In fast-moving product cycles, weak signals slow teams down and let avoidable issues linger. I’ve been leaning on Session Replay to strengthen those signals and align stakeholders faster, especially when we’re balancing roadmap bets with day-to-day reliability fixes.
Discover how frustration analytics, error analytics, and shareable filters in Session Replay help you spot problems faster and collaborate more effectively.
Frustration analytics has become my shortcut to the moments that truly matter. Instead of sifting through countless replays, I start where friction peaks and focus on the sessions that best represent real user pain. In one onboarding flow, these insights pointed us to a confusing step that was suppressing user activation; a simple adjustment to the layout and copy led to higher completions and fewer support tickets.
Error analytics turns anecdotes into evidence. By pairing error trends with conversion and retention analysis in Amplitude analytics, we isolate the defects with the highest customer and revenue impact. That clarity helps my team sequence fixes in sprint planning with confidence—and it gives leadership a clean narrative for why certain issues deserve priority now.
Shareable filters have been a quiet superpower for cross-functional collaboration. I create saved views for specific cohorts—first-time users, power users, or high‑value accounts—so engineering, design, and support can reproduce exactly what I’m seeing in Session Replay. No more screen recordings in Slack or back-and-forth on “what filters did you use?” Everyone starts from the same context and moves to decisions faster.
This workflow fits naturally into how our product trios practice continuous discovery. We pick one question each week, open a shared filter, and review a handful of targeted sessions together. Within the same unified analytics platform, we connect what we observe to metrics that matter, then translate insights directly into product roadmapping and sprint planning without losing momentum.
If your goal is sharper detection of issues and stronger collaboration across stakeholders, these capabilities deserve a place in your toolkit. They compress time-to-insight, improve stakeholder management, and fuel product-led growth by focusing attention where it delivers the most customer value.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Balancing rigorous governance with relentless shipping velocity is the product leader’s paradox. When I say we must "Govern Like an Enterprise, Ship Like a Startup," I’m describing a culture where controls are hardwired into how we build—without slowing down how fast we learn and deliver value.
Learn how to scale data quality, automate compliance, and build AI-ready data foundations with Amplitude’s latest enterprise governance features.
In practice, governing like an enterprise starts with uncompromising data governance, privacy-by-design, and regulatory compliance. I expect standardized tracking plans, clear ownership, and role-based access to be non-negotiable. Auditability matters as much as usability, and our analytics stack must enable trustworthy insights while protecting sensitive data and reducing operational risk.
Shipping like a startup means we align governance with product velocity. My teams use CI/CD principles for analytics (think automated schema checks and data contracts), pair tracking changes with code reviews, and treat approval workflows as guardrails—not gates. We work as product trios, run continuous discovery, and keep event taxonomies lightweight and evolvable so iteration never stalls.
Compliance cannot be an afterthought; it has to be automated. Embedding least-privilege access, consent metadata, and policy-as-code into everyday workflows turns regulatory compliance and cybersecurity from projects into practices. The result is fewer surprises during audits and more confidence during releases.
Building AI-ready data foundations raises the bar further. Clean, consistent, and well-labeled event data; documented lineage; and explicit handling of PII give our models the context they need while honoring privacy commitments. This is how an AI Strategy moves beyond experimentation to measurable impact.
Amplitude analytics plays a pivotal role as part of a unified analytics platform strategy: it helps us codify standards, democratize insights safely, and maintain a single source of truth for product decisions. With the right governance features in place, teams can self-serve with confidence while leaders get the assurance that quality and compliance scale with growth.
If your organization is pushing for product-led growth while raising the bar on data governance, it’s time to operationalize both sides of the equation. The payoff is tangible: faster iteration cycles, stronger signal quality, lower risk, and a foundation that’s truly ready for AI-driven innovation.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Every successful AI initiative I’ve led or advised has shared the same foundation: we treat data as a product. Models will improve, infrastructure will evolve, and use cases will expand—but only high-quality, well-governed, and well-structured data compounds value over time.
“Companies that prioritize data quality, governance, and structure will accelerate their AI initiatives the fastest.” That line has become a non-negotiable principle in my playbook because it consistently separates prototypes that stall from platforms that scale.
When I say data quality, I mean trustworthy signals: clear definitions, deduplication, lineage, and timely freshness. Governance adds accountability and safety: ownership, access controls, auditability, and privacy-by-design aligned with regulatory compliance. Structure makes it all usable: consistent schemas, event taxonomies, and feature stores that let product teams ship faster without reinventing pipelines.
In practice, this looks like aligning an AI Strategy with a unified analytics platform so every team works from the same truth. It means instrumenting feedback loops, labeling outcomes, and building a retrieval-first pipeline that brings the right context to LLMs at the right time. It also means thoughtful context window management so models remain grounded, relevant, and cost-efficient.
I’ve seen the difference firsthand. Early gen ai prototypes built on messy, conflicting data looked promising in demos but failed in the wild—hallucinations spiked, confidence scores dipped, and user trust eroded. Once we tightened governance, standardized schemas, and implemented human-in-the-loop evaluation, accuracy climbed, risk dropped, and feature velocity increased without sacrificing safety.
For product managers, the mandate is clear: treat data work as core product work. Define quality SLAs, make data contracts explicit, and give empowered product teams the tools to observe, debug, and improve signals continuously. Pair AI risk management with measurable product outcomes, and you’ll turn experimentation into a durable advantage.
The payoff is more than model performance; it’s organizational clarity and speed. With the right data foundation, LLMs for product managers become easier to deploy, customer experiences feel coherent, and roadmaps shift from firefighting to compounding wins. Invest in data quality, governance, and structure now, and your AI initiatives won’t just move faster—they’ll sustain momentum.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Every time I ship a new generative AI capability with my product teams, I’m reminded that governance isn’t a compliance afterthought—it’s a strategic advantage. In today’s landscape, the way we govern data determines how quickly we can innovate, how confidently we can scale, and how credibly we can talk about risk with customers, regulators, and our own board.
