Rebuild how your organisation works around AI agents.

Tenhaw is a UK AI consultancy and AI delivery partner, based in London and registered in England and Wales. We help large organisations redesign how work gets done with AI, connecting the operating model, the systems people use and the support they need to work differently. Our forward-deployed teams embed two or three senior people in your organisation; the two- or three-practitioner production programme includes engineering and adoption responsibilities with partner oversight. Your team's knowledge of the work shapes what we design, build and test together. We commit to measurable value delivered every month and report against it, giving you evidence to review as the work progresses. Tenhaw provides professional services rather than a software product.

Both. Tenhaw helps you decide where AI could improve the work, then provides the people to design and deliver the change within an agreed scope. The consultancy work can begin with a fixed-price AI Readiness Audit. It examines your product, internal processes, operations and software delivery, what your data estate and platform can support, and the evidence your risk function needs before a system can be relied on. Your team's examples and constraints help us choose which possibilities to test.

If you continue into a build, our people carry that understanding into delivery inside your estate and repositories, alongside your engineers. We connect the technical work with decisions about roles, ownership and adoption, so your people can help shape the system and learn how to improve it. You can also engage Tenhaw to run a programme built entirely by other suppliers. We agree responsibility for the work and its outcomes; you do not have to buy engineering capacity from us to get programme support.

Our decade of experience is in delivery and transformation. The agentic evidence includes a working proof of concept built in two weeks inside Placing Platform Limited (PPL), paired throughout with a client engineer. The same six-month engagement then took the agentic way of working to PPL's Product, Engineering and QA teams. The case studies distinguish the established delivery record from the agentic work.

An AI consultancy and an AI delivery partner. The same firm answers to generative AI consultancy, enterprise AI consultancy, and digital transformation consultancy where the programme in question is an AI one. Three categories it is not: a staffing agency, because nobody is placed by the day into someone else's plan; a compliance or assurance consultancy, because it builds audit trails into systems rather than certifying anyone against a standard; and a product vendor, because there is no tool underneath the advice.

An AI delivery partner takes responsibility for getting an agreed system into production and helping people use it in their working day. The scope matters: an audit or proof of concept answers earlier questions, while a production build includes the work needed to make the system ready for live use.

In practice, delivery connects five jobs. First, decide with your team which workflows AI could help with, what order to tackle them in and what each improvement is worth in currency. Second, design the operating model: whose work changes, which decisions an agent can make, who remains accountable and what happens when it gets something wrong. Third, build inside your estate and repositories alongside your engineers, so they learn how the system works as it develops. Fourth, specify and test the evidence during design: evaluations, audit trails, escalation routes and the points where a person checks or approves an action. Fifth, help people use and improve the new workflow, measuring adoption and inviting their feedback.

Ask what you will be able to review in the first thirty days. Tenhaw commits to measurable value delivered every month and reports a month that delivers none as a failed month. That gives you a clear point to examine the evidence, understand any obstacle and decide what should happen next.

Tenhaw has three starting doors. Learn offers an £8,500 leadership day for up to 12 executives or a £24,000 six-week team programme for up to 12 people; the Centre of Excellence cohort variant is £30k–£40k. Prove is a one-workflow proof of concept at £20k–£55k over 2–4 weeks, or the whole-organisation readiness audit at £44,000 over four weeks. Deliver puts one agreed workflow into production and use in 90 days for £120,000 with two practitioners or £180,000 with three, with partner oversight, paid in three monthly instalments. After day 90, hand over or separately agree continuation at £70k–£85k a month. Programme and Delivery Management is independently available at £18k–£35k a month. Fees exclude VAT, pre-agreed expenses and model or platform use.

The day rates remain £1,560 for partner input, £1,250 for a senior practitioner and £950 for an associate, using twenty billable days a month. Tenhaw has three starting doors. Learn offers an £8,500 leadership day for up to 12 executives or a £24,000 six-week team programme for up to 12 people; the Centre of Excellence cohort variant is £30k–£40k. Prove is a one-workflow proof of concept at £20k–£55k over 2–4 weeks, or the whole-organisation readiness audit at £44,000 over four weeks. Deliver puts one agreed workflow into production and use in 90 days for £120,000 with two practitioners or £180,000 with three, with partner oversight, paid in three monthly instalments. After day 90, hand over or separately agree continuation at £70k–£85k a month. Programme and Delivery Management is independently available at £18k–£35k a month. Fees exclude VAT, pre-agreed expenses and model or platform use.

