I’ve spent the last few years turning AI from an intriguing demo into an operational advantage, and the clearest wins come when we treat agents as productized workflows—not toys. In practice, that means aligning agentic AI to a sharp product strategy, instrumenting everything, and scaling what works across the organization.
Learn how companies like Replit are consolidating workflows, creating one-person departments, and building systems for scale with Amplitude
When I talk about agentic AI, I’m focused on outcomes: fewer handoffs, faster cycle times, and measurable uplift in activation, retention, and NPS. The most successful rollouts start with a specific job-to-be-done, translate it into clear AI workflows, and then iterate with a tight feedback loop between data, design, and engineering.
My implementation playbook is simple and disciplined. First, choose a high-friction workflow and define success upfront. Second, make the build vs buy call on the foundation model, orchestration layer, and connectors. Third, establish AI risk management and safeguards early—before scale amplifies errors. Finally, run small, eval-driven releases and promote what performs.
Instrumentation is where the leverage compounds. With Amplitude analytics as a unified analytics platform, I design purposeful events (agent intent, tool calls, resolution state, human handoff), map funnels from user input to agent outcome, and cohort users by context to pinpoint lift. This gives me an honest read on where agents help, where they hinder, and what to tune next.
The “one-person departments” concept isn’t about doing more with less at all costs; it’s about assembling a tight loop of product management leadership, data, and automation so one operator can own a business outcome end-to-end. An agent handles the repeatable work, while the human focuses on judgment, edge cases, and continuous improvement that compounds.
As we scale, I look for platform scalability patterns: shared tools and policies, reusable prompt libraries, standardized evaluation suites, and consistent governance. That structure keeps agent performance predictable while preserving speed, and it aligns beautifully with product-led growth when agents are embedded directly in the product experience.
If you’re starting now, begin with a single, valuable workflow. Instrument it thoroughly with Amplitude analytics, make decisions from the data you see—not the demos you remember—and expand only after you’ve proven uplift. Iteration beats ambition here: agentic AI rewards teams who measure relentlessly and scale only what truly works.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
Support tickets are the rawest signal of product truth. Leading product teams at HighLevel, I’ve learned that the fastest way to build what customers value is to transform frontline conversations into a repeatable, data-driven system for discovery, prioritization, and execution.
What if your support and product teams could unlock CX insights to turn every ticket into strategic product intelligence? Explore how.
Here’s the operating system I rely on. First, I connect our support stack (think Intercom and our CRM integration) into a unified analytics platform so every conversation, tag, and resolution is queryable. I don’t just count tickets—I segment them by product area, customer segment, lifecycle stage, and revenue impact to reveal patterns that roadmaps can act on.
Next, we standardize a shared taxonomy. Agents apply concise, high-signal labels (problem type, severity, intent), and we augment that with AI-driven auto-tagging to reduce noise and improve recall. The result is trustworthy “voice of the customer” data that product managers and support leaders can both stand behind.
Prioritization then becomes rigorous and fair. I weight themes by severity, frequency, ARR exposure, and time-to-value, and tie them directly to outcomes vs output OKRs. Amplitude analytics helps me quantify impact—what’s breaking activation, what’s dragging conversion, what drives retention analysis—so the backlog reflects business outcomes, not opinions.
Discovery is continuous by design. Product trios (PM, design, engineering) run weekly reviews of the highest-signal themes, recruit users straight from recent tickets, and prototype solutions quickly. We validate ideas with A/B testing when appropriate and ship targeted in-app guides to reduce confusion before it becomes a ticket.
Crucially, we close the loop. When we release a fix or improvement, we notify affected customers and the agents who flagged the issue. We track downstream effects—ticket deflection, CSAT, feature adoption, and time-to-resolution—so everyone sees how customer support ai strategy accelerates product-led growth.
This approach also builds culture. Empowered product teams treat support as a strategic partner, not a cost center. Agents become co-creators of the roadmap, and PMs gain a steady stream of product discovery opportunities grounded in real user outcomes.
If you’re getting started, a simple 30-60-90 can help: in 30 days, unify the data and agree on taxonomy; in 60, instrument dashboards and adopt a weekly insights ritual; in 90, align priorities to OKRs, launch targeted fixes, and measure business impact. That’s how tickets turn into product truth—and how CX insights drive compounding wins.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
How do you help disadvantaged students take action on opportunities they don't even know exist? That question has been top of mind for me as I’ve explored how AI can augment—not replace—human mentorship. Recently, I dug into the work behind Zero Gravity, a UK-based platform using mentoring, community, and learning pathways to unlock elite career opportunities for state school students. Their approach reframed a core problem I care deeply about: the "knowing-doing gap."
I sat down with Elliot Little (Product Manager) and Dan St. Paul (Software Engineer) from Zero Gravity to unpack how they’re tackling this gap with an AI career co‑pilot. They’ve intentionally positioned the system as an orchestrator, not an automation tool—bridging the space between knowing what to do and actually doing it. As a product leader, I see this as a powerful pattern for Generative AI: use AI to coordinate steps, personalize guidance, and empower action in moments where confidence and clarity are fragile.
What resonated most was the humility of their build journey. They started with grand visions of AI mentors and synthetic avatars, then scaled back to something simpler and more effective. The first prototype—a job suitability summary—didn’t deliver the "wow moment" they expected. And they discovered that hiding the "LLM magic" backfired—students needed to feel the personalization. That insight aligns with my own experience: users must perceive the value for trust and motivation to compound.
From a UX standpoint, the team chose text chat over voice input and leaned into guided prompts rather than empty text boxes. That decision lowered cognitive load and increased completion rates—classic product management tradeoffs that privilege momentum over novelty. In my view, this is what good AI product strategy looks like: invite action with structure, then expand autonomy as confidence grows.
