I spend my days shaping core analytics product experiences that help teams see their business with greater clarity. When I design an analytics workflow, my goal is simple: make it effortless to ask better questions, uncover meaningful patterns, and turn insight into action. In this brief reflection, I’ll share how I approach product discovery, experimentation, and roadmapping to create analytics tools that truly move the needle.
Everything starts with outcomes. I anchor roadmaps to a clear north star and use outcomes vs output OKRs to align problem statements with measurable impact. That means instrumenting a precise event taxonomy and building guardrails for data quality so retention analysis and user activation metrics are trustworthy. When the foundation is sound, product-led growth becomes repeatable because we can connect feature usage to value creation without guesswork.
Experimentation is where conviction meets evidence. I rely on A/B testing with a disciplined view of minimum detectable effect (MDE) so we size experiments responsibly and ship with confidence. Self-serve analysis—and, when appropriate, tools like Amplitude analytics within a unified analytics platform—lets teams quickly validate hypotheses, monitor cohorts, and understand lift. The result is faster learning cycles without sacrificing statistical rigor.
On the delivery side, I practice continuous discovery and translate insights into product roadmapping and sprint planning that teams can execute. I work closely with design and engineering to reduce cognitive load in the UI, standardize tooltips and in-app guides, and ensure every chart, filter, and segment supports a clear decision. This collaboration empowers the team, shortens feedback loops, and keeps us oriented toward customer outcomes rather than feature checklists.
Great analytics products give people confidence. By aligning on outcomes, instrumenting clean data, testing with discipline, and shipping thoughtfully, I’ve seen teams unlock deeper understanding and sustained growth. If you care about building products that illuminate the path forward, start with the questions customers need to answer—and let your analytics experience make those answers obvious.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Capacity planning has always been a high-stakes exercise in customer service, and when you miss, the signal shows up fast in backlogs and SLAs. I’ve lived that pressure across multiple cycles, and 2026 will reward teams that plan differently.
AI fundamentally changes capacity planning because it changes the work. It resolves the bulk of your volume, speeds up execution, and elevates the complexity and value of what humans handle. The consequence is simple: planning models must evolve.
This is the final installment in my 2026 customer service planning series, and I’m focusing on the tension every leader feels right now—be ambitious about automation, but avoid the trap of understaffing if your assumptions don’t hold.
My goal is to share how AI changes the logic of capacity planning, what I’ve learned implementing these practices with my team and with customers, and the common traps to avoid.
Traditional planning rests on relatively stable assumptions: volume grows predictably, work types stay consistent, handle times don’t swing dramatically, and productivity improves slowly with better tools and training. In an AI-first model, none of that is guaranteed, and the fundamentals flip.
The mix of work changes as AI absorbs a growing share of simpler conversations, leaving humans with deeper, more time-consuming issues that demand human-to-human connection. Demand can actually increase when you remove friction, so AI can both resolve more and attract more volume. Human time splits differently as teammates solve customer problems and also review AI behavior, give feedback, improve content, and support system-level work. Performance becomes dynamic, not fixed—automation rate isn’t a one-time number; it can rise with care and fall with neglect.
If you plan for 2026 using a pre-AI model—assuming similar productivity, similar work mix, and a linear relationship between volume and headcount—you will underestimate what it now takes to run a high-performing support organization.
There are many metrics you can track, but the one to put at the center is automation rate (AI Agent involvement rate × AI Agent resolution rate). This single construct tells me what share of total volume AI actually resolves, how much work remains for humans, how much additional demand humans can absorb, and how ambitious I can be with headcount.
Early in the journey, I prioritize raising involvement—getting the AI involved in more conversations. Once involvement is high, I shift to resolution on the hardest remaining work, where each additional 1% of automation can represent several people’s worth of capacity.
In my 2026 plans, automation rate sits alongside projected inbound volume, average “output” per person for the more complex work that remains, and occupancy—how much time is allocated to customer-facing interactions versus operational and strategic work. Together, those inputs give a realistic picture of how many people you need and where they should spend their time.
First, plan boldly on automation, but match it with investment. I do not cap automation assumptions at 40–50% “because AI is new.” Many teams are already modeling 60%, 70%, even 80%+ for 2026—when they invest in AI ownership and content. The investment is non-negotiable: named ownership for AI performance (AI ops, knowledge management, conversation design), clear automation targets by work type (e.g., informational vs. personalized vs. actions vs. deep troubleshooting), realistic expectations for what’s easy to automate and what’s not, and a concrete plan to raise automation over time in monthly or quarterly steps rather than a single jump.
To decide where to invest first, I dig into the data. I start with the biggest volume drivers, separate content-led issues from those dependent on data or complex procedures, assume higher resolution potential for content-led topics once the knowledge base is in shape, and set more modest initial resolution expectations for system-dependent flows. Then I stair-step improvements as the systems, data contracts, and workflows mature.
