Every question, answered in full.

It overlaps with one, but that is not how it is built. HR software stores employees. Orglume models the operating structure behind them — roles, responsibilities, authority, skills, access and who covers whom — so it can answer what happens if somebody leaves rather than just telling you their start date. If what you need is payroll processing and a document store, there are cheaper products that do exactly that.

Roughly five to a hundred people. Below five you can genuinely hold it all in your head. Above a hundred you will start wanting things this deliberately does not do, such as workforce analytics and complex approval routing. The sweet spot is the stretch where the company has outgrown one person's memory but cannot justify an HR department.

An afternoon to something useful. You bring people in from a spreadsheet or by invitation, confirm the reporting lines and confirm what each team owns. Recording responsibilities properly takes longer — a few weeks of noticing things — because much of it has never been written down anywhere.

The connected model underneath everything: a person holds a role, a role carries responsibilities, a responsibility has an owner and a backup, a person has skills and access, and each of those relationships is a real record. It is what lets the product answer a question nobody anticipated, such as who has the skill, the authority and the availability to cover Friday.

A task finishes. A responsibility continues — the monthly report, supplier onboarding, the security review. Treating them as the same thing is why handovers miss the recurring work: it never appeared on a list because it was never a ticket. Responsibilities are objects with owners, backups, a rhythm and evidence.

No, and that is a structural limit rather than a setting. It will not say somebody is underperforming, should be promoted or is not suited to a role, and it produces no score intended to inform those decisions. It reports facts, labels its own interpretations as interpretations, and leaves employment judgements to the manager who is accountable for them.

No. Questions run with your identity through the same permission checks as every screen, so there is no separate AI permission model that could drift out of step. Compensation, health-related absence and private manager notes are excluded from assistant answers by default even for people who could open them directly.

Content is treated as data, never as instruction. Text inside an uploaded contract, a form submission or an imported record describes the business; it cannot change how the assistant behaves. This is a design property of how the content is handled rather than a filter that tries to spot bad input.

No, deliberately. Payroll calculation is jurisdiction-specific, heavily regulated and audited, and a shallow multi-country version would be the worst thing this product could offer. Orglume keeps the inputs organised — salary, rates, leave taken, expenses and every change since the last run — and hands them to your payroll provider or accountant.

It maintains an authoritative record of who can reach what, which answers the security questionnaire and catches the leaver on day one. Where you run our own identity platform it can propose grants and revocations for approval. Against third-party identity providers it reads and reports but does not change anything, because automatic revocation during a working week is worse than a delayed manual one.

They are first-class records. A contractor who owns a critical process is as load-bearing as a permanent hire, and an advisor with system access is a security question either way. What differs is the employment relationship, which is a field. They are also the group whose access most often outlives the engagement, which is exactly why they belong in the same system.

Most of them will touch it a few times a month — booking leave, acknowledging a policy, uploading a certificate, checking what they own. That has to work on a phone in under a minute, so the employee view carries none of the management complexity. If your team has to be trained to use it, it has failed.

Their own record: what is held about them, what they own, their objectives, their documents and who their manager is. Transparency about the record is the cheapest trust available, and an employee seeing their own responsibilities is usually the clearest statement of expectations a small company ever manages.

In a separate object with its own permission and its own retention period, because in several jurisdictions treating informal notes as part of the employment record causes problems. They are marked as private, they are not part of the employee's record, and they are excluded from assistant answers.

No configuration of any software makes an organization compliant with anything, and a product claiming otherwise would be doing you harm. What Orglume gives you is the machinery — retention periods that actually expire, an audit trail, access controls, acknowledgement evidence and a clear controller-processor split. The obligations remain yours.

Yes, as a matter of course rather than as a negotiation. Export is a feature on every tier. Continuity includes being able to leave, and a platform that makes that hard has made its problem into yours.

The record is archived rather than deleted, and it shows the date its retention period expires — at which point it is presented for deletion or extension by a named person. Work history stays visible where it must, because a responsibility's history should not lose the name of who owned it, while personal detail closes behind the archive.

Per active person per month, with a minimum size per tier. An active person is someone with a current employment or engagement record — archived leavers and candidates are not billed. There are no AI credits, question limits, storage tiers or workflow packages.

No. Charging per question would mean people ration asking about their own company, which defeats the purpose. Which model handles which task is our problem and is not exposed as a per-request cost to you.

No. Orglume sits beside it. It reads the directory, compares it with who this system thinks works here, and shows you where they disagree — which is usually a leaver with a live account or a joiner mid-setup. Provisioning, passwords and policy stay where they are.

No, and that is a decision rather than a gap. Shift scheduling is a genuinely different product with genuinely different complexity, and bolting a weak version on would make this harder to use for the companies it is actually for. Orglume answers whether the company can operate with the people available.

No, and when it is switched off you never see it — no menu item, no empty screen, no prompt to try it. An optional feature that clutters the interface for everyone is not really optional. Agencies and consultancies tend to need it; most other companies should not have to look at it.

Then you are further along than most, and the import is straightforward. The thing a spreadsheet cannot do is connect the columns: it will not tell you which responsibilities have no backup, which access no longer matches somebody's role, or what would have to move if a particular person resigned tomorrow.

Health-related absence sits behind its own permission, is excluded from assistant answers by default, and is never interpreted. The product will not characterise somebody's absence record or score their reliability. It reports coverage — which weeks are thin — because that is a staffing question rather than a question about a person.