The technical backbone is equally thoughtful. Multi‑month journeys require rigorous context window management to avoid exploding token counts and degrading quality. I appreciated their pragmatic toolkit: context management techniques like removing stale tool calls, summarizing history, exposing tools conditionally. They also used application logic rather than complex RAG architectures to manage tool availability and context freshness. This is the kind of disciplined engineering that keeps systems reliable at scale without overcomplicating the stack.
Model selection was fit‑for‑purpose, not one‑size‑fits‑all. They’re using different models for different tasks, including "GPT-5 Nano for structured outputs, lighter models for quick replies." That modularity enables speed and cost control while preserving high‑fidelity moments where structure matters most.
Safeguarding was treated as a first‑class concern—non‑negotiable when you’re building AI for 16‑year‑olds. Their safeguarding architecture pairs moderation endpoints with external verification via Unitary. They also invested in building a failure taxonomy through internal red team/green team exercises. This is AI risk management done right: define failure modes early, test ruthlessly, and wire safety into the product surface area—not just the model layer.
Evaluation was grounded in outcomes, not demos. The team focused on whether students progressed from insight to action: applying, interviewing, and engaging with mentors. That aligns with how I run eval‑driven development—ship narrowly, measure real behavior, and iterate toward a repeatable "wow moment" that students can actually feel.
Looking ahead, I’m excited by what’s next: long‑term memory management for multi‑year student journeys. It’s a hard problem—balancing privacy, provenance, and portability—but it’s precisely where an AI career co‑pilot can compound value over time. The vision is compelling: a resilient companion that remembers goals, adapts to context, and orchestrates the right next step.
If you want to dive deeper, you can listen to the full conversation on Spotify and Apple Podcasts:
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
Blue Dot Impact AI Safety Course – free AI safety course Elliot recommended: https://bluedot.org/
My key takeaways: build AI that augments human relationships, not replaces them; don’t hide the personalization—let learners feel it; privilege application logic over unnecessary architectural complexity; and treat safety, context, and evaluation as product features, not afterthoughts. That’s how we bridge the "knowing-doing gap" with integrity and scale.
Buy-in isn’t a single meeting; it’s a designed journey. Over the years leading product strategy at HighLevel, I’ve learned that the fastest way to earn durable support is to reduce uncertainty, align on outcomes, and create visible momentum. Explore how to get buy-in from stakeholders with practical strategies, clear communication tips, and proven methods used by the best. Here’s the 7-step playbook my teams and I rely on to move from idea to aligned action.
Step 1 — Anchor on outcomes, not outputs. I start by writing a crisp problem statement, the target customer, and the measurable outcome tied to our North Star metric. I translate this into outcomes vs output OKRs so every stakeholder can see the difference between what we’ll ship and what we intend to change. This framing keeps discussions grounded in impact, not features.
Step 2 — Map stakeholders and incentives. Effective stakeholder management begins with a living map: economic buyers, executive sponsors, influencers, and operators. I capture each person’s goals, risks, and decision cadence. When I speak to Finance, I foreground cost and runway; with Sales, I emphasize pipeline and win rate; for Customer Success, I speak to retention and NPS. Meeting stakeholders where they are builds trust quickly.
Step 3 — Co-create early with the product trio. I pull the product trios (PM, Design, Engineering) into continuous discovery with GTM partners to validate assumptions and de-risk the solution. This is where empowered product teams shine—rapid discovery sprints, early prototypes, and clear learning objectives. Co-creating exposes blind spots early and transforms critics into champions.
Step 4 — Socialize a narrative, not a deck. Before any formal review, I circulate a short narrative memo that ties our product strategy to a clear value proposition, competitive differentiation, and go-to-market strategy. I include options and trade-offs so stakeholders feel invited to shape the path, not just stamp approval. Pre-wiring conversations ensure that the “meeting” is simply the last 10% of the decision.
Step 5 — Back the story with data and a viable plan. I combine retention analysis, funnel metrics, and customer evidence to demonstrate opportunity size and risk reduction. Then I outline a phased approach with product roadmapping and sprint planning, milestones, and success metrics. I highlight the smallest viable bet that proves value fast, along with contingency paths if we learn something unexpected.
Step 6 — Design the decision. I define the decision we need, by whom, and by when. The decision doc includes the problem, options, risks, mitigations, and the explicit ask. I schedule 1:1s to address concerns, then run a focused review with clear roles and time-boxed discussion. Clarity about the decision—and the criteria—prevents drift and protects timelines.
Step 7 — Sustain momentum post-approval. After the green light, I convert the plan into execution cadences: weekly demos, transparent dashboards, and QBRs vs OKRs check-ins to reinforce outcomes. We celebrate learning milestones, not just launches, and keep stakeholders informed with concise updates that tie progress to the original outcomes and value proposition. Momentum is the best antidote to second-guessing.
Clear communication and a repeatable process turn buy-in from a hurdle into a habit. When stakeholders see a compelling narrative, credible evidence, and a path to value, they don’t just approve—they advocate. Follow these seven steps and you’ll build alignment faster, ship smarter, and strengthen trust across the organization.
Continuous Discovery Habits turns five this year, and I’m celebrating by inviting you to read it with me. Over 135,000 people have bought the book. I’ve seen these habits transform outcomes, reduce rework, and sharpen product strategy in my teams and across the product community, but I also know it’s not easy to sustain the practice—especially when you feel like the lone champion in your organization.
To make it easier and more social, I’m launching the 2026 Continuous Discovery Habits Book Club. We’ll read the book together—one section per month—with discussion questions, practical exercises, and resources that help you actually do the work, not just read about it. Whether you’re picking up the book for the first time or revisiting it, the goal is to build real muscle memory in discovery.
By December, you won’t just understand continuous discovery—you’ll be practicing it.
Each month, I’ll share a reading guide with reflection prompts, exercises you can run solo or with your product trios, and short videos to help you spread the ideas across your team. I’ll monitor comments throughout the year so you can ask for help, share what’s working, and connect with peers—even if you join late.