New AI pressures are redefining what good governance takes. Learn how to build better frameworks, move fast with confidence, and keep your data from being a black box.
My north star for AI Strategy is simple: align business outcomes with responsible practices that are auditable, repeatable, and fast. Practically, that means codifying AI risk management, privacy-by-design, and regulatory compliance into the product lifecycle—requirements, design, build, deploy, and operate. When those guardrails live inside our workflows (not just in policy docs), we accelerate delivery without increasing exposure.
Visibility breaks the “black box.” I start by establishing a unified analytics platform and a living data catalog with lineage, classification, and stewardship. When we pair that with a retrieval-first pipeline for LLMs, we can trace exactly which sources informed a response, who had access, and whether consent and retention rules were honored. Provenance, RBAC/ABAC, encryption, and deterministic masking stop sensitive data from leaking into training sets while keeping our teams productive.
Speed with safety comes from engineering the right controls into CI/CD. Before any AI feature hits production, we run automated checks for PII exposure, policy violations, adversarial prompts, and data drift; then we add human-in-the-loop review where stakes are high. Continuous monitoring, audit logs, and playbooks for incident management and threat detection and response turn governance into an everyday habit rather than a once-a-quarter ritual.
In the first 30 days, I inventory systems, map data flows, and assign clear ownership. We define data quality SLAs, document lawful bases for processing, and publish a concise policy that product managers and engineers can actually use. This anchors stakeholder management and sets expectations for trade-offs.
By day 60, we implement fine-grained access controls, consent-aware tracking, and consistent metadata standards across sources. We wire dashboards for high-signal metrics—access attempts, data minimization, model input/output risk flags—so leaders can see governance health at a glance and course-correct quickly.
By day 90, we close the loop with outcomes vs output OKRs, tying governance to business impact: faster cycle times, fewer incidents, and higher customer trust. Training for LLMs for product managers and communities of practice ensure empowered product teams can make judgment calls confidently, not wait for gatekeepers.
If you’ve felt the friction between innovation and oversight, you’re not alone. The good news is that the right framework lets us do both: move fast with confidence, demonstrate responsible AI, and earn the trust that compounds into product-led growth. That’s the real promise of modern data governance—and it’s how we make sure our AI is powerful, reliable, and never a black box.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
I’ve felt the drag of data bottlenecks firsthand—PMs waiting on a reporting queue, engineers guessing at success metrics, and stakeholders making decisions with partial context. The “Add Data to Cart” mindset changed the game for me: make high-quality data as easy to request, enrich, and consume as dropping an item into a shopping cart.
Learn how Ankorstore’s teams make autonomous decisions, leveraging enriched data from Amplitude to accelerate feature delivery and drive topline growth.
Here’s what resonates with me and how I apply it in practice. When teams get self-serve access to a unified analytics platform like Amplitude analytics, decision autonomy becomes the default. Product trios operate with clarity, discovery cycles tighten, and we ship with confidence because the evidence is visible to everyone, not buried in a backlog.
The foundation is a clean, shared event taxonomy. I prioritize naming conventions, consistent properties, and governance so we can enrich events once and reuse them across A/B testing, retention analysis, and user activation dashboards. This lets product managers answer critical questions—Who’s activating? Which cohorts retain? Which journeys convert?—without waiting on an analyst, while still preserving data quality.
In my teams, “Add Data to Cart” means we treat data like a product. If a feature team needs a new event or property, they can request it with clear definitions, privacy requirements, and owners. We standardize the instrumentation pattern, ship it through CI/CD, document the event, and surface it in curated Amplitude reports. The result is faster feature delivery and fewer ad-hoc asks.
The payoff shows up in everyday decisions. Product managers run A/B tests with a minimum detectable effect (MDE) they can justify, analysts focus on deeper insights instead of ad-hoc tickets, and engineers get immediate feedback loops post-release. It’s a blueprint for product-led growth: know what moves activation, double down on the paths that retain, and sunset the work that doesn’t move outcomes.
Governance matters as much as speed. I pair data governance with privacy-by-design so teams can move quickly without risking compliance or eroding trust. That means documented event definitions, role-based access, and well-labeled dashboards that steer people to the right sources of truth.
If you’re starting from scratch, begin small: instrument a single critical flow end to end, publish three core dashboards everyone can find, and hold weekly readouts where teams share what changed because of the data. Within a few sprints, the habit forms—questions get sharper, hypotheses improve, and the roadmap shifts from output to outcomes.
“Add Data to Cart” isn’t just a catchy phrase; it’s a practical way to empower product teams. With enriched data in Amplitude, autonomous decisions become the norm, discovery accelerates, and growth compounds because every iteration is informed by what customers actually do.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
AI doesn’t fail because the model is bad, it fails because ownership is missing.
When someone truly owns your AI, everything changes. Resolution and automation rates climb, the system self-improves, and the customer experience transforms in ways a dashboard alone will never show you.
This is part three of our five-part series on customer service planning for 2026. We’ll be sharing all five editions on our blog and on LinkedIn.
If you’d rather have them emailed to you directly as they’re published, drop your details here.
Last week, we introduced the four roles that make AI actually work in a support organization. These roles are already showing up inside the teams who are scaling AI the fastest, and this week, we get closer to the ground.
Here’s what these roles look like in practice — what they do, how they work, and why your AI performance will inevitably drift without them.
AI operations lead — owns AI performance, every day. I think of this person as the air-traffic controller for our AI Agent. I treat the AI as a living system that needs ongoing supervision, evaluation, and tuning. This role is accountable for what leaders care about most: quality, reliability, and continuous improvement.
