Where to start, answered in full.

You describe the problem, James Rooney asks questions, and you leave with a rough scope of what it would take, whether you engage Tenhaw or not. He leads every Tenhaw engagement personally, so the person scoping it on the call is the person who would run the work. Bring the messy version of the problem rather than a tidied deck. Nothing sits in front of the booking: no form, no qualification step, no sales desk. Thirty minutes buys a rough scope rather than an assessment, and the four-week, £44,000 AI Readiness Audit is the piece of work that does the assessment properly.

James Rooney, the founder, who leads every engagement personally. He reads hello@tenhaw.com rather than a sales desk, the phone reaches him or a voicemail that does, and the 30-minute call is with him. That is deliberate. The person who answers first contact is the person accountable for delivering the work, so what you are told on day one is said by someone who has to stand behind it. There is no switchboard and no gatekeeper in between. Engagements themselves run as two or three senior people, founder-led, with no junior pyramid underneath.

Very little. Bring the messy version of the problem, because an unpolished account of what is slow, expensive or stuck is more useful than a slide deck, and the mess is where the value and the constraints actually sit. You do not need a business case, a requirements document, a shortlist of use cases or a budget figure. Getting from a messy description to a rough scope is what the thirty minutes is for. If something occurs to you before then, hello@tenhaw.com takes it, including the question you are not sure is worth a call.

You hear it on the first call, along with a pointer at someone who is a better fit. A rough scope is the promised output whether you engage Tenhaw or not, and sometimes the honest scope is that another firm, or no external firm, should do the work. That is a stated part of what the discovery call is for, not a reluctant concession. The same applies to geography. Forward-deployed work depends on being in your rooms and your decisions, so if the overlap cannot work for your location, that is said on the first call too.

Yes. There is a separate call for that, See how we did it, where a real engagement is walked through by the person who led it and the same method is then applied out loud to your situation. It covers published material only. The ways of working, published in full and free to adopt without hiring us. The target operating model James co-led at HSBC, designed and piloted for 500 teams, with global rollout due in 2026 and not yet rolled out. And the current build inside a London specialty insurer, anonymised to its market and labelled as what it is, a working proof of concept. You disclose nothing to book it.

Pick by how formed the question is. Email hello@tenhaw.com for anything at all, including the one you are not sure is worth a call. Phone +44 7548 516643 when it is quicker said than written, or when it is urgent. Book the 30-minute call when you have a problem and want a rough scope of what it would take. If you are running a security or procurement review, none of those three is your route, so ask legal@tenhaw.com for the assurance pack, which arrives without a call. If none of them is obviously yours, take the call and we will route it from there.

The MSA, the SOW template, the DPA with its sub-processor annex, insurance certificates and completed security questionnaires. Request it at legal@tenhaw.com and it is sent the same week, usually the same day, with no call and no meeting required. It exists for security, procurement and third-party risk reviews, and the terms those reviews look for are already in the documents, which name 24-hour personal-data-breach notification as a DPA term and set UK data residency by default with EU available. If your supplier standard sets a higher insurance limit, name it and the cover is increased for that engagement, with the premium priced in.

No, and the two run in parallel. The discovery call asks nothing of your procurement function, and the assurance pack goes straight to your reviewers without a call, sent the same week you ask for it. Everything a supplier check needs early is public or a request away. Tenhaw LTD is registered in England and Wales, incorporated 10 July 2020, with the Companies House record linked from the contact page, and the contract and data protection documents are standing templates rather than things drafted per deal. Talk first and let the review catch up, or run the review first. Neither route blocks the other.

Usually as fast as your side can move, because nothing on ours has to be written from scratch. The rough scope comes out of the call itself, the MSA, SOW and DPA are already written and go out the same week you ask, and the engagements carry published fixed prices, the AI Readiness Audit at £44,000 for four weeks, so there is no proposal cycle to sit through before a start date is agreed. What normally sets the pace is supplier onboarding on your side, which is why the assurance pack ships without a call and your review can start the day after the conversation does.

