AI & Automation Opportunity Audit — typically $3,000–$7,500
The audit is done by the people who would build the fix.
Which means you walk away with a build/no-build call — priced, scoped, and buildable — not a consulting hypothesis that needs another firm to execute. Fixed scope. Direct answer within 24 hours on fit.
- Every step has a defined output — a ranked list and a scoped recommendation, not an open question.
- You know the deliverable, the fee, and the end date going in.
- No-build is a first-class outcome. You keep the analysis either way.
Tell us the problem — two minutes. Direct answer within 24 hours on fit. Then a 30-minute scoping call and a written scope, timeline, and fixed fee before work starts.
5 steps
One fixed fee. One build/no-build decision at the end.
Same engineers
diagnose the workflow and build the fix — no handoff, no second firm
No-build
is a first-class outcome — you keep the workflow map and scores either way
You have been through a prior vendor assessment that produced a document, not a decision.
You have an automation hypothesis but no priced path to act on it.
You need a recommendation with a cost attached before you can get internal approval to move.
You want the diagnostic and the build to stay inside one context — not handed off to a separate implementation team.
Most assessments end in a deferred decision.
Most assessments end in a recommendation. That recommendation goes to a second firm to scope. That firm scopes it differently than the people who diagnosed it. By the time anyone is building, the original analysis is two handoffs old — and the economics have changed.
The other pattern: the audit recommends automation, a platform gets selected, and a year later the team is still working around it.
Neither of those is a decision. They are deferred decisions — with real money still walking out the door while you wait for the next round of scoping.
Five steps. One fixed fee. One build/no-build decision at the end.
Workflow map
The processes we examine and who runs them.
Labor and risk analysis
What each workflow costs today.
Opportunity score
Which workflows have a credible economic case for automation.
Build / no-build recommendation
The simplest technology for each — or a clear no.
Sequenced roadmap
The first sprint defined and priced. If nothing is worth automating, the audit says so and you keep the analysis.
A decision, priced, with the first sprint attached.
The same engineers who map the process and run the cost analysis are the ones who would build the fix. If no workflow clears the bar, the audit says so. That is not a failure outcome. It is the finding the engagement was designed to produce.
What it asks of you
Access to the people who run the workflow and a walkthrough of the systems involved — the TMS, ERP, CRM, email, spreadsheets, and portals the work actually moves through. No pre-work documentation required.
Deliverable 01
Build/no-build call per workflow
With the economics attached: here is the workflow, here is what it costs you now, here is what changes it, here is what that costs to build.
Deliverable 02
Technology recommendation for each
Automation, integration, internal app, AI decision support — or nothing. The simplest technology that solves it.
Deliverable 03
First sprint scoped and priced
On day one of the finding. The recommendation is already a proposal, not a hypothesis.
Deliverable 04
Workflow map and opportunity scores
Yours to keep whether or not you build anything.
The commitment
Typically $3,000–$7,500, fixed after a 30-minute scoping call.
The range covers the full five-step process. The scope, timeline, and fee are written down before any work begins. You keep every deliverable whether or not you build anything.
The exact figure is agreed before kickoff based on the number of workflows and systems in scope. The fee does not expand once set. If the scope puts the number outside that range, you will know before anything starts.
The people who run this audit have built the fixes.
Freight brokerage — document intake
An operations team was keying BOLs, load confirmations, and rate confirmations by hand. We built the document-intake service that classifies and parses all three into structured records. Manual data entry: gone.
Contract processing — confidence-routed pipeline
Thousands of agreements routed through OCR, layout analysis, and structured extraction, then confidence-scored. High-confidence records processed automatically; low-confidence routed to human review.
Healthcare — five handoffs into one pipeline
Lead generation, enrichment, AI vetting, quality scoring, and CRM handoff were five separate manual handoffs. We built it as a single pipeline with per-call cost and latency logged under one audit trail.
Who runs it
Thirty years of shipping production systems across logistics, healthcare, contract management, and operations-heavy software. Five founder-run companies. The audit is run by someone who has carried the operational risk being examined — not modeled it from a framework. The person doing the audit is the same person who would design and build the fix: no handoff, no translation loss between the diagnostic and the build, and no second firm that scopes the work differently than the people who found the problem.
Is this a strategy deck or a decision?
The output is a build/no-build recommendation with the economics behind it and the first sprint scoped. A call: here is the workflow, here is what it costs you now, here is what changes it, here is what that costs to build.
What if nothing is worth automating?
Then the audit says so. No-build is a legitimate finding and is treated the same as any other outcome. You keep the workflow map and opportunity scores either way.
Is this an AI pitch?
AI is one tool in the analysis. If a simpler integration or workflow automation handles it better, that is what the recommendation says.
How much of our time does this take?
Access to the people who run the workflow and a walkthrough of the systems involved. No pre-work documentation required.
Right fit
You can point at manual coordination that is costing real money — rekeying between systems, hand-offs that break, reporting rebuilt by hand — and you want a priced, buildable answer on which of it is worth fixing first.
Not a fit
More developers for an existing team, a broad AI transformation program with no specific workflow, or commodity content at scale.
What happens next
- 01
Tell us the problem — two minutes.
- 02
Direct answer within 24 hours on whether it’s a fit.
- 03
If it is: a 30-minute scoping call.
- 04
Written scope, timeline, and fixed fee before any work starts. You keep everything delivered.
The $3,000–$7,500 range is typical for the scope described. The exact figure is agreed in writing before work begins.
Final step
Stop deferring the decision.
Book the audit, and walk away with a plain answer on which workflows are worth building, which ones are not, and what the first sprint would cost — ready to act on the day you receive it.
No pitch. No prep. If it is not a fit, I will tell you.