Build in the room
The first version is written live, with your SMEs watching and correcting. Requirements gathered this way are correct.
The Big 4 will sell you a strategy and staff it with people learning on your budget. Product vendors will sell you a license and wish you luck. We build the thing, on our platform, with your people, and leave you able to run it without us.
A typical engagement starts with two people, one in your time zone, one in ours, who sit inside your workflow rather than beside it. They use flexday.ai and Claude Code as their harness, which is why the first working version appears in a workshop rather than in a status report six weeks later.
Behind them sits the bench: a solution architect, domain leads, and the engineers who built the thing that is closest to your problem. They are on the engagement without being on the invoice for forty hours a week.
We add people when results justify them, AWS or Azure engineers, agentic and full-stack developers, a tester once there is something worth testing. Not before.
Statements of work may be staffed by role, because that is how enterprise procurement works. The commitment underneath is always to the outcome. That has not changed in five years of doing this.
The first version is written live, with your SMEs watching and correcting. Requirements gathered this way are correct.
We spend the first week arguing about what your words mean. It is the single highest-return week of the engagement.
Nothing goes live because a demo went well. It goes live because it passed a set your people wrote.
Everything built becomes an asset on the platform. The second solution costs a fraction of the first.
Your team builds alongside ours from the start. The success condition is that you don't need us for solution three.
Adjusted for your reality, obviously. But this rhythm is consistent enough that we can tell you in the first meeting roughly what your day 90 looks like.
Two to four functional tracks run in parallel with the people who actually do the job. We leave with a use-case inventory, real or synthetic datasets, source system access requests filed, and the first ontology sketch.
Use cases scored on value, feasibility, data readiness and reuse. Roughly three per function shortlisted. Building starts on the top two the same week, scoring and building overlap deliberately.
Your design review process runs in parallel from about week five. By day 60 there are demonstrable solutions with measured accuracy, not slideware. This is the decision point for scaling.
The first solutions harden into production with monitoring and support. The next wave starts, moving faster because the ontology, connectors and patterns already exist.
A realistic target is nine use cases showing measured results by day 180, with your people leading at least a third of them. If a center of excellence is the goal, this is where it stops being ours and starts being yours.
Not a transformation program. One process, one owner, one accuracy number, sixty days.