We built an internal tool toreduce context switching —looking for honest feedback
We built an internal tool to solve a problem we kept running into as a team — too many tools, too much context switching, and work getting fragmented.
It started as a simple internal fix, not a product.
Now it’s at a stage where we’d like a few thoughtful teams to try it and tell us what actually works and what doesn’t.
We’re not selling anything and not launching publicly yet — just looking for honest feedback from people who deal with this kind of chaos daily.
If that sounds relevant to you, happy to connect privately.
www.omnex.tech
admin@omnex.tech
This is a strong place to pause and validate before turning it into a product.
A few things I’d be curious about as you test this with teams:
• What specific moment causes the most context switching today? (handoffs, alerts, task tracking, meetings?)
• Are teams replacing an existing tool with this, or is it sitting on top of their current stack?
• What behavior would convince you this solves a “must-have” problem vs a “nice-to-have”?
Internal tools are often the best starting point — the hard part is narrowing to the one pain people would actively pay to remove.
Appreciate this, these are exactly the questions we’re sitting with right now.
So far, the moment that seems to cause the most context switching isn’t meetings themselves, but what happens after them: decisions and next steps getting split across chat, tasks, and docs with no shared thread. Handoffs amplify that — especially when someone new needs to pick up work and reconstruct why things are the way they are.
At this stage, teams aren’t replacing their stack outright. OMNEX is intentionally sitting alongside existing tools, but we’re watching closely for what people naturally gravitate to using it for — that’s been a more honest signal than forcing replacement.
For us, the “must-have” signal wouldn’t be feature usage, but behavior: people defaulting to OMNEX as the place they return to after interruptions, or where they go first to understand the current state of work. If it doesn’t earn that role, it’s probably just nice-to-have.
Completely agree that internal tools are a great starting point — the real work has been narrowing the pain to something people would actively miss if it were gone.
That “default re-entry point after interruption” metric is a strong north star — it’s behavioral, not opinion-based.
One validation angle that might sharpen this further:
watch when people come back to OMNEX without being prompted.
For example, is it happening after:
• async handoffs
• context loss from time gaps (overnight / weekend)
• or role switches (IC → reviewer → executor)?
In my experience, whichever moment triggers the most unprompted returns usually defines the wedge use case worth doubling down on.
Curious if you’re already seeing one of those patterns emerge more strongly than the others.
This is a really sharp framing — appreciate you calling that out.
We’re still early, but a few patterns are starting to show. The strongest unprompted returns so far seem to come after time gaps (overnight / next-day) and async handoffs, where people want a fast way to rebuild “where things stand” without rereading threads or reopening multiple tools.
Role switching is interesting, but harder to isolate at this stage since most early testers are still wearing multiple hats. What we are watching closely is whether people reopen OMNEX as their first stop after an interruption, rather than jumping back into Slack or email — that’s the behavior we’re treating as the leading signal.
Your point about letting the highest unprompted return moment define the wedge is spot on. Right now we’re deliberately not optimizing for all three cases at once and using early usage to tell us which one deserves focus. If one starts to dominate clearly, that’s where we’ll double down.
Still very much in learning mode, but this lens has been helpful in shaping what we measure next.
This makes a lot of sense, and I like how deliberately you’re letting behavior pick the wedge instead of deciding it upfront.
Treating “first stop after interruption” as the leading signal feels especially right — that’s the kind of habit formation that’s hard to fake.
Sounds like you’re measuring the right things early. Curious to see which return moment wins out over time.