Whoever does nothing but data entry leaves sooner or later

And when they go they take away everything they knew about the process, which was written down nowhere

An empty desk with a cardboard box sitting next to the chair

An ordinary Tuesday comes along, the person who has been recording the invoices for three years knocks on your door and says she has found another job, that she's sorry, that she'll work her notice properly

And while you wish her well and mean it, you're already doing another sum in your head, which is who on earth does that work now

Why it's that person in particular who leaves

Someone who spends the day copying numbers from a PDF into a screen doesn't leave because they get on badly with their colleagues, they leave because after the first month that work teaches them nothing, it can't be talked about over dinner, and it leads nowhere

A role made only of repetition has a ceiling you reach quickly, after which the good person stays until they find something else, and the good person always finds something else

The paradox is that the faster someone gets at that work, the less they are asked to do anything else, because by now they're the one who knows how, so the trap closes on its own

The real cost isn't the hiring

When somebody leaves, the first item that comes to mind is finding the replacement, the interviews, maybe the job ad, but that's the part that finishes soonest

Then there's the training, and it isn't one morning, it's the stretch where the new person takes longer on every case and turns to ask the colleague beside her, who meanwhile isn't doing her own work

There's the running-in period when the errors go up, and that's normal, except you find those errors later, and each one drags along a phone call, a correction, one more check

And then there's the item that appears nowhere, the knowledge that walks out of the door with the person, meaning the supplier who writes the amounts the other way round, the box that must never be ticked even though it looks as if it should be, and everything else you only learn by getting it wrong once

That knowledge isn't written down because it doesn't look like knowledge

If you ask the person who does that work to write you the procedure, you get ten lines and they're the ten obvious ones, the rest doesn't get written because it doesn't look to her like something worth writing

Those rules pile up one case at a time, over the years, and the day never comes when somebody says right, let's put them down in black and white

So when that person leaves you don't lose an operator, you lose the manual, and she was the manual

The useful side effect of writing the rules down

To automate a process you have to write its rules down, there's no shortcut, a system doesn't guess what you meant, it does what you told it

The way to get them out isn't to ask how it's done, it's to look at the real cases, take twenty jobs already handled and ask why that one went differently, and at that point the rules come out by themselves, including the ones the person doing the work didn't know she was applying

At the end of that work you have an automation, fine, but you also have something you had never had before, the process written down, with the exceptions in it and the reason for each one

That document is worth having even if you never build the automation, and the guide on a process nobody ever wrote down covers it at length

Automating doesn't solve staff turnover

It would be convenient to say that an automation stops you losing people, and it would be false, people change jobs for the pay, for where they live, for a boss, because life moves on, and no software patches that

What an automation takes away is something narrower, the part of the role nobody claims as their own, the copying and the retyping, and that part is exactly the one that makes a job unbearable

The person who stays goes on handling the odd cases, the decisions and the checks, which is the part she was hired for, and that piece of work can be talked about over dinner too

The risk changes as well, because if the rules are written down and the system carries them out, the day somebody leaves the panic doesn't start, the new person learns to judge the doubtful cases instead of learning to retype the lines one by one

The mechanical part gets automated, the decision stays with a person, and that's how it should be

Where you start from

If the role you're worried about is mostly data entry, count how many operations a month there are and how much time they take away, the calculation is in work out the savings with your own numbers

What people usually ask us

No, people change jobs for the pay, for where they live, for a thousand reasons no software touches, what an automation takes away is the mechanical part of the role, the copying and the retyping, which is the part that makes a job unbearable
Above all you lose the exceptions they carried in their head, the supplier who writes the amounts his own way, the case that has to be treated differently, and they're things nobody had written down because to the person applying them they didn't look like rules, they looked like just how it's done
Because what's left in the end is the process written down, with the exceptions in it and the reason for each one, and that document is the thing missing the day a new person has to learn, it holds even if you then decide to leave the work by hand
You don't start from questions, you start from cases, you look at twenty jobs already handled and ask why that one went differently from the others, the rules come out by themselves, including the ones the person doing the work applied without knowing it
They go on handling the odd cases, the checks and the decisions, because Muffin Suite works on the steps that repeat in the same way every time, while the case that calls for judgement stops and lands on a person's desk

Show us what you still do by hand

Describe the process or send a short screen recording and we'll tell you what can be automated

WA