3-Step Framework for Finding Automation Gaps in Your Workflow
Watch a smart team drown in busywork and a pattern appears.
Emails copied into spreadsheets. Spreadsheets copied into systems. Systems copied into slides. Slides copied into meetings. Meetings copied into action items. Action items copied into emails.
Nothing here is hard. Everything here is manual.
This is the quiet tax on modern work. Not broken processes. Repeated ones.
A decade ago, this was normal. Today, it is optional.
The problem is not a lack of tools. The problem is not a lack of budget. The real problem is that most teams do not know where automation actually belongs.
Automation fails when it is applied too early, too broadly, or too emotionally. Success comes from precision.
This framework exists to create that precision.
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash
Step 1: Trace the Work, Not the Tools
Start with a story, not a system.
Follow one real task from start to finish. Pick something boring. Pick something frequent. Expense approvals. Lead handovers. Client onboarding. Reporting.
Sit beside the work. Observe it like a documentary crew.
Ask four questions at every step.
What triggered this action?
What information was required?
What decision was made?
Where was the output sent next?
Ignore software names. Ignore dashboards. Ignore best practice diagrams.
Focus on movement.
Most workflows look neat on paper. Reality looks like zig-zagging information. PDFs downloaded, renamed, uploaded, emailed, re-entered, validated, corrected, and resent.
These hand-offs matter more than the task itself.
An automation gap usually lives between two people, two tools, or two moments of decision.
One example appears in nearly every organisation.
Data gets checked twice by different people because trust in the upstream step is low. That is not a people problem. That is an automation signal.
Another example hides in approvals.
Managers approve things they never reject. Approval becomes theatre. Theatre is automation-ready.
Mapping work at this level exposes friction without politics. No one feels accused. The process speaks for itself.
Step 2: Classify Friction Using the Rule of Three
Label every painful moment. Use only three categories.
Volume friction.
Decision friction.
Translation friction.
Volume friction shows up as repetition. The same task performed more than five times a week by a human. Copying data. Sending updates. Reconciling numbers. Chasing responses.
Decision friction shows up as hesitation. Work pauses because someone must decide, even when the decision is predictable. Approvals. Routing. Prioritisation. Escalation.
Translation friction shows up as reformatting. Data moves from one shape to another. CSV to system. Email to ticket. Notes to report. Screenshot to slide.
This classification matters because each friction type needs a different automation approach.
Volume friction responds best to rules and triggers.
Decision friction responds best to thresholds and confidence scores.
Translation friction responds best to integration and structured inputs.
Most automation fails because teams try to solve all three with one tool.
RPA scripts break under decision friction. AI assistants fail under messy translation. No-code workflows collapse under scale.
Correct labelling prevents the wrong bet.
Step 3: Apply the “Human Value Test”
Automation should remove low-value effort, not remove humans. Run every candidate step through one test.
Does this task require judgement, empathy, or creative synthesis?
If the answer is no, automation qualifies.
If the answer is sometimes, partial automation qualifies.
If the answer is yes, automation should support, not replace.
This is where most teams hesitate. Fear enters. Control narratives appear. Reality tells a different story. Humans are bad at consistency. Machines are bad at context.
Use each where they perform best.
A real example clarifies this.
A service team manually categorises incoming requests. Accuracy sits around 70 percent. Time spent is high. Frustration is higher.
Automate the first pass using pattern recognition. Route with confidence thresholds. Escalate edge cases to humans. Accuracy rises. Time drops. Humans handle interesting work. Machines handle the boring bits.
That is the goal. Not fewer people. Better use of people.
Why This Framework Works When Others Fail
Most automation advice starts with tools. This framework starts with work.
Most frameworks chase efficiency. This framework chases friction.
Most approaches push change top-down. This one grows from observation.
Virality comes from relatability. People share what feels true. Everyone recognises the feeling of doing work that should not exist. This framework gives language to that feeling. Language creates action.
Advanced Moves Most Teams Miss
Run workflow mapping sessions without managers present. Psychological safety improves honesty. Time-box observations to one hour. Long sessions drift into hypotheticals.
Track frequency before effort. A five-second task done 200 times a day matters more than a one-hour task done monthly. Automate the edges first. Middle steps depend on too much context.
Measure success by interruption reduction, not time saved. Fewer pings equals higher leverage. Pair automation reviews with quarterly retrospectives. Processes rot quietly.
The Quiet Payoff
Automation gaps are not dramatic. They whisper.
They show up as late nights, brittle spreadsheets, and heroic effort for average outcomes.
This framework turns whispers into signals.
Signals turn into systems.
Systems create space.
Space creates better thinking.
That is where real performance lives.
ABOUT ME
I'm Juliet Edjere, a no-code professional focused on automation, product development, and building scalable solutions with no coding knowledge.
Learn from practical examples and explore the possibilities of no-code, AI and automation. We'll navigate the tools, platforms, and strategies, one article at a time!
Visit my website → built with Carrd
Other Posts