The AI ops lead sees the whole picture: conversation quality, missing knowledge, flawed assumptions, unexpected failures, new opportunities for automation, and the subtle signals that the system is beginning to drift. In practice, that vigilance is the difference between steady gains and slow decline.
Day-to-day, here’s what I expect from this role.
1. Reviews AI conversations and surfaces performance patterns. The AI ops lead monitors the AI Agent’s behavior — the tone shift after a product launch, a sudden dip in resolution for a specific intent, or conversation clusters revealing new customer behavior. They scan for anomalies, trends, and early warnings, with an emphasis on what’s happening right now, not last week. Without this intentional ownership, I’ve watched a 2% dip turn into a 10% drop in days.
2. Prioritizes fixes and improvements. Once patterns emerge, they triage fixes like a product team handles bugs. Missing or incorrect content? They route it to the knowledge manager. Behavioral issues? They adjust guidance and guardrails. Action or system issues? They partner with the automation specialist. This connective tissue turns individual fixes into compounding improvements.
3. Defines and maintains AI guardrails. Leaders everywhere worry about AI doing things it shouldn’t. This role answers that fear by establishing clarification logic, escalation rules, “never answer” policies, and safety boundaries. The goal is predictable behavior that protects customer trust — an essential pillar of any AI Strategy and AI risk management practice.
4. Aligns reporting with leadership. The AI ops lead reports on resolution rate, CX Score, CSAT, automation coverage, and hours saved — making the economic impact visible. That visibility is a foundational step in any credible customer support ai strategy.
Why this role exists now. AI systems are dynamic and require constant tuning. A small dip in quality quickly becomes an operational issue, and no existing role naturally owns that. When someone does, teams feel the benefit almost immediately.
Knowledge manager — builds and maintains the structured knowledge AI depends on. I hear the same thing from leaders again and again: AI is only as good as the content you give it. This role is rapidly evolving from classic knowledge management into knowledge strategy — part content designer, part systems thinker, part information architect. Their job is to build the knowledge scaffolding that lets AI answer accurately, consistently, and safely.
Here’s how the knowledge manager creates leverage.
1. Writes, maintains, and improves support knowledge — continuously. After every product change, they update articles, remove duplication, resolve contradictions, and pay down “knowledge debt” that quietly erodes accuracy. The upkeep is shaped by AI performance; when patterns expose gaps, they fix the source.
2. Structures knowledge for AI, not for browsing. Traditional help centers are for humans skimming pages. AI needs clean intent signals, crisp formatting, and clearly structured language. The knowledge manager designs that structure as intentionally as the content itself.
3. Works hand-in-hand with AI ops. Many performance issues stem from missing or unclear knowledge. When the AI ops lead surfaces recurring misunderstandings or low-resolution categories, the knowledge manager resolves the root cause at the source.
4. Ensures accuracy and compliance at scale. As AI handles more sensitive situations, the knowledge manager safeguards correctness, currency, and compliance — critical for data governance and regulatory alignment.
5. Develops a cross-functional knowledge strategy. The role creates a canonical, cross-functional source of truth that product, engineering, product marketing, go-to-market, and support (AI and human) can all rely on.
Why this role exists now. This is one of the highest-leverage positions in an AI-first support org. Teams like Rocket Money and Anthropic are hiring knowledge managers because AI accuracy depends on the quality of knowledge feeding it. Without this role, resolution rate caps out early and never climbs.
Conversation designer — designs how the AI speaks, clarifies, and interacts. AI isn’t just a tool customers use; it’s a representative they interact with. Tone, clarity, pacing, and conversational structure matter, especially in voice. Every word affects perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and brand. The conversation designer ensures the AI feels human-friendly without pretending to be human — the sweet spot that builds trust without misleading customers.
In my experience, staffing conversation design early accelerates results. It changes not only how we tune AI, but how we understand the end-to-end customer experience.
Here’s what great conversation design looks like.
1. Shapes the AI’s tone, voice, and communication style. This role refines phrasing, tunes politeness, adjusts how confusion is handled, and shapes micro-interactions that determine whether customers feel cared for or dismissed. On voice channels, natural cadence is make-or-break.
2. Designs flows for high-value conversations. They design how the AI clarifies intent, branches, communicates uncertainty, verifies details, escalates, hands off, and returns to the main thread without feeling mechanical — treating customer experience as a product with language as the interface.
3. Translates procedures and complex workflows into natural language and logic. As AI runs structured procedures and actions, this role becomes a conversational system architect, translating SOPs into conditional logic with exceptions and fallbacks. For example, in Intercom, our conversation designer uses Simulations to run simulated conversations to see where the AI Agent gets confused, over-confident, or awkward, and refine flows until the interaction feels effortless end-to-end.
4. Ensures transitions to humans feel smooth and respectful. Handoffs should provide clear context to the human agent and maintain continuity so customers never feel dropped.
Why this role exists now. As AI becomes the primary interface, conversation design directly influences trust, brand perception, and operational outcomes. It’s a core competency for any Generative AI and LLMs for product managers program.
Support automation specialist — builds the backend actions that allow AI to do real work. If the conversation designer shapes expression, this role shapes capability. They transform AI from an answering machine into an outcome engine by bridging AI and the systems it must safely and deterministically act on.
Support teams increasingly expect AI to do what a human would do: refund a charge, adjust a subscription, verify an identity, update an account setting, or pull relevant data. That expectation creates a new technical role at the edge of support, ops, and engineering.
What I rely on this specialist to deliver.
1. Creates and maintains backend workflows the AI executes. This includes building and maintaining: Fin Tasks. Fin Procedures with embedded steps. Action flows that call internal and external APIs. Automations that span billing systems, user identity layers, CRM objects, subscription entitlements, refund tools, and more. They ensure the AI can act compliantly and predictably — the playbooks that turn intent into action.
