Bauer Automate - Blog #Administrative

The Timesheet That Isn't a Separate System

Tue, 15 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0600

Your billable hours live in a time-tracking tool. The project they belong to lives somewhere else: a site, a plan, a folder of documents. And once a month somebody sits down and reconciles the two by hand, matching a row in one system to a project in another, so the invoice can go out. The record your firm's revenue stands on is kept in the one place that has no direct connection to the work it describes.

That gap is not an accident of your setup. It is the shape of the whole category. Time tracking grew up as its own kind of software, a product you buy on its own, so the hours and the project they were logged against were never meant to live in the same system. The reconciliation is not a step you do badly. It is a tax you pay for keeping two records of the same afternoon in two different places.

Two records of one afternoon

Think about what a timesheet entry and a project record actually are. Both describe the same hour of the same person's work. One says how long and against what code; the other says what the work was part of, where its documents are, who is on it. Keeping them apart means every number has to be carried across the gap by a person, and the carrying is where the errors, the delay, and the month-end scramble come from. The hours matter most and sit furthest from the project.

One list, in the project's own site

ProjectPoint closes the gap by putting time where the project already is. An entry is a row in a SharePoint list in the project's own site, naming the project it belongs to, sitting next to that project's documents and its registers. It is part of the project record, not a separate system pointing at it from outside.

The way that time gets captured is a shipped browser extension for Edge and Chrome, and it is good at the job. It rides in the browser side panel, so it is present on whatever tab the work is happening in. Start a timer with one click, run several at once when the work genuinely overlaps and watch the wall clock split evenly between them so the total never inflates, or log time by hand when the timer missed it. A week strip shows the days you have and have not logged, and a month view answers the question people actually ask, which is not "what is my total" but "am I on pace", with the projection shown rather than hidden. It captures time well, and every minute of it lands in your own list using the sign-in the person already has.

It holds up against the tools built only for this

The mature time-tracking products, Harvest, Ruddr, Clockify and the rest, are good software, and we will not pretend otherwise. But every one of them is vendor-hosted, so the honest capture they give you comes with the record living on someone else's servers, under someone else's subscription. ProjectPoint gives you the capture, concurrent timers that add up correctly, a completeness view, a pace projection, and keeps the record in your own tenant, because it was never anywhere else.

ProjectPoint's time entry names a project, with a category, and reports against it. Time broken down to individual tasks and sub-tasks, against a full work-breakdown structure, is the relational model at the Platform tier on Dataverse; when that is the job in front of you, it is
the Platform conversation to have.

One component of a platform, not a point tool

The reason the timesheet is not a separate system is that ProjectPoint is not a time tracker that grew a project feature. It is a project management platform on SharePoint, and time entry is one component of its middle tier, alongside the four project registers and the capture of time and budget feedback from both the project lead and the people doing the work. The point of putting time in the project is that it stops being a silo and starts being one more thing the project workspace knows, reported on next to the budget it burns and the risks it carries.

Where it goes when you bill at a rate

For a firm that bills client work, the next step up is the relational model at the top tier, on Dataverse: rates, billable versus non-billable classification, an invoicing-ready export, and row-level boundaries so a contributor sees only their own entries. That is the Platform conversation, and it is the one to have when time to rate to invoice is the job in front of you. The middle tier gets your hours captured against the right project, in your own tenant, and reported on in context; the top tier turns them into what finance sends the client.

Get in touch, and we will show you hours that already know which project they are on.

Book A FREE Discovery Call

The Report Your Tenant Is Already Holding

Thu, 10 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0600

Two rituals repeat in every delivery organisation. Once a week, someone sends the "timesheets please" email. Once a month, someone rebuilds the same status report by hand, copying numbers out of a tool into a slide, so leadership can see where the projects stand. Both are work that produces nothing new. Both exist to compensate for the same missing thing: a clear view of your own data that you can simply read.

The reason you cannot simply read it is usually where the data lives. When the record sits on a vendor's servers, getting a report out of it means exporting on the vendor's terms, in the vendor's shape, and then rebuilding the view you actually wanted. The report is a reconstruction, not a read. And the weekly reminder exists for a related reason: completeness is invisible, so a person has to stand in for the check a system should perform.

