Workflow automation for Irish SMEs

Cut the admin hours between your documents and systems.

We build automation that checks, matches and prepares information from your documents and system exports, with exceptions flagged for your team. It fits around the process and systems you already run.

Or email hello@oibrio.com

Start with a free fit check. Paid validation is scoped separately.

Opens an email. Tell us the task, how often it runs and the systems involved. No confidential records needed.

Illustrative workflow

Your documents

  • Job sheets
  • Dockets
  • Supplier invoices
  • Statements

Your systems

  • Accounting
  • ERP
  • CRM
  • Project tracker

Done by hand today

ReadCopy acrossCheck line by lineRe-key

This is the part Oibrio tests — the first pass automated, the uncertain cases still surfaced for a person.

What we automate

The best opportunities are hiding between systems.

Someone downloads records, reads documents, copies fields, checks one source against another and updates a spreadsheet or an existing system. Where the same rules repeat, much of that first pass can be done for them. Three examples we assess — not packaged products, and not customer case studies.

Billing checked before the invoice goes out

A draft invoice is checked against the work actually completed, with anything that does not line up flagged for your team before it is issued.

Completed job records and the agreed rates are compared against the draft invoice, ahead of issue.

Your team reviews

Missing, duplicated or mismatched items

Dockets found before they delay invoicing

Jobs with no matching invoice surface early, so work that may still need invoicing can be followed up while it is timely.

Driver and site dockets are checked for completeness, matched to the correct jobs and customers, and compared against the invoices in the records supplied.

Your team reviews

Dockets with no matching job, and jobs with no invoice found in the supplied records

Supplier invoices checked without reading every line

Quantity, price and reference differences come back as a list to review, instead of a line-by-line check of every invoice against its paperwork.

One selected link in the purchase chain — most often supplier invoices against purchase orders and goods-received records. Extending to statements or the rest of the chain is scoped separately.

Your team reviews

Quantity, pricing, reference and completeness differences

What changes

  • Less time copying figures across and checking them line by line.
  • Handle more work with the team you have.
  • Missing references, duplicates and mismatches arrive as one review list.
  • A shorter gap between documents arriving and the information being usable.
Signals a workflow may suit
  • It repeats daily, weekly or monthly.
  • The source records already exist.
  • Staff follow recurring rules or matching steps.
  • Records are checked line by line.
  • Only a minority of cases require judgment.
  • Records can be exported, or imported back in.

The engagement

Validate, build, implement, hand over.

  1. Validate

    One workflow, tested on a sample of your completed records.

  2. Build

    The automation itself, built around the process you already run.

  3. Implement

    Put into use on live work, in the agreed scope.

  4. Hand over

    Agreed ownership and review steps, so your team runs it.

Before any of it, a short fit check — a free conversation, no records needed — establishes whether the workflow is a candidate at all. Work starts from agreed files or exports; connecting directly to an accounting, ERP or CRM system is scoped on its own terms, if it is needed at all. Oibrio has no prebuilt integrations.

What the automated pass does

Extraction

Read the fields that matter out of the documents, spreadsheets and exports we have agreed. Quality and consistency decide what can be read reliably.

Matching

Line records up against each other: a docket to a job, an invoice to a purchase order, a line to a schedule.

Rules

Apply the checks your team already applies. Fixed rules and direct matching are used wherever they will do the job.

Exception review

Anything missing, mismatched or uncertain is surfaced rather than guessed at. People stay responsible for exceptions and for decisions that need context.

The first engagement

A clear answer before a larger commitment.

A small, fixed-scope paid validation that replaces assumptions with evidence before either side commits to a build.

Completed records firstFixed scopeNo live-system access initiallyHuman review retained

No confidential records are needed for the fit check, and nothing connects to a live system before you have seen what the sample produced.

First

Understand one workflow

We establish record volumes, document formats, systems involved, manual hours, recurring rules and the points that need judgment.

Then

Test a sample

A small fixed scope, run on records you have already completed. It works from supplied files or system exports, without access to production systems.

Then

Measure the result

We report what could be processed without a person, what still needs one, the exception types encountered and the hours behind them.

Only then

Implement, if justified

If accuracy and coverage are meaningful, we agree a separate implementation around the process you already run. It covers agreed ownership, review steps and handover, scoped per engagement. If the case is weak — or software you own already covers it — we say so.

What you get back

Every validation returns the same document. What it finds depends on your records and systems. What it contains does not:

  • The workflow as agreed, and the sample it was run against
  • Every check tested, and which of them held
  • An example of the output, in the form you would receive it
  • How the reported figures were measured
  • The exception types encountered, and the review still required
  • What the time released is worth
    • Net hours released, after the review effort the exceptions still require
    • The value of that capacity, at an hourly cost you agree
    • Cash savings only where spend would actually fall
  • Data-quality or system constraints found in your records
  • A recommendation, with implementation scope and risks
Validation summary · example structure
Records in sample500
Completed without intervention60%
Surfaced for review40%
Accuracy on a checked subsetMeasured during validation.
Exception types found4

Placeholder figures

Illustrating the shape of the report only. Oibrio has no customer results to report.

Completed without intervention means the record reached the agreed output stage without manual intervention. Where that stage ends is agreed per engagement. Everything else counts as surfaced for review, including records only partly processed.

Accuracy is reported separately, from a manually checked subset. A record can pass every programmed check and still be wrong, so the two figures answer different questions.

Founder-led

Practical automation, grounded in real operational work.

Oibrio was founded by Enda McQuaid, a senior finance and operations leader with experience managing process-heavy teams and controls. The focus is practical: identify repetitive work, prove the potential saving on real records and build only where the business case is clear.

Common questions

What businesses ask first.

Do you need access to our live systems?

Not for the initial validation. It is normally completed using a limited sample of historical files or exports. Live access is considered only if the validation succeeds and an implementation is agreed.

What information is needed for the first conversation?

Approximate volumes, the systems or spreadsheets involved, how documents arrive, the manual hours required, the recurring rules and whether existing records can be exported. No confidential records are needed at that point.

What if some records are paper, scans or phone photographs?

That is established during the fit check. Scans and photographs may be suitable for extraction, but document quality and consistency affect what can be automated reliably. Paper records would need a practical digitisation step.

Does this mean replacing staff?

The aim is to reduce the repetitive hours required for the same volume of work. That can free existing staff for judgment-based tasks, increase team capacity or reduce the need for additional hiring. People remain responsible for exceptions and decisions that require context.

What if our existing software already automates part of the process?

That is a positive outcome to identify early. Oibrio should focus only on the remaining manual gap. If an existing feature solves the problem adequately, the validation should recommend using it rather than building duplicate software.

How long does a validation take?

Timing depends on the workflow, sample and document quality. The scope, inputs, deliverable and delivery date are agreed before any records are provided.

Is there a workflow your team keeps doing by hand?

A short conversation is enough to establish whether it is worth investigating.

Discuss a workflow