# When support demand grows, find what can realistically change—and what your team still has to handle. I analyze up to 5,000 past conversations, then investigate the strongest recurring patterns in how issues are resolved, with input from the SMEs who own those processes. I weigh the volume involved, likely effort, and risk to customer outcomes to recommend one priority or a small set of priorities—or make the case for no action. **Within two weeks, you know where operational change could help with your most pressing support challenge—and where it may fall short.** [Book a 20-minute fit call](/#contact "contact:fit-call") We’ll check your support challenge, timing, data path, and mutual fit. No preparation or commitment. [Email me](/#contact "contact:email") ## When this sprint is useful This is for a Head, Director, or VP of Support, CX, or Customer Operations who has a concrete challenge to work through: demand is growing, the team is carrying too much repeat work, an important seasonal period is approaching, or a support outcome needs a clearer path than “try more automation.” Strong fit means four things are true: recurring work is visible in historical conversations; there is a real operating goal or decision horizon; you are not yet certain what deserves priority; and the people who know the shortlisted processes can validate what the evidence suggests. That can be an ecommerce team preparing for a high-volume period, or a SaaS team trying to make a recurring resolution path more dependable. It is not for a team that already knows exactly what to implement, needs immediate production delivery, wants a broad CX transformation or a predetermined AI or automation answer, or requires guaranteed capacity, service, customer-outcome, or financial results. ## The operating decision it supports The sprint helps you distinguish between recurring support work that could change and demand your team still needs to cover. The goal is not to force every conversation through a self-serve or automated route. It is to identify the narrowest changes that could improve how an issue is resolved without giving customer outcomes less weight. The result is a ranked decision: one priority, a small coordinated set of priorities, or a reasoned case for no action. It is not an unranked list of initiatives for your team to sort through later. ## Why ticket categories are not enough for this decision Good categorisation and reporting are useful infrastructure. They show what is arriving, how much of it there is, and where a trend deserves attention. This sprint asks a different question: how does a recurring issue actually reach its final resolution? A category cannot, on its own, show whether a customer received the resolution they expected, which step made the conversation wait, whether an SME decision is essential, or whether the same outcome could be reached through a clearer process, better content, existing platform configuration, or no change at all. I use the conversation history to investigate the resolution path behind the strongest recurring patterns, then validate that picture with the SMEs who own the process. That gives a CX leader a basis for deciding what to champion without dismissing the reporting they already have. ## How the sprint works ### 1. Find the patterns worth investigating I review the agreed sample of historical conversation threads and available ticket metadata. The purpose is to identify recurring issue and resolution patterns, including where conversations involve repeated touches, hand-offs, waiting, or an outcome the customer did not accept. ### 2. Test the operational path For the shortlist, I trace how the resolution is reached and speak with the SMEs who own or can authoritatively validate those processes. We separate a genuine dependency from a process that only looks complex in ticket data. ### 3. Make the priority defensible I weigh the volume involved, likely effort, and risk to customer outcomes at decision depth. This is not an implementation estimate, a causal forecast, observed savings, or a staffing conclusion. It is the evidence you need to decide what deserves attention now and what should wait. ## What you receive You receive two buyer-owned artifacts. - An executive decision deck gives you a clear recommendation, the alternatives considered, the trade-offs, and the decision it supports. - An evidence appendix gives you the underlying patterns, resolution-path reasoning, and the conditions that would change the recommendation, so you can discuss it with the relevant stakeholders without relying on a black-box conclusion. If the evidence supports no worthwhile change, you receive the same deck and appendix. They explain why no action is the right decision now, what to monitor, and what would justify revisiting it. ## What the recommendation may conclude The sprint is vendor-neutral. A recommendation may point to native platform configuration, a process or content change, a better-supported human resolution path, automation, custom implementation, monitoring, or no action. Where the right answer keeps work with your team, the issue may be process clarity, knowledge, permissions, or tools. It is not an assessment of individual teammate performance. Where automation is relevant, it is one possible means of delivering an already acceptable resolution—not a predetermined answer. ## Why work with me I started close to frontline operations and later worked at Gelato on support escalations and cross-system workflows. That experience taught me that moving a ticket quickly is not the same as resolving it well: context, permissions, ownership, and the exception path matter. You can see that approach in my [work on support hand-offs and operational boundaries](/notes/about-me-and-my-work) and in a [print-on-demand order-status case study](/notes/automating-order-status-for-print-on-demand). They are examples of my operator record, not consulting-client case studies or an endorsement from Gelato. ## Scope, participation, and data The standard sprint covers detailed analysis of up to **5,000 conversations** drawn from up to **90 days** of conversation history. Both limits apply together. For a larger population, we agree a sample or separate scope before the work starts. Native metadata outside that window can add context when available, but older conversations do not receive detailed analysis unless we agree that separately. The two-week clock starts after kickoff, once the agreed usable data is accessible and the required SME availability is scheduled. Your involvement is bounded: you join kickoff, a working shortlist review, and the final readout—about two to three hours in total. Up to two SMEs each join one short validation conversation. They own or can authoritatively validate the shortlisted processes; this is not broad employee research or individual performance assessment. Usable data means historical conversation threads and the available ticket metadata needed to compare recurring issues with their resolution paths. Relevant SOPs or process documentation are useful when they exist. Before the sprint, we agree the minimum data required, how I will access it, and when I will delete any working copies. The fixed engagement does not include production implementation, exhaustive SOPs, implementation-ready build specifications, ongoing reporting, or guaranteed capacity, service, customer-outcome, or financial results. An optional implementation with me is separately scoped. The sprint remains useful if you implement internally, choose another provider, monitor the issue, or take no action. ## Investment The standard Support Priority Sprint is **$2,000 USD**, fixed and paid upfront. It is designed to give you a clear basis for your next operational decision before committing a team to production change. If the detailed evidence needs to cover more than 5,000 conversations or more than 90 days of history, we agree the sample or separate scope first. [Book a 20-minute fit call](/#contact "contact:fit-call") We’ll check your support challenge, timing, data path, and mutual fit. No preparation or commitment. ## Common questions ### Is this an AI or automation audit? No. The sprint starts with the resolution path and the operating challenge, not a technology choice. Automation or AI may be a conclusion where it supports an acceptable resolution, but so may native configuration, process or content changes, a better-supported human path, monitoring, or no action. ### We already categorize conversations and report on Support—what is different here? Your categories and reporting remain useful. This work uses them as context, then investigates how recurring issues are actually resolved, what dependencies shape that path, and what can realistically change without treating customer outcomes as an afterthought. ### What happens if the evidence supports no worthwhile change? That is a valid outcome. You receive the decision deck and evidence appendix, including why the current path should stay in place, what to monitor, and the conditions that would make the issue worth reopening. ### Can Bartosz implement the recommendation? Yes, where there is a good fit, but implementation is a separate decision and separately scoped. The sprint is designed to stand on its own whether your team implements internally, works with another provider, or decides not to proceed. ### What data and access are required? We agree the minimum viable path before the sprint: historical conversation threads, available ticket metadata, and access to the process knowledge behind the shortlist. Relevant SOPs or documentation help when they exist. We also agree how access will work and when I will delete any working copies. ## Start with the challenge in front of your team If you need a clearer path through a pressing support challenge, bring the goal, timing, and the data path you can make available. I will help you determine what can realistically change before you ask your team to carry another initiative. [Book a 20-minute fit call](/#contact "contact:fit-call") We’ll check your support challenge, timing, data path, and mutual fit. No preparation or commitment.