Repetitive does not automatically mean ready for automation
A task can happen every day and still be poorly defined, full of exceptions, dependent on unreliable information, performed differently by each employee, or built around outdated steps. The first question should not be “Can this be automated?” It should be “Do we understand this process well enough to decide whether it should be automated?”
The task you hate most is not necessarily the best candidate
If employees spend five hours correcting incomplete intake, you could automate the correction process - or redesign the intake so the problem rarely occurs. Before automating the work, ask why the work exists.
Define the trigger and outcome
Automation needs a clear starting condition and a clear successful result. “Automate onboarding” is too broad. Define exactly what event begins the workflow and what should be true when it is complete.
Map the real process
Watch what actually happens: steps, people, information, decisions, systems, missing information, exceptions, and workarounds. “Send the report” may really mean download files, remove duplicates, fix categories, compare totals, resolve missing records, update, review, and then send.
Challenge unnecessary steps
Why does each step exist? Could it be removed? Could information be captured correctly earlier? Are we automating a workaround? Why does information need to be copied between systems?
Understand consistency and rules
If five employees perform the work five different ways, investigate why. Variation may be legitimate or may reflect a missing standard. Define if/then rules where possible and identify decisions that should remain human.
Understand exceptions
Ask what happens when the process does not go normally. Can the system identify the exception? Handle it? Stop? Route it to a person? A strong automation knows when to ask for help.
Check the inputs and data
Where does the information come from? Is it complete, consistent, correctly formatted, deduplicated, and trustworthy? Bad data does not become good because it moved automatically.
Assign ownership
Someone should own the process and the automation after implementation. Fields change, systems update, services change, and workflows evolve. Automation still needs ownership.
Place human review intentionally
The question is not “Can we remove the human?” It is “Where does human involvement add value or reduce meaningful risk?” Routine work may be automated while judgment and exceptions remain human.
Consider the consequence of being wrong
An unnecessary internal reminder and incorrect customer pricing are not the same risk. The amount of automation and review should reflect the consequence of failure.
Define failure and fallback
What could go wrong? How would we know? What happens if the source is unavailable, data is missing, duplicates appear, an integration fails, or AI produces an unreliable output? Important processes should have an appropriate fallback.
Measure whether automation helped
Automation running is not the same as automation improving the process. Define success in terms of time, turnaround, errors, rework, handoffs, response, capacity, quality, and customer experience. Use time data carefully: lower hours may mean efficiency, or it may mean an important step disappeared.
Start small enough to learn
Automate one repetitive step, test it, measure it, review exceptions, learn, and expand when appropriate. If the process is unclear, unstable, and unreliable, it is a process-improvement project before it is an automation project.
NEED HELP APPLYING THIS?
Thinking about automating part of your business? BPS can help examine the process first and determine the appropriate combination of people, process, systems, and technology.
Start with a Business Process Assessment