Body shops don't work like this. Their purpose is to put butts in seats, regardless of whether or not that butt is attached to anything else that is functional. Functioning in this manner would actually be counter-productive for them, because it would reduce the number of butts that they have to put into seats, and would reduce the number of seats into which they could put butts.

If you know of a development agency, odds are that it is probably a body shop.

The places that do work like this are more like Unicorns. And Unicorns are damned hard to find and hire -- or get hired by them.

But actual consultants exist, some of them are working as well (unlike a body shop).

This sort of thing is how I now pay the bills.

Part of the problem is that to effectively automate a task or series of tasks you need to fully understand what is being done. The person currently doing this knows what they are doing (you would hope), and may understand why they are doing it (this is not guaranteed).

In many cases, what somebody does (and why) is not documented, or if it is the documentation is most likely out of date and inaccurate.

To effectively automate a task, you need to fully understand what needs to be done as well as have the skills to do the actual automation. Getting somebody in who is unfamiliar with the job, can work, but in most cases you will end up with an off the shelf system that has been customised to perform the original task but come with a large overhead of maintenance that may take more work than the original task.

My suggestion would be that rather than get an outsider to create the automation tools, up-skill and authorise the staff doing the work now to allow them to gradually automate the process. Make sure you make it worth their whiles to automate.

So it sounds like two things:

1) As person with business knowledge, vision, plan, etc, I should fully document the business goal and why we're doing it and what we're trying to achieve at the highest level, then work with the developer to figure out what should be developed to achieve that and where to automate.

2) Don't hire outside person or agency, but bring someone in full-time or as a part-time partner for the long term and incentivize them to get better and better?

I’d hope they all do. If you get an experienced developer they should want to automate all of this. My former boss took the model of improving processes and revenue, then taking a cut of the difference ongoing. He had financial freedom already, so this was the best use of his time. With some companies you aren’t given all of the information to make the right decision for efficiencies sake, or they write such a rigid spec there’s no room for improvement. Personally I love spending the time where I can see it saving so much time for the end. You might not need an agency, you might just need a developer to help write what you want to create and work a spec that you can give to an uncreative team/agency to create. Agencies make a decent amount on the discovery phase, so you’d be cutting that out. At that point you could go directly to someone that could implement it.

That's a great idea, will definitely try this out.

Seems to be a good idea to separate out the architecting from the actual implementation. Makes sense, because if someone knows they'll have to be implementing, it could cloud their plan for the ideal solution. Similar to separating out design, UX, and development roles.

You don't pay by the hour, you pay for the job...