95%
of enterprise generative-AI pilots delivered no measurable impact on profit and loss. The failure was workflow integration and governance, not model quality.
Glasgow · Build, embed, measure
An agent should finish the work. Inside the tools you already use.
Revli is a Glasgow practice. We put an agent inside a process you already run, a person approves the steps that matter, and we report whether the hours moved.
Engagements · 3
Why the licences are not the job
Buying a model is easy, and nearly everyone has done it. An agent that only chats, and never touches the systems the work lives in, does not change the hours. The published record is blunt about how often the pilot stops there.
The models are not the bottleneck. Fitting the agent to the workflow, keeping a person on the decisions that matter, and measuring what changed — that is the work.
31%
of UK businesses report positive return on their AI spend — which means most buyers you meet have already been disappointed once.
21–55%
individual throughput gain from AI assistance, alongside a decline in delivery stability where the workflow around the tool is weak.
40%+
of agentic AI projects are forecast to be cancelled by 2027, on escalating cost, unclear return, and thin risk controls.
What we do
Three ways in. Each one starts from a process you already run, and each one is scoped to a number agreed before any agent is switched on.
01Flow audit
Two weeks · fixed scope
Where the hours go, whether the process is consistent enough for an agent, and which single workflow is worth changing. For a smaller firm that is often intake, scheduling, quoting, or invoicing.
- Shadow the work as it is actually done
- A baseline on the highest-volume process
- The tools staff already use, sanctioned or not
- A written recommendation — including “not yet” when the process is not ready
02Embed one workflow
Fixed scope · agreed in writing
One agent, inside the systems the team already uses, aimed at one number decided before the build starts. It carries out the steps. A person still approves anything hard to undo.
- Designed with the people whose work it changes
- Connected through the APIs or MCP those systems already expose
- A custom tool only where the software you have cannot do the job
- Access, an audit trail, and a named approver for the high-stakes step
03Keep it running
Monthly
Once it is in the working day, the metric stays watched. We tune the agent as the tools and the work change. The next workflow starts only after this one is holding.
- A review of the agreed number against the baseline
- Connections and approval rules kept current
- Support inside business hours when it misbehaves
- The next workflow proposed only once this one has earned it
Ways to work together
Most relationships start with the audit, because the rest cannot be priced honestly until the baseline exists. We quote once the scope is clear.
Audit
Two weeks, fixed
A baseline, a shortlist, and a recommendation you can act on without us. If the process is not ready for an agent, that is the finding.
Build
Fixed scope
One workflow, taken into the working day and measured at both ends. Scope is agreed in writing before we start and does not move without a written change.
Run
Monthly, rolling
A regular review against the baseline, the agent kept current, and the next piece of work only after this one holds.
What we will show you
We run our own delivery through the same kind of governed pipeline we install for clients. The first client result we publish will be a before-and-after on a metric agreed at the start. Until that number exists, we will not invent one.
Questions
Licences are the cheap part and the part that rarely fails. What usually fails is the work around them: a process consistent enough to hand to an agent, a connection into the tools the team already uses, a person who approves the serious steps, and a way to tell whether it helped. That gap is the engagement.
A time-and-motion baseline on the specific workflow, taken before we build anything. We agree the metric and the target in writing at the start, so neither of us can move the goalposts later.
Then we write that down and you have saved a year of pilot budget. It is a real outcome of the audit. A practice that cannot return that answer is not measuring anything.
We scope against administrative time, and we design with the people whose work changes. What you do with the hours released is your decision. We will not dress that up as a headcount saving in a business case.
Yes, and we would rather they were in the room in week one than reviewing something finished in week six. Data flows, retention, and access are part of the design, and we produce the documentation those teams need to sign off.
You do. Full transfer of the configuration, the prompts, and the documentation on final payment. We write the handover on the assumption you will eventually run this without us.
No. A chatbot answers questions. We build an agent that carries out a defined workflow in the systems you already use, and stops for a person when the action is hard to undo.
Usually not. We connect to the email, CRM, files, and other tools you already run, through their APIs or MCP where that is how the tool expects to be connected. A bespoke internal tool is for the gap those systems do not cover, not a new platform for its own sake.
Most of the useful work is ordinary: intake, scheduling, quoting, invoicing, and the admin around them. We start by checking the process is consistent enough. If it is not, the audit says so, and you have not bought a pilot.
Tell us which process should run with an agent
We reply within one working day. Describe the work, and we will say whether an audit is the right next step — including when it is not.
- contact@revli.co.uk
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
We typically respond within 24 hours and can give a ballpark estimate after a 30-minute discovery call.
Anna · Founder, Revli Limited