DIGITAL SUPPORT SERVICES
An NDIS-Aligned Technology Support Service for Neurodivergent Participants and Their Families
James Courtney — Talk It Up New Media, Darwin, NT Adrian Wedd — adrianwedd.com, AI Safety & Assistive Technology [Original draft lists Adrian as Darwin, NT — INCORRECT, he is in Cygnet, Tasmania]
Darwin, Northern Territory · April 2026 CONFIDENTIAL — DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
1. Executive Summary
Digital Support Services is a proposed collaboration between James Courtney (Talk It Up New Media, Darwin) and Adrian Wedd, combining over 20 years of community communications and technology experience with adversarial AI evaluation and neurodivergent-focused assistive technology development.
The service delivers personalised digital support tools to NDIS participants — primarily neurodivergent children, young people and adults — through a structured assess–design–implement–train–monitor model. Both practitioners operate as sole traders and will service self-managed and plan-managed NDIS participants, allowing direct invoicing without NDIS registration.
The core proposition: most NDIS technology support stops at the device. We go further — designing the tool around the person, implementing it with them, and staying present through ongoing human check-ins to make sure it actually works.
| Target Launch | Year 1 Revenue (combined) | Year 2 Revenue (combined) | Primary Market |
|---|---|---|---|
| July 2026 | $72,000–$96,000 | $120,000–$160,000 | NT, SA Self/Plan-managed |
2. The Problem We Solve
Neurodivergent NDIS participants — and their families — frequently receive technology recommendations or funded devices that are never properly configured for their specific needs. Support workers lack the technical depth to tailor tools. Technology providers lack the community and disability context to implement them appropriately.
The result: expensive devices sitting unused, participants disengaged, and families exhausted from troubleshooting.
What’s missing in the current landscape:
- Assistive technology assessments that are genuinely individualised, not catalogue-driven
- Implementation support that accounts for sensory, communication and cognitive differences
- Non-coercive approaches — technology introduced on the participant’s terms, at their pace
- Ongoing human oversight after setup, not just a handover document
- Practitioners who understand both the technology and the community context
3. Service Model
3.1 The Five-Stage Engagement
| Stage | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Initial Assessment | Meet with participant and/or guardian. Understand daily routines, communication preferences, current technology use, goals and frustrations. No tools introduced yet. |
| Stage 2 | Tool Design | Based on assessment, design or configure a digital support tool tailored to the participant. May involve AI companions, communication aids, scheduling tools, sensory accommodations, or combinations. |
| Stage 3 | Implementation | Set up the tool with the participant present. Introduction is participant-led and non-coercive — offered, demonstrated, and adjusted in real time based on response. |
| Stage 4 | Training & Support | Train participant, family members and/or support workers as appropriate. Provide plain-language documentation. Ensure confidence before handover. |
| Stage 5 | Ongoing Monitoring | After an initial 4-week settling period, weekly check-ins (in person, video or phone as determined). Assess, adjust, troubleshoot. Frequency reviewed at 3 months. |
3.2 Roles and Responsibilities
James Courtney leads community engagement, participant and family communications, training, and ongoing check-in support. His experience with remote, Indigenous and low-resource communities ensures the service is genuinely accessible.
Adrian Wedd leads technology assessment, tool development and configuration, and AI safety evaluation of any AI-powered tools (drawing on the Failure First framework). His SPARK project provides direct precedent for non-coercive AI companion design for neurodivergent children.
Both practitioners bring Greenpeace campaign backgrounds — an organisation built on doing more with less and designing interventions that actually work under pressure. That methodology applies directly here.
3.3 Non-Coercive Principles
- Participants and guardians retain full control over what is introduced and when
- No tool is presented as mandatory or expected
- Sensory and communication preferences are identified before any device is presented
- Sessions end when the participant is ready to end them
- ‘Not working’ is valid feedback, not failure — adjustments are made without pressure
4. NDIS Framework and Funding
4.1 Registration Status
James Courtney and Adrian Wedd are both unregistered NDIS providers operating as sole traders. The service is available to:
- Self-managed participants — can engage any provider, registered or not
- Plan-managed participants — can engage unregistered providers, with the plan manager processing invoices
Agency-managed participants require registered providers and are outside current scope. As the service grows, NDIS registration may be reviewed.
4.2 Relevant NDIS Support Categories
| Support Category | Relevance to This Service |
|---|---|
| Assistive Technology (AT) | Assessment, trial, setup and training for low-to-mid cost AT items. Covers digital tools, apps and communication devices under $1,500 without requiring an AT assessor report. |
| Capacity Building — Improved Daily Living | Support to build skills for greater independence. Includes learning to use technology tools with a support worker or specialist. |
| Support Coordination | Where participants have support coordination funding, coordinators can engage our service to implement technology supports within the participant’s plan. |
| Daily Activities (Core Supports) | Ongoing support worker-equivalent engagement — relevant to the weekly monitoring and check-in component of the service. |
4.3 Pricing
Pricing aligns with NDIS Support Catalogue rates. Both practitioners invoice separately for their respective components.
| Service Item | Approx. Fee | NDIS Category |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Assessment (2 hrs) | $193.99 | Capacity Building — Improved Daily Living |
| Tool Design & Configuration (3–5 hrs) | $290–$485 | AT Support or Capacity Building |
| Implementation Session (2–3 hrs) | $193–$290 | Capacity Building or Core |
| Training (2 hrs) | $193.99 | Capacity Building |
| Weekly Check-in (30 min) | $48.50 | Core or Capacity Building |
| Monthly Review (1 hr) | $96.99 | Capacity Building |
All rates are indicative and will be confirmed against the current NDIS Price Guide prior to service launch. Rates are per practitioner where both are engaged.
