Skip to main content

Agent.AI - Mobile Customer Service with the AI Bot

Earlier in June I had the opportunity to talk to Barry Coleman, CTO of Agent.ai, an about 2-year-old company at the time of writing this. The company spun off of manage.com, a very different business that enable the delivery of in-app advertisements. In order to support this mission more and more, first internal, then external support capabilities were needed.
At first they built chat functionality for internal and for support purposes. Then there was the question of how to efficiently provide 24/7 support. This resulted in giving birth to a bot structure that can help customer service agents in an assisting mode, called co-pilot mode, and an autonomous mode, called autopilot. And it gave birth to Agent.ai.
 Agent.ai’s mission is to enable “exceptional customer service for all”.
While this mission is not particularly unique, their approach is. First, Agent.ai has built its customer service software around a machine-learning platform. Second, the company provides their solution without asking their clients for a huge upfront investment or the need to have of AI-proficient developers in house. Third, they wanted to avoid the pitfall of inflated expectations. With AI and machine learning being very hyped topics at the moment, this is a very valid concern.
Going backwards through the objectives, Agent.ai opted for offering very specialized bots first. As there is no general AI yet, this is pretty straightforward. Specific, tightly framed topics are far easier to support with AI and exposed by bots than broader bodies of knowledge. For example, specializations include the handling of order inquiries or of support call closure surveys.
The second objective was achieved by doing all the heavy lifting, including the customer specific training of the AI in their own system, by providing specialized bots, and by offering APIs for their customers to implement own specialized bots.
One interesting aspect is that Agent.ai’s software fabric allows the individual bots to collaborate with each other and communicate internally with agents and externally with customers. This collaboration is necessary due to the strong specialization of the bots and is mainly controlled by a ‘central’ AI-based bot that resides in the Agent.ai infrastructure, called ‘AVA’, which is an abbreviation for Automated Virtual Agent. AVA is the brains of the system.
The job of the AI bot is to understand speech and to identify a user’s intent using NLP, neural networks, and deep learning. This intent could be a request for information or a call to support an incident.
With this done the AI bot dispatches the incoming request to the corresponding specialized ‘intent’ bot that can take up the transaction and hand it over to another bot, or escalate to a human agent in case they get stuck.
The system is trained from a variety of sources, such as FAQ, existing documentation, and e-mail trails.
Chat transcripts prove to be especially valuable as they allow for identification of both, problem and a solution. These transcripts also offer an excellent means for continuously training the bots while being in co-pilot mode, the mode in which they suggest answers, along with a confidence level in the answer, to human service agents. The usage of chat protocols along with the service agents choosing to use bot recommendations or not, allows for constant recalibration of suggestions’ confidence levels.
Which leads to the topic of trust; user trust as well as agent trust – and to the question when a specific bot can be put into the wild and work autonomously. The answer to this is surprisingly simple although there is no explicit measurement: If suggestions consistently exceed a defined high confidence level then the bot is good to go unsupervised and escalates issues it cannot answer itself to a human service agent. Another possibility of identifying trust levels is the change of customer sentiment in the course of a transaction.
Working in co-pilot mode, with the ability to have bots work unsupervised, human agents free up the time to work on novel problems. Typically, these can be the issues that bots haven’t been trained for, and maybe cannot be trained for. Barry emphasizes that “human-machine cooperation is really important”.

My Take

Agent.ai has an interesting story to tell. The idea of offering an affordable infrastructure to provide 24/7 mobile in-app customer service using bots that are driven by machine learning and AI is probably not new but consequently implemented. Bots can considerably speed up the support transaction by continuously listening to specific queues. With well-trained bots this can lead to positive support experiences by showing that a customer’s time is valuable. This also applies to the co-pilot mode, when the bots can already prepare suggestions along with confidence levels that help the service agent prepare herself for an issue.
In addition to providing a toolkit for mobile in-app support, Agent.ai is supporting nearly all major messaging platforms, which allows for richer customer profiles as well as for a wider reach for both, Agant.ai’s customers, and Agent.ai itself. Agent.ai’s customers can offer their customers availability on the channels they prefer without being in the need to look for additional vendors to cover different messaging channels.
Agent.ai’s bot-driven mobile first approach puts the company into an interesting position. Mobile in-app specialists normally do not support messaging services with the correct argument that the service engagement can be made far more personalized. This is due to more information being available to the service agent via the SDK. It simply can provide more information than the messaging service will ever do. On the other hand there will be many users who simply do not want to install vendor apps.
Integrations with Zendesk and Salesforce give exposure to the world of the ‘big guys’. Zendesk does believe that bots are not yet far enough to be really useful in customer facing service interactions. Meanwhile Salesforce does not have any bot capabilities either, as far as I know. Both companies offer integration into major messaging apps, with Zendesk also offering an app SDK, though. Still, this leaves an opportunity for innovative vendors.
I believe that the strategy of covering the breadth of mobile along with the ability to cover small to big customers is pretty strong. It puts Agent.ai dead into a spot that no major vendor covers, while at the moment having a technological advantage.
However, there are also some concerns. I suspect that the approach of taking away the ‘heavy lifting’ from customers may lead to consulting services, which do not scale well. In addition Agent.ai is a young company, which always raises the fear of viability. Agent.ai says it has more than 1,000 customers from small to large in different industries. These customers are using SDK and web client most, followed by the Facebook Messenger. While this sounds like a big number there is no information on actual users.