The reminder is a symptom of a report you cannot see

Look at the weekly chase for what it is. A manager broadcasts "timesheets please" because they cannot see whose week is complete, and a contributor cannot tell either, so two people spend attention on a question a glance should answer. The monthly report is the same problem one level up: the numbers exist, but not in a form anyone can point a chart at, so they get carried across by hand every period. Neither is a discipline failure. Both are what you get when the data is somewhere you cannot query freely.

The data is already list items in your own tenant

Here is the structural difference with ProjectPoint. Your Projects registry is a SharePoint list. Your time entries are SharePoint list items, in your own project sites. That is not a metaphor for "we can export it to you". It is the same data an executive roll-up reads, sitting in a place you already own the tools for, and ProjectPoint turns it into the views your week actually runs on.

The reports, and the reminders that carry their own answer

Every person entering time gets their own week strip, showing the days logged and unlogged, and a month view with a signed pace figure, ahead in green or behind in red, with the projection shown rather than hidden. That is reporting at the level of the individual, and it answers "am I on pace" without anyone sending an email.

Above it, ProjectPoint reports across the portfolio. A cross-project roll-up puts status and budget for every project in one view, built from the registry that already holds them. Scheduled digests land in inboxes showing who is on track and where a budget is heading, so the weekly reminder sends itself with the answer already attached instead of a manager chasing it. And a client-ready weekly progress summary is drafted for each project from the week's own entries, so a project manager sends it rather than assembling it by hand. Because your hours are ordinary list items in your own tenant, a Power BI report points straight at them, over data you already own, with nothing to export and no vendor copy to reconcile against.

The upgrade worth having

The entry tier gets your projects and your hours into your own tenant, correctly shaped and correctly owned. That is the foundation, and it is the part you buy first. The middle tier is where that owned data becomes the roll-up, the digest, and the summary that a delivery lead runs the week on. That is the upgrade worth having, and the reason it is worth having is the reason the whole thing is worth owning: the data underneath every one of those reports is yours, and it stays yours.

Get in touch, and we will point your own reporting at your own data.

The Point

A law firm is paid for exactness. The documents that carry your name should look as exact as the work inside them, and that should not depend on anyone remembering to make it so. If your engagement letters, memos, filings, and reports all read like they came from one careful firm, that is a system working, not luck.

If that is the standard you want your documents held to, get in touch and we will show you how far it goes.

Book A FREE Discovery Call

The Register That Still Knows Where Everything Is

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0600

Six months into the year, someone asks a simple question: where does the Henderson project keep its documents? If your project sites were built by hand, the honest answer is a search, a guess, and a message to whoever set it up, if they are still here. The site exists. The board exists. The register of risks exists. What does not exist is one place that reliably knows they all do, and how to get to each one.

That is the quiet failure of building sites one at a time. Each one is fine on the day it is made. But nothing holds the list of them all, so the map of your portfolio lives in people's heads and in half-remembered links, and it degrades a little with every project, every reorg, and every person who leaves. The problem was never making a project site. It was keeping a growing pile of them findable.

Making the site is the easy part

Provisioning a workspace is a one-time act. Keeping a portfolio of workspaces navigable, so any project can be found by someone who did not set it up, is the ongoing one, and it is the part hand-built sites never solve. A folder of bookmarks is not a map. A Teams message asking "what was the site for Henderson again" is the sound of the map having failed.

The register is the index, and it links back

ProjectPoint's answer is that the Projects list is not just where projects are started; it is the index that stays current by construction. When a project is provisioned, its record links itself back to the new site and to its Planner board. The register does not drift out of date, because the linking is part of the same run that creates the site, not a step someone has to remember afterwards. To find any project, you open the register, find the row, and follow the link. The list that starts your projects is the same list that always knows where they went.

The hub routes people, in your own navigation

Findability is not only the register's job. Each new project site joins your hub, and the hub navigation updates so the project appears where people already look, with audience targeting so they see the projects that are actually theirs rather than everyone's. The homepage is generated with the project's own details filled in, so a person opening a project for the first time lands somewhere oriented instead of on an empty site they have to decode. The map is not a document you maintain. It is the way the sites were built.

Why this is the part you buy first

This is the entry tier of a project management platform, and it is deliberately the foundation. The registry and the provisioning engine are the component that is built, demonstrable, and buyable today, and the reason they come first is that everything else the platform adds, the

risk and decision registers, the time and budget capture, the reporting on top, is only worth putting inside a project site if the project site can be found later. The map has to hold before the things on the map are worth drawing.

