The things people ask before they buy.

No. Saintilco Consulting is independent. Workday does not sponsor, endorse, review or approve anything on this site, and nothing here should be read as a Workday position.

A vendor will not tell you what to push back on in your own Order Form.

No, and I say so on every page that touches it. The rate card and the underlying credit policy are not publicly available, and I have not read them.

Every rate published here is third-party reported and labelled as such. The models are built to work when you substitute your own contracted rates: if your numbers differ, you change seven cells, not the spreadsheet.

A consulting practice that publishes its working papers. The calculator, the kit and the workshop are the same body of work at three levels of depth.

The practice is Workday Financials: cost and consumption forecasting for AI agents, grants and sponsored programs assurance, professional services automation, and the controls and evidence questions that sit under all three.

The credit work applies the same way it applies to anyone who owns Workday Financials, with one difference that matters: if agent consumption is charged to sponsored awards, somebody will eventually be asked to substantiate the allocation methodology.

Separately, and more usefully for most institutions, I work on grants configuration against what audits actually find: effort substantiation, award-to-worktag integrity, cost-transfer evidence, and whether your tenant can produce that evidence without a manual reconstruction.

This is advisory and assurance work: I review, score and tell you where the exposure is. I am not bidding to run your sponsored programs implementation.

Yes, on the same terms: review and design opinion rather than delivery. Revenue recognition configuration, project billing and the shape of the data that feeds it, and whether the contract structure in the tenant matches the contract structure in the contracts.

If what you need is a team to build it, I will tell you that and, where I can, point you at someone who does that. If what you need is a second opinion on what a team has already built, that is the work.

Three files, delivered as a download link by email, usually within a few hours and always within one business day. A consumption model spreadsheet with the full rate and tier logic and stress cases at 1.5x, 2x and 3x. A thirty-eight question tenant readiness assessment, scored, across seven dimensions. And a twelve-page contract and Order Form negotiation checklist as a PDF.

The kit page shows the real output of the first two, numbers and all, before you pay anything.

No. It is a company licence. Circulate it to everyone inside your organisation who touches the decision (systems, finance, procurement, internal audit) at no additional cost. That is deliberate, because the readiness questions need four different people to answer them honestly.

What the licence does not permit is redistribution outside your organisation, resale, or use as the basis of a competing commercial product.

Thirty days, no questions asked, and you do not have to delete the files. Email the address at the bottom of this page and say the word refund.

A refund policy is the only guarantee that costs the seller something.

Run the free calculator first. If it says your annual overage exposure is four thousand dollars, do not buy an eight hundred and fifty dollar kit to manage it, and certainly do not book a four and a half thousand dollar workshop. That verdict is written into the calculator.

The kit is for a team that can do the work once it knows what the work is. The workshop is for the situation where four people each own a quarter of the answer and have never been in the same room about it. The kit is included with the workshop, so there is no reason to buy both.

The kit takes card through a hosted payment link. Workshops are invoiced on standard net terms and can go through your procurement process; a W-9 is available on request. If your procurement team needs a vendor form completed or a specific insurance certificate before they will raise a purchase order, say so early and I will tell you straight away whether I can meet it.

Not for the kit or the calculator. Both are built to be run entirely by you, on your side, with nothing sent anywhere. The calculator does its arithmetic in your browser and stores nothing.

For the workshop, no access is required either. Your team drives their own screen. If you would rather grant a read-only sandbox account instead, that works too, but it is your choice and not a condition.

This is a new practice under this name and I am not going to put invented quotes on a page to cover that. The consulting experience behind it is nine years deep and is described on the about page, but the products themselves are new.

What stands in for a reference is that the free tool is a working piece of the paid model, the paid output is shown on the page before you pay, the price is published, and the refund policy is thirty days. Four things you can check yourself today.

Usually yes, and the reason is structural rather than clever. An implementation partner's commercial interest is in the size of the statement of work. A reseller's is in the size of the subscription. Neither is dishonest, but neither is positioned to tell you that the cheapest fix is to not enable something.

I sell a fixed-price review. The answer it reaches does not change what I am paid.

No, and you should be glad. Nothing identifiable from any prior engagement appears in these materials: not a tenant, not a configuration, not a finding. The materials describe patterns and public documentation, and the industries are named where the experience matters. Organisations are not.

If a consultant will name their last client to you, assume they will name you to their next one.

No. It is commercial and systems guidance. The contract checklist tells you which clauses to take to your counsel and what to ask them; it is not a substitute for counsel, and it does not tell you what your contract means. The grants material points at what auditors look for; it does not constitute an audit opinion.