I help small teams follow a task from the moment it lands to the moment it is finished, spot where it stalls or gets repeated, and decide what AI should handle and what still needs a person. The result: clearer processes, instructions people can actually use, and a plan to measure whether the change helped. GEO and AI visibility audits when visibility is the real problem.
If that sounds familiar, start with one process. I will tell you honestly whether it is worth improving before it becomes a big project.
Pick one repetitive process. I map how it runs today, show where time and consistency leak out, and lay out a redesigned version: what AI and automation can handle, what stays human, and how we would measure the before and after. You get a clear diagnosis and a plan you can act on, not a pile of new software.
Good fit: lead intake and follow-up, meeting-to-follow-up, scheduling and reminders, client onboarding, and keeping customer records from turning into a junk drawer.
Start with one workflowWhen a process only exists in people's heads, every handoff is a coin flip. I document how the work actually gets done, redesign the parts that break, and turn it into clear instructions with owners, decision points, and exceptions. The kind someone can follow without asking, "Wait, how does Janet usually do this?"
Good fit: onboarding, handoffs between people or teams, anything that runs differently depending on who picks it up.
See the sample SOPOnce we agree on a better way for the work to run, I help set it up and hand it off. AI can draft, sort, summarize, and handle the repetitive pieces. A person still decides whether the work is right and ready, especially before a client sees it. You get clear instructions, training, and a measurement plan so the system keeps working after I step away.
Good fit: teams that want to use AI more effectively on a specific workflow, without becoming technical experts.
Start with one workflowSometimes the problem is not your workflow. It is that AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity do not know you exist, or describe you wrong, when a buyer asks who to hire. That is GEO, Generative Engine Optimization, and it is one of the things I do. Start free with the GEO Score, then go deeper if it is worth it.
Good fit: consultants and service businesses whose buyers increasingly ask an AI who to hire.
See GEO servicesWe are not rebuilding the whole kitchen because one drawer sticks. We start with one process, trace where it gets stuck, and decide honestly whether it is worth fixing.
A short written intake, no call required. You describe one repetitive process that is eating time. It takes a few minutes.
I look at how the work flows now, where it leaks time or consistency, and whether AI and automation are actually the right fix. If they are not, I say so.
A redesigned workflow: what gets automated, what stays human, documentation, and a plan to measure the before and after. Act on it with me or on your own.
Two full sample deliverables, built on fictional businesses to show the work start to finish. Labeled as samples, with illustrative figures, never presented as client results.
A repetitive lead-intake process, mapped current-state, redesigned, and given a measurement plan. Shows exactly what gets automated, what stays human, and how "better" would be measured.
View the sample auditStakeholder input turned into a current-state map, a repeatable SOP, and an ownership matrix, with the automate-versus-human line drawn deliberately. The documentation a new hire could follow.
View the sample SOPThere is no impression count for not existing.
When a buyer asks ChatGPT or Perplexity who to hire, your name should come up, described accurately. GEO is the work of making sure AI tools know you exist and get you right. It is a specialty I offer when visibility, not workflow, is the gap.
A two-minute self-check of how visible you are to AI tools right now. A number, at score.aibyjanet.com.
I read what the AI actually says about you, then send a written readout with the three fixes to make first.
A complete review of your AI visibility with a prioritized fix plan you can hand to whoever runs your website. Booked over a call.
We asked the AI tools who should advise on this. Big Four firms came back. Software platforms came back. Zero independent consultants were named at all.Independent consultant · verdict: not invisible, misplaced
Then I ran it on myself. I scored 55 out of 100. Asked who I was, ChatGPT named a funded startup with a similar name and said I was not a person.AI by Janet · verdict: the machines haven't met you yet
I am an operations person who learned AI because it solved real operational problems, not the other way around.
I bring 15+ years in Fortune 500 operations and project coordination, the kind of work where things have to actually get done, on time, with limited resources, across people who do not report to you. Now I apply that same lens to AI. I look at how a business really works, find the process worth fixing, and put practical AI and automation around it while keeping a human in charge of the judgment calls.
I build in public and I keep my own receipts. I ran my own business through the visibility tool I built and published the score. I caught my own AI inventing a case study and wrote about how I found it. That is the standard I hold client work to: describe what was actually built, measure the before and after, and never claim a result that was not real.
I work in English and Spanish, I hold AI certifications from Anthropic, and I run fully remote, so location is not a constraint. If you have one repetitive process eating your week, that is the place to start.
The machine can help us move faster, remember more, and handle the repetitive parts: capturing details, preparing a first draft, sorting, summarizing, and logging. The person still decides what is right, what is ready, and what represents the business.
That is not a hedge. It is the design. AI can prepare the draft. A person decides whether it should leave the building. Wherever a mistake could cost trust, a human stays in charge.
With one repetitive process that is taking too much time. You describe it in a short written intake, and I tell you honestly whether it is worth improving before it becomes a big project.
Usually not. I design around the tools you already have whenever possible. The goal is fewer moving parts working together, not a bigger tech stack.
No. AI drafts, sorts, and summarizes the repetitive work. A person approves anything a client sees or anything where a mistake would cost trust. That approval gate is built in from the start.
Not to start. The first step is a short written intake, no call required. If a call makes sense later, we can do that.
That is a specialty I offer when the gap is visibility rather than workflow. Start free with the GEO Score, or read more in the GEO section above.
Short, practical notes on using AI without the hype, and on staying visible as search moves to AI. New issues land in your inbox.