2. Owns the integrations required for advanced automation. Many problems require data elsewhere — billing platforms, internal databases, systems of record. The specialist ensures the AI can retrieve, validate, and use that information safely, often partnering closely on CRM integration and internal services.
3. Partners closely with product and engineering. Some workflows require new endpoints, permission layers, safety gates, or deterministic fallbacks. This role drives those changes across the stack.
4. Ensures reliability and safety at every step. Guardrails, validation logic, exception handling, safe execution paths — all are essential. They confirm that the AI has access to the correct data, the action matches policy, edge cases are accounted for, risky flows have deterministic constraints, and every action is auditable and reversible.
Why this role exists now. Customers don’t want answers, they want outcomes. AI can now deliver those outcomes, but only with the right backend scaffolding. This role modernizes operational architecture and unlocks end-to-end automation.
How these roles work together — the new operating loop. These roles aren’t silos; they’re interdependent parts of one system. The AI ops lead identifies patterns and performance gaps. The knowledge manager resolves inaccuracies or missing content. The conversation designer improves clarity, tone, and flow. The automation specialist expands the system’s ability to take action. Each improvement compounds the next, moving you from early automation to transformational resolution rates through continuous refinement.
This loop is what separates teams that plateau early from teams that scale AI into a reliable, high-performing system — the essence of a durable AI Strategy.
How to get started (even if you can’t hire all four roles today). Most teams phase into this model: assign partial ownership, formalize responsibilities, then specialize as AI volume grows. Here’s the progression I recommend.
Phase 1: Assign ownership. Give each role’s core responsibilities to someone who can devote five to 10 hours weekly. Early on, support ops, enablement, senior ICs, and technically inclined teammates can anchor the work.
Phase 2: Formalize the responsibilities. As AI resolves more queries, optimization becomes core operational work. Formalizing ownership prevents performance drift and knowledge debt.
Phase 3: Specialize and hire. Once AI handles 50–70% of incoming volume, these responsibilities become full-time roles. Investing in specialization becomes essential infrastructure for the next scale stage.
The bottom line. AI changes the shape of your support team. These four roles — AI operations lead, knowledge manager, conversation designer, and support automation specialist — form the backbone of the AI-first support organization. They bring order to a constantly changing environment and enable AI to deliver the outcomes leaders and customers expect heading into 2026.
Next week, we’ll continue the 2026 planning series with a deep dive into org design models for AI-first support teams — how to structure people, workflows, and accountability in a world where AI resolves most conversations before a human ever sees them.
To follow along with the series and have each new edition emailed to you directly, drop your details here.
I recently revisited a topic I once pushed back on: using AI to analyze (and maybe even synthesize) customer interviews. After six months of real-world experiments and countless conversations with seasoned product leaders, I’ve evolved my perspective. There is meaningful value here—but only when we’re clear about where AI helps and where it quietly erodes the hard-won customer understanding that powers great product decisions.
If you want to experience the conversation that sparked this reflection, you can listen to the episode on Spotify or Apple Podcast, and watch the discussion here: YouTube. It’s a candid, practical exploration of AI’s role in continuous discovery, and it mirrors what I’m seeing on the ground with product trios and empowered product teams.
Here’s the crux: AI raises the floor for beginners but accelerates experts even more. That matches my experience—early-career PMs get structure, momentum, and a confidence boost, while experienced interviewers can move faster without sacrificing nuance. But there’s a catch. If your interviewing skills aren’t solid yet, AI can create a veneer of insight that masks shallow understanding. In other words, it can help you go wrong more efficiently.
The conversation makes an important distinction between analysis and synthesis. Analysis is about extracting signals from the interview. Synthesis is about building meaning—connecting patterns, weighing contradictions, and deciding what to do next. AI can speed up the former with summaries and highlights. The latter—true synthesis—still demands expert judgment, context, and empathy.
One line from the episode stuck with me: your unpolished interview skills matter more than any shiny new AI workflow. I’ve felt that firsthand. When interview quality is uneven, dropping transcripts into an LLM won’t save you. You still need to synthesize every interview individually so the signals remain traceable and credible. That discipline keeps teams aligned, prevents overfitting to noise, and builds the organizational memory that fuels better bets.
We also explored the operational reality most teams face: interviews pile up. Backlogs grow. Leaders want speed. This is where “expert + AI” shines. With the right prompts, templates, and context, tools like ChatGPT and Claude can help transform raw transcripts into structured artifacts you can trust—provided a strong interviewer sets the frame and makes the calls. That balance preserves both velocity and quality.
What changed my mind most was the evidence from experiments—running sets of interviews through different LLMs and comparing outcomes. The patterns were consistent: beginner + AI is usually better than nothing, but the real performance gains come from expert + AI. When experts guide the process, AI becomes an accelerant rather than a crutch.
A favorite story in the episode takes a detour into building a gaming PC—an unexpected but perfect metaphor for AI’s limits. You can get great step-by-step guidance from a model, but when context shifts or edge cases appear, expertise is what keeps you from making expensive mistakes. Customer interviews are like that. Empathy comes from human interaction; AI can’t replace the experience of talking directly to your customers.
My practical guidance for teams integrating AI into continuous discovery: start with interviewing fundamentals, separate analysis from synthesis, and standardize how you capture single-interview learnings. If you need a tight template for this, refer to “The Interview Snapshot: How to Synthesize and Share What You Learned from a Single Customer Interview.” Use AI for summaries, clustering, and draft artifacts—but have an expert finalize the narratives, evaluate trade-offs, and document assumptions.
If you’re scaling this across an organization, invest in training first, then in workflows. Build a lightweight operating system for discovery: consistent interview guides, “story-based” techniques, and a shared library of prompts. Consider resources like “The Interview Coach,” as well as practical write-ups such as “Customer Interview Analysis: Where AI Helps and Hurts.” These help teams avoid common pitfalls and make better use of AI in high-judgment moments.