I’ll also host quarterly live discussion sessions so we can compare notes, push through sticking points, and swap tactics with other empowered product teams. If you want to participate, grab a copy of the book (or dig up your old copy), share the "Spread the Love" videos to get friends and colleagues on board, reserve time to try the team exercises, and register for the community sessions. Let’s do this.
🎖️ This reading guide is brought to you by New Year, New Habit: The 5-Day Customer Interview Challenge. Become a more confident interviewer in less than a week. You’ll conduct one practice interview a day, get personalized and detailed feedback so you know exactly what to improve, and we’ll be giving out daily prizes to the most improved. Join the challenge today.
This Month’s Reading: Introduction; Chapter 1: The What and Why of Continuous Discovery; Chapter 2: A Common Framework for Continuous Discovery. Estimated reading time: ~40 minutes.
These chapters will introduce you to why discovery and delivery are not phases—they happen continuously. You’ll see a clear benchmark for what "continuous discovery" looks like, learn what product trios are and why they’re the foundation for good discovery, and explore six prerequisite mindsets (outcome-oriented, customer-centric, collaborative, visual, experimental, continuous) you’ll need before these habits can stick. You’ll also get the opportunity solution tree—a visual framework for connecting what you’re building to why you’re building it. Need a copy? Grab the book: https://amzn.to/3hGkNYT?ref=producttalk.org
We learn best in community. Use these short videos to share key concepts with teammates and invite them to read along: What is product discovery? https://videos.producttalk.org/videos/799fdbb41e16ebc4f0/what-is-product-discovery?ref=producttalk.org — a quick intro to the key idea behind discovery work. Defining continuous discovery https://videos.producttalk.org/videos/a79fdbba151ee3c72e/defining-continuous-discovery?ref=producttalk.org — a clear benchmark to aspire to. The rhythm of continuous discovery https://videos.producttalk.org/videos/4d9fd5b4111ee0c2c4/the-rhythm-of-continuous-discovery?ref=producttalk.org — the two small research activities you should do every week. The underlying structure of product discovery https://videos.producttalk.org/videos/449fdbb5191fedc4cd/the-underlying-structure-of-product-discovery?ref=producttalk.org — how outcomes, opportunities, and solutions connect. What’s a product trio? https://videos.producttalk.org/videos/a79fdbb31e1be2c12e/whats-a-product-trio?ref=producttalk.org — why cross-functional collaboration matters.
🎖️ This reading guide is brought to you by Just Now Possible, a podcast about how AI products come to life—straight from the builders. If you are being asked to add AI features to your roadmap, you don’t have to start from scratch. Get a head start by hearing how other teams are navigating similar challenges. Find it on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.
When we reflect and discuss what we read, we absorb more and apply it better. This month is about building awareness of where you are today—no judgment. The first step in any change is getting a baseline. Next month, we’ll take small steps to strengthen the habits.
Here are three prompts for individual reflection. 1) Think about a recent product decision your team made. Did you rely more on opinions, data, or customer input? Get specific. 2) Which of the six prerequisite mindsets (outcome-oriented, customer-centric, collaborative, visual, experimental, continuous) is strongest for you personally? Which would require the biggest shift? 3) What’s your reaction to weekly customer touch points? Does this excite you? Scare you? Something else?
And here are three prompts for team discussion. 1) Who on your team is responsible for discovery and delivery? How interconnected are these activities? 2) How does your team currently collaborate cross-functionally? When product, design, and engineering come together, is it to make decisions—or to hand off work? 3) Think of a recent feature your team built. What opportunity did it address? What else could you have built to address that opportunity?
For this introductory month, focus on seeing your current system clearly. In my experience, visibility alone reveals friction and makes the path to change obvious—and measurable.
Exercise: Draw Your Current Discovery Process. Time: 60 minutes. Do this solo first, then compare with your team. Take a blank sheet and draw how your team actually decides what to build. Show where ideas come from, who makes decisions and how, where (if anywhere) customers enter the picture, and how you know if you built the right thing. Then compare drawings with teammates. Where do perceptions differ? What does that say about your shared understanding?
Exercise: Audit Last Week’s Decisions. Time: 30 minutes. Do this solo or with your team. List every product decision your team made last week—big or small. For each decision, note who made it, what information it was based on, and whether customer input was part of the process (and how). Then look for patterns: how many included direct customer input versus assumptions, opinions, or secondhand information?
If you prefer an audio summary of this month’s reading—including the book chapters and the resources below—listen here: Stop Building The Wrong Things Faster (audio summary by NotebookLM): https://www.producttalk.org/content/media/2025/12/January—Stop_Building_The_Wrong_Things_Faster.m4a
Related in-depth guides to go deeper: Product Discovery Basics: Everything You Need to Know: https://www.producttalk.org/product-discovery/ Product Trios: What They Are, Why They Matter, and How to Get Started: https://www.producttalk.org/product-trios/ Opportunity Solution Trees: Visualize Your Discovery to Stay Aligned and Drive Outcomes: https://www.producttalk.org/opportunity-solution-trees/
Other voices worth reading: Product Discovery: Pitfalls and Anti-Patterns by Chris Jones: https://svpg.com/product-discovery-anti-patterns/?ref=producttalk.org Addressing the Challenges of Product Discovery by Saeed Khan: https://medium.com/swlh/the-challenges-of-product-discovery-6ac6109d13a8?ref=producttalk.org Making Product Discovery Work in Small Teams by Sofia Quintero: https://www.chargebee.com/blog/product-discovery/?ref=producttalk.org Product Waste and the ROI of Discovery by Richard Mironov: https://www.mironov.com/waste?ref=producttalk.org
Related course if you want structured practice: Product Discovery Fundamentals – this course walks you through the complete continuous discovery framework with hands-on exercises: https://learn.producttalk.org/cdh-master-class?ref=producttalk.org
Our live discussion schedule for 2026 (sessions are not recorded): Wednesday, March 18, 2026: 9am–10am PDT and 4pm–5pm PDT. Tuesday, June 16, 2026: 9am–10am PDT and 4pm–5pm PDT. Thursday, September 17, 2026: 9am–10am PDT and 4pm–5pm PDT. Wednesday, December 16, 2026: 9am–10am PST and 4pm–5pm PST. Invitations will go out to Supporting Members and CDH Members two weeks beforehand—reserve the time now.
