Workflow Design Starter Kit

Move from a brief to a working map

A workflow brief describes the problem and scope. This kit takes the next step: showing the sequence of work, what moves between people and systems, and what happens when the ordinary route does not fit. Use it before choosing an AI tool or asking a provider to implement a proposed process.

Start with one recognisable job. Invite someone who performs it, its business owner, and a colleague from a receiving team. Include systems or information owners where access or records affect the design. Your first output is an agreed map with evidence gaps, rather than a promise of automation or a savings forecast.

Observe a complete case

Choose an ordinary case and an awkward one that you are permitted to examine. Walk through both from the initial trigger to the accepted final result. Record preparation, waiting, clarification, checking, correction and follow-up. Ask what people actually do when a required field is missing or a receiving team rejects a handoff.

Complete the current-workflow-map CSV one step at a time. Give each step a stable identifier. Record its input, activity, responsible role, system, output and next destination. Link the observation to an approved evidence reference; a description from memory should remain labelled as an interview account until checked. Capture differences between teams instead of silently choosing the tidiest version.

Make each handoff explicit

A handoff needs more than the name of the next team. Define what that team receives, how it knows work is ready, and who responds when it is incomplete. A draft may be technically available while still lacking the information that allows another person to act.

Use the map to find repeated clarification, duplicated entry, unclear ownership and queues caused by approval. These are questions to investigate. Removing a check without understanding its purpose can move risk downstream. Confirm whether the check protects quality, access, customer service or another business requirement before proposing a change.

Design the future route around decisions

Complete the future-workflow-decisions worksheet alongside the current map. For every proposed change, state the intended improvement, the information it requires, the decision a person retains, and the conditions that would send work to a different route. Process simplification may be useful even when AI adds little.

If AI is proposed, name its exact task: retrieve approved information, suggest a category, prepare a draft, or flag a possible exception. Describe any intended system action separately. A suggested category does not authorise reassignment. Specify who checks the output, what they check against, and what happens if the suggestion is unsupported or the tool is unavailable.

Fictional example: an internal request desk

All organisations, situations and measures in this kit are fictional. An internal-service coordinator receives a request form, checks its completeness, clarifies missing details, selects a destination and records the routing decision. A receiving team may return a request when its category or context is unsuitable.

The proposed design uses AI only to suggest a category from approved definitions. The coordinator keeps the routing decision and sends any clarification message. Restricted or unfamiliar requests follow the existing manual route. The systems owner must confirm which fields may be used before a pilot decision; the example deliberately leaves that dependency unresolved.

The matching fictional CSVs show the steps and decisions in detail. They describe a proposed design, not a deployed solution or a client outcome. Use their level of detail as a reference while replacing their content with your own verified information.

Choose evidence that covers the whole job

Establish a baseline before estimating improvement. Define the population, period and start/end points for each measure. Total active handling time divided by completed requests describes average effort per completed request. It does not measure elapsed turnaround, and it does not establish cash savings.

Keep checking and correction effort in the comparison. Record clarification and misrouting separately, with a stated denominator for each. Compare a future trial with similar work and retain quality and access requirements. The starter worksheets identify evidence needs; the full working pack provides separate baseline, transition and review records.

Review exceptions before agreeing a handoff

Walk through an incomplete input, conflicting category definitions, an unavailable system and a request that may contain restricted information. Ask who can recognise the issue, stop the ordinary route and take the next action. Record unresolved issues with an owner and the decision they affect.

Have the people who perform and receive the work review the map. The process owner confirms the intended route; relevant specialist owners confirm their requirements. Keep approval pending where evidence is missing. Your organisation owns implementation, role decisions and operation. Authentia can help with analysis, workshops and recommendations.

Use the files together

Open a copy of each blank CSV in a spreadsheet application using UTF-8. The templates contain column headings and empty completion rows, with no formulas or automatic scores. Read the guide and fictional examples first. Keep version, date and evidence references with your completed records.

Use the five prompts to challenge a draft or prepare a workshop. Supply only information approved for your chosen AI tool. Treat the response as a proposed analysis: verify references, questions and responsibilities with the people who own the work before acting.

Explore the Workflow and Operating Model Pack for six linked worksheets and twelve prompts, or discuss workflow design advisory.