Illustrative example. This fictional service-request workflow demonstrates the format of an assessment. It is not a client case study or evidence of achieved results.
- 01
Define
Map the task, the people, and the systems involved.
- 02
Evaluate
Compare the proposed change with the current workflow.
- 03
Approve
A named person accepts the scope and human controls.
- 04
Operate
Run within agreed limits; route exceptions to a reviewer.
- 05
Verify
Check the result, record findings, and decide what comes next.
When something is unclear: pause the action, preserve the record, and return it to the responsible person. Define this path before implementation.
The situation
In this example, internal service requests arrive by email and are copied into a work queue. Missing details require follow-up, while staff cannot easily tell who owns the next step. The proposed review focuses on this one workflow, from receipt through closure.
- Business question: where could we reduce repeat handling without weakening review?
- Inputs: interviews, blank request forms, process documentation, and a walkthrough using invented requests.
- Boundary: internal service coordination. No clinical decision-making or patient data is involved.
Example finding: ownership is lost at the handoff
The fictional walkthrough identifies a point where a request can be forwarded without a named owner or acknowledgment. The recommendation is to establish a single queue, required intake fields, and an explicit acceptance step before introducing automation.
- Evidence to collect in a real review: a workflow walkthrough and an agreed sample of permitted records.
- Consequence to assess: repeated handling, unresolved requests, and uncertain escalation.
- Decision required: who owns the queue, who accepts assignments, and who resolves exceptions?
A proposed agentic workflow
After the intake process is defined, an agent could extract the request category and prepare a suggested assignment. A designated person would review uncertain requests and approve actions outside the agreed automation boundary.
- Human control: approve the routing policy and the actions the agent may take.
- Exception path: send incomplete, ambiguous, or out-of-scope requests to a named reviewer.
- Record: retain the input reference, proposed action, decision, and resulting task status.
How to decide whether to pilot
Start with a limited queue and compare the proposed process with the current one using the same definitions. Agree on acceptance criteria before implementation.
- Measure baseline handling time, repeat contacts, and time waiting for an owner.
- During the pilot, record incorrect assignments, reviewer effort, and exception volume.
- Count total work, including review and rework. Separate released staff capacity from cash savings.
- Expand only after the responsible owner accepts the results and the support arrangements.
What the roadmap would record
Each recommendation needs an owner, dependencies, an estimated implementation cost, and an acceptance test. The review should make clear which changes your own team can implement and which need a separate engagement.
- First: agree on intake fields, responsibility, and escalation.
- Next: establish a baseline and prepare permitted evaluation examples.
- Then: quote a bounded pilot with monitoring, rollback, and handover responsibilities.