From the service wall
scope, price, finish line
We find the hours your team loses every week and build the workflow that gives them back.
The roster
sound familiar?
You can already name the process that eats your team’s week. You want it fixed this quarter, not studied for a year.
Your team rebuilds the same report, re-keys the same data, and chases the same approvals every week. The work matters; the copying and pasting does not.
Automation requests keep landing in your queue, and the queue is not shrinking. We build inside your standards and hand off work your team can maintain without us.
The finish line
what you keep
Proof
measured, not claimed
A real Workflow Automation Builds engagement, led by the number that moved. We publish nothing we didn’t measure.
6 figures
Recovered in 8 months
Construction
A Chicago construction company started with an AI bootcamp and a workshop, then retained us to build the system the training pointed to. An automated invoice-chasing workflow delivered a six-figure return within eight months.
Job ticket
specifics, in writing
Job ticket
The build sequence
find it, fix it
We sit with the people doing the work and map where the week goes. The best automation candidate is rarely the one named in the kickoff meeting.
We pick the workflow with the clearest payback and write down what done means: inputs, outputs, edge cases, owner. You approve the scope before we build anything.
We build in your stack, demo progress as we go, and test against real work instead of sample data. Nothing ships that you haven’t seen running.
We document the workflow end to end, train the people who will run it, and stay reachable while it settles in. It’s your workflow; we just built it.
Packages
no mystery pricing
One process, end to end: found, scoped, built, and handed off. The fastest way to see how we work.
A focused run through several workflows, shipped in priority order with one shared handoff.
A standing build cadence for teams with a long automation list and no bandwidth to work it.
Numbers on the first call. No discovery-call maze.
After we ship
we answer the phone
Handoff is not a goodbye. Every build ships with a runbook and documentation written for the people who run it, and your team gets 30 days of async support while the workflow settles in: when a question comes up, you ask the person who built it, not a help desk. After that, you run it on your own. If your list is longer, we keep building.
Most automation projects start with a tool and go looking for a problem to point it at. We run the other direction. Find comes first: we sit with the people doing the work, walk the process end to end, and map where the hours actually go. The workflow everyone complains about in the kickoff meeting is rarely the expensive one. The expensive one stopped feeling like a problem years ago and started feeling like the job.
Then we scope like we mean it. Before anything gets built, we write down what done means: the inputs, the outputs, the edge cases, and the name of the person who owns the workflow once it runs. You approve that page before we touch your stack. It keeps the build honest, and it keeps the scope from quietly doubling.
The build happens in your tools, against your real work. We demo as we go and test with the messy inputs your team handles every day, because a workflow that only survives clean sample data is a demo, not an automation. Where something can fail, we make it fail loudly, with an alert and a runbook, never silently while the queue backs up.
Then we hand it off and leave, on purpose. Your team gets documentation a new hire could follow, training for the people who run the workflow day to day, and support while everything settles in. An automation your team can’t explain is a liability with a nice interface, so the explanation ships with the build. We count the win in hours returned to the work you hired people to do. Zero people replaced. That stance does not bend for an automation project.
FAQ
asked at the counter
Taking the repetitive, rules-based part of a job (moving data between systems, building the weekly report, chasing approvals) and having software do it reliably. The judgment calls stay with your people.
We look for the overlap of three things: hours lost, rules clear enough to trust to software, and how much the team hates the task. The first build should pay for itself and make the case for the second.
Most builds land in a matter of weeks. Find and Scope set the real timeline before we commit, so the estimate comes from your workflow, not a template.
Project-based, scoped per build, and you get numbers on the first call. We don’t publish figures because we haven’t seen your workflow yet, and a real quote beats a marketing number.
Yours, wherever possible. We work across common automation platforms, scripting, and AI models, and we choose per job. We don’t resell a platform, so the recommendation is never a commission in disguise.
No, and we don’t take work framed that way. We automate the repetitive slice of a role so the person can spend those hours on work that needs a human. Zero people replaced, and we intend to keep it that way.
Eventually something upstream will change, so we plan for it instead of promising it away. Every workflow ships with loud failure alerts, a runbook anyone on the team can follow, and async support after handoff. When you need a fix, you talk to the person who built it.
The repetitive parts, yes. The judgment, no, and we won’t pretend otherwise: decisions route to a person by design. If the workflow needs software that reasons through open-ended cases, that’s an AI agent, and we build those too.