My bottom line: AI isn’t magic. It can help, but only if your interviews are strong and you provide the right context. Customer understanding is a competitive moat; outsourcing it entirely will cost you in the long run. Use AI to accelerate—not replace—the human judgment that makes product discovery work.
Resources and links worth exploring: ChatGPT, Claude, The Interview Snapshot: How to Synthesize and Share What You Learned from a Single Customer Interview, The Interview Coach, and Customer Interview Analysis: Where AI Helps and Hurts.
I’d love to hear how your team is using AI in discovery. What’s working, what’s risky, and where do you draw the line between automation and judgment? Share your experiences in the comments—our community learns faster when we compare notes.
When I push our organization to adopt the product operating model, I’m emphasizing a foundational shift—from “shipping roadmaps of features (output)” to solving real customer and business problems, measured by “business results (outcomes)”. That’s the difference between activity and impact, and it’s the only way to build durable value at scale.
This change inevitably reaches beyond the product organization. It reshapes how company stakeholders in Sales, Marketing, Customer Success, Finance, Legal, Security, and Operations engage with product teams, and it reframes what they expect from us. Instead of asking, “When will feature X ship?” they learn to ask, “How will we move the outcome that matters?”
In practice, the product operating model is a contract: product teams commit to outcomes, and stakeholders commit to partnership. That partnership means we co-own the problem, align on evidence, and share accountability for results. The reward is clarity—everyone sees how their work ladders to strategy and why the sequence of work makes sense.
Here’s how I align stakeholders around this model. First, I ground everything in outcomes vs output OKRs. We replace feature roadmaps with a clear strategy, prioritized problems, and measurable objectives. Our product roadmapping and sprint planning then serve the objectives—not the other way around—so capacity is allocated to the highest-leverage bets.
Second, I build empowered product teams around product trios (product, design, engineering). We practice continuous discovery with stakeholders: we share opportunity trees, test riskiest assumptions early, and bring partners into research when it informs go-to-market strategy, pricing, or enablement. This keeps us honest and avoids late-stage surprises.
Third, I establish operating rhythms that make outcomes visible. Monthly stakeholder reviews focus on progress toward objectives and what we’re learning—not status theater. Quarterly, we connect OKRs to business performance so leaders can see the throughline from discovery and delivery to pipeline, retention, or margin. If priorities shift, we renegotiate objectives explicitly.
Fourth, I define metrics that stakeholders trust. We use a balanced set of leading indicators (activation, engagement, cycle time) and lagging indicators (revenue, retention, unit economics). We socialize definitions early so no one debates the scoreboard mid-game. The result: faster decisions and less “data whiplash.”
Fifth, I invest in change management. Moving from outputs to outcomes can feel threatening if your success has historically been measured by launch volume or roadmap commitments. I address this head-on with training, transparent comms, and clear decision rights. The message is simple: outcomes create more autonomy for empowered product teams and more predictability for stakeholders.
At HighLevel, this approach has been especially powerful when cross-functional dependencies are high. For example, when we set an objective to improve user activation for a new CRM integration, we didn’t promise a bundle of features. We committed to a measurable lift in activation and a shorter time-to-value, co-owned with Customer Success and Marketing. That alignment unlocked smarter experiments, tighter enablement, and a more credible launch narrative.
The anti-patterns are predictable: treating OKRs as a renaming of the roadmap, equating discovery with indecision, or isolating product decisions from go-to-market strategy. The cure is equally consistent: bring stakeholders into discovery, attach every bet to an objective, and show progress with evidence—not just demos.
Ultimately, the product operating model is a leadership choice. It asks us to trade certainty theater for learning velocity, and feature checklists for business impact. When stakeholders see that shift pay off—in faster cycles, clearer priorities, and results that matter—support for the model moves from compliance to conviction.
By 2026, the AI Product Owner will be the keystone role that turns AI strategy into measurable business outcomes. In my teams, this seat bridges market insight, model capability, data governance, and shipping velocity—so product decisions are not just clever, but compliant, reliable, and fast.
I often describe the remit simply: "Here is your clear guide to the AI product owner role (skills, responsibilities, how it differs from PM) and ways AI tools supercharge delivery." In practice, the AI Product Owner translates business goals into model-backed experiences, aligns cross-functional execution, and ensures the product’s AI behavior remains safe, lawful, and on-brand under real-world constraints.
How does this differ from a traditional PM? While Product Management sets portfolio strategy, positioning, and market narratives, the AI Product Owner owns the AI experience end-to-end—data readiness, evaluation harnesses, safety guardrails, and the iterative model improvements that drive outcomes vs output OKRs. I anchor the role inside empowered product teams and product trios (PM/Design/ML Eng) to keep discovery continuous and delivery disciplined.
On responsibilities, I expect four pillars. First, discovery: continuous discovery with customers and internal experts to uncover use cases where generative AI or LLMs beat the status quo. Second, experience: define the right interaction patterns for AI UX, including retrieval-first pipeline choices, context window management, and feedback loops for human-in-the-loop correction. Third, governance: privacy-by-design, AI risk management, data governance, and regulatory compliance baked into the roadmap. Fourth, delivery: CI/CD for models and prompts, observable evaluation with A/B testing and minimum detectable effect (MDE), and SRE-grade incident management when AI behavior drifts.
Skills-wise, I look for product sense plus technical fluency. That includes LLMs for product managers (prompting, grounding, RAG), analytics mastery (Amplitude analytics, retention analysis, activation metrics), and comfort with DORA metrics and deployment frequency to keep iteration high but safe. Strong stakeholder management and clear writing are non-negotiable—AI capabilities evolve fast, and leaders must see risk, cost, and ROI with no ambiguity.
