Strategy question
During a deployment, partners ask for matter-specific features, associates want faster execution, legal ops wants adoption reporting, and the CIO wants stronger controls. How would you turn that feedback into roadmap recommendations and decide which requests are scalable product investments versus client-specific services work?
- Harvey
- Strategy
- Hard
Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.
Start a mock interview on this question · Mock interview from a job description
What this question tests
Tests ability to synthesize conflicting stakeholder feedback into a roadmap while distinguishing scalable product work from client specific services work.
How to approach it
- Group the requests by underlying need rather than by who asked, since partner feature requests and legal ops reporting both point toward better visibility.
- Assess reusability, for example whether faster execution is a core performance issue benefiting every client, versus a feature only this firm needs.
- Classify the CIO's stronger controls request as core product work, since enterprise buyers broadly need it, not just this one deployment.
- Decide which requests become roadmap items versus paid services work, such as matter specific features as a custom engagement, not core product.
- Communicate the split back with a rationale, so partners understand why their request became a service instead of a platform feature.
What a strong answer includes
- Groups requests by underlying need instead of by requester, revealing that legal ops reporting and CIO controls may share an underlying admin visibility need.
- Applies a reusability test explicitly, for example asking would three other clients also want this, to separate platform work from services work.
- Prioritizes performance and controls work as core roadmap items since they affect every deployment, over matter specific feature requests.
- Proposes routing narrow requests to a services engagement rather than silently ignoring them, which keeps the relationship intact.
Common mistakes
- Treating every stakeholder request as equally roadmap worthy instead of testing for reusability across clients.
- Ignoring or silently deprioritizing the matter specific requests instead of explicitly routing them to services.
Likely follow-up questions
- How would you prioritize between the CIO's controls request and the associates' speed request?
- What would you tell a partner whose feature request you decided not to build?
More strategy questions
- How should Harvey price for law firms vs. in-house legal teams?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- How would you grow Harvey adoption among conservative, risk-averse law firms?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- You inherit Vault with strong customer interest but limited engineering capacity. How would you set Vault’s product vision and a 12-month roadmap across file management, AI search/Q&A, document extraction, secure sharing, and platform investments like permissions, indexing, and integrations? Walk through your prioritization framework, major bets, and what you would explicitly defer.Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- Harvey can fund only one major integration track next: deeper iManage support, broader SharePoint coverage, or cross-platform capabilities like sync, permissions mapping, and admin controls. How would you decide what to build first, and what tradeoffs would you make across customer demand, implementation effort, security risk, and strategic leverage?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- Harvey’s Command Center needs to serve three jobs for enterprise admins: understanding adoption, managing users and access, and enforcing governance. How would you define the product strategy and first 12-month roadmap for Command Center, and what framework would you use to make trade-offs across those three areas for Harvey’s largest legal customers?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- You inherit a platform where teams lack visibility into request failures, latency regressions, customer-impacting incidents, and model-quality degradation. How would you define the product scope for observability, decide what to ship first, and ensure the work improves customer outcomes rather than just adding internal tooling?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
More questions from Harvey
Learn the skill behind it
Chapters of the AI PM course that teach what this question tests.
- Chapter 4: Discovery and strategy for AI products
- Chapter 9: Prove it paid off: outcomes, economics, and pricing
- Chapter 14: Get the job: the AI PM interview loop