In short, bold automation goals only work when paired with the team structure, content, and systems required to reach them—and the discipline to iterate.
Second, expect human “output” per person to go down. That’s a mindset shift. Historically, we assumed individual productivity would stay flat or tick up as tools improved. In an AI-first model, humans handle fewer conversations but more complex, cross-functional issues—and create more value despite lower case counts.
I model a lower “cases closed per person” than prior-year baselines, explicitly assume the remaining work is more complex and time-consuming, and redefine productivity to include system-level work like AI Agent improvements, content updates, and policy or workflow change management. I also report “capacity created” from automation alongside human outputs, so leadership sees the full picture.
Third, rethink occupancy: more time off the queues, on higher-value work. Traditional occupancy splits time between inbox and training, meetings, and breaks. Now there’s an expanding “out-of-inbox” portfolio that directly affects AI performance and overall capacity: reviewing AI-handled conversations, improving AI Agent triaging and handovers, contributing to content and procedures, feeding insights to product and engineering, and supporting system changes that reduce future volume.
I set lower inbox occupancy targets than before and make the rationale explicit. People aren’t working less—they’re working differently. In planning, I assume more time spent on improvement and system work, make it visible (for example, X% in inbox and Y% on AI and system improvement), and treat this as critical, not a “nice to have.” If you don’t proactively allocate it, it won’t happen—and your automation and performance targets will suffer.
Fourth, work with the finance team early, and treat your plan as a set of assumptions. Capacity planning with AI is a set of bets across automation rate, human output, demand growth, occupancy, and where surplus capacity (if any) goes. I bring finance in early, show that the plan is dynamic and directly tied to AI performance, and label every lever as an assumption with ranges.
I commit to a quarterly review cadence with finance to compare assumptions versus reality and adjust headcount, targets, and investment as needed. The risks are real: if automation grows slower than expected and you stop backfilling too early, you’ll be understaffed for months. Hiring and onboarding take time, so course-correcting late creates strain. If you do produce surplus capacity, have a clear strategy to reallocate those teammates to higher-value work—improving systems, feeding insights back to product, supporting new channels, and driving proactive CX—rather than defaulting to reductions.
I also set explicit guardrails—if automation rate misses by five points for two consecutive months, we pause planned reductions and revisit hiring gates. If it over-performs, we shift people into backlog eradication, content upgrades, or proactive outreach, so we bank compounding value.
To set your team up for success in 2026, anchor your plan on automation rate, be honest that humans will handle fewer but harder conversations, and protect time for system improvements. Partner early and often with finance, avoid shrinking too fast, and design a plan for surplus capacity so you’re never caught flat-footed.
If AI is going to handle the majority of your customer conversations, your plan has to be designed to help it do that well and to keep your team set up for meaningful, sustainable work. A 2026 plan built on adaptable assumptions—not fixed predictions—will hold up as your work, your systems, and your customers’ expectations continue to change.
If you’d like future editions like this, subscribe and stay close—I’ll keep sharing what’s working, what isn’t, and how to tune your customer support AI strategy in real time.
I’ve been closing the year with a deliberate reflection ritual for more than a decade, and this season I found fresh energy for it after listening to an insightful conversation with Teresa Torres and Petra Wille on All Things Product. Their approaches mirror the evolution many product leaders experience: moving from rigid annual goal-setting to values-led themes, longer time horizons, and a healthier respect for spaciousness. In my own practice, that shift has created better focus, less pressure, and far more meaningful outcomes.
Prefer to listen? You can find this episode here: Spotify | Apple Podcasts. I took notes with my team in mind and translated the discussion into a simple, values-driven framework that any product organization can adopt.
Why does annual reflection matter for product people? Because our work lives at the intersection of ambiguity, trade-offs, and time. If we only measure ourselves by shipped output or quarterly OKRs, we overlook the compounding value of learning, relationships, and judgement. I treat this ritual as a strategic reset: a chance to surface patterns, adjust expectations, and recommit to outcomes over output.
My own reflection habit started scrappy—paper notebooks, messy timelines, and even artful visualizations inspired by Dear Data by Giorgia Lupi & Stefanie Posavec. Like Petra, I’ve found that tactile, analog artifacts unlock insights I miss in a spreadsheet. Over time, I’ve kept the spirit and simplified the mechanics: a “what went well” review, a short list of hard lessons, and a handful of decisions that paid off—or didn’t.
The biggest evolution for me has been moving from rigid annual goals to values and themes. I still run OKRs, but I use them to track progress, not identity. The lens of process vs. outcome goals—reinforced by ideas from Atomic Habits—helped me set fewer, better commitments. For example, instead of “launch X by Y,” I’ll emphasize the cadence of customer discovery, the health of the product trio, and the quality of decisions made along the way.
