Look for work that repeats
A useful automation opportunity often starts with a familiar sentence: “Every time this happens, I have to…”
Copy information into another system. Send the same reminder. Check whether someone approved a request. Assemble the same report. These are worth examining because they contain steps that may follow a repeatable pattern.
Start with the process you want to improve. You do not need to choose software or know how to build a workflow first.
Six signs to look for
Use the examples below to spot a possible opportunity. They describe potential improvements, not guaranteed results or completed client projects.
| Sign | What it looks like | Opportunity to explore |
|---|---|---|
| Duplicate entry | The same details are copied into several places | Capture information once and pass it to the appropriate system. |
| Approval delays | Requests wait in inboxes with no clear owner | Route reviews, record decisions, and send agreed reminders. |
| Missed follow-ups | The next step depends on someone remembering | Create tasks or reminders when agreed conditions are met. |
| Recurring reports | The same data is gathered and prepared repeatedly | Schedule collection and preparation, retaining necessary checks. |
| Document handling | Files are renamed, sorted, or checked by hand | Apply consistent filing rules and flag missing information. |
| Status chasing | People repeatedly ask where a request stands | Keep a shared status record and notify people of relevant changes. |
A simple example: following up on a request
Imagine a small business receives requests by email. Someone copies the details into a spreadsheet, forwards them for review, and checks back for a decision.
A designed workflow could collect the details through a form, create a record, assign the appropriate reviewer, and send an update when a decision is recorded. If required information is missing, it could return the request for completion. If the reviewer is unavailable, it could follow an agreed escalation route.
The person still makes the decision. Automation coordinates the steps around it. Power Automate supports workflows that combine automated routing with human approvals.
Choose a manageable starting point
Look for a process that happens often enough to matter, has a clear starting event, and follows rules you can explain. It also needs usable information, an owner, and a way to check whether it worked.
A weekly reminder process may be a better first project than redesigning an entire organization’s operations. A less frequent task may still be worthwhile if a missed step has a significant consequence.
If the process is inconsistent, document and simplify it first. Automating a confusing process can make its problems happen more quickly.
Map the normal path—and the exceptions
Write down what starts the work, which information is needed, who is responsible, and what a completed outcome looks like. Then ask what happens when something goes wrong.
What if the same request arrives twice? What if information is missing? What if a connection fails? What if the approver is away?
The design should make failures visible, identify who handles them, and avoid duplicate actions when a step is retried. Some exceptions can follow a defined rule; others should go to a person.
Keep judgment where it belongs
A process can benefit from automation even when part of it requires human judgment. Preparing information, routing it for review, and recording the result may be enough to remove unnecessary coordination.
Before automating an action with meaningful consequences, decide who is authorized to approve it and whether review is required. Ambiguous instructions and frequent exceptions are reasons to design carefully, not proof that the whole process is unsuitable.
Where specialist knowledge is needed, Solvency Studio can coordinate that input as part of the project.
Check the tools and information involved
Power Automate can coordinate work across supported applications and services. Connections may use existing connectors, APIs, or scoped custom development. Some repetitive desktop tasks can also be candidates for automation.
Feasibility depends on the software, available access, information quality, and operating environment. A process that can be performed manually is not automatically easy or inexpensive to automate.
Identify which system owns the record, what permissions are needed, and who will maintain the solution when the process or software changes.
Measure the opportunity without promising a return
Record how often the task happens, the hands-on time it takes, how long work waits between steps, and how often people have to correct or repeat it. Hands-on effort and waiting time are different measures.
Illustrative calculation: 20 requests a week × 5 minutes of manual follow-up = 100 minutes of current weekly effort. That is a baseline to investigate, not a promise that automation will save all 100 minutes.
A realistic comparison also includes development, licensing, support, exception handling, and the work people will still perform. Agree which outcomes to evaluate before building.
Describe one opportunity
Use these prompts to prepare a short description. “Not sure yet” is a useful answer wherever details need discovery.
When this happens: What starts the process?
We currently do: What are the main steps?
The people involved are: Who submits, reviews, approves, or follows up?
The information lives in: Which tools or records are used?
The sticking point is: Repeated entry, waiting, missing information, or something else?
It would be better if: What should improve?
A person should step in when: Which decisions or exceptions need review?
What happens next?
Solvency Studio reviews the process with you, considers the tools and connections involved, and identifies a suitable approach. The scope should cover the workflow, exceptions, access, testing, ownership, and support. Service fees and software costs are explained separately.
Bring one recurring task or a short description of where work gets stuck. We’ll help you turn it into a clearer starting point.
Further reading
Microsoft: planning business-process automation