8 weeks · ¥45,000
Systems Connection Work
Builds the path between your existing core system and newer applications, so data moves between them without anyone copying it by hand.
Learn about this service →
Service 03 · Six weeks · ¥36,000
The report arrives.
No one had to assemble it.
Recurring reports drawn directly from your source systems, matching the layout your organisation already uses. The effort that went into monthly assembly is redirected — the figures are simply there.
What this delivers
Reports that produce themselves, on the schedule you set
Once this work is complete, the recurring reports your organisation currently assembles by hand will be generated automatically — drawn from the same source systems that already hold the data, formatted to match the layout your team already knows.
The person who previously spent the first days of each month pulling figures from multiple places and compiling them into a spreadsheet or document will find that work already done. The time reclaimed is consistent, month after month.
Definition disagreements between departments — where the same figure is calculated differently in different parts of the organisation — are resolved in writing before automation is built. That agreement becomes part of the documentation.
Practical outcomes
-
Recurring reports produced automatically from source systems
-
Layout matching your existing report format
-
Written definitions agreed with each department
-
Parallel running until automated figures match the manual version
-
Staff trained to adjust the report independently after handover
Duration
Six weeks
Including definition agreement, build, and parallel validation
The situation this addresses
Monthly assembly is careful work that adds errors while consuming time
Most organisations have at least one recurring report that someone assembles manually each month. It draws from a few different systems, pulls figures into a spreadsheet, applies calculations that live in someone's head or in an undocumented formula, and produces an output that goes to management or to a client.
The person who does this work does it carefully. But the process introduces risk at every transfer point — a figure copied from the wrong column, a month's data included twice, a formula that stopped working after a system update. These errors are not careless; they are a property of assembling information by hand from multiple sources under time pressure.
There is also a quieter problem: the knowledge of how the report works — which figure comes from which system, how a particular line is calculated — often lives with one person. If that person is unavailable when the report is due, the process stalls.
This service suits you if
You produce a recurring report — monthly, weekly, or quarterly — that takes meaningful staff time to assemble
The data for the report exists in systems you already operate
The report's structure is relatively stable from period to period
You'd like to understand exactly how each figure is calculated, in writing
Our approach
Definition first, then automation — in that order
Before we touch any system, we sit with the departments that use the report and work through what each figure means. This step almost always surfaces something: two departments that calculate a shared metric differently, or a line item that no one is quite sure how to interpret. We work through those disagreements until every figure has a written definition that the relevant people have agreed on.
The automation is then built to those agreed definitions. It draws from your existing source systems and produces output that matches the layout your organisation already uses — so recipients see a familiar report, produced without anyone having assembled it.
During the validation period, both versions run in parallel. The automated report and the manually assembled one are compared side by side. Differences are investigated and resolved. Handover happens when the figures match consistently.
Scope — what this covers
| Component | Included | Client-led |
|---|---|---|
| Source identification | ||
| Definition agreement | ||
| Layout matching | ||
| Parallel running | ||
| Staff training | ||
| Source system access | ||
| Ongoing changes to report scope |
We handle this
You retain ownership
Working together
What the six weeks look like
Week 1
Source mapping
We review the current report with the person who assembles it, trace each figure back to its source, and document what we find. This often surfaces undocumented logic that lives in memory rather than in any system.
Weeks 2–3
Definition agreement
We work through each figure with the relevant departments, resolving any disagreements about calculation method or source. Agreed definitions are written down and signed off before build begins.
Week 4
Build
The automated version is built to the agreed definitions and configured to match your existing report layout. The output should be recognisable to anyone who currently uses the report.
Weeks 5–6
Parallel running and handover
Both versions run for at least one full reporting cycle. Figures are compared line by line. Once they match, staff are trained and operating responsibility transfers to your team.
Pricing
Six weeks, one price, no moving parts
This service is priced at ¥36,000 for the full engagement — source mapping, definition agreement, build, parallel running, and handover. The price is agreed before the project begins and does not change as long as the scope stays as defined.
This service covers one report — or a small set of reports where the sources and definitions overlap significantly. If your situation involves several unrelated reports, we'd discuss that during the initial conversation and scope accordingly.
If the six-week timeline crosses a month boundary, the parallel running period will naturally include a full reporting cycle — which we consider the minimum for a valid comparison. We plan the start date with this in mind.
Investment
¥36,000
Fixed price · Six weeks
Included in this engagement
Source identification and current process documentation
Written definitions agreed with each department
Report built to match existing layout
Parallel running until figures match consistently
Staff training on adjusting the report independently
How we measure results
The automated report must match the manual one, line by line
The measure of success for this service is straightforward: the automated report and the manually assembled one, run against the same period, produce the same figures. We don't consider the project ready for handover until that condition is met.
Where they differ, we investigate — and usually find either a calculation difference that the definition agreement hadn't fully captured, or a source data issue that was also present in the manual version but not previously visible. Both are worth finding.
The validation standard
Automated and manual versions compared for at least one full reporting cycle before handover proceeds
What the definitions document provides
A written record of how each figure is calculated — so the report can be understood and adjusted by any staff member, not just the person who assembled it before
Realistic expectation
This service covers one report or a small set with shared sources. Multiple unrelated reports would be scoped separately
Our commitment
Parallel running runs until the figures agree
We don't hand over an automated report that produces different figures from the manual version and call the differences acceptable. The parallel period is designed to find disagreements and resolve them, not to note them and move on.
If a difference turns out to be a problem with the source data rather than with the automation — figures that were already incorrect in the manual version, for instance — we'll explain that clearly and work with you on what to do about it. Finding that is part of the value of the parallel period.
The definitions document and staff training mean the report is not dependent on our continued involvement after handover. Your team can adjust the report themselves, and the written definitions mean they understand the basis for every figure.
What you can expect from us
Definitions agreed before any automation is built
We resolve definitional disagreements at the source, not by making an arbitrary choice
Parallel running until figures match
The automation is validated against the manual version — differences are investigated, not accepted
Layout matched to what your team already knows
Recipients see a familiar report — the change is in how it's produced, not in what it looks like
Your team able to adjust the report independently
The definitions document and training mean no single person's absence can stop the report from running
How to get started
A straightforward path from here
Step 01
Write to us
Tell us which report you have in mind, how often it runs, and roughly where the data comes from. A brief description is enough to start the conversation.
Step 02
Initial conversation
We'll discuss the report, its sources, and the departments involved. This helps us understand whether the scope fits this service and what the definition agreement phase would need to cover.
Step 03
Scope document
If we agree to proceed, we produce a written scope before work begins. This names the report, its sources, the departments involved, and the planned parallel running period.
We reply to all enquiries within two working days. You can also call us at +81 422-47-3186.
Get in touch
Tell us about your recurring report
Describe the report, where the data comes from, and what the assembly process currently looks like. We'll reply within two working days.
Other services
12 weeks · ¥43,000
Quality Inspection Support
Adds image-based checking alongside your existing inspection process — not replacing it. Sample collection, threshold setting, and a full trial period included.
Learn about this service →