90-Day AI Sprint

A focused 90-day engagement to improve one important workflow.

At day 90, one important workflow is better, and your team can reuse how we got there on the next one.

One agreed workflow is the default scope. Agents are an option when the work needs them. Agent count does not define the purchase.

Book a Call See scope and deliverables

Offer and Fit

Built for a team that can name the slow work and join the rebuild.

The sprint fits when you have a workflow that is actually slow or expensive, an internal owner who can participate, and access to the systems that work already uses. I work with architecture, engineering, and construction teams, and with manufacturing, distribution, and other operations teams when the work is similar.

This is not a company-wide transformation program and not a promise that every team becomes a full AI-native company. We match complexity to the need, keep people in control where the work requires it, and leave a reusable foundation for the selected workflow.

Scope and Deliverables

One defined workflow, plus what your team can reuse.

Default scope is one agreed workflow. Ranked next opportunities come from that discovery, not from a company-wide audit. Integrations are subject to access and feasibility.

Default sprint deliverables for one selected workflow.
Deliverable	What you have
Selected workflow and baseline	One agreed workflow, plus the baseline we will use to review the result.
Implemented solution	A working path for that workflow, built with your team and fitted to the systems we can access.
Prepared internal owner	Someone on your side who can run daily use and routine exceptions.
Results review	A review against the agreed baseline. We look at quality, adoption, and operating cost alongside speed.
Ranked next opportunities	A short ranked list from the scope we agreed to explore. This is not a company-wide audit.

What the sprint leaves behind

Maintained context

The facts, files, and decisions the selected workflow needs, kept where the work can reach them.

Reusable instructions

Clear instructions for how the new path should run, so the next similar job does not start from scratch.

Evaluation examples

Examples your team can use to judge whether an output is good enough to send or must be revised.

Prepared internal owner

An owner who can operate daily use and decide when something needs a person.

The Plan

Prioritize, build, and prove as overlapping work.

The three names describe emphasis, not sealed phases. Discovery, building, testing, and practice run across the ninety days so the team is not waiting until the end to touch the new path.

Prioritize

We name the desired outcome, question steps that waste time, and set a baseline for the selected workflow. Discovery looks past only the familiar tasks when a quieter step is where the time actually goes. Your owner is in these conversations from the start.

Build

We rebuild the path, keep maintained context in reach, and put review where the work needs a person. Your team practices the new work on live examples. Testing and participation continue here. They are not saved for the last month.

Prove

We review quality, adoption, and operating cost alongside speed. Financial return is discussed only when costs and benefits can be established. The same owner who practiced the work helps evaluate whether it is ready for daily use.

Choose the right approach

Start with the work. Check what already exists.

Custom software is one option. I work through these choices in order, comparing the ongoing cost and support burden along with the effort to build.

01
Remove unnecessary steps
First, question the work itself. A step that can go away does not need automation.
02
Use what you already own
Check the capabilities in your existing software and licensed AI tools.
03
Consider a suitable product
Compare off-the-shelf options with the need, ongoing cost, and support burden.
04
Connect existing systems
Use the data and systems already in the workflow when access and permissions allow.
05
Build custom where it fits
Scope custom development when the earlier options cannot meet the need.

Before committing to an integration, we confirm permissions, data export or API access, operating costs, support needs, and an internal owner. That includes checking the actual setup of tools such as Procore, Sage, Viewpoint, Deltek, and Bluebeam.

Human Control

Decide where AI helps and where people stay in control.

We expand automation when the results justify it and keep human review where the work requires it. We agree when the tool may act, when it may only look, and when we pull that back.

These four levels are choices for a given piece of work. They are not a ladder every team has to climb, and more automation is not always better.

We match complexity to the need. You do not have to become a full AI-native company, and not every leader needs to become a developer. We judge quality, usefulness, cost, and adoption, and we leave room to experiment.

Human-led

A person does the work. AI is not in this path.

AI-assisted

AI drafts or finds material. A person decides what to use.

Approval-based

AI prepares an action. A person approves it before anything is sent or changed.

Automated

The tool acts inside agreed limits. People review exceptions.

Participation and Measurement

Your owner stays in the work. We measure against a baseline we set together.

An internal owner from the start

You name someone who lives in the workflow. They join discovery, practice the new path, and help evaluate whether it is ready for daily use.

