Which of our processes are worth automating first?
The ones that repeat daily, pull data from several systems, and end in a decision someone makes by hand: pricing, approvals, allocation, evaluations, reporting. In the mapping phase we walk through your candidates with the people who run them. We rank them by hours saved, error cost, and how much of the data already exists. You see the ranking before you commit to a build.
Our process runs on spreadsheets and five different systems. Where do you start?
With the data, not the interface. First we connect the sources and bring them into one clean, versioned dataset, with every figure linked to where it came from. Then we rebuild the steps on top of that. Most of the value in a process like this is created in the first two weeks, when the data is joined for the first time.
How do you decide what runs as code and what uses AI?
If a step can be written as a rule, it runs as code: same input, same output, at almost no cost per run. If a step needs reading, weighing, or writing, a language model does it within limits you set and with a review step where it matters. We map every step of your process to one of the two before we build, and you see the split.
Part of the process depends on one person's experience. Can that be automated?
Usually more than expected. We sit with that person, turn what can be written down into rules, and give the model the rest with their past decisions as examples. What stays is the genuine judgment, and the system routes exactly those cases to them, with the evidence attached.
How do we know it works before it touches live operations?
It runs in shadow mode first: the system produces its decisions next to your team's, every day, and we compare them together in the weekly review. It goes live only when the match is where you want it. An evaluation suite keeps checking it against known cases after every change.
Our process changes every few months. Will the automation keep up?
Yes, because the rules and limits are configuration your team can see and change, not logic buried in code. Larger changes go through the same weekly cycle as the original build. If we stay on after go-live, adjusting the system as the process evolves is part of the agreement.
What does our team do once the process runs on its own?
They handle the exceptions and the judgment the data cannot show. In the pricing example, buyers approve the routine offers in seconds and spend their time on the unusual cases. The system tells them what changed and why, so the review is fast.
What does an engagement cost, and what do we get?
Each phase is a fixed scope with one deliverable: working software that meets acceptance criteria we agree on up front. The mapping phase is scoped on its own, so you decide on the build with a full plan in hand. You get a deployed system in your environment with monitoring and an audit log. You also get the source code, documentation, and an IP assignment for everything built for you.