AI automation for one concrete IT service workflow

A suitable starting point has a clear trigger, recurring inputs and a defined result. For example, a ticket needs preparing for the next shift after work has been completed. Alternatively, approved steps should become a documentation draft. Together, we limit the workflow to one task that can be evaluated using suitable examples.

You name a process owner who understands the existing workflow and can judge the results. If responsibilities, input data or expected outputs already conflict, we clarify those points first. AI does not replace a missing process decision.

For the initial assessment, a description of the task and the names of the tools involved are enough. Before implementation, we need suitable redacted test cases, approved access to a test environment and rules for the output. Any AI provider used must be explicitly approved. We clarify which fields may be processed before work begins.

Test data should represent the workflow without including unnecessary confidential information. Placeholders need to stay consistent: an anonymised system, for example, needs the same name throughout all steps. Credentials and confidential tickets do not belong in the enquiry form.

The output follows the agreed use case. A ticket handover might include status, actions taken, open questions and a suggested next verification step. Documentation might structure prerequisites, steps and checks. Missing information should remain visible instead of being filled with plausible assumptions.

• An implemented workflow in the agreed test environment
• Structured handover or documentation drafts for human review
• Agreed test cases and a traceable test report
• Operating and handover instructions with known limitations

We define when the workflow starts, which input it processes and where its draft goes. We also check the conditions around the AI output: missing required fields, conflicting statements, unexpected formats or an unavailable integration. An error must be visible and must not produce a seemingly complete handover.

The pilot runs in the agreed test environment. Whether an input is provided manually or through an approved integration is part of the scope. This does not lead to automatic customer replies or changes to production systems without a separate agreement.

We agree on acceptance criteria before testing. Your process owner reviews each draft against the inputs. The test report records cases, corrections and remaining limitations; trouble-free future operation is not promised.

• Required fields complete; otherwise a clear error or follow-up status
• Factual statements traceable to approved inputs
• Completed and planned steps clearly separated
• Missing information, conflicts and unassigned responsibilities visible
• Acceptance only after review by the responsible person

After the initial assessment, we define the workflow, test environment, integrations and acceptance criteria. A separate offer is based on that scope. Production operation, additional integrations, data migration and ongoing support are agreed separately. The pilot is an implemented test workflow; expansion to further processes requires a new scope decision.

For your enquiry, describe one recurring task, the tools involved and who would review the result. Daniel Djogic discusses the starting point directly with you. We can then assess whether the prerequisites for a scoped pilot are in place and which open questions need answering first.