Service
Workflows that remove headcount, not add dashboards.
The manual process somebody does every morning, connected to the four systems it touches, running without them. Including the error handling, which is the part that decides whether anyone trusts it.
The problem
What this actually looks like
Someone in your team spends a chunk of every day moving data between systems that were each bought for a good reason and none of which talk to each other.
You have tried the no-code tools. They work until an edge case arrives, and then they fail silently, and now there is a spreadsheet reconciling the automation nobody trusts.
The work is not hard. It is just nobody senior has ever had a clear week to do it properly.
Deliverables
What you get
Concrete artifacts, not activities. Everything below is something you can point at and say you received it.
- The workflow running end to end, in your infrastructure
- Error handling and retries, with alerts that go to a human
- An audit trail of every run, so a disputed record can be traced
- Credentials and secrets managed properly, not pasted into a tool
- Documentation of every integration point and what breaks it
- A defined support window while it beds in
Timeline
How it works
Ranges, not best cases. The dates below are what it usually takes, including the week something goes wrong.
- 01Days 1–2
Watch the process being done
Literally. Screen-share with whoever does it today. The written process and the real one always differ, and the difference is where the edge cases live.
- 02Days 3–5
Map the systems and the failure modes
Which APIs, which rate limits, what happens when one is down mid-run. Deciding this up front is what separates an automation from a liability.
- 03Weeks 2–3
Build it, run it alongside
It runs in parallel with the manual process until the outputs match for a full cycle. Nobody switches off the old way on a promise.
- 04Week 4
Cut over and hand off
With the runbook, the alerting, and a named person who knows what to do when it pages them.
Approach
How we think about this
We automate the process that exists, not the process on the org chart. The gap between them is where every failed automation project has died, and you only find it by watching someone do the work.
Error handling is the deliverable. An automation that works 95% of the time and fails silently is worse than the manual process, because now nobody is checking and the errors compound quietly for a month.
What we refuse to do
- We will not build an automation with no alerting. Silent failure is the only genuinely dangerous outcome here.
- We will not chain together no-code tools you will be unable to debug or afford at volume.
- We will not automate a process nobody has agreed on. That is an operations problem and automating it just makes it faster to be wrong.
Engagement
How this is usually bought
Shape
Fixed scope, per workflow
From
$6K
demo figure
Lowest ticket and highest volume of the five. Most clients start with one workflow and add more once the first has run unattended for a month.
Full pricingFAQ
Questions people actually ask
We already use Zapier or Make. Why would we pay for this?
If it works, keep it — genuinely. You are the right client for this when you have hit the ceiling: volume pricing that no longer makes sense, an edge case the tool cannot express, or a silent failure that cost you something. Below that line the no-code tool is the correct answer and we will say so.
What happens when one of the APIs changes?
The integration points and their assumptions are documented, and the alerting tells you the run failed rather than letting it pass quietly. Provider changes are a when, not an if, so the design assumes them.
Can it run in our infrastructure rather than yours?
Yes, and that is the default. It runs in your cloud account with your credentials from day one. We do not host things on your behalf that you then cannot move.
How do we know it is actually working?
Every run is logged with its inputs, outputs and duration, and failures alert a human. For the first month it runs alongside the manual process so the outputs can be compared before anyone relies on it.