James Rooney, founder and Transformation Director. He has spent a decade working on delivery transformation at HSBC, Microsoft, Sky, F1, Discovery and Anglo American, including programmes with $100M+ budgets in scope. At HSBC he co-led the design and piloting of the target operating model prepared for global rollout to 500 teams.

James has brought that experience into a published methodology called The Tenhaw Way. He leads every AI Readiness Audit personally and provides partner oversight on every engagement, with personal accountability for the outcome. Your proposal makes the delivery roles clear, so you know who will work alongside your team and which decisions to bring to James.

A forward-deployed operator is a senior practitioner who works inside your organisation with an agreed reporting line and real decision rights. They join the work where it happens: your meetings, your systems and the decisions your team needs to make.

At Tenhaw, the role connects understanding the workflow with taking responsibility for changing it. Depending on the engagement, that can mean designing roles and approval routes, building systems alongside your people, or coordinating delivery across suppliers. Your colleagues contribute the exceptions and practical knowledge that shape the work. Agreeing the operator's responsibilities and authority at the start helps everyone know which decisions they can take and when to involve you.

No. Tenhaw provides professional services for agentic transformation, embedding senior operators in your organisation to work alongside your people. You engage a team for a fixed-price piece of work or a monthly engagement. There is no Tenhaw seat count, software licence fee or software renewal. Any model or platform use in your environment is charged separately on your own accounts, so include that when planning the running cost of a system.

Tenhaw previously developed delivery-management software, and some third-party directories still describe that earlier product. The business today is a consultancy selling professional services. If you found us through one of those listings, the services and pricing pages explain the work available now.

Tenhaw's team shape suits work where a small number of senior operators can build alongside your people and take clear responsibility for delivery. We publish our prices, commit to measurable value delivered every month and report against it. The 90-day outcome programme ends with adoption, measurement and handover to your people. Any recruitment support is agreed within scope; continuation is a separate choice.

The case studies show how that has worked in practice. At Tecknuovo, we established a Portfolio Management Office from scratch and ran it across 19 projects, including public-sector delivery for HMRC, the MOD and Thames Water. Our role was portfolio governance; Tecknuovo's teams delivered the projects. In a separate engagement, we built Placing Platform Limited's (PPL) PDF-to-business-intelligence workflow on Azure as a two-week proof of concept, paired throughout with one of its engineers. An eight-week project then took that way of working to its Product, Engineering and QA teams.

A large firm may be the better fit when you need 200 people across twelve countries. Compare the team each proposal names, the responsibilities it takes on and the capacity you have internally. That gives you a practical way to judge which arrangement suits your work.

Typically organisations from 500 to 100,000+ people where agentic transformation requires changing how many teams work, not just adopting a tool. That work has been delivered inside HSBC, Microsoft, Sky, F1, Discovery, Anglo American, Greggs, Yondr and YOOX NET-A-PORTER.

No. Most Tenhaw engagements are with UK enterprises, and we also work across Europe and the United States. Past work has been delivered in the UK, Australia, the USA and Singapore. Tenhaw LTD is registered in England and Wales and based in London. For a British buyer, that means a UK contracting entity, invoicing in sterling and a team available for on-site work without an international flight. Associates complete screening to BS7858 standard, including right-to-work checks, before any access to your estate.

What matters for an embedded engagement is being available for your team's work and decisions. We agree the on-site time and working-hour overlap your people need, including access to the colleagues who understand the process and can review what we build. We can take work wherever that involvement is practical, and will tell you on the first call if we cannot provide it. Outside the UK, expect a UK-based team travelling to you: Tenhaw has no local office. Travel requirements and costs are agreed with you before they are incurred.

Tenhaw LTD is registered in England and Wales and based in London, and delivers across the United States, the United Kingdom and EMEA. Engagements run across the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States, and past work has been delivered across the UK, Australia, the USA and Singapore.

