Questions about bringing an AI colleague into your team.

Build Agents develops AI colleagues for teams delivering commercial spaces and physical installations, including office, hospitality and retail fit-outs. Each agent takes on a defined coordination role, such as comparing supplier confirmations with approved orders or tracking outstanding approvals. It works alongside your existing software and brings useful information to the people responsible for the project.

An AI colleague is software given an ongoing job, with clear responsibilities, access to agreed information and someone to report to. We shape that role around your team: what it checks, what it prepares and when it asks for help. Calling it a colleague describes how it fits into the work; it is still an AI system, with limits that need to be understood.

Our focus is creative production, commercial fit-out and contract furniture. That includes teams delivering bespoke artworks and installations, office, hospitality and retail fit-outs, and furniture procurement and installation. The strongest fit is a business managing several live projects, where people spend significant time checking details and following up commitments.

In these sectors, a small change in a document can have a physical consequence. A finish affects a fabrication brief. A late approval holds up an order. A delivery needs to arrive when the site is ready. We care about those connections because they shape the quality of the finished work, as well as its cost and timing.

The aim is to give your team more time for design, clients and delivery. An agent can take on agreed checking and preparation work while people retain responsibility for creative, technical and commercial decisions. It still needs an owner who understands the project and can judge when an issue needs attention.

A general chat tool usually responds to the information and questions you give it. We build around a recurring job, with agreed records, checks, outputs and review points. The value comes from making that job useful within your existing way of working, so the team can use the result without repeatedly assembling the same background information.

Fi is our proposed Production Coordinator for bespoke artworks, installations and creative production. A first role might be tracing an approved material or finish change through the production brief, supplier quotation and installation information. Fi would prepare a change summary, link to the records and flag missing responses for the producer or project manager to review.

Marco is our proposed Project Coordinator for office, hospitality and retail fit-outs. A useful starting job could be checking overdue design approvals against procurement dates and recorded site activities. Marco would show the outstanding decision, its owner and any recorded delivery or cost risk. Your project manager confirms the impact and agrees what happens next.

Clay is our proposed Procurement Coordinator. A first workflow could compare a supplier confirmation with an approved purchase order, checking product codes, finishes, quantities, prices and delivery dates. If a finish differs or a delivery commitment is missing, Clay would prepare a clear discrepancy list and a draft supplier query for your team.

They are proposed roles that make the different specialisms easier to understand. The actual agent is shaped around your team, its records and the job you need done. The names and portraits represent AI characters. Their profiles describe intended responsibilities, rather than human employees or a claim that every capability is available without configuration.

Yes, an agent can be designed to support several projects within its agreed role. That needs clear project identifiers, access rules and priorities so information goes to the right people. We begin with a focused workflow and limited project scope, then review the results before extending it across more live work.

They can be designed to share agreed information and pass work between roles. For example, a procurement issue could feed into a project status update. The responsibilities and handover rules need to be clear, with named human oversight. We would normally establish the value of the first workflow before proposing a wider group of agents.

That depends on its job. It might prepare a list of orders needing attention, a summary of changes, a draft follow-up or a project update with links to the relevant records. We agree where those outputs appear and how often they are needed, so they fit the team’s working day.

Each agent has a named owner, or agreed owners, within your team. For Fi that might be a producer; for Marco, a project manager; for Clay, a procurement lead. That person reviews the work, helps resolve unclear information and decides when an issue needs to go to someone else.

Creative choices, technical approvals, spending, substitutions, production release, programme changes and contractual commitments stay with your authorised people. The brief sets out what the agent may read, prepare or update, and when approval is required. Flagging a possible issue does not give the agent authority to change an order or commit the business.

Our starting model is an agent that reports internally to your team. It can prepare a supplier query or client update for a person to review and send. It does not independently represent your business to customers. Any proposed external sending would need a separate, explicit scope and approval arrangement.

We agree the records that establish approval and the rules for identifying current information. A newer file is not necessarily an approved file. Where the records conflict or approval is unclear, the workflow should bring that uncertainty to the nominated person rather than quietly choosing a version.

The agent should identify the gap or uncertainty and ask for review. We test with incomplete records and changes as well as straightforward examples. AI can still make mistakes, so the workflow includes human checks appropriate to the task. If a problem is found, the team can review the source records and agree a correction before relying on the output.

Some involvement is needed, particularly during testing and the first live work. We aim to make review focused, with clear issues and supporting records. The pilot measures the time spent overseeing and correcting the agent as well as the work it saves. The useful measure is the net benefit to your team.

No. We start with the software and records your team already uses. Depending on the task, the agent may work through approved emails, shared documents, exported records or an available software connection. We agree the practical route during consultation and design, including any extra steps the team would need to take.

Compatibility needs to be checked. Some systems offer suitable connections; others restrict access or require an export, a different licence or supplier involvement. We assess the specific systems and permissions before confirming the scope. If a direct connection is not practical, we can consider a more focused workflow using the information you can provide.

Potential sources include specifications, purchase orders, supplier confirmations, schedules, quotations, approval trackers and approved email correspondence. The formats, clarity and consistency of the files affect what is practical. Drawing references and revisions may also form part of a workflow, but technical interpretation or checking of design safety requires the appropriate qualified person.

No, but we do need to establish which records are reliable and how they relate to each project. During consultation, we look for gaps such as inconsistent order numbers, unclear approvals or inaccessible documents. Any necessary preparation should be included in the scope. Sometimes improving one small part of the record-keeping is the best first step.

