Is this repeated admin job actually a good first workflow to fix?

Answer five practical questions about the job, then add rough workload numbers if you know them. You will get one of four outcomes — stop, hold, narrow or proceed — plus the workload your own inputs represent. No email is required.

One recurring job. Five qualification checks. No forced certainty.

What recurring job are you thinking about?

1. Should this job still exist in roughly this form?Do not automate work that should disappear.

2. Is the normal path stable enough to describe?

3. Are the important exceptions known and bounded?

4. Can routine steps be separated from decisions that should stay with a person?

5. If something goes wrong, can you spot it and recover safely?

How often does it happen?

Period

Active handling minutes each timeWaiting time is not counted as labour saving.

Approx. loaded hourly cost (£), if known

What is annoying or costly about it? Optional

I already know the job — see the Owner’s Brief

This version runs in your browser. It does not ask for an email address, save your answers or submit the form to Coral Shark.

What this can answer

Whether this looks like work to stop, hold, narrow or take forward for a closer look, plus the annual occurrences and hands-on hours represented by the numbers you supplied.

What it cannot answer

It does not authorise implementation, promise a cash saving or decide that technology is the answer. “Proceed” means the workflow looks plausible enough for a closer evidence-led review.

Got a plausible workflow candidate?

The £249 + VAT Owner’s Brief turns the verdict and workload signal into a specific written recommendation about what to change, what to protect and what is still unknown.

See the Owner’s Brief · £249 + VAT