The questions we are asked most often, answered the way we would on a call, including what it costs and what goes wrong.
Work that happens the same way every time and moves data between systems. Quoting, invoice entry, order processing, lead follow-up, reporting and content publishing are the common ones. Judgment calls, relationship work, and anything where a mistake is expensive and hard to spot make poor first candidates.
Pick a process that is frequent, repetitive and already written down. If nobody can describe the steps, automation will encode the confusion. The best first project takes a few hours a week, touches two systems, and has a clear definition of done.
No. We build it and hand over the documentation. What you do need is someone who owns the process and can answer questions during the build, usually one or two hours a week for four weeks. After handover, day-to-day use needs no technical skill.
Usually yes if you have repeatable processes, more than a handful of transactions a week, and at least two systems that should be talking to each other. It is a poor fit if your processes change weekly, if the work is genuinely judgment-based, or if nobody has time to define the workflow before it is built.
Builds start at $1,500 for a single automated workflow. Most client projects land between $3,000 and $12,000. The number moves with how many systems we connect, how much of the process is manual today, and whether it touches money or customer data. We scope it in a short call and quote a fixed price before any work starts.
Three things. Access and setup time on your side, usually a few hours in the first week. Ongoing changes when a connected system updates its API, which is what support covers. And the cost of the person who watches it, which is real and should be budgeted rather than discovered later.
Most single-workflow builds go live within four weeks of kickoff. Projects spanning several systems usually take six to ten weeks. The clock starts once we have access to the systems involved, because waiting on access is the most common reason a project slips.
It depends on volume. Below a few hours a week of repetitive work, hiring or doing it manually is usually cheaper. Above that, a one-time build that runs unattended tends to pay for itself within a year. We will tell you when the numbers do not support the project.
Access to the systems involved, one person who owns the process, and a description of how it works today. A short call is usually enough to scope it. We do not need your infrastructure changed, and we do not ask for credentials we do not need.
Ask who owns the code at the end. Ask what happens when a connected system changes, and who pays for the fix. Ask to see a workflow they built that is still running. Ask what happens if you stop working with them. A partner who cannot answer those four clearly is a risk.
You do. The automations, the source and the credentials are yours. We build on your infrastructure, and at handover you get everything needed to run and modify it without us. Nothing we build is locked to our platform.
It stops, and the failure should be visible rather than silent. Every build includes alerting on failure and a documented fallback to the manual process. Where an action cannot be undone, such as a payment or a message to a customer, we put an approval step in front of it rather than letting it run unattended.
Tell us what eats your week and we will say honestly whether automation is worth it, including when the answer is no.
Book an automation audit