Client Reviews
We commissioned the Storehouse Audit after months of internal debate about whether to pursue AI at all. The report gave us something we did not have before — a clear picture of what we actually do with information day-to-day, and where the gaps are. It turned out the most useful thing the audit identified was not a candidate for AI at all, but a documentation practice that was costing us significant time. That alone made the engagement worthwhile.
We run a private education centre with a small team, and we wanted someone to build us a way to manage our enquiry correspondence more consistently. The Single-cabinet Build did exactly what was described — our enquiry classification now handles about 80% of the categorisation that used to take someone an hour each morning. The documentation and handover were clear, and the person who manages it now had no trouble taking it over. A fair and complete engagement.
The quarterly review has been running for three cycles now and I find it genuinely useful. The written assessment each quarter is short — which I appreciate — but pointed. Having someone outside the firm look at how we are using our AI tools without any agenda to sell us more has been a different kind of value from what I expected. The conversation with Kai Ming is always worth the time.
I was sceptical going in, mainly because I had heard a lot of AI advisory pitches that felt more like product sales than genuine assessment. The audit was different. Ahmad took the time to actually understand our HR workflows before writing a single sentence of the report, and the findings reflected what he had heard — not what a generic AI product checklist would suggest. We ended up not building anything, but the report was still a valuable document for our internal planning.
We did the Single-cabinet Build to assist our team with searching through our archive of client correspondence. The build itself works well and has reduced the time staff spend looking for older records. The one thing I would note is that the timeline stretched slightly beyond eight weeks because of some complexity with our legacy system — though the team was transparent about this and did not charge more than the agreed fee.
We have been on the quarterly review for two cycles and intend to continue. What I find valuable about it is the written assessment — it creates a record of how our usage has changed quarter on quarter, which helps us think about the next steps more clearly. The service is quiet by design, which suits us. We do not need a heavy ongoing consulting presence; we need someone checking in with a clear eye.
How We Worked with Specific Organisations
Audit leading to internal process change — no AI built
A 25-person professional services firm had received a vendor proposal for AI-assisted document classification. Before committing, they wanted an independent view of whether the proposed solution addressed a real bottleneck or created a new dependency.
The Storehouse Audit over four weeks found that the document classification problem was real, but caused primarily by inconsistent filing conventions, not volume. The audit report recommended addressing the naming conventions first before any AI tool would provide meaningful value.
The firm implemented the filing convention changes without AI involvement. Document retrieval time was reduced by approximately 35% within two months. The vendor proposal was not pursued at that stage. The audit paid for itself in the first month.
"We expected to be told to buy something. Being told not to was more useful." — Operations Director
Single-cabinet Build for enquiry management
A mid-sized private education centre received high volumes of enquiries across email and messaging platforms. Staff were spending significant time each morning reading, categorising, and routing these messages — work that was repetitive and left little time for actual response.
We delivered a Single-cabinet Build that classified incoming enquiries into five defined categories and applied routing labels within the centre's existing email system. The work ran over seven weeks, including scoping, build, integration with their mail platform, documentation, and a handover session with the two staff members who manage enquiries.
Approximately 80% of incoming enquiries are now classified without manual review. Staff report saving around 45–60 minutes each morning. The system has been operating independently for three months without requiring further involvement from Sinar Compass.
"One well-built thing, working quietly. That is what we got." — Centre Principal
Ongoing quarterly review for AI tool governance
A boutique legal practice had integrated an AI tool for drafting standard correspondence. Six months in, there was some uncertainty about whether the tool was being used consistently across the team, and whether certain outputs were being reviewed thoroughly before sending.
We began the Quiet Review Service at the start of the following quarter. The first cycle identified uneven usage patterns and recommended a light internal protocol for reviewing AI-drafted correspondence before dispatch. The second cycle confirmed the protocol was in place and functioning.
By the third quarterly cycle, usage across the team had normalised and the output review protocol had become routine. The practice continues the quarterly review as a standing governance measure rather than as a corrective exercise.
"What I value most is that the review asks questions we would not think to ask ourselves." — Managing Partner
Contact Sinar Compass
ICT Association of Malaysia — Member since 2021
Contributing to the SME digital advisory working group.
PDPA 2010 Compliant Practice
All engagements conducted in accordance with Malaysia's Personal Data Protection Act.
Considering a Similar Engagement?
We are glad to discuss your situation. There is no standard pitch — just a conversation about where your organisation is and what, if anything, might be of use.
Get in Touch