Core service
The manual steps, done by a system instead
Most businesses have two or three processes that work correctly but cost a person several hours every week — moving data between tools, chasing what has not come back, checking whether something matched. Those are the ones worth automating first, and they are what we build.
The problem
What this usually looks like
Someone on your team is the integration. They export from one system, reformat it, paste it into another, then chase whoever has not replied. It works because they are careful, it does not scale, and when they are on leave it stops.
What you get
- A working automation in your own platform account, not ours
- Error handling and validation so failures surface instead of passing silently
- Notifications to a named person when a run fails
- A runbook: how it works, what breaks, what to check, which changes are safe to make
- An architecture diagram of the flow
- A handover session, and a documented list of the credentials involved
How the work runs
01
Map the process as it is
Not as the documentation claims. We watch the actual steps, including the exceptions people have stopped mentioning because they handle them automatically.
02
Decide what is worth automating
Some steps should be automated, some simplified, and some left alone. A high-variance step with five exceptions a week is usually cheaper as a human decision.
03
Build in a sandbox
Against test data first. Nothing points at live records until the logic is right and you have seen it work.
04
Run in parallel
The automation runs alongside the manual process for an agreed period so you can compare outputs before trusting it.
05
Hand over properly
Runbook, diagram, monitoring, and the changes you can safely make yourself. Then it is yours.
Stack
What we build it with
Honest limits
What this is not
- We do not automate a process nobody can describe. If it lives entirely in one person's head, mapping it is the first engagement.
- We do not replace a system that is fundamentally wrong for the job. Automating around bad software makes it permanent.
- We do not build something you cannot maintain or hand to someone else.
Systems we have already built like this
Every entry documents the business problem it solves, what it does and the architecture behind it. Not for sale — they are what we build for you, adapted to your systems.
Straight answers
Which processes are actually worth automating?
High volume, low variance, and clearly defined. A task done fifty times a week the same way is ideal. A task done twice a week with a judgement call each time usually is not — the exception handling costs more than the time saved. We will tell you which of yours fall into which category on the scope call, including when the answer is none of them.
Do we need to buy n8n or Make.com?
Yes, and the account should be in your name with your payment method. That way you own the automation, you can see what it does, and moving away from us later is straightforward. Some builds need a paid tier to run at volume; where that is the case it is stated in the quotation before you commit.
What happens when a platform changes and it breaks?
Platforms deprecate nodes and change APIs on their own schedule — this is normal, not a defect. If you have a maintenance retainer, adapting the automation is included up to the monthly hours. Without one, it is quoted as a small piece of work. Either way you will know it broke, because failure notifications are part of every build.
How long does a typical automation take?
A single well-defined workflow across two systems is usually days rather than weeks. A multi-step process touching four or five systems, with exception handling and a parallel-run period, is measured in weeks. The variable that moves it most is how quickly we get access and answers, which is why turnaround expectations go in the agreement.
Describe the process, get an honest read
Thirty minutes, no obligation, and a written quotation if it is worth doing. Repomanta Information Technology Services issues every engagement in writing.