AI strategy & audits

Where AI pays off here, and what it is worth.

Two weeks inside your operation, ending in a ranked opportunity map and a build plan you could execute with anyone, including yourselves.

Schedule call Read the method

A printed report and a bar chart on a dark desk

Service overview

The Audit is how every engagement starts. Two weeks, fixed scope and fixed fee, spent with the people doing the work rather than in a boardroom: watching real cases travel the whole path, tracing where the data lives, and finding out what can actually be written to.

It ends in four artefacts: a ranked opportunity map scored on payback, a readiness assessment of your data and integrations, a reference architecture sized for your volumes, and a build plan with effort and sequence attached.

It is deliberately executable by anyone. If you take the plan and build it in-house, the Audit still did its job. And if the honest conclusion is “fix the data pipeline first, then revisit”, you hear that in week two rather than after two quarters of pilot.

Talk to us

Start with two weeks.

Fixed scope, fixed fee, and four written artefacts at the end, including an honest recommendation against building, if that is the answer.

Schedule call

What we build

Opportunity mapping

Candidate workflows scored on volume, repetition, data quality and whether the target system can be written to.

Data readiness

Where inputs really live, how dirty they are, who owns access and how long approval takes.

Reference architecture

Gateway, orchestration, tool layer and audit store, sized against your real volumes.

Payback case

Effort against the number you want to move, written so your board can read it.

Risk and governance review

Where approval gates belong, what must be logged, and what your security review will ask.

Sequenced build plan

What to build first, what follows, and what to deliberately not build.

Stalled pilot diagnosis

Why something never reached production, and whether it is worth fixing or stopping.

Build, buy or partner

An honest read on where an off-the-shelf tool is genuinely the better answer.

Team and skills assessment

What your team can own today, and what they would need to own it fully.

Deployment options costed

Your cloud, on-premise and air-gapped compared on cost and capability.

Cost and unit economics

What each automated case will cost to run at your real volumes.

Vendor and model due diligence

Reviewing what you are being sold before you sign for it.

Why Momentem for this

About the company →

2 wks

from first call to a written build plan

Fixed scope and fixed fee, run by the engineers who would build it, not a strategy team handing off to a delivery arm.

Evidence, not a maturity model

We watch real cases and read real data. No benchmarking decks, no five-level curves.

A plan anyone can execute

Written to be handed to any competent team, including your own. That is the test of a real plan.

Willing to say no

An Audit that recommends against building is a successful Audit, and it costs two weeks, not two quarters.

Numbers attached

Effort against the number you want to move, in a form your board can actually read.

Constrained by what ships

The people auditing are the people who would build, so nothing is recommended that cannot be delivered.

Straight into a build

If it makes sense to proceed, the build starts from a scoped plan rather than another discovery phase.

No obligation to continue

The plan is yours whatever you decide, and we would rather you executed it well than executed it with us.

How this compares

Momentem

Large consultancy

Off-the-shelf tool

Duration

Two weeks, fixed

Six to twelve weeks

Not applicable

Who does it

Engineers who will build it

Strategy team, separate from delivery

Sales engineer

Output

Build plan, architecture, payback case

Strategy deck and roadmap

Product demo

Portability

Executable by any team

Tied to their delivery arm

Tied to their product

Will it say no?

Yes, in writing

Rarely

Cost shape

Fixed fee

Time and materials

Free, then licence

Based on publicly available information and our own experience of comparable engagements. Generalisations rather than claims about any specific provider. There are good exceptions in every column, and the point is where each model is structurally strong.

The stack we work in.

Models assessed

Benchmarked against your own tasks and records rather than a public leaderboard ranking.

Where it could run

Options costed side by side: your own cloud tenancy, on-premise hardware, or fully air-gapped.

Systems reviewed

What can be written to and what cannot, because that decides the shape of the whole build.

What we produce

Four written artefacts you could hand to any competent team, including your own engineers.

How the build runs.

Week 0

Scope

Sessions with the people doing the work. We leave with a written target and a data map.

Week 1 to 2

Prove

A thin slice against your real records, scored on a test set drawn from your own history.

Week 3 to 12

Deploy

Integrations, approval gates, audit logging. Live on one team with a rollback switch.

Ongoing

Hand over

Runbooks, paired on-call and a decision log, until your team changes it without us.

Someone writing on a lit whiteboard, their shadow thrown across it

Start with two weeks and a straight answer.

Forty-five minutes with the people who would build it. No pitch, and a straight answer on whether it is worth building.

Schedule call

Questions

All questions

Then it did its job. That conclusion in two weeks is far cheaper than finding out after two quarters of pilot, and you keep the plan either way.

No. The plan is written so any competent team can execute it, and it is yours regardless of what you decide.

The people doing the Audit are the people who would build it, so the recommendations are constrained by what is actually shippable. And it takes two weeks, not two months.

Four written artefacts: ranked opportunity map, readiness assessment, reference architecture, and a sequenced build plan with effort and payback.

Yes, including diagnosing why a stalled pilot never reached production, and whether it is worth fixing or stopping.