Custom software · UK-based · Small scopes

Small software for problems too specific to buy off the shelf

Most businesses have one process that never quite fits the system they bought. The spreadsheet that shadows the real software. The folder of exports someone reassembles by hand every month. Too particular for a SaaS vendor to build, too repetitive to keep doing manually. That gap is what I work in.

Get in touch Is this your problem?

The shape of problem I take on

Not every job is a fit. These are the signals that one usually is.

🔁
It repeats

The same manual work comes round every week, month or quarter. A one-off problem is rarely worth building for; a recurring one usually is.

🧩
Your existing systems almost handle it

The payroll, accounting or management software does most of the job, then stops just short. The work happens in the gap between systems, not inside any one of them.

📋
There's a workaround already

A spreadsheet, a shared inbox, a manual journal, a naming convention only one person understands. The workaround is the specification: it shows exactly what the software failed to do.

🗂️
You need to prove it later

Records that have to be reconstructed months or years afterwards for an audit, a client query, a dispute or a tribunal. Getting the answer right is one problem; evidencing how you got it is another.

📏
It's too small for a software company to care about

A few hundred businesses share the problem, not a few hundred thousand. That's too narrow to attract a funded product team, which is precisely why it stays unsolved.


What this is and isn't

Being clear about the boundaries saves us both a call.

Good fit

  • One workflow, clearly described
  • Imports and exports that work with what you already run
  • Output a human reviews before it counts
  • Small first version, extended only if it earns it
  • You own the problem and feel the cost of it

Not a fit

  • Replacing your core accounting or management system
  • A broad platform covering everything at once
  • Legal, tax or employment advice — I don't give it
  • Automation nobody checks before it's relied on
  • An idea with no recent real case behind it

How it usually goes

Deliberately slow at the start. Most of the risk in bespoke software is building the wrong thing quickly.

1
Walk me through a real case

Not the process in theory — one actual instance, with the awkward parts left in. This is where the requirements really come from.

2
I do it manually first

Before anything is built, I work through a small number of genuine cases by hand and produce the output you'd want. It's the cheapest way to find out whether the idea holds.

3
Build only the repeated part

Whatever proved genuinely repetitive gets built. Imports, exports and human review first; integrations and dashboards only if they turn out to matter.

4
You can see the working

Source data, calculations and exceptions stay visible, so anything the system produces can be checked by a person who's accountable for it.


Things I've built

Live commercial products, built and maintained end to end.

HR Tech · Document processing at scale

Job Space AI

CV analysis, document processing and matching inside a commercial HR product. Structured data pulled out of unstructured files, with the handling of edge cases and failures that real operational use demands.

Next.js · TypeScript · Supabase pgvector

Live · jobspaceai.com ↗
EdTech · Content generation & billing

Primary Story

A consumer platform used by UK school children, covering personalised content generation, subscription billing and the reporting behind them. Built and run as a production service, not a prototype.

Next.js · Supabase · Azure OpenAI · Stripe

primary-story.com ↗

Common questions

What does it cost?

It depends entirely on the workflow, so I won't put a number here that turns out to be wrong. Smaller pieces of work are usually fixed-scope; anything larger gets priced once the first manual cases have shown what's actually involved. My day rates are set out on the AI consulting cost page.

Will it work with the software we already use?

That's the assumption I start from. Most of this work sits alongside an existing payroll, accounting or management system rather than replacing it, and usually begins with imports and exports rather than a direct integration. Simpler to build, and far easier to abandon if it turns out not to help.

Our problem involves tax, employment or legal rules. Can you build for that?

I can build the workflow and the records around it, but I don't give legal, tax, employment or accounting advice, and the software doesn't either. Anything affecting statutory pay, tax or enforcement gets reviewed by a qualified professional in that field before it's automated, and the output is always something a person checks.

Isn't it cheaper to keep doing it manually?

Sometimes, genuinely. If the work happens twice a year, or the time is billable to a client anyway, building software is usually the wrong answer and I'll say so. It's worth doing when the work is frequent, absorbed rather than billed, or when not being able to evidence something carries a real cost.

Who owns what you build?

You do. Code and data are handed over, with a walkthrough so someone else could pick it up. No lock-in to me as a single supplier.

Are you currently researching anything specific?

Yes. I'm looking at UK compliance and record-keeping workflows where recent rule changes have moved faster than the software — particularly around evidence trails and audit records. If you handle something like that day to day, I'd genuinely like to hear how you do it, whether or not there's ever a product in it.

Got a process that never quite fits?

Describe the workflow and the workaround. I'll tell you honestly whether it's worth building for.

Get in touch nicholas@nrbconsulting.co.uk