A completed Pilot Blueprint, illustrated
This is the form and depth of the day-21 output, worked through end to end on the synthetic accountancy demonstration case. Every value is illustrative. No client data appears on this page.
Nothing here describes a real client, a real engagement or a real result. The workflow is the synthetic quarterly-update case published as a demonstration elsewhere on this site, and the Blueprint below is what its day-21 deliverable would contain. The panel names, fields and decision questions are the published ones; only the values are illustrative.
What the released capacity is, and what the engagement covers
Two separate facts. The capacity below is what the illustrative scenario releases in a year; the engagement beside it buys the decision and the design that would establish whether any of it is real.
Stated full-time equivalent year: 1,800 hours.
Released capacity recurs while the change is sustained — which is a thing to verify, not to assume. How realised value is verified →
The engagement covers the decision and the design: whether the workflow is worth changing, and what the pilot must prove. Implementation is scoped separately, once the intervention is selected.
Evidence & Capacity Case
Synthetic demonstration case — illustrative Pilot Blueprint
- Baseline
- Quarterly-update preparation, from records received to pack ready for qualified review.
- Capacity exposure
- Qualified review is the constrained resource; it absorbs work that does not require qualification.
- Evidence strength
- Evidence-rich: a transaction-level operational log covers the whole window, so the baseline is measured rather than estimated.
Is the problem material enough to justify intervention?
Yes — the avoidable work is concentrated enough, and repeats often enough, to justify a bounded intervention.
Redesigned Workflow
Synthetic demonstration case — illustrative Pilot Blueprint
- Current vs designed
- Chasing moves upstream to a structured request at intake; categorisation exceptions are caught before preparation rather than at review.
- Hand-offs
- Two hand-offs removed. The remaining ones are explicit, with a named owner on each side.
- Retained professional review
- Unchanged in substance. Review receives a complete pack and reviews it, rather than completing it.
What should the operation look like?
A workflow where completeness is enforced at intake and qualified review receives complete packs.
Data & Fitness Map
Synthetic demonstration case — illustrative Pilot Blueprint
- Purpose
- Completeness checking, categorisation, and preparation of the review pack.
- Usable / usable with control / blocker
- Usable with control: the data supports the pilot provided the intake request is structured and completeness is enforced at entry.
Is the information fit enough to proceed, and what must be remediated?
Usable with control. The intake request must be structured before the pilot begins.
Solution Concept & Technical Boundaries
Synthetic demonstration case — illustrative Pilot Blueprint
- Required components
- A structured intake request, a validation and exception-flagging step, and assembly into the existing review pack format.
- Automation or AI role where justified
- Assisted categorisation with a confidence threshold, below which the case routes to a person. Nothing files automatically.
- Unresolved technical decisions
- Whether categorisation runs at intake or at preparation. Both are viable; the pilot is specified to test intake first.
How could this fit the environment, and what needs specialist validation before build?
Inside the existing system of record, with assisted categorisation behind a confidence threshold. Integration and model evaluation need specialist validation.
Human, Adoption & Control Design
Synthetic demonstration case — illustrative Pilot Blueprint
- Human judgement
- Every professional judgement, every exception with a client consequence, and final review stay with people. The pilot changes what reaches them, not who decides.
- Approval and sign-off
- Unchanged. The qualified reviewer approves the pack, and nothing is filed without that approval.
- Control ownership
- The confidence threshold, exception triage and review sign-off each have one named owner, agreed before the pilot starts.
What stays human, how will people trust and use it, and where are the controls?
Judgement, exception handling and final review stay human. Trust rests on visible confidence, a visible source and a costless override. Controls are the threshold, exception triage and sign-off, each with one named owner.
Pilot Specification
Synthetic demonstration case — illustrative Pilot Blueprint
- Thin-slice scope
- One office, one quarterly window, the quarterly-update workflow only. No second workflow and no second office inside the pilot.
- Baseline
- The measured baseline from Stage 1, on the same basis, so the comparison is like for like rather than against an impression.
- Pass / change / stop thresholds
- Agreed before the pilot starts and written into this Blueprint, so the close-of-window decision is read off evidence rather than argued. CHANGE separates two findings that lead to different decisions: the hypothesis held but the movement was smaller than assumed, which resizes the case; or the hypothesis did not hold, which sends the intervention back for rethinking.
Are we ready to approve and mobilise the pilot?
Ready to approve and mobilise, scoped to one office and one quarterly window, with pass / change / stop thresholds agreed before it starts.
Executive decision summary
- Current-state exposure
- 55.56% rework across 180 measured cases, with 26 breaching the service target and mean queue time (222 minutes) exceeding mean processing (129 minutes).
- Addressable value
- £111,720 of illustrative annual released capacity — 2,940 hours at £38 — on 40,000 cases, 35% affected, 30% reduction, 70% adoption. Released capacity, not cash.
- Proposed intervention
- Standardise and Workflow: completeness enforced at intake through a structured request, with assisted categorisation behind a confidence threshold for the one defect class that needs it.
- Evidence confidence
- Evidence-rich. A transaction-level log covering all 180 cases in the window, so the baseline is measured rather than estimated.
- Pilot scope
- One office, one quarterly window, the quarterly-update workflow only. No second workflow and no second office inside the pilot.
- Pilot success test
- At or below 38.89%, against a measured baseline of 55.56%. Three further measures carry their own thresholds, all derived from the same published assumption.
- Decision
- GO — proceed to the pilot as scoped. The avoidable work is concentrated, the cause is validated, and the intervention is the simplest rung that clears the threshold.
Pass, change and stop — against the measured baseline
- Measured baseline
- 55.56%
- Pass
- At or below 38.89%
- Change
- Above 38.89% but at or below 47.23%
- Stop
- Above 47.23%
- Measured baseline
- 44.44%
- Pass
- At or above 61.11%
- Change
- At or above 52.77% but below 61.11%
- Stop
- Below 52.77%
- Measured baseline
- 222 minutes
- Pass
- At or below 155 minutes
- Change
- Above 155 minutes but at or below 189 minutes
- Stop
- Above 189 minutes
- Measured baseline
- 85.56%
- Pass
- At or above 90.00%
- Change
- At or above 87.78% but below 90.00%
- Stop
- Below 87.78%
Set against the measured baseline and agreed before the pilot starts, stated in the Blueprint.
The evidence behind the conclusions
The six panels above state what the Blueprint concludes. This pack shows how each conclusion was reached — which is the part that rebuilds the method rather than reads it, so we ask who is asking.
- An executive decision summary: exposure, addressable value, intervention, evidence confidence, pilot scope, success test and the GO / CHANGE / STOP decision
- One thread traced end to end — evidence, finding, validated cause, intervention, requirement, pilot metric, pass threshold
- What each panel’s conclusion was read off, measure by measure
- Pass, change and stop thresholds against the measured baseline
Four details, and the pack opens in this browser.
We use these details to send the pack and to follow up about your workflow. No newsletter unless you ask for one.
One engagement, two stages, one decision between them
21 working days to a Pilot Blueprint
- Stage 1 · Working days 1–10Establish, then Diagnose & Select
- Stage 2 · Working days 11–21Design, then Specify & Challenge
Stage 1 runs working days 1–10 and ends in a decision. If the evidence doesn't justify continuing, the engagement ends there: you keep the evidence and pay only for Stage 1. If it does, Stage 2 takes the selected intervention to a Pilot Blueprint by working day 21.
£7,500 to start. Stage 2 (£9,500) only if the evidence justifies it.
£17,000 — Total if both stages run, for one bounded workflow. Larger scopes are quoted.