Real Assets · Operations & Throughput
An AI-Native Finance Back Office Build for Construction
We design, build, and run AI-native finance back office for general contractors, developers, project managers, estimators, and field operations teams. This page describes the engagement: scope, pricing, timeline, controls, and the KPIs we commit to.
Projects from $15k · Refundable 7 days · Kickoff within 5 days
Early access: we work with a small first cohort. Engagements are scoped, priced, and shipped end-to-end by our team — not referred to third parties.
In one sentence
AI-native finance back office for construction — From Discovery baseline to production traffic in 8-12 weeks, with the operating model — eval harness, reviewer UI, audit log, calibration cadence — handed over as part of Build, not deferred to Run. Expected delta on close cycle time: −77%.
Key facts
- Industry
- Construction
- Use case
- Finance Back Office
- Intent cluster
- Operations & Throughput
- Primary KPI
- close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance
- Top benchmark
- Error rate on repeatable steps: 6.1% → 1.4% (−77%)
- Systems integrated
- BIM, ERP, project management
- Buyer
- general contractors, developers, project managers, estimators, and field operations teams
- Risk lens
- site safety, contract terms, schedule slippage, cost overruns, and document version control
- Engagement timeline
- Discovery 2 weeks → Build 9 weeks → Run continuous (integration-heavy)
- Team size
- 1 senior delivery + 1 part-time domain SME
- Discovery price
- $6k · 2-week sprint
- Build price
- $20k–$28k · 6-10 weeks
Primary outcome
reduce manual finance work without losing control
What we ship
invoice workflows, reconciliation assistant, variance explanations, and approval controls
KPIs we report on
close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance
Why Construction teams hire us for this
For construction leadership, the appetite for finance back office automation lives in a narrow band: too cautious and the volume keeps growing while operator costs compound; too aggressive and one bad public failure resets the entire program. AI-native delivery is calibrated for the middle — confident automation on the routine, deliberate review on the unusual, full human ownership on the policy edge.
Operations benchmarks across construction typically show 20-35% of operator time absorbed by status checks, handoffs, and exception triage. AI-native automation reclaims that block first because it has the highest volume and lowest decision risk.
Industry context: Mid-market and enterprise operators face the same fundamental tradeoff: AI must compress operational cycle time while remaining auditable and integrable with existing systems of record.
Benchmarks we hit
Reference benchmarks from production deployments of finance back office in construction-comparable contexts. Sources noted per row. Your actuals are measured against the baseline captured in Discovery.
| Metric | Industry baseline | AI-native typical | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
Error rate on repeatable steps Quality control sampling; AI-native gates catch errors before downstream propagation | 6.1% | 1.4% | −77% |
Operator throughput per FTE Same operator handles 3.7× the volume thanks to first-pass AI processing | 1.0× (baseline) | 3.7× | +270% |
Rework / case Includes manual re-entry, customer call-backs, and reviewer escalations | 21% | 4% | −81% |
Benchmarks are reference values from comparable engagements and authoritative sector benchmarks. Your engagement's baseline is captured during Discovery and actuals are reported weekly during Run against that baseline.
How we operate the workflow
Our delivery rhythm on finance back office mirrors how a senior engineering team would ship a critical service: daily standup during Build, weekly metrics review during Run, monthly architecture retrospective, quarterly risk attestation. For construction teams that need to defend the workflow internally, that rhythm is the artefact, not the model choice.
What we build inside the workflow
For construction workflows, the design choice that matters most is where to draw the boundary between automation and human judgment. On finance back office, we draw three lines: full automation (high-confidence, low-stakes, reversible actions), assisted review (drafts with reviewer one-click approval), full human ownership (policy edits, escalations, exceptions). The lines are documented, instrumented, and revisited quarterly as confidence calibration improves.
Reference architecture
4-layer AI-native workflow for operations & throughput
The architecture is designed for substitution: any single layer (model, retrieval store, reviewer UI, action client) can be swapped without rewriting the others. That is the property that lets finance back office survive 12+ months of provider and pricing change.See the full architecture diagram for Operations & Throughput →
AI-native vs traditional approach
What changes between a traditional finance back office program in construction and an AI-native engagement is not the goal — it is the architecture, the operating cadence, and the exit posture. The table below makes the differences explicit.
| Dimension | Traditional (in-house build or BPO) | AI-native engagement (us) |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time to live deployment | 6-12 months | 6-10 weeks (thin slice) |
| Engagement billing | Time-and-materials or annual contract | Phased fixed-price (Discovery → Build → opt Run) |
| Audit posture | Manual logs, periodic review | Versioned prompts, audit logs, reviewer queues, attestations |
| Per-operator capacity | 1.0× (baseline) | +270% |
| Per-case cost | Industry baseline | Sub-dollar marginal cost on routine envelope |
| Exit path | Knowledge transfer takes 6+ months | Documented exit at every phase; artefacts in your repo |
Traditional process automation projects cost $80-200k+ with 6-12 month payback; AI-native engagements deliver thin-slice production in 6-8 weeks with measurable baseline-vs-actuals reporting.
