What an AI discovery workshop actually produces
Not a strategy deck. A costed map of where your operation loses time, an architecture that sits on top of what you already run, and a plan with dates.
Most AI conversations start from the technology and work backwards to a problem. That order produces pilots that impress in a demo and quietly stop being used. We start from where the work actually stalls.
The session
A working session with the people who run the processes, not an interview with management. The difference matters: the person who lives inside a workflow knows which step everyone quietly works around, and that step is rarely the one on the org chart.
Every flow, end to end
For each significant process we reconstruct the full path of information, from the trigger to the resolution. Every manual handoff, every tool involved, every point where work waits for someone. Waiting is usually the expensive part, and it is almost never what anyone names first.
Costed, not asserted
Each bottleneck is converted into an estimated annual cost using your own volumes and a conservative loaded hourly rate. Not a benchmark, not an industry average: your numbers. The result is arithmetic you can argue with, which is the point. A figure you can push back on is worth more than a confident claim you cannot check.
An architecture that integrates
The systems you already run stay. The AI layer sits on top of them. That protects the investment you have already made and lets adoption be gradual instead of a migration, which is the difference between a project that ships and one that stalls at the change-management stage.
A roadmap with dates
Twelve months, four phases, each one shipping something usable in production. No AI programme worth doing lands as a single launch, and if the first tangible gain is more than two months out, the phasing is wrong.
What you get
- Each bottleneck identified and individually costed
- An architecture layered over the existing systems
- A phased roadmap with what ships in each phase
- Eligible cost and the grant path mapped per phase
It is a document you can take to a board. If the conclusion is that AI does not pay for a given process, that is in the document too, and it is worth the same money as a yes.