High repetition
The same trigger, the same data movement, and the same decision pattern repeat often enough to justify a workflow somebody has to maintain.
See what one automation could return a year.
Model one workflow from your own numbers. The result is a planning range, not a guaranteed saving.
- Email only for the worked breakdown
- Calculated in your browser
- Assumptions stay visible
Before you start
What you get back
The arithmetic, before your numbersThree cases for one workflow, each worked from the six numbers you enter. No figure is shown until you enter yours.
gross a year = manual hours a week × 48 weeks × loaded hourly cost × share
net a year = gross a year − run cost a month × 12
- Low0.7 × your automatable share
- Centreyour automatable share
- High1.2 × your automatable share, capped at 95%
Workflow value model
Start from a real operating baseline.
Use the total weekly effort for one candidate process. The model deducts your expected run cost and treats the automatable share as your assumption rather than a finding. Every constant it applies is printed beside the figure it produces.
How I would run the pilot. Value in the scenario above starts in phase three.
01
Baseline and process mapping
- Confirm one process owner and one source of truth
- Measure effort, frequency, failure, and rework
- Map permissions, integrations, and exception paths
- Select one bounded pilot with explicit stop criteria
Leaves behind: An approved baseline, a control map, and a pilot decision
02
Controlled pilot
- Build the approved workflow outside production
- Acceptance testing across error cases, edge cases, and fallbacks
- Monitor runs, errors, manual interventions, and time returned
- Review the evidence with the process owner before wider use
Leaves behind: Pilot evidence, and a decision to continue, change, or stop
03
Operate and compare
- Harden monitoring, retry, escalation, and the manual override path
- Train the named owner to run and change the workflow
- Version the procedure, the architecture, the permissions, and the rollback
- Compare the measured result against the scenario on this page
Leaves behind: An operated workflow, handover evidence, and a benefits review
Build references for the pilot: n8n error handling and Power Automate guidance.
Candidate filter
The best first workflow is usually boring.
Stable inputs, repeated rules, visible exceptions, and a baseline you can measure beat an impressive demonstration with no operating owner.
Bounded decisions
The rules are explicit. Anything ambiguous can leave the automated path and reach a named human owner.
Measurable baseline
Current effort, frequency, cost, rework, and service impact can be measured before anything is built. Without this the scenario on this page cannot be checked later.
Good early candidates
Ticket classification, controlled data synchronisation, scheduled evidence capture, approval routing, and document assembly with an explicit exception queue.
Pause before automating
Disputed ownership, unstable rules, sensitive decisions without oversight, no failure path, or no system of record. Each of those is design work before it is build work.
Evidence model
Every figure names the assumption behind it.
Two engines that never touch each other. The scenario projects value from six numbers you supply. The maturity scan scores what you declare about the way the work runs today, over 7 of the 10 questions. Neither one moves the other, so no answer can inflate a euro figure and no euro figure can flatter a score.
This is a planning scenario, not a financial forecast. It excludes tax, financing, change-management cost, opportunity cost, and realised adoption unless you put them into the inputs yourself. Assumptions without a source: 48 working weeks, a low case at 0.7 times your share, a high case at 1.2 times, capped at 95 percent. They are my choices, printed beside every result.
Take the operating baseline from you
Weekly manual effort, loaded hourly cost, expected automatable share, build cost, monthly run cost, and your full-time week. The tool observes none of this. You state it, and the result panel echoes every value back, including any figure the bounds had to change.
Score the declared operating controls
The process documentation, tool integration, manual density, data flow, and automation readiness axes. Each score is the share of the strongest available answer on the questions asked, and the weights behind the single headline percentage are printed with the result.
Project three cases from the same arithmetic
Hours times 48 working weeks times your hourly cost times the automatable share, less the run cost. The low case applies 0.7 to the share you entered and the high case 1.2, capped at 95 percent. Money and hours are floored rather than rounded to the nearest, so the model may understate itself and may not overstate itself.
Leave realisation open
Capacity value is not booked saving, and this page measures nothing in your systems. The worked breakdown ends with one measurement per input so the projection can be compared against a controlled pilot and, where it was wrong, shown to be wrong.
Observed: the tool read it. Declared: you told the tool. Modelled: the tool calculated it from those. Not read: the tool could not see it.
FAQ
Before you trust the number
How does the tool work?
Enter six numbers for one workflow and the model returns a low, centre, and high annual value. The maturity scan is optional and separate: 3 questions in the quick pass and 10 in the full one, of which 7 carry weight. The other 3 are context only and score nothing. The scan cannot move the money, because the money comes only from the numbers you entered.
How accurate is the value range?
It is a projection from your assumptions, not a forecast. The centre case uses the automatable share you entered, the low case 0.7 times that share, and the high case 1.2 times it, capped at 95 percent. Those two multipliers set the entire width of the range and are printed beside it. Every annual figure uses 48 working weeks, values are floored and costs are rounded up, so each one sits at or below the exact arithmetic. When your run cost is larger than the value the share produces, the result is negative and the page prints it that way.
Do you compare my result with other companies?
