TL;DR
Chat tools are great at moving messages — but terrible at finishing work.
Most business workflows still rely on follow-ups, missing information, manual checks, document preparation, and signature chasing after the conversation ends.
We built Jill to turn guided conversations into completed outcomes: structured data, required attachments, generated documents, and approvals — delivered automatically via API, webhook, or email.
It’s not about better chat. It’s about ending conversations with finished work.
Why chat tools don’t finish work (and what we built instead)
Most businesses don’t actually have a communication problem.
They have a completion problem.
Information arrives half-filled.
Attachments are missing.
Someone needs to follow up.
Documents get copied, renamed, re-sent.
Signatures are chased.
Someone checks if everything is “good enough”.
None of this feels complex — until you do it hundreds or thousands of times.
We kept seeing this pattern across projects, industries, and teams. And it turns out the issue isn’t people, or process discipline, or even tooling quality.
It’s the fact that chat tools are optimized for conversation, not outcomes.
The hidden work after “just send us the details”
If you’ve ever built systems around chat-based workflows, you’ll recognize this flow:
- Ask a user for information
- Receive free-form responses
- Realize something’s missing
- Ask a follow-up
- Receive attachments (maybe)
- Manually check completeness
- Prepare or update a document
- Ask for approval or signature
- Store everything somewhere
The chat part is easy.
Everything after the chat is manual, brittle, and expensive.
Even when teams try to “structure” conversations with templates or scripts, the result is still:
- inconsistent data
- missing evidence
- human interpretation
- admin work that doesn’t scale
Messaging moves information. It doesn’t finish work.
This is the key distinction.
Chat tools are excellent transport layers:
- fast
- reliable
- familiar
But business workflows don’t end with messages. They end with:
- structured data
- validated inputs
- documents
- approvals
- signatures
- audit trails
The moment you need one of those, chat becomes the start of work — not the end.
That’s the gap we set out to solve.
Conversation → Outcome automation
Instead of optimizing for “better chat”, we optimized for finished outcomes.
What we built (Jill) runs guided, structured interactions that:
- ask the right questions in the right order
- enforce required fields
- require evidence (photos, videos, files) where needed
- validate data as it’s collected
- generate documents automatically
- capture approvals or signatures
- deliver results via webhook, API, or email
When the interaction ends, the work is done.
No follow-ups.
No “can you resend that?”.
No human checking if the submission is usable.
What this replaces in practice
In real systems, this approach replaces more than people expect.
A single guided flow can replace:
- web forms + validation logic
- email back-and-forth
- manual upload handling
- document generation scripts
- signature chasing
- admin checks for completeness
Instead of layering more tooling on top of chat, the chat-adjacent work disappears entirely.
Why this matters technically
From a systems perspective, the biggest win isn’t UX — it’s determinism.
Free-form conversations produce:
- ambiguous inputs
- inconsistent schemas
- edge cases everywhere
Outcome-driven interactions produce:
- predictable data structures
- enforced completeness
- machine-readable outputs
- clean API integrations
That makes downstream automation dramatically simpler.
If you’ve ever written brittle glue code to clean up human input, you already know how valuable this is.
Time saved is the real metric
Across different use cases, we consistently see:
- 15–30 minutes saved for structured data capture
- 30–45 minutes saved when attachments are required
- 45–90 minutes saved for document generation and signing
That’s per interaction. Every time. Reliably.
The value isn’t speed alone — it’s removing entire categories of work.
This isn’t for every use case
And that’s important to say.
If your workflow is:
“Let’s chat and figure it out”
Traditional chat tools are perfect.
But if your workflow is:
“We need this done correctly, completely, and delivered to our systems”
Then conversation alone isn’t enough.
You need outcomes.
Pricing outcomes instead of messages
One side effect of this approach is pricing.
Instead of charging per message or conversation window, we price per completed outcome.
That aligns cost with:
- value delivered
- time saved
- work completed
It’s a very different mental model — and it only makes sense once you stop thinking in terms of chat.
Learn more about Jill
If this way of thinking about workflows resonates, you can explore Jill in more detail on the website.
It covers:
- how conversation → outcome automation works in practice
- real examples of structured flows
- pricing based on completed outcomes (not messages)
- when Jill is — and isn’t — the right fit
No signup required — it’s meant to explain the model clearly before you ever try it.
Final thought
Chat tools changed how businesses communicate.
But communication isn’t the same as completion.
As workflows get more complex and automation expectations rise, the real opportunity isn’t better messaging — it’s ending conversations with finished work.
That’s the problem we’re focused on solving.
Top comments (0)