The limit worth stating plainly

ProjectPoint creates project sites and keeps them indexed. It does not archive them, expire them, or decommission them when a project ends, and it has no sprawl reporting or permissions auditing across your tenant. If the problem you actually have is controlling the whole lifecycle of sites at scale, closing down the finished ones and policing who can see what, that is a different category of product with a different buyer, and those tools are usually complementary to this one rather than in competition with it. We would rather point you at them than pretend a provisioning engine is a governance platform.

Get in touch, and we will show you a register that still knows where everything is.

Book A FREE Discovery Call

No Two Project Sites the Same

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0600

Open your last three project sites side by side. If they are three different shapes, that is not a tidiness problem. It is the reason nothing can be found in the same place twice, and the reason every governance conversation has to be had again on every project.

That inconsistency has a simple origin. Every one of those sites was built by whoever had time that week, structured however they happened to be thinking about the project that morning, with permissions set from memory rather than from a policy anyone wrote down. None of that is negligence. It is what happens when "stand up a project site" has no fixed answer, only a person doing their best against a deadline.

One office's habits become three

Now multiply that by three offices. One office's habit of naming a folder a certain way becomes three different habits, one per office, and none of the three people involved did anything wrong. Each is being reasonably consistent with themselves. The firm is not being consistent with itself, and because nobody individually caused the drift, nobody individually owns fixing it. It just accumulates, one project at a time, until "where do we usually put the meeting minutes" has three correct answers depending on which office you ask.

Careful is not a system

The instinct is to fix this with a memo: a naming convention, a checklist, a line in the kickoff agenda. It does not hold, for the same reason it never holds anywhere else in a firm's document practice. A consistency problem is not solved by asking people to be more careful under deadline pressure. It is solved by making the consistent version the only version anyone can produce. The site has to arrive built. Nobody should be assembling it by hand in the first place, no matter how careful they mean to be.

What actually gets cloned

That is what a golden template means in practice: cloned in full every time a project starts, not handed over as a starting point for somebody to finish. The site is created and joined to the right hub automatically, and the hub navigation updates to point to it. From there the clone runs layer by layer: the same site features, the same permissions, the same content types and site columns, the same list structure, the same library structure, the same navigation, the same default folder content already in place. A Planner board is created alongside it, seeded with the template's own tasks rather than handed over blank. The homepage generates itself, project details already filled in. None of it is a scaffold somebody finishes later. It is the finished site, on day one, the same shape as the last one and the one before that, whichever office opened it.

A project list that stays true

There is a second piece that matters as much as the site itself. The project record that started the whole process, the row in the project registry, links back automatically to the site and the board it just created. That sounds small until you have watched a project list go stale the ordinary way: a project gets added, a site gets built by hand somewhere else, and six months later the two have drifted apart, or the link never gets made at all because making it was one more manual step nobody prioritized. Here the link is not a step somebody has to remember. It is a direct consequence of provisioning, which means the project list stays a true index of where the work actually lives instead of becoming one more record somebody has to reconcile against reality.

What this does not do yet

One limit is worth stating plainly, because a reader who discovers it later stops trusting everything else in this post. The template improves over time. A site provisioned before an improvement lands does not receive it after the fact. There is no drift detection today, and no way to re-apply an updated template to a site that already exists. Every project going forward gets the current template. The ones already built keep the shape they were built with. That is a real gap, not a hidden one, and it is better to know it now than to discover it in a steering meeting.

Get in touch, and we will walk your last three project sites side by side.

Book A FREE Discovery Call

The Day Project Online Switches Off

Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:00:00 -0600

On 30 September 2026, Microsoft switches Project Online off. Access to the service goes with it, and so does the project data that has been living inside it.

That is the whole fact, and it does not need decoration. The date is fixed, it is public, and it is close. Whatever is sitting in Project Online today, schedules, task lists, project history, is only reachable through a service Microsoft has already scheduled to disappear. If your organisation still runs projects there, this is not a warning about something that might happen.

It is a countdown to something that will.

Where Microsoft points you next

Microsoft's own answer for what comes after Project Online is not a straight swap. Project for the Web, the product Microsoft built as the next generation of Project, retired in August 2025. What Microsoft offers today in its place, and what the premium tier is now branded, is Planner Premium.

