|
What They Do Well
|
Where They Fail
|
|---|---|
|
Merge, annotate, edit pages
|
Require manual effort every single time you need a new bundle
|
|
Good for one-time operations
|
Not built for repetition or automation
|
| What They Do Well | Where They Fail |
|---|---|
| Store and organize documents | Offer no automation for bundling or sequencing |
| Share files with others | Still require users to manually pick, copy, and merge documents |
| What They Do Well | Where They Fail |
|---|---|
| Centralized storage and permissions | Built for enterprises, expensive, complex |
| Track document versions | Do not allow dynamic document bundling or reuse-based assembly |
| Benefit | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Simple, familiar | Inefficient for professionals handling multiple clients/scenarios |
| User-controlled | Leads to duplication, confusion, and version chaos |
|
Problem
|
Impact on Professionals
|
|---|---|
|
Repetitive manual tasks
|
Time wasted; reduced billable hours
|
|
Misordered or missing documents
|
Client dissatisfaction; legal/non-compliance risk
|
|
Duplicate file copies
|
Storage bloat; zero control over master version
|
|
Stress & inefficiency
|
Professionals spend time managing files, not managing work
|
|
Traditional Approach
|
Future Approach with Smart Bundling
|
|---|---|
|
Store documents once
|
✓ Store once and reuse endlessly
|
|
Rebuild bundles each time
|
✓ Use templates to assemble in seconds
|
|
Manual sequencing
|
✓ Drag-and-drop workflows
|
|
External merge tools
|
✓ Built-in one-click export
|
|
Data spread across folders
|
✓ Central intelligent repository
|
Tuffy is not a replacement for PDF tools or cloud storage. It is the missing layer of intelligence that transforms them into powerful workflow engines.