Earlier this year, a client came to us after spending $200K and four months building an "AI-powered" quoting system. Adoption had stalled at 30%. The sales reps didn't trust it.
When we dug in, the problem wasn't the AI. The system was technically solid. The problem was that reps had been cut out of their own work. The AI generated quotes. The reps reviewed output. They'd gone from crafting quotes - something they understood, something that was theirs - to approving a black box's decisions.
So they didn't. They found workarounds. They kept their spreadsheets. Thirty percent adoption.
We rebuilt the interface in 11 days. Same AI capabilities. Different relationship. Now the agent drafts, the rep sees the reasoning, they refine it together. The quote is still theirs. Adoption is 94%.
The AI didn't change. The architecture of collaboration did.
What changed wasn't the technology. It was who was in the room.
The first system treated humans as reviewers. Quality control at the end of a process they didn't participate in. The second treated them as collaborators. Part of the work from the beginning, with visibility into how decisions were being made.
This isn't a small distinction.
The 2024 DORA Report found something that puzzled researchers: individual developers using AI tools reported 2-3% productivity improvements, but team-level delivery throughput actually declined 1.5%, and system stability dropped 7.2% (DORA 2024).
How can individuals get faster while teams get slower?
The answer appears to be batch sizes. When developers can produce code faster, the natural tendency is to accumulate larger changes before integration. More code, bigger merges, more things breaking in ways nobody anticipated. The AI made individuals more productive in isolation - and isolation made the whole system worse.
That's the pattern. AI capability without collaborative architecture doesn't just fail to help. It actively degrades outcomes.
The pitch for autonomous agents is seductive. AI handles procurement, quoting, inventory. Humans just review output. Less work, more speed.
But "just review output" turns out to be corrosive.
When you haven't participated in how a decision was made, you can't evaluate it properly. You don't have context. You don't have trust. You have a black box that's either right or wrong - and no way to know which until something breaks.
The systems that actually work look different. Agents and humans share a workspace. Reasoning is visible, not just results. Handoffs are explicit. Agent does X, human does Y, and both know why.
This isn't a fallback from the autonomous vision. It's what we've learned actually works when the stakes are real.
So what does collaboration actually look like?
Not a chatbot in the sidebar. Not an AI that works in the background while humans check dashboards. Those are the two options most systems offer, and neither works.
A chatbot is disconnected from the actual workflow. You're doing your work over here, asking the AI questions over there. The AI doesn't see what you're doing. You don't see what it's thinking. (We've all had that experience: alt-tabbing to ask a question, then forgetting what we were doing.) It's advice, not collaboration.
Background AI is worse. The agent makes decisions you can't see, based on reasoning you can't access. When something goes wrong, you don't know why. When something goes right, you don't know if you can trust it to happen again.
The third option - the one we've been building toward - is what we call agent-aware interfaces.
An agent-aware interface is a workspace redesigned for two kinds of participants - one human, one AI - with shared visibility, explicit handoffs, and mutual learning built into the interaction itself.
The agent shows its thinking, not just its output. When it drafts a purchase order, you see why it chose that supplier. When it flags a risk, you see what triggered the flag. The reasoning is part of the interface.
Handoffs are explicit. The agent does the parts it's good at - pulling data, spotting patterns, generating drafts. The human does the parts humans are good at - judgment calls, relationship context, the knowledge that lives in your head and nowhere else. Both know where the boundaries are.
And the system learns from the collaboration. When you adjust something the agent drafted, that's information. Not a correction to be logged and forgotten - a signal about what matters that makes the next interaction smarter.
Here's the part that matters for credibility: we build this way ourselves.
The systems we deliver are human-agent collaboration. The way we build them is also human-agent collaboration. Our engineers work alongside AI agents that generate code, handle boilerplate, test continuously. The humans focus on architecture, business logic, the judgment calls that require understanding your context.
This isn't a pitch. It's why our timelines look different.
When someone quotes you 12 weeks for a project and we say 3, the natural response is skepticism. We've earned that skepticism - the industry has been overpromising for decades. But the gap isn't magic. It's methodology.
Traditional builds have humans writing code line by line. Ours have humans directing agents who handle the implementation while the humans focus on what actually matters. Same engineers. Different leverage.
You'll see the difference in the first week. Working software, not wireframes. Real collaboration, not a proposal about collaboration.
If you've read this far, you're probably in one of two places.
Maybe this matches something you've seen. A pilot that stalled. A system people work around. The gap between what AI demos promise and what actually happens in production. If that's you, we should talk.
Or maybe you're skeptical. The speed claims sound too good. You've heard transformation promises before. If that's you - good. You should be skeptical. The industry has earned it.
We're not asking you to believe us. We're offering to show you.
A pilot is [X days] and [$ range]. Working software by the end of the week, not a proposal about working software. If it's not a fit, you'll know fast. If it is, you'll know that too.
Bring your hardest workflow. Bring your skeptics. The work speaks for itself. [Start a conversation ]