Renzo DemartiniIn short
- Score each workflow twice, on hours and on cash, and never swap one for the other.
- Put software and running costs beside the ranking before anything is funded.
- End every stage with an owner gate, so a calendar never approves a build.
Most AI plans are a list of ideas. A roadmap puts them in order, with a cost and an owner for each step.
This sample business has 25 staff and five candidate workflows. Each is scored on hours and on cash, apart.
Start with five candidates
Five sample workflows across a 25-person business, each to be measured before it is scored
| Candidate | Work to change |
|---|---|
| Supplier bills | Prepare approval packs |
| Sales handover | Transfer approved orders |
| Reporting | Prepare management packs |
| Onboarding | Coordinate starter tasks |
| Stock checks | Flag exceptions |
A fictional business with 25 staff. Sample data, not a client.
Illustrative figures, not client data.
Start with work your team repeats across departments. Ask each lead where the time goes and what gets corrected.
Keep the list short enough to compare. Record the current volume, handling time and exceptions before you score anything.
Score hours and cash apart
Supplier bills and sales handover rank first when hours and cash are scored apart
| Workflow | Net hours a month | Cash avoided a month | Points: time + cash | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier bills | 30 | A$900 | 3 + 3 = 6 | 1 |
| Sales handover | 25 | A$600 | 2 + 2 = 4 | 2 |
| Reporting | 20 | A$0 | 2 + 0 = 2 | 3 |
| Onboarding | 15 | A$300 | 1 + 1 = 2 | 4 |
| Stock checks | 10 | A$0 | 1 + 0 = 1 | 5 |
Sample monthly figures, excl. GST. Hours are net of review and upkeep. Cash is avoided outside spending, not hours multiplied by a wage.
Illustrative figures, not client data.
Sample points: 30 hours or more earns three, 20 to 29 earns two, below 20 earns one. Cash of A$900 or more earns three, A$600 to A$899 earns two, and any smaller amount above zero earns one.
Add the points, never the hours and dollars. These weights are this sample owner’s priorities, not a standard.
Reporting beats onboarding on its tie because its records are ready. Onboarding needs process agreement first.
Put running costs beside the order
Reporting and stock checks release hours but cost more cash than they avoid
| Workflow | Software | Other running costs | Net cash benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier bills | A$100 | A$100 | A$700 |
| Sales handover | A$100 | A$100 | A$400 |
| Reporting | A$80 | A$120 | −A$200 |
| Onboarding | A$60 | A$90 | A$150 |
| Stock checks | A$60 | A$90 | −A$150 |
Sample monthly figures, excl. GST. Other running costs are outside monitoring and maintenance. Net cash is cash avoided less both cost columns. No build cost is included.
Illustrative figures, not client data.
The two pilots release 55 hours a month and keep A$1,100 once running costs are paid
Hours
55 hours
Released a month by the two pilots
Net of review and upkeep. Capacity, not cash.
Cash
A$1,100
Net cash a month from the two pilots
A$1,500 gross avoided, less A$400 of software and running costs.
Illustrative figures, not client data.
Reporting releases capacity but consumes cash. The owner decides whether better reporting is worth that spend.
Hours released are capacity. They become cash only where spending changes, such as a contract ending. Otherwise give the capacity useful work.
Ask for a separate build budget before committing. This sample holds no build quote and no payback promise.
End every stage with a gate
Each stage ends with an owner gate, so a build never runs on the calendar alone
- 01Weeks 1 to 2: measure
Measure the five workflows and let the leads check the assumptions. Gate: the owner accepts the baseline and the build budgets.
- 02Weeks 3 to 6: pilot two
Pilot supplier bills and sales handover and train the reviewers. Gate: accept the evidence, or stop.
- 03Weeks 7 to 10: consider reporting
Finance takes ownership of the exceptions. Gate: fund the capacity benefit, or defer.
- 04Weeks 11 to 12: reassess
Reassess onboarding and stock checks and agree responsibilities. Gate: re-rank before any further spending.
A sample plan. Dates are planning assumptions, not delivery commitments.
Avoid changing every team’s routine at once. Give reviewers time to learn the exception queue. The wider change across teams is on the AI and automation page.
For the first gate, require named owners and agreed access limits. For the pilot gate, compare actual review time and cash with the scorecard.
The National AI Centre’s guidance includes ‘Test and monitor’ and ‘Maintain human control’. Its launch announcement says AI.gov.au helps organisations ‘support team members through AI change and adoption’.
What to do first
A one-page roadmap starts with a measured baseline and an owner for each gate
- 01List five candidates
Choose work your team repeats across departments.
- 02Record the baseline
Volume, handling time and exceptions for each, before any scoring.
- 03Score hours and cash apart
Count net hours and avoided cash separately, then add the points.
- 04Set the owner gates
Name an owner and a stop rule for each stage.
Begin with the baseline. A roadmap is only as good as the numbers under it.
Common questions
What is the difference between an AI strategy and a roadmap?
A strategy sets goals and priorities. A roadmap puts the work in order, with owners, costs and review points.
Does every workflow need AI?
No. Anthropic recommends ‘finding the simplest solution possible, and only increasing complexity when needed’. Many steps are better served by ordinary automation or a changed process.
When should the roadmap change?
When priorities, evidence or risks change. Treat each next stage as a new decision gate, and re-rank after every pilot.
Chartered Accountant (CA ANZ) and finance executive, based in Canberra. Practical AI and automation for SMEs, and adviser to owners, CEOs and boards on integration and finance.