.svg "kloia.png"){kind=logo}
Internalize SaaS with AI
Stop Renting The Part
Of The Product
You Actually Use
We capture the slice of your SaaS that your business genuinely depends on, rebuild that as software you own, and switch over only once the behaviour matches.
A Modernisation Project Where The Legacy System Belongs To Someone Else
The running SaaS is the specification. We watch how you actually use it: which workflows, which integrations, which data, which edge cases. That captured behaviour becomes an acceptance harness. Agents rebuild that slice against the harness. The SaaS keeps running the whole time. Cutover happens only when the new capability passes the comparison, in tranches, with a rehearsed way back.
The scope discipline is the whole game. Internalising the eighty percent of the product you never touch is how these projects die, so we do not do it.
Who It's For
Companies where a SaaS line item has become one of the larger ones and the product is now a constraint rather than a convenience. Usually per-seat pricing that punishes growth, data residency the vendor decides, or a feature that keeps not arriving on their roadmap.
What Renting
Actually Costs
Your growth is the vendor's revenue.
Per-seat pricing means every hire raises the bill and none of it builds an asset you own.
Our Solution :
A flat cost curve and a capability on your balance sheet instead of a subscription that compounds.
Compliance and data residency are
someone else's decision.
Where the data sits, who can reach it, what happens in an audit. You inherit the vendor's answers.
Our Solution :
The data sits where your governance says it sits, because you run the thing.
The feature you need is never on their roadmap.
You are one voice among thousands and your priority is not theirs.
Our Solution :
Your roadmap. The features you need get built when you decide to build them.
Exit looks impossible, so you never seriously consider it.
Nobody knows exactly what would break, so the renewal gets signed again.
Our Solution :
The behaviour is captured and testable before anything is built. Exit becomes a gated project with a measurable definition of done.
Capture, Harness, Rebuild, Switch
01
Find Out What You Actually Use
Real usage, not the feature list. Which workflows run, how often, which integrations carry real traffic, what the data looks like. Measurement, not a workshop where people list what they think they need.
02
Build The Acceptance Harness First
Before anything is written, the captured behaviour becomes an executable test suite. The same discipline we use on legacy modernisation, pointed at a vendor product.
03
Rebuild The Captured Slice
Agents build against the harness, machine-checked before merge, human-signed before it goes near production.
04
Parity-Gated Cutover, Never Big-Bang
The SaaS keeps running. When the harness passes you cut over in tranches, rehearsed, with rollback proven in advance. If the comparison fails, nothing switches.
Ownership, Proven Before You Take It
A capability You Own,
With a Flat Cost Curve
The subscription stops growing with your headcount.
Your Data Under Your Governance
Residency, retention and access become your decisions.
Your Roadmap
The next feature gets built because you need it, not because
enough other customers voted for it.
A Safe Exit, Proven Before You Take It
The vendor contract becomes a choice rather than a dependency,
and the proof came before the switch.
Only The Slice That Earns It
Scope is set by measured usage, so the build is priced against
what you use rather than the vendor's feature list.
Typical Candidates, And What We Can Prove
Internal tooling that grew into a per-seat contract: ticketing, workflow, approvals, internal portals. Reporting and analytics layers where you use a handful of the reports. Compliance and document-checking workflows where data residency is the real driver. Customer notification platforms with a narrow set of templates in real use. Anything where the honest answer to "which parts do you use" fits on one page.
Evidence, stated plainly. We have not delivered this line as a client engagement yet. What we have delivered is the mechanism, on a large regulated legacy estate: capture the behaviour of a running system, generate an acceptance harness from it, rebuild against the harness, gate the cutover on a measured comparison. The method never depended on owning the system being replaced, which is why it transfers. Happy to walk through that engagement in detail under NDA.
FAQ
Build versus buy analyses usually favour buy. Why not here?
For the whole product they do, and we agree. That is exactly why we only rebuild the slice you use, and why the comparison is against your subscription's growth curve and your compliance exposure rather than the vendor's feature list.
What about the vendor's ongoing improvements?
You keep them right up to cutover, because the SaaS runs in parallel the entire time. After cutover you fund your own roadmap instead of renting theirs. That trade is the actual decision.
How do you know you captured everything we use?
From real usage rather than opinion, and the captured behaviour becomes an executable test suite you can read and add to. If something was missed it shows up as a failing comparison before cutover, not as an incident after it.
What if the numbers do not work?
Then we tell you to renew. The assessment is bounded and cheap relative to the decision it informs, and "do not do this" is a legitimate outcome.
Is this legal?
Rebuilding a capability you use is normal. Copying a vendor's software is not, and we do not do it. We build from your captured usage and your requirements, and the vendor's contract terms get read properly during the assessment.
Find out what Leaving Would Actually Take
A bounded assessment that measures what you use, sizes the rebuild, and tells you honestly whether the numbers work. Renewing on evidence is a good outcome too.