Proposed hypothesis
Managed service providers and ITSM teams
Service desks and MSPs drowning in tickets, routing and reporting across tools that don't share a model.
Who we serve here · Proposed hypothesis
Who is involved, and what each person receives at the end.
Service desks and MSPs drowning in tickets, routing and reporting across tools that don't share a model.
User
Service desk lead
Needs: Routing and triage that cut handling time.
Doubt: AI agents acting without oversight.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • Agent-assisted triage with authority limits
- • Runbooks and change process
Buyer
MSP owner
Needs: Margin per client without adding headcount.
Doubt: Another platform licence.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • An owned service platform
- • Measured handling time against baseline
Affected
End clients
Needs: Faster, consistent answers.
Doubt: Being stuck with a bot.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • A clear human escalation path
Responsibilities, not a promised roster: economic buyer, process owner, user, technical approver and operator may overlap. Explore the Finance illustrative example →·MSP illustrative example →.
Our promise
We size every agent against an autonomy ladder and define its authority and evidence before it runs.
Holds when
- • Ticket history is available for the baseline
Limits — what we don't promise
- • Agents never close client-facing decisions without the defined human step
- • No handling-time figure until measured
Before
Tickets bounce between tools; reporting is manual.
After
One service model with agents on routing and drafting, and humans on decisions.
What it takes from you
Ticket history export and desk shadowing.
Constraints we respect
Existing SLAs must hold during transition.
The experience
From first conversation to handover.
01
Opportunity audit
Ticket history and desk shadowing.
Scoped quote
02
Build and run
Phased rollout with agreed service-risk limits and rollback
Scoped quote
Evidence, labelled honestly
- Hyrolo in-house accountable-outcomes direction, in developmentContext
- Measured handling-time reduction for an MSP clientUnknown
Context = portfolio direction, not operational acceptance · Proposed = our method, not yet proven for this audience · Unknown = we won't claim it yet.
Access we ask for — and how you take it back
- • Read access to ticket exports
- • Sandbox tenant for agent testing
Agree approved tenant, processing boundary, provider access and retention before using any client data.
Initial inquiry: non-sensitive summary only. Later assessment: authorised redacted samples or read-only access. Sandbox and production write access require separate approval, minimisation, access expiry and retention agreement.
Define, implement and test stop controls and revocation before use.
Something useful to pass along
A queue-by-queue autonomy map.
Useful to: Account managers explaining changes to clients.. Shared only if you choose to.
Why you'd come back: New queues and clients onboarded on the same model.
What we watch for harm: Escalations caused by agent errors.
Not a fit: Requests for fully autonomous client-facing agents with no human step
Next step
Tell us which of these people you are.
Request an assessment of fit and proposed next steps; timing, scope and follow-up require confirmation.