A baseline we agree on first

We capture how the selected workflow runs today before we change it. That baseline is what the results review uses. There is no universal financial-return promise.

Practice, evaluation, and judgment

Training is not only watching me build. Your team practices the work, evaluates outputs, and decides when a person still needs to act.

Workflow walkthrough

Compare bids with the scope in view.

Different formats, missing line items, and exclusions make bids hard to compare. A structured comparison helps the team see what needs a closer look.

This walkthrough uses fictional bid information to explain the work. It does not report measured client results.

See the bid-leveling walkthrough

BID LEVELING / SCOPE CHECKFICTIONAL EXAMPLE

Fictional comparison of scope in three bids. Highlighted differences require human review.
SCOPE ITEM	BID A	BID B	BID C
Preparation	Included	Included	Included
Protection	Included	Not stated	Included
Cleanup	Included	Included	Excluded

Differences surfaced.
Your team verifies the sources and decides.

Gather the bids
Bring the proposals and the scope of work together. Keep the original documents available.
Structure the comparison
Use assistance to organize scope, inclusions, exclusions, and questions that need an answer.
Review before deciding
A person checks the comparison against each source, confirms prices and scope, and makes the award decision.

Before claiming time saved, we need a confirmed baseline and comparable runs that include preparation, review, and correction time.

POLR Tracker

See what matters, who owns it, and what is moving.

I use POLR Tracker to keep our work in view: ranked opportunities, internal owners, sprint milestones, blockers, and the evidence behind a result. We review it together as decisions and delivery move forward.

Agree on the next priority. Actual POLR Tracker interface populated with fictional sample records. — Agree on the next priority
Weighted criteria make the reasoning visible. A priority score helps rank opportunities; it is separate from workflow readiness.
Actual interface · Fictional sample data
Open full-size screenshot

Keep delivery and evidence together. Actual POLR Tracker interface populated with fictional sample records. — Keep delivery and evidence together
The selected workflow has an owner, a baseline, and checkpoints for practice, testing, rollout, and review.
Actual interface · Fictional sample data
Open full-size screenshot

After day 90

Keep improving the work, together.

Work is paid monthly within an agreed engagement. We scope the next cycle together. Custom applications, infrastructure, substantial integrations, and additional development are scoped separately.

Your internal owner runs daily use and routine exceptions. I own the implementation commitments in our engagement. We agree on software, maintenance, and support responsibilities so the boundaries stay clear.

FAQ

Questions worth answering first.

What does ongoing work cover?

If we continue after the first sprint, we choose the next workflow together and keep a ranked backlog. I build alongside your team, with practical training, office hours, advisory support, and rollout guidance inside the agreed scope. We review adoption, quality, operating cost, and results as the work progresses. Work is paid monthly within an agreed engagement. We scope the next cycle together. Custom applications, infrastructure, substantial integrations, and additional development are scoped separately.

What is in scope for the 90-Day Sprint?

One agreed workflow is the default. We implement a solution for that workflow, prepare an internal owner, review results against an agreed baseline, and rank next opportunities from the discovery we scoped. This is not a company-wide audit, and agent count does not define the purchase.

What does the sprint leave behind?

A working solution for the selected workflow, plus maintained context, reusable instructions, evaluation examples, and a prepared internal owner. That foundation is proportionate to the workflow we chose. It is not a company knowledge platform.

How do you decide how much to automate?

We expand automation when the results justify it and keep human review where the work requires it. We agree when the tool may act, when it may only look, and when we pull that back. The four levels are choices, not a ladder every team has to climb.

How do you measure success?

We agree on a baseline and a date range, count review and correction time, and look at quality and adoption alongside speed. Time freed is reported separately from cash saved. A self-reported readiness score is useful context, not a measured operating result.

Who owns the work after day 90?

I own the implementation and the commitments in the engagement. Your internal owner owns ongoing business use and the decisions that follow from it. We review software, maintenance, and support needs so those lines stay clear. Daily use and routine exceptions can sit with that owner. Technical maintenance may still be needed.

Do we need technical people on our side?

You need an internal owner who knows the workflow and can participate. I handle implementation during the engagement. Integrations depend on access and feasibility.

Still exploring? Start with the AI assessment.

Start With a Conversation

Tell me which workflow is worth ninety days.

Bring the work that is actually slow or expensive. I will tell you honestly whether it is a good first sprint.

Book a Call

Prefer email? bg@polrai.com