A 30-minute discovery call with James Rooney. You leave with a rough scope whether or not you engage Tenhaw. Most organisations then start with the fixed-price AI Readiness Audit, which is deliberately sold as standalone work with its own deliverable and no obligation to continue.

Because the technology changes and the organisation does not. A pilot succeeds inside one team that has been given permission to work differently, then fails to scale because scaling requires redefining roles, moving decision rights and rewriting governance across functions the pilot team has no authority over. Adoption typically plateaus around 30%, the people who were always going to adopt, and more training does not move it, because awareness was never the constraint. That plateau is a pattern we have observed across the engagements we have run rather than a published statistic.

Diagnose why before buying anything else. Stalled Microsoft 365 Copilot and Gemini rollouts usually fail on workflow, not licences. The assistant sits beside the work instead of inside it, so nothing measurable changes and the renewal gets hard to defend. The AI Readiness Audit traces the real workflows, prototypes two or three candidates against your own data, and hands your board a sequenced, costed plan. Four weeks, £44,000 fixed. A recommendation to stop is a valid outcome.

With an inventory, because you cannot govern what nobody has counted. People reached for consumer tools because the sanctioned route was slower than the work, which normally makes shadow AI a symptom rather than a discipline problem. The AI Readiness Audit establishes what is genuinely in use across functions, which workflows depend on it and what data it touches, then separates what to sanction from what to stop and what to rebuild properly. Four weeks at a fixed price, with the constraints written up for your risk function.

Not with a score out of five. A maturity model tells you where you sit against other organisations, which is interesting and rarely actionable. The AI Readiness Audit answers the question underneath it: which workflows AI could take, across the product, the internal processes, operations and the development process itself, what your data estate and risk appetite genuinely allow, where your workforce is ready and where it is not, and what to do first, second and third with costs attached. The output is a costed plan in three-month increments, capped at twelve months, rather than a maturity score.

That is tool sprawl, and usually a buying problem before it is an integration problem. Separate functions bought overlapping point solutions against separate business cases, a contact centre assistant here and a document tool there, with nobody owning the whole. The AI Readiness Audit maps what each tool was bought to do, where two of them cover the same job, and what each costs to run, then sequences what to keep, what to retire, and which workflow nothing you own currently covers. Vendor consolidation is an output of that, not the starting question.

Five things, in this order: what is genuinely in production against what is still a pilot, whether the claimed benefit is measured or asserted, what the systems cost to run at current volume, what data and model risk has been accepted and by whom, and whether the capability sits with named employees or with one supplier. Tenhaw runs this as an AI Readiness Audit scoped to the target or the business unit under review. It is an operational read, not legal or financial due diligence.

We agree the practitioners and responsibilities around the scope. The 90-day production programme offers two or three practitioners with partner oversight, working alongside your engineers and users. Learn uses practitioners who can teach and pair on your team’s work; the audit and proof of concept have their own agreed role allocations. Programme and Delivery Management independently supplies a senior lead with partner oversight. Your proposal names the team, responsibilities and client time before you commit.

Measurable value is delivered every month. That is the monthly cadence engagements are structured around, and it means you can judge the work on evidence within the first thirty days rather than at a milestone months away. The squad commits to it and reports against it; a month that delivers no measurable value is reported as a failed month. Hold us to that from month one. It is why engagements are retainer-shaped, not milestone-shaped.

Both, and the distinction matters. James Rooney worked inside HSBC, Microsoft, Sky, F1 and Discovery in delivery and transformation roles, on contract and in permanent positions. Other engagements (including Anglo American, Yondr, Greggs, Colart, Tecknuovo and Globelynx) were delivered under the Tenhaw banner. Several predate the company's incorporation and were delivered by James personally on contract; we will walk you through which is which on the call. Case studies name the client wherever we have their permission; our most recent agentic engagement is named as Placing Platform Limited (PPL), and every one states where an outcome was a pilot or proof of concept rather than a production rollout.