As you work through this month’s material, connect it to your product strategy, outcomes vs output OKRs, and product roadmapping and sprint planning. In my teams, discovery sticks when product trios own the rhythm, weekly customer touch points are normalized, and the opportunity solution tree keeps everyone aligned on outcomes.
I’m thrilled to learn alongside you this year. Grab the book, invite your trio, and let’s build habits that last.
Every planning cycle, I’m asked the same high-stakes question: should we build or buy? In 2026, with generative AI reshaping the software landscape and budgets under scrutiny, the classic calculus needs an upgrade. The right call can accelerate time to value, protect precious engineering capacity, and sharpen competitive differentiation—while the wrong one can quietly inflate total cost of ownership for years.
“Navigate the build vs buy software dilemma, learn how AI is changing the game, and what you should leverage (and when).” That’s been my north star for product strategy this year, and it’s how I guide teams when the pressure is on.
My first principle is simple: build where we differentiate, buy where we need parity. If the capability is central to our value proposition or our defensibility, I’m inclined to build—often with a phased approach that de-risks scope. If it’s a non-differentiating layer (think billing, analytics plumbing, basic CRM integration), I’ll buy to accelerate, then revisit once scale and specialization justify a deeper internal investment.
AI changes the equation on both sides. On the “buy” side, modern platforms now ship agentic AI, fine-tuning options, and robust APIs that let us compose advanced capabilities fast. On the “build” side, AI workflows and toolchains (from code copilots to eval-driven development) compress cycle time, making bespoke solutions more attainable. The trade-off has shifted from pure functionality to questions of AI risk management, model governance, data privacy, and the portability of prompts, embeddings, and training data.
I evaluate decisions across two economic horizons: time to value versus total cost of ownership. Buying often wins the first round—faster deployment, proven reliability, and lower initial lift. But TCO can creep: integration work, per-seat or consumption SaaS pricing, training, vendor-driven roadmap gaps, and the “shadow ops” of maintaining connectors in our CI/CD. Building flips that profile: slower early velocity, higher upfront complexity, but potentially lower long-run costs and tighter fit with our platform scalability goals.
Operational risk matters just as much as features. I look at incident management posture, SRE maturity, SLAs, and DORA metrics to gauge resilience. If a vendor can’t meet our uptime and recovery expectations—or if their roadmap pace mismatches our deployment frequency—we’re effectively renting risk we can’t control. Conversely, if our team can’t realistically support the operational burden, buying is the safer choice.
Security, regulatory compliance, and data governance are non-negotiables. I assess privacy-by-design, data residency, audit logs, role-based access, SOC2/ISO coverage, and threat detection and response. For AI-heavy systems, I add model lineage, red-teaming practices, PII handling, and retention policies. If we can’t verifiably meet our obligations in a build scenario within the launch window, we buy and require clear data exit and portability clauses.
To keep decisions objective, I use a lightweight scorecard across five dimensions: differentiation, urgency/time to value, regulatory/security risk, integration complexity, and AI leverage/portability. We weight criteria with product trios (PM, design, engineering), run discovery spikes, and validate assumptions with stakeholder management up front. A disciplined scorecard curbs recency bias and helps us communicate trade-offs to leadership.
In practice, I favor staged commitments. When uncertainty is high, we buy to learn—ship value quickly, instrument usage, and collect evidence. If adoption proves sticky and integration pain remains moderate, we double down with deeper vendor integration. If we uncover unique needs or cost inflection points, we pivot to a build plan that reuses learnings, data models, and UX patterns from the bought solution to reduce risk.
AI-specific choices deserve their own pass. For example, if we need retrieval-augmented generation, I’ll often buy for the orchestration and observability layer while building our domain-specific retrieval-first pipeline and prompt engineering guardrails. That split gives us speed plus control: we retain our IP and data gravity while tapping best-in-class tooling that evolves with the ecosystem.
Vendor strategy matters as much as technology. I negotiate clear data export, transparent API quotas, sandbox environments for continuous discovery, and price protections for growth. I pressure-test roadmaps, ask for integration references, and align on outcome-based milestones rather than feature checklists. Strong partners welcome this rigor; weak ones stall—another useful signal.
On the build side, I right-size ambition. We target minimum lovable scope, isolate risk in early sprints, and leverage open source where it’s mature and secure. We design for modularity so we can swap components without rewriting the world, and we budget time for in-app guides and product tours to smooth adoption, because user activation is the real finish line.
Here’s the playbook I return to: buy to validate and compress time to value; build to differentiate and reduce long-run TCO; continuously re-evaluate as the AI toolchain and our scale evolve. With a transparent scorecard, a bias for learning, and a clear view of risk, the build vs buy decision becomes less of a leap of faith and more of a repeatable product management capability.
2026 will reward teams that move fast without mortgaging the future. Make the call deliberately, instrument the outcomes, and stay humble—because the best strategy is the one you can adapt as new evidence arrives.
I wanted to cut through the hype and see what’s actually changing inside customer service teams as AI agents like Fin move from pilots to production. So I analyzed 166 interviews with support leaders, managers, and frontline specialists to understand how roles, workflows, and team structures evolve once AI becomes part of everyday work.
The anecdotes were already loud: AI tools are transforming customer support. But the scale, shape, and consistency of that transformation? Less clear. I went to the source—the practitioners living it—to quantify what’s real and what’s next for customer support AI strategy.