Still, this is a company to watch.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Last Year's Top 5 Popular Posts

You are only as good as your customer remembers

As you know, I am very interested in how organizations are using business applications, which problems they do address, and how they review their success. In a next instance of these customer interviews, I had the opportunity to talk with Melissa Gordon , Executive Vice President, Enterprise Solutions at Tidal Basin about their journey with Zoho. You can watch the full interview on YouTube. Tidal Basin is a government contractor that provides various services throughout the government space, including disaster response, technology and financial services, and contact centers. Tidal Basin started with Zoho CRM and was searching for a project management tool in 2019. This was prompted by mainly two drivers. First, employees were asking for tools to help them running their projects. Second, with a focus on organizational growth and bigger projects that involved more people, Tidal Basin wanted to reduce its risk exposure and increase the efficiency of project delivery. This way, the compa...
Post a Comment
Read more

SAP Draws a Perimeter around Agentic AI and What That Means for the Rest of US

The most consequential enterprise AI governance document published this year arrived in late April with surprisingly little fanfare. SAP's updated API Policy, version 4/2026 , is a short document in plain English. The clause that is most interesting is Section 2.2.2. It restricts how autonomous and generative AI systems are permitted to interact with SAP APIs. Read literally, it has the potential to change the architecture of agentic AI projects across every SAP customer landscape. Read carefully, it is also more interesting than the lock-in headlines suggest. The policy targets a specific category of AI behavior, not AI as such. It connects to commercial mechanics that go well beyond API stability. And the literal text, in its current form, will probably not survive the next two policy revisions intact. There is a lot to unpack. I will walk through what the policy actually says, how the SAP-watching community is reading it, what the rest of the major enterprise vendors are doin...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Illusion of Value: Why Salesforce’s Agentic Work Unit is the New "Bad Query" of the AI Era

The News On February. 25, 2026, Salesforce announced a pricing and metrics update . During the company’s Q4 FY2026 earnings call, CEO Marc Benio ff, together with CMO Patrick Stokes , unveiled the Agentic Work Unit (AWU). Positioned as a metric to quantify the labor performed by autonomous digital systems, Salesforce defines an AWU as one discrete task accomplished by an AI agent. According to Salesforce, this discrete task represents the exact moment " raw intelligence is converted into real work ". It is not a fixed unit but measured as a processed prompt, a completed reasoning chain, or an invoked tool. Salesforce explicitly designed the AWU to move the industry conversation away from the raw consumption of Large Language Model (LLM) tokens. As Benioff noted, tokens only measure "how much an AI talks," whereas the AWU is intended to measure actual business execution. The scale of this rollout is massive. Salesforce reported that its platform has already processe...
Post a Comment
Read more

LLM Showdown: Comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok for Automated News Research

The analyst’s day is full of research. Now, this is the age of AI and AI is here to help, isn’t it? As everyone is talking about copilots and AI agents, why not using the tools at hand to do a little research on research. NB., no one really has a good definition of an AI agent, so this might become an additional topic for research. But I digress. Imagine the following project at hand, which is not only interesting for analysts, btw, but also for a variety of roles in the corporate world. Let’s call it vendor (competitor) monitoring. The job is the following: Research reputable sites for news about a number of vendors, relating to a set of keywords. Reputable sites are high quality news sites, high quality tech publications, high quality analyst sites and, of course the news pages of the vendors in question. Limit the time frame of the search matching to the cadence of my information requirement, e.g., “yesterday” for a daily update or “last week” for a weekly update. Provide a summary ...
Post a Comment
Read more

CPQ, Meet Price Optimization: Your Revenue Lifecycle Just Got Serious

The news On October 1, 2025, Conga announced its intent to acquire the B2B business of PROS , following PRO’s acquisition by Thomas Bravo . At the same time, ThomaBravo and PROS announced that PRO’s travel business segment will be run as a standalone business . The bigger picture Revenue operations, revenue management and revenue lifecycle management have become a thing in the past years, as evidenced by the number of specialized companies that solve parts of the overall problem of optimizing revenue. It also got abused to some extent (e.g., surge pricing models) when the users of the corresponding capabilities consider optimizing being the same as maximizing. Reality check: It is not. While optimizing involves a bit of identifying how much a customer is willing to pay, it also involves the thought of repeat business, or in other words customer loyalty, even without a formal loyalty program. And that involves the customer experience, part of which the speed of creating a quote with mat...
Post a Comment
Read more