Skip to content

Find where automation pays back first.

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

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.

Step 1, operating baseline

Use your numbers, not an invented industry average.

Nothing is filled in for you, because a prefilled figure would be our guess wearing your name. Take one repetitive workflow, enter what you know about it, and change any assumption to rerun the scenario.

The result is a low, centre, and high scenario built from these six numbers. It is a projection, not a forecast and not a promise of realised savings.

How we 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

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.

01

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.

02

Bounded decisions

The rules are explicit. Anything ambiguous can leave the automated path and reach a named human owner.

03

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.

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.

Declared

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.

Declared

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.

Modelled

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.

Not accessible

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 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, 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.

What happens when I give you my email?

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.

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. We can operate them, or hand them to an internal owner.

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.

25 free resources in the verified catalog. Reviewed 2026-07-18.

Browse the complete free library (25)

Resource packs

Downloadable pack

Azure Landing Zone Readiness Pack

Discovery, architecture, security baseline, policy and operating-review templates for Azure platform planning.

6 planning templates · policy intent · operating review

Downloadable pack

Azure Virtual Desktop Readiness Pack

Assess AVD requirements, architecture, FSLogix recovery, security, cost and regional outage readiness.

6 planning templates · recovery · cost and outage review

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 pack

Cloud Cost Audit Workbook

The 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 pack

Cloud 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 pack

Cloud 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 pack

DORA/NIS2 Decision Templates

Structured decision matrices for mapping regulatory gaps.

Gap analysis · compliance mapping · incident taxonomy

Downloadable pack

GCP Landing Zone Readiness Pack

Discovery, architecture, organisation policy and operating-review templates for a governed Google Cloud foundation.

6 planning templates · policy set · operating review

Downloadable pack

Microsoft 365 Evidence Snapshot

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 pack

Microsoft 365 Security Review Workpapers

Versioned workpapers for reviewing Microsoft 365 controls, evidence, permissions and remediation priorities.

38 source-linked checks · permission audit · gap analysis

Downloadable pack

Microsoft Defender Incident Response Pack

Operational templates for triage, device isolation, email purge, identity compromise and detection review.

7 working templates · 4 response procedures · review records

Downloadable pack

Microsoft Sentinel Detection Starter

Three KQL detections plus the catalogue, tuning, hunting and review records needed to operate them.

3 KQL samples · 2 runbooks · monthly operating review

Downloadable pack

Resilience Repo Starter Pack

AWS Terraform scaffolding, a BCDR SOP and an infrastructure decision matrix.

AWS Terraform baseline · BCDR SOP · decision matrix

Downloadable pack

Sovereign Exit 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

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.

Start a workflow brief