Using AI For Task Management

Over the last year, I’ve seen many people fall into the same trap: They launch an AI-powered agent (chatbot, assistant, support tool, etc.)… But only track surface-level KPIs — like response time or number of users. That’s not enough. To create AI systems that actually deliver value, we need 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰, 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻-𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 that reflect: • User trust • Task success • Business impact • Experience quality    This infographic highlights 15 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 dimensions to consider: ↳ 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 — Are your AI answers actually useful and correct? ↳ 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Can the agent complete full workflows, not just answer trivia? ↳ 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 — Response speed still matters, especially in production. ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — How often are users returning or interacting meaningfully? ↳ 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Did the user achieve their goal? This is your north star. ↳ 𝗘𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Irrelevant or wrong responses? That’s friction. ↳ 𝗦𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Longer isn’t always better — it depends on the goal. ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Are users coming back 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 the first experience? ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Especially critical at scale. Budget-wise agents win. ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗵 — Can the agent handle follow-ups and multi-turn dialogue? ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 — Feedback from actual users is gold. ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 — Can your AI 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 to earlier inputs? ↳ 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 — Can it handle volume 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 degrading performance? ↳ 𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 — This is key for RAG-based agents. ↳ 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 — Is your AI learning and improving over time? If you're building or managing AI agents — bookmark this. Whether it's a support bot, GenAI assistant, or a multi-agent system — these are the metrics that will shape real-world success. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗜 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀? Let’s make this list even stronger — drop your thoughts 👇

Project AI Assistants are the secret weapon to 10x your productivity. They're one of my favorite ways to use AI. Here's how to build one in minutes You can use ChatGPT Projects, Claude Projects, or Gemini Gems for your Project AI assistant. You create a separate project assistant to manage each major outcome you're accountable for, e.g., grow demand by 30%, double weekly active users, use AI to increase closed-won deals by 50% etc. For each Project AI assistant 1. Give it all the context: People don't understand how amazing AI is at holding all the context for you. Give it: - All the project's strategic documents. - All the project's meeting transcripts - Bonus: use a meeting app like 'Fellow' to attend meetings on your behalf and grab the meeting notes; now your assistant has context across all meetings, even if you're not in them. - Loom transcripts. Have the team send updates in Looms; it's a huge unlock. - External Deep Research: pairing external research with internal is powerful 2. Instructions: Provide your project assistant with clear instructions on how to work with you. Below is just a tiny sample from mine. a. Be clear and concise: Get to the point, but add context where needed. Prioritize clarity without losing important nuance. b. Use evidence: Cite sources (e.g., "2024 Q3 GTM Strategy Doc") and include relevant excerpts when making recommendations. c. Surface blind spots: Go beyond the prompt. Flag risks, missed opportunities, or second-order effects. d. Challenge respectfully: If you disagree, explain why with logic and evidence — constructively. [I'm doing a complete breakdown of my Project AI Assistants for my newsletter subscribers, signup for full instructions & templates. Signup link on LinkedIn profile page] 3. Templates Give the Project AI assistant templates of frequent asks you'll have; examples I use: - Executive Memo Template: a 6-page memo template on progress, challenges, blockers, opportunities - Weekly Blockers Template: surfaces the biggest blockers to solve that week - Bi-weekly Momentum Template: surfaces what's been shipped the past two weeks and what's planned for the next two weeks - Monthly Status Template: writes a monthly summary of what results to drive accountability across the team - Opportunities Researcher Template: Identify the biggest missed opportunities the team should pay more attention to. There's so much fluff in all the AI demos you'll see on social media that people forget about the less flashy but more impactful use cases for AI.