One exercise that changed my practice is the “100 wishes” list. It’s powerful—and surprisingly difficult. Pushing past 30 or 40 wishes forces me to name latent interests and long-range intentions I rarely say out loud. Combined with decade-level themes, the list helps me balance ambition with patience. I don’t try to do it all next year; I use it to spotlight direction, not deadlines.
I also review patterns across years: Where did over-scheduling create hidden costs? When did I protect focus time and what did that unlock? Paul Graham’s Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule remains a useful calibration tool here. And when I feel the pull toward constant throughput, I revisit Stefan Sagmeister’s The Power of Time Off (TED Talk) to remind myself why strategically creating space often yields the most valuable ideas.
Of course, not every year follows plan—and that’s normal. Reflection helps me spot unrealistic expectations early and let them go. When setbacks hit, I’ll rewatch Dealing with Setbacks and re-ground in continuous discovery. The question isn’t “Did we do everything?” but “Did we learn fast, protect customer value, and make trade-offs aligned with our values?” That’s how empowered product teams compound impact.
My sharing philosophy has become more nuanced over time. Some reflections are public to invite dialogue and accountability; others stay private so I can process honestly. I’ve found it helpful to publish what I’m saying no to, capture a theme for the year ahead, and keep the rest for myself and my team. This balance preserves motivation while still contributing to the broader product management leadership community.
If you’re designing your own ritual, consider this lightweight flow: review wins and tough calls, write your “100 wishes,” extract a few values-based themes, then translate those into process goals for Q1. Revisit monthly, not just annually. If you like structured prompts, Chris Guillebeau’s How to Conduct Your Own Annual Review from The Art of Nonconformity offers a practical template you can adapt to your context.
For deeper dives and complementary ideas, I bookmarked these as part of my year-end reset: What I’m Saying No to This Year—And Why, Ask Teresa: My Leaders Still Want Roadmaps with Timelines—What Should I Do?, Scaling Impact: A Look at the Year Ahead (2022), Let’s Connect in 2025: A Look at the Year Ahead, The Interview Coach, and Petra’s own year-ahead reflections (here and her 2026 version). I also recommend revisiting the prior conversation on leadership and change: Role of Leadership in Transformations.
I’d love to hear how you approach your end-of-year reflection. What questions bring you the most clarity? Which practices help you set an intentional, values-driven path for the next year? Share your process—I’m always looking to learn from other product creators and leaders.
I build and scale analytics platforms with a product mindset, and the work starts with the "middleware and compute systems that power analytics at scale." In platforms like Amplitude analytics and other unified analytics platform architectures, that foundation is what makes everything else possible.
Day to day, I oversee the "APIs behind charts, cohorts, and metrics—driving performance, reliability, and platform scalability." When those APIs are fast and resilient, every product team—from growth to customer success—can trust the insights they use to ship, learn, and iterate.
From an engineering leadership standpoint, I partner closely with SRE to define SLOs and error budgets, wire CI/CD pipelines for safe deploys, and track DORA metrics so we improve speed without compromising quality. This combination reduces incident management toil and shortens MTTR while keeping data freshness and query latency within strict thresholds.
From a product management leadership lens, the goal is clarity: crisp APIs, predictable contracts, and transparent stakeholder management across data, engineering, and GTM teams. That alignment empowers product teams with reliable cohorts and metrics, accelerates experimentation, and de-risks roadmaps.
If you’re scaling analytics, invest first in the platform layer: middleware and compute, schema governance, caching strategies, and cost-aware compute. Do that well, and the visible experience—charts, cohorts, and metrics—feels effortless, even as you grow to serve billions of events with confidence.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
I’ve seen time and again that when content is as data-driven as the product, adoption accelerates. Partnering closely with a data-driven content marketing manager and Amplitude power user, I watched how precise storytelling—grounded in Amplitude analytics—can unlock user activation and retention at scale.
Previously, she managed all customer identity content at Okta.
We started by translating product strategy into measurable moments in the customer journey: activation events, aha moments, and retention cohorts. Using Amplitude analytics, we built funnels and segmentations to isolate high-signal behaviors, ran A/B testing on messaging and in-app guides, and turned retention analysis into an editorial roadmap that spoke to specific use cases and jobs-to-be-done. This unified analytics platform approach ensured the content engine and product telemetry were speaking the same language.
From there, we aligned go-to-market strategy with lifecycle communication—product tours, onboarding sequences, and contextual education that made the value proposition unmistakable. Through continuous discovery and product discovery rituals with product trios, we iterated messaging to sharpen product positioning and reduce time-to-value. The result was content that didn’t just describe features—it moved outcomes.
To keep us honest, we instrumented outcomes vs output OKRs tied to activation rate, expansion intent, and long-term retention. We watched leading indicators (setup completion, power-user actions) roll up into lagging results (weekly active usage and cohort retention), and refined our bets in tight feedback loops.
