01
Current-system and workflow review
What you run today, how the work actually flows through it, and where time and money are going. Based on time with the people doing the work, not on a document describing it.
Systems mapProcess realityBaseline
Assessment · Fixed scope, fixed fee
Know what to build, and what it will cost, before committing to it.
The AI Transformation Audit is a scoped review of the systems and workflows you run today — the AI and automation opportunities within them, the integration risks that would derail a build, and a prioritised roadmap with a recommended scope and investment range. It is the same engagement in any industry.
USD 5,000 · fixed fee · 4 weeks · credited against a resulting implementation
When it is worth it
The audit exists for one situation.
You know something needs to change, several systems are involved, and nobody can size the work well enough to commit a budget to it. That situation is not particular to any sector — we run this audit for travel businesses, connected-product companies, healthcare groups and general enterprise operations alike. If it does not describe you, the free call is the better starting point and we will say so.
Multiple systems are involved and the interactions between them are not fully understood.
An integration is unproven and its limits would change the entire approach.
Someone has proposed an AI initiative and nobody can yet say what it is worth.
A previous project overran, and the organisation wants a scoped picture before committing again.
Internal estimates for the same work differ by a factor that makes a decision impossible.
The budget holder needs a written basis for approval, not a supplier's verbal confidence.
What you receive
Four deliverables, written to be acted on.
Written for two audiences at once: the person who owns the systems and the person who signs for the work.
02
AI opportunities and integration risks
Where automation and AI would genuinely earn their place, what your data can actually support, and which integrations carry risk that would change the plan.
FeasibilityData readinessAccess limits
03
Prioritised implementation roadmap
What to do first and why, sequenced against dependency and value rather than by which item is most appealing. Including anything we recommend not doing.
SequenceDependenciesValue
04
Recommended scope and investment range
A scope you could take to a budget holder, with an investment range and the assumptions it rests on stated plainly enough to be challenged.
ScopeRangeAssumptions
How it runs
4 weeks, structured.
The pace is set by access to your team and systems rather than by our capacity. We tell you at the start exactly what we need and when.
01
Kickoff and access
Agree scope, confirm who is involved, and arrange access to the systems and people. Delays here are the single most common cause of an audit running long.
02
Observe the operation
Time with the people doing the work, following real cases through real systems. The documented process and the actual process differ, and the difference is usually the finding.
03
Assess the systems
What the platforms genuinely expose, what the data can support, what the access terms permit, and where the integration risk concentrates.
04
Model the options
Size the candidate changes against the baseline, including the option of not building, and sequence them by dependency and value.
05
Deliver and walk through
A written report plus a session with your team and budget holder, so the recommendations are understood rather than filed.
Fee: USD 5,000, fixed. Credited against a resulting implementation, confirmed in writing in the audit proposal. Implementation engagements start at USD 25,000; larger platform programmes start at USD 75,000.
What it is not
Not a sales document with a report attached.
An assessment that can only ever conclude "you should hire us for a large build" is a proposal wearing a lab coat. We would rather the audit be useful on its own terms.
So it is written to be acted on by anyone, including another supplier or your own team. It states its assumptions plainly enough to be challenged, it names the things we recommend not doing, and where the right answer is a process change or a configuration fix rather than software, it says so.
That occasionally costs us an implementation. It has also meant clients come back with the next problem, which is a better trade.
- Actionable by anyoneWritten so your team or another supplier could execute it, not just us.
- Assumptions statedThe reasoning is explicit enough to be argued with, because it should be.
- Includes what not to doRecommendations against work are as useful as recommendations for it.
- Fee creditedSet against a resulting implementation, confirmed in writing.
Before we talk
A few useful answers.
Most engagements skip it. The audit earns its place when several systems are involved, when an integration is unproven, or when nobody can size the work well enough to commit a budget. If the problem is already well understood, we will tell you on the free call that you do not need this and scope the implementation instead.
A written review of your current systems and workflows, the AI and automation opportunities within them, the integration risks that would affect any build, a prioritised implementation roadmap, and a recommended scope with an investment range. It is written to be read by both a technology owner and whoever holds the budget, because those are usually different people.
Typically 4 weeks from kickoff, though that depends more on access to your team and systems than on our capacity. We will tell you at the start what we need from you and when, because an audit that stalls waiting for a system login helps nobody.
Yes, where an implementation follows directly from it. The arrangement is confirmed in writing as part of the audit proposal rather than left as an informal understanding, so there is no ambiguity later.
Then it has done its job, and that conclusion is delivered as clearly as any other. A roadmap that recommends a process change, a configuration fix or doing nothing is a legitimate outcome — and considerably cheaper than discovering the same thing halfway through a build.
Typically whoever owns the operational process, whoever owns the systems, and whoever holds the budget. The time commitment is measured in hours across the engagement rather than days, but the process owner's involvement is genuinely not optional — they hold the information the audit depends on.
Keep exploring
Related work
Start with a conversation
Not sure whether you need the audit?
Start with the free call. Twenty minutes with a solutions architect is usually enough to establish whether a scoped review would help or whether you can go straight to a build.
Free · 20 minutes · No obligation to commission the audit · sales@appnox.ai