Business Cases
Part of Automation business cases
Comparing automation with process simplification
Compare simpler process routes and automation against the same outcome, costs and constraints without counting benefits twice.
Compare automation with process simplification as investment options for the same problem and outcome. Ask whether a step is needed, then assess technology for the necessary work that remains.
Compare each feasible route's cost and benefit over the same period. If the options are combined, attribute each gain to the stage that produces it.
Define the decision
Use a defined case and result: for example, how a complete customer request reaches a usable decision. Note where cases return, work is duplicated or people wait, and what the receiving team needs. A proposed bot or workflow is an option, not the problem statement.
Separate necessary decisions, repeated actions and possibly unnecessary actions. A required decision needs an authorised owner. A repeated action may be suitable for automation.
An action may be removable if it supplies no needed control, record or service. Confirm its purpose with people who rely on its output before removing it.
Key Considerations When Evaluating Process Change
- Required decision
- Must have an authorised owner
- Repeated action
- Suitable for automation
- Possibly unnecessary action
- Confirm purpose before removing
- Team alignment needed
- For rules requiring cross-team agreement
- System access required
- For reliable automation inputs
- Exception ownership
- Must be assigned for automated processes
Compare the changed routes
Describe a future route for each feasible option. In a hypothetical request process, staff re-enter details from an email into a case system and send the case for approval.
A simpler intake form might remove re-entry. Automated copying might reduce its effort while retaining the duplicate route. If valid cases still wait for assignment after re-entry is removed, automated routing could address that remaining problem.
| Question | Simplify the route | Automate remaining work |
|---|---|---|
| What changes? | Remove, combine or clarify an input or step | Execute or coordinate a defined step with technology |
| What remains for people? | Necessary decisions and exceptions | Review, exceptions, support and decisions outside the automated rule |
| What must be checked? | Whether the route preserves its result and controls | Whether the system acts correctly and improves the full result |
| What may weaken the case? | A removed step provided needed evidence | The tool repeats avoidable work or moves it downstream |
Neither option is automatically cheaper or better. The comparison needs evidence for this process.
Simplification vs Automation: Key Differences in Process Change
- What changes?
- Remove, combine or clarify an input or step
- What remains for people?
- Necessary decisions and exceptions
- What must be checked?
- Whether the route preserves its result and controls
- What may weaken the case?
- A removed step provided needed evidence
- What changes?
- Execute or coordinate a defined step with technology
- What remains for people?
- Review, exceptions, support and decisions outside the automated rule
- What must be checked?
- Whether the system acts correctly and improves the full result
- What may weaken the case?
- The tool repeats avoidable work or moves it downstream
Use one comparison basis
Include the current route as the baseline. For each option, use the same period, case mix and outcome definitions. Estimate change effort, continuing costs, handling and elapsed time, corrections and work passed to other teams. Record uncertainty in each estimate rather than treating a guess as a measured result.
For a combined option, forecast the simplification gain against the current route. Then forecast automation's additional gain against the simpler route. The combined benefit is the staged result, after any extra operating work and costs. Adding two estimates both made against the current route can count the same removed step twice.
Check dependencies alongside forecast value. Simplification may require agreement on a rule across teams. Automation may require dependable inputs, system access, an exception owner and technical support. Show which dependency could delay each route and which cost or benefit it affects.
Recommend the route that best meets the outcome under the available evidence, with its costs and uncertainties visible. If the evidence cannot yet separate the options, propose a bounded trial with agreed measures. Its result remains unknown until the trial is done.
Steps to Compare Simplification and Automation Options
- Use the current route as the baselineEstablish a consistent starting point for all comparisons
- Define the same period, case mix and outcomeEnsure all options are measured against identical criteria
- Estimate effort, costs, time and dependenciesInclude uncertainty in each estimate; do not treat guesses as facts
- Forecast gains separately for simplification and automationAvoid double-counting benefits when combining options
- Identify dependencies that could delay progressHighlight risks affecting cost, timing or benefit delivery
- Recommend based on evidence and visibility of risksIf uncertain, propose a bounded trial with agreed measures
