- How do we get senior practitioners to trust an AI assistant?
- Trust is earned in their workflow, not in a town hall. We embed with the most skeptical senior operator first, instrument the assistant against their judgment, and tune until the model's output is something they would have written themselves. Once one respected practitioner endorses it, the rest of the bench follows. We do not lead with mandates from above.
- What does change management look like for an LLM in the loop?
- It looks less like a training program and more like an apprenticeship. The assistant has to learn the firm's tacit standards (tone, risk posture, escalation rules) and the team has to learn where the assistant is reliable and where it is not. We codify both sides: a living rubric of where the model is trusted, and a feedback channel that retrains it weekly. That artifact becomes the operating manual.
- How do we train the front line without grinding to a halt?
- We do not pull people offline for week-long sessions. Training happens inside the work: short shadowing sessions, in-tool prompts, and a designated peer (often a respected mid-level operator) who fields questions in the first 60 days. Productivity dips for two to three weeks; we plan for it and protect the team's commitments during that window. By week eight, throughput is above baseline.
- What KPIs prove the rollout worked beyond "adoption rate"?
- Adoption rate is a vanity metric on its own. We track three layers: usage (daily active operators on the tool), quality (acceptance rate of the assistant's output without manual rewrite), and business impact (hours returned, cycle time, error rate, or revenue per operator depending on the use case). The third layer is what we present to the board.
- Who owns the rollout: us, or your team?
- Your team owns it; we run alongside. A named internal sponsor and an operating lead sit with our forward-deployed partners from week one. By the end of the engagement they are running the cadence, the rubric, and the retraining loop. We have no interest in becoming load-bearing.
- What happens if a team refuses to adopt the tool?
- We treat refusal as signal, not failure. Usually it surfaces a real problem: the model is wrong in a context we missed, the workflow integration is clumsy, or incentives are pointing the wrong direction. We diagnose which, fix it, and re-engage. If after that the team still declines, the honest answer is that the use case is wrong for that team, and we say so.