Serivo: AI agents for project controls
Serivo Keep me posted
● AI agents for project controls

Strengthen your project team
with agents that close the loop.

Serivo builds them for project controls teams on large capital projects in the energy transition. Each takes one job: extracting the fields from the source, drafting the register update, assembling the pack. Your team keeps the judgement, and makes better decisions sooner, on information that is current.

Keep me posted See what they close

Made with the people who run live capital programmes. Every number on this page came from one of them.

A process plant lit at dusk, reflected in still water
Every loop that stays open lands on someone who already has a job. Six of them came back in interview after interview.
Where this comes from

Built alongside live capital programmes.

Every loop on this page was found on a live programme, sitting with the people who run the registers.

Sat with the disciplines

Discovery interviews across every project controls discipline: planners, cost controllers, risk managers, document control and PMO.

Built with practitioners

Each colleague works against the forms, registers and exports the discipline already uses, and gets marked right or wrong by the people who do the work.

One sector, on purpose

Large capital projects in the energy transition. The rules, forms and registers of one discipline in one sector, chosen because these are the projects the energy transition is waiting on.

What we keep finding

The loops your systems leave open.

Six situations that came back interview after interview. We measured them before we built anything. If three of them describe your month, leave your email.

Change control

A change is approved and distributed. Nobody confirms that cost, schedule and risk actually absorbed it.

Confirmation loop open

PMO

The steering pack takes two days a month to assemble from five sets of exports. It is shown for ninety minutes and never opened again.

2 days a month

Cost control

Someone asks what changed since last period. The log already exists. You still go through it line by line.

~12 recurring reports

Planning

The diagram everyone decides on is rebuilt by hand. The last rebuild took eight days. It is used daily and it is months old.

8 days by hand

Document control

Ten working days to respond. The date is computable. The deadline passes anyway, because there is always a newer email.

10 working days

Risk

Twenty eight review sessions a month, each one written up by hand into a register forty columns wide.

28 to 30 sessions a month

This is not an analysis problem. Your team is not short of numbers, it is short of the people to act on them.

Why it matters

Closing a loop buys better decisions, sooner.

Neither one is admin time saved. Both are what a gate review, a contract claim and an audit actually test.

Decision quality

A gate decision is only as good as what is in front of it. When the change has been absorbed, the register is current, and every number still carries the line it came from, the decision gets taken on what is true now rather than what was true at the last cut. The people in the room stop arguing about the numbers and start using them.

Acceleration

Programmes rarely lose weeks deciding. They lose them assembling the pack, chasing the response and waiting for confirmation that something landed. Take that out and the same decision arrives sooner. Do it at every gate and the programme reaches the next one earlier than it would have.

Better decisions, taken sooner, on the projects the energy transition is waiting on.

The colleagues

Three colleagues. One loop each.

Each works in the format your discipline already uses, and shows where every field came from. Your team reviews everything it produces.

The change colleague

Reads a change request the moment it lands. Returns it against your change form, fills the cost, schedule and risk fields from the source, and lists what is still missing. Then it follows the change out the other side: which register has confirmed it, which has not.

The risk colleague

Sits in the risk review. Turns the session into proposed register updates, field by field, with the source line shown, ready for your risk manager to accept, correct or reject.

The reporting colleague

Builds the period story from the exports your team already produces: what changed since the last cut, and the line every answer came from. The pack stops costing two days and starts being reopened.

One capability underneath all three: turn an unstructured input into your discipline's format, show where every field came from, and flag what is missing.

How it works

How a colleague joins the team.

01

Find the loop

We sit with the people doing the work and find the loop that costs the most and closes the least. It is usually not the one the manager would have picked.

02

Build on your exports

No integration project and nothing to procure. It works from the files your programme already produces, and your practitioners mark its output right or wrong until it is reliably right.

03

It earns its seat

It takes the assembling and the chasing. Review and judgement stay with your team. If the first one does not earn the second, we stop there.

Questions we get

What practitioners ask first.

No. Every output is reviewed by your practitioners, and the work we remove is the assembling and the chasing, not the judgement. The planners and risk managers we work with drew that line themselves, and we build to it.

No. We work from the exports your programme already produces. No API programme, no eighteen month wait before you see output.

Deployment is designed to run single tenant in your own cloud, in the EU, under your own model subscription. Your data does not train anyone's model. We will put that design in front of your IT before anything touches real documents.

No. On a regulated programme nobody is rewarded for spending less. We talk about what your team can deliver and what it can defend.

Because general purpose AI does not know what a change request has to contain, what an estimate has to survive, or which field decides a claim two years later. That knowledge sits in one discipline in one sector, and it is the product.

There is a second reason. The projects that carry the energy transition are the ones we would rather see finish sooner, and a programme that closes its loops finishes sooner. That is where we start. It is not where we draw a line.

Not yet. The first agents are working software in validation with practitioners. We are choosing a small number of early programmes to build with. Leaving your email is how you hear when a spot opens.