calibron.ai
EN
Let’s talk
Back to AI Work Review

Sample work

An AI Work Review, in practice.

A fictional maintenance company wants to stop rebuilding familiar quotations from scattered files. This sample shows one possible review: what we would change, what we would test and where a person stays in control. Another business would be assessed on its own work.

01

Review brief

Standard quotations could be produced from agreed sources, but the rate card, required details and exception rules need owners before a pilot.

Business
Fictional UK commercial maintenance company
Process
Enquiry to quotation
Review question
What must change so standard quotations are produced from agreed rates and terms, with gaps and exceptions brought to the commercial lead?
Outside scope
Automatic sending, CRM replacement and free-form pricing

02

The current process

Time is lost finding source material and rebuilding familiar drafts.

  1. 01

    An enquiry reaches the shared inbox.

  2. 02

    An administrator checks the job, site and timing.

  3. 03

    Rates, terms and earlier quotations are found in separate files.

  4. 04

    A commercial lead resolves gaps and exceptions.

  5. 05

    The quotation and reply are drafted, checked and sent.

03

What is getting in the way

01

The source material is scattered.

Staff know which rate card is current from habit. The files themselves do not make that clear, so each quotation is rebuilt from memory.

02

Missing details surface late.

Site access, timing and service information are often discovered after someone has started the draft.

03

Routine drafting delays decisions.

Experienced staff assemble standard wording before they reach the questions that need their judgement.

Recommended first move

Produce standard quotations from agreed sources.

An incoming enquiry starts the workflow. It checks for required details, then produces standard quotations and replies from the current rate card and terms. Each quotation shows its sources and checks. Missing information and non-standard requests go to the commercial lead, who approves the quotation and what is sent. Feedback updates the sources through their owners. A different business might keep more of this work with people, or go further once the rules are proven.

Before a pilot

  1. 01Name an owner and the current version for each source.
  2. 02Agree the required details, the standard cases and the exceptions.
  3. 03Agree test cases and what counts as an acceptable result.

05

Access and responsibility

01

It may read

The shared inbox, approved rate card, current terms and agreed service descriptions.

02

It produces

A check for required details, a standard quotation and reply from current rates and terms, and the sources and checks behind them. A generated quotation stays a draft until a person approves it.

03

People direct and approve

The rules and their owners, missing information, any exception, the final scope and price, and everything sent to the customer.

06

A narrow pilot

Test the proposed flow on historical enquiries, then in monitored use. Keep the pilot draft-only, with a person approving every customer send.

Included

  • One shared inbox and one service line
  • Approved rates, terms, service descriptions and required enquiry details
  • Standard quotation production, agreed checks and exception routing
  • Representative historical tests and monitored runs with the commercial lead

Not included

  • Automatic sending, including questions about missing details
  • Uncontrolled pricing decisions
  • CRM replacement
  • Access outside the defined process

07

How we would measure success

Record a baseline on comparable work first. These are tests for this pilot, not published results, and another client may need different measures.

MeasureTest
Time to a sent quotationCompare receipt-to-authorised-send time. Show waiting for missing information and for approval separately.
People's time per quotationCount gathering, assembly, review and correction. Keep standard cases separate from exceptions.
Accuracy and missing detailsRecord material changes to price, scope and terms, and whether required gaps were caught before production. Agree an acceptable result first.
Unapproved sendsRequired result: zero. Kept separate from the efficiency measures.

Review decision

Proceed when the flow holds up, not only when sources have owners.

The job repeats and the output can be checked. For this company, proceed when these conditions are met. If review effort or errors erase the gain, revise the flow or stop.
  1. 01Sources and rules have named owners.
  2. 02Standard, missing-information and exception cases meet the agreed tests.
  3. 03A named owner monitors live use, and every customer send stays approved.

Sample work

What would a review find in your business?

Start with one process you want to improve. The review follows that work.Discuss a review