ARISE Equipo · For IT departments

The capability stays in your team, not in ours.

Five companies asked us for the same thing in six weeks: that their own IT team build with AI, with a method, standards and agents that run in their environment and that their people operate.

The bottleneck moved, and nobody budgeted for it

IT teams already generate code with AI. What is missing is a way to prove it does what it claims: testing agents, code verification and deployment, with a common guideline instead of one tool per team.

What is sold here is not generation speed, but verification capability. The work did not disappear: it moved into the review queue, the rework and the change failure rate. The DORA 2025 report associates AI adoption with more throughput and more instability at once.

One figure frames the conversation: 57 % of companies that adopted AI never measured the impact and 78,3 % buried the spend in the general budget (nadIA survey, 402 Argentine companies). Whoever installs the measurement owns the story about whether it worked.

What gets installed

Guidance and templates

Tools by role, repository standards and templates with the architecture instructions inside. The repository is the only layer that survives a change of tool.

Verification

Testing, review of generated code, OWASP security gates and deployment, running inside your infrastructure and operated by your people.

Change record

Model, prompt, spec version, human approver and the tests that passed, produced as a by-product of the flow and not as a separate task.

Legacy understanding

Documenting the ERP customisation that has had no owner since the integrator left, and reconstructing why a process works the way it does.

What is sold and what is not

This table is the filter. If what you are looking for is in the right column, this is not the service, and we would rather say so before writing a proposal.

We sell

We do not sell

The baseline your team does not have and will not build on its own.

A productivity percentage.

The change record an auditor accepts.

Ticket deflection as a promise.

Revalidation when the model vendor changes the version.

Headcount reduction.

Understanding of your own code that nobody documented.

A certification.

Three phases, and the first one sells on its own

1. Baseline

Three to four weeks, fixed scope and price. It measures cycle time across three segments (waiting before first review, active review, merge to deploy), change failure rate, rework, tools per team and spend on external development. That measurement decides which module applies.

2. Installation

Eight to ten weeks per module. We enter through the stated pain, but which module is decided by the phase 1 number and not by the conversation. It ends with a pilot carrying a number from your own operation and the change record working.

3. Revalidation

A monthly subscription with triggers named in the contract: retirement or deprecation of a model, a major version change, the internal champion leaving, a change of access policy from the ERP or cloud vendor. It is not an advisory retainer.

Two modules, depending on where your pain sits

Development

For the team that already builds software with AI and needs a shared method, verification and deployment. Guidance and templates, review capacity control, change record.

Continuity

For the team that keeps the operation running: ticket resolution over your own code, a queryable extract of the customised ERP and capture of the root cause inside the resolution.

What does not get mixed

PraxIA governs what everybody else does, ARISE Equipo produces. They are two different conversations and never travel in the same proposal.

Why the harness and not the assistant

A benchmark of 180 ABAP tasks found leading models score 19 % and 24 % on the first attempt and rise to 77 % and 75 % after five rounds of compiler feedback. The improvement came from the loop, not the model. It is a preprint run against a test image, not a production system, and should be read that way. It supports the design decision: what gets charged for is the harness.

Where to start

With the baseline, and it holds up even if nothing else follows.

It is the first paid deliverable and the most important one in the service. Without a baseline, phase 2 cannot be demonstrated and phase 3 cannot be defended in next year's budget.

Three to four weeks, fixed scope and price
The real map of which tool each team uses
Your spend on external development, by vendor and by year
The report stays with you, whether we continue or not

Frequently asked questions

Is this staff augmentation?: No. We do not place developers in your team. We install the method and the agents, and your people operate them. If by the end you depend on us to run them, the work was not done properly.
Does it suit any IT department?: No. It suits the one that already runs development or support with its own team. If development is fully outsourced, the honest conversation is different: we run the agents and hand over the result. Promising transfer to a structure that will not sustain it fails at month eighteen.
Can we administer the agents ourselves?: Yes, and that is the point. They run in your environment, versioned in your repository, and your team modifies them. Revalidation exists so they keep working when the vendor changes the version.
What happens when the fashionable tool changes?: The method does not depend on it. A test does not know which assistant wrote the code. What we install lives in the verification and in the repository, the layer that survives tool churn.

Let us start by measuring where the time actually goes.

The baseline delivers the number that does not exist in your area today, and that number is what settles the budget discussion afterwards.