Questions people ask
The ones that come up before an inquiry, answered as directly as they can be. Anything not covered here is a fair thing to write and ask.
What this is
Business systems for Cambodian organisations. In practice that has meant payroll, invoicing, booking and inquiry handling, and the automation that sits between them.
Five lines of work are listed on the services page: custom software, compliance engineering, business automation, AI integration, and website and interface work.
Mostly built new, and sometimes rented. Most engagements are a system built from the ground up for one organisation. But two of them — IustumHR and IustumBill — can also be run in your own business without building from scratch, which is one of the five listed services.
What there is not is a product you buy off a shelf and set up alone. A rented system still fits you through a settings screen rather than a rewrite, because the rules it enforces are Cambodian and shared: your own wage figures, NSSF rate and tax bands go into the settings, and the enforcement is already built. That is the whole argument of the place — the regulation lives in parameters, not in code written fresh each time.
Turning a written rule into something software enforces, rather than something a person is trusted to remember.
The practical difference shows up when the rule changes. If the rule is a parameter, changing it is an edit and the record shows what changed and when. If the rule is scattered through the code, or living in somebody's head, changing it is a project.
Yes. It is one of the five lines, and the Sokhom Residence case study is exactly that: a website with an inquiry pipeline behind it.
Working together
You send an inquiry describing what has to be right. That leads to a conversation about scope, then a written specification, then a build delivered in reviewable increments.
The written specification matters more than it sounds. It is the thing that makes disagreement cheap, because it happens before the code exists.
Between one and eight weeks, depending on which line of work it falls under. The services page gives a typical duration for each: automation and AI work tend to be shortest, custom software longest.
Those are typical, not promises. Anything that turns out to need regulatory research takes as long as the research takes, and I would rather tell you that than quote a date I already doubt.
Running software, its source code, its database migrations, and documentation good enough for somebody else to pick up the work.
That last part is the point. You are not meant to be locked in. If you outgrow this arrangement you should be able to leave with the thing you paid for.
Usually. A good deal of the automation work is exactly that: connecting things that already exist so a person stops copying between them by hand.
Whether it is possible depends on what your current system will let anything else talk to, which is a question worth asking early rather than late.
The parameter changes, and the record shows what changed and when. That is the reason for building this way, and it is most of the value.
Yes. This site is in English and Khmer, and so is the work.
Money, ownership, and what happens if it stops
It depends on the work, and a figure quoted before the scope is known is a guess dressed as an answer. Describe what you need and you get a number for that.
There is no price list here, and no charge for the conversation that produces the number.
You own what was built for you: the system, its source, its database and the documents that explain it, outright, on final payment. Nothing is licensed back to you and nothing needs renewing.
The generic building blocks underneath stay mine to reuse — a rate table that reads an instrument, a filing client, a validator. They are not about your business, and rebuilding them for every client would only make your project cost more.
Where what you need is closer to a product than a commission, that is agreed in writing before the work starts, and it costs you less, because you are not paying for something to be built once and used once.
Work is billed in stages, and each stage is something that exists when it is finished. If you stop, you keep everything completed to that point — running software, source and documents — and owe nothing for what was not started.
Completed stages are not refunded, because they were built. If I stop, the unearned money goes back and you keep what exists.
Yes, if you want it, and it is arranged separately rather than assumed. Handover gives you a working system, the source and the documentation.
Support after that — changes, new rules, someone to call — is agreed as its own arrangement. A support commitment nobody has priced is one nobody honours.
One form of it is worth naming on its own: watching the instruments your system depends on and telling you when one changes. For payroll that is the minimum-wage prakas, the NSSF contribution rates and the Tax on Salary bands; for billing it is the e-invoicing prakas. Because those figures already sit in the system as parameters with a verified date rather than buried in code, updating them is a small piece of work rather than a rebuild.
Sometimes, and it starts with a paid assessment rather than a yes. Reading an unfamiliar system honestly takes real time, and until that is done nobody can say whether continuing it is sensible or whether part of it is cheaper to rebuild.
The assessment is credited against the project if you go ahead, so it costs nothing extra when the answer is yes — and it is worth having either way, including when the answer is that this is not work I should take.
Sometimes the assessment is the whole engagement. If what you need is a verdict and nothing else — a board deciding whether to fund a system, a choice between keeping and replacing one, software that is part of what you are buying — it can be commissioned on its own, with no assumption that any work follows it.
On request. Send yours and it is read and signed before anything confidential is discussed, or ask and one is put in front of you.
Rules, and how they are checked
Because each one is traceable to the document it came from, and you can check it.
That is the difference between this and trusting a vendor. Every regulatory citation on this site names its instrument and carries the date it was last verified against the primary document. The same discipline goes into the systems: a figure the software produces should be answerable with a reference, not with a shrug.
No, and they are labelled as such wherever they appear. Every name and number in a screenshot on this site is fabricated.
Real payroll belongs to real people. It does not go on a marketing site, ever, and a firm that would show you somebody else's salaries would eventually show somebody yours.
Practical questions
Based in Phnom Penh, working with organisations anywhere in Cambodia.
Almost all of an engagement happens over messages, calls and written specifications, so distance changes very little about how a project runs.
Within two business days, from a person rather than an autoresponder.
It becomes an email and a contact record, and the privacy page lists every field it sends and every company that touches it along the way.
Nothing you type is written to a log, and your address is used to stop the form being abused and for nothing else.
Say so anyway. If it is not a good fit you will be told that directly, which costs you one message and is more useful than a polite maybe.