( ZIIRO / FAQ )
Every answer on this site lives here. If a question is missing it is usually because we cannot answer it honestly yet, and a plausible answer is worse than none.
Sec. 01 / Before you book
[ 03 questions ]
What the first hour is, and what you need to have ready for it.
You describe the work that eats your week and we work through it with you. You leave with the opportunities ranked in the order we would build them, rough sizing for each one in hours back against effort to build, and one recommended next move. It is a working session, not a pitch.
No. You do not need clean data, a written process or a brief. Mapping how the work actually moves, including the parts nobody ever documented, is the job rather than the prerequisite. Bring the problem in whatever state it is in.
Yes. Ziiro is based in India and works with teams worldwide. The engagement runs the same way wherever you are.
Sec. 02 / Scope, timeline and price
[ 05 questions ]
How an engagement is sized and what each stage commits you to.
It starts with the paid consultation, billed by the hour with a one hour minimum. That hour tells us which stage you need, Diagnose, Build or Optimize, and what the stage has to cover. The price for that stage is set from there and shown before any of it starts.
Yes. Most teams start at Diagnose and keep the roadmap and spec whether or not we build. Build and Optimize are separate decisions after that.
Diagnose runs 1-3 weeks and Build 4-12, depending on how much of the operation the system touches. Optimize runs in cycles on an agreed cadence.
Not always. If you can already say what the system has to do, we scope Build directly. Skip Diagnose and the ROI case rests on your numbers rather than ones we took together.
That is what Optimize is: outcome tracking, tuning, and a report on an agreed cadence. It is scoped and priced as its own stage rather than bundled into an open-ended retainer.
Sec. 03 / How we work
[ 03 questions ]
What happens inside the work, and what we need from your systems.
Then that is the recommendation, and you still keep the process maps, the baselines and the ROI math. A stage that ends in evidence against building has done its job.
Whichever one suits the job. GPT, Claude and Gemini sit in one interchangeable layer of the architecture and none of them is the advantage: the system built around them and the business context feeding it are.
Only the systems the processes under review actually touch, and only from the point they are needed. What that means in practice is agreed during scoping, before any of it is connected.