AI agents & business automation

Choose a workflow with a measurable outcome

An AI project should begin with a process, not a model. We map the steps, information sources, users, and exceptions in a workflow, then identify where AI can reduce repetitive work. Suitable starting points include document classification, drafting responses, finding information in approved company material, and preparing routine reports.

We define a baseline such as time spent, review effort, or error rate. This creates an objective way to compare a pilot with the existing process, including the cost of model usage and human review.

Connect knowledge without giving away control

Knowledge assistants can retrieve relevant passages from approved sources and cite them in their answers. Integrations with business software use scoped access, so the assistant can only reach the records and actions it needs. Greek and English evaluation examples help test performance in your actual working language.

For agents that take actions, we define approval steps, limits, logging, and recovery paths. Sending messages, changing records, or making commitments may require a person to review the proposed action. A pilot is evaluated before broader rollout, with an owner responsible for quality and ongoing changes.

Select an agent only where the workflow benefits

An agent can interpret a request, retrieve context and use approved tools to complete a task. We first map the workflow and compare that approach with a simpler rule-based integration. Useful candidates include internal service triage, preparation of customer responses, document follow-up and operational coordination. The design identifies which steps are reversible, which affect external systems and where an authorised person must decide.

Control tools, identities and external actions

We separate the agent’s instructions from untrusted emails, documents and tool responses. Access is limited to the systems and operations required for the task, with clear user identity and an audit trail. Sending messages, changing records or triggering financial actions can require an approval step. We define duplicate prevention, retry limits, cancellation and a safe fallback so a partial failure does not silently become an incorrect business action.

Evaluate the complete task, including exceptions

A convincing demonstration is only a starting point. We test representative requests, missing information, malicious instructions in retrieved material, unavailable systems and unexpected tool results. Evaluation measures task completion, factual correctness, inappropriate actions, review effort, latency and cost per completed task. Greek and English behaviour is tested separately where both are needed. The release decision is based on recorded results against agreed acceptance criteria.

Give the operating team control after launch

The handover includes workflow definitions, permission settings, test cases, logs and instructions for investigating failures. We define who can change prompts, models and integrations, and which changes need re-evaluation. Usage budgets and monitoring make the service’s cost and behaviour visible. A pilot can start with suggestions and human approval, then expand only the specific actions that have demonstrated reliable operation.

Customer support, internal operations and approval workflows

A support assistant may prepare a response from approved knowledge; an operations agent may classify incoming requests and create a draft task in an existing system. These examples require different permissions and success measures. We map the current process, identify where a generated suggestion is useful and decide which actions require review. The first implementation should have a defined owner and a manageable set of exceptions.

Prevent duplicate or unintended business actions

An automated workflow must handle a repeated request, an unavailable system or an interrupted approval without silently creating duplicate records. We design explicit task states, validation and retry behaviour around the connected application. Where an action has business consequences, the approving person should see what will change and receive a usable completion or failure result. These controls belong in the workflow, not only in instructions to the model.

Compare useful automation with its full operating cost

The business case should include review time, exception handling, integration maintenance and model usage as well as the time saved on routine steps. We compare a limited pilot with the existing process using representative tasks. The result can support a decision to expand, simplify or stop the workflow, with evidence about where human attention is still required.

Common questions