility, EU AI Act risk classification, and rough ROI shape, so the in-room portfolio prioritisation exercise starts from a stronger base.
• Existing AI inventory scan. A quick walkthrough of what is already deployed — copilots, RPA scripts, embedded features from SaaS vendors, in-house models. This surfaces the base rate of AI activity in the enterprise, which executives are often surprised to see.
• Governance-readiness snapshot. Where is Article 4 literacy today? Is there a named overseer? A risk register? A model-risk framework? The snapshot tells the workshop where to spend time and where the client is already covered.
• Political landscape. Confidential to the sponsor. Which executives in the room are already convinced, which are neutral, which are actively sceptical? The facilitation approach changes materially depending on the answer.

The diagnostic is why the workshop can produce decisions in the room rather than producing more questions. Executive time is expensive; showing up cold is not acceptable at senior-consultancy standards.

Post-Workshop 90-Day Follow-Through

In short

The most common executive fear about workshops is 'we did the workshop and then nothing happened'. Alice Labs addresses it structurally: a written 90-day plan is delivered within five business days of the workshop, an optional monthly executive check-in tracks progress, direct handoff to the Alice Labs delivery team is available if implementation gets greenlit, and a refresh session at six months keeps the leadership team aligned. The workshop is the beginning of a 90-day arc, not a standalone event.

The most common failure mode of executive workshops — cited by every Alice Labs client who has sat through a competitor's programme — is the "we did the workshop and then nothing happened" outcome. Alice Labs addresses this structurally, not through exhortation.

Four post-workshop mechanisms:

• Written 90-day plan within five business days. Not a summary of the day's discussion — a plan. Named sponsor per committed use case, next-step owner, milestone dates, governance stance, and the shortlist scoring rationale. Delivered in the client's preferred document format (Notion, Confluence, Word — Alice Labs does not have a house preference).
• Optional monthly executive check-in. A 30-minute call between the client's executive sponsor and the Alice Labs delivery lead each month for three months. No new content, no upsell — pure accountability posture. Clients who activate this option report materially higher execution rates on the 90-day plan.
• Direct handoff to Alice Labs delivery team if implementation is greenlit. If one or more shortlisted use cases moves to production, the workshop facilitator introduces the Alice Labs delivery team directly. Same senior operators, same governance discipline, no re-onboarding cost. This is the natural on-ramp for clients who want single-partner delivery from strategy through production.
• Refresh session at six months. A half-day refresh with the same leadership team, calibrated on the six-month state of the market and the client's own execution. Priced separately, but held at a fixed discount to the original workshop fee.

The refresh is the mechanism that has the highest satisfaction score in Alice Labs' post-workshop feedback. Six months is long enough for the world to have moved materially — new frontier models, new EU AI Act guidance, new competitive threats — but short enough that the leadership team still has velocity on the original plan.

Booking a Private Workshop in Stockholm

In short

Alice Labs books private executive workshops via the contact form on alicelabs.ai/contact. Typical lead time is three to four weeks to protect the senior-only facilitator delivery model. Available across Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the broader EU with on-site delivery. For urgent board timelines, two-week lead times can occasionally be accommodated — contact the team directly to check availability.

Booking is intentionally simple. The path:

• Enquire. Contact form at alicelabs.ai/contact or direct outreach to a founder via LinkedIn. Include the intended audience, target dates, and one or two candidate use cases if you have them in mind.
• Scoping call. 30 minutes with an Alice Labs founder or senior partner. Confirms format fit (half-day vs full-day vs board-only), participant composition, venue, and language. Fixed-fee proposal follows within two business days.
• Contract and diagnostic. Once the proposal is signed, the pre-workshop diagnostic is scheduled and the workshop date confirmed.
• Workshop day. Delivered on the agreed date, at the agreed venue, by the founder or senior partner named in the proposal.
• 90-day plan. Delivered within five business days of the workshop.

Typical lead time from first enquiry to workshop day is three to four weeks. Slots are genuinely limited — the senior-only delivery model means Eric Lundberg, Linus Ingemarsson, or a small handful of senior partners are the only people who facilitate the workshop, and their combined calendar is the binding constraint. For urgent board timelines, two-week lead times can occasionally be accommodated — contact the team directly.

Available across Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the broader EU. Alice Labs is Stockholm-headquartered; there are no local offices in Oslo, Copenhagen, or Helsinki. When we deliver in those cities, the team travels — with transparent travel line items in the proposal, no premium markup.