What this service solves
When several teams ask for automation at once, start with evidence from the way work moves today. The audit follows each sampled process from its first input to its completed outcome, including the corrections and handoffs that consume staff time. It gives the department a way to compare opportunities before committing to a build.
What you get
Current-state maps
See the actual sequence, owner changes, waits, and exception paths for the processes under review.
Ranked opportunity register
Compare volume, effort, risk, and feasibility using a visible rationale. Flag assumptions that could change the order.
Sequenced roadmap
Start with a proposed first build and the dependencies that need to be cleared before later work makes sense.
What’s included
Map up to three workflows
Use read-only walkthroughs to follow up to three processes, looking at representative inputs, outputs, and cases that take a different path.
Rank by volume, effort, risk, and feasibility
Compare candidates using the team's estimated run volumes, manual effort, operational risk, and evidence that the required systems can support the work.
Draft a sequenced roadmap
Recommend an initial process and name the smallest version worth testing. Show which process or access changes should happen before subsequent builds.
How implementation works
Interview and observe
Interview process owners during discovery and review the records or walkthroughs they use to explain each process.
Map and prioritize
Map observed steps, note exception handling, and compare the candidate opportunities on the same criteria.
Review the roadmap
Walk through the ranked list in the findings review and explain what would change the recommendation.
Technical considerations
- Comparable observations
- Use the same basis for each candidate. Record how often the work occurs, how much hands-on effort it takes, and where it waits. Keep a missed deadline or incorrect decision visible as its own consequence. A short task with a serious exception can rank differently from a long task with a straightforward correction.
Systems, inputs & prerequisites
Process owners, sample artifacts, approximate run volumes, and read-only walkthroughs.
- Process owners who can show a recent typical run and an exception, with redacted examples where appropriate.
- Approximate frequency, time spent, and known constraints for each process. Share whether each figure was measured or estimated.
Starting scope & pricing
Base scope
One department, up to three processes, two discovery sessions, and one findings review.
Illustrative workflow
Walk through the work
Mark the manual checks and owner changes for each candidate.
Compare the evidence
Check approximate volumes and whether the tools expose the required inputs.
Choose a first build
Recommend the smallest viable workflow and identify the owner who can test it.
Validation & handover
- Ask the process owner to trace a typical item and a representative exception on each current-state map.
- Check that each ranking can be explained by an observation, an owner estimate, or an explicitly recorded assumption.
- Confirm the first proposed build against the department's actual constraints and identify the dependency most likely to change the recommendation.
Limitations & possible extras
Limitations
The starting scope covers one department. Benefit figures use the inputs you provide and remain estimates until the team measures real runs. Additional departments and implementation are scoped separately.
Any benefit model uses client-provided inputs and stays an estimate until measured.
Possible extras
Additional departments, workshops, or implementation.
Questions about this service
Can we start without time tracking?
Yes. Bring a reasonable range or a few recent examples and say how you estimated them. If two ideas rank closely, the findings review can identify which observation would help resolve the choice.
What if two candidate processes depend on the same system change?
The roadmap can show that dependency once and sequence the affected candidates after it. You can then weigh the shared prerequisite against a smaller opportunity that is ready to test now.
Could the audit recommend a manual process change first?
Yes. If staff resolve the same missing input at every handoff, correcting how it is collected may be a better first step. The recommendation can show what to change and which automation opportunity remains afterward.
What if a promising process crosses into another department?
The findings can flag the handoff and the owner whose participation would be needed. A deeper review of another department or an implementation is a separate engagement.