Your firm runs on projects, and every project crosses three or four systems. We review one workflow end to end, across up to three connected systems, and hand you a written plan with a named owner for every step.
The plan is yours to run on your own. The build is a separate project, with us or anyone.
The boundary of one workflow is still being argued. Each system does its part. The gap sits between them, where no one is named.
A new tool gets bought, the gap stays where it was, and the first error sends everyone back to email and spreadsheets. The build you paid for sits unused.
"most of the times workers go back to using their initial tools as soon as they find an error/problem"
A small-business owner on Reddit, r/smallbusiness
One accountable person: Mike Rodgers, Rodgers Intelligence Group, Denver. He scopes the workflow with the people who run it and writes the plan.
Decide whether one workflow is worth reviewing. You and Mike, thirty minutes.
One workflow and its finish line, across up to three connected systems. A written plan you can run on your own.
Optional. Build what the plan names, with us or any builder you choose.
| Inside | P1 Readiness conversationIs a review worth it? | P2 One-Workflow ReviewThe plan | P3 Separate buildOptional |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it covers | The unclear workflow and the systems it touches | One workflow and its finish line, across up to three connected systems | Only what the plan names |
| Who takes part | You and Mike | The people who run each step, with Mike | Your named owner and the builder you choose |
| What you get | A straight answer on whether a review fits | A written plan you can run on your own | The workflow, built and handed over |
| Owners named | Not yet | Primary, backup and alert recipient for each step | A named owner on your team runs it |
| Deadlines | None | Delivery, alert and recovery deadlines written into the plan | Agreed in the build scope |
| Next step | Book the review, or stop here | The next fix, its owner and a retest date | Retest on the date in the plan |
| Changes to your systems | None | None. Nothing is built during the review | Only what the build scope names |
| Price | Free | Scoped after a short brief | Scoped separately, after the plan |
| Finding | Step | Primary | Backup | Alert recipient | Next fix | Retest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 fix first | From project setup to first invoice | Not named | Not named | Not named | Name the owner and the alert route | Date in the plan |
| P2 fix next | Proposal accepted to project set up | Operations lead | Project manager | Principal | Move setup into one checklist | Date in the plan |
| P3 then | Change request to billing | Project manager | Operations lead | Accounts | Add the change to the invoice step | Date in the plan |
Pick your kind of firm. These are the cross-system workflows owners bring most often to a first conversation.
Like a qualifying lap: one measured run of one workflow before you commit to the race.
The unclear workflow and the systems it touches.
Across up to three connected systems, with the people who run each step.
The written plan: owners, deadlines, the next fix and a retest date.
Run the plan alone or commission a separate build.
One workflow has an owner, a written boundary and a plan the whole team agrees on. You avoid paying for a build that nobody uses after the first error.
How this review differs from the usual process audit or free mapping session.
You already know which workflow everyone argues about. That is the hard part, and it is done. In a free 30-minute call you name it, write down its finish line and get a straight answer on whether a review fits.
Straight answers, before any call.