Proposed hypothesis
Mid-size operators with costly workflow gaps
A 50–1,000 person company running a core department on spreadsheets, glue scripts and several per-seat tools that each do half the job.
Who we serve here · Proposed hypothesis
Who is involved, and what each person receives at the end.
A 50–1,000 person company running a core department on spreadsheets, glue scripts and several per-seat tools that each do half the job.
User
Department head / COO
Needs: A system that matches how the team actually works, not how the vendor imagined it.
Doubt: Custom software sounds slow, risky and hard to maintain.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • A mapped real-vs-documented process
- • A running system for one department
- • Runbooks the team can follow
Buyer
CFO / finance lead
Needs: A cost case that holds against current seat spend and manual hours.
Doubt: The return will be asserted, not measured.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • A baseline agreed before work starts
- • A 3-year rent-vs-own comparison
- • A measured result against that baseline
Approver
IT / security lead
Needs: Something supportable that does not add shadow IT.
Doubt: Another system the IT team will be left holding.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • Architecture and data model documentation
- • Access control and audit design
- • A named handover plan
Affected
The team doing the work
Needs: Less re-keying and fewer workarounds.
Doubt: Automation will be imposed without asking them.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • Shadowing time where their workarounds are recorded
- • Clear lines on what stays human
Responsibilities, not a promised roster: economic buyer, process owner, user, technical approver and operator may overlap. Explore the Finance illustrative example →·MSP illustrative example →.
Our promise
We will map how one department really works and tell you, with numbers, whether to buy, configure, integrate or selectively build.
Holds when
- • You give us access to the people and systems
- • One accountable owner is named on your side
- • The scope is one department first
Limits — what we don't promise
- • We do not promise a return figure before the audit
- • If off-the-shelf fits, we will say so and stop
- • We do not replace your ERP or core ledger in phase one
Before
Work moves through spreadsheets, email and rented tools; nobody owns the whole process.
After
One department runs on a system the company owns, with the return measured against an agreed baseline.
What it takes from you
Leadership time for the audit, team access for shadowing, one owner on the client side.
Constraints we respect
Existing tools stay until the replacement is proven; no big-bang cutover.
The experience
From first conversation to handover.
01
Opportunity audit
Discovery, permitted observations and proposed baseline as agreed in scope.
Scoped quote
02
Redesign
Process re-engineered before code; decide what stays human.
03
Build
Agreed-scope release phases around your real data.
Scoped quote
04
Run
Operating support, staffing and production acceptance are separately agreed
Scoped quote
05
Handover
Documentation, handover and any backup arrangements are agreed in scope
Evidence, labelled honestly
- Owned product directions; stage and evidence limits on each noteContext
- Seat-vs-owned calculatorProposed
- Sample audit reportProposed
- Measured ROI for a mid-size clientUnknown
Context = portfolio direction, not operational acceptance · Proposed = our method, not yet proven for this audience · Unknown = we won't claim it yet.
Access we ask for — and how you take it back
- • Read access to the department's tools and exports
- • Shadowing time with named team members
- • No production write access during the audit
Access is limited to the department in scope and logged.
Initial inquiry: non-sensitive summary only. Later assessment: authorised redacted samples or read-only access. Sandbox and production write access require separate approval, minimisation, access expiry and retention agreement.
Agree revocation, working-copy handling, retention exceptions and confirmation responsibilities before access.
Something useful to pass along
A one-page audit summary the COO can hand to the CFO and board.
Useful to: Finance and leadership deciding whether to fund a build.. Shared only if you choose to.
Why you'd come back: Assess whether later departments can reuse suitable components, subject to scope and staffing.
What we watch for harm: Support load and manual workarounds after handover — if they rise, we report it.
Not a fit: Companies under ~50 staff without a dedicated process owner · Requests to clone a SaaS product feature-for-feature
Next step
Tell us which of these people you are.
Request an assessment of fit and proposed next steps; timing, scope and follow-up require confirmation.