Staff Designer, Conversation Design Lead · Agentic & Generative AI

Design that teaches
AI how to speak.

I design how AI behaves: the reasoning, trust, and orchestration decisions a system makes before it says a word, not just the words it says. It’s a discipline still being invented, and I’m one of the people inventing it.

Selected Work

Cases that moved
the needle.

Full case studies are password-protected for confidentiality. Each card's Highlights panel is open to everyone, no password needed.

01

Making AI Behavior a Design Decision

Sustained advocacy that turned behavioral quality into architecture, from a designer’s opinion to the Otto PRD’s named source of truth.

~4×deflection vs. the legacy path, from early-access customer data
Advocacy Quality Rubric PRD Authorship Organizational Design
Full case study →
Making AI Behavior a Design Decision
Preview · no password needed
The insight

AI behavior isn’t decided by the model, it’s decided in the orchestration layer no one was designing or measuring. That’s a discipline gap as much as an execution gap: conversation design for agentic AI barely existed as a defined practice anywhere yet, and ServiceNow was later than most to start closing it.

What I did

Spent months building the evidence, partner relationships, and institutional infrastructure to make behavioral quality an architecture decision instead of a designer’s opinion, including authoring 11 of the 26 criteria in the org’s quality rubric.

Current status

My standards are the named source of truth in the Otto PRD, I lead a design-org OKR on conversation quality, and the designed experience deflects roughly 4× the legacy path.

The challenge

Getting a discipline recognized inside an organization that wasn’t looking for one, sustained advocacy across product cycles, not a single reframe that landed and stuck.

02

Designing Conversational Trust: Demonstrated, Not Performed

Making the case that trust, not tone, is the variable that determines whether an agentic AI experience works, proven on the two surfaces that shipped: what Otto says (tone) and what it knows (context).

+14 ptstone and empathy improved (73% → 87%) after the redesigned system prompt shipped
Trust Design Behavioral Specification PRD Authorship Systems Thinking
Full case study →
Designing Conversational Trust
Preview · no password needed
The insight

The instinct when an AI’s voice feels off is to make it sound friendlier. That aims at the wrong target. Trust, not tone, is what determines whether an agentic experience works, and it’s a downstream effect of demonstrated competence, not something you can write your way into.

What I did

Authored a five-part behavioral standard in the Otto Conversation Experience PRD, each requirement specified precisely enough that engineering could build directly from it, starting with a full rewrite of the system prompt.

Current status

Tone and context are shipped and measurably improving trust scores, the two surfaces this study proves in depth. The rest of the standard (memory, control, a response taxonomy) is authored and covered in separate work.

The challenge

Proving that warmer language wasn’t the lever, and that the org needed to invest in demonstrated reliability instead, a harder, slower case to make than a tone pass.

03

Agentic AI Processing Transparency

Redesigning how autonomous and agentic AI communicates what it’s doing, moving from technical logs to plain language that builds trust.

0escalations to disable processing messages since the redesign shipped, teams had been turning the feature off
Agentic AI Trust Design User Mental Models Language Architecture
Full case study →
Designing Processing Transparency
Preview · no password needed
The insight

Design for trust, not transparency. Users don’t need to see everything AI is doing. They need to see what builds confidence in what’s about to happen.

What I did

Reframed the problem from “how do we show everything” to “what builds trust,” then designed the systems that made that distinction real:

  • AI Blueprint concept
  • Three-tier threshold framework
  • Prompting guidance that generates processing language instead of hard-coding it
Current status

In active deployment across ServiceNow Otto. Technical log messages are gone from the surfaces where it shipped. Research participants now describe the language as clear, human, and trustworthy. The spec has reached 900+ recipients across the org. Step grouping model in development.

The challenge

Organizations default to showing everything. That creates overwhelm, not trust. The harder design problem is knowing what to hide and what to surface.

04

Disambiguation Design

Shaping how the organization handles ambiguous requests, moving from guessing wrong or giving a giant generic response to asking the right clarifying question.

10+enterprise customers demanded the feature back within weeks of its removal
Conversation Design Intent Understanding Organizational Advocacy Framework Development
Full case study →
Designing Disambiguation
Preview · no password needed
The insight

Ambiguous requests are the default condition. 90% of user queries are medium to high ambiguity. A well-designed system doesn’t overwhelm users with every possible answer. It asks one focused question.

What I did

Held conviction on this problem for three years, built the research to prove it, and shaped how the organization thinks about clarification. The patterns I created improve intent understanding by being honest and human: communicating what the system knew and asking an intelligent, well-designed clarification.

