We start with the task, choose the tools around it, and check the result with the people who will use it.
The person who does the work walks us through an example: what starts it, which systems it touches, where decisions happen, and what a useful result looks like. We also need rough volume and the person who owns exceptions.
Descriptions and redacted examples are enough for the first conversation.
We check the tools you already use and the exact actions their integrations support. An existing feature may be enough. Custom code fills the gaps when there is a reason to build it.
We check access and running costs before committing to a connection or delivery date.
We test ordinary requests and the incomplete, duplicate, and failed ones. Your team checks the output against the agreed measures, including the time spent reviewing it.
Actions that need judgment stay with a person. We agree what can run automatically.
Your team gets instructions and training, with a named route for problems. Before launch, we settle monitoring, support coverage, and how to return to the previous process if needed.
The proposal determines what your team runs and what we continue to support.
Compare the pilot with the starting point: accuracy, turnaround, staff effort, exceptions, and total running cost. Use those results to decide what needs adjusting.
Any expansion gets its own scope, owner, and reason to proceed.