Rung 1a of the engagement ladder
Workflow Evidence Sprint
Establish the evidence: what one high-volume workflow actually costs, where delay and rework sit, and whether redesign is worth pursuing.
Know whether a workflow is worth fixing before you fund the fix.
Typical elapsed duration
10 business days; typically 4–6 consulting days
Commercial basis
From £7,500
Entry condition
One named high-volume workflow, an identifiable process owner and a live business trigger.
Scope
Inputs, deliverables and boundaries
What we need from you
Inputs required
- A transaction-level operational log for the workflow — case identifier, receipt, queue and completion timestamps, outcome, defect category and rework flags — exported from the systems that run it.
- The procedure as operated: the standard operating procedure where one exists, otherwise access to the people who run each step.
- Recent volumes and the staffing model for the workflow, so unit cost-to-serve can be estimated on a stated basis.
- A senior sponsor able to state the business trigger, and short structured walkthroughs with each role in the process.
What you receive
Deliverables
- A defined process boundary and a validated current-state map of the workflow as it actually runs, including the repair and exception routes.
- A measured baseline over the agreed data window: turnaround, queue and processing time, service-level attainment, first-time-right and rework rates.
- A ranked defect and exception analysis showing where repair work concentrates.
- A unit cost-to-serve estimate with every calculation input stated, not a single unexplained figure.
- Quantified redesign hypotheses with calculated results separated from assumptions, each carrying its evidence status and metric class.
- A written recommendation on whether redesign is worth pursuing, and on what evidence.
Your side of it
Client responsibilities
- Nominate the process owner and make the people who run the workflow available for the scheduled walkthroughs.
- Provide the operational log and procedure material at the start of the sprint; data quality remains the client’s responsibility.
- State the finance assumptions to be used in cost estimates, or nominate who can.
- Decide on the recommendation at the end of the sprint; adoption, volume mix and staffing decisions remain with the client.
The boundary
Scope exclusions
- No actuarial, underwriting, tax-technical, legal or audit advice.
- No audit opinion; no certification of accounts.
- Technical build is delivered by specified specialists under Leania's requirements, acceptance criteria and quality controls.
- No guarantee of a unit-cost outcome that depends on client adoption, volume mix, staffing decisions, data quality or third-party delivery outside our control.
- No build, configuration or supplier selection happens inside the sprint; it establishes the evidence for those decisions.
- Where the operating data cannot support a measure, the gap is reported rather than estimated around.
Good fit
This sprint fits when
- A repeated, high-volume workflow
- A named owner
- A live cost, capacity, service or regulatory trigger
- Access to people and operational evidence
- Willingness to stop if the economics do not justify change
Poor fit
It does not fit when
- A broad "find us AI" request
- A predetermined tool purchase
- No owner or evidence access
- One-off or low-volume work
- A free diagnosis request
How it ends
The decision this rung produces
Completion decision
Whether redesign of this workflow is worth pursuing: commission the Cost-to-Serve Baseline or Workflow Redesign & Delivery Assurance on the evidence, or stop with the evidence pack in hand.
How we deliver
Delivery model
Senior-led, specialist-delivered: Leania specifies the work, sets acceptance criteria and signs off quality, independent of any build supplier.
The sprint runs on Leania’s delivery instrumentation for process mapping and baseline arithmetic. The instruments, what they do and what they never decide are described on the technology page.