Current status

V1 shipped late 2025. Design is now a named partner in architectural decisions from day one. V2.0 in active development with design defining the experience from the ground up.

The challenge

I identified this as critical three years before the organization was ready to hear it. When the feature was removed, customers demanded it back within weeks. That forced the org to reckon with what they’d dismissed.

05

Creating a Conversation Design Discipline at ServiceNow

Principles, training, patterns, and tools that shifted how a 1,000-person design org approaches AI behavior.

600+designers directly trained; enablement reached close to 2,000 people
Discipline Building Enablement Systems Thinking Thought Leadership
Full case study →
Building a Design Discipline
Preview · no password needed
The insight

Conversation design is a discipline. It requires linguistic patterns, behavioral principles about when to ask versus act, and design thinking. It’s not decoration on top of a system. It shapes how the system behaves.

What I did

Built the entire conversation design discipline from the ground up:

  • Principles & behavioral standards
  • Training curriculum
  • Reusable patterns
  • Evaluation frameworks & golden datasets
  • Engineering-design collaboration tools
Current status

600+ designers directly trained, with enablement materials and recordings reaching close to 2,000 people across design, PM, and engineering. Teams use the patterns for every conversational AI decision. The training curriculum is being adopted across ServiceNow as standard designer onboarding.

The challenge

The LLM wave hit and 1,000 designers suddenly needed to build conversational AI. Most had no training, no framework, no shared understanding of what good conversation actually looked like.

Alea Abrams
About

I make AI a better communicator.

I design how AI systems think and speak. As the Staff Designer leading ServiceNow's conversation design discipline, I build the behavioral frameworks that shape how entire product lines speak: architectural decisions, not surface-level polish. I’ve spent years arguing that conversation quality belongs in architecture reviews, not UX passes after decisions are already made. Now it’s not just an argument. I’m the design lead on the design org’s OKR to improve AI content quality, which makes that seat at the table a formal responsibility, not something I have to keep winning.

The problems I’m most drawn to are the ones no one has solved yet: how agents should communicate uncertainty, when AI should ask versus act, how users form accurate mental models of what a system can actually do. These aren’t UX problems. They live in the system, not on the surface. The stakes are high enough that I don’t think they belong anywhere else.

Prompt Design Agentic AI UX Organizational Strategy Conversation Design AI Mental Models Designing Uncertainty
Testimonials

What it’s like to work with me.

“Alea consistently pushes the boundaries of what great design looks like. Her ability to combine deep technical understanding with creative problem-solving made her a key contributor to some of our most complex and high-profile initiatives.”

Tami McBride, Former Manager · ServiceNow

“Alea demonstrates leadership in every interaction, she is strategic, vocal when needed, and incredibly knowledgeable.”

Manager · ServiceNow

“She shares her knowledge openly, offers strong strategic guidance, and consistently helps the team move forward with confidence.”

Design Coworker · ServiceNow

“If you’re looking for someone who blends craft excellence, AI expertise, and a forward-thinking approach to innovation, Alea is that person. Working with her was a privilege and I’d jump at the chance to do it again.”

Tami McBride, Former Manager · ServiceNow

“She genuinely sets a new standard.”

Manager · ServiceNow

“I’m truly grateful for her support and the way she elevates everyone around her.”

Manager · ServiceNow
Thought Leadership

Speaking & writing.

Design Philosophy

Words are the
interface.

01
Conversation is the oldest interface

Spoken language is at least 100,000 years old. Writing is around 5,000. Touchscreens have been here for maybe 20. Conversation is how people have always navigated complexity, made decisions, and built trust. AI didn't invent that. It inherited it. Designing for it well means respecting what was already there.

02
Every word is architecture

Linguists call it pragmatics: the meaning that lives between what's said and what's understood. In AI, that meaning is shaped by decisions most people never see. The pipeline, the prompt, the logic that governs what to say when uncertain or how to handle ambiguity. Those aren't surface-level polish. They're the system. If a designer isn't making those decisions, they're still getting made. Just not well.

03
Language carries weight

An AI that uses jargon locks people out. An AI that obscures uncertainty removes informed choice. An AI that presents a guess as a fact isn't making a tone mistake. It's making an ethical one. Language has always been a tool of access and exclusion, and AI reproduces the assumptions of whoever built it at scale. Conversation designers sit at that intersection whether we name it or not. I'd rather name it.

Let's connect

Ready to design AI that earns trust?

Open to job opportunities, speaking engagements, and workshops.