Is this workflow worth automating?

Each of the nine answers carries between zero and three points; the score is the total as a percentage of the 27 available. Some answers override the number rather than just lowering it. If the work has no rule behind it, no written rules, or no accountable owner, the verdict caps at "reshape it first" however well it scores — those are process problems that automation amplifies instead of solving. And if the workflow turns out to be a fixed, single-system path, the verdict says so regardless of score, because a high score means it's worth automating, not that an agent is the right thing to automate it with.

The result appears as soon as the ninth question is answered. The scoring runs entirely in your browser and your answers stay on your device — unless you've declined analytics, we receive one anonymous event recording the result band and score so we know the tool gets used, never the individual answers, which would describe your internal operations. There's a waitlist form at the foot of the page if you want us to follow up; it's optional.

Five things together: it recurs often, it spans several systems, it requires judgment rather than a fixed path, some of its steps are irreversible enough to want a human approving them, and somebody could write the rules down. Miss the first and the effort won't repay itself; miss the last and there's nothing to brief an agent with.

Then use the different tool. Most answer combinations here surface at least one "look elsewhere" flag — a trigger-action builder for fixed plumbing, a documentation exercise for undefined processes, or simply keeping the work manual. We would rather tell you on this page than after a pilot that wasted a quarter.

Yes, and it's worth doing. Score your three worst processes separately and the comparison usually surprises people — the one that feels most painful often isn't the one where automation pays off first, because frequency matters more than annoyance.