Solutions · Enterprise
Enterprise Workflow Automation
Work that crosses departments and systems, run as one traceable process.
Before you scope it
Not Every Process Should Be Automated
The three on the right are worth saying out loud, because an automation that escalates everything is worse than the manual process it replaced.
Good candidate
High volume, low variety
The same decision made hundreds of times a week against rules that could be written down, if anyone had time to write them down.
Good candidate
Spans several systems
Work that lives between an ERP, a portal and an inbox, with a person acting as the integration layer.
Good candidate
Rules exist but are informal
Everyone knows the tolerance and nobody has written it down. Making it explicit is most of the project.
Poor candidate
Genuinely novel judgement
Decisions where the right answer depends on context that is not in any document. Keep those with people.
Poor candidate
Low volume, high stakes
Something that happens twice a year and matters enormously is rarely worth automating, and rarely safe to.
Poor candidate
Rules nobody agrees on
If two people give different answers to the same case, that is a policy problem. Automating it just makes the disagreement faster.
Worked example
Three Systems, Four Agents, One Gate
A freight cost audit is a good shape for this: high volume, a contracted rate to check against, and a tolerance above which somebody should look.
Worked example — freight cost audit · Illustrative example
Three systems, four agents and one human gate above a value you set. None of that is a product feature — it is a workflow assembled from parts that already exist.
Assembled from parts
Existing agents configured, not a new product.
Bounded up front
The human gate is agreed before anything runs.
Crosses systems
The integration layer stops being a person.
Other shapes
The Same Pattern, Different Work
FAQ
Questions Teams Ask
How is this different from hiring a development team?
Most of it is configuration of agents that already exist — reading documents, applying rules, routing, posting. What you are buying is the runtime, the guardrails and the audit trail that come with it, rather than a bespoke system somebody then has to maintain. Genuinely custom engineering is scoped separately and honestly.
How do we know our process is a good candidate?
High volume, low variety, rules that exist even if nobody has written them down, and a person currently acting as glue between systems. If the decision genuinely needs context that is not in any document, keep it with people — we would rather say so than sell you an automation that escalates everything.
What if our rules are not actually written down?
That is the normal starting point, and writing them down is a real part of the work. It is also usually the most valuable part, because the exercise surfaces cases where two people were quietly applying different tolerances.
Who maintains it once it is running?
You do, in the sense that changing a threshold, an approver or a tolerance is configuration rather than a support ticket. Where a system it integrates with changes, that is a maintenance conversation, and one we would rather have scheduled than discovered.
Keep reading
Related Capabilities
Next step
Bring the Process Nobody Owns
The one that crosses four systems and lives in somebody's head. We will tell you honestly whether it is a good candidate.