A.I. that makes your accounting firm lighter.

Plenty of firms think so, and sometimes they're right. A full programme only pays off above a certain volume. That's why you can also start with a single piece. An anti-money-laundering report saves you two hours, so it pays off from the very first file. The onboarding flow runs today at firms from 10 to 200 people.

We simply do the maths for you. For the onboarding flow, for instance: from roughly 31 new clients a year you've earned the investment back. If you're below that, we'll tell you.

A fair question, and we get it often. Our answer: we don't build a second anti-money-laundering module or a second planning tool. We make sure your whole process hangs together, across packages. If your software has a strong module of its own, that's good news. Then our agent doesn't need to sit in between and we avoid double costs.

You also only pay for the parts you use. The anti-money-laundering agent, for example, is priced per report, so if you don't need it, you don't pay for it.

It can. And sometimes that's the right call. What we do advise against is waiting until everything is settled, because there's always something new underway.

The practical answer: start with one thing that sits apart from your migration. Anti-money-laundering or chasing missing documents barely touch your software. Within a few weeks you'll see whether this works for your firm, without landing a second project on your team.

Familiar. An average firm runs eight to nine packages, and only a quarter of them are genuinely integrated. We don't arrive as number ten; we work inside what you already have: your accounting software, your practice management, Microsoft 365.

And often it wins licence costs back. At one firm we found 41,000 euro a year in software still being paid for clients who had already left.

For Exact Online, AdminPulse and Microsoft 365 we have finished connections. For Adsolut, Silverfin, ExpertM, Clearfacts, Yuki, Octopus and FID-Manager it depends on the API or on arrangements with the vendor. Adsolut, for instance, is on-premise, so there we first have to arrange access.

We'd rather say this up front than afterwards. Send us the name of your package and you'll have an honest answer within the day.

Correct, and that's exactly why we don't use public chat tools for client files. We agree up front which data ends up where, we sign a data processing agreement, and processing happens inside Europe. Your data is never used to train models.

Working with a larger organisation whose IT partner audits this? Then you get those documents at the start, not afterwards.

A data processing agreement is a contract setting out what we may and may not do with your data. Who can reach it, where it sits, how long we keep it, and what happens when you stop. We sign that at the start of every engagement, not afterwards.

In plain terms: you stay the owner of your data. We're only the party working with it on your instruction. Your data is never used to train A.I. models, and processing stays inside Europe.

Exactly. There's no point automating everything if you then have to review all of it. That's why we don't build towards a system you have to trust, but towards a system you can see.

Per field you see where the information came from, with its source. The check sits where the risk sits, not everywhere. And on sensitive steps, like accepting a client or giving advice, the decision always stays with a person at your firm.

A fair bar. Anything that goes straight to your client we first run in silent mode: the agent does its work, but you only see what it would have sent. Only when you say it's right do we switch sending on.

And there's an emergency brake. If a file falls too far behind, the flow stops and you get a signal, instead of your client getting another email.

Our scoring follows the matrix from the ITAA white paper, so that in a quality review you can fall back on the legislation and on one fixed procedure per client. The report carries the source references and the screenshots of where the information came from.

Important: we don't declare your report compliant. That stays your assessment and your responsibility. What we do is build the work so that you can substantiate that assessment.

We prefer to start with a session where we map the opportunities together, then a business case where we cost out one idea. That way you know up front what it returns and in which order to begin. We only take on projects we believe will return more than they cost in the first year.

Individual pieces are cheap and quick: an anti-money-laundering report is billed per report, the inbox agent per month. For a built flow you'll see a working pilot within four to six weeks and you're usually fully live after eight to twelve weeks.

We work in phases, with a decision point after each one. You start small, with one office or one process, for instance. If it works, we continue. If it doesn't, it stops there and you haven't paid for the whole programme.

Less than you'd think, but not zero. For the onboarding flow we mainly train the people at reception. For your partners and file managers, little changes about their day.

What does take time is the beginning: sitting down together once to get your process and your settings right. We do that with you, not with a manual.

No. Anyone who can work with accounting software can work with this.

What we do is sit down next to you instead of giving a generic course. We get the settings right together and walk through your own files. At smaller firms that works better than a class.

We see that often. A firm rolls out ChatGPT or Copilot, and a few months later half the team has stopped using it. Usually that isn't the tool's fault, but because nobody owned it and because too much arrived at once.

What does work: one internal owner, one process at a time, and a recurring moment where we look together at what's sticking. At firms where we skipped this, the team fell back on the old way of working after about three months. That's a lesson we learned ourselves.

Yes. Your client gets their own overview of what's already in and what's still needed. They upload themselves and see the state of play themselves.

That immediately solves the irritation many firms live with: that nobody knows who is waiting on whom any more.

No. One of our clients put it well: he always wants to have met the owner before he accepts a file. That doesn't change, and it shouldn't.

What we automate is the work around the conversation: requesting the documents, the screening, the report, the follow-up. So there's more time for the conversation itself. Clients increasingly ask their accountant for advice about their sector and their own situation. That's where your value sits, not in the bookkeeping.

The most requested applications at Belgian firms today:

• Onboarding a new client: pulling data from the KBO and the Belgian State Gazette, the anti-money-laundering check, the engagement letter and the mandates, in one flow.
• Anti-money-laundering and client acceptance: a full report with sources instead of two hours of research.
• Chasing missing documents: the agent pulls the list from your software, emails the client and follows up.
• Following up outstanding items with the end client.
• Offboarding: flagging which licences are still running for clients who have already left.
• Planning: a weekly plan per employee based on real capacity instead of static deadlines.
• The mailbox: labelling mail, routing it to the right file and drafting replies.
• Client meetings: a briefing with your figures, mail and history beforehand, and a summary with to-dos afterwards.
• An internal knowledge agent for the recurring questions about procedures, HR and tax.

Briefly: Copilot sits inside Word, Excel, Outlook and Teams and is strong if your whole firm already works in Microsoft 365. ChatGPT is the most versatile and the easiest to build your own assistants in. Claude is strong on long documents and on precise work with text, which suits tax and legal material well.

There's no winner that holds for every firm. It depends on where your people already work and what you want to do. We go through this in the first conversation and tell you honestly which one you need, and which you don't.

Yes. We're not an extension of a software vendor and we get no commission for pushing you towards a particular package. We work inside what you already have.

That also means we sometimes advise you not to build something with us, because your software solves it better itself. You'd rather hear that from us than from someone with a stake in it.

Honest answer: there is one. A.I. doesn't free up time out of nowhere. The gain sits in the preparatory work, and that gain only becomes real money once you also decide what to do with the time freed up. Freed-up time doesn't automatically mean fewer people.

And connections are sometimes tougher than a demo suggests, especially with on-premise packages. That's why we measure up front how much time a process really costs today, instead of working from assumptions. If the sums don't add up, we'd rather say so now than after three months.

A question we'd rather get than not, because it's fair. We work today for more than 80 accountancy firms, from one-person practices to firms with hundreds of staff. We run the A.I. training for Sterk Digitaal and Accountants Academy, we've done sessions for the ITAA and training at Wolters Kluwer and Billit.

Want hard numbers about our company? Ask in the conversation. We put our balance sheet on the table.