This is the workflow from your Strategy Session plan, built and running inside the tools your team already has. It works on your real documents, it lives in your own Google or Microsoft account, and it keeps working after I leave.
Five business days. $1,500, and the $250 you already paid for the session comes off that. Work first. Then the AI.
You priced this work at — a year.
The build costs $1,500 once. Nothing about that number changes until the work itself changes.
I don't start builds from a blank page. The point of the hour before this one is that by the time anyone writes code, the decision about what to build has already been made and priced.
The written implementation plan from your AI Strategy Session lists what to change and in what order. This build is the first item on that list, executed. Nothing gets rescoped, and your $250 comes off the price.
Sixty minutes on how the work actually gets done, and a written plan within 24 hours. It costs $250, and that $250 credits against this build, so if you go ahead the plan cost you nothing.
This matters because the first two are much easier to sell and much easier to deliver, and they are what most of this budget currently buys.
"Here's the tool you should buy."
A vendor shortlist, a maturity score, a slide with a roadmap on it. Useful as thinking. Nothing is running when it's over, and the work still gets done the old way on Monday.
"Watch what it can do."
Works once, on clean sample data, in an account somebody else controls. It survives the meeting and not the month, because the first real document breaks it and nobody owns fixing it.
"It ran this morning."
Runs on your real documents, in your own account, on a schedule, with a person reviewing the output where a person should. Your team has used it before I hand it over.
The test isn't whether it demos well. The test is whether it is still running six weeks later without me in the room.
Published for the same reason the session agenda is published. If you can see exactly what the week contains, you can decide whether it's worth $1,500 without a sales call.
I take the plan and the actual documents, emails or forms the work runs on. Including the badly formatted ones, the exceptions and the one nobody can explain. Those are the cases that decide whether this survives.
It runs end to end on your data, and it gets things wrong. You see it the same day. Nothing here is a mockup, so there's no gap between what you're shown and what exists.
Your person feeds it the hard cases. We find where it fails and I change how those are handled. This is the day that determines whether you keep using it, which is why it's in the middle and not at the end.
What it does on its own, what waits for a person to approve, and what it is not allowed to touch. Written down, in your words, so the rule survives the person who agreed to it.
It runs in your account. Your team has seen it work. You get one page describing what it does, where it lives, what it costs to run, and how to change it. No dependency on me.
If it breaks on a case we didn't see during the week, I fix it. That's not a support contract, it's the honest admission that five days does not surface everything.
$1,500, five business days. Your $250 session comes off the price.
The builds that go badly go badly for the same reason every time. Nobody on the inside had time to answer questions, so it got built against an assumption instead of the work.
Why it lives in your account.
The workflow runs in your own Google or Microsoft tenant, not mine. That means no new subscription to add, no client data moving into a tool you don't control, and nothing to migrate if you stop working with me. If I disappear, it keeps running. That is the whole point of building it this way.
That is still worth $1,500 if the handoff is expensive enough. But it is not the same thing as fixing the process, and I would rather say that here than have you find out in week two.
When that's the situation, the honest sequence is the Workflow Audit first: map how the work and the data actually move end to end, then build in the order the map says. If I can see on day one that you're in this case, I will tell you and credit what you've paid rather than deliver a build that can't land.
They run in price order and in dependency order, and that isn't a coincidence. Each one produces the input the next one needs. You can stop after any of them and still be better off than when you started.
Decide what to change and in what order. One workflow, priced in dollars, with a written implementation plan you keep. Nothing here obligates you to spend another dollar.
See what happens in the hour →The single workflow from that plan, running by itself inside the tools you already use. Built on your real documents, living in your own Google or Microsoft account. Your $250 comes off the price.
For work that crosses departments, where building one workflow only fixes one seam. An end-to-end map of how the work and the data actually move, then a roadmap of what to automate and in what order.
See what the two weeks produce →Two things get built in the room. Your AI tech stack, meaning which tool belongs on which job and the workflows that make people faster by Monday. And your governance standard, meaning what leaves the building and what never should, written by your own team so they actually keep it.
See what gets built in the room →A production system deployed inside your own infrastructure, scoped from a completed Workflow Audit. This is the only one with a prerequisite, because building at this size without the map is how six-figure AI projects get written off.
See what is in scope →Before any of them, the free AI-Readiness Check takes five minutes and tells you what the work is costing you a year. Most people should start there.
$1,500, five business days, and your $250 session comes off the price. If you haven't had the session yet, start there instead. It's the cheaper way to find out whether this is the right thing to build.
Book the build Haven't had the session? Start with the hour →