AI tools truly supercharge delivery when they eliminate bottlenecks. My practical stack: an AI product toolbox with Claude Code and a ChatGPT connector for rapid prototyping; CustomGPT workflows for support triage and internal knowledge; Pendo product tours and in-app guides to validate behavior changes; Intercom for customer support ai strategy; and tight CRM integration via HubSpot to measure revenue impact. The outcome is faster idea-to-learning cycles, sharper telemetry, and far cleaner handoffs.
For roadmapping, I prioritize thin slices that prove value early—shipping narrowly scoped assistants or copilots, then expanding with product roadmapping and sprint planning that ties capability unlocks to outcomes. A unified analytics platform helps compare human-only baselines to augmented workflows, while agentic AI patterns automate routine steps under strict guardrails.
Risk is a product surface, not a side task. I require explicit policy gates (PII handling, red-teaming, bias audits), clear escalation paths, and incident playbooks. When we treat policy and reliability as features, customers reward us with deeper adoption and higher trust.
If you’re pursuing the AI Product Owner path, build a portfolio around shipped learnings: the experiment you killed with data, the safety constraint you designed, the postmortem you led, and the business metric you moved. That story—evidence of disciplined discovery, responsible delivery, and real-world results—is exactly what teams (and boards) want to see in 2026.
Customer expectations have never been higher. People expect fast, accurate, and effortless support, every time—and across industries, from ecommerce to financial services to healthcare, customer experience has become one of the most strategic levers for achieving durable competitive advantage.
Here’s the challenge I’ve seen again and again: you can’t improve what you can’t see. For years, most support organizations have been making decisions based on only a tiny slice of their customer interactions, captured through surveys that reach only the most motivated (or frustrated) voices. In my own program reviews, the most revealing insights often hid in the conversations that never made it into CSAT or NPS.
We created CX Score to change that. CX Score gives teams a complete view of the customer experience across every meaningful conversation—no CSAT or NPS surveys required. I wanted a signal that reflected reality, not just a vocal minority.
After launching CX Score, we saw many teams immediately use it to understand performance trends, highlight experience issues, and surface gaps across support operations. That early momentum validated the approach and showed us where to go deeper.
As adoption grew, new opportunities emerged. CX leaders found value from CX Score—but they also wanted the model to capture more nuance and identify the specific drivers leading to negative or positive scores, giving them clearer direction on where to focus. I heard the same ask from my own leadership peers: make it explainable and actionable.
That’s what we’ve built into the latest iteration of CX Score. If you’ve been using CX Score for a while and have noticed it shift recently, that’s an expected evolution. A recent shift in scores does not mean your support quality has dipped or that Fin or your team is performing worse than before—this one-time shift reflects a more advanced, more complete model that understands customer experience more deeply with even greater coverage.
Why CX Score needed to evolve
In the initial release, CX Score evaluated each conversation using a combination of sentiment, resolution, and support quality signals. It provided strong early insight and surfaced experience trends that were previously invisible. But as we analyzed real-world conversations across thousands of companies, it became clear that even these combined signals didn’t fully capture the nuance of how customers actually experience support—especially in moments where the outcome was technically correct, but the path to get there involved unnecessary friction, repeated explanations, or unresolved product limitations.
This evolution of CX Score builds on that foundation. It incorporates deeper contextual understanding of the entire interaction, creating a more complete and accurate reflection of the customer experience. As a product leader, that depth matters because it turns a lagging metric into a coaching and prioritization system.
How CX Score has evolved: deeper, more actionable insights
We expanded the CX Score evaluation criteria. CX Score now looks beyond just how your team replied, and into the broader context of the customer’s experience—including reasons that may be outside your support team’s direct control but still influence how your customers feel.
Alongside core support quality signals, we’ve introduced several new dimensions that capture what customers are actually reacting to:
Answer quality (Fin): How well Fin answered the customer’s queries—were responses clear, accurate, and able to resolve the issue without contradiction or repeated clarification?
Answer quality (Teammate): How well a human teammate answered the customer’s queries, using the same criteria: clarity, accuracy, and resolution without contradiction or repeated clarification.
Customer effort: How much effort the customer had to put in to get help (e.g. repeating themselves, multiple handovers, chasing follow-ups).
Strong emotion: Whether the customer expressed strong positive or negative emotions (e.g. joy, gratitude, frustration, anger).
The new CX Score adds context to every conversation: a donut chart surfaces drivers like policy feedback and effort, while a side panel explains why this interaction earned a 3 based on signals from an AI agent chat.
Product/Service feedback: Whether the customer praised or criticized the product (e.g. features, bugs, design gaps, etc.) or the service (e.g. delivery, reliability, onboarding, performance, etc.).
Policy feedback: Whether the customer praised or criticized a company policy (e.g. refunds, returns, account rules, limits, eligibility, etc.).
Broader coverage: more of your support volume now contributes to CX Score
Previously, some conversations couldn’t be scored reliably, especially short, simple, or low-context exchanges—which meant your CX Score was based on only a subset of your total support volume. With this update, CX Score now uses a wider set of criteria to evaluate each interaction. The result: more conversations qualify for scoring, fewer gaps in coverage, and a CX Score that reflects your true support mix—not just the longest or most detailed threads.
Greater transparency with richer, more informative summaries
We’ve made it much clearer why each conversation received the score it did. Right inside the product, every scored conversation now surfaces the specific reasons that influenced its rating—things like high customer effort, strong negative emotion, or product feedback. This added visibility makes it much easier to understand what’s driving your CX Scores, build trust in how they’re calculated, and confidently use them in reporting, coaching, and decision-making.
On top of that, conversation summaries now weave these reasons together with context from the customer’s original query. Instead of scanning the full thread, you can quickly see what happened (the core issue and how it was handled) and why it was scored that way (the key signals that impacted the rating). In my workflow, this shift lets me move from reading transcripts to taking action much more quickly.