No. The AI Readiness Audit is £44,000, fixed in writing before the engagement starts, and it does not move with the number of business units in scope, how much prototyping is involved, or how many sites need time on the ground. Those things shape what goes into the four weeks and what comes out of them, which is what the scoping conversation settles. They are not a lever on the price. If the work genuinely will not fit inside four weeks, we say so before you commit rather than repricing halfway through.

We review the evidence with you and agree what needs to change. Learn, Prove and Deliver are fixed-price scopes; either party can end fixed-price work on written notice, with fees payable for work performed and committed costs incurred. Optional continuation and Programme and Delivery Management have 30 days’ written notice either way. Code and documentation remain in your estate, with ownership on payment of the applicable fees.

The 90-day programme ends with adoption, measurement and a documented handover to your named owners in weeks 11–13. Your engineers have built alongside ours, so they learn the workflow while it develops. You can take over fully at day 90 or agree separate continuation for the next outcome. Any recruitment support is agreed within scope; there is no assumed long retainer or final-sixty-day handover phase.

Structurally, in four ways. First, working software is deployed on your infrastructure, in your repositories, under your controls and your organisation's policies, so nothing needs migrating off Tenhaw's estate when the engagement ends. Second, your own permanent people are upskilled by pair-programming with ours for the whole build, and that transfer is measured rather than assumed. Third, the method is published in full and free to adopt without hiring us. Fourth, the exit is contractual: thirty days' notice either way, the exit date and taper agreed at kickoff, and you own all deliverables, documentation and code on payment.

A forward deployed engineer works from inside your organisation rather than from a supplier's office: in your repositories, your Slack, your stand-ups and the rooms where decisions actually get made. They build against your data, ship through your own pipelines and pair with your engineers while doing it, so what lands is a system your people helped write rather than one delivered over a wall. On a build team the engineer sits alongside an agentic lead and an adoption lead, under partner oversight from James Rooney, and everyone is screened to BS7858 standard before any client access. They are accountable for shipping, not sitting in an advisory seat.

Kickoff, access, and something built before the month is out. A UK AI delivery partner should spend week one settling what the outcomes are, what each is worth to your business in currency, who owns which decisions once an agent takes part of the work, and when the engagement ends, with the exit date agreed at kickoff rather than negotiated later. Screening and account provisioning run alongside that, because access is usually the practical constraint. From there the team works in your stand-ups and your repositories rather than behind a discovery phase, and you should be able to judge month one on something working rather than on a plan.

It depends whether they have refused or simply have not been convinced. If leadership has ruled out changing roles and decision rights, we are the wrong firm, because every engagement moves who owns the decisions an agent now makes and no amount of tooling substitutes for that. If they are unconvinced rather than opposed, that is what the AI Readiness Audit is for, four weeks at £44,000 fixed, ending in working prototypes against your own data and a costed sequence your board can argue with. A recommendation to stop is a valid outcome, and week four is a cheap place to reach it.

No, and it is the clearest item on our not-for-you list. Procuring licences and configuring a tenancy is work a reseller or your existing licensing partner will do faster and more cheaply than we will. What Tenhaw sells is the harder half: deciding which workflows go to agents, redesigning the roles and decision rights around them, building the systems inside your estate, and getting people to actually work the new way. If the tools are already bought and nothing has changed yet, that is a different conversation, and the fixed-price audit is where it starts.

Both, though the documents exist because someone needs them rather than to fill a deliverables list. The audit ends in working prototypes against your own data alongside a sequenced plan with costs attached; a design engagement produces the target operating model, the architecture underneath it and the governance around agent decisions; a build engagement ends in a documented handover as well as a running system. What you will not get is a strategy deck with nothing behind it, because a deck does not change how anyone works. You own all of it, code and documentation alike, up to the point of exit.

Learn, Prove and the 90-day outcome programme are fixed-fee engagements for agreed scopes. Deliver is £120,000 or £180,000 in three monthly instalments of £40,000 or £60,000; those instalments do not make it a monthly retainer. Continuation after day 90 is optional and separately agreed. Programme and Delivery Management remains independent monthly work. The Statement of Work records the scope, billing and termination terms.

