Measuring Whether an Automation Has Reduced Work

Imagine a commercial stationery supplier handling this situation. A new workflow removes typing, but staff now spend time correcting its mismatches.

The project is called successful because transfers increased. This hypothetical scenario is worth considering because the mistake can look like an isolated oversight. Following the information usually reveals a repeatable weakness that better process design could address before anyone recommends new software. Understanding the distinction helps the business consider a proportionate change.

The evaluation counts automated actions without measuring correction work, interruptions or unresolved exceptions.

Correction work belongs in the evaluation rather than outside it. The end-to-end task may improve even if some review remains, but that needs observation rather than assumption.

Follow the work across roles rather than measuring only the person whose typing was removed. Another employee may now review or correct more records. The useful comparison includes the frequency and difficulty of exceptions as well as the straightforward transfers the system handles without intervention. The record may look complete while still leaving a business question unanswered. That encourages workarounds: a private note, another spreadsheet or a message to a trusted colleague. Each workaround helps locally but can make the overall process harder to follow.

Observe the whole process before and after the change, using comparable work. Include review, recovery and maintenance effort alongside the copying removed.

Check whether clearer ownership or an existing software feature can resolve the issue before building a new workflow. Consequential or uncertain cases may be better routed to a person than forced through a generic rule. Keep access to customer and business information limited to the purpose of the task. The improvement should reduce the overall handling burden rather than merely move it into corrections. Give the nominated operator a practical way to see pending work and investigate exceptions. Separate the useful decision from the repetitive preparation surrounding it. Define what starts the action, what evidence it needs and what should stop it.

Workload varies, so a short trial should inform a cautious judgement rather than a guaranteed annual saving.

For background relevant to end-to-end automation effort, see Are You Measuring the Work or Just Counting It. The issue here is the narrower workflow described in this example.

Follow a normal transfer and a failed one from beginning to end, recording the people and actions involved. Compare the proposed result with the original source and the business's intended next action. A record arriving in the right application is not sufficient if its meaning changed on the way. Staff should be able to explain both what happened and what remains to do.

For end-to-end automation effort, review the proposed outcome with the staff responsible. Include the work created for the person who reviews or corrects the result. A useful change should be judged across the task, not only by whether one automatic action completed. Make the remaining decision and its owner visible in the trial. Give unresolved cases a named owner and a sensible review point. A clearer process in the current tools may be sufficient; custom development needs a specific remaining problem to justify it.

Software Logic approaches practical business automation by examining the actual handover, the information involved and whether a modest improvement would be sufficient. Has the task become easier overall, or has its effort merely moved to a different person?