We observe how your teams actually work after training, identify the repetitive high-value workflows, and rank them by business value — so the build queue is decided by evidence rather than by whoever asked loudest.
Target audience
Teams are trained or self-taught, usage is real, and the question has changed from "can we use this?" to "where is this actually worth investing?"
The business problem
Opportunity lists assembled in workshops reflect who was in the room. They over-represent visible, articulate work and miss the repetitive tasks people have stopped noticing they do — which is usually where the value actually sits.
Where value usually hides
Illustrative candidate types, not claims about your organization. What is true for you comes out of the observation window.
A ranked shortlist with volume, effort and owner attached.
Candidates scoped tightly enough to be built and evaluated.
Process
Two to four weeks, ending in a readout your leadership team can make decisions from.
Framing
What "valuable" means here, agreed up front.
Workflow observation
Sitting with teams as the work actually runs.
Opportunity discovery
Candidates named, sized and evidenced.
Prioritization
Scored on value, effort, risk and readiness.
Governance model
Decision rights, guardrails, and what stays human.
Executive readout
A portfolio and a 90-day sequence you own.
Expected outcomes
Before you ask
No — workshops are part of it, but the distinguishing work is observation. We sit with teams while the work runs, because what people describe in a workshop and what actually happens on a Tuesday afternoon are reliably different documents.
Against criteria we agree with you in the framing stage — typically business value, build effort, risk exposure and organizational readiness. The scoring is shown openly so your leadership can disagree with a weighting rather than with a conclusion.
No. The portfolio and the 90-day sequence are yours, and plenty of organizations build in-house from them. We would rather be the obvious choice for the build than the only one you are contractually left with.
It can, if it is framed as an audit. We frame it with the teams as workflow discovery, the people doing the work help name the candidates, and we do not report on individual performance. Getting that framing right is part of the engagement.
Then that is the readout. It is a rarer outcome than you might expect, but "the workflows here are too varied to automate profitably right now" is a legitimate finding and we will say it rather than manufacture a build engagement.
Start here
Tell us where adoption stands and what you are under pressure to show. We come back with what discovery would examine first and how long it would take.