Do we have to leave FileMaker?
No, and most clients don't. FileMaker is genuinely good at what it does. The problem is usually the things it was never built for — public access, mobile, modern interfaces, integrations. Options 1 through 3 solve those without replacing what already works.
We just need more out of FileMaker. Is that too small?
That's Option 1 and it's a large share of our work. A new module, a cleaner interface, reports that actually answer the question — none of that requires a strategy conversation. Tell us what's missing and we'll quote it.
Where does our data live if we use a widget?
Exactly where it lives now. A web viewer widget runs inside FileMaker and asks your own scripts for data. Nothing is hosted elsewhere, nothing is copied out, and your existing privilege sets still govern every record.
Will the audit break anything?
It can't. We work from a copy of your file and a Database Design Report export. Nothing is modified, nothing is deployed, and your team keeps working while we read.
What if the report says do nothing?
Then that's the finding, and you've bought certainty for a fraction of what a wrong decision costs. We'd rather tell you your system is fine than sell you a rebuild you don't need.
You didn't build our file. Does that matter?
Inherited files are the work. Reading someone else's twenty-year-old solution and figuring out what it really does is the specific thing we're good at.
We don't use FileMaker at all. Can you still help?
Yes — that's Option 6. Skip the audit and start with a conversation about what the operation needs. Those builds run on Postgres, React, and Next.js, hosted and maintained by us.