Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild

How do product teams evaluate LLM-powered products? As organizations integrate large language models (LLMs) into digital products, their unpredictable nature makes traditional evaluation approaches inadequate, yet little is known about how practitioners navigate this challenge. Through interviews with nineteen practitioners across diverse sectors, we identify ten evaluation practices spanning informal ‘vibe checks’ to organizational meta-work. Beyond confirming four documented challenges, we introduce a novel fifth we call the results-actionability gap, in which practitioners gather evaluation data but cannot translate findings into concrete improvements. Drawing on patterns from successful teams, we contribute strategies to bridge this gap, supporting practitioners’ formalization journey from ad-hoc interpretive practices (e.g., vibe checks) toward systematic evaluation. Our analysis suggests these interpretive practices are necessary adaptations to LLM characteristics rather than methodological failures. For HCI researchers, this presents a research opportunity to support practitioners in systematizing emerging practices rather than developing new evaluation frameworks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791069
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild

Jichen Zhu, Aske Mottelson, Malak Sadek, Willem; id_orcid 0000-0003-0245-1633 van der Maden et al.
1 citations
Information Systems Theories and Implementation
article

Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild

Jichen Zhu, Aske Mottelson, Malak Sadek, Willem; id_orcid 0000-0003-0245-1633 van der Maden, Ziang Xiao, Aske ; id_orcid 0000-0003-1827-8513 Mottelson, Q. Vera Liao
article en
1 citations

Abstract

How do product teams evaluate LLM-powered products? As organizations integrate large language models (LLMs) into digital products, their unpredictable nature makes traditional evaluation approaches inadequate, yet little is known about how practitioners navigate this challenge. Through interviews with nineteen practitioners across diverse sectors, we identify ten evaluation practices spanning informal ‘vibe checks’ to organizational meta-work. Beyond confirming four documented challenges, we introduce a novel fifth we call the results-actionability gap, in which practitioners gather evaluation data but cannot translate findings into concrete improvements. Drawing on patterns from successful teams, we contribute strategies to bridge this gap, supporting practitioners’ formalization journey from ad-hoc interpretive practices (e.g., vibe checks) toward systematic evaluation. Our analysis suggests these interpretive practices are necessary adaptations to LLM characteristics rather than methodological failures. For HCI researchers, this presents a research opportunity to support practitioners in systematizing emerging practices rather than developing new evaluation frameworks.

Johns Hopkins University (US), University of Cambridge (GB), University of Michigan (US), Group Image (Poland) (PL), Human Computer Interaction (Switzerland) (CH), Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada) (CA), Interaction Design (United Kingdom) (GB), IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Fonden
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Information Systems Theories and Implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.