The work in plain language
Know what must work before you build.
Before you commit to an AI project, find out what will make it work and what could hold it up. We examine the business problem, the data and systems involved, the team using it and the support it will need. You get a practical recommendation: what to start with, what needs fixing first and what is not worth pursuing yet. We prioritise the gaps and identify the people needed to resolve them. The assessment suits companies considering a meaningful investment, without committing you to a build or reducing the decision to an online score.
What this can change for your team
- A better investment decision before development begins
- Fewer expensive surprises about data and access
- A practical first project with the right preparation
01 / 04AI readiness
Start with the decision you need to make
We focus the assessment on a business opportunity worth investigating. You get a clear question to answer before committing budget, rather than a broad score with no obvious next step.
How we make this work
The assessment answers whether a proposed workflow can be tested responsibly; it does not award the whole company a maturity label. Paloren starts with the business problem, current process and the person who owns the outcome, then examines what the work requires from data, systems, people and approvals. You may be ready for an internal drafting trial while unprepared for automated customer actions. Those are different decisions. We record evidence for each dependency and distinguish a missing fact from a confirmed weakness, so the next investment decision is clearer, including when waiting is right.
- Named workflow and accountable business owner
- Evidence-based dependency assessment
- Separate decisions for different levels of responsibility
Twelve questions. No spreadsheet required.
Answer honestly; nobody is grading you but the model, and it has seen worse. The score updates as you go.
Your band appears here
02 / 04AI readiness
Find the obstacles while they are cheaper to fix
We check the information, systems and access the proposed work depends on. Gaps become visible preparation tasks instead of surprises after development has started.
How we make this work
Readiness depends on the information a workflow needs and whether intended users may access it. We review representative samples, source ownership, definitions, freshness and known quality problems, then identify relevant systems, integration points and the people who can confirm technical constraints. Read-only access or sanitised exports may be enough for the agreed checks; credentials do not belong in an initial enquiry. The aim is not to copy every record into a new platform. It is to find the smallest usable information set and the conditions for a meaningful test without hidden maintenance obligations.
- Representative source and quality review
- User-to-source access requirements
- Integration dependencies confirmed with system owners
03 / 04AI readiness
Make sure the business can use the result
We involve the people who will use, review and support the workflow. That exposes practical constraints a technology-only assessment can miss.
How we make this work
An assessment is incomplete if it checks software but ignores who will use and maintain the result. We examine current skills, review responsibilities, policy questions and the capacity to support a trial. A proposed assistant may require a content owner, a process reviewer and someone to handle technical incidents. Those roles can be combined in a smaller business, but they still need to exist. The assessment identifies sensitive actions and situations requiring specialist review without presenting itself as a legal opinion or security certification. Staff interviews and process walkthroughs help distinguish a training need from a workflow problem or an unresolved ownership decision.
- Skills and reviewer capacity check
- Sensitive-action and escalation inventory
- Operating roles matched to available staff
04 / 04AI readiness
Leave knowing what to do next
We bring the evidence into a practical recommendation: proceed, investigate further or wait. You can see the work required and the conditions a first project needs to meet.
How we make this work
You receive a prioritised gap register and a recommendation for what to test, fix or defer. Each material gap has evidence, an owner and a proposed resolution. A candidate pilot includes boundaries, criteria, required access and the assumptions behind estimated effort. Where uncertainty remains high, a short technical investigation may be the next step rather than a build. We review findings with business and technical owners so disagreements are visible before procurement. The assessment does not guarantee success or oblige you to buy delivery; its value is a decision you can explain.
- Prioritised gap register with owners
- Pilot outline and acceptance criteria
- Proceed, investigate, remediate or defer recommendation
What you take forward
What you get
Workflow and objective brief
Source and access inventory
Readiness evidence register
Prioritised gaps with owners
Pilot acceptance outline
Decision review session
- 01
Frame the decision
Name the workflow, problem, owner and intended outcome.
- 02
Collect evidence
Review agreed samples, systems, access, skills and operating constraints.
- 03
Prioritise dependencies
Separate confirmed gaps from unknowns and assign responsible owners.
- 04
Review the recommendation
Agree what to test, investigate, fix or defer before implementation.
| Stage | What it changes |
|---|---|
| Frame the decision | Name the workflow, problem, owner and intended outcome. |
| Collect evidence | Review agreed samples, systems, access, skills and operating constraints. |
| Prioritise dependencies | Separate confirmed gaps from unknowns and assign responsible owners. |
| Review the recommendation | Agree what to test, investigate, fix or defer before implementation. |
The next move
Which workflow has the strongest case and the least certain foundations?
Tell Paloren what you are considering. Reply from the team within one business day. No deck, no technical brief needed.
- First reply
- From the team, within one business day.
- What to bring
- The problem, the systems involved and what should work better.
- What happens next
- Paloren turns it into a working brief. The team reviews it.
Before we begin
Questions we get asked, answered with numbers
How is this different from an AI strategy engagement?
Readiness examines whether a defined opportunity has the foundations to proceed, typically 2 to 3 weeks. Strategy compares opportunities across the organisation and sets broader direction over 3 to 4 weeks. The two can connect, but an assessment should not become an open-ended strategy project unless the scope explicitly includes that wider decision.
Can you assess a small business?
Yes. We run assessments for teams of any size where there is a real implementation decision, viable budget and someone able to act on the findings. A narrow workflow review may be more appropriate than a broad assessment. If the need is learning an approved tool, training from USD 3,500 per cohort can be the better starting point.
What information do you need?
Start with the workflow, systems involved, intended users and known obstacles. During scoping we agree interviews, representative samples and any read-only access needed. Do not send credentials or confidential records with the initial enquiry. The evidence collection runs 2 to 3 weeks and should be proportionate to the decision.
Will we receive an implementation price?
Yes. When the assessment identifies the right first project, we estimate it. First implementations typically run USD 25k to 100k over 2 to 10 weeks depending on scope, complexity and what needs resolving first. A committed proposal still needs an agreed scope, assumptions, exclusions and acceptance criteria. Unknown integrations or unresolved access can prevent a reliable quote until further investigation is complete.
Which workflow has the strongest case and the least certain foundations?