If you’re building a product-led growth motion, pair your roadmap with a content leader who treats telemetry as a design material. When an Amplitude power user brings the same rigor to narrative that engineers bring to code, the compounding effect on adoption, engagement, and retention is unmistakable.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
I rely on disciplined product benchmarks to turn strategic intent into measurable progress. In B2B technology, benchmarks give me and my team the clarity to prioritize what truly matters, align executives around shared outcomes, and course-correct before small gaps become growth-stalling problems.
Discover exclusive data and strategies from our Product Benchmark Report. Compare the B2B technology industry’s performance across key product metrics.
When I assess product health across a portfolio, I start with a core set of product benchmarks: activation rate, onboarding completion, time-to-first-value, weekly and monthly active accounts, feature adoption, cohort-based retention, expansion and contraction revenue, and support deflection. Together, these metrics show where the product creates value, where users get stuck, and which levers most efficiently drive product-led growth.
Benchmarks are only powerful if they inspire action. I instrument reliable analytics (Amplitude analytics) to capture consistent event data, pair that with in-app guides and product tours (Pendo, Intercom) to test friction hypotheses, and run A/B testing to validate changes with statistical rigor. From there, I translate insights into outcomes-based OKRs, so roadmapping and sprint planning focus on the few bets most likely to move our key product metrics.
I’ve seen this approach pay off repeatedly. When peer benchmarks revealed our user activation lagged, we simplified onboarding, clarified value propositions with sharper UX writing, and launched targeted in-app nudges. We didn’t just ship features—we improved the experience against a clear yardstick, and the subsequent lift in activation and early retention validated the strategy.
Cross-functional alignment is critical. I partner with customer success to interpret retention analysis by segment, with marketing to ensure messaging supports time-to-value, and with engineering to keep quality and reliability high. While product metrics lead, I also keep an eye on complementary signals like incident management and DORA metrics to ensure we’re not trading speed for stability.
If you’re leading a product organization, use benchmarks to calibrate ambition and create focus. Start by identifying the one or two metrics most predictive of long-term retention, set peer-informed targets, and iterate with continuous discovery. The result is a product strategy that is evidence-based, resilient to opinion cycles, and capable of compounding gains over time.
Ultimately, benchmarks aren’t about vanity; they are about velocity. With a shared view of where you stand against the B2B technology industry, you can make sharper bets, accelerate product-market fit, and turn your roadmap into a reliable engine for growth and customer value.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
I’m drawn to builders who choose decades over exits. The story behind Meter—providing full-stack networking infrastructure as a service for businesses—captures that ethos with unusual clarity. From day one, the strategy hinged on vertical integration, business model innovation, and committing to a multi-decade horizon. As a product leader, I see this as the rare combination that compounds: patient R&D, an earned right to own the stack, and a commercial model aligned with customer outcomes.
Why think in 25-year horizons? In entrenched, often monopolistic markets like networking, short-term optimization simply doesn’t move the needle. Incumbents such as Cisco and Meraki shape expectations around procurement, installation, and support. If you want to reset the standard, you can’t iterate around the edges—you have to re-architect the experience end-to-end and give yourself the time to do it right. That’s the difference between building a product and building a company.
I also share the contrarian stance on planning. Rituals can easily masquerade as rigor. “We don’t do OKRs” doesn’t mean don’t align; it means don’t confuse activity with progress. I prefer crisp narratives, simple success metrics, and a cadence that keeps teams close to customers. Planning without over-planning lets you steer with first principles: what problem are we solving, for whom, and how do we know it’s working?
On that note, I relentlessly track unhappy customers. Satisfaction scores and dashboards are lagging indicators; the real signal is in the gaps, escalations, and stuck use cases. Building a habit of surfacing and resolving those moments creates the operational muscle you need later when you scale. It’s also how you find “seller-market fit” and sharpen your go-to-market motion.
The origin story matters. Meter spent four-plus years in heads-down R&D, even scrapping a year of OS work during the process. That discipline—killing good work to unlock great work—is the hallmark of teams that play the long game. Shenzhen accelerated progress by compressing feedback loops between design, manufacturing, and iteration, a reminder that sometimes geography itself is a strategy choice.
Getting to a sales-ready product requires intentional sequencing. Own the interfaces, the telemetry, the install experience, and the service envelope—not just the code. In networking, that means controlling the full stack so performance, reliability, and support converge into one promise. The surprising thing you should innovate isn’t only the feature set—it’s the business model. Turning networking into a service aligns incentives, reduces complexity for customers, and creates durable revenue with clear SLAs.
Avoiding the one-trick pony trap is also central. The best teams design for adjacent expansion from day one: new sites, new form factors, new service layers. The secret to finding an excellent market is to look where switching costs and frustration are both high; that’s where a superior end-to-end experience can pry open demand. That’s also why Meter didn’t sell via traditional channels—a direct motion builds intimacy with the customer problem, strengthens pricing power, and helps validate “seller-market fit.”
