One request across three connected systems
A fictional B2B service team connects an inbox, CRM and fulfilment queue. Handoffs lose context. Repeated events can create duplicate work and failed updates need an owner.
- Proposed workflow
- Receive an event · Share the request state · Wait for approval · Commit and observe
- Human control
- The process owner resolves conflicting states and approves consequential actions.
Human effort per month
Hours · review included53.3% less human effort under these assumptions. This is not cash savings.
Workload mix
- Routine route60%
- Approval needed30%
- Recovery cases10%
Assumed distribution, not measured activity.
Inspect the data, calculation and pilot decision
| Input or calculated measure | Illustrative value |
|---|---|
| Monthly in-scope volume | 600 service requests |
| Before: human minutes per item | 15 |
| Proposed: human minutes per item | 6 |
| Additional operating hours per month | 10 |
| Baseline human hours per month | 150 |
| Proposed human hours per month | 70 |
| Net capacity change per month | 80 hours |
| Illustrative pilot window | 6 weeks; not a delivery commitment |
| Assumed mix: Routine route | 360 items |
| Assumed mix: Approval needed | 180 items |
| Assumed mix: Recovery cases | 60 items |
Calculation: 600 × 15 ÷ 60 = 150 baseline hours. Proposed: 600 × 6 ÷ 60 + 10 operating hours = 70 hours.
Pilot decision: Can repeated or failed events recover without duplicate work or lost request state?
Limit: Lower human effort does not automatically mean shorter customer waiting time. Vendor availability still matters.
Fictional worked example. Future human handling includes review, exceptions and corrections; operating hours are additional. Compare the same workload before drawing a conclusion.