Nobody designed this. It accumulated.
Every operation that has run for a decade is a stack of decisions nobody wrote down. A system bought for one reason and used for three others. A file that quietly became the source of truth. A process that lives in one person’s head. It holds, right up until volume, turnover, a new market or a new tool asks it to bend.
- Two people answer the same question with different numbers.
- The real state of things lives in a file someone rebuilds by hand at night.
- Nobody can say who changed a figure, or when.
- Onboarding takes months because the process is in someone’s head.
- Reporting means entering the same data for the third time.
- Adding a product line, a market or a tool means redoing the work, not extending it.
- One person leaving would take a quarter of the operation with them.
One source of truth, and the daily work running on top of it.
Not a dashboard sitting above the chaos. The records move into one place with a defined shape, and the work of ordering, scheduling, approvals and handoffs happens inside the system instead of beside it.
One source of truth
Records live in one database with a defined schema, not in whichever sheet was opened last.
The work itself, not a report about it
Purchase orders, shortages, approvals and handoffs run as steps in the system, with the current state visible to everyone who needs it.
Roles and a history
People see and change what their role allows. Field-level audit logs record who changed what, and when.
Your existing tools, connected
Spreadsheets, email, accounting and supplier systems sync in. Nothing gets thrown out on day one.
Numbers you can trace
Shortage, coverage and cost calculations are versioned, so any figure can be walked back to the inputs that produced it.
AI where it earns its place
Document extraction, matching and drafting where the manual version is slow and rule-bound. Not where a person is already faster.
A paid workflow audit you can act on without hiring us.
Two to three weeks. We interview the people doing the work, map the operation as it actually runs, and hand back a written account of where information breaks, what that costs, and what to do about it. Every item is sequenced, with effort and impact against it.
- A map of the operation as it actually runs, not as the org chart describes it.
- Every place the same information exists twice, and which copy people actually trust.
- A ranked list of fixes, from ones your team can do next week to ones that need building.
- A build plan with scope, sequence and cost, if you want one.
The audit stands on its own. If you take the document and implement it yourself, that is a finished outcome and there is nothing further to buy.
Fixed fee, agreed in writing before we start.
Request an auditThe project closes when the work is actually being done in the system.
Most implementations end at handover. Ours end when the operation runs on the system through an ordinary week, with your people using it and nobody keeping the old spreadsheet open beside it.
Audit
Two to three weeks of interviews and workflow mapping, delivered as a document you own. Useful whether or not we build anything.
Design
Scope, data model, roles and screens agreed in writing before anyone writes code. You approve what the system will and will not do.
Build
Built in short cycles with your team seeing working software throughout, so the thing being built stays the thing you asked for.
Run-in
We migrate the real data and sit with your team while live work goes through it. Corrections during this period are part of the project, not a change order. The project does not close until the system carries an ordinary week on its own.
Maintain
Optional monthly cover for changes, upgrades and new modules as the operation changes. Priced separately and cancellable.
You are never guessing where it stands.
Every engagement runs through one portal: build progress, a direct line to the people writing the code, and a place to raise anything that looks wrong. Submit an issue and an on-demand agent triages it immediately, resolving what does not need a developer within hours. What does need engineering comes straight to us, the two people who built the system.
Every engagement gets written up.
The state we found, what we built, what changed, and what is still open. Research pieces cover the parts of the problem that come up on every project.
All case studiesTwo people. Both of them on your project.
You work directly with the people diagnosing the problem, designing the system and building it. There is no handoff from a senior sales team to a junior delivery team. Concentrated ownership, faster decisions, and accountability from the first interview to the last day of run-in.
Sean Rhee
Co-founder
Runs discovery, workflow mapping and delivery. Sits with the people doing the work until the process is written down accurately, then stays on the project through run-in.
Ian Im
Co-founder
Leads architecture and implementation. Applied AI engineer and co-author of Web-Shepherd, a NeurIPS 2025 Spotlight paper on process supervision for web agents. Builds retrieval, document intelligence, knowledge graph, automation and decision support systems across commercial and defence programmes.
Change is not a disruption to design around.
It is the condition systems have to be designed for. We build foundations that absorb new tools, new demands and new opportunities, so each wave of change makes the operation stronger.
In practice: a data model that takes new fields without a rewrite, integrations behind interfaces we can swap, and documentation your next engineer can actually read.
Start with the audit.
Two to three weeks, a fixed fee agreed up front, and a document you can act on with or without us.