Here’s what I gleaned from the data.
TL;DR — What’s changing
AI is reorganizing core CS operations: Nearly every team (≈95%) reported meaningful workflow changes. Triage, routing, translation, and categorization are increasingly automated. Hybrid human+AI systems are taking their place.
Frontline work is changing to AI oversight: Humans now QA, monitor, and test AI outputs. When it comes to handling queries, they step in for nuance, rather than repetition.
Structural change is widespread but uneven across companies: 83% reported new responsibilities or roles. Some built AI pods, while others retained traditional setups.
Tier 1 headcount demand is falling: 28% saw hiring freezes, slowdowns, or natural attrition at Tier 1 level as AI Agents manage more requests and improve operational efficiency.
Skill gaps are widening inside teams: Data literacy, QA, and cross-functional communication are all rising in value. For many companies, long-term role strategy is lagging behind.
Research methodology
The goal of this research is to understand how many customer service teams have changed their roles, responsibilities and ways of working due to adopting AI agents, as well as understanding how these changes manifest within their organizations.
For this study, the data chosen consists of interviews conducted by the research team, either with Intercom customers or prospects. This data was chosen because the focus of the interviews revolved around the individual experience of the participant, which gives a higher chance of information related to role changes to be present.
The data was collected using Snowflake by pulling all interviews stored in gong conducted by a member of the research team from 01-01-2025 to 14-10-2025.
After the data was pulled, a python script was used to clean the conversation corpus for each conversation retrieved. Common English stopwords (e.g. “and”, “very”, “with”, etc.) were removed, as well as all the text associated with a speaker in the conversation that was not the interview participant(s). This was done to reduce the computational power required for the conversation coding, avoid API timeouts and reduce costs.
After the corpus was cleaned, the OpenAI API was employed, alongside a prompt, to code each conversation using closed codes defined in a closed codebook.
The codes used were:
No role change mentioned: No explicit changes to roles, teams, or reporting lines are attributed to AI/Fin.
Role responsibilities changed due to AI/Fin: Duties/ownership moved between humans and AI/Fin, or scope of a role changed because AI/Fin handles tasks.
Team structure/reporting changed due to AI/Fin: Org/team boundaries, team charters, or reporting lines changed due to adopting AI/Fin.
Headcount/hiring impacted due to AI/Fin: Hiring plans, headcount, staffing coverage, or shifts/rotations changed due to AI/Fin.
Workflow/process changed due to AI/Fin: Steps, triage/escalations, routing, or playbooks changed because AI/Fin alters the process.
Other organizational changes due to AI/Fin: Other changes inside the organization due to AI/Fin that don’t involve a change in responsibilities, team structure/reporting lines, headcount or workflow/processes changes.
Data analysis
166 conversations were retrieved. More than 90% of all conversations report some sort of change either in their role, team, or processes due to implementing Fin, or a similar AI product, with only 13 participants reporting no changes.
Across these conversations, each one could have multiple types of change associated with it (M = 2.35, Med = 2, Min = 1, Max = 4, N = 166).
More specifically, after implementing Fin or a similar AI product:
94.58% participants reported having their processes and workflows disrupted
82.53% participants reported seeing their role and responsibilities change
27.71% participants reported changes in company headcount or hiring
6.02% participants reported their team structure or reporting lines changing as a result
Additionally, 16.27% participants reported a change for a different reason from the ones highlighted above (“Other organizational changes due to AI/Fin”).
Sample representativeness
The sample is representative with a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of ±6.4% (accounting for an overall unknown population size). The individual confidence intervals for each type of change are as follows.
Workflow/process changed due to AI/Fin: 157 (94.6%), 90% CI: 91.7% – 97.5%
Role responsibilities changed due to AI/Fin: 137 (82.5%), 90% CI: 77.7% – 87.4%
Headcount/hiring impacted due to AI/Fin: 46 (27.7%), 90% CI: 22.0% – 33.4%
Other organizational changes due to AI/Fin: 27 (16.3%), 90% CI: 11.6% – 21.0%
No role change mentioned: 13 (7.8%), 90% CI: 4.4% – 11.3%
Team structure/reporting changed due to AI/Fin: 10 (6.0%), 90% CI: 3.0% – 9.1%
Thematic analysis
1) Automation and AI integration replacing manual steps (94.58%). I see AI workflows embedding into every stage of support. Manual triage, routing, translations, and repetitive responses shift to Fin or similar systems, while agents focus on human-in-the-loop oversight.
Agents’ day-to-day work now revolves around monitoring or fine-tuning AI outputs, not replying to the same questions. In many teams, conversations enter Fin first; humans only step in when nuance or exception handling is required. Testing, QA, and rollout practices have matured too—teams track Fin’s accuracy and iterate intentionally.
2) Humans shift to oversight, AI handles execution (82.53%). The role resets are unmistakable. Support agents and managers move from high-volume execution to optimization, configuration, and measurement. New roles emerge—AI specialists, automation managers, Fin owners—while responsibilities migrate toward strategic analysis and quality assurance.
Duties are redistributed: Fin takes on refunds, triage, simple messaging, even parts of the sales process. I’ve watched some careers pivot toward product/ops or AI systems strategy as managers coordinate testing and monitor adoption metrics.
3) Reductions or slower growth due to efficiency gains (27.71%). Efficiency is real. Many teams reduce Tier 1 headcount needs or slow hiring because AI absorbs simpler requests. Others reallocate people to complex work or AI management. A few still expand—adding automation engineers, implementation specialists, or technical AI leads—but not at past growth rates.
The upshot: organizations handle more volume while stabilizing or reducing staffing, especially at the frontline tier.