Not usefully, and we say plainly that a one-week quick fix is not what we sell, because a week is long enough to demo something and far too short to change how anyone works. The smallest real thing we sell is an Agentic Proof of Concept, £20k–£55k fixed over two to four weeks, which builds a working system against one live workflow rather than a demo assembled outside your systems. The AI Readiness Audit runs four weeks at £44,000 fixed and ends in working prototypes against your own data. If a result inside a week is genuinely the requirement, we are the wrong call and will say so.

Yes, and that is the whole list. Every published figure, day rate and engagement price alike, is exclusive of VAT, and expenses are pre-agreed before they are incurred and charged at cost rather than marked up. There is no management fee, no licence, no seat count and no annual uplift hidden underneath, because every price derives from three published day rates at twenty billable days a month and you can check the arithmetic yourself. Where travel is going to be material, weeks on a site well away from London for instance, we agree it as part of the scope rather than surfacing it later.

Yes. The 90-day programme builds with your engineers in weeks 3–10, and their availability is agreed in the Statement of Work before starting. Your users and sponsor also need time for design, acceptance decisions and adoption. Pairing helps your team learn how to run and improve the workflow. If that time cannot be protected, we need to revisit the scope and timetable before making the commitment.

Yes, before you hire anyone. The standard is 72 open-source rules with stable identifiers, RFC 2119 severities and the rationale for each, published as an engineering handbook on GitHub and written to be enforced by an agent rather than remembered by a human. It is what our engineers build to inside your repositories, so your own reviewers can hold the work against a public document rather than a supplier's private conventions. The method above it, The Tenhaw Way, is published in full and free to adopt without hiring us.

It cannot on its own, and it is not designed to. Two or three senior people carry the design, the build and the adoption, but the change itself is carried by your own managers and engineers, which is why the decision rights move inside your management structure rather than sitting with a supplier, and why adoption is somebody's named job and gets measured rather than hoped for. The team does not grow as the programme does. If what you need is hundreds of people mobilised across a dozen countries next quarter, a large consultancy is the right call and we will say so on the first call.

Somebody owns the number and reports it every month. On a build team the adoption lead owns the part that usually fails, getting people to work the new way, and adoption is measured against a baseline taken from your own systems before the change rather than inferred from licence counts or training completions. Usage that does not move is treated as a delivery problem rather than a people problem, which usually means the workflow was redesigned around the agent on paper but not in the roles, the handoffs and the targets people are actually judged on. That is fixable while we are still in the building.

Judge it on the scale James Rooney has already worked at, and on how cheaply you can stop. He co-led the design and piloting of HSBC Global Payment Solutions' target operating model for 500 teams and a $450 million budget, with James’s engagement complete and the wider rollout in progress, and advised 150+ teams against a $102 million budget at HSBC. The agentic evidence is younger and labelled as such: a six-month engagement with Placing Platform Limited (PPL) that built a working proof of concept in two weeks and left operating guides proven on live work, with a team ready to continue without Tenhaw. The £44,000 audit runs four weeks and stands alone, so the first commitment is small. If your constraint is coverage, a dozen workstreams wanting people at once, a larger firm sells that better.

Three buyers, and better said now than in month two. If you want licences procured and a tenancy configured with nothing else changed, your licensing partner will do that faster and for less. If the plan is already written and you want hands to work through it, hire contractors directly and keep the margin, because what we sell is a directed team of two or three that owns the outcome. And if you want a supplier to run the system for you for years, buy a managed service, because our exit date is agreed at kickoff and recruiting your permanent team is a stated deliverable. For those three jobs, the alternative is the better buy.

Start with the published case studies, because each one states its own evidence basis. They say whether the work was Tenhaw's or a role James Rooney held inside the organisation, as the three HSBC studies and the Discovery+ launch were, whether a number was measured, projected or a scope figure, and whether it reached production or stopped at a pilot. The organisations are named, including Placing Platform Limited (PPL), so you can identify the engagement and ask people in your network who were involved. The PPL work is covered twice: a close-up of the two-week proof of concept and the whole six-month engagement. Those are two write-ups of one engagement, not two independent references. Private technical material remains confidential, and a published case study is not a promise of a client reference call.