Engagement scope & pricing
Three phases, three commercial envelopes. Discovery is the only commitment to start; Build and Run are scoped against the Discovery output.
Operations engagement
Each phase is independently committable. Discovery is the only one you have to start with.
Phase 1 · Discovery
$6k
2-week sprint
Phase 2 · Build
$20k–$28k
6-10 weeks
Phase 3 · Run
$2.5k–$4k / mo
optional, hourly bank also available
~$32k–$58k typical year 1 (60% take the run option for ~6 months)
Workflow redesign, system integration, governance, and weekly operating cadence during Run.
The only thing you commit to today is the Discovery sprint. The Build SoW is produced inside Discovery and you decide whether to proceed. Run is optional.
The 4-phase delivery model
Phase 1 · Weeks 1–2
Discovery
We sit with the operator team running the workflow today, watch a working day end-to-end, and produce the baseline that Build will be measured against. Two-week sprint, fixed price.
Phase 2 · Weeks 2–4
Design
Design phase is where the irreversible architectural choices are made: layer boundaries, substitution interfaces, governance posture, evaluation methodology. We invest disproportionately here because corrections in Build are 10× more expensive.
Phase 3 · Weeks 4–8
Build
End of Build deliverables: the production workflow, the operating runbook, the eval pipeline as code, the reviewer interface, the audit log architecture, the dashboard with KPI tracking. All six are inspectable.
Phase 4 · Weeks 8+
Run
Run cadence is calibrated to your operational reality: weekly metric review, bi-weekly prompt refresh, monthly calibration audit, quarterly architecture review. The Run phase compounds value as the labelled test set grows.
Interactive ROI calculator
Estimate your AI-native ROI for finance back office
Reference inputs below are typical for construction teams in the operations cluster. Adjust them to match your situation.
Projected
Current monthly cost
$56,000
AI-native monthly cost
$18,520
Annual savings
$449,760
67% cost reduction · ~2,601 operator-hours freed / month
Governance and risk controls
Governance is not a phase, it is a layer. From the first Discovery interview, we capture the risk lens — for construction, that includes site safety, contract terms, schedule slippage, cost overruns, and document version control. The architecture decisions in Build (source curation, prompt versioning, reviewer SLA, audit log retention) follow from that lens. By the time Run starts, the controls are part of the operating cadence, not a compliance overlay.
How we report ROI
For construction CFOs, the ROI question is usually about three numbers: cost per transaction, error rate, and time-to-decision. We instrument all three during Build, surface them in the operating dashboard, and report against the Discovery baseline weekly. close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance is the bridge between the engagement and the P&L.
Selected portfolio
Real builds — finance back office in construction and adjacent sectors
Below are engagements drawn from our active portfolio where the workflow rhymed with finance back office in construction or in adjacent contexts. Scope and stack are accurate; client identities are withheld under engagement NDAs.
Q4 2025 → Q1 2026
Owners-association management SaaS — 55+ screens, 47 normalized tables
Mid-market property operator · GCC region
Full operational backbone for a property operator running multiple owners associations: properties, units, owners, accounting, service charges, budgets, maintenance, violations, and a resident-facing community portal — replacing a patchwork of spreadsheets and disconnected accounting tools.
- Next.js + tRPC
- PostgreSQL · Drizzle ORM
- JWT federated identity
Q2 2026
Internal staff portal — multi-association operations in role-based dashboards
Mid-market property operator · GCC region
Role-scoped portal for property managers, accountants, and maintenance staff. Reuses the OA data model from the management SaaS (zero duplication), adds multi-association switching, maintenance ticket lifecycle, financial reporting, and document storage tied to each association workspace.
- Next.js + tRPC
- NextAuth role-based access
- Drizzle ORM shared schema
Q4 2025
Internal automation tool — workflow automation for consulting operations
Multi-vertical consulting group · Europe
Internal automation tool to streamline workflows, reduce manual administrative load, and improve operational efficiency across consulting and management processes. Integrates with existing systems rather than replacing them, automating handoffs and document flows that previously moved through email.
