On today's Promoted Episode of Experiencing Data, I’m talking with Lucas Thelosen, CEO of Gravity and creator of Orion, an AI analyst transforming how data teams work. Lucas was head of PS for Looker, and eventually became Head of Product for Google’s Data and AI Cloud prior to starting his own data product company. We dig into how his team built Orion, the challenge of keeping AI accurate and trustworthy when doing analytical work, and how they’re thinking about the balance of human control with automation when their product acts as a force multiplier for human analysts.   In addition to talking about the product, we also talk about how Gravity arrived at specific enough use cases for this technology that a market would be willing to pay for, and how they’re thinking about pricing in today’s more “outcomes-based” environment.  Incidentally, one thing I didn’t know when I first agreed to consider having Gravity and Lucas on my show was that Lucas has been a long-time proponent of data product management and operating with a product mindset. In this episode, he shares the “ah-hah” moment where things clicked for him around building data products in this manner. Lucas shares how pivotal this moment was for him, and how it helped accelerate his career from Looker to Google and now Gravity.If you’re leading a data team, you’re a forward-thinking CDO, or you’re interested in commercializing your own analytics/AI product, my chat with Lucas should inspire you!     Highlights/ Skip to: Lucas’s breakthrough came when he embraced a data product management mindset (02:43) How Lucas thinks about Gravity as being the instrumentalists in an orchestra, conducted by the user (4:31) Finding product-market fit by solving for a common analytics pain point (8:11) Analytics product and dashboard adoption challenges: why dashboards die and thinking of analytics as changing the business gradually (22:25) What outcome-based pricing means for AI and analytics (32:08) The challenge of defining guardrails and ethics for AI-based analytics products [just in case somebody wants to “fudge the numbers”] (46:03) Lucas’ closing thoughts about what AI is unlocking for analysts and how to position your career for the future  (48:35) Special Bonus for DPLC Community Members Are you a member of the Data Product Leadership Community? After our chat, I invited Lucas to come give a talk about his journey of moving from “data” to “product” and adopting a producty mindset for analytics and AI work. He was more than happy to oblige. Watch for this in late 2025/early 2026 on our monthly webinar and group discussion calendar.   Note: today’s episode is one of my rare Promoted Episodes. Please help support the show by visiting Gravity’s links below: Quotes from Today’s Episode “The whole point of data and analytics is to help the business evolve. When your reports make people ask new questions, that’s a win. If the conversations today sound different than they did three months ago, it means you’ve done your job, you’ve helped move the business forward.” — Lucas  “Accuracy is everything. The moment you lose trust, the business, the use case, it's all over. Earning that trust back takes a long time, so we made accuracy our number one design pillar from day one.”— Lucas  “Language models have changed the game in terms of scale. Suddenly, we’re facing all these new kinds of problems, not just in AI, but in the old-school software sense too. Things like privacy, scalability, and figuring out who’s responsible.” — Brian “Most people building analytics products have never been analysts, and that’s a huge disadvantage. If data doesn’t drive action, you’ve missed the mark. That’s why so many dashboards die quickly.”— Lucas “Re: collecting feedback so you know if your UX is good: I generally agree that qualitative feedback is the best place to start, not analytics [on your analytics!] Especially in UX, analytics measure usage aspects of the product, not the subject h

In this episode, I’m exploring the mindset shift data professionals need to make when moving into analytics and AI data product management. From how to ask the right questions to designing for meaningful adoption, I share four key ways to think more like a product manager, and less like a deliverables machine, so your data products earn applause instead of a shoulder shrug. Highlights/ Skip to: Why shift to analytics and AI data product management (00:34) From accuracy to impact and redefining success with AI and analytical data products  (01:59) Key Idea 1: Moving from question asker (analyst) to problem seeker (product) (04:31) Key Idea 2: Designing change management into solutions; planning for adoption starts in the design phase (12:52) Key Idea 3: Creating tools so useful people can’t imagine working without them. (26:23) Key Idea 4: Solving for unarticulated needs vs. active needs (34:24) Quotes from Today’s Episode “Too many analytics teams are rewarded for accuracy instead of impact. Analysts give answers, and product people ask questions.The shift from analytics to product thinking isn’t about tools or frameworks, it’s about curiosity.It’s moving from ‘here’s what the data says’ to ‘what problem are we actually trying to solve, and for whom?’That’s where the real leverage is, in asking better questions, not just delivering faster answers.” “We often mistake usage for success.Adoption only matters if it’s meaningful adoption. A dashboard getting opened a hundred times doesn’t mean it’s valuable... it might just mean people can’t find what they need.Real success is when your users say, ‘I can’t imagine doing my job without this.’That’s the level of usefulness we should be designing for.” “The most valuable insights aren’t always the ones people ask for.Solving active problems is good, it’s necessary. But the big unlock happens when you start surfacing and solving latent problems, the ones people don’t think to ask for.Those are the moments when users say, ‘Oh wow, that changes everything.’That’s how data teams evolve from service providers to strategic partners.” “Here’s a simple but powerful shift for data teams: know who your real customer is.Most data teams think their customer is the stakeholder who requested the work…But the real customer is the end user whose life or decision should get better because of it.When you start designing for that person, not just the requester, everything changes: your priorities, your design, even what you choose to measure.” Links Need 1:1 help to navigate these questions and align your data product work to your career? Explore my new Cross-Company Group Coaching at designingforanalytics.com/groupcoaching For peer support: the Data Product Leadership Community where peers are experimenting with these approaches. designingforanalytics.com/community

Content coming soon. 

