A narrow perimeter, proven in one department, then extended — never a big bang.
Your risk is organisational rather than technical: a legacy system nobody wants to touch, a hard-to-defend ROI, and governance that has to hold.
What you get
- Prior audit: processes, volumes, systems, risks
- Phasing into short projects, each with its own success indicator
- Written governance framework (scope, thresholds, escalation, logging)
- Knowledge transfer to your internal team
Concrete examples
- Automatic reconciliation between orders, deliveries and invoicing
- Extraction and structuring of incoming documents (PDFs, emails, forms)
- Consolidated cross-department dashboard
- Preparation of regulatory or quality reporting
What people ask me before signing.
Our legacy system integrates with nothing.
A prior audit before any commitment. Where no API exists, we work through files, scheduled exports or an intermediate layer. The core of the legacy system stays untouched.
The ROI is unclear.
We measure before: volume, time spent, error rate of the current process. We measure after, on the same indicators. The first project is deliberately small so the number holds up in front of your board.
Who is accountable if it goes wrong?
A written governance framework: the agent's scope of action, escalation thresholds, a readable log, and a named human approver on each side. Major changes require explicit approval before deployment.
Will our IT department lose control?
The opposite: your team receives the code, the documentation and access to the logs. The point of the mandate is that they can take it over.
Real log extract
The prepared / observed / verified grid is our internal standard. It separates what the system intended to do, what it did, and what a human checked. That is what makes an automation defensible.
Four pathways. One of them is yours.
The assessment is free and commits you to nothing.
Forty-five minutes, a written map of what can be automated in your business, and a number. What you do with it is up to you.