After reading the case, I don’t think the company should fully deploy the Gen AI salesbot yet, but I also don’t think they should wait passively. The right move sits in the middle: run a controlled pilot and learn quickly before committing the entire sales motion to automation.
The excitement around the bot is understandable. It promises scale, faster lead response, and a way to “go on offense” again after a slower year. Any team facing pressure to grow with limited headcount will be tempted. But the case makes it clear that the biggest risk is not technical failure, it is relationship damage. A few key customers already pushed back at the idea of being routed through a bot, and losing trust from existing accounts is far more expensive than the efficiency gains the bot might deliver.
This is why a phased approach makes more sense. Start with lower-risk use cases: inbound leads, follow-up scheduling, or basic qualification. Keep humans in the loop for higher-touch moments. In CS 177 terms, this is about reducing the blast radius of a failure. If the bot responds poorly to a prospect or misses context, the downside is contained.
As they make the decision, they should focus on real adoption questions. Who will be comfortable interacting with a bot? Where does human judgment still matter? How will they measure quality rather than just speed? And how will sales reps fit into the new workflow instead of being sidelined by it?
Deploying AI is not just a technical choice. It reshapes how customers experience the company. A thoughtful pilot helps them learn that before they bet the whole business on it.
