What an AI readiness assessment inspects, how we score it, and what you get
An AI readiness assessment is a structured look at how work moves through your company, ending in a ranked register of what to change and in what order. The output is written to be handed to whoever does the building, including a team that is not us.
The scoring model is published below, because it is usually the part a buyer has to take on trust before committing. Assessments run remotely, on evidence you already have, and nothing here needs production access.
What the assessment answers
Four questions, in this order.
Which repeated work is worth changing at all? Plenty of irritating tasks run four times a year and take twenty minutes. Irritation is not cost.
Which are ready now, and which need the process fixed first? A workflow with an inconsistent starting point cannot be automated usefully. Automating it locks the inconsistency in and hides it.
Where does a mistake cost more than the time saved? Filing a document in the wrong folder is a nuisance. Sending a quote with the wrong price is not.
What is the correct first thing to build? One workflow, with a named owner, a defined failure mode, and a way to tell whether it worked.
How the assessment runs
The shape is the same every time, so you can plan around it.
| Stage | What happens | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| StageScoping call | What happens20 minutes. You describe the one or two processes you want looked at. If they are a poor fit, that is said here, before anything is booked | TimingBefore you commit |
| StageEvidence | What happensYou send the material listed below. Most of it already exists as a recording, an export or a folder | TimingYour pace, usually a few days |
| StageWorking session | What happens60 to 90 minutes on a screen share. You do the task while we watch and ask questions. Monthly tasks are walked through using the last real run | TimingOne session |
| StageWritten output | What happensThe scored workflow list, opportunity register, risk register, first-pilot recommendation and 90-day sequence | TimingWithin five working days of the session |
| StageFollow-up | What happens30 minutes to go through it. Optional, and the document stands on its own without it | TimingYour pace |
What it costs. Priced per assessment as a fixed scope, quoted in writing once the number of processes is agreed, and invoiced by Apefo Ltd. There is no price list on this site. Two assessments that sound identical on a call can differ once you see how the source data behaves. Buying an assessment does not commit you to a build, and the document is yours whether or not you use us for the implementation.
What you own afterwards. The written output, including the mapping of every step and the reasons a workflow was scored the way it was. It is written to be usable by another supplier, or by nobody.
What gets inspected
We ask for evidence, not descriptions. What people say a process is and what the files show can differ, and the gap between the two is where the finding sits.
- A screen recording of one person doing the task end to endUnedited, including the pauses, the tab switching and the moment they go looking for something. Ten to twenty minutes beats an hour of interviews.
- Three months of a recurring report, with the source files behind each oneCompared month to month, shifting column orders and hand-corrected cells surface immediately.
- The CRM field list, marked with which fields are mandatory and which get filled in practice, plus an export of a hundred records. A field that is optional and empty on 80% of records cannot carry routing logic.
- One week of inbound enquiries and how each was routedWho picked it up, how long it sat, what turned it into a task or a quote, and which ones fell through.
- The folder where document templates liveAll of it, including
final_v3andfinal_v3_USE_THIS. Version sprawl predicts where an assistant will later cite the wrong thing. - The tool list with who administers each one, by nameA tool with no named administrator is where an integration breaks without anyone being responsible for noticing.
- Two or three examples of the same task done badlyThe rejected quote, the report that was redone, the enquiry answered twice. Failures describe the boundaries better than successes.
Anything on that list that does not exist is itself recorded. Production access is not needed. Exports, recordings and read-only views cover it, and redacted samples are fine where the shape of the data matters more than the content.
How workflows are scored
Each workflow scores on seven factors, 1 to 5. Four build an opportunity score out of 20. Two build a caution score out of 10. The seventh is a gate, and it carries no score.