Resilience is the throughline: surviving COVID, Apple’s M1 transition, and “a thousand bad days.” In those stretches, pace and patience matter more than theatrics. I’ve learned to decouple management from authority, reduce meta-work, and tackle performance issues quickly—“when the person is the problem,” clarity and speed are an act of care for the whole team. There’s inherent value in going slowly when it preserves quality, trust, and optionality.
For founders and product leaders, the takeaway is simple: build a company you’ll want to run for as long as possible. Focus on first principles decision making, empower product teams, and choose the few metrics that truly reflect customer value. Resist the comfort of templates; adopt only the practices that raise your odds of learning faster than the market evolves. Owning the full stack, rethinking the model, and extending your time horizon can transform even the most entrenched categories.
This is how I aim to run product: fewer rituals, tighter feedback loops, and a relentless bias toward long-term compounding. When you commit to decades, you earn the right to define the category—one thoughtful release, one delighted customer, and one resolved escalation at a time.
I recently listened to Role of Leadership in Transformations – All Things Product Podcast with Teresa Torres & Petra Wille, and it crystallized a pattern I’ve seen across multiple transformations: teams often get trained in continuous discovery, but nothing changes because leadership habits stay the same. If you want to move from projects to true product thinking, “train your leaders first” isn’t a catchy mantra—it’s a prerequisite.
The episode digs into why discovery training can be stellar while adoption still stalls. I’ve witnessed this firsthand: teams return excited to interview customers and test ideas, but leaders continue to manage via features, roadmaps, and approvals. The result is predictable—discovery fades. When leaders evolve how they evaluate work, talk about outcomes, and shape rituals, discovery sticks. Without that shift, even energized, empowered product teams drift back to output.
What resonated most was how organizational dynamics kick in the moment teams start bringing real customer evidence to the table. Discovery uncovers conflicts. Sales, account management, stakeholders, and executives all feel the impact when the old “my job is to tell teams what to build” mindset collides with evidence-driven practices. Hierarchy also clashes with modern product practices—because in discovery, “all ideas come equal.” Product culture isn’t an accident; it must be intentionally created through norms, expectations, and systems that prioritize outcomes over output.
I’ve also seen the leadership skills gap up close. Many product leaders never learned continuous discovery themselves, so they aren’t equipped to coach it, critique it, or celebrate it. This is where great product management leadership shows up: the ability to assess discovery quality, reinforce outcomes vs output OKRs, and run cadences that create momentum. Leaders who invest in building these muscles—often through communities of practice and structured coaching—transform the operating environment for product trios and cross-functional teams.
The episode’s discussion of pilot teams is spot-on. Start small to surface hidden blockers—the corporate “immune system”—before going broad. Pilots expose decision bottlenecks, misaligned incentives, and policy friction that standard training never reveals. Tools like the Product Leadership Wheel help set clearer expectations for the craft of product leadership, while a coherent Product Operating Model makes the path from pilots to full transformation explicit and durable. I’m particularly excited about resources like the Discovery Habits Toolbox because they give leaders practical ways to coach continuous discovery without reverting to feature policing.
Here are the big takeaways I’m carrying forward. Skills training isn’t enough—if leaders still manage through feature requests and static roadmaps, teams will abandon discovery even if they loved the training. Leaders need training too—they must know how to evaluate discovery work, talk about outcomes, and create rituals that reinforce new habits. Discovery will surface conflicts—plan for stakeholder management, alignment with sales and account teams, and executive sponsorship. Product leadership is a craft—seniority alone doesn’t create clarity, systems, or culture. And transformations should start with leaders and pilot teams—because that’s where the real blockers live.
If you want to go deeper, listen to this episode on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5cBTEbYX1YW3BF6icAPXzi or Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/kh/podcast/role-of-leadership-in-transformations/id1794203808?i=1000740342572. It’s a concise masterclass on why leadership behaviors—not just team skills—determine whether continuous discovery thrives.
For further exploration, I recommend these resources. Follow Teresa Torres: https://ProductTalk.org. Follow Petra Wille: https://Petra-Wille.com. Product Talk Academy’s Train Your Team by Teresa Torres: https://learn.producttalk.org/train-your-team. Melissa Perri’s “Train leaders first, not last.” Linkedin post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/melissajeanperri_train-leaders-first-not-last-most-product-activity-7380927349732839424-sqBJ/. Coaching for Product Leaders/Executives by Petra Wille: https://www.petra-wille.com/coaching-packages. Product Leadership Wheel by Petra: https://www.petra-wille.com/plwheel.
