The questions worth asking before you call.

No, and that's by design. Everything we build lives in your repositories and your accounts from day one, on boring, widely-known technology, with documentation written for the next developer — not for us. Any competent developer can pick up where we left off. Compare that with your position when a SaaS vendor raises prices or sunsets a product: with bespoke tools you own, the bus factor is a risk we engineer out; with a vendor, it's a term of service.

You do, entirely. Source code, documentation, data, infrastructure configuration — all of it is work for hire, assigned to you in the engagement contract. There is no license from us, no lock-in to us, and nothing that stops you from hiring someone else to change it tomorrow.

AI-accelerated is not AI-unsupervised. Every line ships through the same discipline hand-written code should: senior review, automated tests, and deliberately boring technology choices. AI compresses the hours; it doesn't lower the bar. The risk worth worrying about is unmaintained code — which is why ownership, documentation, and the maintenance plan are part of every engagement, not an upsell.

Proven, mainstream stacks with large talent pools and decades of life left in them — chosen for your team's ability to maintain the tool, not for our amusement. No exotic frameworks, no beta databases, no dependencies on any one vendor's roadmap. If your team already has skills in a particular stack, we build to those skills.

Less than you expect, because the tools are small. A focused internal tool has a fraction of the surface area of a platform. You choose the support level: done by you (the hand-off gives your team everything to own maintenance outright), done with you (your team enhances the software by chatting with a coding agent we set up, testing changes in preview environments — nothing reaches production without our expert review), or done for you (we keep maintaining and extending it on a predictable retainer). You can switch levels at any time.

Nothing, at first: it starts with a free 30-minute chat to see if this approach fits. The full consultation is $1,000 CAD — two 2-hour discovery sessions, held remotely with the people who actually run the process — and ends with a written realignment plan and a non-binding quote, yours to act on whether or not we work together again. Everything past that is fixed-scope and quoted before work begins; replacement builds are priced with a one-year payback as the goal — the build should cost no more than a year of the license spend it retires.

That depends on the size of the workflow — and pinning that down is exactly what the consultation is for. The four hours of discovery settle the scope, and the written plan comes back with a timeline alongside the non-binding quote. As a general rule, builds are measured in weeks, not quarters — small tools, AI-accelerated — and replacements run in parallel with the system they replace until your team trusts them, so the cutover happens on your schedule, not ours.

Then that's what the report says, and we don't build anything. The audit stands on its own: you keep the process maps, the cost analysis, and the roadmap regardless. Sometimes the fix is a process change and a spreadsheet — we'd rather tell you that than sell you a tool you don't need.

We're based in St. John's, Newfoundland & Labrador, and work with businesses across North America. Engagements are remote-first, with on-site time when the process mapping calls for it — some workflows only reveal themselves when you watch them happen.