4) New AI teams, flatter orgs, fewer escalation layers (6.02%). I’m seeing organizational design catch up to the tech. Some companies form dedicated LLM or automation teams. Others flatten hierarchies, design around workflow complexity instead of region, or merge roles. Dedicated escalation layers shrink as Fin routes or resolves more autonomously.
Team design is getting more modular and data-driven, with clearer ownership for configuration, governance, and Agent Analytics.
5) Broader digital transformation and operational modernization (16.27%). Beyond support, companies are modernizing their operating model: automation-first, digital self-service, better data foundations, and new vendor ecosystems. Collaboration patterns between data, ops, CX, and product/engineering are tightening, with a culture of experimentation and continuous improvement taking hold.
How have customer service roles and responsibilities changed due to Fin/AI agent implementation?
Implementing Fin or a similar AI agent profoundly changes how an organization operates, with around 95% of participants reporting some level of change in their processes after implementation. These systems have significantly reshaped the workflows that customer service teams are used to. Tasks once performed manually, such as ticket triage, routing, repetitive responses, and translations are now handled by AI agents.
“This marks a clear transformation in how customer service agents work: moving away from directly resolving customer queries to focusing on more analytical and procedural work”
As a result, customer service agents’ responsibilities have shifted from performing manual tasks to monitoring and fine-tuning the AI agent whenever its output is inaccurate or incomplete. This marks a clear transformation in how customer service agents work: moving away from directly resolving customer queries to focusing on more analytical and procedural work, such as testing, QA, and performance analysis of AI outputs.
Human agents who still handle conversations tend to do so either because the AI agent cannot yet respond adequately, or because of an organizational choice to retain human involvement for sensitive or high-value interactions. Nevertheless, the need for such roles is diminishing. Around 28% of participants reported a reduction in Tier 1 staff or a hiring slowdown or a full hiring freeze, as AI agents increasingly manage simple requests and organizational attention shifts towards improving automation efficiency.
“In some cases, this has led to the creation of specialized AI teams, reorganizations around workflow complexity, or the merging and redefinition of existing roles”
However, this transformation is not uniform across companies. While some roles have disappeared (particularly escalation layers), others have emerged. Many organizations are reallocating existing staff to AI management or hiring new technical profiles such as automation engineers, implementation specialists, and AI leads. In some cases, this has led to the creation of specialized AI teams, reorganizations around workflow complexity, or the merging and redefinition of existing roles.
Around 83% of participants reported changes to their roles or responsibilities following the introduction of Fin or similar AI agents. Specifically, customer service agents who no longer handle basic queries now focus on managing AI performance, reviewing Fin tasks and improving automation outputs. Managers oversee AI evaluation and implementation, coordinate testing, and monitor AI metrics such as resolution and involvement rates. In some organizations, new dedicated roles have emerged—AI specialists, automation managers, or Fin owners—reflecting a strategic shift toward automation-first, digital self-service models.
These structural shifts are also cultural. I’m seeing teams embrace experimentation, versioning, and eval-driven development while deepening collaboration with data, operations, and product/engineering. The move from outcomes vs output OKRs is palpable: leaders are measuring containment, deflection, CSAT, and time-to-resolution with new rigor.
Overall, a widespread transformation is underway. Roles are broadening, responsibilities are diversifying, and cross-functional collaboration is becoming the norm. Given the pace of gen ai improvement and the rise of agentic AI patterns, I expect these shifts to intensify.
This evolution raises two important questions
Firstly, do customer service agents possess the skills required to succeed in these new roles? While they are experts in customer interaction and company policy, their work now demands new competencies in data analysis (e.g. reporting AI agent performance and how it changes over time), quality assurance/debugging (e.g. Fin output testing and versioning), and cross-functional communication (e.g. if help from another team is required, drafting a business case to justify the resources required could be needed).
Secondly, what long-term strategies are companies adopting to support these evolving roles? Some are reorganizing entirely around automation, while others retain traditional structures. For those undergoing transformation, it remains unclear whether these changes are part of a deliberate strategic plan aimed at achieving specific performance outcomes, or the result of experimentation without defined goals.
Ultimately, Fin’s success— and of AI in customer service more broadly— depends not only on the technology itself but on the people and strategies that shape its use. In my experience, the winners invest early in data literacy, robust QA, clear ownership, and governance; they align product, ops, and CX around a shared AI roadmap; and they measure what matters with disciplined Agent Analytics. That’s how you turn AI workflows into durable customer and business outcomes.
Every week, I watch the cybersecurity landscape shift under our feet. As a VP of Product Management, I’m responsible for building secure, resilient products—and that means understanding how artificial intelligence is transforming the way IT teams defend, respond, and even anticipate attacks.
Learn the ways in which AI is transforming both cybersecurity offense and defense for IT teams.
First, AI supercharges threat detection and prevention. Pattern-recognition models now sift through endpoint telemetry, identity signals, and network flows to surface anomalies in near real time. In practice, that means fewer false positives, faster prioritization, and earlier containment. We’re pairing behavioral analytics with enrichment from our SIEM/EDR stack so analysts get a ranked, explainable view of risk instead of a noisy alert queue—directly improving mean time to detect and laying the groundwork for scalable threat detection and response.
Second, AI accelerates incident response. We’ve embedded LLM-powered copilots into our SOC workflows to summarize alerts, propose next-best actions, and auto-generate draft remediation steps from playbooks. Orchestration then executes routine tasks—isolating endpoints, rotating credentials, updating tickets—while keeping a human-in-the-loop for approvals. To keep this safe, we use privacy-by-design principles, a retrieval-first pipeline for authoritative playbook content, and eval-driven development to measure precision/recall on suggested actions. The result is meaningful reduction in mean time to recover and more consistent incident management.