That is worth sitting with before you assume it covers the same ground. A tool built for managing projects is being followed by the premium tier of a task app. Whether that is enough depends entirely on what you actually used Project Online for, and the honest answer for most PMOs is that it does not cover the same ground. More on why below.

The honest limit, said here and not on a call

There is no tool we have found, ours or anyone else's, that lifts a Project Online project's full history out of the service and lands it somewhere new intact. If a vendor tells you they can move your Project Online data out, ask them to show you the tool actually doing it, against real data, before you take the claim on faith. We do not have that tool. We are not going to imply we do to make this an easier conversation, and a workspace built on that implication would not be worth much anyway. This is the part of the post that does not help us, and it is why the rest of it is worth reading.

Two different problems

Once the history question is out of the way, it is worth separating what is actually being compared. Scheduling and workspace are two different problems, and Planner Premium only answers one of them.

Planner Premium answers what tasks exist, in what order, and by when. It does not answer where the project's documents live, who has access to them, what the risks are, who the stakeholders are, or what was decided along the way and why. Those are workspace questions, not scheduling questions, and a scheduling tool getting better at scheduling does not make them go away.

Why that will not change on its own

That gap is not a missing feature waiting on a future update. It is structural. Planner Premium stores its data in Dataverse, not SharePoint, and a Dataverse record is not a SharePoint site. There is no project site attached to a Planner Premium plan, no document library, no content

types, no site columns, no navigation, and no permissions model built around the project. Those are the pieces that would need to exist for Planner Premium to answer the workspace questions above, and none of them are part of what it is.

That means the gap does not close by waiting. Planner Premium can get a better Gantt-style view, a faster board, more fields, and it will still have no project site behind it, because that was never what it was built to be.

What a project workspace looks like instead

A SharePoint project workspace is a different kind of thing entirely: a site built for one project, with its own document library, its own content types and site columns already set up for what that project needs, its own navigation, and default folders already in place. A Planner board
sits inside it, seeded with the site's own starting tasks, and the site links back to a central project registry so the record of what projects exist stays accurate instead of becoming a list nobody trusts.

This does not replace the Planner entitlement already included with most Microsoft 365 licences. It rides on it. The board is still a Planner board, opened the way your team already opens one. What changes is everything around it: the site the board lives inside, the documents that sit next to it, and the record that ties the two together.

None of this reaches back into Project Online. It is not a migration, and it does not claim to be one. It is where your next project lives, built correctly from the start, inside the Microsoft 365 you already have.

If Project Online is still where your projects live, get in touch!

Book A FREE Discovery Call

Unlock the Power of Microsoft 365 for Lawyers

Tue, 12 May 2026 10:55:49 -0600

How Lawyers Can Maximize Their Microsoft 365 Subscription to Streamline your Legal Practice

Introduction

Microsoft 365 is much more than just email and Office apps; it’s a powerful ecosystem that can help law firms streamline workflows, improve branding, and enhance client experiences. By fully leveraging the tools available in their subscription, lawyers can simplify their operations, maintain professionalism, and grow their practices with ease. In this blog, we’ll explore the best ways for lawyers to make the most of Microsoft 365.

Key Features of Microsoft 365 Lawyers Can Use to Their Advantage

1. Personalized Login Experience

A small but impactful feature of Microsoft 365 is the ability to customize the login experience with your law firm’s branding. Branded login screens allow you to display your firm’s logo, colors, and typography, creating a professional and cohesive look that reinforces your brand identity every time team members log in.

2. Use Microsoft Bookings for Client Scheduling

Microsoft Bookings is an invaluable tool for law firms. It allows clients to schedule consultations directly into your calendar, eliminating the need for back-and-forth emails. You can customize your availability, automate confirmations and reminders, and ensure a seamless scheduling process. This not only saves time but also enhances the client experience by making it easy for them to connect with your firm.

3. Advanced Website Analytics with Microsoft Clarity

Microsoft Clarity is a free tool that provides advanced analytics for your website. With features like heatmaps and session recordings, you can analyze user behavior, identify areas for improvement, and optimize your site’s navigation and content. For law firms, this means better insight into what potential clients are looking for, helping you attract and convert leads in a competitive digital market.

4. Centrally Manage Devices and Branding with Microsoft Intune

Microsoft Intune allows you to manage all your devices and deploy branding elements like logos, wallpapers, and typography consistently across your team. With Intune, you can:

Ensure that all team members have the same tools and resources.

