Your results are on their way
We have sent your score, dimension breakdown, and action plan to.
Not there within a couple of minutes? Check your spam folder.
The fastest next step is a conversation:Book an intro call
One workflow. Four signals. One honest next step.
Each answer scores 0, 1, or 2. Your total out of 24 shows what to fix next, or whether it is time to build. It scores how ready one workflow is, not how advanced your technology is.
- Opportunity clarity
- Can you name and measure the workflow worth fixing? Vague targets fail on scope, not on technology.
- Data and systems
- Can the system reach its inputs and check its own output? No definition of correct, no reliable system.
- Team and adoption
- Will someone own the change and review the edge cases? Most automation dies from no owner, not a bad model.
- Leadership and investment
- Is there budget and backing to actually ship? A ready team under unconvinced leadership ships nothing.
The four readiness bands.
Early (0-8 points)
An honest read: an agentic system would be premature. You would be automating a workflow nobody can name, measure, or own. That is how AI pilots stall. The good news: the groundwork costs weeks, not quarters.
- Pick the single workflow that feels most expensive and have the people who run it write down its steps. One page is enough.
- Estimate its monthly cost: people involved × hours per week. A rough number beats no number.
- Name an owner: one person who wants it fixed and can change how it runs.
Emerging (9-14 points)
The raw material is there, but one or two foundations are missing: typically the workflow is not documented, its data is scattered, or nobody owns the change. Fix the weakest dimension first; a build on top of it would wobble.
- Take your weakest dimension below and close it: document the workflow, map where its data lives, or name the owner.
- Define what “correct output” means for the workflow, in writing. Every reliable system is built against that definition.
- Then scope small: one workflow, one measurable outcome, weeks not quarters.
Ready (15-20 points)
A scoped agentic system makes sense now. You can name the workflow, reach its data, and someone owns the change. The risk left is scope discipline: one workflow, delivered to a measurable outcome, not a platform.
- Write the one-page brief: the workflow, its monthly cost, what “done” looks like, who owns it.
- Decide the human-in-the-loop point: which decisions the system escalates to a person.
- Talk to a builder about a fixed-price, fixed-outcome first build, and hold anyone you talk to (us included) to weeks, not months.
Prime (21-24 points)
You are ahead of most mid-sized companies: measured workflow, reachable data, an owner, leadership backing. At this stage the cost is waiting: every month the workflow runs manually is measurable money, and the compounding benefits of a system that learns start only when it ships.
- Move directly to a scoped first build on your best-measured workflow, at a fixed price against a measurable outcome.
- Instrument it from day one. The before and after numbers fund every next workflow.
- Line up workflow number two now; the second build is faster and cheaper than the first.