In this episode, I sat down with tech humanist Kate O’Neill to explore how organizations can balance human-centered design in a time when everyone is racing to find ways to leverage AI in their businesses. Kate introduced her “Now–Next Continuum,” a framework that distinguishes digital transformation (catching up) from true innovation (looking ahead). We dug into real-world challenges and tensions of moving fast vs. creating impact with AI, how ethics fits into decision making, and the role of data in making informed decisions.      Kate stressed the importance of organizations having clear purpose statements and values from the outset, proxy metrics she uses to gauge human-friendliness, and applying a “harms of action vs. harms of inaction” lens for ethical decisions. Her key point: human-centered approaches to AI and technology creation aren’t slow; they create intentional structures that speed up smart choices while avoiding costly missteps.     Highlights/ Skip to: How Kate approaches discussions with executives about moving fast, but also moving in a human-centered way when building out AI solutions (1:03) Exploring the lack of technical backgrounds among many CEOs and how this shapes the way organizations make big decisions around technical solutions (3:58)  FOMO and the “Solution in Search of a Problem” problem in Data (5:18)  Why ongoing ethnographic research and direct exposure to users are essential for true innovation (11:21)  Balancing organizational purpose and human-centered tech decisions, and why a defined purpose must precede these decisions (18:09) How organizations can define, measure, operationalize, and act on ethical considerations in AI and data products (35:57) Risk management vs. strategic optimism: balancing risk reduction with embracing the art of the possible when building AI solutions (43:54) Quotes from Today’s Episode "I think the ethics and the governance and all those kinds of discussions [about the implications of digital transformation] are all very big word - kind of jargon-y kinds of discussions - that are easy to think aren't important, but what they all tend to come down to is that alignment between what the business is trying to do and what the person on the other side of the business is trying to do." –Kate O’Neill     " I've often heard the term digital transformation used almost interchangeably with the term innovation. And I think that that's a grave disservice that we do to those two concepts because they're very different. Digital transformation, to me, seems as if it sits much more comfortably on the earlier side of the Now-Next Continuum. So, it's about moving the past to the present… Innovation is about standing in the present and looking to the future and thinking about the art of the possible, like you said. What could we do? What could we extract from this unstructured data (this mess of stuff that’s something new and different) that could actually move us into green space, into territory that no one’s doing yet? And those are two very different sets of questions. And in most organizations, they need to be happening simultaneously."–Kate O’Neill     "The reason I chose human-friendly [as a term] over human-centered partly because I wanted to be very honest about the goal and not fall back into, you know, jargony kinds of language that, you know, you and I and the folks listening probably all understand in a certain way, but the CEOs and the folks that I'm necessarily trying to get reading this book and make their decisions in a different way based on it."–Kate O’Neill     “We love coming up with new names for different things. Like whether something is “cloud,” or whether it’s like, you know, “SaaS,” or all these different terms that we’ve come up with over the years… After spending so long working in tech, it is kind of fun to laugh at it. But it’s nice that there’s a real earnestness [to it]. That’s sort of evergreen [laugh]. People are always trying to genuin

In this episode, I talk with Ilya Preston, co-founder and CEO of PAXAFE, a logistics orchestration and decision intelligence platform for temperature-controlled supply chains (aka “cold chain”). Ilya explains how PAXAFE helps companies shipping sensitive products, like pharmaceuticals, vaccines, food, and produce, by delivering end-to-end visibility and actionable insights powered by analytics and AI that reduce product loss, improve efficiency, and support smarter real-time decisions. Ilya shares the challenges of building a configurable system that works for transportation, planning, and quality teams across industries. We also discuss their product development philosophy, team structure, and use of AI for document processing, diagnostics, and workflow automation.  Highlights/ Skip to:   Intro to Paxafe  (2:13)   How PAXAFE brings tons of cold chain data together in one user experience (2:33) Innovation in cold chain analytics is up, but so is cold chain product loss. (4:42) The product challenge of getting sufficient telemetry data at the right level of specificity to derive useful analytical insights (7:14)  Why and how PAXAFE pivoted away from providing IoT hardware to collect telemetry (10:23) How PAXAFE supports complex customer workflows, cold chain logistics, and complex supply chains (13:57) Who the end users of PAXAFE are, and how the product team designs for these users (20:00) Pharma loses around $40 billion a year relying on ‘Bob’s intuition’ in the warehouse. How Paxafe balances institutional user knowledge with the cold hard facts of analytics (42:43) Lessons learned when Ilya’s team fell in love with its own product and didn’t listen to the market  (23:57) Quotes from Today’s Episode "Our initial vision for what PAXAFE would become was 99.9% spot on. The only thing we misjudged was market readiness—we built a product that was a few years ahead of its time." –IIya "As an industry, pharma is losing $40 billion worth of product every year because decisions are still based on warehouse intuition about what works and what doesn’t. In production, the problem is even more extreme, with roughly $800 billion lost annually due to temperature issues and excursions."-IIya "With our own design, our initial hypothesis and vision for what Pacaf could be really shaped where we are today. Early on, we had a strong perspective on what our customers needed—and along the way, we fell in love with our own product and design.." -IIya "We spent months perfecting risk scores… only to hear from customers, ‘I don’t care about a 71 versus a 62—just tell me what to do.’ That single insight changed everything."-IIya "If you’re not talking to customers or building a product that supports those conversations, you’re literally wasting time. In the zero-to-product-market-fit phase, nothing else matters, you need to focus entirely on understanding your customers and iterating your product around their needs..”-IIya "Don’t build anything on day one, probably not on day two, three, or four either. Go out and talk to customers. Focus not on what they think they need, but on their real pain points. Understand their existing workflows and the constraints they face while trying to solve those problems." -IIya Links PAXAFE: https://www.paxafe.com/ LinkedIn for Ilya Preston: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilyapreston/ LinkedIn for company: https://www.linkedin.com/company/paxafe/

