One process still runs on emailed spreadsheets, chased approvals, and the same data typed into two systems.

Get the process off emailed spreadsheets and into a workflow that runs itself.

One Workflow Automation Build

One production workflow is live end to end — approval rules, exception paths, audit history and failure alerts — tested with real cases and handed to a named owner who can maintain it.

Price

Fixed price confirmed before work begins

Delivery window

The fixed proposal contains the delivery calendar and the completion date.

The price is agreed in writing before any work begins and before any access is granted. Nothing is billed for the scoping conversation that sets it. What moves the number:

  • · Number of approval steps and decision branches
  • · Number of exception paths that must be handled in the flow
  • · Which systems are connected, and whether they need premium connectors or a custom API
  • · Whether historical data has to be migrated into the new process
  • · Whether the client team is trained to build the next one themselves
Fix This Workflow →

No tenant access, credentials, or sensitive files are requested through this website.

One workflow, end to endPremium connector licensing is yoursHanded to a named owner

What happened

Every business has one process that everybody complains about and nobody owns: onboarding, expense approval, client intake, timesheets. It works, in the sense that the work gets done, but it is held together by somebody remembering to chase. The cost is invisible until the person who remembers is on holiday.

The current version of the spreadsheet is whichever attachment was replied to last, and when two people edit their own copies at the same time the version that survives is the one that arrives second. The process runs because one person holds the order of the steps in their head, along with who approves what and which awkward cases get handled by hand. No record exists of who approved a given item or when, so a question about last quarter has to be answered by searching mailboxes.

What happens if it is left as it is

  • With no queue anybody can see, a question about how many items are in the process, or how long one has been sitting, gets answered by asking whoever touched it last.
  • Answering who approved a particular item means searching individual mailboxes, and an approval given out loud in a corridor or on a call leaves nothing to search.
  • Figures typed into two systems by hand stay in step only while somebody remembers to make each correction twice, after which the two records disagree until a person compares them line by line.
  • A step that fails or gets forgotten raises no alert, and the first person to notice the process has stopped is usually the client or the employee waiting on the outcome.
  • Each awkward case handled off to the side stays an unwritten rule its handler applies from memory, so passing the process to somebody else means sitting beside them until enough of those cases have come up.

What changes in production

Not findings. These are the things that are different afterwards.

  1. 1The process is mapped as it really runs, including the exceptions people handle by hand and never mention.
  2. 2One workflow is built in production: the approval rules, the routing, and the data written back to the systems of record.
  3. 3Exception paths are built too — the rejection, the escalation, the missing-field case — because a workflow that only handles the happy path pushes the hard cases back to email.
  4. 4Audit history is turned on so the process can answer who approved what, and when.
  5. 5Failure alerting is configured and pointed at a real destination, so a broken run is noticed by a person rather than by the client waiting on it.
  6. 6The process is tested with real cases from the business, and handed to a named owner who has been walked through maintaining it.

Definition of done

The engagement ends when all of these are true and demonstrable.

  • The workflow runs in production against real cases
  • Every agreed exception path has been triggered in testing and behaves as designed
  • Audit history records who approved what and when
  • Failure alerts fire to an agreed destination and have been tested by forcing a failure
  • User acceptance testing is signed off by the business owner of the process
  • A named owner has been walked through maintaining and changing it

What you provide

Named up front, because these are the things that stall an engagement when nobody owns them.

  • Name the business owner of the process, who signs off acceptance
  • Provide the real cases used for testing
  • Provide or licence any premium connectors the design requires
  • Confirm the approval rules, including who can approve what and to what value
  • Own end-user communications and training

What moves the price

The figure comes from what is actually in the environment. Headcount is one input among several, and rarely the one that matters most.

  • Number of approval steps and decision branches
  • Number of exception paths that must be handled in the flow
  • Which systems are connected, and whether they need premium connectors or a custom API
  • Whether historical data has to be migrated into the new process
  • Whether the client team is trained to build the next one themselves

Not included

Stated so the scope means the same thing to both parties on the last day as it did on the first.

  • Premium connector or Power Platform licensing
  • A second workflow — each is scoped and priced on its own
  • Custom application development outside the Power Platform and Microsoft Graph
  • Ongoing workflow administration after handover
  • Redesign of the underlying business process, as opposed to automating the agreed one

How change is staged and reversed

Production work carries risk. This is the method, not a reassurance.

  • The flow is built and tested in a non-production environment first, then promoted; it does not become live by being edited in place.
  • Go-live runs in parallel with the manual process for an agreed period, so the first real failure has a fallback that already works.

Evidence and handover

Yours to keep whatever happens next, including handing it to your own team or another provider. The documents are what prove the work happened; they are not the thing being bought.

  • The process map, as it really runs, including the exceptions
  • The workflow itself, documented so the team can change it
  • The test record, including every exception path triggered
  • The alerting configuration and its tested destination
  • The signed acceptance and the named owner

Is this another report, with the real work quoted afterwards?

It may sound like a consultant will inspect the environment, hand over a document, and then quote a second project. That is not the default here. Where the outcome can be scoped safely from a short working call, the implementation is sold directly, as this page does. Separate paid planning is used only where genuine complexity prevents a responsible fixed price, and where it is used the page says so plainly.

Fix This Workflow

Describe what is happening, what has to be working differently, and any deadline behind it. A reply comes within one business day with the most direct next step, or a clear answer that AZ Innovations is not the right fit.

Fix This Workflow →