Does this sound familiar?
More time on the application than on the research.
Grant applications, progress reports, final accountability reports. The same project information, every time in a different funder's format.
The literature that grows faster than you can read it.
Keeping up with what's published is a full-time job on top of your full-time job.
Data and documentation that become unusable after the project.
Interviews, data and notes that nobody can access anymore two years later.
Publication pressure on work that's already done.
The report, the summary, the article, the policy brief: four forms of the same finding, all of it manual work.
What we build for researchers
The application and accountability pipeline.
Project information captured once, then prepared in the format of every funder. You edit and submit.
The literature monitor.
New publications in your field screened, organized and summarized, with a source for every claim. You read what matters.
The project memory.
Interviews, data and notes unlocked and searchable, even years later. The next project doesn't start at zero.
The publication pipeline.
From finding to report, summary and policy brief, drafted from the same source material, with references at the claim level. The researcher keeps the final word.
Methodological assistants.
Supporting coding, organizing transcripts, checking consistency. The judgment stays with the researcher; the system shows what it's based on.
And sometimes the answer is: no AI.
A simple script, a better process, or doing nothing. You'll hear that too, when it's true.
Sources at the claim level — that's the same standard your own field sets. Our systems are built for exactly that.
Where this usually starts