One team, from diagnosis to daily operation
The people who map your process design the system, build it, launch it, and answer for it working, in month one and in month twelve.
One team, end to end
Diagnosis, design, build, launch, and operation, carried by the same people. The context from the first working session is still in the room at go-live.
Process redesign before technology
We fix the workflow first, then automate what comes out of it. Automating a broken workflow only makes the mistakes bigger and faster.
Accountable after launch
We monitor the system, handle the exceptions, and improve it as your business changes. You'll have a name you can call.
Cross-functional depth without headcount
Business, product, engineering, data, and operations skills, for the length of the problem, staffed as a pod, a small cross-functional team assembled for the engagement.
Five steps with concrete deliverables in your hands
Identify
We find the process where improvement is worth the most, using your volumes, costs, and error rates.
You geta ranked list of opportunities. This step is the diagnostic — $9,000, fixed. See the diagnostic →
Design
We map how the work runs today, including the exceptions (where most automation fails), remove the steps that shouldn't exist, and define the future workflow.
You geta current-state map and a future-state design.
Build
We build the automations, integrations, AI components, and interfaces the new workflow needs, testing against real cases as we go.
You geta working system, with weekly visibility into it as it's built.
Launch
We test with the people who do the work, handle exceptions and training, and deploy into daily operation.
You geta system your team actually uses, with documentation.
Improve
We monitor performance, fix what breaks, and expand what earns it.
You geta named owner, regular reporting, and a system that keeps up as the business changes. Run and improve, below →
Run and improve
Working systems change because businesses change: volumes shift, edge cases appear, teams turn over. The run-and-improve engagement keeps a named owner on your system monitoring, handling exceptions, refinement, and expansion into adjacent workflows. It's scoped and quoted alongside the build, once we know what the system actually needs to stay healthy. This phase is optional. See pricing →
Success is defined before we build
Every engagement starts with a measurable definition of success: hours returned, cycle time, cost per case, throughput, error rate, response time, adoption. The baseline is established before anything is touched, and results are reviewed against it at ninety days.
The questions our buyers ask
Where should we start?
That question is the diagnostic's job: we pick one process and map it end to end, with opportunities ranked by value, and a budget plan. This is a $9,000 fixed-price diagnostic, which takes two to three weeks.
What does this cost?
The diagnostic is $9,000, fixed. Build engagements start at $30,000; most land between $70,000 and $100,000, depending on scope. See our pricing page for more details. Pricing →
How fast can something be running?
The diagnostic takes two to three weeks. Build length depends on scope; the proposal names the pod and the duration, so the timeline is explicit before anything starts. Simple pilots can be up and running in 2 to 4 weeks.
Will employees actually use it?
Adoption is part of the build: the people who do the work test the system before launch, exception paths are designed with them, and training is part of deployment. A system nobody uses counts as a failure on our side of the table.
Can it work with our current systems?
That's the default assumption. We start from the tools you already run and connect them; custom software enters only where it earns its place.
How is data and security handled?
Directly, and early. Your IT and security owners are in the room from the diagnostic onward, with straight answers on data handling, model providers, access scope, and what happens at termination.
Who owns the outcome after launch?
Usually a named person on our side, under an optional run-and-improve engagement: monitoring, exceptions, and refinement. The alternative is we hand over documentation and ownership to your team.
How do we avoid another pilot that goes nowhere?
Pilots die in the gap between demo and daily operation. We define success before building, deploy into the real workflow with real users, and measure at ninety days against the baseline.
If the free tools are this good, why would I need you?
The tools handle one item at a time. An engagement handles your full volume, integrated into your systems of record, with exception handling and someone accountable when something breaks at 2am. The tool is a sample of our work.
Do you automate everything you're asked to?
No. Work with high judgment density, unstable inputs, or thin volume makes a bad automation candidate, and we'll tell you so in the first conversation. Saying no early is cheaper for both sides.
Who actually does the work?
A pod drawn from our team of subject-matter experts and specialists – the same people on the About page. You'll know the names before the build starts.