Qualify the decision
Confirm why the workflow matters, who owns it, who can approve a change, what data is involved, and whether an assessment is worth doing now.
A practical decision method
How Veld decides what is worth changing.
A recommendation should be clear enough to challenge. Veld makes the problem, evidence, alternatives, risk, and stop conditions visible before anyone buys or builds.
Five questions come first
- Which recurring work is worth improving now?
- What is actually causing the delay, mistake, or extra work?
- Which response fits best: simplify the process, clarify ownership, use an existing feature, automate conventionally, test AI with human review, measure first, or make no change?
- What is the smallest useful test that can be run safely?
- What evidence would justify continuing, revising, or stopping?
The AI Workflow Opportunity Assessment answers these questions before anyone scopes implementation or buys another product.
The method
Six steps. A clear output from each.
Map the current work
Document where the work starts, who touches it, which systems are involved, where it waits or repeats, and what a good finish looks like.
Establish the evidence
Separate what is observed from what is estimated, disputed, or still unknown. Identify a usable baseline before projecting value.
Compare practical options
Compare leaving the workflow alone, simplifying it, clarifying ownership, using the current tools, applying conventional automation, testing AI with human review, or measuring first.
Screen and rank
Rank the options by business value, evidence, feasibility, adoption risk, data and security, reversibility, time to learning, and cost.
Define a 30-day decision plan
Name the owner, baseline, test, target, guardrail, review date, stop condition, rollback, and next decision.
Some ideas should stop before they are scored
Projected upside does not matter if a change would:
- remove required human accountability;
- make high-consequence employment, payment, legal, safety, or customer decisions without review;
- use data that is prohibited or unjustified;
- create actions that cannot be audited, contained, or reversed;
- automate an unstable workflow with no accountable owner;
- move forward without a usable baseline or test capacity; or
- weaken relationship work that should remain human.
A numeric score does not override these conditions.
What a recommendation must answer
A recommendation must identify the workflow problem and its likely cause, the alternatives considered, who owns the decision, what the evidence supports, what the change will cost, which data and permissions are involved, where human review remains, how success will be measured, and when to stop or roll back.
If the owner, cause, evidence, or data boundary is unknown, the right answer is usually to investigate, measure first, or wait.
Recovered time is not the same as cash
Veld keeps different kinds of value separate: less active labor, shorter wait time, lower direct cost, fewer errors, and better customer or revenue outcomes. We also account for adoption, human review, and recurring operating cost.
Any modeled range must state its source, assumptions, confidence, cost, and validation plan. Only measured results are treated as realized value.
What this page shows
This page shows Veld's decision process. It is not evidence that a particular company has a workflow problem, that AI is appropriate, or that a specific outcome will result.