The challenge
A multi-location service business where LINE questions about hours, booking changes, and membership peak every morning and evening.
Peak inquiry volume slows replies and creates inconsistent guidance across agents.
The assumed operating scale is 150–250 line messages per day. At this volume, small delays and omissions accumulate into a daily management problem. The important point is not to introduce AI as a separate tool, but to connect it to the way the team already receives requests, checks information, makes decisions, and records outcomes.
What the AI Agent handles
Check customer context and history, draft the right reply, and hand off only the cases that need human judgment.
In practical terms, the Agent handles check customer data and history, draft replies using service rules, and escalate exceptions to the right owner. These are not isolated features. The output of one step becomes the input to the next, and the full history remains available for review.
The workflow refers to LINE Official Account, CRM, and Reservation system. Connections are designed around the existing environment wherever possible, so the project does not begin with a wholesale system replacement.
Decisions made in the workflow
The Agent must determine whether identity verification is required, whether money or contracts are involved, and whether a person must approve the reply. Each decision is translated into an explicit rule, the information required to apply it, and the condition that prevents automatic execution.
When the evidence is complete and the rule is clear, the Agent can move the routine case forward. When either is missing, it should not produce a confident-looking guess. It pauses, explains what is missing, and returns the case to the appropriate person.
Human and AI responsibilities
AI Agent
Check customer context and history, draft the right reply, and hand off only the cases that need human judgment.
People
Emotional cases, refunds, contract changes, and complaints
When the Agent stops
The Agent does not send automatically when identity is uncertain, money is involved, or negative sentiment requires a person.
This boundary can differ by department, customer, document sensitivity, and action. Reading information, preparing a draft, and executing an external action do not need to share the same permission level.
What changes
Standardize speed and quality while people focus on conversations that need judgment.
Measure operational change, not the number of AI responses. Establish a baseline before implementation and review the same indicators after launch.
For this workflow, useful indicators are first-response time, automation rate, handoff accuracy, and repeat inquiry rate. The team records a baseline before implementation, then reviews changes together with the number and type of exceptions.
A practical implementation path
We begin with one narrow workflow, validate it with real inputs, and expand only after the team can see and control the result.
Observe
Collect real examples and clarify the current process, decision rules, and exceptions.
Prototype
Connect a limited data set and let the team compare Agent output with today’s work.
Operate
Define permissions, approvals, logs, and recovery procedures before production use.
Improve
Review exceptions and usage data, then update rules and expand the scope.
Questions teams usually ask
Will it execute everything automatically?
No. The execution boundary is designed per action. High-risk or ambiguous cases stop for human approval.
Do we need to replace existing systems?
Usually not. The Agent is designed to read from and write to the systems already used by the team wherever practical.
Can we start without perfectly organized data?
Yes. We identify the minimum reliable sources first and improve data quality as the workflow is tested.