| Factor | What is scored | 1 | 5 | Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FactorFrequency | What is scoredHow often it runs | 1Quarterly or less | 5Daily or more | RoleOpportunity |
| FactorTime per run | What is scoredHands-on minutes, from the recording | 1Under 10 minutes | 5Over 2 hours | RoleOpportunity |
| FactorPeople involved | What is scoredHow many touch it before it is done | 1One, start to finish | 5Four or more, with handoffs | RoleOpportunity |
| FactorInput consistency | What is scoredHow alike each run's starting material is | 1Free-text email, no fixed fields | 5Same form, same fields, every time | RoleOpportunity |
| FactorError reversibility | What is scoredHow hard a mistake is to undo | 1Undone internally in minutes | 5Reaches a client or external record | RoleCaution |
| FactorOutput sensitivity | What is scoredWhat the output contains or commits to | 1Internal, non-binding | 5Personal data, pricing, a commitment | RoleCaution |
| FactorNamed owner | What is scoredWho owns it after handover | 1Nobody | 5Named, and they know | RoleGate |
The combinations matter more than the numbers:
- Opportunity 15+, caution 4 or below, owner namedBuild first. Frequent, slow, consistent input, small blast radius.
- Opportunity 15+, input consistency 1 or 2Fix the intake first, usually by replacing a free-text request with a form that has required fields. It is a small piece of work, and it removes most of the branching the later build would otherwise have to handle.
- Opportunity 15+, caution 8+Split it. Automate the preparation, leave the decision with a person: draft the quote, do not send it. Anything crossing an external boundary keeps a human on the last step.
- Opportunity 10 to 14Stays on the register and waits. A first build often removes the dependency suppressing the score.
- Opportunity below 10Left alone, written down as left alone, with the reason. Low-frequency automations generate maintenance forever and repay nothing.
- No named owner, whatever the scoreNot built. Unowned automations fail silently when an upstream system changes, and nobody notices until a client does.
Time per run comes from the recording, never an estimate. Estimates go wrong in both directions. Dull tasks get overestimated, and the searching and waiting get left out entirely.
Where the time goes
Recordings are marked up against six bottleneck categories. Expect a single recording to surface two or three of them. Which one dominates decides whether the fix is software, a document convention, or a conversation with a manager.
| Bottleneck | How it is recognised | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| BottleneckWaiting on an approval | How it is recognisedElapsed time far exceeds hands-on time; the recording ends mid-task | What it meansA threshold or delegation rule. Software will not shift it |
| BottleneckRe-entering existing data | How it is recognisedCopy-paste between two windows; the same value typed twice | What it meansAn integration or field mapping |
| BottleneckSearching for the current version | How it is recognisedRepeated folder navigation, files opened and closed, a colleague asked | What it meansA naming convention, before anything is built |
| BottleneckReconciling two sources that disagree | How it is recognisedA third spreadsheet exists whose only job is comparison | What it meansOne source must be made authoritative; the assessment says which |
| BottleneckRework from incomplete intake | How it is recognisedThe task starts, stops, restarts after a clarifying email | What it meansRequired fields at the point of capture |
| BottleneckManual formatting and assembly | How it is recognisedThe last third of the recording is layout work | What it meansTemplating or generation, usually the easiest real win |
Waiting and searching are not solved by AI, and buying a tool for them wastes money. Re-entry, assembly and inconsistent intake are.
A sample opportunity register
Illustrative, to show the format. The workflows and the scores below are invented.
| Workflow | Frequency | What changes | Type | Score | Sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WorkflowMonthly client performance report | Frequency12/year, ~90 min | What changesData pulled and assembled automatically; commentary written by a person | TypeAutomation + draft | Score16 / 3 | Sequence1 |
| WorkflowWebsite enquiry to CRM record | Frequency~40/week | What changesForm fields mapped to CRM fields; incomplete submissions held in a queue | TypeIntegration | Score15 / 2 | Sequence2 |
| WorkflowQuote preparation from a spec | Frequency~8/week | What changesDraft assembled from the template library; pricing and sending stay manual | TypeAssisted draft | Score17 / 9 | Sequence3 |
| WorkflowInternal policy questions | FrequencyDaily, ad hoc | What changesAssistant answers from a signed-off document set, with source links | TypeInternal assistant | Score14 / 4 | Sequence4 |
| WorkflowSupplier invoice coding | FrequencyMonthly, ~40 min | What changesNothing yet. Two systems disagree on supplier names | TypeProcess fix first | Score11 / 6 | SequenceBlocked |
| WorkflowAnnual insurance renewal pack | Frequency1/year | What changesNothing | TypeNone | Score6 / 7 | SequenceLeave |
The Sequence column is the deliverable. An opportunity list with no order hands the hardest decision, which one to start, straight back to the person who commissioned it.