"A Multifaceted Vision of the Human-AI Collaboration: A Comprehensive Review" provides some interesting and useful insights into effective Humans + AI work, drawn from across the literature. Some of the specifics insights in the paper: 🧭 Use the five-cluster framework to tailor collaboration depth. The framework defines five types of human-AI collaboration: (1) Humans as optional tools, (2) Consensus-based coordination, (3) Asynchronous collaboration, (4) Humans and AI as co-agents, and (5) Humans directing AI. Choose the type based on your task: use cluster 1 for personalization (e.g. recommender systems), cluster 2 for group decision-making, clusters 3 and 4 for task co-execution, and cluster 5 when human judgment must lead the process. 🧠 Let humans steer the learning loop. Design workflows where human feedback isn't just collected but actively changes the model. Show users how their input influences outcomes, and ensure systems update based on their corrections—failing to do so erodes trust and engagement fast. 🔄 Support iterative improvement through clear feedback cycles. Let users provide input at multiple points in the workflow—before, during, and after AI output. Use real-time feedback, editable suggestions, and memory-based personalization (e.g., saving past preferences) to refine collaboration with each loop. 📣 Grant users communication initiative. Don’t restrict user interaction to predefined prompts—enable them to ask questions, challenge decisions, or suggest new directions. This increases user autonomy, supports trust, and improves performance in both individual and group collaboration. 🛠️ Customize AI outputs to user-specific contexts. Embed features that allow tailoring of recommendations, predictions, or decisions to individual preferences or needs. For example, let users tweak rehabilitation goals in health tools or input content preferences in recommender systems. 🤖 Use AI as an impartial coordinator in group settings. In scenarios with multiple human participants—such as disaster planning or multi-user workflows—deploy AI to synthesize input, allocate tasks, and reduce bias. Ensure the system is transparent and users can reject or adjust AI decisions. 🔐 Prioritize human-centered design values. Build systems that are transparent (explain why outputs were generated), trustworthy (learn from user feedback), accessible (usable by non-experts), and empowering (give users control over high-level behavior). These are essential for lasting, ethical collaboration.

Companies are talking about AI growth. But what are we actually measuring? → Users → Tokens → WAU None of these answer the real question: Is AI driving impact? 1. OpenAI reports “Weekly Active Users.” → But does using ChatGPT once a week mean it’s reshaping your workflow? 2. Google & Microsoft share “tokens generated.” → But that’s like measuring internet success in bandwidth in 1996. Something’s going up. But what? In early tech waves, we obsessed over hits, app installs, monthly logins. Over time, we got smarter: DAUs, retention curves, time-to-value, query reformulation. AI needs the same rigor. Instead of “how many use it,” ask: → Are they returning and refining prompts? → Does AI output change behavior or decision-making? → What’s the time saved, quality improved, or cost reduced? The most telling metric?  → Business-relevant behavior change. AI isn’t just a tool. It’s a system. And systems demand better signals. If you’re building or investing in AI, don’t get fooled by vanity metrics. → Go deeper → Build feedback loops → Define what value looks like in your context & measure that What’s the smartest metric you’ve seen to track AI adoption or success? Share your ideas with me below.

Everyone’s excited to launch AI agents. Almost no one knows how to measure if they’re actually working. Over the last year, we’ve seen brands launch everything from GenAI assistants to support bots to creative copilots but the post-launch metrics often look like this: • Number of chats • Average latency • Session duration • Daily active users Useful? Yes. But sufficient? Not even close. At ALTRD, we’ve worked on AI agents for enterprises and if there’s one lesson it’s this: Speed and usage mean nothing if the agent isn’t solving the actual problem. The real performance indicators are far more nuanced. Here’s what we’ve learned to track instead: 🔹 Task Completion Rate — Can the AI go beyond answering a question and actually complete a workflow? 🔹 User Trust — Do people come back? Do they feel confident relying on the agent again? 🔹 Conversation Depth — Is the agent handling complex, multi-turn exchanges with consistency? 🔹 Context Retention — Can it remember prior interactions and respond accordingly? 🔹 Cost per Successful Interaction — Not just cost per query, but cost per outcome. Massive difference. One of our clients initially celebrated their bot’s 1 million+ sessions - until we uncovered that less than 8% of users actually got what they came for. That 8% wasn’t a usage issue. It was a design and evaluation issue. They had optimized for traffic. Not trust. Not success. Not satisfaction. So we rebuilt the evaluation framework - adding feedback loops, success markers, and goal-completion metrics. The results? CSAT up by 34% Drop-off down by 40% Same infra cost, 3x more value delivered The takeaway: Don’t just measure what’s easy. Measure what matters. AI agents aren’t just tools - they’re touchpoints. They represent your brand, shape user experience, and influence business outcomes. P.S. What’s one underrated metric you’ve used to evaluate AI performance? Curious to learn what others are tracking.

