The same record lives in three systems
Sales holds one version, finance holds another, and the spreadsheet somebody maintains holds a third.
Every report starts with an argument about which number is right.Process mapping and roadmap
You receive a map of how the work flows today, the systems and data behind it, every gap traced to its cause and ranked by what it costs, a design for what it should look like instead, and a sequence for what to fix first.
Why mapping gets skipped, and what it costs
The solution usually arrives before the problem has been mapped, so the scope is set against what somebody assumed. These six are the patterns that come up most often across the engagements we have run.
Sales holds one version, finance holds another, and the spreadsheet somebody maintains holds a third.
Every report starts with an argument about which number is right.Enquiries come through a form, an inbox, a phone and a direct message, and each route ends somewhere different.
Work you already paid to generate goes cold.The documented version stopped matching reality years ago, and the current version is known by two people.
One resignation takes the process with it.Somebody exports from two systems, pastes into a spreadsheet, and reconciles the difference before anyone can read it.
Days of senior time, for a number that arrives too late to act on.Licences accumulate and overlap, and stay on the card after the person who chose them has gone.
Spend you cannot defend, on software half the team does not open.Marketing has one, operations has another, finance has a third. Each was costed on its own merits and none against the others.
The loudest team sets the order, not the business case.Three routes
The map is the same discipline every time: how the work runs, what it runs on, where it breaks, and what it should look like instead. Which route it takes follows what you are trying to fix, and it is agreed on the discovery call rather than assumed.
For Systems that do not talk to each other, work handed between people by email, data in three places, reporting rebuilt by hand, no single system of record.
You receive A map of how the work flows today, an inventory of the systems and data behind it, every gap traced to its cause and ranked by what it costs, a future-state design, and the order to build it in.
For AI already in informal use, a board asking where AI fits, or several AI proposals with no agreed order.
You receive Everything in the digital adoption route, plus a readiness score across seven areas, every AI opportunity marked on the map rather than listed apart from it, each one ranked against money the business already counts, and the governance risks that would stop a build.
For Most organizations, because the systems have to hold before AI has anything clean to run on.
You receive Both sets of outputs in one roadmap, sequenced so the foundation work and the AI work do not compete for the same people in the same quarter.
The route is a finding, not a preference. If the evidence says the systems have to be fixed before anything runs on top of them, that is what the roadmap says, whether or not AI was the reason you called.
What you receive
Each one is a document or a map you keep, use in the next engagement, and hand to a vendor who is not us. Seven are produced on every engagement. Five more are added when the AI route runs, and those are marked below.
Price and duration
The band is the same whichever route the engagement takes. Where you land follows the number of processes in scope and how many people have to be interviewed to map them, and it is scoped before the work starts.
Snapshot
$2,000 to $3,000
About 2 weeks
One priority workflow, mapped and costed. Take this when a decision has to be made before a deeper engagement can be justified.
Blueprint
$3,500 to $5,000
About 4 weeks
The full engagement across multiple workflows. Take this when the next step is a build and you need evidence to scope it.
Build-Ready
$5,500 to $7,500
About 6 weeks
The engagement plus the specification. Take this when a build is already likely and you want it to start without a second discovery.
Canadian small and medium businesses have used federal digital adoption funding to cover this work. Two of the engagements below were funded that way. We will tell you on the call whether you are likely to qualify.
Proof
A legal operations practice and a specialty food manufacturer. Different sectors, same starting point: nobody had written down how the work ran. Both ended with a plan another implementer could pick up.
A legal operations practice needed to know which parts of its filing and client intake work could be modernized, and in what order.
Every department was interviewed before a single system was recommended. The plan that came out of it was approved and funded.
Understand it first
How a software stack grew by accident, which tools stopped earning their place, and what a CRM implementation has to cover before anyone scopes the work.
Fit
Mapping is worth buying when a decision is waiting on evidence. If the left column describes where you are, start here. If the right one does, each line names the engagement that fits better.
After the map
The engagement ends at a decision point. Which of these you take depends on what the map and the gap analysis turn up, and it is written into the decision brief rather than left for you to work out.
Questions
They cover whether mapping comes before software, how long it takes, who has to be in the room, and what you walk away with.
When the software has to match how the work runs, yes. The map sets the scope the build has to meet. Organizations that pick the tool first usually end up with a capable platform configured to a vendor demo, and a team back on the spreadsheet inside a quarter.
Two to six weeks, depending on depth. A single process at the lightest depth is closer to two weeks. Several functions, or a route that includes AI readiness scoring, sits at the longer end.
A leadership sponsor who can clear access and decide, plus the people who actually run the process. The map is confirmed by the people who do the work before it is released.
A current-state process map, systems and data inventory, pain points with root causes, future-state design, gap analysis, sequenced roadmap, and an executive decision brief. The AI route adds a readiness scorecard, opportunity map, value map and risk heatmap on top of those.
Yes. The Design outputs are written to be executed by whoever is executing them. Several clients have taken the roadmap and built it in-house or with another partner. Begine Fusion can also build what the map recommends through Systems Build, FusionBuild or the AI Operating System.
The engagement ends at a decision point written into the decision brief: build, govern, train, deploy, or wait. Common next steps are Systems Build, FusionBuild, FusionGuard, AI Systems Mastery, Managed Operations or Growth Marketing, depending on what the map turns up.
Thirty minutes on a call tells us which route fits what you are trying to fix, and which depth the decision in front of you needs.