No. Correspondents are not added to a mailing list, and nothing on the contact page signs you up to one. What arrives when you write to hello@tenhaw.com is a reply from James, not a nurture sequence, and what happens to anything you send is set out in the privacy notice. There is no form, no gate, and no mechanism that records that you are evaluating Tenhaw before you have decided to say so yourself. The page is built to route rather than capture.

Yes. The AI Readiness Audit is standalone work: £44,000 fixed, four weeks, ending in working prototypes, with no obligation to continue afterwards. Email hello@tenhaw.com with what you want looked at, and the SOW that follows sets the scope and the start date. What you give up by skipping the thirty minutes is the rough scope you would have left with, and that is the part worth having, since it is where the honest answer might be that a smaller proof of concept fits better, or that the work is not ours to take. Plenty of people book the call precisely to test that before spending anything.

One or two people. The one who matters is whoever can describe what is actually going wrong, and the useful pairing is the person who owns the process that is stuck plus someone who knows the systems and data underneath it, because access, data and decision rights shape a scope far more than ambition does. A budget holder is not needed and procurement does not have to be in the room. Nothing gets signed in thirty minutes, and a supplier review can run on its own track through legal@tenhaw.com. If the people who should hear it cannot make the time, take the call anyway and pass on the rough scope you leave with.

No. Tenhaw's 30-minute discovery call runs on a spoken description of what is slow, expensive or stuck, so nothing has to be handed over on paper before James Rooney can give you a rough scope, and you can leave names and identifiers out of it. Published rather than asserted on the call, the confidentiality position is written into the engagement agreement and survives the end of the engagement indefinitely. Of the ten organisations behind the case studies, nine are named and the live one is described only as the London specialty insurance market, at that client's request. Whether your own policy requires paper before any scoping conversation is a question for your counsel.

No. Tenhaw publishes its prices rather than quoting them, so the figures an approval paper needs exist before you make contact, £44,000 fixed over four weeks for the AI Readiness Audit and £20,000 to £55,000 over two to four weeks for an Agentic Proof of Concept. Nothing in the thirty minutes asks what you have to spend, and no budget figure is needed to book it. Because both are fixed rather than estimated, the number you put in front of a finance committee is the number that lands on the invoice. Which of the two your problem actually needs is the line only a scoping conversation settles.

No. Tenhaw prices from a description of the problem rather than a survey of your estate, which is why the AI Readiness Audit carries one fixed price for four weeks whatever the stack underneath turns out to be. What does move a price is the complexity of the workflow and the state of the data behind it, and you can describe both without granting access to anything. Access comes later and on your terms, following a signed Statement of Work, with BS7858-standard screening covering identity, right to work, employment history and criminal record checks completed before anyone reaches your estate. Whether the data is genuinely usable is the thing only the work settles.

You can, and Tenhaw answers one mostly from material already published rather than written for the occasion. Most of what an RFP asks for exists in fixed form: the rate card at £1,560 for a partner, £1,250 for a senior practitioner and £950 for an associate, excluding VAT, the engagement prices derived from it at twenty billable days a month, and the delivery method published in full and free to adopt. What an RFP written this early tends to get wrong is the specification itself, because a document drafted before the problem has been scoped usually names a solution rather than an outcome. Whether your buying rules permit a conversation before the paperwork decides the order.

Usually, yes. Tenhaw's AI Readiness Audit is standalone work: four weeks, a fixed published price, no obligation to continue, and a recommendation to stop counted as a valid outcome. So the assessment can sit in this year's budget while a build sits in next year's, rather than both waiting on one approval. Anything monthly that follows ends on thirty days' notice either side, so a start date early in a budget year does not commit the whole of it. What a conversation now cannot settle is whether the priority survives your budget round, and that is a question about your organisation rather than about the work.

Yes, and your reviewers start from Tenhaw's standing MSA, SOW template and DPA rather than from something drafted for your deal, so the mark-up begins on a document instead of a blank page. Two terms are set per engagement by design rather than by argument. The liability cap is agreed in the Statement of Work, with breach of confidentiality and data protection treated separately from it, and insurance cover moves when you name the limit your supplier standard requires, which puts the increased cover in place within three working days, ahead of signature, with the premium priced into the engagement. Which further amendments land is a matter for counsel on both sides.