Triage
A paid, structured conversation to get perspective and decide what’s real.
We find where your workflows break — before automation makes it worse.
You've seen the breakage
Here's what it looks like on a Tuesday at 2pm — not in a strategy deck.
👁️
Decisions delayed because "someone else knows"
Tribal knowledge becomes the primary bottleneck, forcing leaders to step in and "just fix it."
⚙️
Manual overrides that became permanent
What started as a "one-time fix" is now the standard way work gets done, invisibly increasing risk.
📊
Shadow spreadsheets no one admits exist
Teams build parallel systems to track reality because the "official" tool doesn't match how work actually flows.
🔀
Exceptions handled differently by person
The same edge case gets resolved three different ways depending on who's working that day. The process depends on who, not what.
If this feels familiar: Triage if you need perspective. Assessment if you're ready to define scope and ownership.
Not for everyone: If you're looking for speed, shortcuts, or tool validation, we're not a fit. We do not automate around unclear ownership.
Automation doesn't fix broken workflows — it amplifies them.
These structural issues cause most automation projects to fail:
No one owns the end-to-end outcome
When handoffs aren't explicit, decisions fall through the cracks. Automation just moves work faster toward the next failure point.
Admin
?
Ops
Decision logic lives in people's heads
When logic is implicit, automation can't replicate it. Systems break the moment a 'key person' goes on vacation.
Exceptions are handled 'case by case'
Undocumented workarounds are where automation ROI dies. If the flow depends on who's working, it isn't stable.
AI is layered onto ambiguity
AI can't compensate for undefined success criteria. It only automates the chaos you already have.
Risk Containment
Assessment first. Always.
In complex operations, skipping diagnosis is how automation quietly turns into expensive rework.
Decision Authority
Ends opinion-based debates
A written operational verdict replaces gut feel, politics, and tool preferences with evidence.
Implementation Safety
Change without collateral damage
Systems are only changed after ownership and failure points are explicit.
How we work
We start by mapping reality — not by prescribing tools.
Some organizations need clarity before they act. Others already know something is wrong but don’t know where.
That’s why our work begins with diagnosis, not implementation.
If you’re looking for perspective or a second opinion, start with Workflow Stability Triage.
If you’re ready to change systems safely, the first step is a full assessment.
Order matters. We sequence for safety.
We don't start with solutions. We start with truth.
Assessment
The minimum level of understanding required before we change anything.
Implementation
Automation and AI applied only after stability is established through evidence.
Why Clients Come to Us
Sound familiar?
- → Automation keeps 'kind of working' until it suddenly doesn't — and no one knows why
- → AI tools are deployed but never trusted — so people work around them anyway
- → Teams spend more time managing exceptions than delivering actual outcomes
- → People bypass systems to keep things moving — because the 'official' process doesn't work
- → Audits reveal problems that everyone knew existed but no one had documented
- → New hires can't learn the process because there isn't one — just tribal knowledge
What they leave with
- ✓ Clear ownership mapped to real accountability — not org chart assumptions
- ✓ Predictable workflows with documented decision logic and exception handling
- ✓ Automation that actually sticks — because it was built on stable foundations
This is NOT for you if:
- You want to "just build the automation" without understanding the workflow first
- You're looking for a quick fix or tool validation
- You need a vendor who will tell you what you want to hear
- Your organization isn't ready to make changes based on reality
We turn away work that will fail. That protects both of us.
The next step is clarity.
At this point, most teams fall into one of two camps:
We decide scope together. Then we write it down. Then we execute it.
What skeptics ask us
"Why can't we just automate and fix things later?"
Because automation hardens whatever structure exists. If your workflows are unstable, you don't get 'faster' — you get faster exceptions, faster rework, and quieter failures. Diagnosis first prevents technical debt.
"What if our workflows are undocumented?"
That's exactly when you need an assessment. We don't rely on documentation — we observe real behavior, interview stakeholders, and map what actually happens. Many clients have no documentation at all when we start.
"What if leadership disagrees internally?"
The assessment creates shared clarity. When everyone sees the same picture — where work breaks, who owns what, what's actually happening — disagreements often resolve because the facts are visible.
"Isn't this just expensive consulting?"
No. We deliver written artifacts with specific findings, not slide decks and recommendations. You receive documentation you can act on immediately — or use to evaluate other vendors. The assessment stands alone.
In short
We help teams determine whether their workflows are stable enough to automate — before tools make problems worse. We diagnose where work breaks, clarify who owns what, and sequence changes safely. Many clients start with a Workflow Stability Assessment.
Start with clarity.
The Workflow Stability Assessment delivers a written verdict in ~2 weeks. Pricing reflects fixed scope and decision-ready outputs — not hours billed.
Start with a Stability Verdict