We tell you what to build, what to buy and what not to automate yet. Sometimes the honest answer is that it’s not worth it — and we say that too.
A development quote is hard to evaluate if you don’t build software. A short review tells you whether the scope is reasonable and where the risks nobody mentioned are hiding.
Some problems were already solved by a 30-dollar-a-month tool, and in others that tool will cost you double in adaptations. The answer depends on concrete details, not on a general rule.
An audit tells you what holds, what falls, and what it will cost you next year if nobody touches it.
Not the technology you think you need: the problem. They’re almost always different things.
Current data, systems and processes. The cheapest solution is usually connecting something you already have.
With its budget closed, before writing code. And with what deliberately stays out of scope.
With or without us afterwards. The document is yours and works for requesting a quote from anyone.
What we use
Real projects from this service.
A long-term collaboration: multi-tenant architecture and 529 tests.
See the card ↗From a grid of icons to a command center, after researching the trade’s real pains.
See the card ↗A business case that concluded: validate demand before buying the land.
It depends on scope, which is why the first conversation is free: it exists to find out whether there’s something worth reviewing. If there is, you get a proposal with a closed budget before anything starts.
It happens, and it’s part of the service. Some processes don’t yet have the volume that justifies automating them, and in others an existing tool solves 90%. Saying so costs us a project and earns a client who comes back.
Yes. In those cases the work is usually architecture review, security audit or support on one concrete decision. We don’t come to replace the team: we come so the decision gets made with more information.
[ Got something that should be running on its own? ]
Reply within 24 hours · Colombia