This is part two of the framework; if you missed part one, head to episode 175 and start there so you're all caught up.  In this episode of Experiencing Data, I continue my deep dive into the MIRRR UX Framework for designing trustworthy agentic AI applications. Building on Part 1’s “Monitor” and “Interrupt,” I unpack the three R’s: Redirect, Rerun, and Rollback—and share practical strategies for data product managers and leaders tasked with creating AI systems people will actually trust and use. I explain human-centered approaches to thinking about automation and how to handle unexpected outcomes in agentic AI applications without losing user confidence. I am hoping this control framework will help you get more value out of your data while simultaneously creating value for the human stakeholders, users, and customers. Highlights / Skip to: Introducing the MIRRR UX Framework (1:08) Designing for trust and user adoption plus perspectives you should be including when designing systems. (2:31) Monitor and interrupt controls let humans pause anything from a single AI task to the entire agent (3:17) Explaining “redirection” in the example context of use cases for claims adjusters working on insurance claims—so adjusters (users) can focus on important decisions. (4:35)  Rerun controls: lets humans redo an angentic task after unexpected results, preventing errors and building trust in early AI rollouts (11:12) Rerun vs. Redirect: what the difference is in the context of AI, using additional use cases from the insurance claim processing domain  (12:07) Empathy and user experience in AI adoption, and how the most useful insights come from directly observing users—not from analytics (18:28) Thinking about agentic AI as glue for existing applications and workflows, or as a worker  (27:35) Quotes from Today’s Episode The value of AI isn’t just about technical capability, it’s based in large part on whether the end-users will actually trust and adopt it. If we don’t design for trust from the start, even the most advanced AI can fail to deliver value." "In agentic AI, knowing when to automate is just as important as knowing what to automate. Smart product and design decisions mean sometimes holding back on full automation until the people, processes, and culture are ready for it." "Sometimes the most valuable thing you can do is slow down, create checkpoints, and give people a chance to course-correct before the work goes too far in the wrong direction."   "Reruns and rollbacks shouldn’t be seen as failures, they’re essential safety mechanisms that protect both the integrity of the work and the trust of the humans in the loop. They give people the confidence to keep using the system, even when mistakes happen." "You can’t measure trust in an AI system by counting logins or tracking clicks. True adoption comes from understanding the people using it, listening to them, observing their workflows, and learning what really builds or breaks their confidence."   "You’ll never learn the real reasons behind a team’s choices by only looking at analytics, you have to actually talk to them and watch them work."   "Labels matter, what you call a button or an action can shape how people interpret and trust what will happen when they click it." Quotes from Today’s Episode Part 1: The MIRRR UX Framework for Designing Trustworthy Agentic AI Applications 

In this episode of Experiencing Data, I introduce part 1 of my new MIRRR UX framework for designing trustworthy agentic AI applications—you know, the kind that might actually get used and have the opportunity to create the desired business value everyone seeks! One of the biggest challenges with both traditional analytics, ML, and now, LLM-driven AI agents, is getting end users and stakeholders to trust and utilize these data products—especially if we’re asking humans in the loop to make changes to their behavior or ways of working.  In this episode, I challenge the idea that software UIs will vanish with the rise of AI-based automation. In fact, the MIRRR framework is based on the idea that AI agents should be “in the human loop,” and a control surface (user interface) may in many situations be essential to ensure any automated workers engender trust with their human overlords.   By properly considering the control and oversight that end users and stakeholders need, you can enable the business value and UX outcomes that your paying customers, stakeholders, and application users seek from agentic AI.  Using use cases from insurance claims processing, in this episode, I introduce the first two of five control points in the MIRRR framework—Monitor and Interrupt. These control points represent core actions that define how AI agents often should operate and interact within human systems: Monitor – enabling appropriate transparency into AI agent behavior and performance Interrupt – designing both manual and automated pausing mechanisms to ensure human oversight remains possible when needed  …and in a couple weeks, stay tuned for part 2 where I’ll wrap up this first version of my MIRRR framework.  Highlights / Skip to: 00:34 Introducing the MIRRR UX Framework for designing trustworthy agentic AI Applications.  01:27 The importance of trust in AI systems and how it is linked to user adoption 03:06 Cultural shifts, AI hype, and growing AI skepticism 04:13  Human centered design practices for agentic AI   06:48 I discuss how understanding your users’ needs does not change with agentic AI, and that trust in agentic applications has direct ties to user adoption and value creation 11:32 Measuring success of agentic applications with UX outcomes 15:26 Introducing the first two of five MIRRR framework control points: 16:29 M is for Monitor; understanding the agent’s “performance,” and the right level of transparency end users need, from individual tasks to aggregate views  20:29 I is for Interrupt; when and why users may need to stop the agent—and what happens next 28:02 Conclusion and next steps

In this episode of Experiencing Data, I chat with Irina Malkova who is the VP of AI Engineering and VP of Data and Analytics for Tech and Product at Salesforce. Irina shares how her teams are reinventing internal analytics, combining classic product data work with cutting-edge AI engineering—and her recent post on LinkedIn titled “AI adoption moves at the speed of user trust,” having a strong design-centered perspective, inspires today’s episode. (I even quoted her on this in a couple recent product design conference talks I gave!)  In today’s drop, Irina shares how they’re enabling analytical insights at Salesforce via a Slack-based AI agent, how they have changed their AI and engineering org structures (and why), the bad advice they got on organizing their data product teams, and more. This is a great episode for senior data product and AI executives managing complex orgs and technology environments who want to see how Salesforce is scaling AI for smarter, faster decisions.

