I work on how work actually gets done inside a company.
I have spent my working life in operations and product, in the gap between how a company says it runs and how it actually runs. Right now I am building software that closes that gap by asking the people doing the work — and that keeps a record of who said what, because that is the part every process document throws away and then cannot get back.
Now
ProcessOre
An AI that interviews the people who do the work and turns their answers into a map of how a team actually operates — then says, in order, what to delete, what to fix and what is finally safe to automate. Every finding carries the sentence a person said it in. It is being built now; there is no customer yet.
Bercilak
A memory app you talk to. You send it a thought — typed or spoken, from wherever you already are — and it keeps it somewhere you can actually find it again.
Positions
Six things I will defend, and argue with anyone about.
Most AI programmes stall long before the model is the problem.
The blocker is almost never capability. It is that nobody in the building can say which work is worth pointing it at — and the people who could say are three levels down and were never asked.
A description of how work happens is worthless without the person who gave it.
Every statement about a process came from someone, on a day, in a sentence. Systems that record only the conclusion cannot be repaired when they go stale — they can only be redone, which is why they never are.
Deleting work beats automating it, and it is the step everybody skips.
Automating a step that should not exist makes the wrong thing permanent, faster, and much harder to argue with afterwards. The order is delete, then fix, then automate — and the first one is free.
A recommendation to delete something should be a hypothesis, not a verdict.
Say what you found, name who said it, and name the check. The approval nobody can recall ever rejecting anything is sometimes a control that somebody gets audited on, and finding that out afterwards is the expensive way.
The people doing the work already know where it breaks. They are just never asked properly.
They are asked in a workshop, in a room, in front of their manager, where the honest answer is a career risk and the safe answer is the one on the org chart. Ask them privately, in writing, in their own time, and you get a different set of facts.
“We just handle it case by case” is a finding, not a gap.
A map that says nobody could establish who owns a step is worth more than one that guesses. The guess reads as completeness and is the thing that quietly makes the whole document untrustworthy.
Writing
Nothing here yet on the question above. There are 2 older pieces written for a different audience — they are still up, and they are not the argument.
Contact
If you are trying to work out what in your company is worth automating and cannot get a straight answer out of the org chart, write to me. I read everything.
mj@marijusjankauskas.com