The tool the business runs on stops being nobody's job.
Someone built the ops dashboard, the back-office, the internal portal: quickly, with AI, often outside IT. It works. The business now depends on it. And no one is responsible for it.
03 · Internal tools & back-offices
The back-office runs, but nobody maintains it. Take back control of the tools the business depends on.
What you're living with
- A business-critical tool with no owner and no documentation
- Built outside IT, so nobody will touch it now
- It holds real company data, with no idea what's exposed
What Grace changes
- An inventory of every internal app and its real condition
- Tests on the processes the business can't afford to stop
- Exposed secrets and access holes closed first
- The reasoning kept in writing, so it survives the next reorg
What the five deliverables look like for you.
The method doesn't change from one customer to the next. What it produces does.
- 01Mapping
An inventory of every internal app and what it actually touches, including the data nobody realised it holds.
- 02Safety net
Tests on the processes that can't stop: payroll night, the weekly export, whatever the business plans around.
- 03Stabilization
Exposed secrets, open access, and fragile configuration closed before anything cosmetic gets attention.
- 04Memory
The decisions written down, so the tool survives the next reorg and the next departure.
- 05Maintenance
A named, reviewable change process, where there used to be nobody willing to touch it.
What you'll actually use.
Grace does the same five things for everyone. These are the ones that matter most in your situation.
An inventory of what you actually run
Tests on the flows the business can't stop
Access and secrets locked down first
A written trail that survives the next reorg
The memory works for you here.
“The person who built it has moved on, or moved out. Grace's memory keeps the reasoning behind every change, so the tool stops being a black box.”
Every intervention adds to a record tied to your repo: the decision, the assumption behind it, the risk that was ruled out. It's the part of the work that usually lives in someone's head, and leaves when they do.
What people in your position ask first.
Something else on your mind? Write to us.
It's the reason to start. Grace works from the repo as it is, and the first thing the audit produces is an honest inventory: what the tool does, what it can reach, and what's exposed. That inventory is usually what IT needs before they'll agree to own it.
You do, in the literal sense: nothing merges without an approval from someone on your side. What changes is that there's now a documented process behind each change instead of one person editing it live.
That's the default assumption. Mapping and the safety net exist because most of these tools have neither. The tests get written before anything is repaired, so you can see what you had before you change it.
Start with the audit. It costs nothing.
Connect the repo and see the risks ranked, in minutes. You decide what happens next.
Not quite your situation?