The first thing that sets the cost is scope. Automating one task, like sending an alert when a stall opens on the waitlist, is a small, contained build. Tying several of a stable's recurring jobs together, boarding waitlists, lesson scheduling, monthly billing, and farrier or vet coordination, into one system that hands off between them is a bigger build, with more integrations and more edge cases to cover. And if what's actually needed is a full portal for owners and boarders, with logins, payments, and stall or lesson booking, that's a different category of work, closer to building software than automating a task.
The second thing is whether the work stops at delivery or keeps running. A build-only engagement hands you a working system and steps back. Build-and-operate means we keep it running, catching failures and escalating anything that genuinely needs a person, a farrier no-show, a double-booked lesson slot, rather than letting it fail quietly. Operating a system costs more than building it once and walking away, because it is continuing work, not a one-time delivery. Some parts of the job, like resolving a billing dispute or getting a signature from a new boarder, will always need you; a system built honestly routes those to you instead of pretending to handle them.
We don't publish a price list because the cost has to match what the system is worth to your stable, not a generic package rate. A practical way to judge it yourself: total up what the repetitive coordination work costs you now, your time or a staff member's, against having it handled automatically with you stepping in only for real decisions. If that trade looks worth it, the next step is a short conversation about which of your specific bottlenecks, waitlists, billing, lesson scheduling, or show-season logistics, are worth automating first.