AI Automation London

Timeline depends on complexity. A single workflow — automating your intake form into a CRM with follow-up sequences — typically takes two to four weeks from brief to live. A broader programme involving multiple systems and custom logic runs eight to fourteen weeks. We scope everything upfront in a paid discovery phase, so you know the timeline and deliverables before any build begins. No estimates that turn into surprises midway through the project.

In most cases, yes. We've connected automation layers to Salesforce, HubSpot, Xero, Sage, custom-built CRMs, legacy databases, and bespoke platforms. Where a native API exists, we use it. Where it doesn't, we use alternative connection methods including browser automation or database-level integration. We assess your stack during discovery and flag genuine constraints before you commit to a build. Most London businesses have more connectable systems than they realise.

We don't publish fixed rates because scope varies significantly. A contained single-process automation can start from a few thousand pounds. A programme covering three to five interconnected workflows with custom AI logic typically runs in the £15,000–£40,000 range, depending on system complexity and volume. Most clients see full payback within one to three months when staff time saved is properly quantified. We offer a fixed-price scoped discovery engagement before any larger build begins.

The highest-ROI targets are almost always high-frequency, rule-based tasks where staff time is measurable and errors have downstream cost. Document processing, invoice matching, lead qualification and routing, appointment scheduling, and report generation appear repeatedly across our London client base. The test we apply: if a competent person can follow a written checklist to do it, we can automate it. Start with the process that costs the most staff hours per week, then build outward from there.

Not necessarily. We design automations with non-technical operators in mind — dashboards, error alerts, and override controls that don't require a developer to use day-to-day. For complex systems we provide documentation and an optional support retainer. Some clients manage monitoring themselves and return to us for changes. Either model works. What we won't do is build something opaque that creates dependency. Transparency in how the system works is part of what we deliver.

Tools like Zapier and Make are genuinely useful for simple linear workflows. Where they fall short is complexity: multi-step conditional logic, processing unstructured data such as PDFs and varied document formats, high-volume workloads, and bespoke system integrations often exceed what these platforms handle reliably. We use them where they're the right fit, and build custom solutions where they aren't. The distinction isn't technology preference — it's about what the process actually requires to run without breaking.