Short answer
A workflow mapping template records how a piece of work actually moves today: the trigger, each step, who does it, which system, inputs and outputs, decisions, time taken and exceptions. This version adds an AI fit test for every step, so you can mark it automate, assist, keep human or remove before choosing a tool, with a filled-in New Zealand example.
- Map one real instance of the work, not the official process.
- Time each step and count exceptions per 100 cases.
- Four yes-or-no questions decide where AI fits in each step.
- Steps that only move data between systems need integration, not AI.
Use this template to capture one workflow as it really runs, before anyone chooses a tool. It is designed to be filled in with the person who does the work, at their desk, using a real example from this week. The finished map feeds straight into an AI project brief and the AI ROI calculator.
The workflow mapping template
Part A: Workflow header
| Field | Your answer |
|---|---|
| Workflow name | |
| Owner | |
| Trigger (what starts it) | |
| End point (what “done” means) | |
| Volume per month, and peaks | |
| People involved | |
| Systems involved | |
| Mapped by, with, and date | |
| Evidence used (real cases, timings, logs) |
Part B: Step table
Add one row per step. Use the example row as a guide.
| # | Step | Who | System | Input | Output | Rule or decision | Minutes | Exceptions per 100 | AI fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| e.g. 3 | Check order number against invoice | Accounts officer | Xero, email | Supplier invoice PDF | Matched or flagged | Must match an open order | 2 | 12 | Automate |
| 1 | |||||||||
| 2 | |||||||||
| 3 |
Part C: Exceptions and handoffs
| Exception or handoff | How often | What happens now | Who decides | Time lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Part D: AI fit test
Answer four questions for every step:
- Digital input? Is the information already in a system, email or document?
- Learnable rule? Can the rule be written down, or shown with 20 examples?
- Errors caught? Would a wrong output be caught before it harms a customer, money or a decision about a person?
- Volume? Does the step happen often enough to matter, roughly daily or more?
| Yes answers | Mark the step | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Automate | AI does the step; a person reviews samples or exceptions |
| 3 | Assist | AI drafts or suggests; a person checks every output |
| 0–2 | Human | Leave it with people for now |
| Any | Remove | The step only copies data between systems or adds an approval nobody needs; fix with integration or a rule change, not AI |
How to map a workflow
- Pick one real case from this week. Follow it from trigger to end point with the person who handled it.
- Write steps at the level of one action. “Process invoice” is too big; “check order number against invoice” is right.
- Time the steps. Over the next week, the person notes minutes for 10 to 20 cases. Use the median.
- Count exceptions. For each step, how many cases in 100 go off the normal path, and what happens then.
- Run the AI fit test. Mark every step. Be strict on question 3.
- Check it with a second person. Someone else who does the work will spot the step you missed.
Filled-in example
Illustrative example: a 15-person property manager in Palmerston North receives about 400 maintenance requests a month by email, phone and tenant portal. This is the pattern behind maintenance request triage.
| # | Step | Who | System | Minutes | Exceptions per 100 | AI fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Read request and identify property and tenant | Property officer | Email, portal | 2 | 10 | Automate |
| 2 | Classify urgency (urgent, routine, cosmetic) | Property officer | None | 1 | 8 | Assist |
| 3 | Copy details into the job system | Property officer | Job system | 3 | 2 | Remove |
| 4 | Check tenancy file for previous reports | Property officer | Document system | 4 | 15 | Assist |
| 5 | Choose and contact a tradesperson | Property manager | Phone, email | 6 | 20 | Human |
| 6 | Tell tenant and owner what happens next | Property officer | 4 | 5 | Assist | |
| 7 | Close the job and file the invoice | Accounts | Xero | 3 | 6 | Automate |
Step 3 was the surprise: three minutes per request spent retyping, fixable with a portal-to-job-system integration and no AI at all. Steps 1, 2, 4 and 6 became the AI candidates, with urgency classification always checked by a person because a missed urgent leak costs far more than the minute saved.
Common mistakes
- Mapping the official process. The procedure manual is not the workflow. Map what happened to a real case.
- Skipping exceptions. A step that is simple 90 times in 100 and messy 10 times is where AI projects stall.
- Marking the whole workflow “AI”. AI fits steps, not workflows. A good first project often automates two or three steps and leaves the rest.
- Forgetting approvals and handoffs. Waiting time between people is often larger than working time.
- Missing the “remove” steps. Our lesson on when a workflow does not need an agent and the comparison of automation and AI agents explain why plain automation often wins.
MBIE’s quickstart for businesses using AI suggests starting with what AI could assist with or solve, such as automating admin and responding to common emails (MBIE). A map turns that question into a list of specific steps.
Next step
Turn the steps marked automate or assist into a written specification with writing a workflow specification, then estimate the benefit with the ROI calculator. Our AI workflow automation work begins with exactly this kind of map, drawn with the people who run the workflow.
Sources
- Quickstart: Businesses using AI tools, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, accessed 19 October 2026
Written by the Levy Street team in Wellington. Last updated 19 October 2026.