Workflow automation replaces a manual checklist with an orchestrated pipeline: steps fire on a trigger, branch on your rules, pause for approvals, and route exceptions to a named owner instead of stalling the queue. You get dashboards for throughput and bottlenecks and a full audit trail per item. Four to eight weeks to production, at a fixed price.
Work waits in inboxes and spreadsheets between every step.
The process changes depending on who’s doing it that day.
Edge cases stall the whole queue with no clear owner.
No one can say where a given item is or how long it took.
We document the real process, including the undocumented exceptions.
Steps run automatically with branching, approvals, and SLAs.
Edge cases route to the right person with full context.
Dashboards show throughput, bottlenecks, and audit trail.
The current flow end to end, including the parts that live only in one person’s head, written down and agreed. A large part of the value shows up right here.
Each step has a defined failure path: retry, hand to a person, or stop the flow. Nothing continues silently on bad data.
Slack, Teams or email, with enough context to decide and a record of the decision itself.
Volume, cycle time, exception rate and where work waits — so you can see whether the automation moved the number it was supposed to move.
Pick the one that hurts most. Automating half a process usually moves the work rather than removing it.
Each tool the process touches, including the spreadsheet nobody admits to.
They know the exceptions, and the exceptions are the project.
A process that changes every month will cost more to maintain than it saves. Stabilise it first.
If the process is broken, automating it only makes it fail faster; we would map it and hand you the map.
Anything needing a signature or a regulated judgement stays with the person accountable for it.
Each page states the workflow, the systems it integrates with, what it costs and when it is the wrong choice.
Reads incoming invoices, checks totals, tax and supplier against the ERP, and posts only what clears the rules.
Classifies and routes inbound tickets and drafts the reply, with a confidence threshold that sends the rest to a person.
Collects, checks and files everything a new client has to hand over, and chases whatever is missing.
to the full loop
Client under NDA. The figures are the client’s own, comparing the periods before and after launch.
Full audit + a working pilot on one slice of the process. Fully credited to the build.
Full rollout with monitoring, escalation, and documentation. Priced on scope.
Ongoing tuning, new scenarios, and monthly reporting. Cancel anytime.
Yes. The audit documents the real process, exceptions and all, and we automate the reliable parts while routing edge cases to people.
We don’t propose an off-the-shelf product either. The audit is there precisely to see where your process differs from the ordinary one, and the build is shaped around that difference. And if it turns out a standard tool covers you well enough, we’ll say so plainly — the process map stays with you in any case.
It’s a fair thing to ask, and responsibility matters more here than accuracy. A person answers for it, and the system is built so that they can: a doubtful case is never posted quietly, it goes to a review queue. Low confidence isn’t an error for us, it’s a route. Around 70% clears straight through and a person looks at the rest — and where exactly that line sits is yours to decide.
That’s a common requirement, and a reasonable one. We fit the setup to your data rules: if nothing may leave, the model runs locally inside your own perimeter, and the documents never cross it.
That’s not unusual, and it’s fine. Integrating without an API is the most underestimated line in a quote, which is why integration surface comes first among the four cost drivers, and why we don’t name a fixed price before the audit. Working without an API is perfectly possible — files, exports, email — it simply costs more, and it’s better to know that early. Which is why, fairly often, we build the API for you.
It happens often, and usually for one reason: the pilot was measured on the happy path and the exceptions were left for later — though the exceptions are where most of the work turns out to be. So we look at the share that clears without a person rather than at extraction accuracy, and we agree in advance who handles the rest, and how.
No, that isn’t what this is about. What goes is the retyping, not the people: decisions stay with a person — the disputed document, the non-standard transaction, the conversation with the client, the signature under the reporting. On one accounting project, closing a client month went from three days to four hours, not because anyone was let go, but because a qualified specialist stopped keying in details by hand. The time that frees up most often goes into growth: more clients with the same team, without the costs rising alongside.
It’s a fair question, and sometimes doing it yourselves really is the right answer. We say so when the volume doesn’t justify a build: below roughly 300 documents a month the arithmetic usually doesn’t work. The calculator on this site includes running costs, so you can weigh that up before you ever talk to us.
They do change, and that’s exactly what we build for: the model is a replaceable part here, not the foundation. The source of truth is our own database — the document, the counterparty, the entry. The model is attached to the side, and we update it whenever something better appears; for you that’s planned maintenance, not a rebuild.
We use cookies for analytics — to see which pages bring enquiries. Nothing else, and nothing before you agree. Cookie Policy