DEMO EXAMPLE — SYNTHETIC DATA. Illustrative example, not client results.
A worked demonstration
Harbour & Field Services Pty Ltd · Fictional organisation
An ordinary organisation with ordinary friction. Work gets done, people are capable, and process weaknesses have quietly accumulated over years of growth and system changes. Everything on this page — the organisation, the people, the answers, the workflow and the measurements — is synthetic, created so the PLANERGY AI method can be understood end to end. No customer evidence appears here and no customer outcome is claimed.
- Employees
- 120
- Program cohort
- 30
- Completed responses
- 24 (80%)
- Departments
- 5
Synthetic organisational context
Ordinary friction, accumulated over time
Australian mid-sized professional and field services organisation. Nothing here is dramatic: no breach, no failure, no crisis — just the conditions most organisations recognise.
AI experimentation is already happening informally, mostly by individuals.
Different teams have settled on different tools, for different reasons.
There is limited organisation-wide visibility of where AI is actually used.
AI confidence and capability vary considerably between people and teams.
Recurring administrative work absorbs a meaningful share of skilled time.
Management reporting is largely assembled by hand each cycle.
Spreadsheets sit alongside core systems as the working source of truth.
Information is moved between systems manually at several handoff points.
The same figures are checked more than once by more than one person.
Several reports overlap in content but are produced separately.
Handoffs between teams are inconsistent in format and completeness.
Experienced staff quietly compensate for weaknesses in the process.
Employees are unsure what AI use is actually approved.
Management is interested in productivity but cautious about governance.
There is no consistent measurement of whether AI is improving the work.
Operations
46 employees · 9 participants
7 completed responses
Finance
14 employees · 5 participants
4 completed responses
Human Resources
9 employees · 4 participants
3 completed responses
Customer Service
33 employees · 8 participants
7 completed responses
Management
18 employees · 4 participants
3 completed responses
Free AI Workflow Health Check
The buyer-level signal for this fictional organisation
Produced by running the synthetic answers through the same public Health Check engine a visitor uses. The scoring logic is unchanged.
58/100
EmergingAI activity is underway but not yet organised around defined workflows, approved use or measured outcomes.
Direction
18/25
Clear organisational priorities are in place and can be used to direct AI effort toward work that matters.
Workflow
21/25
Repeatable, high-frequency work is clearly visible across the organisation and offers multiple workflow candidates.
Governance
12/25
Some guidance exists, but approved tools, information handling and human review are not yet applied consistently.
Capability & Measurement
7/25
Workforce capability and measurement are both early, so it is not currently possible to tell whether AI is improving the work.
This fictional organisation is not an AI beginner — people are already experimenting and repeatable work is clearly visible. The gap sits between AI use, workflow integration, governance, capability and measurement. That is the gap the 30-Day Accelerator is built to close.
DEMO EXAMPLE — SYNTHETIC DATA. Illustrative example, not client results.
Representative workforce evidence
Five fictional perspectives from the cohort
Five roles stand in for the 30 synthetic participants. Individual responses would never be shown to management in a real program — participant confidentiality is preserved and only patterns are reported.
Operations Coordinator
Operations · Weekly · 180 minutes per occurrence (self-reported)
- Recurring work
- Weekly operational performance report.
- Current process
- Extract data from several sources, reconcile discrepancies, format a spreadsheet, then prepare a management summary.
- Friction
- Manual data consolidation, inconsistent source formatting and repeated checking of the same figures.
- Current AI use
- Occasional drafting and summarisation, using a personal account.
- Human judgement retained
- Investigating anomalies and interpreting what operational performance actually means.
Finance Officer
Finance · Monthly · 240 minutes per occurrence (self-reported)
- Recurring work
- Monthly reconciliation and management reporting support.
- Current process
- Reconcile system balances, verify operational figures against source records, then prepare reporting inputs.
- Friction
- Maintains a parallel spreadsheet because some operational information has to be verified before it can be used.
- Current AI use
- Low and deliberately cautious.
- Human judgement retained
- Financial verification, exceptions, segregation of duties and accountable approval.
Customer Service Team Lead
Customer Service · Weekly · 120 minutes per occurrence (self-reported)
- Recurring work
- Weekly issue and trend summary for management.
- Current process
- Read through the week's cases, group recurring themes by hand, then rewrite them for a management audience.
- Friction
- Customer themes are manually grouped and reformatted every week.
- Current AI use
- Individual experimentation with summarisation.
- Human judgement retained
- Escalation, sensitive customer matters, interpretation and response decisions.