Streamline onboarding and offboarding processes for employees.
Securely manage your team’s devices and applications from one central hub.
For growing law firms, this level of control and consistency is invaluable.

5. Document Templates in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint

Setting up branded templates in Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint is a must for any law firm. Templates for letterheads, client presentations, and other essential documents save time, reduce errors, and maintain a polished and professional appearance. With Microsoft 365, you can easily create and share these templates across your team to ensure consistency.

6. Additional Ways to Maximize Microsoft 365

Streamlined Collaboration with Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Teams is an excellent tool for secure internal communication and client collaboration. Use Teams to host virtual meetings, share files, and collaborate on cases in real time. By integrating Teams with SharePoint, you can further simplify document sharing and management.

7. Using Microsoft Planner for Task Organization

Microsoft Planner is an ideal tool for organizing tasks and actions per client, case, and internal project(s). It allows law firms to:

Create dedicated plans for individual cases or clients.
Assign tasks to team members with due dates and priority levels.
Track progress visually with boards, charts, and timelines.
Planner ensures that no detail is overlooked, improving coordination and accountability across your team.

8. Automating Workflows with Power Automate

Power Automate enables you to automate repetitive tasks and workflows. For example:

Automatically save email attachments to a specific SharePoint folder.
Create workflows for client intake forms and follow-up reminders. These automations free up time for lawyers to focus on billable work while ensuring that important tasks aren’t overlooked.

9. Advanced Email Security and Compliance with Microsoft 365 Defender

Data security is a top priority for law firms, and Microsoft 365 Defender helps protect sensitive legal communications. From advanced threat protection to compliance management, this tool ensures your firm’s data remains secure and adheres to industry standards.

Why Branding Consistency Matters in a Legal Practice

Maintaining a consistent brand is crucial for building trust and credibility. By using Microsoft 365 tools like Intune for device management and Word for branded templates, your firm can ensure that every client-facing touchpoint reflects your professionalism. For even greater consistency, consider centralizing your email branding with Bauer Automate’s Email Signature Automation Tool. This tool ensures that:

Every team member’s email signature aligns with your firm’s branding.
Updates to email signatures are implemented firm-wide instantly.
Your branding is consistent across all devices and platforms.

Conclusion

Microsoft 365 offers an array of tools to help law firms enhance efficiency, maintain consistent branding, and deliver exceptional client experiences. From branded login screens and scheduling tools to advanced analytics and workflow automation, the platform is a game-changer for lawyers looking to grow their practices. To take your branding to the next level, explore Bauer Automate’s Email Signature Automation Tool and centralize your firm’s professional image today.

5 Business Processes That Are Still Shockingly Manual (and Easy to Automate)

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:50:30 -0700

5 Business Processes That Are Still Shockingly Manual (and Easy to Automate)

Despite years of digital transformation, many organizations still rely on manual business processes to run critical operations. Email/folder-based approvals, spreadsheet-driven reporting, and repetitive data entry remain common — even though business process automation tools are widely available.

These manual workflows don’t just slow teams down. They increase errors, reduce visibility, and prevent organizations from scaling efficiently.

The good news is that many of these processes are ideal candidates for workflow automation using modern low-code automation platforms.

Below are five manual business processes that are still shockingly common — and easy to automate.

1. Approval Workflow Automation (Time Off, Purchases, Expenses)

Approval workflows are one of the most common examples of manual business processes. Time-off requests, purchase approvals, and expense sign-offs are often handled through long email threads with no visibility or audit trail.

High-Level Approval Automation Example

Request Intake: Microsoft Forms or Power Apps
Data Storage: SharePoint list
Workflow Automation: Power Automate routes approvals based on rules
Notifications: Email and Microsoft Teams
Tracking: Centralized approval status and history

This type of approval workflow automation replaces inbox chaos with a structured, trackable process.

Estimated Setup Time: 4-8 hours (basic approval workflow), or 8-12 hours (multi-level workflow automation)

Typical Time Saved: ~10-15 minutes per request | ≈ 40-60 hours saved per year

2. Repetitive Data Entry and System-to-System Automation

Manual data entry across systems is one of the biggest drains on productivity. Teams often copy the same data into spreadsheets, CRMs, accounting systems, or internal tools.

High-Level Data Entry Automation Example

Single Data Capture: Form or Power App
Primary Data Store: SharePoint or Dataverse
Workflow Automation: Power Automate syncs data across systems
Validation Rules: Reduce errors and rework

By automating this business workflow, organizations eliminate duplicate work and improve data accuracy.

