AISynq

You rolled out AI to the whole company. Check who opened it last week.

For companies twelve months into a licence renewal they cannot justify, where the pilot went well and the adoption did not.

Work delivered for

  • DHL
  • AT&T
  • DirecTV
  • Accenture
  • Singapore Government project
  • Simons Group
$100Mroughly in annual operational value at DHL scale, from the programme AISynq contributed to. A figure that size is never one person’s work.Read the DHL case study

The rollout was announced, the training session happened, and the seats were bought for everyone because buying them for some people was politically harder.

Usage reporting says a double-digit percentage of staff are active, and the definition of active is that they opened it once.

The people who do use it are the ones who would have found it anyway, and they use it for drafting rather than for any process that appears in a cost line.

The renewal is coming, nobody wants to be the person who cancelled the AI programme, and nobody can point at what it returned either.

How we work

  1. 01IdentifyTwo to three weeks. You get a ranked list of what is worth building, and a longer list of what is not.
  2. 02BuildWorking software in your repository, running in your stack, reviewed by your engineers.
  3. 03ProveThe same number, measured before and after. If it did not move, the report says so.

DHL

$100Mroughly, in annual operational value at DHL scale, from the programme this work formed part of

The exception queue nobody could read

How an operation at DHL scale found the gap between what its systems knew and what its people could see in time to act, and what it was worth.

Read the DHL case study

What you get

General purpose tools handed to everybody produce general purpose results. That is not a failure of the tool and it is not a failure of your staff.

The work that pays is narrower than a licence: a specific process, done often, by a team who can tell you exactly where the time goes.

What two or three weeks looks like

  • We sit with the teams, not the sponsors. The people doing the task, watching how it actually moves, timing the parts nobody has ever timed.
  • We price the friction in hours and money. A process that costs four hours a week across nine people is a number your finance team recognises. "Improves productivity" is not.
  • We name the small number worth building into your systems, rather than into a chat window somebody has to remember to open. The largest single win on the DHL programme involved no model at all, and that shape is common.

The uncomfortable part

Frequently the finding is that most of the licence spend is returning nothing, and that the honest move is to cut the seats down to the teams where it works and put the difference into building two things properly. That is a recommendation that makes somebody internally look wrong, which is part of why it rarely comes from inside.

We will put it in writing either way, and you can decide what to do with it.

What you get

A written note, twelve to twenty pages, readable by your CFO as well as your engineers: the ranked list, the baseline number for each, the cost model, and the longer list of what is not worth doing. Fixed fee, fixed end date, nothing owed afterwards.

If it turns out the ranked list is empty, that is the finding and you have your renewal answer. The three steps are written out here, and the case study shows what came out of the same sequence on a much larger programme.