Decide, step by step, what a machine does, what a model judges and what a person keeps, then rank the candidates by value and risk and pick the first one to build.
Module 04 ~45 min read + lab No codePrerequisites: Module 3: Workflow Mapping I and your confirmed current-state map.
The future-state map is the same swimlane, redrawn as it will run once the automation exists. Usually a new lane appears, labelled Automation or Agent, and steps migrate into it from the human lanes. What stays in the human lanes is the point of the exercise.
Three rules keep the redesign honest:
RUBBER approval is deleted, not automated. A REKEY step disappears when two systems are connected; it is not "done faster".A future-state map, a scoring sheet, and one chosen automation with its approval gate marked. Modules 5 and 6 build it.
For every step in the map, ask one question: could I write the rule?
| Category | Test | Examples | Built with |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule-based | You can write the complete rule in a sentence with no "usually" | Copy form fields to a sheet; if amount > 500, notify finance; send reminder after 2 days | Plain automation nodes (Module 5) |
| AI-judged | A trained person does it in seconds from reading, but the rule has exceptions you cannot list | Classify a request; extract the dates from an email; draft a first reply; summarise a thread | An AI step inside the automation (Module 6) |
| Human-only | Someone must be accountable, or the consequence is hard to reverse | Approve spend; decline a candidate; commit to a delivery date; anything with personal or legal weight | An approval gate or a task assigned to a person (Module 10) |
Most steps tagged READ and DRAFT in Module 3 become AI-judged. Most REKEY, WAIT and CHASE steps become rule-based. JUDGE stays human. Where you hesitate, choose the more conservative category; you can promote a step later once the automation has a track record.
An AI step proposes: a category, an extracted value, a draft. Whether that proposal is acted on automatically depends on the risk score in the next section. Low-risk proposals can flow straight through; higher-risk ones stop at a person.
Every candidate gets two scores. Keep them simple enough to defend in a meeting.
Value = minutes saved per occurrence × occurrences per month ÷ 60. Use the touch times from your current-state map. Count only the minutes the automation actually removes; if a person still reviews the draft, subtract the review time.
| Question | 0 | 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Reversibility — if it goes wrong, how hard is it to undo? | Internal draft, easily corrected | Sent to a customer, paid out, deleted |
| Money — what is the largest amount involved? | None | Above the manager's own approval limit |
| People — does it affect someone's job, pay, access or wellbeing? | No | Directly and significantly |
| Legal and data — contracts, regulation, personal data? | None | Personal data or a regulatory duty |
Total risk runs from 0 to 12. A working rule of thumb: 0 to 3 may run fully automatically; 4 to 7 runs automatically but a person is notified and can undo; 8 to 12 stops at an approval gate every time. Module 10 refines this into proper risk tiers.
Plot each candidate with value on the vertical axis and risk on the horizontal. Four regions, four decisions.
Build first. These are the quick wins that pay for the course. Typical: rekeying, chasing, routing.
Build with a gate. Automate the preparation, keep the decision human. Typical: refunds, offers, contract terms.
Batch later. Cheap but not worth a project on its own; add them once the platform exists.
Leave alone. Improve the human step with a better summary or checklist instead.
Monthly hours saved × loaded hourly cost, minus monthly tool cost and a maintenance allowance (one hour per automation per month is a fair start). Present it as a range, not a number, and state the assumptions next to it. Managers trust "8 to 12 hours a month, assuming 40 requests" more than "11.3 hours".
| Candidate | Value (h/month) | Risk (0-12) | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copy leave form to calendar and sheet | 6 | 1 | Build first, fully automatic |
| Classify and route support emails | 10 | 3 | Build first; "unsure" bucket to a person |
| Draft refund replies | 5 | 8 | Build with an approval gate |
| Auto-approve leave under 2 days | 2 | 6 | Later, notify manager with undo |
| Decline job applicants | 3 | 11 | Leave alone; give recruiter a summary |
In the future-state map, an approval gate is a diamond in a human lane whose "yes" arrow continues the automation and whose "no" arrow returns the item with a reason. Three placement rules:
RUBBER stamp waiting to happen.Draw the gate now, even if the first version of the automation stops at a notification. Module 10 turns it into a working approval step; Module 11 adds the audit trail behind it.
You will redraw your Module 3 map as a future state, score every candidate step, and choose the first automation. You need your draw.io file and a spreadsheet (Google Sheets or Excel).
Duplicate the current-state page in draw.io. Colour each step: green for rule-based, amber for AI-judged, red for human-only. Write one sentence per amber or red step explaining why it is not green.
Delete any RUBBER approvals and any REKEY step that disappears once two systems are connected. Note what you removed in a text box on the page.
Insert a new lane called Automation. Move the green and amber steps into it, keeping their order. What remains in human lanes should be red steps and the gate.
Create M4-scoring with these columns and one row per candidate (a candidate is one or more adjacent green/amber steps that would form a single automation):
Fill the sheet with the colleague from Module 3. Where you disagree on a risk score, take the higher one and write why in a Notes column.
Sort by quadrant. Pick one high value, low risk candidate as your first build. If none exists, pick the highest-value candidate with risk 7 or below and plan the gate.
On the future-state map, place the approval gate diamond immediately before the first irreversible action of your chosen candidate. In the sheet, add an ROI line as a range with its assumptions.
Paste the scoring sheet into your assistant:
The future-state map (with Automation lane, colours and the gate), the M4-scoring sheet with ROI range, and one sentence naming the first build and its approval rule.
Pick one answer per question, then check your score. These mirror the style of the final exam.
Answer in your own words first, then open the model answer.
An AI step produces a proposal such as a category or a draft. Whether that proposal is acted on without a person depends on the risk score. Low risk flows through; higher risk stops at a notification with undo or at an approval gate.
The inputs (minutes saved, runs per month, review time) are estimates. A range with stated assumptions is honest, survives challenge, and can be checked against real numbers in Module 12.
Draw at least a notification point where a person can see what ran and undo it. If truly nothing can go wrong, note that explicitly; the decision to have no gate should be a decision, not an omission.
Further reading: n8n: workflow design patterns · Estimation (Scrum course, Module 6)