Double the output. Keep the headcount.

An engagement runs in three phases. First I sit with your team and watch the real work: which tasks eat the time, which tools people already use, and where they get stuck. Then I map where agents add output and what to build, buy or leave alone. Finally you get a rollout plan your people will follow, including how we will measure the result, with training or development from me if you want help carrying it out. After a first call about your situation you get a written quote for the assessment before any work starts; anything after the roadmap is quoted separately.

Agents get rolled out without being set up for the team's work, nobody says which tasks to hand over, prompts and playbooks stay personal, and support ends after the first workshop. People also have to trust the output before they change how they work, and that is a question of behaviour. I studied psychology before I became an engineer, so I work on both layers, the people and the software, and find the bottleneck before I suggest a fix.

We agree on baseline metrics before we start. For engineering teams that is typically PR cycle time, time to first commit on new tasks and the share of work done with agents; for marketing teams, time from brief to published piece and output per person. Team satisfaction counts for both. Once the new workflows are in place, we measure again. The goal is a change in those numbers you can show your CFO. If the numbers do not move, we have a problem to solve together.

That is the point. Consulting leaves you with a written roadmap: a map of where the hours go, a ranked shortlist of tasks to hand to agents, what to build, buy or leave alone, a people rollout plan and a baseline to measure against. If you need them, I also write the playbooks and train an internal champion. Where agents are set up during training or development, your team keeps those configurations too (instruction files such as CLAUDE.md, agent settings, prompt libraries). Success means your team keeps producing more after I have gone. Top-up training and further advice are there when something new comes up, and you book them only if you need them.

Training builds skills: half-day to multi-day workshops in which your engineering, marketing or leadership team learns to hand real work to AI agents. It fits when the gap is mainly knowledge. Consulting answers a different question: where in your company agents should do the work, and how to roll them out so that people use them. Often it takes both, a plan first and then training for the teams who will carry it out.

Off-the-shelf tools are good at general tasks. A custom agent system matters when it has to work inside your stack, use your own data or follow complex business rules. An agent system can run multi-step workflows, for example syncing CRM data, checking inventory or routing approvals, that a chatbot or a simple API wrapper cannot handle. The decision usually comes down to whether the workflow is your competitive edge or a productivity aid.

It depends on what you need: the service, the size of the team, how long it runs and how much preparation it takes. Tell me about your situation and we'll work out an offer that makes sense for both sides.

Send me a few lines about your team and what's in the way. I reply myself, usually within a day, and if it sounds like a fit we talk it through on a call.