The AI agent for service firms: an up-to-date CRM, time given back to selling

Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· A time-and-materials engagement has passed its purchase order ceiling by 18%. 32 days booked against 27 ordered, and the work continues.
· A framework agreement renews in 14 days on 2022 rates. Yours have been revised twice since.
· A consultant is assigned to two engagements on the same days in the week of 17/08, at two different clients.
· Four accounts have had no contact for more than five months, including your second-largest by revenue. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · amount and deadline
⛓ Source · purchase orders, time records, framework agreements, resourcing plan, CRM

Yes, and here is the good news: the five days over are documented.
What I reconstructed: the purchase order covers 27 days. 32 have been booked by two consultants. The five extra days match three client requests, all in writing: two emails from their project director and a steering committee minute they approved.
What is missing, and it is worth five days: no variation was ever requested. The five days are real, the request is written, and nothing covers them contractually.
The variation request is ready, with the three documents, the dates recalled and the amount computed at the purchase order's rate. Sent today it covers days already delivered and evidenced; sent at closure it covers a surprise invoice — and that is the whole difference between a regularisation and a dispute.
What is left to negotiate, and it is yours: sending it. A variation is negotiated with a person across the table, it commits the firm to an amount and a date, and it carries a signature. You read it, you choose the moment — every day of waiting makes the document harder to defend. ceiling-overrun_variation-ready.pdf5 days · 3 written requests
⛓ Source · purchase order, time records, 3 written client requests

I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: your purchase orders against time booked, your framework agreements and their rates, the resourcing plan, and the date of last contact on each account. A ceiling crossed, a renewal approaching, two engagements overlapping, an account going quiet — I say so, I do not wait to be asked.
Routing follows your organisation: the overrun to the engagement director and the account partner, because a variation is negotiated by two; the renewal to the partner; the overlap to resourcing, with both clients named; the quiet accounts to their lead partner.
With a chase: 24 h on the overrun and the overlap — one grows daily, the other has a date; 72 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary: by account, never by consultant.

And I do not stop at the flag: all four files are built. The variation is drafted with its three documents and its amount; the renewal comes back with the framework agreement's rate card and the gap between the contractual rate and the average rate actually invoiced; the overlap arrives with two possible re-plans, each costed in days moved; the quiet accounts with the date and subject of the last exchange. That is half a partner-day handed back every week.
What is left to you, and what justifies it: sending a variation, invoicing, changing a resourcing plan, contacting a client. All four commit the firm towards a third party or towards a consultant — that is what makes them enforceable, and why they carry a name.
And I read what you have opened to me: an agreement made verbally at the client is invisible to me, and saying so is more use than keeping quiet about it. Every access is logged and withdrawable on a word.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds

63 requests and files pending, gone through one by one: qualification first, prioritisation second, and it is explicit.
Qualification sorts each file by what it calls for, not by the inbox it came from: 21 quotes to draw up or chase, 17 requests for information, 14 engagement files waiting on a document from the client, 8 complaints, 3 framework agreements to renew.
Prioritisation applies three criteria, and you see the arithmetic: the amount at stake, the deadline running, the age of the request. Every file carries its rank and the sentence that explains it — "2nd: €46,000, answer due in 4 days, waiting 9 days". A rank with no reason cannot be challenged, so it never gets corrected.
What order of arrival was costing you, measured over the last quarter: the 21 quotes are worth €214,000, and the 5 largest — €118,000 between them — sat at ranks 12 to 19 in the pile, behind ten-minute information requests.
What I propose and you alone decide: the 17 information requests go out today, because they cost ten minutes each and clear the pile; the 3 framework renewals go ahead of the quotes, because a framework not renewed closes the door on the quotes that follow.
One weighting got it wrong, and I am publishing it: my first version put age ahead of deadline. Three quotes due in 5 days ended up at rank 4, and two were submitted late. Deadline now comes ahead of age as soon as it is under 7 days; over the following six weeks, nothing submitted late across 38 deadlines.
✎ Framework · qualification by nature, prioritisation on three stated criteria