Name the workflow
Write the task in a plain sentence, including who starts it and what useful output should exist at the end.
Automation readiness guide
Use AI where the process is clear enough to review.
This guide helps readers examine a workflow before adding AI support. It focuses on repeatability, input quality, review responsibility, and documentation rather than broad claims about productivity or business outcomes.
Step-by-step framework
A practical route from workflow to pilot.
Treat the first automation attempt as a documented learning exercise. The aim is not to automate everything; it is to understand where AI support can be bounded, reviewed, and improved.
Separate support from judgement
Identify drafting, sorting, comparison, or summary steps that can support a person without replacing their decision.
Define source boundaries
Document what information may be used, what should be excluded, and when a person must stop the workflow.
Record review evidence
Keep a concise note of prompts, assumptions, output checks, changes made, and the final reviewer.
Workflow selection checklist
Screen the task before choosing a tool.
A workflow does not need to be perfect, but it should be describable. If the team cannot explain how the work happens today, automation planning will be fragile.
1
The task repeats.
It happens often enough to justify documenting and reviewing a new approach.
It happens often enough to justify documenting and reviewing a new approach.
2
The input is understandable.
The source material can be described, located, and checked for sensitivity.
The source material can be described, located, and checked for sensitivity.
3
The output has a clear use.
The team knows whether it needs a summary, draft, classification, extraction, or comparison.
The team knows whether it needs a summary, draft, classification, extraction, or comparison.
4
The risk is bounded.
Errors can be reviewed before the output reaches customers, regulators, or critical systems.
Errors can be reviewed before the output reaches customers, regulators, or critical systems.
5
The owner is named.
A person or role is accountable for maintenance, review, and withdrawal if the workflow becomes unsuitable.
A person or role is accountable for maintenance, review, and withdrawal if the workflow becomes unsuitable.
Documentation table
Keep the operating note short enough to maintain.
| Field | What to record | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow owner | Team or role responsible for review and updates. | Prevents abandoned automations from becoming informal dependencies. |
| Allowed inputs | Approved document types, data sources, and excluded information. | Reduces accidental use of unsuitable or sensitive material. |
| Human checks | Review steps for accuracy, context, tone, and policy fit. | Makes the review process visible instead of assumed. |
| Review date | When the workflow should be re-examined. | Helps teams adapt when tools, policies, or business processes change. |
Governance belongs in the first draft.
Documenting limits early is easier than trying to add controls after a workflow becomes popular. The guide encourages teams to record uncertainty, escalation points, and situations where AI support should not be used.