Most AI programmes collapse at the question: “Show me the numbers.” „We think AI is helping, but we cannot really show.“ This is what I hear so often when I speak with leaders. In my opinion, this measurement issue is one of the biggest risks in today's digital transformation. Here is why AI impact stays invisible: 1️⃣ No baseline. Teams start using AI without documenting how long tasks took before, how many review loops were needed, or what quality looked like. Without a “before”, there is no comparison. 2️⃣ AI blends into daily work. Work is done faster. But no one tracks that AI contributed. The value gets absorbed into operations. 3️⃣ Goals are too vague. “Improve efficiency” is not measurable. Does that mean 20% faster turnaround? Fewer errors? More output per person? If the target is unclear, impact will always feel debatable. 4️⃣ Measurement is postponed. If you do not design metrics from the start, the necessary data will never be collected. Here are five simple metrics that make AI value visible. You do not need complex dashboards. You just need focus. ✔️ Time saved per task ✔️ Reduction in rework and errors ✔️ Decision speed ✔️ Capacity unlocked ✔️ Consistent adoption in core workflows Measure outcomes, not the number of tool licenses or activities, like the number of prompts entered. The hours saved in a critical business process mean everything. Before launching your next AI initiative, ask: What exactly will improve, and how will we measure it in numbers? If you cannot answer that, the impact will remain invisible.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐈 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 AI metrics should drive Business Outcomes, not just Measure Performance.  Here is the Framework that aligns AI Metrics with Real-World value: 1. THE BLUEPRINT Three pillars: Decision Impact + Operational Reliability + Human Trust. Example: A claims agent that approves low-risk claims, escalates edge cases, and keeps humans in control. 2. NORTH STAR METRIC Pick one metric that captures value in production. • Net value per decision ↳ Fraud agent prevents $25 loss per case, costs $4 to run/review. Net value = $21. • Regret rate (% of decisions reversed) ↳ Out of 10,000 recommendations, 800 are changed by humans. Regret rate = 8%. • Revenue impact ↳ AI routing lifts conversion from 2.0% to 2.3% on 1M visits (3,000 extra conversions). • Cost per correct action ↳ Monthly run cost $200K / 400K correct actions = $0.50 per action. 3. DATA Leverage post-launch signals to understand behavior. • Decisions & outcomes ↳ Tracking "Approve claim" vs. whether it later became a chargeback. • Overrides & appeals ↳ Agent rejects refund → customer appeals → human approves. (Log this loop!) • Latency & failures ↳ P95 latency spikes during peak hours causing tool call timeouts. 4. CONSTRAINTS Constraints define what is sustainable at scale. Internal: • Review capacity: Your team can review 500 escalations/day. If the model sends 1,200, you bottleneck. • Infra cost: A "better" model doubles quality but triples cost per case. ROI drops. • Latency: Agent assist must respond under 800 ms to be usable. External: • Market behavior: Fraud patterns shift after you deploy. • User adaptation: Reps stop trusting suggestions after two bad calls, even if accuracy is high. 5. IDEATION + PRIORITIZATION Generate metric-driven improvements. • Impact vs risk: Automate low-risk approvals first. Keep high-risk human-led. • Regret frequency: 60% of overrides come from document parsing? Fix that first. • Drift severity: Regret rate rises from 6% to 11%? Roll back or retrain. • Cost vs value: Add a retrieval step that costs $0.02 but cuts regret by 20%. 6. EXPERIMENTATION Run controlled changes on: • Thresholds: Raise confidence threshold so fewer cases auto-approve. • Escalation rules: Escalate when the model disagrees with policy rules. • Model versions: A/B test smaller model vs larger model on "cost per correct action." MY RECOMMENDATION AI metrics aren't about model performance, they're about business value. Measure what drives decisions, not what's easy to measure. Track regret, not just accuracy.  Track value, not just speed.  Track adoption, not just deployment. Which metric are you tracking that does not drive business value? PS: If you found this valuable, join my weekly newsletter where I document the real-world journey of AI transformation. ✉️ Free subscription: https://lnkd.in/exc4upeq #GenAI #EnterpriseAI #AgenticAI

