Workflow Diagnostic Skill

Version 1.1 · Kramaniti Kosh

Intended outcome

A clear process map and the smallest useful improvement to investigate.

Before you begin

• The current steps and handoffs
• People responsible for each step
• Examples of delays or exceptions

How to use

1. Use the template in a process interview, document, or AI assistant with approved notes.
2. Walk through a recent instance of the process. Record what actually happened rather than the intended procedure.
3. Review the friction map with the people doing the work. Select one intervention to test before automating anything.

Working template

Use when

A recurring process feels slow, unclear, or overly dependent on one person, but its real friction is not yet visible.

Inputs

• Intended outcome
• Current steps, handoffs, and tools
• Owners and decision points
• Known exceptions

Method

1. Map the current workflow in the order it actually happens.
2. Mark delay, repeated work, missing context, unclear ownership, and avoidable re-entry.
3. Identify which steps should remain human-led, be AI-assisted, be automated, or be removed.
4. Recommend the smallest useful intervention before designing a broad system.
5. Name the person who reviews the recommendation before implementation.

Output

• Current-state map
• Friction register
• Opportunity shortlist
• Recommendation and rationale
• Review gate and next owner

Demonstration

This is an illustrative scenario, not a client case study or a measured result. Do not reuse its details as facts about your work.

A sample publishing workflow repeatedly returns drafts because the review owner is unclear.

Sample inputs

Demonstration inputs only: writer → shared folder → reviewer → publisher. The sample handoff note does not name a reviewer. No timing data is available.

Example output

Current-state map

Writer finishes draft → places it in shared folder → review waits for an owner → publisher waits for approval.

Friction register

[Fact within this demonstration] The handoff note has no named reviewer. [Inference] Missing ownership may contribute to the waiting state. Its impact has not been measured.

Opportunity shortlist

1. Add a required reviewer field to the handoff.
2. Define how the reviewer accepts or returns a draft.

Recommendation

[Recommendation] Test the handoff change with the next draft. Keep approval human-led. Do not add a tool until the ownership rule is clear.

Review gate

Owner: [Name the editorial lead]. Confirm the proposed handoff before changing the live process.

Quality check

The map reflects a real instance; observed friction is separate from suspected causes; the next intervention has an owner and a review point.

Limits and human review

A process description alone does not establish the cause, cost, or frequency of a delay. Keep consequential actions with the named human owner.

Edition notes

Version 1.1 adds setup guidance, an illustrative example and a review checklist. Provider-neutral Markdown instructions; no installation or platform compatibility is implied. Runtime behaviour has not been verified across AI providers. Reuse terms have not yet been published.