From drafting and support to internal workflows, we help you put AI to work where it actually pays off, then wrap it in the access controls, data handling, and monitoring that keep it safe to use.
The problem is rarely the technology
By the time most businesses ask us about AI, their staff have been using it for months. Not maliciously, and usually to genuinely good effect, but on personal accounts, with no rules about what can be pasted in, and no record of what has been.
That is the actual risk, and it is a governance problem rather than a technical one. Blocking the tools moves the usage somewhere you cannot see. Ignoring it means finding out what went into a chatbot when a client asks.
So we start by establishing what is already happening, without making it a witch hunt. People are usually happy to tell you, provided the question is not framed as an accusation.
What we actually do
Write the policy. Short, specific, and readable: which tools are approved, what categories of information must never go into any of them, and what to do when somebody is not sure. If it needs a legal background to follow, it will not be followed.
Check the terms nobody reads. For each tool you want to use, we establish where data is processed, whether inputs are used for training, how long they are retained, and what the contract actually commits to. The difference between a consumer plan and a business plan is often the whole answer.
Build the automations that pay. Quote preparation, document drafting, support triage, data extraction from PDFs, internal search across your own documents. We look for work that is repetitive, text-heavy, and currently done by somebody expensive, and we measure the before and after.
Set the guardrails. Approved tools available through your existing sign-on, sensible access controls, and logging that lets you answer questions later.
Where we will tell you not to bother
Not every process should be automated, and a lot of AI advice is enthusiasm with an invoice attached.
Automation pays where the volume is real, the input is consistent, and the cost of an occasional error is low or catchable. It does badly where judgement matters, where the process changes constantly, or where an error is expensive and hard to detect. Putting AI into a decision that affects somebody’s money, employment, or safety without a person reviewing the output is a way to industrialise a mistake.
We would rather deliver two automations that save six hours a week and keep working than a broad programme that impresses in a slide deck and quietly gets switched off in March.