From visibility to taking action
As customer experience becomes one of the clearest ways businesses can differentiate, teams need more than visibility—they need clarity on where to invest their time and how to improve. With deeper context and clearer reasoning behind every score, CX leaders can quickly identify what’s working, what needs fixing, and what to prioritize. CX Score moves from being a measurement tool to a system for continuous improvement.
What this unlocks for CX teams: Automatically flag conversations for review. Route threads with high customer effort, strong negative emotion, or low answer quality to QA, team leads, or specialists. Auto-forward product feedback to the right teams. Send conversations with product or policy criticism directly to Product, Engineering, or Ops channels, with no manual triage required. Spot operational issues such as handoff loops, unclear answers, or inconsistent workflows. Share transparent, explainable insights directly with leadership.
The future of CX measurement
CX Score isn’t just another metric. It’s becoming a new standard. Some customers have already chosen to replace CSAT entirely, using CX Score as their primary measure of experience quality because of the broader coverage, deeper context, and clearer paths to action it offers. This reflects a broader shift across the industry: as new competitors emerge and product differentiation narrows, customer experience is becoming one of the most strategic ways to stand out; measuring it accurately and understanding it deeply is now essential.
Our focus going forward is to help teams diagnose issues faster, prioritize with confidence, and improve at scale. This is the foundation we’ll continue to build on: turning every conversation into insight, and every insight into action.
The new CX Score is rolling out gradually to all customers and will be in your workspace by December 3rd.
Want to see CX Score in your workspace? Get started →
When I think about how I stay sharp as a product leader, one principle anchors my approach: design your learning system—don’t leave it to chance. Communities of practice are that system. They turn curiosity into a habit, accelerate product discovery, and strengthen product management leadership across empowered product teams.
I recently dug into a powerful conversation on the All Things Product podcast that explores how product people can intentionally design their own communities of practice—and why that matters for long-term learning and growth. The insights apply whether you operate as an independent coach or you’re scaling continuous discovery inside a product org.
I appreciated the contrast in learning styles. Teresa shares an introvert-friendly approach to continuous learning: curating a personal learning network (PLN) filled with people she wants to learn from. Petra contrasts that with a more collaborative style—learning with others through small peer groups, hackathons, and local meetups. Together, they unpack how each approach supports curiosity-driven development, how to find your “definition of good” when starting something new, and the habits that make learning a deliberate practice.
In my own practice leading product trios and shaping outcomes over output, I rotate between these modes. When I need speed or depth on topics like product discovery or stakeholder management, I learn from people: I curate a tight set of voices, reverse-engineer their decisions, and study how they frame trade-offs. When I need new patterns or accountability, I learn with people: I form small peer circles to review experiments, pressure-test roadmaps, and critique discovery plans. Both paths create momentum—one by focus, the other by feedback.
Key takeaways I’m acting on right now:
– What a “community of practice” really means in modern product work: the infrastructure that makes continuous discovery sustainable—and keeps empowered product teams aligned on craft.
– The difference between learning from people vs learning with people—and when to use each depending on whether you need depth, breadth, or accountability.
– How to find like-minded peers for collaborative learning: start with one person you respect, ask who they regularly spar with, attend one local meetup with a clear learning goal, and follow up with a structured exchange.
– Building your Personal Learning Network (PLN): set a theme (e.g., pricing, product roadmapping and sprint planning), prune it quarterly, and track “who I’m learning from” with the same rigor you track stakeholders.
– Personal knowledge management as a product skill: treat notes, highlights, and artifacts as a system, not a junk drawer—so insights compound and are easy to retrieve when you need them.
– Why curiosity-driven learning builds stronger product intuition: schedule time for curiosity and socialize it with peers so it scales beyond individual motivation.
– How committing to talks, books, or courses drives deeper learning: public commitments create productive pressure and force you to clarify your thinking.
Here’s the simple playbook I use with my team: define a quarterly learning theme; curate a small PLN aligned to that theme; assemble a peer circle (PM, Design, Eng) for monthly critiques; commit to shipping one artifact publicly (a talk, guide, or internal workshop); and close the loop with a short write-up on what changed in our decisions, discovery cadence, or bets. It’s lightweight, measurable, and fits neatly alongside product-led growth priorities.
Two quotes from the discussion capture the spirit perfectly:
“Nobody on that list knows they’re in my personal community of practice.” — Teresa Torres
“Sometimes you don’t know your new definition of good until you start learning.” — Petra Wille
If you’d like to go deeper, you can listen to the episode on your favorite platform:
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
Curation – All Things Product with Teresa & Petra episode
Hamel’s Blog
AI Evals for Engineers and PMs course by Hamel Husain (get 35% off through Teresa’s link) on Maven
Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Management workshop
Petra’s book, Strong Product Communities – The Essential Guide to Product Communities of Practice
I’d love to hear how you’re designing your own community of practice. What’s your learning theme this quarter? Which peers are you building with, and what commitments are helping you go deeper? Drop your thoughts—I’ll share my own PLN stack and peer-circle cadence in a future post.
When AI Agents resolve the majority of customer conversations, the shape of your support team has to change. I’ve experienced this shift firsthand: the moment AI begins to carry the volume, your people must pivot from answering individual questions to engineering the system that consistently delivers quality outcomes.
The old tiered model built around queue management, handoffs, and volume-based productivity no longer fits. AI now handles the bulk of customer interactions, and that changes the role of your human team entirely. Responsibilities evolve, and success is measured differently. It goes beyond just adding automation to existing ways of working. You’re building an operating model that’s entirely new.
Most teams don’t hire a dedicated AI function from day one. They start by distributing a few critical responsibilities across existing team members, and formalize those responsibilities as AI becomes central to how support works. That’s exactly how I recommend getting momentum without over-hiring too early: prove value fast, name clear owners, and then scale.
