Solutions
We automate the manual handoffs, repeated data entry and approvals that move work between people and systems — and design for the failures, exceptions and audit questions that decide whether automation can be trusted.
The problem
Automation is worth considering when skilled people spend their time moving information rather than using it.
A record is typed into one tool, then re-keyed or pasted into another, with errors introduced at every copy.
Requests wait in an inbox, status is unclear, and the approval itself is hard to evidence afterwards.
Handoffs depend on someone remembering to forward a file or message, so items sit unnoticed.
Incoming files and entries are validated manually against the same rules, every time, by whoever is available.
How we design it
Each stage is a set of decisions to make explicit before anything is automated. Skipping them is how automation ends up fast and wrong.
Choosing an approach
Existing automation tools are often the right answer. The aim is to use the simplest approach that is reliable enough for the process.
Fits when
Steps are simple, the systems involved have supported connectors, volumes are modest and an occasional failure is visible and tolerable. Examples include Zapier, Make and Power Automate.
Watch for
Task-based pricing as volume grows, failures that go unnoticed, logic scattered across individual accounts, and limited audit trail.
Fits when
Systems lack connectors, data needs transformation or ordering guarantees, volumes are high, or data should not pass through a third-party platform.
Watch for
You own code that needs monitoring and maintenance. It must be built with retries, alerting and documentation, not just a script that works once.
Fits when
The underlying problem is that the process has no system of record — people need a place to see, assign and act on work.
Watch for
Automating around a spreadsheet only makes the spreadsheet faster. Consider the build route described on the application page.
If your process needs its own system to live in, see custom business application development. Where the work is connecting systems you already run, see system integration.
Reliability
Automation moves faster than people, so its mistakes also travel faster. These are the controls we design in from the start.
Who can start a process, approve, override or change the rules — separated from who can merely view.
A record of what happened to each item, who or what acted, and when, retained in a form you can query.
Failed steps are retried safely, so a retry does not create a second invoice, record or notification.
Failures reach an owner before users notice them, with enough context to act on.
Items that cannot be processed are held in a visible queue with a defined way to resolve them, not silently dropped.
Changes to rules are versioned and tested before they affect live work.
Engagement
We recommend starting with one workflow rather than a programme of many.
Timelines and cost depend on how many systems are involved and how well their interfaces are documented. We agree a plan after the workflow has been mapped, not before.
Typical workflows
The same approach applies across these common categories. Each starts with a single mapped workflow.
Purchase, expense, document or change approvals with routing rules, delegation, reminders and a recorded decision.
Moving records from one system to another with validation, so people stop re-keying and correcting.
Checking files and entries against rules, classifying them and flagging mismatches for review.
Event- or schedule-driven exchange between applications, with retries and monitoring.
Experience
We separate work delivered by Avasarant from experience our team members bring from previous roles.
Avasarant Work · Current engagement
Public Sector Regulatory Organization
Avasarant work, in progress: modernizing a heavily manual spreadsheet workflow into a structured web-based one covering ingestion, validation, classification, calculation, reconciliation and reporting.
Data sources → Validation → Classification → Time-block processing → Regulatory calculation → Reconciliation → Reporting
Current Avasarant engagement.
Read the full description →Relevant Team Experience · Team experience
Prior team experience of integration between legacy services and modern applications. It is not Avasarant client work.
Experience delivered by members of the Avasarant team in previous professional engagements.
Read the full description →Relevant Team Experience · Team experience
Prior team experience of event-driven alerting across multiple cloud accounts, relevant to monitoring automated processes. It is not Avasarant client work.
Experience delivered by members of the Avasarant team in previous professional engagements.
Read the full description →We have limited published client work today. See the experience page for the full disclosure.
Questions
We look for a workflow that is repeated often, follows rules that can be written down, and causes visible cost when it goes wrong. Processes that are still undefined are usually better stabilised before they are automated.
No. Automation is usually built to work with the systems you already run, connecting them rather than replacing them. Replacement is a separate decision.
Failures are designed for from the start: safe retries, alerts to a named owner, and a queue where items that could not be processed wait for a person. The aim is that a failure is visible and recoverable, not silent.
The aim is to remove re-entry and chasing, and to keep people for judgement and exceptions. What changes in a given team depends on the process and is a decision for you.
Discovery and delivery run through video calls, shared documents and written decisions. Time-zone overlap, access to your systems and data-location requirements are things we confirm early.
Describe the workflow, the systems involved and where it breaks down. We will respond with a clear next step, which may be that an existing tool is enough.