Third, the offense is getting smarter—and we need to be honest about it. Adversaries use gen AI to craft targeted spear-phishing, deepfake executive voice notes, and polymorphic malware that evades signature-based tools. We counter by red-teaming with AI, deploying deception tech to waste attacker cycles, and hardening identity as the new perimeter (MFA, conditional access, continuous risk scoring). Education matters, too: when employees see how convincing AI-generated lures have become, phishing reports spike and successful compromise rates drop.
None of this works without strong governance. We treat AI like any high-impact capability: rigorous data governance, model access controls, and AI risk management across the lifecycle. We log model prompts and outputs, restrict sensitive data via contextual policies, and continuously test for drift and bias. This is as much an IT leadership challenge as it is a technical one—clear ownership, well-defined runbooks, and regular tabletop exercises make the difference between resilience and chaos.
If you’re getting started, I recommend a focused 90-day plan: identify one high-signal detection use case, one response playbook ripe for automation, and one employee risk area (usually phishing) for immediate uplift. Instrument everything—latency, precision/recall, MTTR—and iterate with a cross-functional group spanning security engineering, SRE, and product management leadership. With disciplined AI strategy and guardrails in place, you can move faster, reduce noise, and stay ahead of adversaries without compromising data or trust.
I’ve been refining a hands-on approach to “burger prompting” that turns prompt engineering into a reliable, repeatable system. Using an AI resume coach as the proving ground, I’ll walk through a detailed prompt structure to get the most out of your LLM and share what’s worked for me in product environments where clarity, consistency, and measurable outcomes matter.
At a high level, burger prompting follows a simple mental model: the top bun frames the role and mission, the fillings pack in context and examples, and the bottom bun locks in output format and quality guardrails. It’s deceptively simple and extremely effective for Generative AI use cases where you need predictable behavior across different inputs and user personas.
For the top bun, I establish the AI’s role, audience, and objective in one place. In the resume coach flow, I define the assistant as a structured, unbiased reviewer tasked with aligning a candidate’s resume to a specific job description. I set constraints on tone (supportive but direct), scope (resume and job description only), and safety (avoid speculative claims, defer legal or medical advice). This crisp intent statement reduces ambiguity and prevents the model from wandering outside the product’s value proposition.
The fillings are where context window management becomes crucial. I inject the job description, the candidate’s resume, a capability rubric aligned to the role, and the company’s style preferences. If the content is long, I chunk inputs and, when needed, use a retrieval-first pipeline to fetch only the most relevant snippets. I also include a brief style guide with voice, depth, and formatting expectations so the AI doesn’t drift between terse and verbose responses across sessions.
Strong examples are the meat of the burger. I include a few annotated comparisons that show what “excellent,” “good,” and “needs improvement” look like for specific competencies, from impact statements to quantification. These examples are compact and domain-specific, so the LLM sees the pattern I expect without overfitting to a single profile. I encourage transparent reasoning by asking for stepwise evaluations that reference evidence from the resume and job description, while keeping the explanations concise and user-friendly.
The bottom bun finalizes structure and guardrails. I specify an output schema that always returns a brief summary, evidence-backed strengths, concrete gaps with examples of what’s missing, and a prioritized action plan with suggested rewrites. I also request a rubric-aligned score to support eval-driven development, and I cap length to ensure scannability inside product UI. This predictable format reduces downstream parsing errors and keeps the AI workflow snappy.
To operationalize this in a product context, I run small A/B tests on the prompt variants and measure utility through user activation and completion rates. I tune the prompt with tight feedback loops, comparing structured scores against human spot checks until the variance narrows. When I see drift, I adjust the constraints, swap underperforming examples, or expand the rubric to capture overlooked signals.
Quality and trust are non-negotiable. I add guidance to avoid hallucinated credentials or inflated claims, enforce privacy-by-design around sensitive data, and encourage the assistant to cite which resume lines support each recommendation. When the model is uncertain or the resume lacks evidence, the assistant should explicitly say so and propose realistic next steps rather than guessing.
The result is an AI resume coach that feels both helpful and disciplined. With burger prompting, you get a durable prompt pattern you can reuse across adjacent AI workflows, from portfolio reviews to job description rewrites. Once you internalize the top bun, fillings, and bottom bun, you’ll find it far easier to ship prompts that scale, maintain consistency across releases, and deliver tangible, career-advancing outcomes for users.
Digital transformation set the foundation, but it’s no longer sufficient. In my work leading product teams, I’ve learned that real competitive advantage now comes from building systems that perceive, learn, and adapt—end to end, across the product lifecycle and the business operating model.
AI transformation goes beyond automation to create adaptive, intelligent organizations. Discover why it’s the next imperative and how to measure success.
Why is this the next imperative? Customers expect intelligent experiences, not just digitized workflows. Markets are shifting faster than roadmaps, and teams need systems that learn in production. For me, AI Strategy starts with a clear value thesis: where can intelligence amplify customer outcomes and compound business impact—whether in onboarding, customer support, or core product differentiation.
Practically, I frame AI transformation as a capability stack: data governance and privacy-by-design at the foundation; a retrieval-first pipeline to ground models in trusted context; agentic AI and AI workflows to orchestrate actions; and eval-driven development to continuously measure quality, safety, and relevance. Layered on top are operating rhythms—outcomes vs output OKRs, rapid experimentation, and incident management—that keep shipping disciplined and responsible.
I start with product discovery. Together with product trios, we target moments where intelligence removes friction or unlocks new value. We translate those opportunities into crisp outcomes (activation, time-to-first-value, resolution rate) and instrument them from day one. In customer support, for example, a customer support ai strategy might blend LLMs for product managers with retrieval-first grounding to deliver accurate, brand-safe answers and escalate seamlessly when needed.
On architecture, I prioritize context window management and robust integrations. CRM integration and event streams from tools like Intercom, HubSpot, Pendo, and a unified analytics platform provide the signals AI needs to adapt in real time. Prompt engineering patterns, guardrails, and privacy-by-design controls ensure responses remain trustworthy and compliant. When applicable, I explore agentic AI to orchestrate multi-step tasks with clear constraints and auditability.
