Zyphh
Ways to work together
Every option is scope-dependent because the right build is whatever the workflow map finds. The difference is how much certainty you already have and how much of the system you want Zyphh to own.
Ongoing optimization of what is live, expansion into the next opportunity from the map, and the AI SEO content system that compounds organic demand.
The specific app, portal, AI agent, or automation the Map stage identified, scoped to a target metric and shipped through a 2-week pilot cadence.
We map the workflows, rank the opportunities by ROI, and hand you the roadmap whether or not Zyphh builds the next step.
If the Map stage does not produce a documented ROI model with a credible payback window, it costs you nothing and there is no obligation to build anything. The first job is to prove the business case, not sell the technology.
No countdown clock and no invented capacity claim. Scope, risk, assumptions, and the target metric are visible before commitment.
Choose the Workflow Map when the pain is obvious but the right answer is not. It is the right starting point when teams disagree about the workflow, the baseline is missing, or nobody knows whether to build, buy, configure, or leave it alone.
Choose the Custom Build when one workflow, owner, and target metric are already clear. The pilot is deliberately narrow: one operating problem, a guarded launch, and enough evidence to decide whether the next build deserves budget.
Choose the Growth Partner after a system has shipped or when the map already contains a credible sequence of opportunities. Continuity earns its place through a real operating backlog, not a retainer invented before the first result.
Each option can end cleanly. The audit can become an internal build plan. The pilot can stop after the result review. The operating partnership renews only while there is a useful backlog and a clear owner on both sides.
Scope changes with the number of systems, data quality, permission model, failure risk, interface requirements, and the amount of business logic that lives in people's heads. A focused reporting workflow is different from a multi-role portal with customer data and approval rules.
The proposal separates required work from useful follow-ons. You can see the workflow, success metric, integrations, controls, handoff plan, and exclusions before you commit. That makes the offer easier to compare on business value even when a fixed public price would be misleading.
Start with the free Workflow Opportunity Score if you need a quick diagnostic, or review the ROI Build System if the workflow category is already clear.
The proposal also identifies third-party costs such as platform plans, model usage, enrichment, or hosting where they can be estimated. Those costs stay separate from Zyphh's implementation scope so the operating model is visible before launch.
Each item solves the next decision around the engagement instead of padding the proposal with generic bonuses.
Not yet. Workflow complexity, integration risk, and the value of the opportunity change the scope. The Map stage makes the recommendation and assumptions visible before a build commitment.
Run the Workflow Opportunity Score or book the strategy call. The lowest-risk paid step is the Workflow Map.
Yes. If the Map stage does not produce a documented ROI model with a credible payback window, it costs you nothing and there is no obligation to build.
A 30-minute call is enough to decide whether a map, a custom build, or no engagement is the right move.