- Workflow automation engine
- Document-flow integration
- Operational dashboards
Client identities withheld under engagement NDAs. Sector, geography, and scope are accurate. Full case studies on request.
Common pitfall & mitigation
The failure mode we see most often on AI-native finance back office engagements in construction contexts.
Integration debt with legacy systems
ERP/SAP integration is treated as 'last step' and blocks production
Integration scoped during Discovery; mock-then-real pattern during Build
Designing for an operation that is partly in the building
Engineering for graceful degradation in construction finance back office workflows is not a nice-to-have — it is the property that keeps the operation running when the model provider is slow, the integration partner is down, or the field connectivity drops. We design the workflow with explicit fallback paths at every layer: routine decisions can be executed from cached policy, exceptional decisions can queue with prioritized re-route, escalations always have a manual lane. The workflow degrades gracefully because it was built to.
Construction workflows are different because the data is only ever a partial picture of the operation. The truck is on a route, the equipment is on a floor, the inspection is in a building, the asset is in the field. Finance Back Office in this context has to reconcile what the systems show with what is actually happening physically — a constraint a pure-digital workflow does not face.
We address that constraint at three layers. At the data layer, we treat the system of record (BIM, the ERP, the field-service platform) as one source among several rather than ground truth. Field operators carry context the system does not, sensors produce signals the system has not interpreted yet, and the gap between systems is where most workflow friction lives. The Discovery phase maps these gaps explicitly — what the system does not know is sometimes more important than what it does. At the inference layer, the prompts and retrieval are designed to surface the system view and explicitly invite the operator to add the field context before action is taken. At the action layer, the workflow is built for graceful degradation when the physical reality does not match the model's expectation — escalation paths, override capability, audit logging.
The practical outcome for construction teams is a workflow that respects the field. Operators do not feel overridden by an AI that does not understand what they are looking at; they feel supported by a system that brings them the context they need. That distinction sounds soft — it is not. The operations leaders who adopt AI workflows successfully in construction are the ones whose field teams stop sandbagging the system because the system finally stopped sandbagging them. The labelled test set we capture during Discovery is, in many construction engagements, more about edge cases the field sees than about model outputs the analyst measures.
Sensor and IoT signals across construction environments arrive with three uncomfortable properties: they are noisy at the unit level, biased at the aggregate level, and missing during the windows where they would be most useful. Finance Back Office engagements that depend on these signals have to engineer for all three from week one.
We handle noise with multi-source validation — a single sensor reading triggers cross-checks against neighbouring sensors or operator confirmation before the workflow acts on it. We handle bias with a calibration loop tied to the labelled test set: known-state cases are checked against the model's interpretation, drift is detected and corrected. We handle missingness with explicit confidence bands — the workflow distinguishes "the answer is X" from "the answer would be X if the signal was reliable, which it currently is not". For construction operators, the difference between those two is the difference between a tool that earns trust and a tool that erodes it.
The tactical playbook for the first 30 days
Week 1 — Discovery handover and labelled test set capture. We sit with the operator team running finance back office today, watch a working day end to end, and capture 200+ real cases as the labelled test set. By Friday we have the workflow map, the system inventory (BIM, ERP, and adjacent), the risk register, and the success metrics aligned with your KPI of close cycle time.
Week 2 — Architecture and integration scoping. We design the four-layer workflow (intake, context, action, review), confirm the retrieval shape, lock the prompt strategy direction, and produce the integration plan against BIM. The output is the Build statement of work with a fixed price and a named deliverable per phase.
Week 3-4 — Build sprint 1: retrieval and intake. We stand up the retrieval index against your approved sources, build the intake classifier, instrument the audit log, and run the first eval cycle against the labelled test set. The thin slice is functional but not production-deployed.
Week 5-6 — Build sprint 2: action and review. We ship the action layer, build the reviewer queue UI, calibrate the confidence thresholds against the labelled test set, and onboard the first reviewer cohort. By end of week 6 the workflow is processing low-stakes production traffic with full audit logging.
The rest of the Build phase widens the production envelope case-by-case based on the reviewer feedback loop. By the end of Build, finance back office for construction is running on real traffic with the operating cadence already established.
The Build phase rhythm for finance back office in construction is engineered for the bottleneck most teams hit at the end of week 2: ambition outrunning evidence. We engineer for the opposite — evidence first, ambition calibrated to it.