Access is agreed around the job. Reading records, preparing drafts and updating a system are separate permissions, and the agent does not need unrestricted access to the business. We define the information it can use, the actions it can take and who approves changes before introducing live work.

Confidentiality requirements form part of the brief. Before live information is connected, the arrangement needs to cover who can access it, which providers process it, where it is stored and how long it is kept. We also need to understand any restrictions in your client or supplier agreements. These details depend on the proposed setup.

That depends on the services and settings chosen for your build, so it should be confirmed explicitly before information is shared. Data use, retention and any model-training permissions need to be checked against the selected providers’ terms and your requirements. The website privacy notice covers enquiries; the arrangements for an agent handling project information need their own agreement.

A focused starting point makes it easier to see whether the agent is useful. We can understand how the job works today, agree a clear output and compare the result. Checking supplier confirmations or following up missing approvals is easier to evaluate than asking an agent to manage an entire project from the outset.

We walk through a recurring task with the people who do it. We look at where time goes, what information is available and what happens when something changes. Together, we decide whether a pilot is suitable and establish a starting measure, such as checking time or the number of unresolved discrepancies.

We define the agent’s role and the boundaries of the work. That includes its sources of information, system connections, outputs, approval points and named owner. We also agree the scope, price and measures of success, so everyone understands what is being built and how it will be assessed.

We develop the agreed workflow and test it with representative project records. Testing includes ordinary cases and examples with revisions, missing information or conflicting details. Your team reviews the output and helps identify where the instructions or checks need to change before the agent is introduced to live work.

We introduce the agent into the agreed working environment, with the necessary access and human oversight. The team is shown how to use and review its output, and how to raise an issue. We review the first live work before considering wider responsibility. Here, install means bringing the agent into your working process.

The timetable depends on the workflow, the systems involved and how readily suitable information can be provided. A focused document-checking task has different requirements from a workflow spanning several systems. We agree the delivery plan once the scope and access requirements are understood, including time for your team to test and review the work.

A person who understands the task, examples of the records involved and a clear description of the desired result. It also helps to see difficult examples, including changes or errors that were hard to resolve. We agree what can be shared and when any IT or software-provider involvement is needed.

The price depends on the role, information, connections and testing required. Scope and price are agreed after consultation, and your proposal sets out what is included and how the pilot relates to any wider build.

The agreed scope covers Consult, Design, Build and Install: understanding the task, defining the role, developing and testing the workflow, and introducing it to the team. The proposal confirms the deliverables, system connections, review points and handover. Any additional work or third-party costs should be identified in that proposal.

There may be costs for support, AI usage, hosting and third-party software or connections, depending on the setup. Support fees are quoted to scope. We set out the relevant allowances and running-cost assumptions in the proposal so you can assess the continuing cost alongside the benefit.

Bronze covers bug fixes and maintenance of the agreed functionality and connections. It suits an established workflow that needs to keep working reliably.

Silver adds an agreed allowance of small changes and improvements, such as refining checks, reports or steps in the existing workflow.

Gold adds agreed capacity for continuing improvements and new builds, including additional agents and workflows that work together. Allowances, response arrangements and development capacity are defined in the proposal; Gold does not mean unlimited development.

We agree a starting point and review the pilot against it. Measures might include time spent checking records, the age of unresolved approvals, discrepancy handling and the quality of project updates. We include the effort needed to oversee the agent and its ongoing costs. That gives you a practical basis for deciding whether to continue or expand.

Time saved can create capacity for better project delivery, more client attention or additional work. For illustration, if eight people each recover two hours a week over 46 working weeks, that creates 736 hours of team capacity a year. The example assumes those hours remain after checking the agent. It is a planning illustration, not a measured Build Agents result or a promise of cash savings.

No fixed saving can be promised before the workflow is understood and tested. The result depends on the volume of work, the quality of the information and how much review is needed. We agree what success would look like for your team and use the pilot to assess whether the benefit justifies the cost.

A promising task happens often, takes measurable time and has a clear result that someone can check. It also needs accessible information and a person who can own the workflow. If the records are too incomplete or the task relies mainly on judgement that cannot be usefully supported, we can discuss a different starting point.

The examples are illustrative workflows using sample information. They show the kind of checking and preparation an agent could support, rather than verified customer outcomes. A client pilot establishes what is practical within that team’s records, systems and way of working.

We review the results against the agreed starting point and discuss what they mean for the team. That may lead to continued use, changes to the workflow, a wider role or a decision not to proceed further. The proposal should set out the pilot end point, review process and any arrangements for ongoing access and support.

Yes, a role can be developed as the business learns what is useful. New responsibilities, connections or projects need to be scoped and tested, with permissions and ownership reviewed. Some changes may fit within the agreed support allowance; larger additions or further agents may require a separate brief.

Ownership, licences and handover arrangements need to be clear in your agreement. An agent may depend on third-party software as well as work built for your business, so these rights can differ. We discuss ongoing access, available exports and what happens to connected information before you commit. The proposal should also explain any continuing costs or limits on transferring the setup.

Tell us about one recurring task that takes time away from your team’s main work. Explain who does it, what information they use and where checking or chasing becomes difficult. Use the contact form on this website, and we can then discuss whether a focused, paid pilot would help.