Todd Olson joins me to talk about making analytics worth paying for and relevant in the age of AI. The CEO of Pendo, an analytics SAAS company, Todd shares how the company evolved to support a wider audience by simplifying dashboards, removing user roadblocks, and leveraging AI to both generate and explain insights. We also talked about the roles of product management at Pendo. Todd views AI product management as a natural evolution for adaptable teams and explains how he thinks about hiring product roles in 2025. Todd also shares how he thinks about successful user adoption of his product around “time to value” and “stickiness” over vanity metrics like time spent.    Highlights/ Skip to: How Todd has addressed analytics apathy over the past decade at Pendo (1:17) Getting back to basics and not barraging people with more data and power (4:02) Pendo’s strategy for keeping the product experience simple without abandoning power users (6:44) Whether Todd is considering using an LLM (prompt-based) answer-driven experience with Pendo's UI (8:51) What Pendo looks for when hiring product managers right now, and why (14:58) How Pendo evaluates AI product managers, specifically (19:14) How Todd Olson views AI product management compared to traditional software product management (21:56) Todd’s concerns about the probabilistic nature of AI-generated answers in the product UX (27:51) What KPIs Todd uses to know whether Pendo is doing enough to reach its goals (32:49)   Why being able to tell what answers are best will become more important as choice increases (40:05)   Quotes from Today’s Episode “Let’s go back to classic Geoffrey Moore Crossing the Chasm, you’re selling to early adopters. And what you’re doing is you’re relying on the early adopters’ skill set and figuring out how to take this data and connect it to business problems. So, in the early days, we didn’t do anything because the market we were selling to was very, very savvy; they’re hungry people, they just like new things. They’re getting data, they’re feeling really, really smart, everything’s working great. As you get bigger and bigger and bigger, you start to try to sell to a bigger TAM, a bigger audience, you start trying to talk to the these early majorities, which are, they’re not early adopters, they’re more technology laggards in some degree, and they don’t understand how to use data to inform their job. They’ve never used data to inform their job. There, we’ve had to do a lot more work.” Todd (2:04 - 2:58) “I think AI is amazing, and I don’t want to say AI is overhyped because AI in general is—yeah, it’s the revolution that we all have to pay attention to. Do I think that the skills necessary to be an AI product manager are so distinct that you need to hire differently? No, I don’t. That’s not what I’m seeing. If you have a really curious product manager who’s going all in, I think you’re going to be okay. Some of the most AI-forward work happening at Pendo is not just product management. Our design team is going crazy. And I think one of the things that we’re seeing is a blend between design and product, that they’re always adjacent and connected; there’s more sort of overlappiness now.” Todd (22:41 - 23:28) “I think about things like stickiness, which may not be an aggregate time, but how often are people coming back and checking in? And if you had this companion or this agent that you just could not live without, and it caused you to come into the product almost every day just to check in, but it’s a fast check-in, like, a five-minute check-in, a ten-minute check-in, that’s pretty darn sticky. That’s a good metric. So, I like stickiness as a metric because it’s measuring [things like], “Are you thinking about this product a lot?” And if you’re thinking about it a lot, and like, you can’t kind of live without it, you’re going to go to it a lot, even if it’s only a few minutes a day. Social media is like that. Thankfully I’m not addicted to TikTok o

Today on the podcast, I interview AI researcher Tony Zhang about some of his recent findings about the effects that fully automated AI has on user decision-making. Tony shares lessons from his recent research study comparing typical recommendation AIs with a “forward-reasoning” approach that nudges users to contribute their own reasoning with process-oriented support that may lead to better outcomes. We’ll look at his two study examples where they provided an AI-enabled interface for pilots tasked with deciding mid-flight the next-best alternate airport to land at, and another scenario asking investors to rebalance an ETF portfolio. The takeaway, taken right from Tony’s research, is that “going forward, we suggest that process-oriented support can be an effective framework to inform the design of both 'traditional' AI-assisted decision-making tools but also GenAI-based tools for thought.”  Highlights/ Skip to: Tony Zhang’s background (0:46) Context for the study (4:12) Zhang’s metrics for measuring over-reliance on AI (5:06) Understanding the differences between the two design options that study participants were given  (15:39) How AI-enabled hints appeared for pilots in each version of the UI (17:49) Using AI to help pilots make good decisions faster (20:15) We look at the ETF portfolio rebalancing use case in the study  (27:46) Strategic and tactical findings that Tony took away from his study (30:47) The possibility of commercially viable recommendations based on Tony’s findings (35:40)  Closing thoughts (39:04)   Quotes from Today’s Episode “I wanted to keep the difference between the [recommendation & forward reasoning versions] very minimal to isolate the effect of the recommendation coming in. So, if I showed you screenshots of those two versions, they would look very, very similar. The only difference that you would immediately see is that the recommendation version is showing numbers 1, 2, and 3 for the recommended airports. These [rankings] are not present in the forward-reasoning one [airports are default sorted nearest to furthest]. This actually is a pretty profound difference in terms of the interaction or the decision-making impact that the AI has. There is this normal flight mode and forward reasoning, so that pilots are already immersed in the system and thinking with the system during normal flight. It changes the process that they are going through while they are working with the AI.” Tony (18:50 - 19:42) “You would imagine that giving the recommendation makes your decision faster, but actually, the recommendations were not faster than the forward-reasoning one. In the forward-reasoning one, during normal flight, pilots could already prepare and have a good overview of their surroundings, giving them time to adjust to the new situation. Now, in normal flight, they don’t know what might be happening, and then suddenly, a passenger emergency happens. While for the recommendation version, the AI just comes into the situation once you have the emergency, and then you need to do this backward reasoning that we talked about initially.” Tony ( 21:12 - 21:58) “Imagine reviewing code written by other people. It’s always hard because you had no idea what was going on when it was written. That was the idea behind the forward reasoning. You need to look at how people are working and how you can insert AI in a way that it seamlessly fits and provides some benefit to you while keeping you in your usual thought process. So, the way that I see it is you need to identify where the key pain points actually are in your current decision-making process and try to address those instead of just trying to solve the task entirely for users.” Tony (25:40 - 26:19)   Links LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zelun-tony-zhang/  Augmenting Human Cognition With Generative AI: Lessons From AI-Assisted Decision-Making: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.03207v1 