A sample risk register
Also illustrative. A real register carries only the risks the evidence surfaced.
| Risk | Where it shows up | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| RiskAn assistant cites a superseded document | Where it shows upFolders of near-identical versions; policies updated in place, undated | What we do about itAssistants read a defined source set, not a whole drive; superseded files move out of scope first |
| RiskAn automation fires twice | Where it shows upA retry after a timeout, or two triggers on one event, producing duplicate records or a repeated email | What we do about itEach write step carries an idempotency key from the source record; duplicates are rejected and logged |
| RiskA field mapping silently drops data | Where it shows upLong free text truncated into a short CRM field; a date parsed wrongly on import | What we do about itMapping written field by field before the build, then real records compared field by field after |
| RiskSensitive data leaves an approved system | Where it shows upClient files pasted into a general chat tool; personal data in a prompt to an external model | What we do about itWhich categories go where is decided during the assessment and written into the pilot brief |
| RiskNobody notices a broken automation | Where it shows upAn upstream API changes; work reverts to manual and nobody says so | What we do about itFailures notify a named person; every workflow keeps a documented manual fallback |
| RiskThe person who understood it leaves | Where it shows upOne operator holds the process in their head | What we do about itHandover notes are part of the build |
Choosing the first pilot
The first pilot is chosen to be checkable, not impressive. The conditions below rule candidates out in roughly this order.
It runs often enough to produce a verdict inside a month. A workflow that fires twice in ninety days cannot be judged in ninety days, whatever it scored.
It has a defined wrong answer. For a report, wrong means a figure that disagrees with the source. For enquiry routing, wrong means the record reached the wrong person, or was created without a company name.
It has a manual fallback that still functions, so that if the automation stops the work is still doable the old way.
Where two candidates are close, the one whose systems have a named administrator wins. Waiting on access is the easiest kind of slippage to see coming, because it depends on people who are not in the room when the pilot is chosen.
The first 90 days
This assumes one pilot. Two at once works when they touch different systems and different people, and is a mistake when they do not.
- Day 30The pilot runs in production, with the manual fallback still in place for anything it refuses. The mapping document exists and matches what was built. The question at this point is whether the output is correct on every run, checked against the old method. Time saved is a day 90 question. If the output is wrong, day 30 is where the pilot stops.
- Day 60Exception paths have been exercised on real cases, including the incomplete form, the duplicate record and the enquiry that fits no category. Failure notifications have fired at least once and reached the intended person. The owner has run the workflow unaided. Item two is scoped in detail, informed by what item one taught.
- Day 90The fallback is documented but no longer routine. Handover notes cover what the workflow does, what it will not do, who to contact, and how to switch it off. The register is re-scored, because a first build moves the numbers behind it.
What this assessment will not tell you
- Hours saved
It will not tell you how many hours you will save. Anyone quoting a percentage before watching your recordings is quoting someone else's average, and at the scale of one team those averages mean very little. You get measured time per run and a described change, so you can do that arithmetic yourself and check it after day 30.
- Whether the team adopts it
It will not tell you whether your team will adopt it. Adoption turns on whether the people doing the work were consulted, whether the change makes their day easier or only makes the company cheaper, and whether someone senior visibly uses it. Those are management questions, and the evidence can only point at them.
- Legal and compliance
It will not give you a legal, GDPR, security or compliance opinion. The assessment records where sensitive data appears and where it crosses a system boundary. Whether a given arrangement is lawful is work for a qualified adviser.
- Software cost
It will not price your software stack. Licence costs depend on seat counts, contract timing and negotiation, none of which are visible in workflow evidence. Nor does it cover servers, backups, monitoring or where a model is hosted; that is infrastructure work, handled by our sister brand YNVAR.
- That everything should be automated
And it will not conclude that everything should be automated. A fair share of any register ends up marked "leave alone", and that column earns its place by keeping effort away from work that will not repay it.