Business
Score a task for automation fit from rule clarity, digitisation, volume, and risk. Every point comes from a stated rule below — this is a transparent checklist, not a validated predictor.
Results update as you type. No calculate button. All calculations run locally in your browser.
—
—
| Item | Value |
|---|
Component points are shown before clamping. The final score is the raw total clamped to the 0–100 range.
Bars are scaled to 40 points so components can be compared; volume is capped at 30 points, so its bar can never reach the top of this scale.
| Scenario | Value |
|---|
Each row changes one input from your scenario and holds the others fixed, so you can see which improvement matters most. These are hypothetical scores, not predictions.
Score = clamp(4 × rule clarity + 3 × digitisation + min(30, frequency × minutes ÷ 600 × 3) − 2 × risk, 0, 100). All three ratings are on a 0–10 scale and are clamped to that range before scoring.
| Component | Rule | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| Rule clarity | 4 points per rating point (0–10) | 40 |
| Digitisation | 3 points per rating point (0–10) | 30 |
| Volume | Frequency × minutes ÷ 600 × 3, capped at 30 — 600 minutes (10 hours) per month earns 3 points, so 100 hours earns the cap | 30 |
| Risk | Minus 2 points per rating point (0–10) | −20 |
| Total | Sum, then clamped to 0–100 | 100 |
Bands used by the verdict: 70–100 strong candidate, 40–69 review first, below 40 weak fit. The bands are this page's own reading of the score, not a validated threshold.
Frequency 80 runs per month, 15 minutes per run, rule clarity 8, digitisation 7, risk 4. Rule points = 4 × 8 = 32. Digitisation points = 3 × 7 = 21. Volume = 80 × 15 ÷ 600 × 3 = 6, below the 30 cap. Risk deduction = 2 × 4 = 8. Total = 32 + 21 + 6 − 8 = 51 out of 100 — a mixed case in the 40–69 review band. Monthly time on the task is 80 × 15 = 1,200 minutes (20 hours). Note: the source page labelled this result in minutes; the unit is points out of 100, and this page corrects that label.
This is a custom weighted checklist, not a validated scientific score and not a prediction of automation success. The weights (4, 3, volume cap 30, risk 2) and the 70/40 bands are heuristic choices made for this page; changing them changes the score. It does not assess implementation cost, exception rates, data quality, change management, or regulatory constraints — a high score still needs a pilot, and a low score may still be worth automating for compliance or coverage reasons.
Rule clarity times 4, plus digitisation times 3, plus volume points (frequency times minutes divided by 600, times 3, capped at 30), minus risk times 2, with the total clamped between 0 and 100. The full rule table is in the Formula section.
70–100 is read as a strong candidate, 40–69 as review first, below 40 as weak fit. These are this page's own bands for reading the score, not externally validated thresholds.
So sheer volume cannot outweigh unclear rules or undigitised inputs. A task run constantly but governed by judgement calls should not outscore a clear, digitised, lower-volume task by volume alone.
Because risk is one factor among four, not a veto. A high-risk task can still score in the review band if everything else is strong — but that is exactly when a human-in-the-loop design, rather than full automation, should be considered.
Rule clarity 10 means the decision steps are written down and two people would reach the same outcome; digitisation 10 means inputs and outputs are already structured data. If either needs judgement or paper handling, rate it lower and note why.
No. It says the task looks automatable, not that the project will pay off. Cost, exception handling, and maintenance still need their own estimate before committing.
Results are estimates only and do not constitute professional advice.