Consulting
An assessment of the existing information system and a rebuild roadmap ranked by business value, with the first project scoped.
Agents that read your documents, reconcile your data and prepare the next action, then stop where a person has to decide. We design them first for your finance processes (reconciliation, collections, closing), then for the operations that feed them. We integrate them into your information system and operate them with your teams until they can run them on their own.
A 183-line remittance advice matched, explained and logged. The manager only steps in on the one gap that remains, and re-types nothing.
In both cases, the scope, duration and price are set in writing before we start, and a person keeps the decision at every step.
An assessment of the existing information system and a rebuild roadmap ranked by business value, with the first project scoped.
The design and delivery of the agents, the data integration and the business interfaces, run with your teams until handover.
Four steps, in this order. Each produces a result that stands on its own.
How the work actually gets done: side spreadsheets, re-typing, checks done by hand. That is where the cost of the current system sits.
Reference data, business rules and reconciliations first, so that automation rests on solid ground.
Every action leaves a trace, can be reversed, and its rule is documented. Teams see what the agent proposes and keep the decision.
Indicators are set at scoping and teams are trained to keep the system alive without us.
On doubtful data, it produces the same mistakes, only faster. On solid ground, it changes the scale of what a small team can do.
A reconciliation, a consistency check, an export are handled by rules a manager can read. Models serve where volume or variability outrun what a rule can do.
Whenever an automation directly concerns a person, someone signs it off before it takes effect. European law requires this for automated decisions with significant effects; we apply it to any action that affects a person.
We run what we deliver, with your teams, until the indicators set at scoping are met. That keeps us from recommending anything we would not be prepared to run ourselves.
One billed hour, several payers, a reconciliation to redo every month in a spreadsheet. A demonstration, scenario by scenario, of what the agent prepares and what a person decides.
No. Most of the companies we talk to are in that position. Our counterparts are management, finance and the people who run operations. If an IT provider is already in place, we coordinate with them.
Rarely as a first step. Most of the value comes from what happens around the software: the data it is given, the checks before entry, the reconciliations and the exports. We only recommend a replacement when it is justified.
It depends on the context and on how sensitive the data is. We favour environments hosted in the European Union and providers that do not use your data to train their models. The choice is documented at scoping and validated with you.
An assessment takes a few weeks. Delivery projects are sliced so that a first result lands quickly; each subsequent project is decided in light of the previous one.
Because that is where the rules are most explicit, the documents most plentiful and the cost of errors most visible. Reconciliation, collections, closing, reporting: every action an agent takes there can be checked against a document. We also work on the operations that feed finance, whenever the same pattern applies.
In a first conversation, we establish whether an engagement is relevant to your situation, and in what form. It carries no commitment.