A process may be slow because information is missing. A report may be ignored because nobody owns the decision. An AI tool may fail because the business rules were never agreed. We begin underneath the technology: the problem, the process, the information, the ownership and the way success will be measured.
What we hear most often
None of those start out as AI problems. They are questions about work, information and ownership — and that is where a useful answer starts too.
Something from the Baltic identity. Not a robot, brain or humanoid figure.
Sometimes the fastest improvement is a better process, trusted data or proper use of a system you already pay for.
The five questions underneath every engagement
What are we actually trying to improve?
How does the work really happen, including exceptions and workarounds?
Is the data and context good enough for this particular purpose?
Who remains responsible when the technology gets it wrong?
How will we know the work is actually better?
We sit with the people doing the work, map how it really happens, review the systems and information underneath it, and prioritise the opportunities by value, effort and risk.
Explore ConsultWe design and deliver practical data, systems, automation and AI work. That may be a connected workflow, a reporting product, an internal assistant or a better way to use the platform you already own.
Explore BuildWe document, hand over and support what we build. Where there is a genuine skills need, Baltic's training and apprenticeship capability can help your people learn on the real systems and problems inside your organisation.
Explore SustainStart small enough to finish. Use what you already own before adding a platform. Never call a prototype a supported service.
Groundwork is an interactive workshop for leaders and managers who want to understand what AI and automation could mean for their organisation without being pushed towards a fashionable solution. It combines practical examples, honest discussion of risk and structured activities that help the room identify where work could genuinely improve.
Which of these you need depends on the problem, not on what we would prefer to sell. Most engagements draw on two or three.
Approvals, reminders and routing. Repeated document and email workflows. Data moved between systems by something other than a person.
CRM configuration and workflow improvement, follow-up and pipeline alerts, call information into the CRM, and data-completeness checks that hold.
Metric and definition design, dashboards and reporting packs, scheduled pipelines, threshold alerts and commentary someone will actually act on.
Calls, documents, emails and feedback summarised, classified and searched at a scale nobody could manage by hand — with human review where it matters.
Power Automate, SharePoint, Outlook, Teams and Excel processes. API integrations, webhook handlers, scheduled services and small internal tools built around one clear business problem.
We are new as a consultancy, and we are not going to borrow somebody else's case study. What we do have is several years of doing this inside a live organisation, with the assumptions written down so you can judge them yourself.
The figures below are modelled from internal data. They describe capacity released rather than audited cash savings, and we are happy to show the workings.
Our storyFinding a suitable local candidate, checking travel distance, reading a CV, pulling out the relevant points and writing them into a customer email. We connected candidate data, a public postcode source, AI-assisted CV analysis, Salesforce and Salesloft so that most of the preparation now happens automatically.
Modelled from internal volumes and salary assumptions. Not an audited cash saving.
Coaches used to create training events, emails and individual calendar invitations by hand for every cohort. A connected workflow now takes the dates the coach enters once and handles the downstream administration from there.
Based on eight hours per cohort, across roughly 60 coaches and three cohorts a year.
Retention analysis, early-risk measures, salary analysis, employer segmentation, caseload management and learner-risk reporting, built so the business could see where intervention was needed rather than guess.
Data was one contributor among several. We do not claim it caused the improvement on its own — a dashboard changes nothing without a process behind it.
We redesigned parts of our prospecting data and workflow across ZoomInfo, Salesforce, Salesloft and Tableau. The clearest measured outcome was email deliverability.
The wider change also met adoption and operating-model problems, and was paused. That lesson shaped how we handle handover now.
We do both. The best solution is the least complex system that reliably produces the outcome you need — and more often than people expect, that is rules rather than a model.
Cheaper, quicker and identical every time. A great deal of lost capacity lives here.
Genuinely powerful on the right job. An expensive way to do what a rule could have done on the wrong one.
Usually somewhere between ten and a few hundred people. Enough volume that manual work and poor information carry a genuine cost, and not enough slack to go and investigate it properly.
No sales waffle. If we are not the right fit, we will say so in the first conversation.
All questionsAI is one of the tools we use, not the answer we start with. We work across process, data, systems, automation and AI. The right intervention depends on the problem.
We ask what the organisation is trying to improve, where time or quality is being lost, who experiences the problem and what systems or information are involved. If we are not the right fit, we will say so.
No. Understanding the condition, meaning and ownership of your information may be part of the work. We will be honest if the data foundations need attention before a build makes sense.
Where the opportunity is clear, measurable and within our capability, yes. We use a staged model, so a diagnostic does not automatically commit either side to a large build.
No. The consultancy work stands on its own. If it reveals a genuine long-term skills need, we can explore whether a Baltic development pathway is relevant — but that is a separate conversation, and entirely optional.
You do not need a finished brief or a preferred technology. Tell us what is slow, repeated, difficult to trust or harder than it should be. We will arrange a short conversation and tell you whether we think there is a useful next step.