To get hands-on with discovery skills, check out Story-Based Customer Interviews: https://learn.producttalk.org/course/story-based-customer-interviews. For visual management, see An idea board—do we see enough potential?: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/…/idea_board3.png and Four Taskboards in a simple illustration: Idea Board, Product Overview Board, Product Discovery Board and Development Team Board: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/…/boards.png. Opportunity Assessment: Do We Want to Invest in Discovering This Idea?: https://www.petra-wille.com/blog/opportunity-assessment-do-we-want-to-invest-in-discovering-this-idea?rq=taskboard.
If you’re preparing your organization to adopt a product operating model, read Is Your Organization Ready to Adopt the Product Operating Model?: https://www.producttalk.org/organizational-readiness/ and The Product Operating Model Explained: From Pilot Teams to Full Transformation: https://www.producttalk.org/the-product-operating-model/. Communities of practice can accelerate leadership growth: Community of Practice by Petra: https://www.petra-wille.com/community-of-practice. For foundational texts, see TRANSFORMED: Moving to the Product Operating Model: https://www.svpg.com/books/transformed-moving-to-the-product-operating-model/ and EMPOWERED: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Products: https://www.svpg.com/books/empowered-ordinary-people-extraordinary-products/.
I’d love to hear how you’re enabling continuous discovery in your context. What leadership behaviors have made the biggest difference? Where does your corporate immune system show up, and how are you addressing it with pilot teams, clearer expectations, and a consistent product operating model? Share your perspective—I read every comment.
Once I’ve defined the right roles on my team, the next move is to design an operating model that makes progress a habit. My goal is simple: every interaction should strengthen the system so the AI Agent keeps improving over time.
I anchor the team on a mantra that has never failed me: “The first time you answer a question should be the last.” That single statement reframes support as a compounding system rather than a one-off activity.
The ambition is to ensure every resolution makes the next one faster and more accurate, so fewer issues repeat, quality compounds, and support scales naturally. That doesn’t happen by accident—it requires intentional design.
In practice, this comes down to four essentials: clear ownership of performance, guardrails that make iteration fast and safe, feedback loops that turn learning into routine upgrades, and a culture that celebrates the work of improvement—not just the outcomes. Here’s how I put that into play.
First, I start with clear ownership. Ambiguity is one of the most common reasons AI performance plateaus. When no one truly owns how the AI Agent performs, feedback gets lost, issues linger, and improvements stall.
On high-performing teams, I assign a single owner—often an AI ops lead—responsible for making the AI Agent better. They review resolution trends to spot underperformance, make targeted updates to content, configuration, and behavior, coordinate with product and engineering on systemic blockers, and set improvement priorities, targets, and timelines. The title matters less than the mandate; what matters is clear authority to drive change across teams.
Real-world example: At Dotdigital, AI performance plateaued after a strong start—resolving around 2,800 conversations per month for three consecutive months. To drive resolution rates up, the team created a dedicated support operations specialist role, filled by an experienced agent with deep product knowledge. This person will focus on refining snippets, improving content, and enhancing the AI’s resolution capabilities.
Second, I make iteration fast and safe. As the AI Agent takes on more volume and complexity, change can start to feel risky—so teams hesitate, and performance stalls. Lightweight governance fixes that by making the path from insight to action predictable.
I keep the rules simple and explicit: which changes need review (and which don’t), who the decision-makers are, how we test updates before they go live, where feedback flows so it’s seen and acted on, and when progress gets reviewed on a steady cadence. Governance isn’t bureaucracy—it’s what keeps improvement routine and safe.
Real-world example: Anthropic ran a focused “Fin hackathon” sprint to improve their AI Agent’s resolution rate. The team audited unresolved queries, identified underperforming topics, and created or updated content to close gaps. They converted frequently used macros into AI-usable snippets, monitored Fin’s performance during live support, and continuously refined content based on real interactions. This structured approach enabled rapid improvement while maintaining quality standards.
Third, I build a system that learns by default. AI performance isn’t static, but many organizations treat it like a one-time implementation. The most successful teams operationalize learning: they analyze where the AI Agent struggles and feed those insights directly into structured improvements.
The signals are straightforward: review common handoffs to humans, track unresolved queries by topic or intent, measure resolution rate trends over time, and use those inputs to prioritize fixes and content upgrades. Whether you follow a formal loop like the Fin Flywheel framework or something lighter, the goal is the same—make improvement inevitable.
Fourth, I treat content as competitive infrastructure. Your AI Agent is only as good as what it knows. As George Dilthey, Head of Support at Clay, put it: “That’s when we realized: AI doesn’t just come up with information out of nowhere, you have to feed it. We were spending all our time evaluating tools when we should’ve been focused on content.”
I operationalize knowledge like infrastructure: every topic has a clear owner, content is structured, versioned, and ingestion-ready, new products ship with source-of-truth content by default, and changes ship on a schedule—not when someone finds time. This is the backbone that differentiates teams who scale confidently from those who stall out.
