You bring the process that hurts. We take it apart with you and answer one question honestly: does automating this pay?
The paid engineering study that turns a promising idea into a scoped, priced, de-risked project.
The system itself, built to the scope agreed in the audit and priced before a line of it is written.
Optional. For teams that want the system tuned and extended rather than frozen on the day it shipped.
The full audit fee is credited in full against the production build, so if you go ahead you pay for it once. If you do not go ahead, the audit findings — the process map, the ROI model and the proposal — are yours to keep or to hand to someone else.
The build quote is not a guess we adjust to the client. It comes out of four things the audit measures, which is precisely why the audit exists — quoting a production system without one is how agencies end up in change-request arguments.
One mailbox and one database is a different project from five systems where two have no usable API. Integration surface is usually the single biggest line.
The happy path is rarely the work. What drives cost is the share of cases that break the rule, and how many of those the system has to handle rather than route to a person.
A misfiled document and a mispriced invoice carry different consequences. Higher stakes mean more validation, more human checkpoints and more testing — all of which is build time.
GDPR is the baseline everywhere we work. Regulated data, residency requirements or an audit regime add real engineering, and we price them rather than discovering them late.
Because they are different amounts of work. The mini-audit is a conversation and a judgement call — a few days, no fee. The full audit is an engineering study: we map the real process including its exceptions, test feasibility against your systems, model the ROI and commit to a fixed build price. That takes one to two weeks of senior time, and it is what makes the fixed quote possible.
{{ t.body }}
{{ stagesNote }}
{{ driversBody }}
{{ d.d }}
{{ f.a }}