Today, I’m responding to a listener's question about what it takes to succeed as a data or AI product manager, especially if you’re coming from roles like design/BI/data visualization, data science/engineering, or traditional software product management. This reader correctly observed that most of my content “seems more targeted at senior leadership” — and had asked if I could address this more IC-oriented topic on the show. I’ll break down why technical chops alone aren’t enough, and how user-centered thinking, business impact, and outcome-focused mindsets are key to real success — and where each of these prior roles brings strengths and/or weaknesses. I’ll also get into the evolving nature of PM roles in the age of AI, and what I think the super-powered AI product manager will look like. Highlights/ Skip to: Who can transition into an AI and data product management role? What does it take? (5:29) Software product managers moving into  AI product management (10:05) Designers moving into data/AI product management (13:32) Moving into the AI PM role from the engineering side (21:47) Why the challenge of user adoption and trust is often the blocker to the business value (29:56) Designing change management into AI/data products as a skill (31:26) The challenge of value creation vs. delivery work — and how incentives are aligned for ICs  (35:17) Quantifying the financial value of data and AI product work(40:23) Quotes from Today’s Episode “Who can transition into this type of role, and what is this role? I’m combining these two things. AI product management often seems closely tied to software companies that are primarily leveraging AI, or trying to, and therefore, they tend to utilize this AI product management role. I’m seeing less of that in internal data teams, where you tend to see data product management more, which, for me, feels like an umbrella term that may include traditional analytics work, data platforms, and often AI and machine learning. I’m going to frame this more in the AI space, primarily because I think AI tends to capture the end-to-end product than data product management does more frequently.” — Brian (2:55)   “There are three disciplines I’m going to talk about moving into this role. Coming into AI and data PM from design and UX, coming into it from data engineering (or just broadly technical spaces), and then coming into it from software product management. I think software product management and moving into the AI product management - as long as you’re not someone that has two years of experience, and then 18 years of repeating the second year of experience over and over again - and you’ve had a robust product management background across some different types of products; you can show that the domain doesn’t necessarily stop you from producing value. I think you will have the easiest time moving into AI product management because you’ve shown that you can adapt across different industries.” - Brian (9:45)   “Let’s talk about designers next. I’m going to include data visualization, user experience research, user experience design, product design, all those types of broad design, category roles. Moving into data and/or AI product management, first of all, you don’t see too many—I don’t hear about too many designers wanting to move into DPM roles, because oftentimes I don’t think there’s a lot of heavy UI and UX all the time in that space. Or at least the teams that are doing that work feel that’s somebody else’s job because they’re not doing end-to-end product thinking the way I talk about it, so therefore, a lot of times they don’t see the application, the user experience, the human adoption, the change management, they’re just not looking at the world that way, even though I think they should be.” - Brian (13:32)   “Coming at this from the data and engineering side, this is the classic track for data product management. At least that is the way I tend to see it. I believe most compani

Today, I'm chatting with Shri Santhanam, the  EVP of Software Platforms and Chief AI Officer of Experian North America. Over the course of this promoted episode, you’re going to hear us talk about what it takes to build useful consumer and B2B AI products. Shri explains how Experian structures their AI product teams, the company’s approach prioritizing its initiatives, and what it takes to get their AI solutions out the door. We also get into the nuances of building trust with probabilistic AI tools and the absolutely critical role of UX in end user adoption.   Note: today’s episode is one of my rare Promoted Episodes. Please help support the show by visiting Experian’s links below:     Links Shri's LinkedIn Experian Assistant | Experian Experian Ascend Platform™ | Experian 

Today, I'm chatting with Stuart Winter-Tear about AI product management. We're getting into the nitty-gritty of what it takes to build and launch LLM-powered products for the commercial market that actually produce value. Among other things in this rich conversation, Stuart surprised me with the level of importance he believes UX has in making LLM-powered products successful, even for technical audiences.     After spending significant time on the forefront of AI’s breakthroughs, Stuart believes many of the products we’re seeing today are the result of FOMO above all else. He shares a belief that I’ve emphasized time and time again on the podcast–product is about the problem, not the solution. This design philosophy has informed Staurt’s 20-plus year-long career, and it is pivotal to understanding how to best use AI to build products that meet users’ needs.   Highlights/ Skip to  Why Stuart was asked to speak to the House of Lords about AI (2:04) The LLM-powered products has Stuart been building recently (4:20) Finding product-market fit with AI products (7:44) Lessons Stuart has learned over the past two years working with LLM-power products (10:54)  Figuring out how to build user trust in your AI products (14:40) The differences between being a digital product manager vs. AI product manager (18:13) Who is best suited for an AI product management role (25:42) Why Stuart thinks user experience matters greatly with AI products (32:18) The formula needed to create a business-viable AI product (38:22)  Stuart describes the skills and roles he thinks are essential in an AI product team and who he brings on first (50:53) Conversations that need to be had with academics and data scientists when building AI-powered products (54:04) Final thoughts from Stuart and where you can find more from him (58:07)   Quotes from Today’s Episode “I think that the core dream with GenAI is getting data out of IT hands and back to the business. Finding a way to overlay all this disparate, unstructured data and [translate it] to the human language is revolutionary. We’re finding industries that you would think were more conservative (i.e. medical, legal, etc.) are probably the most interested because of the large volumes of unstructured data they have to deal with. People wouldn’t expect large language models to be used for fact-checking… they’re actually very powerful, especially if you can have your own proprietary data or pipelines. Same with security–although large language models introduce a terrifying amount of security problems, they can also be used in reverse to augment security. There’s a lovely contradiction with this technology that I do enjoy.” - Stuart Winter-Tear (5:58) “[LLM-powered products] gave me the wow factor, and I think that’s part of what’s caused the problem. If we focus on technology, we build more technology, but if we focus on business and customers, we’re probably going to end up with more business and customers. This is why we end up with so many products that are effectively solutions in search of problems. We’re in this rush and [these products] are [based on] FOMO. We’re leaving behind what we understood about [building] products—as if [an LLM-powered product] is a special piece of technology. It’s not. It’s another piece of technology. [Designers] should look at this technology from the prism of the business and from the prism of the problem. We love to solutionize, but is the problem the problem? What’s the context of the problem? What’s the problem under the problem? Is this problem worth solving, and is GenAI a desirable way to solve it? We’re putting the cart before the horse.” - Stuart Winter-Tear (11:11) “[LLM-powered products] feel most amazing when you’re not a domain expert in whatever you’re using it for. I’ll give you an example: I’m terrible at coding. When I got my hands on Cursor, I felt like a superhero. It was unbelievable what I could build. Although [LLM products] look most amazing in

Today, I am going to share some of the biggest challenges internal enterprise data leaders may face when creating their first revenue-generating data product. If your team is thinking about directly monetizing a data product and bringing a piece of software to life as something customers actually pay for, this episode is for you. As a companion to this episode, you can read my original article on this topic here once you finish listening!

