All you need to know about Ovida.

Either run the meeting in one of Ovida’s own video rooms, which is what we recommend, or upload a recording you already have from Zoom, Teams or elsewhere. Uploads are enabled on request.

Because of what Ovida lets you undo. People are reasonably wary of recording a difficult conversation, so Ovida lets everyone consent up front and still change their mind at the end. Either participant can choose Discard when the call finishes. That deletes the recording for everyone, permanently, before it is ever processed.

Recording in Ovida also means every participant keeps custody of their own data indefinitely. You know where a recording is, who can see it, and you can withdraw consent to share it later.

No. Everyone in the conversation controls their own data, so both people can get feedback on their own skills from the same meeting.

In a one to one, the manager might work on asking open questions, listening, and giving feedback clearly. The team member might work on being open to feedback, asking for clarification, and setting out their progress and blockers. Same conversation, two separate pieces of development.

Nothing is shared unless you share it. From a meeting, choose Share and invite someone: they get access to that one meeting and nothing else. From a Skill, choose Share to invite a manager or mentor: they see your progress on that one Skill only.

English, for now. The team is multilingual and more languages are a priority, but the quality of the insight has to survive the move, so it is being done deliberately rather than quickly. If you need a particular language, tell us and it will count towards which one comes next.

Two tests: does it match the communication model your organization actually uses, and is it useful to you. The feedback is yours alone unless you share it, and you can push back on it and ask it to be more specific.

On the comparison with people: human feedback, even from trained experts, varies a great deal and carries unconscious bias. Confirmation bias, recency bias, halo and horns, affinity bias. The AI is trained to avoid those, it does not get tired or have an off day, and it is there at two in the morning if that is when you have time.

None of which makes it a replacement for a person. When judgment or subtlety is needed, the human in the loop feature lets you bring in a trusted mentor at any point.

No. The models are pre-trained. Your conversations are used to generate your feedback and nothing else, and they are never used to train the models. That is an architectural decision, and it is what removes the main risk people worry about with public AI tools.

By measuring things that can be observed rather than judged. Talk-time share, whether a question was open, whether understanding was checked. Not whether someone seemed confident.

On top of that, the training data is deliberately diverse, and separate monitoring models plus human review act as a check on the output.

Each client gets dedicated AI agents rather than a shared pool, and those agents can only draw on the content, competency frameworks and leadership models your organization has approved. They cannot wander off into generic advice.

Separate monitoring models watch for drift and inconsistency and flag anything questionable to a human quality team.

Only where you have a lawful basis and the patient has consented, and consent sits with each participant rather than with whoever pressed record. Many teams start with simulated consultations and training scenarios instead, which carries none of that weight and still measures the behavior.

Yes, and that is the normal starting point. We configure and validate your benchmark with your own clinicians before rollout, so consultations are assessed against what you are actually accountable for.

The clinician sees their own consultation, their own scores, and the moments behind them, first. The organization sees behavior patterns and improvement over time at the level Ovida permits. That separation is what keeps people candid enough for the measurement to be worth having.

Yes, in health coaching. Work with Mayo Clinic compared Ovida against expert MITI ratings of health coaching sessions. On the judgment a supervisor actually makes, whether a session meets proficiency, Ovida matched the expert raters on empathy, partnership and softening sustain talk, and came close on cultivating change talk. That validation covers health coaching fidelity specifically rather than every kind of clinical conversation.

File checking tells you what was recorded. This tells you what was said. Most of the risk in advice sits in the gap between the two: the question that was never asked does not appear in the file, because it never happened.

Yes, and that is the normal starting point. We configure and validate your policy with your compliance and advice leads before rollout, so assessment maps to the obligation you are accountable for rather than a generic rubric.

That depends on what they believe happens to it, which is why Ovida is built development-first. Scores and insights are private to the adviser. Leaders see aggregated trends, not an individual's transcript. Sessions run in a private space rather than a monitoring tool. Introduce it as development and you get honest conversations to work with. Introduce it as oversight and you get performances.

No, and framing it that way tends to backfire. What it develops is the adviser's ability to understand what a client actually needs and explain a recommendation so they can act on it. Firms see that show up in retention and referrals, but it gets there by making the advice land, not by making the pitch harder.

Not to start. Many firms begin entirely with role-play with an AI client, which carries none of the sensitivity of a live meeting and still measures the behavior. Real conversations come later, with consent from each participant, once advisers trust what happens to the recording.

No, it changes what your specialists spend their time on. The first pass runs across the conversations, and your people apply judgment where a human decision actually changes the outcome, rather than spending the hour reconstructing what happened.

Yes, and it should. We configure your obligations and validate them with your own experts before rollout, so each behavior is tied to the specific requirement it evidences.

Consent sits with each participant, people see their own results first, and the organization sees behavior patterns and improvement at the level Ovida permits rather than a transcript of everything one person said. Assurance programs fail when people feel watched, because then you are measuring the performance rather than the work.

No, and most teams do not start there. Simulated scenarios carry none of the sensitivity of a live incident and still measure whether people can run the conversation the plan assumes they can.

A tabletop happens once, with the people who could attend, and produces a written reflection. This runs as often as people want, individually, and measures the same behaviors each time, so you can see whether readiness actually moved.

Yes. Teams generally start from the incident shapes they genuinely worry about rather than a generic crisis, because the useful practice is in the specifics.

It is the same machinery pointed at a different problem. Growth and sales performance is about winning and keeping work, and everything there applies to a firm. This page is about the part that is specific to professional services: that the people delivering the work are the product, and that developing them competes directly with billing.

Consent sits with each participant rather than with whoever pressed record, individuals see their own results first, and the organization sees behavior patterns rather than transcripts. Firms with the strictest obligations tend to run entirely on rehearsal, which raises none of these questions at all.

Both, and they are not the same benchmark. A partner is working on holding a fee conversation or delivering advice a client does not want. A junior is working on asking the question they are afraid will sound stupid. Each person is scored on their own behaviors and pitched at their own level.

From the deployment data, around ten roleplays before a first visible signal in the scores, and twenty or more before the change holds. The more useful finding is that whether people reach that volume is decided by how the rollout is structured, not by Ovida. Where practice was scheduled with completion expectations, 70% of participants passed twenty roleplays. Where it was left optional, they did not.

The difference is what gets scored and who it is for. Assessment runs against the behaviors you decided matter, the rep sees their own results first, and every score points at the moment that produced it so the coaching conversation is specific rather than general.

That depends entirely on how it is introduced, which is why Ovida is built development-first: consent per participant, the individual sees their own results before anyone else, and the organization sees patterns rather than a transcript. Teams that roll it out as a coaching tool get honest conversations. Teams that roll it out as monitoring get performances.

Yes, and that is the normal starting point. We configure your methodology and qualification benchmark before rollout, so what gets reinforced is your definition of a good conversation rather than an off-the-shelf one.