AI workflow automation · companies of 5 to 50
I start with your process, not with a tool. What gets built runs on software you already pay for, and it's yours outright.
01 / Fit
I work with a handful of companies at a time and go deep on the process. That's why an audit takes three weeks instead of three months.
Not sure? Book the call. You'll know inside thirty minutes, and it costs you nothing if the answer's no.
02 / Boring is beautiful
That's my position, and I'll defend it in a first call. Here's what it looks like on the ground.
A chatbot nobody opens, because it sits beside the work instead of inside it.
A dashboard nobody reads. The numbers were already in the system it pulls from.
An integration that broke the first time somebody changed the process.
03 / Method
Workflow automation means handing a job people do by hand to a system. The trigger, the steps, the exceptions, the record afterwards. Building that takes a week or two. Making it survive the next twelve months is the actual work.
Most projects get built tool-first. You won't notice in month one. You'll notice in month twelve.
One integration per problem, built on whatever tool was current that quarter.
One layer across the systems you already run, shaped around the process.
Works until somebody changes the process, or a vendor ships an update.
Survives both, because the process came first and the tool came second.
The knowledge lives in the builder's head. You're tied to their platform.
You own it. Documentation included. Walking away is possible.
Isolated wins, no direction. Five tools that don't add up to anything.
Each build stands on the last one.
04 / A real build
A few times a year, everyone on the payroll has to report their holiday dates. It used to go out by hand, one message at a time, in several languages, and every reply was retyped into the system afterwards. Client name and figures removed, mechanism unchanged.
Not the automation. It was finding out the target system wanted its own internal record id, not the employee number every human in the building uses. Two days, one undocumented endpoint. That's the sort of thing an audit turns up before a quote rather than after.
The first reminder round went out on its own. A handful landed on the review list for a person to look at instead. Those aren't failures, they're the design: when a match isn't certain, a human gets it rather than the system guessing.
The write-back is built and tested, waiting on a signed data processing agreement before it goes live. Full numbers and the client's name land here once they approve publication.
05 / Patterns
Four things I keep running into. Recognise two of them and there's probably something here worth an hour of your time.
Back office
A few times a year everyone has to hand something in. An expiring certificate, availability for next quarter, whatever it happens to be this round. It goes out person by person, and the replies get retyped by hand.
BecomesOne round that sends and chases itself, feeding a form that writes straight into your system.
Sales & delivery
A quote, a report, a work order. Rebuilt by hand in your house style every time, and it comes out slightly different depending on who made it. Twenty minutes if they're quick.
BecomesThe template fills itself from data you already hold. Your people check the result rather than typing it.
Finance
Cost price or margin, living in a workbook one person really understands. They go on holiday and it stops. Nobody's certain the rates in it are still current.
BecomesThe same logic, but traceable and tested, with its assumptions written into the file. Not cleverer. Just checkable.
Operations
The same detail typed in twice, sometimes three times. Planning, then the back office, then an email to be safe. The mismatch surfaces at invoicing, weeks later.
BecomesIt gets entered once, and an integration updates the rest. A review list replaces the inbox.
06 / Approach & pricing
No hourly billing, no open end. Every engagement is quoted for what it is, so the figure you agree is the figure you pay.
One day · fixed
Not ready to commit to a full audit? Pick the one process that's eating the most time. I take it apart in a day and you get it back in writing: where the hours actually go, what could be dropped outright, and what a build would cost if it turns out to be worth it. Credited in full against the audit if you carry on.
€1,500fixed, excl. VAT
3 to 4 weeks · one day a week
Fixed feequoted per engagement
I map your processes with the people who run them, then put every step to three questions: can this go, can a system do it, can someone else do it? You get a roadmap: what's worth automating, and what each one is actually worth.
No obligation to build after it. If the answer is that you shouldn't automate anything, that's the answer you'll get.
Half on signing, half on delivery. If the deliverable isn't worth it to you, the second half is waived.
Typically 4 to 8 weeks per phase
Fixed per phasequoted on scope
The roadmap gets built one phase at a time, each with its own price and acceptance criteria. It runs in your environment, on your own data. Nothing leaves the EU. A phase that starts growing gets split in two rather than stretched.
Ongoing · cancel per quarter
Monthly retainerquoted per engagement
A system that works is invisible, and invisible work starts to feel like nothing. So Care is built around something visible every month rather than hours on standby.
You get the full figure in writing before anything is signed, and it doesn't move afterwards. Existing clients can book single days; new work starts with a teardown or an audit.
07 / Questions
No. The whole premise is that your system of record stays put. What I build sits on top and takes the handwork out from between your tools. If replacing something really is the right call, it'll be in the audit with the reasoning, and you decide.
No, and that's deliberate. Nothing runs on a platform of mine. The build sits in your environment, on your accounts, documented well enough that your own people can follow it. Want to continue with someone else next year? You can, without starting over.
Anything touching personal data runs on EU hosting, with a language model in an EU region. We sign a data processing agreement per engagement, plus one with every external party in the chain.
The AI Act is in force now. Article 4 requires any organisation deploying AI to make sure the people working with it are sufficiently AI-literate. I cover that in the audit, including the record that shows you comply.
Usually you do, roughly. What's almost never clear up front is what a step really costs, where the time actually goes, and which step turns out to be droppable after two questions. That's the difference between spending twelve thousand on the right build and spending it on the wrong one. The audit is the cheap way to find out.
Remote-first. Sessions, build and handover all work fine at a distance, and it's far easier to get twenty minutes of the right person's time when nobody has to block out a morning for it. If you'd rather have me in the building one day a week, that can be arranged.
Outside the Netherlands it's fully remote, in English. The work is in your processes and your systems, so where I sit matters less than you'd think.
Audit is 3 to 4 weeks. A first build phase after that usually reaches production in 4 to 8 weeks, depending on how many systems are involved and how fast access and approvals come through. Those approvals are the delay more often than the building is, which is why we chase them from day one.
You can, and there's a cheaper way in than the audit: the one-day teardown. Pick the process that hurts most, I take it apart, and you get it back in writing with a price if it turns out to be worth building.
What I'd push back on is building one automation without a picture of the process around it. That's exactly how these projects run aground. It works for six months, then the process shifts and it fits nothing.