You buy a defined piece of work with named responsibilities and an agreed handover. Learn develops the working method, Prove supplies evidence for an investment decision, and Deliver takes one workflow into production and use in 90 days, with an agreed pound value. The fixed Deliver fees are £120,000 for two practitioners or £180,000 for three, with partner oversight. Your engineers build alongside ours; the code and documentation sit in your estate, with ownership on payment. Any continuation is a separate choice after day 90.

Yes. Tenhaw LTD is registered in England and Wales, company number 12735685, incorporated 10 July 2020, VAT registered and based in London, with the register entry linked from the contact page, so you contract with a UK entity and are invoiced in sterling. Every engagement runs under a signed Statement of Work, with a Master Services Agreement where your legal team needs one, and the contract and data protection documents are standing templates rather than things drafted per deal. The commercial terms are published rather than negotiated late: retainers run on 30 days' written notice either way, the exit date is agreed at kickoff, and you own all work product, documentation and code produced up to the point of exit.

Agentic AI is software in which a model plans and acts over several steps towards a goal, calling tools and adapting to what comes back rather than answering a single prompt. Tenhaw embeds teams of two or three senior people to design and build those systems inside a client's own estate, and publishes its method, The Tenhaw Way, in full. Inside a large organisation the model is rarely the hard part. The operating model around it is: who owns the decisions the system now makes, what it is permitted to touch, how autonomous it is allowed to be, and how a wrong call gets caught.

An AI agent is a system that pursues a goal by choosing its own sequence of steps and using tools to carry them out, checking each result before deciding what to do next. Tenhaw's forward-deployed engineers build them inside the client's own repositories, to a 72-rule open-source engineering handbook published on GitHub. A chatbot answers questions; an agent acts on systems of record. Robotic process automation follows a fixed script and breaks when the form changes; an agent reasons about the change. To run safely in a business it needs four things beyond the model: tools with scoped permissions, memory of what it has already done, evaluation against known-good cases, and a named human escalation path.

The 90-day programme is paid in three monthly instalments of £40,000 or £60,000 against its fixed £120,000 or £180,000 fee. Other fixed-price work follows milestones agreed in the Statement of Work. Optional continuation and Programme and Delivery Management are invoiced monthly in advance. Invoices are payable within 30 days, and the signed Statement of Work records the scope, fees and billing dates.

In writing, before the additional work starts. A Tenhaw fixed-price fee does not change unless you request a change of scope. The £44,000 AI Readiness Audit and the £20,000–£55,000 Agentic Proof of Concept fix the deliverable as well as the number, and details such as how many prototype workflows get built are settled before kickoff rather than argued in week three. On a monthly retainer the team does not grow, so a new priority is traded against an existing one inside the same monthly value commitment. What a month can absorb without dropping something depends on what you already asked for that month, so the trade is made with your sponsor rather than quietly.

Nominate one, empower them, and expect them to decide things, because Tenhaw's terms make that your side of the engagement rather than a courtesy. The sponsor does three jobs. They clear timely access to the people, systems, data and decision-makers identified in the Statement of Work, and where a delay there affects the timeline we flag it in writing at the time rather than at the end. They make the calls when decision rights move, once an agent takes part of the work. And they take the monthly report of value committed against value delivered, including any month reported as a failed month. How much of their week that takes depends on how contested those decisions already are.

Tenhaw publishes no pause rate, so a retainer either runs or it stops. Retainers are invoiced monthly in advance and end on thirty days' written notice from either side, so a freeze means notice now and nothing invoiced beyond it rather than a holding fee for people who are not working. A fixed-price engagement also ends on written notice, with fees payable for work performed and committed costs incurred to that point. The code and documentation are already in your own repositories, so stopping is cheap by design. What a restart costs is mostly the context your own people were holding, which is why the pairing during the build matters more here than the notice clause does.

Ask first, because Tenhaw's published terms carry a mutual non-solicitation clause. During an engagement and for six months afterwards, neither party will knowingly solicit the other's personnel who were directly involved, except through a general public advertisement not targeted at them. It runs both ways, so your people are covered on the same basis as ours. The 90-day programme includes handover to your named owners. Recruitment support can be agreed within scope, and the intended destination is a capability your people can run. Which roles you actually need to recruit into is an output of the operating model work rather than something that clause settles.