Begin where preparation repeatedly gets in the way.
Look at work that requires somebody to read, search, reconcile or prepare information before another action can happen. Customer intake, proposal preparation, job handoffs and recurring operating reports can contain this kind of work.
These are candidates to examine. Their names do not establish that they should be automated. A proposal with reliable history and clear approval rules is a different problem from a proposal whose scope changes every time somebody speaks to the customer.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| How often does it happen? | A recurring burden offers repeated opportunities to recover attention. Infrequent work may still matter when the consequence is substantial. |
| What is the current cost? | Count preparation, checking, waiting and rework. The most visible task may not be the constraint. |
| Can the system get the right context? | Useful interpretation depends on relevant records, their authority and permission to use them. |
| Can you define a good result? | You need an observable outcome and a person who can judge whether it is acceptable. |
| What happens when it is wrong? | The consequence determines the approval boundary, checks and route for exceptions. |
| Who will own it afterward? | Records, rules and models change. The workflow needs someone responsible for its continuing use. |
Which parts need AI, rules or a person?
A predictable calculation or a fixed handoff can often use conventional software and automation. Applying AI adds little when an explicit rule already solves the problem reliably.
AI may be useful when the work involves interpreting varied text, finding relevant context or preparing a draft. Its output still needs checks appropriate to the consequence. A person may approve a commitment, handle an unfamiliar exception or decide how competing priorities should be resolved.
One workflow can contain all of these. A signed agreement can trigger a rule-based handoff; AI can prepare a summary of unusual terms; a person can approve the obligations that affect delivery. See the architecture standard for how authority and completion are handled.
Count the work that remains.
Compare the current workflow with the full cost of operating the proposed one. Include review and correction, software subscriptions, maintenance and the time people need to learn the change. Account for the initial build separately so the ongoing benefit is visible.
A hypothetical example: fifty cases a month, with twelve minutes of net preparation and review time released per case, would create ten hours of monthly capacity. If checking exceptions adds four hours elsewhere, the net capacity is six hours. Those hours are not automatically cash savings or revenue.
Ask what the business can actually do with the capacity. Can it handle another customer, shorten a meaningful delay or avoid a cost it would otherwise incur? If the answer is unclear, identify that as an assumption to test.
When should a workflow wait?
Defer the build if nobody can say which records are authoritative, the desired outcome is unresolved or there is no practical way to check the result. An unclear process can become harder to understand once software begins moving it faster.
Also pause when a plausible failure could create a commitment the business cannot tolerate. You may be able to redesign the workflow around a human approval step. That boundary belongs in the first design, along with a way to stop and recover.
Prove the change on representative work.
Choose cases that reflect ordinary work and its exceptions. Establish the baseline, agree the acceptance criteria and run the redesigned workflow in a controlled scope. Measure the business outcome and the effort required to maintain it.
The first result may justify another redesign, a narrower implementation or stopping. Prove exists to make that decision with evidence. The Business Nervous System Read identifies the first candidate and the measurement plan.
This is how we start closing the AI Gap: understand the work well enough to make a change that the company can use.