In my organization, we’ve evolved our New Product Introduction (NPI) process by aligning early with R&D on a single, canonical source of truth that becomes the foundation for all downstream content—including what the AI Agent uses to resolve queries. By embedding content creation into launch readiness, not as an afterthought, we’ve consistently hit 50%+ resolution rates on new features from day one.
Finally, I make belief visible. Even the best system will stagnate if people stop believing in it. Belief can fade quietly unless you reinforce it on purpose. I keep it strong by sharing specific wins regularly, highlighting improvements with metrics, and recognizing the people behind the gains—then giving them space to lead. This isn’t just about morale; it keeps everyone aligned on the bigger play.
When you put it all together—clear ownership, safe iteration, a learning system by default, and content as infrastructure—AI performance compounds. As the AI Agent gets better, the entire support model becomes faster, more reliable, and truly scalable. That’s the foundation of a modern, AI-first support organization.
Next, I’ll take this a level deeper and share how capacity planning changes when AI handles the majority of inbound volume and your team shifts into higher-value roles. If scaling with confidence is the goal, this is where the operating model pays off.
When I sit down with our product trios to shape the next quarter’s roadmap, I rely on The Kano Model to cut through the noise and focus on what actually moves the needle for customers and the business. It gives me a rigorous, human-centered lens for separating baseline expectations from differentiators and sustained value creation.
Learn how the Kano Model prioritizes the product features that matter by categorizing them into must-haves, satisfiers, and delighters.
Here’s how I think about each category in practice. Must-haves are the non-negotiables—if they’re missing or broken, no amount of innovation will save the experience. Satisfiers scale linearly with user happiness; do them better, and customers feel the improvement immediately. Delighters surprise users with unexpected value that elevates the product’s perceived quality and creates memorable moments that fuel advocacy.
In continuous discovery, I mix quantitative Kano surveys with qualitative interviews to validate which capabilities land in each bucket for specific segments. We ask both functional and dysfunctional questions (e.g., “How would you feel if this feature existed?” and “How would you feel if it didn’t?”) to avoid false positives and to distinguish true delighters from nice-to-haves. This approach de-risks assumptions and keeps our product discovery anchored in real customer voice.
Translating insights into action starts with outcomes vs output OKRs. Must-haves protect core outcomes like reliability, trust, and activation. Satisfiers inform product roadmapping and sprint planning by tying investment to measurable improvements such as speed, accuracy, or completion rate. Delighters earn a deliberate share of the roadmap to strengthen competitive differentiation and to refresh our value proposition before market expectations shift.
Kano also sharpens product-led growth motions. By aligning satisfiers with key activation steps and running retention analysis on cohorts exposed to delighters, we can see where excitement features become habit-forming behaviors. When a delighter consistently correlates with improved retention or expansion, it graduates into the backbone of our product positioning.
Stakeholder management gets easier with a shared framework. I present the portfolio as a balanced mix: must-haves that protect reputation, satisfiers that demonstrate continuous improvement, and delighters that signal vision. This narrative connects short-term reliability with long-term strategy and helps leaders understand why some high-effort ideas are best sequenced behind critical must-haves or high-yield satisfiers.
A quick caution: delighters decay. What delights today often becomes tomorrow’s must-have. I schedule periodic re-reads of our Kano results, especially after major releases or market shifts, to recalibrate where features sit. Combined with A/B testing and usage analytics, this habit prevents us from over-investing in fading differentiators and ensures our roadmap stays crisp and customer-centered.
If your roadmap feels crowded or your team debates priorities without resolution, bring The Kano Model to your next planning session. It adds structure to product discovery, clarifies trade-offs, and helps us deliver a roadmap that not only works—but wins.
I build products on the belief that trust is earned in every design decision and every deployment. Trust has always been a first principle at Intercom, from our early investments in security and privacy to the globally recognized certifications that shape our approach today.
As AI becomes more deeply embedded in customer-facing work, it’s essential that businesses can rely on systems that are safe, reliable, and governed to the highest standards. That’s why we’re proud to share that Intercom is now AIUC-1 certified, becoming one of the first companies to meet the world’s first standard designed specifically for AI Agents. For leaders navigating AI Strategy and AI risk management, this is more than a badge—it’s a measurable leap forward in governance and operational rigor.
AIUC-1 is the first certification tailored to the unique risks and challenges of AI Agents. It complements broader AI governance frameworks like ISO 42001 by focusing on enterprise-specific concerns like security, customer safety, system reliability, data and privacy, society, and accountability. In practice, this alignment helps us translate policy into deployable safeguards across cybersecurity, data governance, and regulatory compliance.
To achieve certification, organizations undergo independent third-party audits and quarterly adversarial testing across more than a thousand enterprise risk scenarios. This continuous technical evaluation ensures that AI systems remain robust against fast-evolving threats and that safeguards keep pace with rapid progress in the field. As a product leader, I welcome this level of scrutiny—it’s how we operationalize threat detection and response and make agentic AI dependable at scale.
