AI automation consulting
We find where AI pays off, then build the thing and run it.
Most AI automation consulting ends at a slide deck and a prioritised list. Ours ends with one workflow in production, measured against the baseline we recorded before we touched it — and we stay on the hook for what it does there.
Thirty-one agents shipped across twelve industries.
The assessment is useful whether or not you build it with us.
The assessment
Three questions decide whether a task is worth automating, and none of them is about the technology.
A task that runs two hundred times a month justifies the rules it needs. One that runs twice does not, however irritating it is. We count before recommending, using your own records rather than an estimate in a workshop.
The count is the baseline you measure against later.If your team can state when to act and when to stop, an agent can enforce it deterministically. If the rule is really judgement, the honest scope is to collect and route the work, not to decide it.
Judgement stays with people, on purpose.Every workflow has a tail: the ambiguous request, the missing record, the system that is down. If no one owns the tail today, automating the happy path just moves the mess somewhere less visible.
Named owners before launch, not after.When we say no
We build and run what we recommend, which is a useful constraint: nobody proposes a workflow they will personally have to support at two in the morning. These are the cases where we say so early.
See what we test before going liveIf an off-the-shelf tool covers your process, buying it is cheaper than a custom build and we will point you at it. Custom is for the workflow that is genuinely yours.
Rules need something stable to hold on to. A task reinvented at each run is a people problem wearing an automation costume.
An agent reading a source your own team overrides daily will produce confident wrong answers faster than a person would. Fix the source first, or scope the agent to collect rather than decide.
If there is no measure and no baseline, there is no way to tell later whether it worked. That conversation happens before the build, not in the review.
How it runs
The boring part is where the value is: watching real traffic, finding the cases nobody predicted, and tightening the rules against them.
Read a deployment write-upWe look at the candidate workflows with your records in front of us, record the baseline, and recommend one to start with — including the reasons the others were rejected.
What the agent may read, what it may write, which approvals hold it, and who receives each escalation. Agreed with the team that owns the system before anything is built.
Deterministic validation, a simulated backend first, then your sandbox. Write access follows the acceptance tests rather than the timeline.
Against the baseline recorded in step one, with the exceptions counted rather than hidden. If the number did not move, that is the finding.
Before you start
A decision about which workflow to automate first, and the evidence behind it: how often the task runs, what it costs in people’s time today, what data it needs, where the exceptions are, and who owns each handoff. That assessment is useful on its own, and it is the specification for the build if you go ahead.
A strategy engagement usually ends at a roadmap and hands implementation to someone else. We build and run what we recommend, which changes what gets recommended: nobody proposes a workflow they will personally have to support at two in the morning.
Regularly. A task that runs twice a month, changes shape every time, or depends on data nobody trusts is a bad first candidate whatever the technology can do. If an existing platform already fits your process, that is cheaper than a custom build and we will say so.
No, and waiting for either is how these projects stall. The assessment establishes what the data actually looks like, including the parts that are wrong. Rules are built against reality rather than against the documented process, and anything the agent cannot verify is escalated instead of guessed.
On the measure agreed before the build, using the baseline recorded at the same time. Usually the count of items handled without a person, the time from arrival to resolution, and the exceptions that still need review. A number with no baseline beside it is not a result.
It depends on the workflow, its volume, the systems it touches and the approvals involved, so it is scoped before it is priced. You get the assessment, the build cost, the ongoing running cost and the launch plan in writing before work starts.
Start with the assessment
We will tell you which one is worth starting with, and why the other three are not. That answer is useful whether or not you build it with us.
Book an assessmentA short qualification form first. A discovery call if there’s a fit.
Prefer email? hello@voxdonna.com