Fin's running. The numbers look fine. Something's still off

You've got Fin live. The resolution rate isn't terrible. Tickets are getting handled. Leadership stopped asking panicked questions a few months ago.

But you can feel it: Fin could be doing more. You just can't say with confidence where. Every conversation about Fin priorities turns into someone's gut feel versus someone else's. There's no shared, sized, sequenced list to point at.

You're probably guessing there’s:

• A channel Fin doesn't touch at all (and the loss is bigger than you'd guess)

• A handful of content pieces underperforming, but no ranked list of which ones to fix first.

• A topic where Fin is stuck because it can't see the right data, or doesn't have the right procedures, or both.

• Numbers that look reassuring on paper but don't tell you the cost story.

• A backlog of "things we should probably do with Fin" that never gets prioritised because nobody's put a dollar value on them.

The cost of staying here isn't dramatic. It's just persistent: Fin keeps under-resolving, your team keeps absorbing the difference, and your case for more investment in Fin stays vibes-based.

Imagine a roadmap your CFO would actually fund

What you want isn't more advice. It's a small number of things, named clearly, sized in dollars, ordered by impact.

A picture where:

• You walk into a leadership meeting and say "here are the three Fin focus areas for this quarter, here's what each one is worth, here's the order" — and the room agrees because the numbers hold up.

• Your team stops debating Fin priorities in the abstract. The roadmap becomes the artefact everyone references.

• The fixes pay off twice: the direct savings are real, and the work compounds. Better content makes future content faster to write. Better data makes future procedures cheaper to build. A Fin that resolves more reduces your team's load even as volume grows.

• You finally have an answer to "is Fin worth the investment?" that's a number, not a feeling.

The Fin AI Roadmap

A fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement, in three to four weeks. Here's what you get:

A Notion page with three prioritised focus areas

Say, a channel gap, a content gap, or a domain gap. Each focus area is:

• Evidenced against your real conversation data

• Sized in dollars with conservative, mid and optimistic scenarios.

• Sequenced with explicit logic for why this order, including how the focus areas overlap.

A real ROI model — not a blended fudge

Built on your cost per conversation, broken out by conversation type and handler. None of that "let's assume £14 a conversation" hand-waving. Your “easy” topic conversations cost what they cost; your mind-melting conversations cost what they cost; the model treats them separately.

Conservative / mid / optimistic scenarios at +5, +10 and +15 percentage-point lifts (capped at 95%, annualised by 52 ÷ weeks-in-period). Real numbers your finance team can challenge.

A Loom walkthrough and a follow-up call

A 5–10 minute Loom where I take you through the page, hit the headline numbers, and put my face to the document.

A 30-minute follow-up call to walk through it together, if you need that.

How it works

• Week 0 (async, before kickoff): Onboarding, Intercom workspace admin setup. You record a 15-minute Loom walkthrough of your product and Intercom setup. You answer a structured questions doc covering no-go areas, cost model, integration landscape, and any product/pricing/team changes coming in the next three months.

• Week 1: Strategic kickoff call (60 minutes). I've already watched the Loom, so we use the time for nuance, push-back, and the things I forgot to ask and you didn't think to mention.

• Weeks 2–3: Analysis inside your Intercom workspace. Conversation segmentation by user role, subscription tier, topic. Top-N content performance with full ROI modelling. Qualitative gap analysis on representative conversations — content gaps, data gaps, action gaps.

• Week 4: Delivery. Notion link, Loom walkthrough, follow-up call invitation.

Who this is for?

• Heads of Support and CX leaders running Fin who need to go from "we have opinions about Fin priorities" to "we have a sized, defended roadmap."

• Founders and COOs who own support efficiency, have Fin live, and want a clear answer on what's worth investing in next — without becoming the world's expert on Intercom themselves.

• Anyone whose case for more Fin investment currently rests on intuition rather than numbers.

Who this isn't for

• Teams who haven't got Fin live yet, or installed it last week. You need a different kind of help first — let's have a different conversation.

• People looking for validation of the status quo. The whole point of this engagement is to surface two or three things worth genuinely challenging. If everything's fine, I'll say so — but you should expect to be challenged.

• Anyone who wants me to implement straight away. Implementation is a separate engagement - and I don’t drive blind. The roadmap is deliberately independent — you're not locked into hiring me afterwards.

What you'll need to give me

• Intercom workspace admin access

• A 15-minute async Loom walkthrough of your product and Intercom setup.

• ~30 minutes answering a structured questions doc.

• One 60-minute kickoff call.

• Your cost-per-human-conversation figures, segmented by type and handler.

Total leadership time involvement: roughly two hours of calls plus an hour of async setup. Then a Loom and a follow-up call at the end.

What it costs

£2,500. Fixed fee. No hourly billing. No surprises.

That includes everything above: the analysis, the ROI model, the Notion roadmap, the Loom walkthrough, and the follow-up call.

Have questions? I have all of the answers

How is this different from Intercom's own consultancy?

Intercom's services are great! If you can get access to them, they are a solid alternative. I have build out and lead support teams, and built out Fin with clients.

What if the roadmap recommends things we already knew?

Then we've validated your direction with numbers, which is its own outcome — and a useful one when you're trying to defend the budget. In practice, every engagement so far has surfaced at least one thing the team hadn't found yet..

Will the recommendations work for our specific stack?

The analysis runs inside your actual Intercom workspace, against your real data. The recommendations come with explicit feasibility notes for your integration landscape — what's straightforward, what needs engineering, what may be tricky.

What if I want to push back on the roadmap?

Great! The follow-up call is exactly for that. The roadmap is meant to be challenged. Two of the review passes I do before delivery exist specifically to make sure it survives a sceptical operator's read-through.

Can you implement after the roadmap?

Yes — as a separate engagement through Fin Services or a standalone, fixed scope, fixed price project. Ask me about that when we kick-off..

What's the timeline really?

Three to four weeks from kickoff to delivery. Ask me about my availability.

What if I'm not happy with what you deliver?

Talk to me. The follow-up call is built in for exactly this reason. If something's off, I'd rather hear it and fix it than have you sit on a roadmap you don't believe in.