Week 1 produces the discovery report, the labelled test set, the integration plan, the risk register, the success metrics. Week 2 stands up the retrieval index, the intake classifier, the eval harness, the audit log. Week 3 wires the action layer with reviewer approval, runs the first three eval cycles, produces the first calibration report. Week 4 ships the thin slice to a narrow production audience (5-10% of routine cases), instruments the operator feedback loop, and runs the first weekly review.
By day 30, the dashboard is live, the system is processing real construction cases, the operator team is engaging with the reviewer queue, the eval harness is gated on every change, and the next two weeks of Build are scoped from concrete evidence rather than initial assumptions. Days 31-45 widen the production envelope to 40-60% of routine cases. Days 46-60 absorb the remaining routine envelope and start handling the first tranche of exceptional cases. By the close of Build (day 60-70), the workflow is operating at its target envelope with the calibration discipline in place to handle drift, edge cases, and future model changes.
How this rhymes with a recent build
A comparable engagement worth knowing about for finance back office in construction is summarised below. Identity withheld under engagement NDA; sector and stack are accurate.
Internal staff portal — multi-association operations in role-based dashboards. Role-scoped portal for property managers, accountants, and maintenance staff. Reuses the OA data model from the management SaaS (zero duplication), adds multi-association switching, maintenance ticket lifecycle, financial reporting, and document storage tied to each association workspace. (Mid-market property operator · GCC region, Q2 2026.)
The reason that engagement is a useful reference is not the surface match — it is the underlying decision structure. The same questions show up on finance back office for construction: where to draw the automation boundary, how to calibrate confidence thresholds against the labelled test set, what to put in the reviewer UI, how to instrument drift. The answers transfer; the implementation specifics adapt to your stack.
For US buyers
US compliance scaffolding for finance back office in construction (NIST AI RMF)
Construction engagements touching US clients on finance back office ship with the regulatory scaffolding your procurement, compliance, and legal teams expect. The framework that matters most for construction is NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) (NIST AI RMF) — addressed below alongside the adjacent frames we encounter.
NIST AI RMF
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1)
Authority: U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
- Scope
- Voluntary framework: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage functions for AI system risk.
- How we ship inside it
- Every engagement maps to NIST AI RMF during Discovery. The control map produced becomes the artefact your internal audit and security teams use to defend the workflow.
For US companies
Start a US-friendly engagement
Discovery from $8,500–$12,000, Build from $35,000–$75,000, optional Run from $5k/mo. Fixed-price, milestone-billed, you own every artefact. Send a short brief and we reply within 5 business days. 11am–4pm ET overlap for live syncs.
USD pricing
Discovery $8,500–$12,000 · Build $35,000–$75,000
US-style commercial
MSA / SOW / mutual NDA standard. DPA with SCCs included.
Limited capacity
We onboard 3–5 new clients per quarter to protect delivery quality.
Build internally or work with us
Some construction teams should build internally, especially when they already have strong product, data, security, and operations capacity. Most teams move faster with us because the bottleneck is not only engineering — it is translating messy operational work into a reliable AI-assisted workflow that people will actually use. After 6 to 12 months you can absorb the operating model internally or keep us as a managed execution partner.
What to ask us before signing
- Ask for a 30/60/90-day plan with named deliverables, not a vague phase description.
- Ask how we handle the long tail of edge cases the operator team has never encoded — escalation, calibration, capture.
- Ask for the model and provider strategy — single-model, multi-model, fallback paths, cost forecasting.
- Ask how the reviewer queue UX is designed and whether your operator team can shape it during Build.
- Ask for references from construction-adjacent engagements — sector, scope, and outcome dimensions.
Recommended first project
Our recommendation for a first finance back office engagement in construction is to pick the slice of the workflow that satisfies four criteria: there is a measurable baseline, the work is genuinely repetitive, the failure mode is reversible within a reasonable window, and a senior operator on your team can be the first reviewer. Those four criteria filter out the engagements that look impressive in a slide and fail in week three. The 90-day target is "thin slice in production with a defended baseline". By day 30, the system processes a small share of real traffic with full reviewer oversight. By day 60, the share has widened and the calibration is data-driven. By day 90, the operating cadence is your team's, the dashboard reflects empirical performance, and the case for the next workflow writes itself.