Today, I’m talking with Natalia Andreyeva from Infor about AI / ML product management and its application to supply chain software. Natalia is a Senior Director of Product Management for the Nexus AI / ML Solution Portfolio, and she walks us through what is new, and what is not, about designing AI capabilities in B2B software. We also got into why user experience is so critical in data-driven products, and the role of design in ensuring AI produces value. During our chat, Natalia hit on the importance of really nailing down customer needs through solid discovery and the role of product leaders in this non-technical work. We also tackled some of the trickier aspects of designing for GenAI, digital assistants, the need to keep efforts strongly grounded in value creation for customers, and how even the best ML-based predictive analytics need to consider UX and the amount of evidence that customers need to believe the recommendations. During this episode, Natalia emphasizes a huge key to her work’s success: keeping customers and users in the loop throughout the product development lifecycle.   Highlights/ Skip to What Natalia does as a Senior Director of Product Management for Infor Nexus (1:13) Who are the people using Infor Nexus Products and what do they accomplish when using them (2:51) Breaking down who makes up Natalia's team (4:05) What role does AI play in Natalia's work? (5:32) How do designers work with Natalia's team? (7:17) The problem that had Natalia rethink the discovery process when working with AI and machine learning applications (10:28) Why Natalia isn’t worried about competitors catching up to her team's design work (14:24) How Natalia works with Infor Nexus customers to help them understand the solutions her team is building (23:07) The biggest challenges Natalia faces with building GenAI and machine learning products (27:25) Natalia’s four steps to success in building AI products and capabilities (34:53) Where you can find more from Natalia (36:49)   Quotes from Today’s Episode “I always launch discovery with customers, in the presence of the UX specialist [our designer]. We do the interviews together, and [regardless of who is facilitating] the goal is to understand the pain points of our customers by listening to how they do their jobs today. We do a series of these interviews and we distill them into the customer needs; the problems we need to really address for the customers. And then we start thinking about how to [address these needs]. Data products are a particular challenge because it’s not always that you can easily create a UX that would allow users to realize the value they’re searching for from the solution. And even if we can deliver it, consuming that is typically a challenge, too. So, this is where [design becomes really important]. [...] What I found through the years of experience is that it’s very difficult to explain to people around you what it is that you’re building when you’re dealing with a data-driven product. Is it a dashboard? Is it a workboard? They understand the word data, but that’s not what we are creating. We are creating the actual experience for the outcome that data will deliver to them indirectly, right? So, that’s typically how we work.” - Natalia Andreyeva (7:47) “[When doing discovery for products without AI], we already have ideas for what we want to get out. We know that there is a space in the market for those solutions to come to life. We just have to understand where. For AI-driven products, it’s not only about [the user’s] understanding of the problem or the design, it is also about understanding if the data exists and if it’s feasible to build the solution to address [the user’s] problem. [Data] feasibility is an extremely important piece because it will drive the UX as well.” - Natalia Andreyeva (10:50) “When [the team] discussed the problem, it sounded like a simple calculation that needed to be created [for users]. In reality, it was an entire p

Today I am going to try to answer a fundamental question: how should you actually measure user experience, especially with data products—and tie this to business value? It's easy to get lost in analytics and think we're seeing the whole picture, but I argue that this is far from the truth. Product leaders need to understand the subjective experience of our users—and unfortunately, analytics does not tell us this. The map is not the territory.   In this episode, I discuss why qualitative data and subjective experience is the data that will most help you make product decisions that will lead you to increased business value. If users aren't getting value from your product(s), and their lives aren’t improving, business value will be extremely difficult to create. So today, I share my thoughts on how to move beyond thinking that analytics is the only way to track UX, and how this helps product leaders uncover opportunities to produce better organizational value.  Ultimately, it’s about creating indispensable solutions and building trust, which is key for any product team looking to make a real impact. Hat tip to UX guru Jared Spool who inspired several of the concepts I share with you today.   Highlights/ Skip to  Don't target adoption for adoption's sake, because product usage can be a tax or benefit (3:00) Why your analytical mind may bias you—and what changes you might have to do this type of product and user research work (7:31) How "making the user's life better" translates to organizational value (10:17) Using Jared Spool's roller coaster chart to measure your product’s user experience and find your opportunities and successes (13:05) How do you measure that you have done a good job with your UX? (17:28)  Conclusions and final thoughts (21:06)   Quotes from Today’s Episode Usage doesn't automatically equal value. Analytics on your analytics is not telling you useful things about user experience or satisfaction. Why? "The map is not the territory." Analytics measure computer metrics, not feelings, and let's face it, users aren't always rational. To truly gauge user value, we need qualitative research - to talk to users - and to hear what their subjective experience is. Want *meaningful* adoption? Talk to and observe your users. That's how you know you are actually making things better. When it’s better for them, the business value will follow. (3:12) Make better things—where better is a measurement based on the subjective experience of the user—not analytics. Usable doesn’t mean they will necessarily want it. Sessions and page views don’t tell you how people *feel* about it. (7:39) Think about the dreadful tools you and so many have been forced to use: the things that waste your time and don’t let you focus on what’s really important. Ever talked to a data scientist who is sick of doing data prep instead of building models, and wondering, “why am I here? This isn’t what I went to school for.” Ignoring these personal frustrations and feelings and focusing only on your customers’ feature requests, JIRA tickets, stakeholder orders, requirements docs, and backlog items is why many teams end up building technically right, effectively wrong solutions. These end user frustrations are where we find our opportunities to delight—and create products and UXs that matter. To improve their lives, we need to dig into their workflows, identify frustrations, and understand the context around our data product solutions. Product leaders need to fall in love with the problems and the frustrations—these are the magic keys to the value kingdom. However, to do this well, you probably need to be doing less delivery and more discovery. (10:27) Imagine a line chart with a Y-axis that is "frustration" at the bottom to "delight" at the top. The X-axis is their user experience, taking place over time. As somebody uses your data product to do their job/task, you can plot their emotional journey. “Get the data, format the data, include the da