HR Adviser
Human Resources · Weekly · 150 minutes per occurrence (self-reported)
- Recurring work
- Policy queries, internal communications and recurring workforce reporting.
- Current process
- Locate the current policy position, draft a response or notice, then reformat for the relevant audience.
- Friction
- Repeated drafting, information retrieval and reformatting of similar material.
- Current AI use
- Moderate experimentation, mainly for drafting.
- Human judgement retained
- Employee matters, policy interpretation, sensitive information and consequential decisions.
Manager
Management · Weekly · 90 minutes per occurrence (self-reported)
- Recurring work
- Reviewing reports and approving routine activity.
- Current process
- Read several team reports, resolve differences between them, then approve or send work back.
- Friction
- Receives overlapping information from several teams and performs additional checking because confidence in upstream information varies.
- Current AI use
- Limited direct use.
- Human judgement retained
- Prioritisation, exceptions, organisational decisions and accountable approval.
Individual → role → team → department → organisation
What the perspectives look like together
Repetition is not automatically waste. Some of it is deliberate control that must be preserved.
Duplicated reporting
Operations · Customer Service · Management
Three reports restate substantially the same weekly figures for different audiences.
Repeated data entry
Operations · Finance
The same operational figures are re-entered when they move between systems.
Reformatting
All five departments
Content is re-presented rather than re-thought before each management cycle.
Repeated verification
Finance
Financial verification and segregation of duties are deliberate controls and must remain.
Accountable human approval
Management
Approval of outward-facing and financial material remains a human responsibility.
Handoff friction
Operations → Finance → Management
Handoffs arrive in inconsistent formats, so the receiver rebuilds before using them.
Fragmented AI experimentation
18 of 24 completed responses
Individuals use different tools in different ways, with no shared approved workflow.
Capability concentration
Operations · Human Resources
Confident AI use sits with a small number of individuals rather than with roles.
Skilled employees performing avoidable administration
Operations · Finance · Human Resources
Experienced people spend recurring time assembling rather than interpreting.
Unclear workflow ownership
Cross-department reporting cycle
No single role owns the weekly reporting flow end to end.
Individual
One coordinator spends 3 hours each week assembling a report.
Role
Every coordinator does a version of the same assembly work.
Team
The team checks the same figures more than once.
Department
Operations reporting is rebuilt downstream by Finance and Management.
Organisation
Several apparently separate automation opportunities originate from one underlying information-flow problem.
Read together, thirty perspectives describe an organisational position rather than thirty separate complaints. What “Seeing the Board” means.
PW-002 · Demonstration workflow
Weekly operational performance reporting
The current state, as described by the synthetic cohort.
- Extract from multiple sources
- Consolidate manually
- Check
- Reformat
- Summarise
- Review
- Approve
Potential finding: Several apparently separate automation opportunities may originate from one underlying information-flow problem.
System change
Standardise the source handoff format
Process change
Remove the duplicated third report
AI-enabled
Assist drafting of the management summary with approved AI
Necessary control
Retain financial verification and human approval
Automating compensation is not the same as improving the system.
Automation is not assumed to be the answer. Some findings are resolved by changing the system, removing duplication or clarifying ownership.
DEMO EXAMPLE — SYNTHETIC DATA. Illustrative example, not client results.
Measured, not assumed
Synthetic measurement for the demonstration workflow
Observed for 4 weeks across 4 users in one department. Conservative synthetic values — not a PLANERGY AI customer result.
Baseline time per report
180 min
Observed post-implementation time
110 min
Reduction per occurrence
70 min (39%)
Frequency
Weekly, per user
Employees using the workflow
4
Repeat use
88%
Rework
22% → 12%
Implementation status
Live — measured
Governance status
Approved workflow · human verification and approval required
Observed capacity released
18.7 hours
70 minutes × 16 recorded occurrences (4 users × 4 weeks). Evidence strength: Observed for 4 weeks across 4 users in one department.
Extrapolated indication — not observed
242.7 hours / year
What the same observed reduction would represent across 52 weeks for the same 4 users. An indication only, held separately from observed evidence.
Capacity is reported in hours only. These synthetic figures are not translated into cash savings, return on investment or headcount change, and they are not a claim about what any PLANERGY AI customer has achieved.
Thirty perspectives. One organisational position.
Perspectives become patterns, patterns become governed opportunities, opportunities become implemented workflows, and implementation becomes measured evidence.
DEMO EXAMPLE — SYNTHETIC DATA. Illustrative example, not client results.