AIUC-1 itself evolves every quarter, incorporating new research, threat patterns, and global best practices. The standard is shaped by the AIUC-1 Consortium, launched in November with more than 50 founding members who collectively handle tens of trillions of dollars in payments and serve over a billion people daily. Intercom is proud not only to be certified, but to be recognized as a founding technical contributor helping shape the development of the standard. That continuous, community-driven iteration mirrors how we build—measure, learn, and harden—so our customers benefit from real-world, enterprise-ready AI.
Intercom has decades of combined experience in security, compliance, and trust, and we’ve consistently demonstrated that robust governance and fast innovation can coexist. Achieving AIUC-1 certification reinforces that the same rigor we apply across our platform also extends to Fin, our AI Agent. I’ve seen first-hand how risk and procurement teams evaluate generative AI: they expect clarity, evidence, and controls. This certification delivers independent proof that our approach meets those expectations.
For our customers, this certification provides independent validation that Intercom’s AI systems are safe, resilient, and enterprise-ready. It confirms that our AI is tested regularly, built with strong safeguards, and aligned with the expectations of modern security and risk teams. It also signals our continued leadership in shaping responsible AI practices globally, ensuring our customers benefit from standards built for real-world use. In short, you can move faster with confidence—without compromising on governance.
Intercom has always approached trust as an ongoing commitment. AIUC-1 strengthens the foundation we’ve built across other frameworks and certifications, including SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27701, ISO 27018, HIPAA, HDS, and ISO 42001. Together, these certifications create a comprehensive control fabric across privacy, security, and reliability—critical pillars for any enterprise deploying gen AI into production workflows.
As AI technology accelerates, we will continue to evolve our safeguards, deepen our governance practices, and contribute to the standards that shape responsible AI. Our promise is simple: to build AI that is not only powerful and efficient, but safe, transparent, and deserving of the trust our customers place in us. That’s how we turn innovation into durable value.
You can learn more about our certifications and access our security and compliance documentation through the Intercom Trust Center.
Get started with Fin and see how an AIUC-1 certified, enterprise-ready AI Agent can elevate your customer experience with confidence.
Product analytics isn’t a specialist’s sport—it’s a team capability. In my role leading product teams, I’ve seen designers, engineers, marketers, and customer success partners uncover insights that shape strategy, accelerate product-led growth, and improve outcomes for customers. When we demystify the basics and bring analytics into everyday decisions, we build truly empowered product teams.
Here’s the core promise of this approach: "Learn the product analytics fundamentals of funnels, retention, and conversion drivers so that anyone can confidently answer key product questions." That line has guided how I teach product managers to think—start with the essentials, tie them to real customer behaviors, and make the work repeatable across the organization.
I start with funnels because they tell a story—the journey from discovery to value. A simple example: track the path from sign-up to user activation to the first value event. This reveals where onboarding succeeds or stalls, what friction blocks adoption, and which moments are ripe for optimization. With tools like Amplitude analytics or Pendo, we can break down conversions by segment, channel, or feature usage to isolate where improvements matter most.
Next comes retention analysis, the clearest signal that we’re building something customers choose to return to. Cohort analysis shows who comes back and when; retention curves show where value compels a second, third, and tenth use. Tie retention to activation milestones and the outcomes customers achieve—not just logins—and you’ll quickly spot whether your product discovery assumptions hold up in the wild. A unified analytics platform makes these insights discoverable and repeatable across teams.
Conversion drivers round out the picture. Once the funnel is clear and retention is stable, I look for the behaviors and experiences that predict success: feature combinations, time-to-value, message timing, or supportive content. Whether in Amplitude analytics or Pendo, correlating these drivers with outcomes lets us prioritize roadmaps with confidence. Pair this with continuous discovery—qualitative interviews, in-product feedback, and rapid experiments—and you’ll move from interesting data to decisive actions.
This is how we build empowered product teams: by making analytics a daily habit rather than a quarterly report. We bring insights into roadmap reviews, design critiques, and sprint planning; we celebrate learning from experiments as much as shipping features; and we hold ourselves accountable to customer outcomes, not just output. When everyone can interpret funnels, discuss retention, and isolate conversion drivers, we make smarter bets faster.
If you’re getting started, keep it simple. Define a clear activation metric, instrument the top of your funnel, and track a small number of cohorts. Share a weekly readout with highlights, surprises, and questions to investigate. Over time, stitch insights into narratives that drive product-led growth—and, most importantly, help customers achieve what they came for.
Product analytics isn’t just for analysts. It’s a shared language for product discovery, onboarding excellence, user activation, and long-term retention. When we practice it together, we build better products and stronger teams.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
