How can we
help you?

Send us a description of the workflow you would like to change: what happens now, who handles it, and roughly how often. That's enough for a first conversation about whether it's a fit. Use the message box at the bottom of this page and it will prepare the email for you.

The problem, not the solution. Describe the task as it happens today, who does it, how long it takes and what makes it annoying. What tools it touches is useful too: the CRM, the helpdesk, the spreadsheets. You don't need to know what should be built; that's what scoping is for.

Each engagement is scoped and priced after we understand the workflow, so there's no published price list. Scoping produces a written plan with the cost attached before any build starts, so you are not asked to commit to a number before anyone knows what the work involves.

Ask. A single well-chosen automation is often a better first project than a large programme, because it proves the idea quickly and cheaply. Describe what you have in mind and we'll tell you honestly whether it's worth doing.

Work that is high volume and follows a pattern: answering common enquiries, routing and tagging, chasing follow-ups, pulling data into a report, moving information between two systems. Judgement calls and exceptions should stay with a person, and the useful version keeps them there deliberately.

Usually not. Most of what we build connects to the tools already in place: the CRM, the helpdesk, the ad accounts, the spreadsheets. Replacing a working system is a last resort, not a starting point.

It escalates instead of guessing. Systems are built with a confidence threshold and a handoff path to a person, because an automation that invents an answer costs more trust than it saves time.

Yes, and that is usually the point. A chatbot answering from generic knowledge isn't much use; one answering from your policies, records and product information is. That means building a retrieval layer over your own content rather than relying on what a model already knows.

Then we'll say so. A lot of problems are better solved with a straightforward integration, a cleaner data structure, or a rules-based workflow. Scoping exists partly to catch that early, before there's a budget attached to the wrong solution.

Data handling is agreed in writing before any build starts: what the system can access, where it is stored, what is retained and what is excluded. For regulated environments like healthcare, that conversation happens first and shapes the architecture rather than being added at the end.

That depends on the systems involved and is decided during scoping rather than assumed. If data can't leave a particular environment, say so at the start. It is an architectural constraint, and much cheaper to design around than to retrofit.

Access is limited to the people working on your build, and the scope of that access is part of the written agreement. If you have specific restrictions, such as named individuals only or no access to production records, raise them during scoping.

Yes. Logging and reporting are built in, so you can review what ran, what it decided and where it went wrong. An automation you can't inspect is one you can't trust with anything that matters.

Yes. Interface design, brand identity and creative production can be taken on their own, or scoped alongside a build. Design is one of the four practices rather than an add-on to engineering work.

Yes. If you have guidelines, fonts and assets, we design within them. If you don't, or they've drifted over the years, that's worth addressing as its own piece of work rather than quietly inventing a new direction inside a product build.

Deliverables are listed in the scope document before work starts, so there is no ambiguity later. Typically that means source files, exported assets and any documentation needed to keep using them. Ownership terms are set out in the engagement agreement.

Work is built in stages with something reviewable at the end of each one. You see progress as it happens rather than receiving a finished thing at the end and hoping it's right.

That's why it's staged. Reviewing at each stage exists so direction can change before the work is finished rather than after. Larger changes to scope get re-costed openly rather than absorbed silently.

Deployment isn't the finish line. Systems get monitored and adjusted against real use, because the first version is a starting point. What ongoing support looks like is agreed as part of the scope rather than left vague.

Yes. Working alongside an existing team, inside your repositories and your review process, is a normal arrangement, and often better than working around them.