Strategy question
Harvey can build only a small number of partner integrations next half. How would you prioritize which enterprise legal integrations to build first, and what rubric would you use to weigh customer demand, workflow criticality, distribution or revenue upside, implementation cost, maintenance burden, and strategic control of the platform?
- 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
Whether you can build a defensible prioritization rubric for platform integrations under real capacity constraints, weighing multiple legitimate but conflicting factors.
How to approach it
- Define the rubric dimensions explicitly: customer demand (volume and deal value tied to the integration), workflow criticality (how central it is to daily legal work), distribution or revenue upside, implementation cost, maintenance burden, and strategic platform control.
- Score each candidate integration against all six dimensions using real data, for example number of enterprise deals citing the integration as a requirement, rather than anecdote.
- Weight workflow criticality and implementation cost higher when engineering capacity is the binding constraint, since a highly critical but cheap-to-build integration should usually win over a nice-to-have expensive one.
- Treat maintenance burden as a real cost, not zero, since an integration owned by a third party (iManage, for example) with a volatile API can quietly consume ongoing engineering time.
- Use strategic control as a tiebreaker: prefer integrations that strengthen Harvey's position as the system of record over ones that make Harvey purely a feature inside someone else's platform.
- Present the scored list transparently to stakeholders so tradeoffs (for example a high-demand but high-maintenance integration deprioritized) are understood, not just announced.
What a strong answer includes
- Scores all six named dimensions explicitly rather than picking two or three informally.
- Treats maintenance burden as an ongoing cost, a detail many candidates skip, which matters a lot for third-party legal-system integrations.
- Uses strategic control as an explicit tiebreaker with a clear rationale, not just an afterthought.
- Shows the rubric is data-driven (deal counts, workflow frequency) rather than based on who asks loudest.
Common mistakes
- Listing the six dimensions without showing how they would actually be scored or weighted.
- Ignoring maintenance burden as a real ongoing cost.
- No tiebreaker logic for when two integrations score similarly.
Likely follow-up questions
- How would you handle an integration that scores high on demand but low on strategic control?
- What would you do if maintenance burden turns out higher than estimated after launch?
- How would you revisit this rubric as Harvey's product strategy evolves?
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