Estimated Setup Time: 6-12 hours

Typical Time Saved: 3-5 minutes per entry | ≈ 60-100 hours saved per year

3. Document Automation and File Management

Many organizations still rely on manual document creation for proposals, contracts, letters, and internal documentation. These manual workflows often lead to inconsistent formats and version control issues.

High-Level Document Automation Example:

Data Input: Power App or Form
Document Automation: Generate Word or PDF files from templates
File Management: Store documents automatically in SharePoint
Notifications: Automated sharing and alerts

This form of document automation ensures consistency while reducing manual effort.

Estimated Setup Time: 6-12 hours

Typical Time Saved: 10-20 minutes per document | ≈ 85-170 hours saved per year

4. Automated Reporting and Workflow Automation

Reporting is still one of the most manual business processes in many organizations. Data is exported, cleaned, and reassembled in spreadsheets before being shared with stakeholders.

High-Level Automated Reporting Example

Data Sources: SharePoint, Dataverse, or line-of-business systems
Workflow Automation: Scheduled data refresh via Power Automate
Reporting: Power BI dashboards with automated updates
Distribution: Automated report sharing

This approach to automated reporting ensures leaders always have access to up-to-date information.

Estimated Setup Time: 8-16 hours

Typical Time Saved: 2-5 hours per reporting cycle | ≈ 25-60 hours saved per year

5. Business Process Automation for Onboarding

Employee and vendor onboarding often spans multiple departments and systems, making it one of the most fragmented manual workflows in an organization.

High-Level Onboarding Automation Example

Intake: Onboarding Form or Power App
Workflow Automation: Automated task assignment and reminders
Tracking: Central SharePoint list or app
Communication: Automated status updates

This type of business process automation improves consistency while reducing onboarding time.

Estimated Setup Time: 8-14 hours

Typical Time Saved: 1-2 hours per onboarding | ≈ 25-50 hours saved per year

Ready to Automate the Work That Slows Your Team Down?

Learn how Bauer Automate helps organizations replace manual business processes with secure, scalable workflow automation using Microsoft Power Platform.

Whether you’re looking to automate approvals, reporting, document management, or system integrations, we focus on practical automation that delivers real ROI — fast.

Book A FREE Automation Discovery Call

Exciting Announcement for the Calgary Power Platform User Group!

Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:40:41 -0700

Exciting Announcement for the Calgary Power Platform User Group!

Embarking on a new Era: Ryley & David

We at Bauer Automate are thrilled to announce a significant leadership change in the Calgary Power Platform User Group. It's with great excitement that we welcome our very own Ryley Bauer, Chief Automate Officer, and David He as the new leaders of this official Microsoft User Group.

Reflecting on The Journey: The Calgary Power Platform User Group, nurtured by Iteration Insights since 2018, has been a cornerstone in the Calgary analytics community and able to creating a space for sharing knowledge, fostering innovation, and building a network of collaboration.

A Note of Gratitude: We extend our deepest thanks to Chris, Renata, and Maria from Iteration Insights for their outstanding leadership over the past five years. Their dedication has been instrumental in shaping the group's success.

New Leadership: As Ryley and David step into their roles, they are preparing to share their vision for the group. Their leadership promises to uphold the group's legacy of innovation and active community engagement. We are eagerly awaiting the announcement of their plans, events, and initiatives.

Your feedback is important to us! Please spare a moment to share your thoughts and help shape the group's future:

Click Here to Fill out Our Survey

Introducing the New Leaders:

🚀 Ryley: As the Chief Automate Officer at Bauer Automate, he brings a wealth of experience in the Microsoft ecosystem. His expertise in the Power Platform and credentials as a Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT) make him an invaluable leader for the group.
🌐 David: As a Consultant at Bauer Automate, he brings diverse background in operations, marketing, and sales, combined with his innovative application of the Power Platform, brings a fresh and impactful perspective to the group.

Join the Community:

We invite our members to connect with Ryley and David and actively participate in the group's activities. Stay informed and engaged by joining us at:

LinkedIn Community

Official Microsoft Group

Let's warmly welcome Ryley and David and support them as they lead us into a new era of growth, learning, and community engagement!

#CalgaryPowerPlatformUserGroup #PowerPlatform #Microsoft #Leadership #CommunityGrowth