Productised offer · 2-3 weeks
A focused audit for UK SMEs that need a clear readiness score, a ranked opportunity shortlist, a risk register, and a first-90-days roadmap before committing to a build.
Good fit when
Use the audit when leadership needs evidence before choosing a pilot, a vendor, an internal build, or no action at all.
There are too many possible first moves
You need a ranked, risk-aware starting point before budget, data access, or team time is committed.
Shortlist opportunities before committing budget
The audit is useful when there are many possible projects and no shared way to score them.
Will this just lead to a sales pitch?
You keep the roadmap, scorecard, risk register, and ROI assumptions whether or not Arkwright builds next.
Who this is for
The audit is built for leadership and operations teams who can see AI potential but need evidence before spending money, changing process, or putting sensitive data into new tools.
You need a defensible answer to the "what is our AI plan?" question — one that survives scrutiny from a finance director and a non-exec.
You can name the workflows that are eating the team. You want a shortlist that respects what you actually run, not a generic AI maturity model.
You can spend, but you want to spend once and well. You want a partner who will tell you when a workflow is not yet ready.
What you receive
Each output is built to stand on its own. You should be able to hand any one of them to a manager, an auditor, or a developer, and have them act on it without translation.
A five-axis score across data, workflow, tooling, risk, and adoption — with a written justification per axis. Excerpt: "Data readiness: 3/5 — primary CRM is clean; document storage fragmented across 3 systems."
What we'd ship
Used to set the baseline, defend the first scope, and tell the board what has to be true before scaling.
A ranked list of 6-10 AI opportunities scored against value, effort, confidence, and risk. Each opportunity carries a one-page brief: workflow, systems touched, owner, and a recommended next step.
What we'd ship
Used to sequence the first two or three projects without having to re-discover the case for each one.
A register covering privacy, hallucination, permissions, vendor exposure, and handoff — scored, with mitigations, and ready to drop into existing governance forums.
What we'd ship
Used to satisfy procurement, legal, and information-security stakeholders before a build is committed to.
For the top two or three candidate workflows: a ranged value estimate, an effort estimate, and the explicit assumptions behind both. Methodology is shown, not buried.
What we'd ship
Used to defend the first investment without overpromising. Numbers are illustrative, not contractual.
A sequenced plan: what to do in days 1-30, 31-60, 61-90. Owners, milestones, measurement points, and the conditions under which the plan should pause or change.
What we'd ship
Used to align the team and the board around one defensible execution path.
How the three weeks run
Each week ends with a finished deliverable. You should never be more than a week from something you can use.
Structured interviews with the leadership team and the operators carrying the work. We map the workflows that matter, score the readiness, and surface the early candidate opportunities.
Working session with your IT lead on systems, permissions, data residency, and integration access. The risk register is drafted alongside, with mitigations sized to your governance posture.
Opportunities ranked, ROI ranges modelled with explicit assumptions, the 90-day roadmap built and walked through with the leadership team. Deliverables handed over in writing.
What you bring vs what we bring
Workflow access
You provide
Time with the operators running the workflows in scope, plus one leadership stakeholder.
We do not need
A fully documented process map up front — we will help build that.
System access
You provide
Read-only access (or screenshare) to the core systems we are reviewing.
We do not need
Production credentials, or any system change. Discovery does not require either.
Data sources
You provide
Recent examples of the documents, records, or transcripts the workflow produces.
We do not need
A data warehouse build, or a cleanup project, before the audit can begin.
Time commitment
You provide
Roughly 6-10 hours from leadership and operators over the three weeks.
We do not need
A dedicated internal project manager — we run the cadence.
Pricing and posture
The audit is intentionally fixed-fee and time-boxed. The output is a defensible plan, not a route to a long retainer.
Pricing posture
Fixed-fee · scoped on the first call
Scoped against your business size and the workflows in review.
Duration
2-3 weeks
End-to-end, including the closing presentation.
Optional follow-on
Build the first workflow
Quoted separately, with no obligation.
You own the outputs
Walk-away IP
Roadmap, scorecard, risk register, and ROI are yours.
Common questions
Both. Structured interviews and workflow review, followed by a technical view of data access, systems, risk, and implementation options.
No. The audit should reveal where data quality matters, where it does not, and which first projects can work with the systems you already have.
You receive a practical roadmap. Arkwright can help deliver the first workflow, or you can take the outputs internally and have your own team run it.
Yes. Standard mutual NDA before any system access or sensitive workflow discussion. We can also work to your template if you have one.
Yes — typically in week two. We need a working view of system access, permissions, and data residency posture before any opportunity is sized.
You keep the deliverables. The roadmap, scorecard, and risk register are yours regardless of whether the engagement continues. We do not lock the IP to the relationship.
Next step
Most first conversations take 30 minutes. We will tell you whether the audit is the right shape for you — or whether a single advisory call would do the job.