Discuss your projectStaff ask a question in plain language and get an answer from approved policies, manuals, and tickets, with the source shown and permissions respected. When nothing matches, it declines and flags the gap for the content owner.
Operations, support, and HR leaders whose staff answer the same questions from the same documents every day, or spend their time finding the current version of a policy, a procedure, or a past case. The same applies to multi-site businesses where the answer depends on the site.
The workflow
The steps we see most often in this kind of operation.
Features
Indexes documents from drives, wikis, ticketing systems, and shared inboxes, keeping each source’s permissions and refreshing content on a schedule.
Answers questions in plain language with links to the exact passages used, so staff can check the source before acting on the answer.
Tailors answers to the asker’s site, department, or role, so a policy that differs by location returns the version that applies.
Brings the assistant into the chat and email tools staff already use, so answers arrive where questions are already being asked.
Lets staff flag unhelpful answers, which route to the content owner with the question and the sources used, feeding the next improvement.
Shows the most asked questions, unanswered topics, and outdated documents, giving content owners a clear list of what to write or retire.
Your first release
How the work runs
We start with the people doing the work and the systems around it, then write down the first release: what it includes, what it leaves for later, the integration decisions, and the acceptance criteria. Nothing is built until that scope is agreed.
We build in releases you can review as the work takes shape, using realistic data. Every release carries tests, a security review, and documentation. Integrations are tested against real records, with exceptions visible.
Your team receives the documentation, the runbooks, and the training to run the system, and we stay on for continued engineering when you want it.
Scope and price
Every project is priced from a written scope. These are the factors that move it most.
Each drive, wiki, ticketing system, or database brings its own connector, permission model, and refresh approach, which scales the indexing work.
Sources with simple team access are contained, while fine-grained, per-document permissions across several systems need careful mapping and testing.
Duplicate, outdated, and conflicting documents need an owner’s decision before indexing, since the assistant answers only as well as its approved sources.
Requirements about where content is processed and which model providers may see it shape the hosting, the models available, and the evaluation work.
Multi-site operations team
In a multi-site business, site managers tend to send the same questions to the operations team, and the answer depends on which copy of the manual someone finds. A first release indexes the approved manuals, policies, and site-specific notes in SharePoint or Confluence, with permissions carried through, and gives managers a single place to ask. Every answer shows its source. When nothing matches, the assistant declines and adds the question to a list for the content owner, which becomes a practical writing plan. Answers inside Teams or Slack are a common next phase.
Questions
What buyers ask before a project like this starts.
It answers only from the approved sources and shows which one. When nothing matches, it says so. That behavior is tested before rollout on your own questions.
Yes. Who may see a document in the source system decides who may get an answer from it.
We agree on it in writing before anything is built: which sources, where they are processed, and what never leaves your systems.
Sources are re-indexed on a schedule, stale documents are flagged to their owner, and unanswered questions show what needs to be written.
A set of real questions with approved answers is collected from the teams before rollout. The assistant is scored against that set for correctness, sourcing, and correct declines, and the same set is rerun after every significant change to sources or models.
Each source has a named content owner. The system shows them stale documents, questions nobody could answer, and answers staff flagged, so maintenance becomes a regular, focused review rather than a large cleanup project for the team that owns the content.
Yes, as a later step once internal answers are trusted. The assistant drafts a reply from approved sources inside the support tool, shows its references, and a person edits and sends it. Every reply reaches the customer only after a staff member approves it.