5. Target Market
5.1 Primary Participants
- Neurodivergent children and young people (autism, ADHD, sensory processing differences) with NDIS plans including AT or Capacity Building funding
- Adults with acquired disability or cognitive differences seeking technology support for daily living
- Participants in remote or regional NT and SA where specialist technology support is scarce
- Participants from Indigenous communities, where trust-based, community-informed approaches are essential
5.2 Secondary Referral Sources
- Plan managers seeking reliable unregistered technology support providers for their clients
- Support coordinators with caseloads including participants who have stalled on AT implementation
- Allied health professionals (OTs, speech pathologists) who assess AT but lack implementation capacity
- Early childhood intervention services where technology tools are recommended but not embedded
5.3 Geographic Focus
Initial focus: Darwin and greater NT, leveraging James’s established networks. Adelaide as secondary market. Remote and regional delivery via video with periodic in-person visits built into service agreements where funded.
6. Financial Projections
6.1 Revenue Model
Revenue is generated per participant engagement. A standard engagement (Stages 1–4) represents approximately 10–12 hours of billable work per practitioner, followed by recurring weekly check-in income.
| Revenue Stream | Volume Assumption | Monthly Revenue |
|---|---|---|
| New participant engagements (Stage 1–4) | 2 per month | ~$2,000–$2,400/month per practitioner |
| Ongoing check-ins (20 active participants) | Weekly 30-min sessions | ~$970/month per practitioner [ERROR: actual ≈ $3,880/month] |
| Monthly reviews (20 participants) | Monthly | ~$1,940/month per practitioner |
| Total (per practitioner, Month 6+) | ~$4,910–$5,310/month [also wrong as a consequence] |
6.2 Annual Revenue Summary
| Period | Per Practitioner | Combined |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 (ramp-up) | $36,000–$48,000 | $72,000–$96,000 |
| Year 2 (established) | $60,000–$80,000 | $120,000–$160,000 |
| Year 3 (referral network) | $80,000–$100,000 | $160,000–$200,000 |
6.3 Key Cost Assumptions
- Minimal overhead: both operate as existing sole traders with home-based administration
- No staffing costs in Years 1–2
- Technology costs: existing tools plus subscription software (~$2,000–$4,000/year combined)
- Travel: NT/SA regional visits periodically — built into service agreements where participant plans fund it
- Professional indemnity insurance: ~$1,500–$2,500/year each (required prior to launch)
- NDIS registration (if pursued Year 3): ~$3,000–$8,000 in audit and compliance costs
7. Risks and Mitigations
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Participant funding gaps | Focus marketing on self and plan-managed participants. Develop relationships with plan managers who can identify funded clients proactively. |
| Unregistered status limits market | Clearly communicate eligibility at all touchpoints. Monitor NDIS policy changes. Review registration feasibility at 18 months. |
| Geographic distance between practitioners | Define clear role boundaries. Shared documentation system. Monthly joint reviews. Most participant contact is single-practitioner. |
| AI tool safety risks | Adrian’s Failure First framework applied to any AI component before participant deployment. No AI tool used with participants without adversarial evaluation. |
| Practitioner capacity constraints | Cap participant load at 20 active participants each in Year 1. Build waiting list systems early. |
| NDIS pricing changes | Review NDIS Price Guide quarterly. Build 10% pricing buffer into quotes. |
8. Go-to-Market Strategy
Launch Sequence — April to September 2026
| Period | Activity |
|---|---|
| April–May | Finalise service agreement templates, invoicing setup, professional indemnity insurance. Agree scope and referral protocol between practitioners. |
| June | Soft launch: brief existing networks (support coordinators, allied health contacts, community orgs). No paid marketing. |
| July | Accept first 4 participants for pilot. Document process. Gather feedback. |
| August | Refine based on pilot. Develop case studies (with consent). Brief plan managers directly. |
| September | Public launch: updated websites, LinkedIn, targeted outreach to NT and SA disability sector contacts. |
| October+ | Referral network activation. Aim for 10 active participants each by end of Year 1. |
9. Immediate Next Steps
| Action | Detail |
|---|---|
| 1. Practitioner agreement | Draft a simple collaboration agreement defining roles, referral protocol, IP ownership of any jointly developed tools, and dispute resolution. |
| 2. Professional indemnity | Both practitioners obtain appropriate PI insurance covering disability and technology services. |
| 3. Service agreement template | Develop a plain-language participant service agreement that meets NDIS requirements for unregistered providers. |
| 4. Pricing confirmation | Confirm all service items against the current NDIS Support Catalogue and Price Guide. |
| 5. Documentation system | Agree on a shared, privacy-compliant system for participant records, assessment notes and check-in logs. |
| 6. Pilot recruitment | Identify 3–4 pilot participants through existing networks, ideally with varied profiles (age, diagnosis, geography). |
This document is a working draft for discussion between James Courtney and Adrian Wedd. Figures are indicative. Legal and financial advice should be obtained prior to formalising any business arrangement.