A challenge I frequently hear about from subscribers to my insights mailing list is how to design B2B data products for multiple user types with differing needs. From dashboards to custom apps and commercial analytics / AI products, data product teams often struggle to create a single solution that meets the diverse needs of technical and business users in B2B settings. If you're encountering this issue, you're not alone!     In this episode, I share my advice for tackling this challenge including the gift of saying "no.” What are the patterns you should be looking out for in your customer research? How can you choose what to focus on with limited resources? What are the design choices you should avoid when trying to build these products? I’m hoping by the end of this episode, you’ll have some strategies to help reduce the size of this challenge—particularly if you lack a dedicated UX team to help you sort through your various user/stakeholder demands.      Highlights/ Skip to  The importance of proper user research and clustering “jobs to be done” around business importance vs. task frequency—ignoring the rest until your solution can show measurable value  (4:29) What “level” of skill to design for, and why “as simple as possible” isn’t what I generally recommend (13:44) When it may be advantageous to use role or feature-based permissions to hide/show/change certain aspects, UI elements, or features  (19:50) Leveraging AI and LLMs in-product to allow learning about the user and progressive disclosure and customization of UIs (26:44) Leveraging the “old” solution of rapid prototyping—which is now faster than ever with AI, and can accelerate learning (capturing user feedback) (31:14) 5 things I do not recommend doing when trying to satisfy multiple user types in your b2b AI or analytics product (34:14)   Quotes from Today’s Episode If you're not talking to your users and stakeholders sufficiently, you're going to have a really tough time building a successful data product for one user – let alone for multiple personas. Listen for repeating patterns in what your users are trying to achieve (tasks they are doing). Focus on the jobs and tasks they do most frequently or the ones that bring the most value to their business. Forget about the rest until you've proven that your solution delivers real value for those core needs. It's more about understanding the problems and needs, not just the solutions. The solutions tend to be easier to design when the problem space is well understood. Users often suggest solutions, but it's our job to focus on the core problem we're trying to solve; simply entering in any inbound requests verbatim into JIRA and then “eating away” at the list is not usually a reliable strategy. (5:52) I generally recommend not going for “easy as possible” at the cost of shallow value. Instead, you’re going to want to design for some “mid-level” ability, understanding that this may make early user experiences with the product more difficult. Why? Oversimplification can mislead because data is complex, problems are multivariate, and data isn't always ideal. There are also “n” number of “not-first” impressions users will have with your product. This also means there is only one “first impression” they have. As such, the idea conceptually is to design an amazing experience for the “n” experiences, but not to the point that users never realize value and give up on the product.  While I'd prefer no friction, technical products sometimes will have to have a little friction up front however, don't use this as an excuse for poor design. This is hard to get right, even when you have design resources, and it’s why UX design matters as thinking this through ends up determining, in part, whether users obtain the promise of value you made to them. (14:21) As an alternative to rigid role and feature-based permissions in B2B data products, you might consider leveraging AI and / or LLMs in your UI as a means of simplif

Are you prepared for the hidden UX taxes that AI and LLM features might be imposing on your B2B customers—without your knowledge? Are you certain that your AI product or features are truly delivering value, or are there unseen taxes that are working against your users and your product / business? In this episode, I’m delving into some of UX challenges that I think need to be addressed when implementing LLM and AI features into B2B products.   While AI seems to offer the change for significantly enhanced productivity, it also introduces a new layer of complexity for UX design. This complexity is not limited to the challenges of designing in a probabilistic medium (i.e. ML/AI), but also in being able to define what “quality” means. When the product team does not have a shared understanding of what a measurably better UX outcome means, improved sales and user adoption are less likely to follow.    I’ll also discuss aspects of designing for AI that may be invisible on the surface. How might AI-powered products change the work of B2B users? What are some of the traps I see some startup clients and founders I advise in MIT’s Sandbox venture fund fall into?   If you’re a product leader in B2B / enterprise software and want to make sure your AI capabilities don’t end up creating more damage than value for users,  this episode will help!     Highlights/ Skip to    Improving your AI model accuracy improves outputs—but customers only care about outcomes (4:02) AI-driven productivity gains also put the customer’s “next problem” into their face sooner. Are you addressing the most urgent problem they now have—or used to have? (7:35) Products that win will combine AI with tastefully designed deterministic-software—because doing everything for everyone well is impossible and most models alone aren’t products (12:55) Just because your AI app or LLM feature can do ”X” doesn't mean people will want it or change their behavior (16:26) AI Agents sound great—but there is a human UX too, and it must enable trust and intervention at the right times (22:14) Not overheard from customers: “I would buy this/use this if it had AI” (26:52) Adaptive UIs sound like they’ll solve everything—but to reduce friction, they need to adapt to the person, not just the format of model outputs (30:20) Introducing AI introduces more states and scenarios that your product may need to support that may not be obvious right away (37:56)   Quotes from Today’s Episode Product leaders have to decide how much effort and resources you should put into model improvements versus improving a user’s experience. Obviously, model quality is important in certain contexts and regulated industries, but when GenAI errors and confabulations are lower risk to the user (i.e. they create minor friction or inconveniences), the broader user experience that you facilitate might be what is actually determining the true value of your AI features or product. Model accuracy alone is not going to necessarily lead to happier users or increased adoption. ML models can be quantifiably tested for accuracy with structured tests, but because they’re easier to test for quality vs. something like UX doesn’t mean users value these improvements more. The product will stand a better chance of creating business value when it is clearly demonstrating it is improving your users’ lives. (5:25) When designing AI agents, there is still a human UX - a beneficiary - in the loop. They have an experience, whether you designed it with intention or not. How much transparency needs to be given to users when an agent does work for them? Should users be able to intervene when the AI is doing this type of work?  Handling errors is something we do in all software, but what about retraining and learning so that the future user experiences is better? Is the system learning anything while it’s going through this—and can I tell if it’s learning what I want/need it to learn? What about humans in the loop who might inte

