T29 Automation discovery workshop and process map
Automation discovery workshop and process map
What we learned mapping Aldergrove Schools' substitute teacher request process, where it breaks down, and which part we recommend automating first. Prepared by Flowmark Automation for the district's operations team after a 2 hour workshop with front office staff.
Sample template: the firm, people, clients and figures are fictional and shown for illustration only.
The process as it works today
flowchart TD
A[Teacher reports absence, phone or text] --> B[Front office logs it in a shared spreadsheet]
B --> C[Office staff calls substitutes from a paper list]
C --> D{Substitute available?}
D -->|No| C
D -->|Yes| E[Substitute confirmed by phone]
E --> F[Office staff updates spreadsheet and notifies principal]
F --> G[Principal manually checks sub is checked in at 7:45am]
The loop between "call substitutes" and "no" is the slowest part. Staff reported calling an average of 4 substitutes before finding one available, and the whole process takes 25 to 40 minutes per absence when it goes smoothly.
Pain points
| Pain point | Who feels it | Frequency | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calling substitutes one by one from a paper list | Front office staff | Every absence, 8 to 12 per day district-wide | 25 to 40 minutes per absence, staff time |
| No visibility into which substitutes already said no today | Front office staff | Every absence with 2+ calls | Repeat calls to the same unavailable substitute |
| Spreadsheet not shared in real time between the 3 schools | Front office staff, district office | Daily | Double-booking a substitute across two schools, happened twice in September |
| Principal has no automatic confirmation substitute arrived | Principals | Every confirmed absence | Principal calls the office to check, adding a call to an already busy morning |
| Substitutes are not ranked by subject match or past reliability | Front office staff | Every absence | Substitutes assigned to subjects outside their qualification, twice this term |
Double-booking is the most costly failure so far
Because the spreadsheet updates independently at each school, the same substitute was confirmed for two schools on the same morning twice in September. One resulted in an uncovered classroom for the first period. Owner of this finding: Renee Okafor. This is the clearest case for a shared, real-time record rather than three separate spreadsheets.
Automation candidates, scored
| Candidate | Frequency | Time saved per instance | Complexity | Risk if automated | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shared real-time substitute availability list | Daily, all 3 schools | 10 to 15 minutes per absence | Low | Low | |
| Automatic call or text to next available substitute in ranked order | Daily | 15 to 20 minutes per absence | Medium | Medium, needs a human confirm step | |
| Principal notification when substitute confirmed | Daily | 5 minutes per absence, principal time | Low | Low | |
| Automatic check-in verification at 7:45am | Daily | 3 to 5 minutes per absence, principal time | Medium | Medium, depends on a check-in method not yet chosen | |
| Substitute performance and reliability tracking | Weekly review | Not time, but assignment quality | Medium | Low |
Score reflects frequency times time saved, weighted down for complexity and risk. Full scoring method is in the workshop worksheet, not reproduced here.
The group's confidence rating for the shared availability list, gathered by a show of hands at the end of the workshop, not a formal survey.
Human approval points identified in this process
The group agreed the following steps stay with a person, not an automated decision, at least for the first build:
Confirming a substitute's final assignment stays with front office staff; the system proposes the next available match, staff confirms it.
Overriding the ranked order for a known relationship, such as a substitute a teacher specifically requested, stays available to staff at all times.
Any substitute new to the district requires a principal's manual approval before their first assignment, regardless of availability.
Recommended first build
This is Candidate 1 from the scoring table above: highest score, lowest complexity, and it directly fixes the double-booking failure that prompted this workshop. Candidates 2 and 3 are recommended as Phase 2, once Phase 1 is live and staff trust the shared record.
Seeing the whole process drawn out, with the number of calls it actually takes, made it obvious why our staff dread absence mornings. Starting with the shared list instead of jumping straight to automatic calling felt like the right size for a first try.
Next steps
How to use this template
Duplicate this page once per client discovery workshop. Replace the values below; if a required value is missing, write Needs review rather than guessing at a time saving or frequency.
| Variable | Meaning | Required |
|---|---|---|
{{client.name}} | Client whose process was mapped | Required |
{{process.name}} | Name of the process mapped in the workshop | Required |
{{process.pain_points}} | Pain points identified, with who feels them and frequency | Required |
{{candidate.recommended_first}} | The highest-scoring candidate recommended to build first | Required |
{{approval.human_points}} | Steps the client confirmed must stay with a person | Required |
{{build.estimated_time}} | Estimated time to deliver the recommended first build | Optional |
Never present a scoring result as a committed timeline or savings figure; label it as an estimate until the build is scoped in detail.