Skip to content
1961 Digital TransformX
العربية

Service

Stop paying people to copy between two screens.

The same figure is typed three times before it reaches a report. We remove the copying, not the control: every automation records who approved what, on which document, and when. Alerts fire once, then reset when the condition clears.

Book a consultationAll services

You will recognise this

  • A purchase order sits for four days because the approver is travelling and nobody can act for him.

  • Supplier invoices are matched to deliveries by hand, so the mismatch is found after payment goes out.

  • Somebody exports the same report every Sunday, reformats it, and emails it to eleven people.

  • Your system sends so many alerts that a mail rule now files them into a folder nobody opens.

  • Month-end depends on one person remembering a checklist that exists nowhere except in their head.

How the work runs

  1. Follow one document

    We take a single real document, a purchase order or a supplier invoice, and follow it through every pair of hands it passes. We record each wait, each re-entry and each approval given outside the system. The trail is almost always longer than anyone in the room believed it was.

  2. Count the copying

    Before automating anything we measure the manual steps: how many times a value is typed again, how long each queue actually waits, how often the second entry disagrees with the first. That count sets the order of work, and it becomes the baseline we report against when the work is done.

  3. Fix the process first

    Automating a bad approval chain gives you a faster bad approval chain. We shorten it, remove the signature that has refused nothing in two years, and set delegation rules for leave and travel. Only then is it worth building. Some of the value arrives before anything is switched on.

  4. Build with the trail attached

    Each automated step records who or what acted, on which document, at what time, and what the value was before it changed. Nothing writes silently. When a figure is questioned six months later the answer sits in the record, not in somebody's recollection of a busy afternoon.

  5. Tune the alerts, then hand over

    We set thresholds with the people who receive the alert, make each one fire once and reset itself when the condition clears, and route it to whoever can actually act. Then we train the owner to change a threshold without us, and write down how it is done.

What you are handed

  • Map of the current process with wait times marked
  • Approval matrix with delegation and leave cover
  • Configured workflows inside the systems you already run
  • Audit trail specification for every automated step
  • Alert catalogue naming recipient, threshold and reset condition
  • Runbook for changing a rule without calling us

Speed without a trail is a liability

An automation that acts silently is worse than the clerk it replaced, because the clerk could at least be asked what happened. Every step we build writes a record: the document, the actor, the time, the value before and the value after. That record is not a log file for engineers. It is what your finance manager reads when a supplier disputes a price six months later, and what an auditor asks for when a payment ran with no visible approval against it. It has to be built in from the first step, because the period you most need to explain is always the one before anybody thought to record it.

Alerts that people learn to ignore

Most alerting fails the same way. A threshold is set on the first day, it starts firing daily, and within a month a mail rule quietly files every one of them into a folder nobody opens. The alarm is still technically working, which is the dangerous part. So each alert we build fires once for a condition and stays quiet until that condition clears, then arms itself again. Raising the credit limit or replenishing the stock resets the latch, so the next genuine breach is heard. And every alert names one recipient who can act, because an alert addressed to a group is an alert addressed to nobody.

Where automation should not go

Some work looks repetitive and is not. A credit release that depends on knowing the customer is genuinely good for it. A production sequence that changes because a machine sounds wrong. A discount granted because the client is about to sign something larger. Automating judgement produces confident errors at speed. We separate the two by asking what the person actually decides, rather than what they type. Moving data, matching documents, routing and reminding are ours. Judgement stays with a named human, and the automation gets them the facts faster and then stops. That line is written down, because the temptation to move it arrives later.

Questions we get asked

Will this put our administrative staff out of work?
That is your decision, not something the automation makes for you. What changes is the work itself. The copying, the chasing and the weekly assembling of the same report stop. What remains is exception handling and checking, which needed a person all along. Most finance and procurement teams we meet are already short-handed at close and running on temporary help, and that is the pressure which lifts first.
Do we have to replace our current systems first?
Usually not. Most of this work sits on top of what you already run, using the approval engine, the scheduler and the integration points those systems ship with. If we do recommend replacing something it will be because the automation cannot record who approved what, never because we prefer another product. That recommendation arrives in writing with its reason, and you are free to reject it.
How long before the first automation is live?
The first useful one is usually weeks rather than months, because it is a single approval chain or one matching routine rather than a programme. We deliberately start with a step that is irritating, well understood and low risk. It builds appetite for the harder ones, and it proves the audit trail works before anything financial depends on it.
What happens when the process changes next year?
It will change, so nothing is built as a sealed box. Rules live where your own people can see them, thresholds are values rather than code, and the runbook names who may edit each one. We would rather you changed a limit yourself in ten minutes than raised a ticket and waited on us. The parts that genuinely need us are listed, so nothing surprises you.
How do we know it actually saved anything?
Because we counted before we started: the number of re-entries, the length of each queue, the rate at which the second entry disagrees with the first. The same count is repeated afterwards against the same definition, and where a step did not move we say so. A saving nobody measured is a claim, and claims are what got the last automation programme quietly abandoned.

Often bought together

Tell us what is not working

Send one line about what is going wrong. On the first call we will tell you whether it is a system problem, a process problem or a governance problem — and which one to fix first. That call is free and it is not a sales meeting.

Book a consultation