I keep hearing data product, data strategy, and UX teams often struggle to quantify the value of their work. Whether it’s as a team as a whole or on a specific data product initiative, the underlying problem is the same – your contribution is indirect, so it’s harder to measure. Even worse, your stakeholders want to know if your work is creating an impact and value, but because you can’t easily put numbers on it, valuation spirals into a messy problem.   The messy part of this valuation problem is what today’s episode is all about—not math! Value is largely subjective, not objective, and I think this is partly why analytical teams may struggle with this. To improve at how you estimate the value of your data products, you need to leverage other skills—and stop approaching this as a math problem.   As a consulting product designer, estimating value when it’s indirect is something that I’ve dealt with my entire career. It’s not a skill learned overnight, and it’s one you will need to keep developing over time—but the basic concepts are simple. I hope you’ll find some value in applying these along with your other frameworks and tools.    Highlights/ Skip to   Value is subjective, not objective (5:01) Measurability does not necessarily mean valuable (6:36) Businesses are made up of humans. Most b2b stakeholders aren’t spending their own money when making business decisions—what does that mean for your work? (9:30) Quantifying a data product’s value starts with understanding what is worth measuring in the eye of the beholder(s)—not math calculations (13:44) The more difficult it is to show the value of your product (or team) in numbers, the lower that value is to the stakeholder—initially (16:46) By simply helping a stakeholder to think through how value should be calculated on a data product, you’re likely already providing additional value (18:02) Focus on expressing estimated value via a range versus a single number (19:36) Measurement of anything requires that we can observe the phenomenon first—but many stakeholders won’t be able to cite these phenomena without [your!] help (22:16) When you are measuring quantitative aspects of value, remember that measurement is not the same as accuracy (precision)—and the precision game can become a trap (25:37) How to measure anything—and why estimates often trump accuracy (31:19) Why you may need to steer the conversation away from ROI calculations in the short term (35:00)   Quotes from Today’s Episode Even when you can easily assign a dollar value to the data product you’re building, that does not necessarily reflect what your stakeholder actually feels about it—or your team’s contribution. So, why do they keep asking you to quantify the value of your work? By actually understanding what a shareholder needs to observe for them to know progress has been made on their initiative or data product, you will be positioned to deliver results they actually care about. While most of the time, you should be able to show some obvious economic value in the work you’re doing, you may be getting hounded about this because you’re not meeting the often unstated qualitative goals. If you can surface the qualitative goals of your stakeholder, then the perception of the value of your team and its work goes up, and you’ll spend less time trying to measure an indirect contribution in quant terms that only has a subjectively right answer. (6:50) The more difficult it is for you to show the monetary value of your data product (or team), the lower that value likely is to the stakeholder. This does not mean the value of your work is “low.” It means it’s perceived as low because it cannot be easily quantified in a way that is observable to the person whose judgment matters. By understanding the personal motivations and interests of your stakeholders, you can begin to collaboratively figure out what the correct success metrics should be—and how they’d be measured. By just simply beginning to ask and

I’m doing things a bit differently for this episode of Experiencing Data. For the first time on the show, I’m hosting a panel discussion. I’m joined by Thomas Reuters’s Simon Landry, Sumo Logic’s Greg Nudelman, and Google’s Paz Perez to chat about how we design user experiences that improve people’s lives and create business impact when we expose LLM capabilities to our users.    With the rise of AI, there are a lot of opportunities for innovation, but there are also many challenges—and frankly, my feeling is that a lot of these capabilities right now are making things worse for users, not better. We’re looking at a range of topics such as the pros and cons of AI-first thinking, collaboration between UX designers and ML engineers, and the necessity of diversifying design teams when integrating AI and LLMs into b2b products.    Highlights/ Skip to  Thoughts on how the current state of LLMs implementations and its impact on user experience (1:51)  The problems that can come with the "AI-first" design philosophy (7:58)  Should a company's design resources be spent on go toward AI development? (17:20) How designers can navigate "fuzzy experiences” (21:28) Why you need to narrow and clearly define the problems you’re trying to solve when building LLMs products (27:35) Why diversity matters in your design and research teams when building LLMs (31:56)  Where you can find more from Paz, Greg, and Simon (40:43)   Quotes from Today’s Episode “ [AI] will connect the dots. It will argue pro, it will argue against, it will create evidence supporting and refuting, so it’s really up to us to kind of drive this. If we understand the capabilities, then it is an almost limitless field of possibility. And these things are taught, and it’s a fundamentally different approach to how we build user interfaces. They’re no longer completely deterministic. They’re also extremely personalized to the point where it’s ridiculous.” - Greg Nudelman (12:47) “ To put an LLM into a product means that there’s a non-zero chance your user is going to have a [negative] experience and no longer be your customer. That is a giant reputational risk, and there’s also a financial cost associated with running these models. I think we need to take more of a service design lens when it comes to [designing our products with AI] and ask what is the thing somebody wants to do… not on my website, but in their lives? What brings them to my [product]? How can I imagine a different world that leverages these capabilities to help them do their job? Because what [designers] are competing against is [a customer workflow] that probably worked well enough.” - Simon Landry (15:41) “ When we go general availability (GA) with a product, that traditionally means [designers] have done all the research, got everything perfect, and it’s all great, right? Today, GA is a starting gun. We don’t know [if the product is working] unless we [seek out user feedback]. A massive research method is needed. [We need qualitative research] like sitting down with the customer and watching them use the product to really understand what is happening[…] but you also need to collect data. What are they typing in? What are they getting back? Is somebody who’s typing in this type of question always having a short interaction? Let’s dig into it with rapid, iterative testing and evaluation, so that we can update our model and then move forward. Launching a product these days means the starting guns have been fired. Put the research to work to figure out the next step.” - (23:29) Greg Nudelman “ I think that having diversity on your design team (i.e. gender, level of experience, etc.) is critical. We’ve already seen some terrible outcomes. Multiple examples where an LLM is crafting horrendous emails, introductions, and so on. This is exactly why UXers need to get involved [with building LLMs]. This is why diversity in UX and on your tech team that deals with AI is so valuable. Number one piece of advi