The opportunity, in numbers
Benefits calculation
20 minutes released per case
Source & assumptions
Participant estimate: Fictional operations lead's estimate for a monthly reporting workflow.
Comparison: 40 reports per month, comparing 45 current with 25 proposed total staff minutes per report.
Assumptions: Same report volume and complexity. Both times include checking, approval and rework. Proposed time still needs measuring.
Capacity released. Cash savings depend on what changes in practice.
Estimated effort to drive this change
- Prepare8–16 hours
Operations lead + analyst
- Set up16–32 hours
Analyst / developer
- Check & adopt8–16 hours
Report users + operations lead
Basis of the effort estimate
Source: Fictional scoped estimate by the operations lead and analyst; illustrative figures, not a benchmark.
Assumptions: One reporting workflow, three existing spreadsheets and no new source system. Includes input mapping, configuration, sample testing and handover. Supplier fees, ongoing maintenance and calendar scheduling are unestimated.
Staff hours add up across everyone involved. Scheduling, supplier fees and ongoing costs are separate.
Try different numbers in the example
Explore a fictional scenario. These numbers stay on this page and do not change a real project.
The decision at a glance
- Problem
- Staff copy data from three spreadsheets into recurring reports. Mismatched totals cause repeat checking before manager approval.
- Possible improvement
- Combine data with explicit rules and flag mismatches. Keep judgement, exception resolution and final approval with people. AI is not required for the first test.
- Benefit hypothesis
- About 13.3 staff hours of capacity per month. This uses fictional participant estimates, not observed results or net ROI.
- Next action
- The operations lead and reporting analyst review ten permitted historical reports. Compare the current and proposed process before deciding whether to invest.
What changes in the work?
Proposed task map. Every change still needs a test.
Hours released are capacity. The one-off effort above is a separate illustrative estimate; actual implementation cost, supplier fees and ongoing running costs remain unknown. No cash saving, net ROI or payback has been calculated.
Conditions to check before a test
- Owner and participation
- An operations lead and reporting analyst are proposed. Their agreement and availability need confirming.
- Inputs and permission
- Obtain permission to use ten historical reports and their source files. Check that their formats represent normal work.
- Checking and risk
- Record total staff effort, including exceptions. Every total must reconcile and every material discrepancy must remain visible.
- Adoption and access
- Confirm who maintains mappings when formats change. Agree where files can be processed and how staff would use the result.
The smallest useful test
Hypothesis: Agreed rules reduce report preparation effort while preserving accurate totals and approval.
Proposed threshold: Across ten representative reports, average total effort is at most 25 staff minutes per report, all totals reconcile and there are no unflagged material discrepancies.
Decision: If both effort and quality pass, discuss a small live trial. If quality fails, stop this approach. If the sample is unrepresentative or effort is unclear, gather better evidence before deciding.
Who and when: Operations lead and reporting analyst; participation and review date are not yet agreed.