Why this exists
Support teams are routinely asked to make consequential decisions with vendor content, decontextualized benchmarks, and advice that rarely survives contact with the queue. After 15+ years in the work, the gap was clear: operators needed a source that connected evidence to the real constraints of customers, teams, and systems.
So I started writing the field guide I couldn't find: honest, vendor-neutral, and sourced. simpli.support is where I work through the whole craft of support — the metrics that mislead, the QA that misses, the careers that stall, the operations that buckle, and what AI actually does when a demo meets a real queue. Alongside the writing there's a reference layer built to be used: a sourced benchmarks hub, a plain-English glossary, and templates you can copy. No sponsorships. No affiliate deals. No vendor pays for a verdict here.
A note on independence
Two things live under this name, and I keep them separate on purpose. The publication — the insights, reports, and statistics — is independent research. It takes no money from the vendors it covers, and nobody sponsors a conclusion.
Separately, I've built my own open, vendor-neutral reference implementation of the support-AI capabilities I write about; it lives in the separately labeled simpli.support Lab. I built it to understand these systems from the inside — because building a thing is the fastest way to learn where it breaks — not to sell it to you. When I have a stake in something, I say so.
Across the support table
I've worked across frontline support, quality, analytics, workforce planning, leadership, engineering, and tooling. Not in theory — hands on keyboard, tickets in queue, dashboards open, stakeholders in the room. That range of experience shapes how simpli.support is designed.
Where depth meets breadth
What makes simpli.support different isn't just support experience or just technical skill — it's both, applied to the same operating questions. The work is informed by both sides.
What we believe
These are operating principles shaped by years of seeing which ideas hold up in real support systems — and which ones fall apart under pressure.