A short call
Twenty minutes on what is worrying you and what you already know. Enough for us to scope the assessment and quote a fixed fee.
guest@make-directory:~$ npm run assess ./your-system
make-directory:~/assessment
Find out what it would actually take.
You know something needs to change, but not what it would take — or who to trust about it.
from $1,500 fixed fee, quoted after a short call
guest@make-directory:~$ cat ./why-this-first.md
worth doing first
An estimate for a system nobody has examined is a guess.
And you end up paying for that guess either way — priced into the quote as padding, or discovered halfway through the work. An assessment costs less than a month of our smallest ongoing tier and gives you a plan instead.
No one can tell you confidently what the system does
You have an estimate you cannot evaluate
You inherited something and do not know its condition
guest@make-directory:~$ ls ./what-you-get
the deliverable
A document you own, whether or not you work with us again.
- What exists, documented in plain language
- A risk register covering code, deploys, data, access, and infrastructure
- A recommendation: stabilize, automate, rebuild, integrate, or leave alone
- A phased implementation roadmap with sequencing
- Estimated phases and investment
The client does not need to make an immediate long-term commitment
Make Directory is paid to learn the environment properly
Unknown risks are identified before ongoing work begins
The client receives a useful deliverable
Both sides can determine whether an ongoing relationship is a good fit
guest@make-directory:~$ cat ./what-we-review.md
scope
What we look at.
Not every assessment covers all of this — the scope is set on the first call and the fee is fixed against it.
Review of existing applications and infrastructure
System and dependency documentation
Reliability and security risk identification
Review of backups, deployments, hosting, domains, and access
Operational bottleneck analysis
Automation and integration opportunities
Review of unfinished or underperforming projects
Identification of immediate fixes and longer-term priorities
A recommended ownership and improvement plan
guest@make-directory:~$ cat ./how-it-runs.md
four steps
How it runs.
Access and review
We look at the code, the infrastructure, the deployments, the data, and how the work actually flows through it.
The write-up
What exists, what is at risk, what to do about it, and in what order — in plain language, with costs attached.
Your decision
Implement it internally, take it to another firm, or continue with us. The document is yours either way.
guest@make-directory:~$ open ./start-an-assessment
next step
Tell us what you are worried about.
Enough detail for us to scope the assessment and come back with a fixed fee. If it turns out you do not need one, we will say that too.
Already know the scope and just need it built? You can go straight to Essential or Growth.
guest@make-directory:~$ cat ./faq.md
questions
Frequently asked questions
What does it cost?
From $1,500, quoted as a fixed fee after a short call. Most fall between $1,500 and $7,500 depending on how many systems are involved and how much is undocumented. You will know the number before we start.
Do I have to continue with you afterwards?
No, and the assessment is built so that you do not have to. It is a contained engagement with a deliverable you own. Plenty of clients take the roadmap and implement it themselves or hand it to someone else.
Why not just quote the work directly?
Because a quote for a system nobody has examined is a guess, and the risk of that guess ends up priced into it or discovered halfway through. Being paid to learn the environment properly means the estimate that follows is real.
What access do you need?
Read access to the code, the hosting or cloud accounts, and whoever knows the most about how it works today. If some of that is missing, that is itself a finding worth having.
How long does it take?
Usually one to three weeks from access to write-up, depending on scope. Urgent situations can move faster; tell us if something is actively broken.
What if it turns out nothing much is wrong?
Then you get that in writing, which is worth having. We would rather tell you the system is fine than invent work for ourselves.