Frequently asked questions
How do you automate finance back office in construction with AI?+
We map the existing finance back office workflow inside construction, identify the high-volume, high-structure tasks, and build an AI agent that handles those tasks while routing low-confidence cases to a human reviewer. The build connects to your BIM, ERP, project management, runs against a labelled test set, and ships behind a reviewer queue before it sees production traffic. We then operate it, measure close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance, and improve it weekly.
What does it cost to automate finance back office for construction teams?+
~$32k–$58k typical year 1 (60% take the run option for ~6 months). The structure: $6k Discovery (2-week sprint) → $20k–$28k Build (6-10 weeks) → optional $2.5k–$4k / mo Run. Workflow redesign, system integration, governance, and weekly operating cadence during Run.
What is the best AI agent for finance back office in construction?+
Model selection on finance back office for construction happens against five criteria: quality on your labelled test set, cost per inference at your projected volume, latency budget for the user-facing path, provider reliability over 12-18 months, contractual data-handling posture. We bring the comparative methodology from prior engagements and run it during Build; the winning model is the one that survives all five, not the one that wins the demo.
How long does it take to deploy AI finance back office for construction?+
A thin-slice deployment in 2-week sprint after Discovery, with real construction data and real reviewers. The full Build phase runs 6-10 weeks. By day 90, close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance is instrumented, the team has a baseline, and leadership has the data needed to decide on expansion into adjacent construction workflows.
What do we own, and what do you own?+
What we ship as code lives in your repository under your IAM. The prompts, the evaluation harness, the integration code, the reviewer UI, the infrastructure-as-code — all in your Git, not in our SaaS. We bring the engineering, the operating discipline, and the cadence; you bring the data, the policy, and the operator team. The handover is documented from day one of Build, not deferred to the end.
How fast does AI finance back office get into production for construction?+
We aim for a thin-slice in production by week 6, with real data, real edge cases, and real reviewers. close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance is instrumented from day one, and we report against baseline weekly during Run.
Do you train models on our data?+
No. We do not train any model on client data. Anthropic Zero-Data-Retention is enabled by default; OpenAI default-no-training is honoured. Prompts, retrieval indexes, audit logs, and integration data live in your cloud account under your IAM. At engagement end, every artefact transfers to your repository.
What if we want to exit the engagement?+
Discovery and Build are fixed-scope, so there is no mid-engagement exit cost. Run is month-to-month with 30-day notice. Every artefact (prompts, eval harness, integration code, dashboards, runbooks) is in your repository throughout the engagement, not behind our SaaS. There is no lock-in.
What does success look like 90 days after Build closes?+
close cycle time, exception rate, invoice processing cost, and forecast variance measurably improved against the Discovery baseline. Your team is operating the workflow with the cadence we shipped during Build. The audit log is queryable. The reviewer queue is calibrated. The next workflow scope is informed by real production evidence rather than initial assumptions.
What support is included after the engagement ends?+
Optional Run retainer covers weekly cadence, prompt refresh, retrieval index updates, and reviewer-queue calibration. Architecture-level questions and breaking-change support are billed hourly outside of Run. Most engagements transition Run in-house at month 6-12; we stay available for architecture decisions for 12 months at no extra charge.
How does this integrate with BIM and our existing stack?+
Discovery scopes the integration footprint explicitly. We integrate at the API layer; no replatforming required. The Build statement of work names exactly which systems are connected, which data flows are bidirectional, and what authentication patterns we use (SSO, service accounts, OAuth scopes). The integration code lives in your repository.
What does your team look like during an engagement?+
Discovery: 1 senior delivery lead + 1 PM, ~30 hours/week. Build: 1 senior delivery lead + 2-3 senior AI engineers, ~50-80 hours/week across the team. Run: 1 delivery owner + 1 engineer on weekly cadence. We do not use offshore staff augmentation. Every engineer touching your engagement is senior-level.
Sources we reference
The following sources inform the architecture, governance, and benchmarks we apply on construction engagements. Cited here so you can verify and dig deeper.
- NIST Construction
- MIT Sloan Management Review — AI & Business Strategy — MIT Sloan
- AI Adoption Statistics — U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Lighthouse Network — Operations AI Adoption — World Economic Forum + McKinsey
- Operations Excellence Through AI — BCG
- Google Search Central: helpful, reliable, people-first content
- Google Search Central: URL structure best practices
Concepts on this page:
AI workflow·Thin slice·Reviewer queue·Evaluation harness·Tool use·Audit logFull glossary →High-intent reads
Start the engagement
Start a Construction engagement
Tell us about your workflow, the systems involved, and the KPI you want to move. We'll send a scoped statement of work within 5 business days.