Delivery is where transformation becomes measurable. I combine CI/CD practices with DORA metrics (deployment frequency, lead time, change failure rate, MTTR) to keep iteration fast and safe. On the product side, A/B testing with a minimum detectable effect (MDE) protects rigor, while eval-driven development tracks model accuracy, hallucination rates, and policy adherence before and after release. I tie these to business metrics like user activation, retention analysis, and support resolution time to ensure we’re shipping outcomes, not just output.
Governance is non-negotiable. AI risk management, regulatory compliance, and data governance anchor every phase—from dataset curation to prompt libraries and model routing. Threat detection and response and incident management processes are integrated so we can respond quickly when behavior drifts or new risks emerge.
Transformation also means evolving how teams work. I invest in empowered product teams, continuous discovery, and developer evangelism to spread best practices across domains. We share playbooks, reusable CustomGPT workflows, and an AI product toolbox to scale patterns like retrieval-first pipelines and safe prompt engineering across the portfolio.
The outcome is not just smarter features; it’s a more adaptive business. With clear OKRs, reliable telemetry, and responsible guardrails, AI becomes a force multiplier for product strategy and execution. If you’re moving beyond digital toward intelligence, start small, measure relentlessly, and let outcomes guide the journey.
Experience quality compounds just like code quality. To align teams and accelerate outcomes, I rely on a clear, five-stage software experience maturity model to assess where we are, why we’re there, and how to advance. It turns fuzzy debates into concrete product strategy and reinforces a product-led growth mindset.
Find out where you stand—and what to fix first—with this maturity framework.
Why a five-stage model? It gives product, design, engineering, and go-to-market a shared language for trade-offs, helps us move from opinions to evidence, and ties day-to-day improvements to outcomes vs output OKRs. Instead of spreading effort thin, we sequence the right bets at the right time and build momentum with measurable wins.
Here’s how I apply it in practice. I start with a brief, honest self-assessment across the customer journey: onboarding clarity, user activation moments, in-app guides and product tours, UX writing, support loops, reliability, and analytics coverage. Then I layer in learnings from continuous discovery and product discovery—interviews, usage patterns, and support transcripts—so we see the experience as customers do, not just as we intended.
When it comes to what to fix first, I prioritize prerequisites over polish. If the value proposition isn’t clear, onboarding is confusing, or activation is inconsistent, we address those before adding new features. I instrument the funnel end-to-end, establish a minimum detectable effect (MDE) for A/B testing, and ensure we can answer basic questions about who activates, who retains, and why.
Measurement is non-negotiable. I pair retention analysis and activation metrics with qualitative signals to avoid local maxima. Amplitude analytics helps reveal behavioral patterns, while Pendo and in-app guides close gaps in comprehension and guidance. Intercom and CRM integration with HubSpot connect product signals to account health, so we can see how experience maturity drives revenue and retention.
Operationally, I anchor the roadmap to a small set of experience outcomes, link them to product strategy, and review progress in cadence with leadership. This approach builds product management leadership muscle: sharper stakeholder management, clearer trade-offs, and faster feedback loops. Most importantly, the team sees how each improvement ladders up to a better, more durable user experience.
If you’re mapping your own path across the five stages, start by sizing the gaps that block activation and retention, commit to a few high-leverage fixes, and measure relentlessly. With a shared maturity model, your team gains focus, your customers feel the difference, and your product compounds value with every release.
I think about Agentforce implementation the same way I think about any high-stakes product launch: start with outcomes, instrument relentlessly, and iterate in tight loops. When agentic AI touches core workflows in Salesforce, the winners are the teams that combine rigorous product strategy with thoughtful CRM integration and product-led growth tactics.
Learn the ways in which Pendo helps companies design and iterate on their agentic strategy for Salesforce.
My working playbook begins with clarity. Before a single agent is deployed, I align with stakeholders on the highest-value “jobs” inside Salesforce—reducing case handle time in Service Cloud, accelerating lead qualification in Sales Cloud, or improving data hygiene for revenue operations. That alignment shapes our agentic AI approach and prevents us from shipping clever agents that don’t move the metric that matters.
From there, I treat telemetry as a first-class requirement. I instrument the end-to-end journey with Pendo so we can observe when an agent triggers, when it falls back, when it hands off to a human, and how those moments affect conversion, CSAT, and cycle time. I refer to this observability layer as Agent Analytics, and it’s the backbone of evidence-based iteration.
Guidance is equally critical. I use Pendo’s in-app guides to onboard admins and frontline users directly inside Salesforce, deliver contextual tooltips that explain what the agent will do next, and collect feedback within the flow of work. That combination shortens time-to-value and builds trust, which is essential for customer support ai strategy and change management.
Iteration is where the compounding returns show up. I run A/B testing on prompts, decision policies, and handoff rules; evaluate performance on real user cohorts; and promote what works. This is classic product-led growth applied to agentic AI—ship small, measure precisely, and scale winners. Prompt engineering is not a one-time task; it’s a continuous discovery loop.
I also weave in governance from day one. Privacy-by-design, data governance, and AI risk management aren’t add-ons—they are design constraints that shape what the agent is allowed to see and do. The guardrails live alongside the experience: clear disclosures, reversible actions, and easy ways for users to override or escalate.
Finally, I operationalize the learning loop. Weekly reviews with a product trio (PM, design, engineering) examine Pendo dashboards, qualitative feedback, and Salesforce outcomes. If an agent is underperforming, we adjust prompts, refine retrieval, or simplify the decision tree. If it’s exceeding targets, we expand the use case and systematize the pattern.
When teams ask me for the “right way” to implement Agentforce, my answer is simple: treat your agent like a product. Measure with Pendo, guide inside Salesforce, and iterate until the business outcome moves. That’s how we turn promising agents into durable advantages.