 Accuracy alone is a poor proxy for how well an AI agent actually performs. When you evaluate agents, ask yourself: Is the agent just getting the right answer, or is it finishing the job you gave it? The difference shows up in three key metrics: ☑ Task Success Rate (TSR)   Measures the percentage of end‑to‑end tasks completed correctly.   It tells you whether the agent can reliably finish what it starts in the real world. ☑ First‑Try Success (FTS)   Tracks how often the agent succeeds on its first attempt.   A high FTS means the agent understands the context and reasons well before it acts. ☑ Recovery Speed   Captures how quickly the agent self‑corrects after a mistake, measured in steps or time.   Fast recovery is the strongest signal of adaptability and robustness in dynamic environments. In multi‑step workflows these numbers paint a far richer picture than raw accuracy or BLEU scores. An agent that can self‑correct and keep moving forward is far more valuable than one that only shines in static tests. I’m Shrey & I share daily AI insights.  If this helped, hit the ♻️ reshare button so someone else can evaluate agents smarter too.  

160+ page guide covers top questions regarding Multi-AI Agents From Ideation, Design to Deployment, here's everything they share.. One of my favorite things to read about is the production and deployment of agentic systems. Especially from those building the tools that make it possible to observe and improve these systems. And this report is just that. 📌 It addresses a critical industry problem: Single, powerful agents often fail at complex, interconnected tasks, but multi-agents are expensive, so what to do? The report provides the technical blueprint and strategies necessary to make harder decisions easier for most enterprises. After reading the report, I think these 5 points stood out to me the most: 1. Start simple: Begin with 2 agents (e.g., Generator + Validator). Only add complexity if single-agent prompt engineering fails. 2. Match architecture to your problem: Use centralized for consistency, decentralized for resilience, hierarchical for complex workflows, or hybrid for enterprise-scale systems. 3. Engineer context deliberately: Apply strategies like offloading, retrieval, compaction, and caching to avoid context failure modes (poisoning, distraction, confusion, clash). 4. Isolate business logic from orchestration: Make your agent boundaries “collapsible” so you can merge them later if newer models handle the task alone. 5. Instrument for observability from Day 1: Track Action Completion, Tool Selection Quality, and latency breakdowns to debug and improve systematically. 📌 5-Tips on how to build them responsibly: - Validate necessity first: Ask: Can prompt engineering or better context management solve this? Are subtasks truly independent? - Measure economics: Multi-agent systems often cost 2–5× more; ensure the ROI justifies it. - Design for model evolution: Assume today’s limitations (e.g., small context windows) may disappear; keep orchestration modular and removable. - Implement guardrails: Use validation gates, fallback agents, and human-in-the-loop escalation for low-confidence decisions. - Monitor continuously: Use tools like Galileo to detect context loss, inefficient tool use, and routing errors, then close the loop with data-driven fixes. Bottom line: Multi-agent systems are powerful when applied to the right problems, but they’re not a universal upgrade and should be used with caution because of cost and complexity. Full Report link in comments 👇 Save 💾 ➞ React 👍 ➞ Share♻️ & follow for everything related to AI Agents