You take the free five-minute readiness check first. That's the intake, and I read it before we meet, so we don't spend the hour on introductions. Then we go through how the work actually gets done, put a real number on what it costs you a year, and decide what to change first and what to leave alone. You get a written implementation plan within 24 hours.
This is not a scoping call for something bigger. If you never buy anything else from me, the hour still has to be worth $250 on its own. Work first. Then the AI.
You just priced this work at — a year.
The hour costs $250. If the plan saves you even three percent of that, it paid for itself before we hang up.
Three different questions get treated as one, and that is why most AI spending disappoints. This session answers the middle one, which is the only one that makes the other two worth doing.
"Which AI should we buy?"
Choosing software before anyone has looked at the work. It feels like progress, and it's the most common way this budget gets spent without anything changing. The right tool is an answer to the next question, not a substitute for it.
"How does this work actually get done, and where does AI belong in it?"
Mapping the sequence, finding where expertise is being spent on things that don't need it, deciding what to change in what order, and which tool actually fits your constraints — your data sensitivity, your existing stack, your volume, and who has to maintain it.
"Make this specific thing run by itself."
Worth doing, and I do it. But a build aimed at the wrong workflow is an expensive way to be wrong, and you only find out three weeks in.
Most AI projects fail at the middle question and blame the last one. The technology usually worked. It was pointed at work nobody had looked at closely.
This is the agenda. It moves fast because the intake has already done the part that usually eats the first twenty minutes of a consulting call.
Five minutes, and you can do it right now. It asks what your team repeats, how many hours it takes, and what those hours cost, then prices the work in dollars. I read your answers before we meet, which is why the hour doesn't open with "so tell me about your business." Take it here →
You walk me through the process that eats the most time. Not the org chart. The actual sequence: what arrives, who touches it, what they hand off, where it stalls.
We put numbers on it. Hours a week across everyone involved, loaded hourly cost, annual figure. Most teams have never run this arithmetic on the specific work in question, and the number tends to come in above the guess.
Straight answers on which steps a model handles well, which ones still need a person, and which ones you should fix with a form or a template instead. Some of the highest-return changes here are not AI at all, and I will tell you when that is the case.
What to change first, what comes second, and what to deliberately not touch yet. Sequencing is most of the value. Doing the right three things in the wrong order still fails, and it fails expensively.
One thing you can do this week without me, and one thing you should stop doing. You leave with something to act on before the written plan even lands.
Within 24 hours of the session, you get a written implementation plan. It is short on purpose, because a plan nobody reads is the same as no plan.
It's yours either way.
Take the plan to an engineer you already have. Take it in-house and run it yourself. Or bring it back to me. All three are fine, and I would rather you leave with the plan than leave with a proposal.
$250, paid at booking. Take the free check first — that's your intake.
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.
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.
See the five days, day by day →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.
Take the free readiness check on your way in. It's five minutes, it doubles as your intake, and it means we spend the whole session on your work instead of on introductions.
Book your strategy session Start with the free check, it prices the work in five minutes → What happens after the plan: One Workflow Built, $1,500 →