Three levels. Start wherever you actually are.

Kaima

Most services pages answer the wrong question

You are not trying to find out whether we can do a thing. You are trying to work out which thing you need, and whether it is the small version or the large one.

So this page is not a capability list. It is three levels, in the order people actually ask for them, and they came out of the question we get asked most: what are you going to do, and how far does it go?

• Level one. One process that matters to you, fixed.
• Level two. A performance improvement across something you already do.
• Level three. The connected system, with visibility across the business.

They map onto how much you have already worked out. If you can name the process, you want level one. If you can picture the architecture already and cannot see your own business, you want level three.

One thing before you pick, because it is a fact about us and not about you: sales and marketing is where our own tooling is deepest, and where a first result usually arrives fastest. That holds at every level. It is why we will often suggest starting at the front of the business even when the problem you describe is the whole of it, and why we would rather you knew it now than found it out in month three.

Level one is one process, finished

One process, chosen because it is expensive to you and because it is bounded enough to finish. It is the lowest-risk thing to buy from anyone, including us, and it is where our own tooling is deepest: the front end of the business, sales and marketing.

It is also the entry point that produces the thing no proposal can give you. At the end of it you have watched us work, on your systems, with your data, and you know whether you want the larger version. That judgement is worth more than anything we could have told you beforehand.

Level two is the one we describe least well

A performance improvement to something you already do, rather than a new thing that did not exist before.

We will say plainly that this is the level we describe least well, and that it is the one to push us hardest on. It is genuinely the vaguest of the three because it varies most with what you already have, and a firm that gave you a crisp, confident description of it would be describing a product rather than your business.

Level three connects the whole business

The full engagement. Your own knowledge in the core, the systems talking to each other, and dashboards over the top so you can see the business without asking three people.

This is the one that matches what owners actually describe when they talk about the problem. The complaint is almost never that there is too much work. It is that there is a stack of software that was never one package, and no single place the answer lives.

It is also the longest and the one most often started too early. The connected system is easier to build, cheaper to run and far easier to trust when one process has already been through it and the decisions are written down.

Where we stop, and why that helps you

Stated as scope, because that is what it is. We do not have a list of work we refuse.

• Large enterprise systems are out of scope. Not a judgement about that work, just not what we are built for, and we will say so early, not late.
• The front end is where we are strongest. Sales and marketing is where our own tooling is deepest and where the first result usually arrives fastest.
• Back-end systems work is possible, and it is a larger thing. It changes the shape of an engagement, not only its size.
• Business management consultancies are a different motion. Some want a platform to build their own system on, to serve their own clients. That is not services delivery and it is priced and run differently.

Headcount is a bad way to work out whether this is for you

It is the filter everyone reaches for and it gets the answer wrong in both directions. What actually decides it is how much an hour of your team's time is worth, not how many of them there are.

A five-person law firm or consultancy is squarely in. A five-person trade business, with the same headcount, usually is not, because the work we would automate is not what its money comes from. That is a statement about fit rather than about value, and it cuts the other way too: plenty of businesses far larger than our range are better served by somebody else.

What it costs is a conversation, not a page, and we would sooner have it early than let you spend two weeks finding out we are the wrong size for each other.

What we will tell you that others might not

Most people we speak to have either had an AI project go sideways or watched somebody else have one. That changes what is worth saying.

• Sometimes the answer is not yet. A process that is about to change, or one nobody owns, is a bad first candidate however good it looks in a demo.
• The prototype is the easy part. Getting something running safely inside a business with real customers is most of the work and most of the cost, and it is the half that does not demo well.
• We have no client we can name yet. So we will show you our own work instead of a case study, and you should weigh that accordingly instead of taking our word for it.