Hey, Ivy here. Today, resist the urge to start with an automation tool. A tool can execute a workflow, but it cannot rescue a rule nobody agreed on, find an owner who was never assigned, or guarantee that a failed notification reaches someone another way. First, make the work visible. Use this exercise exactly: "Map this workflow before suggesting any automation. Use these headings: Trigger, Inputs, Rules, Actions, Exceptions, Human approvals. Under each heading, record what happens, who owns it, and what information is required. Then write test cases for a duplicate request, a missing owner, and a notification failure. For each test, give the expected behavior, the human fallback, and the evidence we should log. Do not recommend tools until the map and tests are complete." The six headings describe the normal path and the places where judgment enters. The test cases make you design what happens when the normal path breaks. For a duplicate, decide whether the system blocks, merges, or flags it. For a missing owner, decide who receives the exception. For a notification failure, define the retry, alternate channel, or manual queue, plus the evidence that shows what happened. Take the completed map to the people who do the work. Replace vague ownership with named roles, keep meaningful approvals with people, and run the tests with sample data. Only then should you compare tools or connect a live system. The result is a set of requirements and recovery steps that your team can inspect before automation repeats the process at scale. Tomorrow, we will use AI to discover new music that matches your mood.