Once you have executive support and a clear strategy in place, these are the four foundational roles we believe are key to getting AI off the ground in a meaningful way:
Skillset/background: Often promoted from support ops. Deep understanding of workflows, systems, and tooling. Strong analytical and cross-functional coordination skills.
Why you need this: Without clear ownership, performance drifts. This role ensures the AI Agent constantly improves.
AI isn’t replacing support—it’s opening doors. This visual highlights how GenAI is spawning roles in customer success, from digital support engineers to automation success teams, and unlocking clearer, upward career paths.
In my teams, this role becomes the heartbeat of AI performance—instrumenting quality feedback loops, triaging failure modes, and aligning fixes across product, data, and support ops.
2. Knowledge manager
Responsibilities: Owns macros, snippets, and help content. Maintains structured, accurate inputs the AI Agent depends on.
Skillset/background: Often promoted from support ops. Deep understanding of workflows, systems, and tooling. Strong analytical and cross-functional coordination skills.
Why you need this: Without clear ownership, performance drifts. This role ensures the AI Agent constantly improves.
Every generative AI system is only as good as its knowledge. I’ve learned the hard way that inconsistent or stale content erodes trust—both for customers and internal stakeholders. A rigorous knowledge manager prevents that.
3. Conversation designer
Build a winning AI support team with four core roles: an ops lead to drive quality, a knowledge manager to keep content accurate, a conversation designer for tone and flow, and an automation specialist to power customer actions.
Responsibilities: Designs how the AI Agent communicates by focusing on tone of voice, structure, handoff logic, and interaction flow. Tunes how responses feel.
Skillset/background: Background in content design, UX writing, or support enablement. Deep grasp of policy, CX standards, and conversational nuance.
Why you need this: This role ensures the AI Agent speaks like your brand – clearly, helpfully, and in line with customer expectations.
This is your brand’s voice in motion. A strong conversation designer sets the guardrails that keep interactions on-brand, compliant, and empathetic while still efficient.
4. Support automation specialist
Responsibilities: Builds workflows and backend actions the AI Agent can execute.
Skillset/background: Background in support engineering, systems, or tooling. Works closely with product and engineering teams.
AI in customer service thrives with player‑coaches—hands‑on leaders who build, mentor, and iterate with the team. This quote-driven graphic signals a move away from heavy management toward agile, coaching‑first support operations.
Why you need this: Enables the AI Agent to take action – not just respond. This role translates customer intents into business systems.
In practice, this role unlocks the jump from “answering” to “resolving.” They wire up secure actions, map intents to outcomes, and partner with engineering to keep latency low and reliability high.
Introducing new AI-first roles doesn’t mean your existing functions disappear. But they do need to evolve. For AI to scale effectively, every function in your support organization must shift its focus from managing queue-level activity to improving the system’s performance:
Enablement trains human agents to work with the AI Agent: managing handoffs, tuning responses, and understanding how to give feedback that improves the system.
QA evolves from reviewing conversations to reviewing the quality of the customer experience and behavior of the AI Agent: where the AI succeeds, where it falls short, and how the system as a whole performs.
Workforce management plans capacity based on automation coverage, not just inbound volume.
You’ll also need a new kind of leadership to make this model work. The traditional support leader doesn’t map cleanly to an AI-first organization. You need a new layer: leaders who are part strategist, part operator. They roll up their sleeves to analyze the AI Agent’s performance, refine content, and debug handoffs, but they also coach the team through a new way of working.
Customer service is reorganized for the AI era: a VP of Support leads human support, ops and optimization, and a new AI support function—adding conversation design, knowledge management, and systems analysis alongside agents, insights, and WFM.
This is the “player-coach model” – leaders who actively shape both the system and the people within it.
These leaders see the AI Agent as a teammate to manage, not just a tool to monitor. They can’t be purely people leaders or purely systems thinkers. They need to be both, and they’re emerging as a critical hire in support right now.
Some teams are restructuring their organizations around the AI Agent as a core product, not just a support tool. Here are some real-world examples:
At Dotdigital, a dedicated “Fin Ops” specialist role was created to refine content and improve AI performance.
At Clay, a dedicated GTM engineer role has been established as part of the ops team with a focus on making support more efficient at scale using Fin. Additionally, a support engineering function has been embedded directly in the CX organization to help reduce volume by fixing bugs and building internal tools.
Lightspeed created a dedicated Digital Engagement team to manage Fin’s optimization, and formalized a triangular model that brings together technical teams, frontline experts, and content specialists.
In my experience, the most resilient org designs align around three pillars: Human Support, AI Support, and Support Operations and Optimization. Each pillar carries distinct ownership yet shares accountability for AI performance. That structure keeps the team focused on outcomes over output and makes continuous improvement everyone’s job.
AI shouldn’t replace your agents—it should elevate them. This Rocket Money quote highlights a modern support model where automation handles the busywork and people concentrate on high‑value, human moments.
Once AI Agents handle most conversations, your team’s work moves from “answering questions” to “designing and improving the system that answers questions.” They become the force that steers quality, rather than the one that carries the volume.
This is why new roles are important. It’s not because they’re trendy, but because the performance of your support organization now depends on the performance of AI, and no AI Agent succeeds without clear ownership of content, behavior, workflows, and improvement cycles.
That’s the pattern we’ve seen from working with so many teams:
They name owners early.
They distribute responsibilities before they formalize them.
They anchor teams around AI outcomes, not ticket outcomes.
And they hire leaders who can manage both the system and the people.
If you take one thing away from this week’s article, let it be this: if AI is going to handle the majority of your customer conversations, your team needs to be designed to help it do that well.
Your roles, responsibilities, and leadership approach are now part of the architecture of AI performance.
Next week, we’ll go deeper into how these roles actually operate day-to-day – the workflows, responsibilities, rhythms, and collaboration patterns that make an AI-first support organization run.