No. There is no industry average, peer band or percentile on this page. Every figure is something you typed or arithmetic over what you typed.
What happens when I give you my email?
The scenario you built is saved with your address for 24 months, and the worked breakdown then opens on this page: the derivation of each case, the same calculation across a spread of automatable shares, and one measurement per input. We do not email you unless you write to us first, and there is no newsletter.
Do I need to replace the tools I already have?
Usually not. Automation is normally wired on top of the current stack through native APIs or middleware, which is also what keeps the build cost you entered realistic.
What happens when the process changes?
Treat a workflow as operated software. Version the flow, name an owner, monitor failures, record the assumptions, and remeasure the baseline after any material change.
Who owns the automations afterwards?
You do. The flows, credentials, and documentation sit in your accounts. I can operate them, or hand them to an internal owner. If you buy a ready-made managed package instead, I run the workflow on my own instance in Germany and the export and deletion terms are in your quote.
ITSailor field library
Open the workflows before you buy anything.
The starter pack carries real sanitised flow structures and the runbook used to triage them when they break. The complete free library stays visible below.
21 free resources in the verified catalog.
Browse the complete free library (21)
Resource packs
Downloadable pack
Backup & Restore Drill Pack
Plan, run and evidence recovery drills without inventing the process during an incident.
6 working templates · drill evidence · recovery validation
Downloadable packCloud Cost Audit Workbook
A six-sheet Excel model with live formulas for cloud and SaaS spend: baseline, savings backlog, commitment break-even, showback, tagging and a FinOps mapping.
6-sheet Excel model · formulas · prioritised savings backlog
Downloadable packCloud Licence & Renewal Pack
Track renewals, audit licence use, assess new vendors and prepare evidence before commitment windows close.
6 working templates · renewal calendar · audit and reclaim procedures
Downloadable packCloud Migration Cutover Pack
Structure discovery, pilot waves, cutover, rollback and hypercare for cloud and Microsoft 365 migrations.
7 working templates · cutover gates · rollback procedure
Downloadable packDetection Starter for Microsoft Sentinel
Three KQL detections plus the catalogue, tuning, hunting and review records needed to operate them.
3 KQL samples · 2 runbooks · monthly operating review
Downloadable packDORA and NIS2 Templates
Three editable files: a gap sheet, a control mapping to DORA Articles 5 to 30 and NIS2 Articles 20, 21 and 23, and an incident taxonomy with NIS2 clocks.
Gap analysis · compliance mapping · incident taxonomy
Downloadable packEvidence Snapshot for Microsoft 365
Read-only PowerShell and KQL examples for Secure Score, inactive licensed users and failed sign-in bursts.
2 read-only Graph scripts · 1 KQL query · permissions guide
Downloadable packExit Kit Starter
Record ownership, architecture, handover evidence and supplier-exit questions before a dependency becomes lock-in.
4 neutral templates · ownership map · handover and supplier-exit checks
Downloadable packIncident Response Pack for Microsoft Defender
Operational templates for triage, device isolation, email purge, identity compromise and detection review.
7 working templates · 4 response procedures · review records
Downloadable packLanding Zone Readiness Pack for Azure
Discovery, architecture, security baseline, policy and operating-review templates for Azure platform planning.
6 planning templates · policy intent · operating review
Downloadable packSecurity Review Workpapers for Microsoft 365
Versioned workpapers for reviewing Microsoft 365 controls, evidence, permissions and remediation priorities.
48 source-linked checks · permission audit · gap analysis
Diagnostics
Interactive tool
AI Readiness Scan
Get an AI deployment verdict, risk register, and 90-day plan from what you declare.
18 declared controls, a risk register and a 30/60/90 plan
Interactive toolAutomation ROI Scenario Builder
Model one workflow from your own operating numbers and see the range it produces.
Your own baseline of six inputs, three cases and 7 scored questions of 10
Interactive toolCost Review for Azure
Read your own Azure cost export without it leaving your browser.
Microsoft's export schemas, parsed in your browser
Interactive toolEmail Authentication Check
Check whether your domain publishes SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS and TLS-RPT, and whether it is on a public blocklist.
Live DNS checks of 8 record types and 29 DKIM selectors
Interactive toolLicence Overlap Check
Check whether the add-on you are about to buy is already in the plan you hold.
28 add-ons, each verdict linked to the Microsoft page it was read from
Interactive toolOffboarding Runbook and Leaver Check
Offboard a Microsoft 365 leaver in the right order, with the commands and a record of what was done.
Ordered leaver steps, PowerShell with sources and an evidence record
Interactive toolSaaS Auditor
Find the SaaS apps your users, spend and sign-in logs reveal, and the licences nobody uses.
Three scan paths; CSV exports are processed in your browser
Interactive toolTenant Security Scorecard
Review your Microsoft 365 security posture across 48 risk-weighted controls.
48 checks in 6 areas, each linked to its Microsoft source
Need the first workflow scoped and costed?
Bring the scenario, the process owner, and a real sample of the work, including the cases that go wrong. For a small business, a ready-made package I run for you may fit better: see the Automation Library.