Business operations & AI
Illustrative sample · Planning estimates
Research workflow pilot
A short proposal compares a manual research process with an automated approach and explains how to test it.
Process mapping · n8n workflow planning · AI review · Ownership · Pilot evaluation
A fictional planning scenario. Every minute estimate below is an assumption for comparing workflows, not observed performance or time saved in the Wayfair/Extern project.
Terms explained
- Pilot
- A limited test used to compare the proposed process with the current one.
- Automation
- Having a tool carry out some of the repeated steps in a process.
- Exception
- A case the usual process cannot handle and that needs a person to review it.
Compare the steps before testing the workflow.
Planning assumptions · Each full track represents 100 minutes
- Collect sources45 → 15 min
- Organize fields25 → 10 min
- Review accuracy20 → 25 min
- Prepare summary10 → 10 min
The pilot estimate assigns 25 minutes to checking accuracy, compared with 20 in the manual scenario.
The assumed totals are 100 and 60 minutes per cycle. These are planning estimates, not measured savings. Compare actual time and accuracy across three pilot cycles.
Scroll horizontally to compare all columns.
| Activity | Manual scenario | Proposed pilot | Proposed owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collect approved sources | 45 min | 15 min | Analyst + scheduled workflow |
| Normalize research fields | 25 min | 10 min | Workflow + exception review |
| Check sources and AI summaries | 20 min | 25 min | Human reviewer |
| Prepare the decision summary | 10 min | 10 min | Analyst |
| Total planning estimate | 100 min | 60 min | No measured savings claimed |
Recommendation
Pilot collection and formatting. Retain human approval of the interpretation.
The model suggests a 40 minute difference per cycle under the stated assumptions. First observe the current workflow, then compare three pilot cycles for time, accuracy, coverage, and review effort before expanding.
Make the workflow inspectable
Approved source list → collection → structured fields → AI assisted draft → exception queue → human review → research sheet. Preserve source URL, observation date, original observation, summary, reviewer, and status.
Define acceptance before starting
Proposed criteria: every published observation has a source and review status. Factual errors are corrected before release. The pilot preserves agreed source coverage. Median hands on time improves without increasing unresolved errors.
Plan for exceptions
Route missing pages, extraction failures, contradictory sources, and unsupported summaries to review. Keep the manual reporting template available so a failed automation does not block the operating review.
- Analyst owns the question and report.
- Reviewer approves the interpretation.
- Workflow owner investigates recurring failures.
- Record changes to prompts or extraction rules between cycles.
Learning note
Takeaway
Automation should earn its place through a measured pilot. Include review effort, exceptions, and the cost of incorrect output in the comparison.
Related experience
Wayfair / Extern Project case study ↗Explore the related project for its context, approach, and outcome.
Files and calculations.
For the full set of sample briefs, CSVs, SQL, verification code, and 14 role briefs, download the collection ↓.