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.
Model one workflow from your own numbers. The result is a planning range, not a guaranteed saving.
Workflow value model
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.
Leaves behind: An approved baseline, a control map, and a pilot decision
Leaves behind: Pilot evidence, and a decision to continue, change, or stop
Leaves behind: An operated workflow, handover evidence, and a benefits review
Candidate filter
Stable inputs, repeated rules, visible exceptions, and a baseline you can measure beat an impressive demonstration with no operating owner.
The same trigger, the same data movement, and the same decision pattern repeat often enough to justify a workflow somebody has to maintain.
The rules are explicit. Anything ambiguous can leave the automated path and reach a named human owner.
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.
Ticket classification, controlled data synchronisation, scheduled evidence capture, approval routing, and document assembly with an explicit exception queue.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Primary sources
FAQ
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 scan cannot move the money, because the money comes only from the numbers you entered.
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.
No. There is no industry average, no peer band, and no percentile anywhere on this page. An earlier version of this tool did carry an industry comparison; the numbers in it were invented, so the comparison and the data behind it were deleted in July 2026. Every figure you see is either something you typed or arithmetic over what you typed.
The scenario you built is saved with your address so we can follow up on it, 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. Nothing is emailed to you automatically, and there is no newsletter.
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.
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.
You do. The flows, credentials, and documentation sit in your accounts. We can operate them, or hand them to an internal owner.
ITSailor field library
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.
25 free resources in the verified catalog. Reviewed 2026-07-18.
Two sanitised n8n workflow exports, a broken-flow triage runbook and the operating notes needed to adapt them safely.
2 sanitised n8n exports · triage runbook · operating notes
Downloadable packTwelve model-neutral system prompts for IT operations and security workflows.
12 model-neutral system prompts · configuration guide
Downloadable packTurn Claude Code into a working member of your IT operations team: 7 specialist agents, 5 guided skills, a project-memory template and the safety rails for regulated EU environments.
7 agents · 5 guided skills · safety contract
Discovery, architecture, security baseline, policy and operating-review templates for Azure platform planning.
6 planning templates · policy intent · operating review
Downloadable packAssess AVD requirements, architecture, FSLogix recovery, security, cost and regional outage readiness.
6 planning templates · recovery · cost and outage review
Downloadable packPlan, run and evidence recovery drills without inventing the process during an incident.
6 working templates · drill evidence · recovery validation
Downloadable packThe six-tab Excel model ITSailor uses to surface cloud + SaaS waste and rank the savings backlog. Real formulas, not a static sheet.
6-tab Excel model · formulas · prioritised savings backlog
Downloadable packTrack renewals, audit licence use, assess new vendors and prepare evidence before commitment windows close.
6 working templates · renewal calendar · audit and reclaim procedures
Downloadable packStructure discovery, pilot waves, cutover, rollback and hypercare for cloud and Microsoft 365 migrations.
7 working templates · cutover gates · rollback procedure
Downloadable packStructured decision matrices for mapping regulatory gaps.
Gap analysis · compliance mapping · incident taxonomy
Downloadable packDiscovery, architecture, organisation policy and operating-review templates for a governed Google Cloud foundation.
6 planning templates · policy set · operating review
Downloadable packRead-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 packVersioned workpapers for reviewing Microsoft 365 controls, evidence, permissions and remediation priorities.
38 source-linked checks · permission audit · gap analysis
Downloadable packOperational templates for triage, device isolation, email purge, identity compromise and detection review.
7 working templates · 4 response procedures · review records
Downloadable packThree KQL detections plus the catalogue, tuning, hunting and review records needed to operate them.
3 KQL samples · 2 runbooks · monthly operating review
Downloadable packAWS Terraform scaffolding, a BCDR SOP and an infrastructure decision matrix.
AWS Terraform baseline · BCDR SOP · decision matrix
Downloadable packRecord ownership, architecture, handover evidence and supplier-exit questions before a dependency becomes lock-in.
4 neutral templates · ownership map · handover and supplier-exit checks
Get an AI deployment verdict, risk register, and 90-day plan from what you declare.
18 declared controls · risk register · unknowns stay unknown
Interactive toolModel one workflow from your own operating numbers and see the range it produces.
Your own baseline · three scenarios · 7 scored questions of 10
Interactive toolInspect one GitHub repository across five evidence families.
5 evidence families · unreadable controls stay unknown · token not stored
Interactive toolEnsure your emails hit the inbox, not the spam folder.
Live DNS checks · 29 DKIM selectors
Interactive toolReview your Microsoft 365 security posture across 38 risk-weighted controls.
38 checks · 6 categories · source-linked assessment
Interactive toolIdentify access leaks and data risks for departing users.
Risk profile · gap matrix · remediation timeline
Interactive toolFind every SaaS you run - and pay for - across users, spend, and SSO.
Three scan paths · browser-local CSV processing
Bring the scenario, the process owner, and a real sample of the work, including the cases that go wrong.