What the work can look like
Two questions.
Two useful reviews.
Fictional examples. The businesses, records, costs, timings, and outcomes below are invented to demonstrate the proposed services. These are not client results or testimonials.
Technology Cost Review
“Our product is growing.
Why is the technology bill growing faster?”
A fictional software startup supplies three months of cloud, AI, and software bills, plus matched AI usage and accepted-result records. The illustration excludes tax, credits, prepaid annual charges, and staff costs. These are invented records, not a client engagement.
| Cost area | Month 1 | Month 2 | Month 3 | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud compute | $6,000 | $8,000 | $10,000 | Separate usage growth from rate and configuration changes |
| AI API usage | $2,000 | $3,500 | $5,000 | Match provider charges to accepted-result records |
| Data storage and transfer | $1,000 | $1,400 | $2,000 | Check storage growth and transfer drivers |
| Observability | $600 | $800 | $1,000 | Check retention, ingestion, and service ownership |
| Team software | $1,200 | $1,500 | $1,800 | Separate added seats, plan changes, and renewal terms |
| Total | $10,800 | $15,200 | $19,800 | Three months: $45,800 |
Explain the increase
The bill rises from $10,800 to $19,800 per month, an increase of $9,000. Compute and AI explain $7,000 of that $9,000 change. Growth alone does not tell us whether the spending is wasteful or worthwhile.
Check the cost of the result
Assume the matched AI records show 10,000 accepted results in Month 1 and 20,000 in Month 3. Direct provider cost per accepted result rises from $2,000 ÷ 10,000 = $0.20 to $5,000 ÷ 20,000 = $0.25, a 25% increase. Accepted volume doubles while the provider bill grows by 150%.
This is a provider-cost measure, not the full cost of a usable result. Human checking, retries, infrastructure allocation, and comparable quality need their own records. A change in the mix of tasks may explain the increase.
Leave with a decision plan
- Reconcile billed charges with usage records and identify costs without an owner.
- Ask the product and engineering owners which usage, model, retention, or configuration changes explain the increase.
- Compare matched task types and quality before recommending a cheaper AI route.
- Build a growth scenario using explicit volume and cost assumptions; keep it separate from a forecast.
- Prioritize changes by financial impact, implementation effort, and risk. Confirm the next bill against the agreed actions.
Takeaway: explain the growth, investigate the rising AI unit cost, and give each next check an owner. The records do not yet support a savings estimate or a recommendation to change architecture.
The review produces a cost baseline, driver analysis, evidence gaps, and an action plan. Complex allocation, commitment analysis, implementation, and ongoing monitoring are separately agreed.
AI & Workflow Review
“Can AI stop us copying the same numbers
into every report?”
A fictional consultancy produces eight monthly project reports using a time tracker, accounting exports, and a spreadsheet. All timings below are assumed.
Follow the work
Export time and invoices → align project names → copy rows → calculate labor and expenses → check totals and missing entries → prepare a summary.
The bottleneck hypothesis is inconsistent project identifiers and repeated copying. AI-written commentary would not fix those inputs and could add checking work.
Compare options
- Controlled reporting template: first pilot; standardize identifiers and calculations.
- Existing native features: check actual plans and export capabilities before buying anything.
- Small automation: consider after inputs are consistent, with an owner for failures and maintenance.
- AI commentary: defer until input sensitivity, accuracy checks, and human judgment are addressed.
One pilot, with checks
Use two completed projects and redacted exports. Reconcile supplied totals, flag missing hours, flag duplicates, stop unmatched identifiers disappearing, and confirm that an added expense updates its report. A named staff member owns updates and final review.
Capacity is different from cash saving
Eight reports × 90 minutes = 12 hours/month. A target of eight × 45 minutes = six hours, plus one hour of maintenance, would free five net hours/month. At an assumed $40/hour, that is $200/month of capacity value.
That is not $200 of cash saving. A financial saving requires an actual expense reduction; revenue benefit needs evidence of productive use. The target has not been measured.
Takeaway: stabilize inputs and reporting before adding AI. Compare actual preparation, checking, maintenance, exceptions, and usability across two report cycles. Implementation is separately scoped.