Workflow automation for the work between steps.

Start with one recurring handoff

A website enquiry often becomes an email, a spreadsheet row and a task for someone to follow up. Before adding automation, map which details are needed, who owns the next step and what happens when information is missing. A small, deterministic workflow can be enough.

We can scope structured request collection, validation, routing, notifications and follow-up preparation. Connections to your existing tools depend on their APIs, permissions and subscription plans; a named integration is confirmed during discovery, not promised in advance.

An illustrative enquiry-to-review journey

For a fictional painting business: a quote request is validated, tagged by service, routed to a reviewer and used to prepare a reply. A person checks the scope and approves the follow-up. In a real implementation, each stage needs a defined owner and an agreed delivery mechanism.

Our working demo explores triage, an internal summary, editable response preparation and internal approval. It runs locally in the browser. It does not send emails, connect to a CRM or save customer records.

• Submission → validate required fields and reject malformed input.
• Routing → assign an owner; keep a manual fallback for unmatched requests.
• Review → make missing information and proposed next steps visible.
• Approved follow-up → use only an agreed channel after the required approval.

Try the fictional enquiry workflow ↗

What we need to scope the workflow

Bring an anonymized example of a request, your current process and the tools you already pay for. Share the desired outcome and the point where a human must decide. Do not send passwords or customer records with your initial enquiry.

• Trigger, input fields, request volume and expected response window.
• Reviewer roles, approval rules and exceptions.
• Existing tools, API availability, account ownership and access requirements.
• What should happen when a provider is unavailable or a request cannot be routed.

Test the exceptions, not just the happy path

The project scope should define validation, duplicate handling, retry limits, alerts and a manual recovery route. A failed notification must not silently look successful. We agree what operational logs are needed, who can access them and how long they should be retained.

Test with synthetic or permissioned data before launch. Include missing details, repeated requests, invalid inputs and provider failures. Acceptance criteria should cover reviewer access and recovery as well as the normal flow.

Rules first; AI only where it helps

Routing by service type, checking required fields and issuing a standard acknowledgement usually need rules rather than AI. AI may be useful for preparing an internal summary of free text, with agreed data access, evaluation and review. It should not invent prices or commit your business to a job.

We do not promise autonomous customer communication or guaranteed time savings. Any proposed AI step must have a clear task, an evaluation method and a fallback.

Separate scope, price and ongoing costs

Automation is separately quoted; it is not part of the $899 informational website launch package. Scope depends on integrations, branching rules, permissions, operational monitoring and the amount of custom software required.

Provider subscriptions, messaging, hosting and AI usage may create ongoing costs. Agree account ownership, usage limits, maintenance responsibilities and approval for paid services before implementation. Custom deliverables transfer after full payment, subject to third-party licences.