Operations systems, enquiry to paid invoice
Reading what came in. Working out what the job actually is. Chasing the missing detail. Pricing it. Following it up. Booking it. Invoicing it. Chasing the money. None of it is billable, and all of it has to happen before anyone gets paid. This is what happened when one contractor stopped doing it by hand.
The problem
A licensed electrical contractor. Around seven staff. Service and renovation work, not new construction.
The owner priced every job himself. Enquiries arrived by phone, text and email, and somebody had to read each one, work out what the job was, chase the customer for what was missing, price it, send it, follow it up, book a technician, invoice it, then chase the payment.
The usual fix is to hire a coordinator, at somewhere between fifty and sixty-five thousand a year. That works until the volume grows again, and then it is two coordinators.
The build
A system that runs the path from first contact to paid invoice, and involves a person only where judgment is genuinely required.
Around all of it: follow-up on unapproved quotes, review requests after completion, and an error catcher that reports the moment any step fails.
Scale
The hard part
Any developer can connect a form to a calendar. The reason this took a year is that the quote has to be right, and in a licensed trade right is a legal question, not a commercial one.
So the regulatory basis was rebuilt from primary sources: the licensing board, the trade corporation, the workplace safety regulator, the utility, and the electrical code itself. Every rule verified against the actual source, with the date it takes effect recorded, because two editions of the code were simultaneously valid during the transition.
Three things surfaced that had nothing to do with software, and every one of them was costing money before anyone went looking.
The catalogue charged customers for a per-job permit that is not a real thing in that province. It was being billed on six service types. Removed.
The catalogue only ever offered the expensive compliant path where the code allows a cheaper one. Every one of those quotes was too high, and every competitive bid against them was being lost on price for no reason.
On one high-demand service, the standard approach was to quote a large upgrade. The code permits a device costing a fraction of that in most cases. Quoting the upgrade first was losing the work.
None of that is visible from the outside. It came out of encoding the rules properly and then checking what the pricing engine actually did with them.
Your trade
The trade differs. The shape is identical, and in inspection work it is harder, because the volume is set by legislation rather than by demand:
The work underneath is the same work: read what came in, decide what it is, price it correctly, put the right technician in front of it, invoice it, get paid. The rules constraining the quote are different rules, and encoding them properly is roughly a two-week exercise once the rest exists.
Limits
This is a live system running a real business, so it is still being worked on. Parts of the money layer are being hardened now. And it is one contractor's system, shaped around how that contractor actually works, rather than packaged for resale.
That is the point. A package would not have caught the permit fee.
Engagement
Not with a build.
It starts with a free half hour, where you walk through how a job travels through your business today and we tell you whether there is anything worth doing.
If there is, the next step is a $500 diagnostic: one week finding where the work actually stalls and what each stall costs over a year, ending in a scope document and a phase plan. It comes off the build if you go ahead, and you keep the document either way.
Phases are quoted after that, and approved one at a time, sequenced so the parts that pay for themselves land first.
Contact
If any of this looks like your business, tell me how a job travels through it today. A whiteboard is a perfectly valid answer.